EUSEBIUS AND THE EARLY CHURCH

Book 1.1: Then there was JAMES who was known as the brother of the Lord. For he too was called Joseph’s son, and Joseph Christ’s father, though in fact the Virgin was his betrothed, and before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit, as the inspired Gospel narrative tells us. This James, as the, whom the early Christians surnamed the Righteous’ because of his outstanding virtue, was the first (as the records tell us) to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church…. Clement, in Outlines Book VI, puts it thus, ‘Peter, James and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem…. James the Righteous, John, and Peter were entrusted by the Lord after his resurrection with the higher knowledge. They imparted it to the other apostles, and the other apostles to the seventy…’

II.23: Such is the story of JAMES, to whom is attributed the first of the ‘general’ epistles. Admittedly its authenticity is doubted, since few early writers refer to it, any more than to ‘Jude’s’, which is also one of the seven called general. But the fact remains that these two, like the others, have been regularly used in very many churches.

III.11: After the martyrdom of JAMES and the capture of Jerusalem which instantly followed, there is a firm tradition that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord who were still alive assembled from all parts together with those who, humanly speaking, were kinsmen of the Lord–for most of them were still living. Then they all discussed together whom they should choose as a fit person to succeed James, and voted unanimously that SIMEON, son of the Cleophas mentioned in the gospel narrative (John 19:25) was a fit person to occupy the throne of the Jerusalem church. He was, so it is said, a cousin of the Saviour, for Hegesippus tells us that Cleophas was Joseph’s brother.

III.19: The [Emperor Domitian] ordered the execution of all who were of David’s line, and there is an old and firm tradition that a group of heretics accused the descendants of Jude–the brother, humanly speaking, of the Saviour–on the ground that they were of David’s line and related to Christ himself. HEGESIPPUS states:

And there still survived of the Lord’s family the grandsons of JUDE, who was said to be his brother, humanly speaking. These were informed against as being of David’s line, and brought by the evocatus before Domitian Caesar, who was as afraid of the advent of Christ as Herod had been. Domitian asked them if they were descended from David, and they admitted it. Then he asked them what property they owned and what funds they had at their disposal. They replied that they had only 9,000 denarii between them, half belonging to each. This they said was not available in cash, but was the estimated value of only 25 acres of land, from which they raised the money to pay their taxes and the funds to support themselves by their own toil…

On hearing this, Domitian found no fault with them, but despising them as beneath his notice let them go free and issued orders terminating the persecution of the church. On their release they became leaders of the churches, both because they had borne testimony and because they were of the Lord’s family. And thanks to the establishment of peace they lived on into Trajan’s time (98-117).

III.25: It will be well at this point to classify the New Testament writings already referred to.
We must, of course, put first the holy quartet of the Gospels,
followed by the Acts of the Apostles
The next place in the list goes to Paul’s Epistles
and after them we must recognize the epistle called I John
likewise I Peter
To these may be added (if thought proper) The Revelation of John
…These are classed as ‘The Recognized Books’.

Those that are ‘Disputed Books’, yet familiar to most, include the epistles known as James, Jude, and II Peter and those called II John and III John (the work either of the Evangelist John or of someone else
with the same name).

Among the spurious books must be placed the ‘Acts’ of Paul, the ‘Shepherd [of Hermas]’ and the ‘Revelation of Peter’; also the ‘Epistle of Barnabas’ and the ‘Teachings of the Apostles’, together with the ‘Revelation of John’ (if this seems the place for it; as I said before, some reject it, others include it among the Recognized Books). Moreover some have found a place in the list for the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’, a book which has a special appeal for those Hebrews who have accepted Christ. These would all be classed with the Disputed Books, but I have been obliged to list the latter separately, distinguishing those writings which according to the tradition of the Church are true, genuine, and recognized, from those in a different category (not canonical, but disputed, yet familiar to most churchmen).

For we must not confuse these with the writings published by heretics under the names of the Apostles, as containing the gospels of Peter, Thomas, Mathias, and several others besides these, or Acts of Andrew, John, and other apostles. To none of these has any churchman of any generation ever seen fit to refer in his writings. Again, nothing could be farther from apostolic usage than the type of phraseology employed, while the ideas and implications of their contents are so irreconcilable with true orthodoxy that they stand revealed as the forgeries of heretics. It follows that so far from being classeven among ‘The Spurious Books’, they must be thrown out as impious and beyond the pale.

III.24: Of John’s writings, besides the Gospel, the first of the epistles has been accepted as unquestionably his by scholars both of the present and of a much earlier period: the other two are disputed. As to the Revelation, the views of most people to this day are evenly divided.

III.3: Of PETER one epistle, known as his first, is accepted, and this the early fathers quoted freely, as undoubtedly genuine, in their own writings. But the second Petrine epistle we have been taught to regard as uncanonical. Many however have thought it valuable and have honored it with a place among the other Scriptures. On the other hand, in the case of the ACTS attributed to Peter, the GOSPEL that bears his name, the PREACHING called his, and the so-called REVELATION, we have no reason at all to include these among the traditional Catholic scriptures, for neither in early days nor in our own has any Church writer made use of their testimony….Paul on the other hand was obviously and unmistakably the author of the fourteen epistles, but we must not shut our eyes to the fact that some authorities have rejected the EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, pointing out that the Roman Church denies that it is the work of Paul. As for the ACTS attributed to Paul, no one has ever suggested to me that they are genuine.

III.16: CLEMENT (Bishop [?] of Rome, ca. 92-98) has left us one recognized Epistle, long and wonderful, which he composed in the name of the church at Rome and sent to the church at Corinth, where dissension had recently occurred. I have evidence that in many churches this epistle was read aloud in to the assembled worshippers in early days, as it is in our own. That it was in Clement’s time that the dissension at Corinth broke out is plain from the testimony of Hegesippus.

III.38: It must not be overlooked that there is a second epistle said to be from Clement’s pen, but I have no reason to suppose that it was well known like the first one, since I am not aware that the early fathers made any use of it. A year or two ago other long and wordy treatises were put forward as Clement’s work. They contain alleged dialogues with Peter and Apion, but there is no mention whatever of them by early writers, nor do they preserve in its purity the stamp of apostolic orthodoxy.

III. 27: A second group [of Heretics] went by the same name [Ebionites], but escaped the outrageous absurdity of the first. They did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless shared their refusal to acknowledge His pre-existence as God the Word and Wisdom. Thus the impious doctrine of the others was their undiong too, especially since they placed equal emphasis on the outward observance of the Law. They held that the Epistles of the Apostle ought to be rejected altogether, calling him a renegade from the Law. And using only the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’ they treated the rest with scant respect.

---

Eusebius the Liar?
Roger Pearse’s Pages

Some very odd statements are in circulation about Eusebius Pampilus the Historian.  Recently someone quoted one of them at me, as a put-down.  I had the opportunity to check the statements fairly easily, and the results are interesting, if discouraging for those looking for data on the internet.  Since then I have come across other variants, and added these also.

1. “I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion”
2. “It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.”
3. “… then can’t he lie?” – a new version
4. Postscript – the source of them all?
5. A real quotation from Eusebius
6. A possible source in Origen?
7. Another possible source via Blavatsky from Mosheim.

[NOTE: There are a couple of pages with relevant data to this, which I highlight here: Lightfoot’s comment on this issue; and various translations of Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica]

1.  ‘Rebounding to the glory of religion’

The original allegation

Here’s the relevant extract from a recent post:

> Perhaps, but let me quote Eusebius, the Bishop who ‘uncovered’ the  > Flavianum Testamonium:  >  > : “I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed  > : all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion” (Chp. 31, Book  > : 12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica).

This seems a very strange thing for a historian of any sort to say.  My first thought was to look for anything about it in the HE, because I didn’t have the post in front of me and hadn’t recalled that it was not a quote from that work.  But it wasn’t labour lost.

The introduction to Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica

From the introduction to the 1965 Williamson edition of HE in Penguin Classics, p.27:

“He indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion”

Williamson goes on to say:

“Gibbon’s notorious sneer … was effectively disposed of by Lightfoot, who fully vindicated Eusebius’  honour as a narrator ‘against this unjust charge’.”

Eusebius also lays down his method in Book I, chapter 1, where he modestly confesses that he knows of no-one who has written anything like this work before, so he would appreciate the reader’s indulgence while he evolves his methodology.  The ‘quote’ is not in the section in which he describes how he intends to proceed.

This is all very suspicious.  The wording of the ‘quote’ is identical (apart from some carelessness) to what Williamson calls a sneer of Gibbon’s.  But the obvious thing to do is to look at the work ‘quoted’ and see if it contains the alleged quote.  This I did.

The passage from De praeparatione evangelica

According to Quasten’s Patrology, there is only the one English translation, done as part of a Greek edition.  (I hope people will forgive me if I don’t try to display the Greek on this page – I’m not sure how to do Greek characters reliably!)  So here is the chapter from that edition.  I’ve tried to reproduce the layout and line breaks:

Gifford, E.H., Eusebii Pamphili : Evangelicae Praeparationis, Vol III, Oxford, 1903, p. 657, sections p.607d-608a.  The text is Book XII, chapter XXXI:

‘But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?    ‘Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.’

d PLATO

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.

p. 608

As you can see, the  ‘quotation’ appears nowhere in the work, which is cast in the form of a discussion quoting passages from the philosophers and discussing their relationship with the Hebrew scriptures (The quote from Plato is from the Laws II, 663 d 6 – e 4).  History, as such, is not under discussion in the work at all.  In this passage, a piece of Plato is discussed, and the way in which the Hebrew scriptures acknowledge the inability of most men to reason (and how, unlike the philosophers, they don’t exclude that class of men) and embody it as part of their message is outlined.

Clearly the reference we started with is quite wrong.

So where does that leave us?  Well, it leaves us with Gibbon.  What did he actually say, and did he reference it?

Gibbon

I looked at a reprint of Gibbon, and I’ve copied out enough to make sense.

Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Encyclopedia Britannica reprint, 1990, ISBN 0-85229-531-6.  Volume I, chapter 16, p.232.

In this general view of the persecution which was first authorised by the edicts of Diocletian, I have purposely refrained from describing the particular sufferings and deaths of the Christian martyrs.  It would have been an easy task. from the history of Eusebius, from the declamations of Lactantius, to collect a long series of horrid and disgusting pictures …[snip]  But I cannot determine what I ought to transcribe, till I am satisfied how much I ought to believe.  The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion.178  Such an acknowledgement will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries. [etc].

Note 178 on p.736:

178. Such is the fair deduction from two remarkable passages in Eusebius, l. viii. c. 2, and de Martyr. Palestin. c. 12.  The prudence of the historian has exposed his own character to censure and suspicion.  It was well known that he himself had been thrown into prison; and it was suggested that he had purchased his deliverance by some dishonorable compliance.  The reproach was urged in his lifetime, and even in his presence, at the council of Tyre.  See Tillemont, Memoires Ecclesiastiques, tom. viii. part i. p. 67

Well, that gives us the statement from Gibbon and two references for it.  So let’s look at those two references.  The Ante-Nicene Fathers should supply our needs adequately.

Eusebius HE Book VIII, chapter 2.

Here is the Ante-Nicene Fathers text, from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2:

Chapter II. The Destruction of the Churches.

1 All these things were fulfilled in us, when we saw with our own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down to the very foundations, and the Divine and Sacred Scriptures committed to the flames in the midst of the market-places, and the shepherds of the churches basely hidden here and there, and some of them captured ignominiously, and mocked by their enemies. When also, according to another prophetic word, “Contempt was poured out upon rulers, and he caused them to wander in an untrodden and pathless way.”

2 But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment.

3 Hence we shall not mention those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be usefull first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity. Let us therefore proceed to describe briefly the sacred conflicts of the witnesses of the Divine Word.

4 It was in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, in the month Dystrus, called March by the Romans, when the feast of the Saviour’s passion was near at hand, that royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground and the Scriptures be destroyed by fire, and ordering that those who held places of honor be degraded, and that the household servants, if they persisted in the profession of Christianity, be deprived of freedom.

5 Such was the first edict against us. But not long after, other decrees were issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches in every place be first thrown into prison, and afterwards by every artifice be compelled to sacrifices.

Chapter III. The Nature of the Conflicts Endured in the Persecution.

1 Then truly a great many rulers of the churches eagerly endured terrible sufferings, and furnished examples of noble conflicts. But a multitude of others, benumbed in spirit by fear, were easily weakened at the first onset. Of the rest each one endured different forms of torture.  [etc]

I think we can see that v.2 is the bit that Gibbon has used.  But does it mean what Gibbon says?  Or is Eusebius, faced with a huge amount of material for contemporary events, simply honestly stating that from here on he won’t cover everything, but only those which are in some way useful to know about, whether positive, or negative but with a useful moral, and for the rest stick to general statements?  It seems as if that the latter is more consistent with the context, although one could make out some sort of case that Gibbon is misrepresenting something that is really there in Eusebius.  But is the idea that Gibbon is making in Eusebius’ mind at all?  Surely he’s thinking about writing something useful to his public?

Our ‘quote’ isn’t here.  It would be useful to see which words in Eusebius were represented by which words in Gibbon, but there does not seem to be a 1:1 relation.  The closest statement to ‘suppressing material to the disgrace of religion’ is when he says is that it isn’t his place to pillory some people (who of course, are living at the time he writes).  The closest statement to ‘he is relating only what redounds to the glory of religion’ is when he says he will relate nothing about the corrupt except that which shows they deserved it (‘vindicates the divine judgement’).

The Martyrs of Palestine

This is an appendix to Book VIII of the HE, and is not a history but a martyrology – a book intended for devotional use.  Here’s the ANF text:

Chapter XII.

1. I Think it best to pass by all the other events which occurred in the meantime: such as those which happened to the bishops of the churches, when instead of shepherds of the rational flocks of Christ, over which they presided in an unlawful manner, the divine judgment, considering them worthy of such a charge, made them keepers of camels, an irrational beast and very crooked in the structure of its body, or condemned them to have the care of the imperial horses;-and I pass by also the insults and disgraces and tortures they endured from the imperial overseers and rulers on account of the sacred vessels and treasures of the Church; and besides these the lust of power on the part of many, the disorderly and unlawful ordinations, and the schisms among the confessors themselves; also the novelties which were zealously devised against the remnants of the Church by the new and factious members, who added innovation after innovation and forced them in unsparingly among the calamities of the persecution, heaping misfortune upon misfortune. I judge it more suitable to shun and avoid the account of these things, as I said at the beginning. But such things as are sober and praiseworthy, according to the sacred word,-“and if there be any virtue and praise,” – I consider it most proper to tell and to record, and to present to believing hearers in the history of the admirable martyrs. And after this I think it best to crown the entire work with an account of the peace which has appeared unto us from heaven.

There is a statement of omission here (rather than suppression).  But Eusebius does not conceal that some of those persecuted behaved badly.  The book is not a history of the persecution, but the deeds of the martyrs, as the title of the book indicates.  So other than indicating the way that some fell short, he concentrates on his subject.

This too does not contain our ‘quote’.   There does not seem to be a correlation here either with Gibbon’s statement.

CONCLUSION

The ‘quotation’ seems to be a fraud, although it is not necessary to suppose deliberate dishonesty at any stage – merely a willingness to take a statement in the worst way or to believe the worst.

How did the statement get manufactured?  We cannot know all the steps, but we can guess easily enough.

As we have seen, Gibbon’s statements do not tie up much with what Eusebius wrote.  It is fair to say that Gibbon gave the facts the worst interpretation they could bear.  The master of English prose also phrased his remarks in such a way that many people would take them as meaning more than he said – and he placed no barrier to that interpretation.  And so it duly occurred.

Some person unknowing excerpted Gibbon into some sort of anthology of anti-Christian ‘evidence’.  Someone else (who probably honestly didn’t notice Gibbon’s little qualification) then altered the indirect statement to direct statement, producing our ‘quote’.  How the reference to the Praeparatio became attached to it is hard to say, except that most people have access to the text of the HE and MP, and no-one to the Praeparatio.  Perhaps some quote or other from the Praeparatio also appeared in our anthology and crossed over? (But see below…)

Written 26th April, 2000, Updated 9th June, 2000.

2.  ‘Necessary to use Falsehood’

Some six months after I wrote the above, a fresh quotation reached  me.

The Allegation

In article <20001216022353.11957.00001469@ng-fm1.aol.com >, emaxelx@aol.compost (R.A. Beschizza) wrote: > > “It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of > those who need such a mode of treatment.” > — Eusebius of Nicomedia , Constantine’s overseer of church doctrine > and history

[The poster did not, of course, mean Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea is intended, as is clear from other posters].

The allegation seems to be that this is a quotation from Eusebius’ works, and that he is justifying forgery and falsehood ‘for the benefit of others’.

It seemed obvious to look in Gibbon again, as a first resort and this showed where the allegation came from. Here are Gibbon’s remarks, this time from his Vindication, copied from an edition on the net:

Gibbon’s version of the allegation

1. Dr. Chelsum is at a loss how to reconcile, – I beg pardon for weakening the force of his dogmatic style; he declares that, “It is plainly impossible to reconcile the express words of the charge exhibited, with any part of either of the passages appealed to in support of it.” (105) If he means, as I think he must, that the express words of my text cannot be found in that of Eusebius, I congratulate the importance of the discovery. But was it possible? Could it be my design to quote the words of Eusebius, when I reduced into one sentence the spirit and substance of two diffuse arid distinct passages? If I have given the true sense and meaning of the Ecclesiastical Historian, I have discharged the duties of a fair Interpreter; nor shall I refuse to rest the proof of my fidelity on the translation of those two passages of Eusebius, which Dr. Chelsum produces in his favour. (106)

“But it is not our part to describe the sad calamities which at last befel them (the Christians), since it does not agree with our plan to relate their dissentions and wickedness before the persecution; on which account we have determined to relate nothing more concerning them than may serve to justify the Divine Judgment. We therefore have not been induced to make mention either of those who were tempted in the persecution, or of those who made utter shipwreck of their salvation, and who were sunk of their own accord in the depths of the storm; but shall only add those things to our General History, which may in the first place be profitable to ourselves, and afterwards to posterity”

In the other passage, Eusebius, after mentioning the dissentions of the Confessors among themselves, again declares that it is his intention to pass over all these things.

“Whatsoever things, (continues the Historian, in the words of the Apostle, who was recommending the practice of virtue) whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise; these things Eusebius thinks most suitable to a History of Martyrs;”

of wonderful Martyrs, as the splendid epithet which Dr. Chelsum had not thought proper to translate. I should betray a very mean opinion of the judgment and candour of my readers, if I added a single reflection on the clear and obvious tendency of the two passages of the Ecclesiastical Historian. I shall only observe, that the Bishop of Caesarea seems to have claimed a privilege of a still more dangerous and extensive nature. In one of the most learned and elaborate works that antiquity has left us, the Thirty-second Chapter of the Twelfth Book of his Evangelical Preparation bears for its title this scandalous Proposition,

“How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived.” “**Ancient Greek**” (P 356, Edit. Graec. Rob. Stephani, Paris 1544.) In this chapter he alleges a passage of Plato, which approves the occasional practice of pious and salutary frauds; nor is Eusebius ashamed to justify the sentiments of the Athenian philosopher by the example of the sacred writers of the Old Testament.

(Paragraphing is mine, to make it easier to read).

[Since we have seen in the first section that Gibbon’s words have been misunderstood, it’s interesting to see this comment by Gibbon himself.  It would seem that the tendency of Gibbon’s remarks discussed earlier to mislead was raised at the time, by this Dr. Chelsum.  We have already seen that the remarks he made in Decline and Fall are indeed commonly taken as a direct quotation from Eusebius, which they are not.  Gibbon’s response is to patronisingly deride ‘the importance of this discovery’.]

These remarks by Gibbon would appear to be a source for the allegation we are discussing, even if Gibbon’s words are rather more negative even than we started with.  Neverthless it gives us a source reference, with which to look up the text; and we have already looked at the Praeparatio Evangelica.

The chapter headings

The words quoted come from the chapter heading, rather than the text.  In order to discuss these, we will need to look at a critical edition of the Greek text, since the relevant information is not present in English translation.

The standard modern critical text is Karl MRAS, Eusebius Werke. Achter Band. Die Praeparatio Evangelica, Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller 43 (1954, 1956), in two volumes.  This text is the basis of the new text with French translation in J. SIRINELLI and Édouard des PLACES, Eusèbé de Césarée: La préparation évangélique, livres XII-XIII: Introduction, Texte Grec, Traduction et Annotation. Sources Chrétiennes 307 (1983).  pp.136-7 contain Book 12 chapter 31; pp.138-9 chapter 32.

Here is the Greek for chapter 31 from SIRINELLI (using the SPIonic font):

la&. OTI DEHSEI POTE TWI YEUDEI ANTI FARMAKOU XRHSQAI EP’ OFELEIA <I> TON AEOMENWN TOU TOIOUTOU TROPOU.

In French:

31. “Qu’il faudra, à l’occasion, faire du mensonge un remède au service de ceux qui ont besoin d’un tel procédé”
    – – “That it is necessary, sometimes, to make a lie/fiction a remedy for the service of those who need such a process”.

Gifford’s version:

XXXI.     That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment

For each book, there is a table at the front of the edition listing the chapters and their titles.  In all but one manuscript, these titles also appear at the head of a chapter.

[The subject of chapter divisions and chapter titles in ancient texts is one I am trying to obtain definite information on.  However, these cannot be ancient chapter divisions, since chapter divisions seem to come in at the end of antiquity – older literary texts had book divisions, but not chapter divisions.  Word divisions were uncommon, as were paragraphing and punctuation!  Rather the material at the front is a summary of contents, and a late-antique or medieval copyist has divided the text and used portions of the summary as chapter headings.  If we look at the summary for book 1, it does not seem to line up with the chapter divisions.  – the 6th item in the list is NOT the chapter heading for chapter 6, which has none; and lines 9 and 10 are not the titles for chapters 9 (=line 8) and 10 (=line 11).  From this we can see that the summary and the chapter divisions were not made at the same time.  I add this summary from an article on the subject:

“Dunque, possiamo concludere che la divisione in capitoli non fu completamente ignota agli antichi, ma fu adoperata solo per opere con un chiaro fine pratico o per scritti miscellanei, di argomento quanto mai vario, per cataloghi e repertori, mentre non è mai adottata dagli scrittori che avessero un’alta coscienza artistica in tutte quelle opere in cui il proposito letterario o l’interesse storico o l’urgenza della fantasia o anche l’indagine psicologica posero in secondo piano le esigenze pratiche e che perciò solo più tardi furono divise in capitoli dai dotti del Medioevo o addirittura da esperti editori-tipografi nel periodo del pieno fervore degli studi e delle ricerche appassionate dei testi classici, l’Umanesimo.”

“Therefore, we can conclude that the division in chapters was not completely unknown to the ancients, but was only used for works with a practical purpose or for written miscellanea, for catalogues and repertoria, while it is never adopted by literary writers in all those works in which the literary purpose or the historical interest or the urgency of the fantasy or psychological surveying, to which the practical requirements are placed second, and that therefore only later they were organised in chapters by the scholars of the Middle Ages or even by expert editor-printers in the period of the full flood of the studies and passionate searches for the classical texts, Humanism.”  (Diana ALBINO, La divisione in capitoli nelle opere degli Antichi, Annali della facoltà di lettere e filosofia, Napoli, vol. 10 (1962-3) pp. 219-234).]

The heading of chapter 31 is the basis of our quotation, more or less exactly.

[Gibbon’s version is interesting for both its similarities and its differences.  However we need not consider Gibbon further here, except as probably the first to circulate this text as a proof-text against Eusebius.  Incidentally it would seem that if Gibbon’s reference is accurate, that the 16th century Stephanus edition was perhaps arranged differently to modern editions — I need to check this.  I have seen modern references which refer to XII, 32, rather than XII, 31, which makes it interesting to consider what sort of checking of references was done in that case].

But did Eusebius write these words?  And did he mean, as some have considered, to justify fraud when he wrote them?

The Manuscripts

The text in question is certainly present in the manuscripts, as is clear from MRAS and, in abbreviated form, from SIRINELLI:

Here are the MSS of book 12 of the PE (from SIRINELLI, t.206 p.57-8).

I: Marcianus Graecus 341 (15th century, paper) – Library of San Marco, Venice.
O: Bononiensis University 3643 (13th century, bombazin paper) – University Library, Bologna
N: Neapolitanus graecus II A 16 (15th century, paper) – Bibliotheca Nazionale, Naples
D: Parisinus graecus 467 (16th century, paper) – Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris

MRAS’ apparatus is slightly more detailed on chapter titles.  All four MSS contain our text in the table of titles at the front of each book (MRAS, vol.2 pp.83-84).  The titles also appear at the head  of each chapter in I, O and N.  In D they appear only at the front of the book (MRAS 2, p.125).

Are the chapter titles by Eusebius, or a later editor?

Firstly, as far as I can tell the chapter divisions themselves are later, and the titles placed there were extracted from the summaries at the front of each book (this can be seen from book 1, where the numbering in the summaries at the front does not correspond to the divisions in the text).  As such, the assignment of wording to a given chapter is the work of a late-antique or medieval scribe.   This leaves us with the summaries at the start of the book. However, the wording in the summary, if the summary follows the order of the contents, would seem to refer to this section of the body of the text anyway.

There seems to be some doubt whether the summaries can be considered certainly by Eusebius, rather than ‘helps for the reader’ added at a later period.  Chapter titles in medieval manuscripts of the classics are not generally considered authorial.  However there is some evidence of authorial summaries for some works of Eusebius:-

I learn from SIRINELLI that scholars in general consider the summaries of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica to be authorial. After looking at them in the Loeb text, I can see that there are notes at the foot of some of these tables written as if by the author.  On the other hand, I also have before me the introduction to CAMERON & HALL’s translation of Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, Oxford 1999. Apparently the summaries (and extracts used as chapter titles, doubtless again later) for this work cannot be authorial (C & H, p.52).

From SIRINELLI, I learn that the authenticity of the summaries in the PE has been fiercely debated since the 16th century, with one 19th century scholar going so far as to reject the chapter divisions also. MRAS is in favour of authenticity; SIRINELLI also. I have been unable to locate any study of the subject as a whole.  See my notes on capituli generally here.

It would be unfair to expect Gibbon to be conversant with such issues, of course – he took the edition of Stephanus as he found it; and this used the MSS.

The issue is interesting, but inconclusive.  However, if we cannot be sure he wrote the words in question, is it quite reasonable to pillory him for it?

[My thanks to Richard CARRIER for a list of works containing tables of contents which are probably authorial]

Lie, Falsehood or Fiction – the YEUDOS problem

If we presume that the chapter title is authorial, there is then a question over how it should be translated.  One interesting issue surrounds the word (‘pseudos’) translated as ‘falsehood’ by GIFFORD and GIBBON, and as ‘mensonge’ by SIRINELLI.

The word has a wider meaning in Greek, and is value neutral in a way that neither ‘lie’ nor ‘falsehood’ is in English.  Eusebius is quoting, in the body of the text, a passage from Plato’s Laws, Book II, and the same word is used there; while elsewhere in the PE Book 12 he quotes Plato’s Republic, again using this word.

But R.G. BURY in the Loeb edition of the Laws (PLATO, THE LAWS, BOOK II, 663C,D,E. Loeb edition p.125, tr. R.G.Bury, 1926 – online) renders it as ‘fiction’.  And Sir Desmond LEE, in the Penguin edition of the Republic (PLATO, THE REPUBLIC, Book II, 376D-377D, Penguin edition, pp.129-131. Tr. Desmond Lee, 1955. – Online) does likewise, and adds the following note on the word:

“2. The Greek word pseudos and its corresponding verb meant not only ‘fiction’ — stories, tales — but also ‘what is not true’ and so, in suitable contexts, ‘lies’: and this ambiguity should be borne in mind.”

Consequently, unless the context forbids — and plainly from BURY we learn it does not — the chapter heading might equally be rendered:

XXXI.     That it will be necessary sometimes to use fiction as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment

And this, of course, places a different slant on the text.  If on the other hand we presume the chapter title is by Eusebius, and we presume that the word ‘lie’ is intended by him, with all its connotation of inflicting injury, then we can reasonably say that the quote doesn’t make Eusebius look very good.

But is this — Gibbon’s interpretation — fair comment?  Is Eusebius advocating the use of lies? or is this a discussion of the use of parables, and the value of fiction in education?  Clearly there is room for more than one opinion here, and I would rather not suggest certainty where a judgement has to be made of a number of ideas.  This is something the reader must do for himself; but I think Eusebius is not advocating dishonesty, so much as suggesting that fiction has a role to play in education.

It is difficult to see Gibbon’s remarks as fair comment, particularly when one notices the mistranslation of the final part of the chapter heading.

However, the issue has recently been reopened making use of the chapter text body.  The next section will discuss this, as it is really a new allegation.

Written 22nd December 2000, updated with French/Greek 8th April 2001.  Updated with link to translations 28th September 2001.  Rewording in one or two places to had apparently been misunderstood. 23rd April 2002.  Rewritten to add the point about ‘pseudos’ and details of the MSS, 24th April 2002, after discussion in the infidels.org forum.  The old version is still online.  Revised with extra details from MRAS, 10th July 2002.  Additional note about summaries – not tables of contents – added after discussion with a medievalist, 10th August 2002.  More notes from Albino and some condensing and revision, 17th October 2003.

3. ‘Can’t he lie?’

A new variant of this idea has come onto the internet in the last year.  The author is the estimable Richard CARRIER, editor-in-chief of infidels.org.  His idea is that the chapter heading and the text itself of PE 12, 31 (quoted above) support the idea that Eusebius is dishonest.  As far as I know this is original; at least, Gibbon does not quote the text itself in support of his idea.  This idea does not really seem very possible to me, but here are some brief notes on it.

The Infidels.Org idea

This is from his article at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html#6:

That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach. [As said in Plato’s Laws 663e by the Athenian:] ‘And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can’t he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.’ [then by Clinias:] ‘Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.’ You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach.

On the basis of this, he says:

So in a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato’s argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing. Someone who can accept this as a “good idea” worth both taking credit for and following is not the sort of person to be trusted.

And in support of this interpretation he quotes the portion of the Laws that follows this, not in fact quoted by Eusebius, in which Plato contradicts Clinias, and outlines that it would be easy to spin a tale.

[I understand from Mr. Carrier that he translated from the Thesaurus Lingua Graeca text, as the relevant portion of his copy of Gifford was lacking; that the chapter header also was his own, but the translation of the portion of Plato is said to be from John BURNET, 1903, although I haven’t a proper bibliographic reference for this.]

The differences are interesting.  The portions of Eusebius seem fair enough, allowing for the ‘pseudos’ issue.  The version of Plato given isn’t quite like that of BURY or GIFFORD, and the reader may wish to view those versions.

A number of points come to mind.

1. Eusebius does not say that falsehood and lying are acceptable, for whatever reason.  This is an inference from his text, and not a very charitable one.  Few of us would wish to be subjected to such an inference, just because we don’t denounce someone else while reviewing them.
2. Plato asks whether, if any lie/fiction/fable is permissible, the one he is discussing might not be one.  Plato has been discussing whether or not the self-interest of the individual is the same as the interest of the community.  He has just concluded that it is.  The comment in question follows.  Plato asks us for a moment to imagine that self-interest and public interest are opposed.  He asks whether it would not then be justifiable, if any lie were (and he leaves that open), to tell people that in fact they were the same.  The purpose is the good of the community, i.e. acting ‘justly’, rather than selfishly.
3. The infidels.org idea presumes that Eusebius has the idea of ‘lie’ in mind, rather than that of educational fiction.  However we have seen that the word ‘pseudos’ is actually ambiguous in Greek.  Plato seems to have an idea of deception in mind, but is it necessary to presume that Eusebius has?
4. So is Eusebius really saying that the Bible is full of lies, and that this is one of the things the Greeks copied from the Jews?  I find it hard to believe that Eusebius thought the bible was full of lies.  Surely such a curious proposition would certainly require more evidence than one footnote in the PE, anyway.  That the bible contains stories, such as parables, intended to educate is surely a better interpretation?  To resolve this, we need to see what Eusebius says elsewhere.
5. The idea presumes not just that Eusebius believes the bible is full of lies, but that if the bible is full of lies, it must be OK to lie; and that Eusebius has applied this in his writings.  The purpose of the allegation seems to be to permit some of his testimony to be discarded.  The first idea seems very strange, and the others are simply inferences from it.  But no evidence is given for any of these.
6. Finally, if the idea of the ‘white lie’ is a cultural convention of the age, is it entirely reasonable to single out Eusebius?

In fact, if we look at PE 12, 4, we see how Eusebius really thinks about the scriptures – an external literal meaning, which is in fact a parable, and an inner meaning for those who have passed beyond the first stages of instruction.  This relates so strongly to what Eusebius says here – ‘for those who need this form of instruction’ – that it seems pointless to look further.

But what about the issue that Eusebius is showing that the Greeks got all their good ideas from the Jews?  This is correct – that is what the PE is about.  It’s hard to see how the portion of Plato says anything useful, then.  But the comment of Clinias is perhaps the idea on which Eusebius is commenting.

‘Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.’  Plato disagrees; but Eusebius omitted his disagreement.  Eusebius’ comments follow this connecting phrase in the Laws.

[Note: Plato does go on to say that in fact people will easily believe quite ridiculous stories – but Eusebius skips that bit.  Since Eusebius’ point is that some people have difficulty understanding some things (a theme already raised in chapter IV, in which Eusebius explains his view of scripture), and so scripture resorts to narrative fiction to help them visualise the abstract, it is not surprising that he ignores this part of the Laws.  Since he does ignore it, it has to be asked whether it is relevant in understanding the point of this part of the PE.]

Pulling it together

I think we’re asking too much of the text, and trying to build a philosophical statement on an inference.  Eusebius was concerned to show that Greek ideas had their origin in the bible.  For this purpose he ransacked his library for material that would illustrate this.  Of course this material was often written with quite other values in mind, and we need not suppose that every word he quotes supports his thesis, or is even relevant.  In chapter 32 of the PE he returns to the Laws, a bit further on, and in his comment he ignores all of what he quotes apart from the conclusion.  In chapter 31, he is responding to the observation of Clinias, picking up on the idea of fiction as a way to convince more easily than reason, and making a general point about the bible.  That Plato’s purpose is to the advantage of the community, and the disadvantage of the individual is irrelevant to Eusebius, and he ignores it.  All he picks up on is the method of teaching a useful idea, by means of words not strictly true.

Eusebius is following a different idea to Plato, which explains why he is using both The Republic and The Laws as it suits him.  He has been looking at education, not of the infants of a community, but of the spiritual infant.  In chapter 4 he has already discussed the right use of scripture, and how it contains fables.  Here we have the idea that people should be told things not strictly true.  (Plato’s reason he ignores – the benefit of the community instead of the individual is the reverse of what he is interested in).  And he returns to the theme of fables in the bible, and  how these benefit the individual.

The heading must be read ‘fiction’, because the subject is the Old Testament: portions of which cannot be understood literally, in Origenist exegesis.(Cf. De Principiis)  Instead an allegorical meaning should be sought.  This educational role of material for which the literal meaning is irrelevant — fiction — is reiterated by Eusebius at various points from Plato in book 12.

The alternative — that Eusebius advocates lying — is not in the text and can only be put there by the translating with “a judicious laxity” of Gibbon (T.R.Glover, Loeb Tertullian, p.xi).  The words of Eusebius have to be played down, and words not quoted by him from the passage by Plato emphasised.  In short, the allegation is itself a malicious falsehood.

Is this right?  Or I am reading too much into this?  The reader must decide for himself.  However, if we are to say that someone is advocating dishonesty, I think we want more than this.  It seems reasonable to ask just where does Eusebius say ‘it is OK to lie’?

A couple of points on related issues.

Origenistic exegesis?

When I read the comment of Eusebius, I was reminded of the statement in Origen’s De Principiis 4, 3, 5, that in Scripture:

‘all has a spiritual meaning, but not everything has a literal meaning.’

Eusebius’ mentor Pamphilus wrote a defence of Origen, to which Eusebius added a final book (all now lost except for an unreliable Latin version of the first book by Rufinus).  It seemed to me that Eusebius has the allegorical approach of this school in mind.

R.M. GRANT on Eusebius’ sincerity

Note: Mr. CARRIER also refers to Robert M. GRANT, Eusebius as Church Historian, Oxford (1980).  This I have read myself, looking for more on this idea.  Here are the notes I made at the time:

“Grant certainly gave me the impression that he was making assertions of dishonest handling of material, although he never actually says so or does a demonstration of this from the material, so presumably brought it with him to the book. I suppose that since he was engaged in a speculative reconstruction of the process whereby Eusebius wrote books 1-7 (preface, p.10) it can only be an opinion. However I definitely got the impression that Grant thought him guilty of editing without regard for honesty.

He gets closest in pp.65-66, discussing Tertullian in the Greek version, although curiously failing to mention that the technical point is lifted from Harnack’s Griechische Uebersetzung. But his complaint – that in his editorial he combined the impression from this and Justin – seems a little unfair. Combining the story told by the disparate accounts and making what sense he could was what Eusebius set out to do. Nor is it unreasonable for someone juggling conflicting witnesses, one of which must be mistaken, to hesitate between them, and do the best he can. But again Grant allows the reader to draw the negative conclusion without making it himself.

As far as I could see, he only squarely faced the issue of sincerity once, in the conclusion (p.164), where he then surprisingly says, “And whether or not one agrees with every detail of the portrait of Eusebius that begins to emerge, it is at least a picture of a huamn being, neither a saint nor intentionally a scoundrel.”; which was not the impression I got from the rest of the book, I have to say. As so often in this book, no reference was given, or basis for the statement. However since he refers many times to Lightfoot’s article in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, I think we may presume he is thinking of this.

One comment he did make about the Praeparatio I thought interesting, although I can’t say I’ve noticed either in the small extracts I’ve read. “The Praeparatio, more than any other work, shows that he [Eusebius] knew how to plan a treatise and stick to his plan.” (p.29).

4. Postscript – the source of all of them?

I have since come across a likely source for all these errors.  It seems there is an electronic publication called ‘Biblical Errancy‘, written by a C. Dennis McKinsey, which contains lists of what used to be quaintly called ‘bible difficulties’ and assertions of a pseudo-scholarly nature, which most people probably take as made in good faith.  This seems to circulate widely and is often reposted to usenet.  An extract, discussing the Testimonium Flavianum:

“(3) The passage is not found in the early copies of Josephus. Not until the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (320 A.D.) do we come across it. This is the same Eusebius who said that it is lawful to lie and cheat for the cause of Christ: “I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion” (Chp. 31, Book 12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica). (4) The early Christian fathers such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen were acquainted with what Josephus wrote and it seems reasonable to conclude that they would have quoted this passage had it existed. Apparently Eusebius was the first to use it because it didn’t exist during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Chrysostom often referred to Josephus and it’s highly unlikely he would have omitted the paragraph had it been extant. Photius did not quote the text though he had three articles concerning Josephus and even expressly stated that Josephus, being a Jew, had not taken the least notice of Christ. (5) Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, nor Origen against Celsus ever mentioned this passage. Neither Tertullian nor Cyprian ever quoted Josephus as a witness in their controversies with Jews and pagans and Origen expressly stated that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not recognize Jesus as the messiah (Contra Celsum, I, 47). (6) The famous historian Gibbon claims the passage is a forgery as do many theologians.”

There are no references given for any of this.  Note the key mis-spelling of praeparatio as ‘Prae Paratio’.  In true text critical fashion, I think we may deduce community of origin from the community of error.

It would be unkind to note every error of fact, judgement or grammar that is contained in even this short extract, as the author of it clearly intended to impress by accumulation and repetition rather than by any appeal to fact or reason.  A couple of notes on some factual details might be useful as a pointer to the interested.

• A look at the preface to the Loeb edition of Antiquities indicates that no such ‘early copies of Josephus’ exist.  All of the (few) MSS are derived from a single 9th century MS, and all which contain book 16 contain the passage.
• There is no evidence that Justin or Clement knew Josephus.  I compiled a list of the handful (11) references in the 5000 pages of the Ante-Nicene Father some time ago and it is here.
• I regret that I can’t comment on Chrysostom without doing yet more research.
• The reference to Photius, the 9th century Patriarch of Constantinople, is mistaken or misleading on a number of counts.  The comment made by Photius in the Bibliotheca, codex 33, is in the review of a lost work of Justus of Tiberias, not Josephus. The Josephus reviews are codices 47 (on The Jewish War), 76 and 238  (Antiquities). (48 (on The Universe) which Photius ascribes to Josephus is actually by Hippolytus).  c.47 mentions only a couple of incidents from the seige of Jerusalem.  c.76 deals only with one incident that interested Photius from Antiquities 20.9-11, 20, and does not attempt to give any picture of the rest of the work.  c. 238 describes the reign of Herod and after, and so could contain a reference, but does not.  It does however include a reference to the execution of James the brother of John.  The French editor remarks that it is noteworthy that Photius does not say, as he does for Justus, that Josephus makes no mention of Christ.  I have placed the item on Justus online here.  (Does anyone want the Josephus extracts?)
• There is no evidence that Justin knew the work.
• There is no evidence that Cyprian (in the Latin West, remember) knew the work.
• Tertullian does not use Josephus in his controversy with Jews, but in defending the Jews to the pagans.  No writer of antiquity quotes Josephus against the Jews, probably because he was a traitor.
• The quotation from Origen is correct (at last!).  Of course his silence about the Testimonium is not evidence that his copy did not contain it, or that it did, or indeed anything about anything.  As the archaeologists say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  It is evidence that the text may have become corrupt, and that this may perhaps have occurred after Origen’s time.

[Note:  My thanks to Jim Java for telling me that McKinsey in turn appears to have copied verbatim, and with spelling errors, from a volume he has seen: T.W.DOANE, Bible myths and their parallels in other religions, Somerby (1882).  This is still in print, I learn.  However I can’t check it myself as I don’t have access to a copy]

Written 1st June 2001.  Updated with DOANE reference 10th July 2002.

5. A QUOTE FROM EUSEBIUS

“I prize truth above all else”  (Chronicon, 1-4.  Barnes, T.D. Eusebius and Constantine, Harvard 1981, p.114.)

Dr. Barnes adds the interesting view that the HE originally ended with book 7.  Book 8 of the HE  is a revised and shortened version of the original Martyrs of Palestine, extant in a much longer version than that in the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  The history as such does not resume until book 9.  The text of the preface of this longer version is as follows:

“It is meet, then, that the conflicts which were illustrious in various districts should be committed to writing by those who dwelt with the combatants in their districts.  But for me, I pray that I may be able to speak of those with whom I was personally conversant, and that they may associate me with them – those in whom the whole people of Palestine glories, because even in the midst of our land, the Saviour of all men arose like a thirst-quenching spring.  The contests, then, of those illustrious champions I shall relate for the general instruction and profit”. (Barnes p.154-4, from Lawlor H.J and Oulton, J.E.L, Eusebius, 1.33.1, SPCK, 1927).

which makes it clear that the Martyrs of Palestine is about those Eusebius knew personally (he was Bishop of the city where the executions occurred), and that this information has suffered somewhat in the process of abbreviation.

6.  A possible source in Origen?

[My thanks for Gerald Rosenberg for drawing my attention to the following possible source, and pointing out the existence of the Greek of Origen online]

We know from Eusebius Contra Hieroclem that Eusebius had read Origen Contra Celsum. There is a very interesting passage in this work which may bear on all this subject, in Book IV, chapter 19 (p.196 of Chadwick’s translation, Cambridge University Press, 1980):

19. Others may agree with Celsus that He does not change, but makes those who see Him think that he has changed.  But we, who are persuaded that the advent of Jesus to men was not a mere appearance, but a reality and an indisputable fact, are unaffected by Celsus’ criticism. Nevertheless we will reply thus: “Do you not say, Celsus, that sometimes it is allowable to use deceit and lying as a medicine?  Why, then, is it unthinkable that something of this sort occurred with the purpose of bringing salvation? For some characters are reformed by certain doctrines which are more false than true, just as physicians sometimes use similar words to their patients.  This however has been our defence on other points.  But further, there is nothing wrong if the person who heals sick friends healed the human race which was dear to him with such means as one would not use for choice, but to which he was confined by force of circumstances.” [etc].

The quote of Celsus is in ch. 18, where Celsus denies that God could have changed into a mortal body, and says that it must have been only an appearance. This, he continues, is a lie, and lying is only allowable ‘when one uses them as a medicine for friends who are sick and mad in order to heal them, or with enemies when the intention is to escape danger‘.  (Chadwick notes, p.195 n.4, that Celsus is quoting Plato, Rep. 382C; 389B; 459 C, D.)  Origen responds that the incarnation is not a simulation.  But then he goes on to suppose if it were otherwise, and then make the above quote.

The Greek for Contra Celsum is actually online, as a demo at the Thesaurus Lingua Graeca site: http://ptolemy.tlg.uci.edu/%7Etlg/.(Text is M. BORRET, Origène. Contre Celse, 4 vols. [Sources chrétiennes 132, 136, 147, 150. Paris: Cerf, 1:1967; 2:1968; 3-4:1969])

From which we can see that the chapter title in Eusebius has not just been lifted verbatim from Origen. However, did Eusebius have this in mind, and so perhaps write the chapter heading thus?  Or was it perhaps simply a commonplace from Plato, which anyone might have written?  It is certainly an interesting parallel!

7.  Another possible source via Blavatsky from Mosheim

Joel McDermon, who wrote an interesting article for American Vision on this same subject uncovered another piece of the jigsaw:

I first came across the quote while reading the occultist and supporter of the mystery-religion origin for Christian doctrine, Madame Blavatsky. In her 1877 Isis Unveiled, Vol. II, p. 303, she gives the same quote with the exact wording. She attributes it to a work called “Ecclesiastical History.” At first glance the careless reader —- because of the careless author —- will recognize the title as belonging to Eusebius. But there are dozens of other works by that title, and this is one of them. The Ecclesiastical History in question is actually that of John Lawrence von Mosheim, originally published in 1755. The English translation I have access to is Murdock’s from 1847. So what was the actual quote about?

Far from giving a quote from Eusebius, Mosheim was actually referring to the corrupt atmosphere of the church in general in the fourth century. After describing the entrance of “a long train of superstitious observances,” 1 he wrote,

To these defects in the moral system of the age, must be added two principal errors now wellnigh pubicly adopted, and from which afterwards immense evils resulted. The first was, that to deceive and lie, is a virtue, when religion can be promoted by it. The other was, that errors in religion, when maintained and adhered to after proper admonition, ought to be visited with penalties and punishments.2

The quote in question nowhere shows up in Eusebius, or any other early Church father for that matter. How the tale got twisted is easy to see. Blavatsky did not cite the author, but in the following sentences says that this doctrine of lying was “applied” by Eusebius (Of course she furnishes no proof of this). Some careless reader probably read the text, assumed it was Eusebius, and then ran to the web to publish his new proof of why not accept Christ. Then all the anti-Christian cohorts copied the error and now webville is littered with more slander.

1. Mosheim, John Lawrence von. The Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern. Volume I. tr. James Murdock. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1847), Book II, Century IV, Part II, Chapter III, Sec. 2 (p. 259).
2. Ibid., Book II, Century IV, Part II, Chapter III, Sec. 16 (p. 267). For clarity, I have changed the original italics that emphasized portions of the text.

That some of our quotations do indeed have this source seems most likely.

---

NEW MATERIAL TAKEN FROM THE THEOPHANY
On the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.

18. What the end of those things should be, which had been foretold respecting the Jewish people, has (already) been said and shewn. But, as He, THE WORD OF GOD, prophesied also respecting these places themselves, it is necessary we should see His words on them. Now, when the Rulers of the Jews would not bear the purity of His Doctrine, its publication, nor His rebukes, they so acted as to rid their city of Him. He then, leaving Jerusalem, pronounced these words over their city: “⁵⁵Jerusalem, Jerusalem! that hast killed the Prophets, and stoned them that were sent unto thee, How often would I have gathered thy children together, as the hen gathereth her chickens under her wings : but ye would not. Behold I your house is left desolate. For I say unto you, that ye shall not see me henceforth until ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Impurity (and) pollution afterwards marked their doings: and this was the sin in which they dared to persist against our Saviour. And it was right, not only that the Inhabitants of the city, but also the land itself,–in which they so greatly boasted.–should be made to suffer the things, which the deeds of its inhabitants deserved. And these they did suffer ! For it was not long, before the Romans came against the city: and, of the inhabitants, some they killed by the law of war; others they destroyed by famine; others they led away captive ; and others they persecuted. The captive⁵⁶ (City) and Temple they burnt, and reduced to utter |246 desolation ! But the things which took place afterwards, did our Saviour, from his foreknowledge as THE WORD or GOD, foretel should come to pass, by means of those which are (now) before us. For He named the whole Jewish people, the children of the City; and the Temple, He styled their House. And thus He testified, that they should, on their own wicked account, bear the vengeance thus to be inflicted. For many times would He have gathered their children together beneath the yoke of the worship of God, just as all formerly was; even as He had from ancient times been careful for them, and had, during all ages, instructed them by one or other of the Prophets, and called them, but they would not hearken to his call;–on this account, He gave judgment against them, and said, “Behold your house is left desolate.” It was therefore with special care that He said, not (only) the City itself should be desolate, but the House that was within it: that is, the Temple; (and) which He was unwilling should again be called His, or yet “the House of God,” but theirs (only). He prophesied too, that it should be desolate in no other way, than as deprived of that providential care, which was formerly exerted over it: hence He said, “Behold your house is left desolate.” And, it is right we should wonder at the fulfilment of this prediction, since at no time did this place undergo such an entire desolation as this was. Not at the time when it was rased to its foundations by the Babylonians, on account of their great wickedness, their worshipping of Idols, and pollution in the blood of the Prophets. For seventy years was the whole period of the desolation of the place in those times: because it was not (thus) fully said to them at that time, “Behold your House is left desolate.” Nor was it (then so) forsaken; an event happening soon after, which dignified it with a renewal much more illustrious than its former state, as one of the Prophets had foretold : (viz.) “The glory of this latter House shall be greater than that of the former⁵⁷.” After the enouncement therefore of our Saviour,–that they should so be left, and their house come, by the judgment of God, to utter desolation ;–to |247 those who visit these places, the sight itself affords the most complete fulfilment of the prediction. The period too has been that of many years, and (of duration) so long, as not only to be double of the desolation of seventy years,– which was that in the time of the Babylonians,–but even to surpass four times (its duration) ; and (thus) confirming the judgment pronounced by our Saviour. Again, on another occasion, our Saviour–walking by the side of the Temple, just mentioned, and His Disciples wondering at the building which surrounded it, and pointing out to Him the greatness and beauty of the same Temple;–returned to them answer and said, “Behold! see ye not all these things ? I say unto you, stone shall not be left here upon stone, which shall not be thrown down.” The Scriptures do moreover shew, that the whole building and the extreme ornamenting of the Temple there, were indeed thus worthy of being considered miraculous: and, for proof (of this), there are preserved, even to this time, some remaining vestiges of these its ancient decorations. But, of these ancient things, the greatest miracle of all is, the Divine word (declaring) the foreknowledge of our Saviour, which fully enounced to those, who were wondering at the buildings (of the Temple), the judgment, that there should not be left in the place at which they were wondering, “one stone upon another which should not be rased” For it was right, that this place should undergo an entire destruction and desolation, on account of the audacity of its Inhabitants; because it was the residence of impious men. And, just as the prediction was, are the results in fact remaining: the whole Temple, and its walls,–as well as those ornamented and beautiful buildings which were within it, and which exceeded all description,–have suffered desolation from that time to this! With time too, this increases : and, so has the power of THE WORD gone on destroying, that, in many places, no vestige of their foundations is now visible! which any one who desires it, may see with his own eyes⁵⁸. And, should any |248 one say, that a few of the places are still existing; we may nevertheless, justly expect the destruction of these also, as their ruin is daily increasing: the predicting word, just mentioned, daily operating by a power which is unseen. I know too–for I have heard it from persons who interpret the passage before us differently,–that this was not said on all the buildings, except only on that place which the Disciples, when expressing their wonder upon it, pointed out to Him ; for it was upon this that He spoke the predicting word. Again, the Scriptures of His Disciples which teach respecting Him, (teach) us these things (following), on the utter destruction of the place.–

On the taking of the City. From the Gospel of Luke.

19. “And⁵⁹, when He saw the city, He wept over it, and said, If thou hadst known, even in this day the things of thy peace.–But now, they are (so) hidden from thine eyes, that the days shall come upon thee, in which thine enemies shall surround thee, and shall press upon thee from every part of thee: and they shall utterly root thee up, and thy children within thee.” The things, prior to these, were predicted respecting the Temple; these, which are now before us, respecting the City itself; which the Jews named the City of God, because of the Temple of God that had been built within it. Over the whole of this then, the compassionate (Saviour) wept. It was not, that He had so much pity on the buildings, nor indeed upon the land, as He had first upon the souls of its inhabitants, and (then) upon (the prospect of) their destruction. But the things which took place afterwards, did our Saviour, from his foreknowledge as THE WORD or GOD, foretel should come to pass, by means of those which are (now) before us. For He named the whole Jewish people, the children of the City; and the Temple, He styled their House. And thus He testified, that they should, on their own wicked account, bear the vengeance thus to be inflicted. And, it is right we should wonder at the fulfilment of this prediction, since at no time did this place undergo such an entire desolation as this was. He pointed out moreover, the cause of their desolation when He said, “If thou hadst known, even in this day, the things of thy peace:” intimating too His own coming, which should be for the peace of the whole world. For |249 this is He, of whom it was said, “In his days shall righteousness arise (as the sun), and abundance of peace⁶⁰. He came also for this purpose, that “He⁶¹ might preach peace to them that were near, and to them that were afar off.” And, of them who received Him, He said, “Peace⁶² I leave to you I leave to you; my peace give I unto you:” the peace, which all nations who believed on Him throughout the whole creation, have received. But the people, who were of the circumcision and believed not on Him, knew not the things of their peace : and, on this account, He said afterwards, “It is now (so) hidden from thine eyes, that the days shall come upon thee, (in which) thine enemies shall surround thee⁶³.” The things (I say), which were therefore to take hold on them, a short time after, in the reduction (of the city) : (and), because they had no previous perception of the peace, that had been formerly preached to them, it should now be concealed from their eyes. They had therefore, no previous perception of any thing, which should afterwards befall them; He then plainly foretold these things by His foreknowledge, and gave open intimation of the reduction (of the city), which should come upon them through the Romans, (when saying), “The days shall come upon thee…because thou knewest not the things of thy peace.” For, for this cause “there shall come upon thee the days, (in which) thine enemies shall surround thee, and shall go round about thee, and shall press upon thee from every quarter of thee; and they shall root thee out, and thy children within thee⁶⁴.” In these (words) then, has been recorded the form of war which should come upon them. And, how they were fulfilled, we shall presently find from the writings of Josephus, who was himself a Jew, and descended from a tribe of the Jews ;–one of the well known and famous men among that people. At the time of the reduction (of the place), he committed to writing every thing that was done among them; and (so) shewed, that the predictions before us were, in their facts, fulfilled. |250

Again, on the reduction of the City. From the Gospel of Luke.

20. “⁶⁵When ye shall see Jerusalem surrounded by an army, know ye that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. And let those that are within it (Jerusalem) give up⁶⁶: and let not those that are in its borders, enter into it. Because these are the days of vengeance, that all which has been written should be fulfilled. But, woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days; for there shall be great tribulation upon the land, and great wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled.” Previous to this He said, “Behold your house is left desolate.” He now gives by the words before us, the signs of the times of the final destruction of the place; and these He shews, saying, “When ye shall see Jerusalem surrounded by an army, thence know ye that its desolation is near.” Now, let no one imagine, that, after the reduction of the place, and the desolation that should be in it, another renewal of it shall take place, as it was in the times of Cyrus, king of the Persians; and afterwards in those of Antiochus Epiphanes; |251 and again, in those of Pompey. For many times did this place suffer reduction, and was afterwards dignified by a more excellent restoration.

But, when ye shall see it reduced by armies, know ye that which comes upon it, to be a final and full desolation and destruction⁶⁷. He designates the desolation of Jerusalem, by the destruction of the Temple, and the laying aside of those services which were, according to the law of Moses, formerly performed within it. You are not to suppose, that the desolation of the city, mentioned in these (words), was to be such that no one should any more reside in it: for He says after this, that the city shall be inhabited, not by the Jews, but by the Gentiles, when speaking thus, “And Jerusalem shall be trampled on by the Gentiles⁶⁸.” It was known therefore to Him, that it should be inhabited by the Gentiles. But He styled this its desolation (viz), because it should no more (be inhabited) |252 by its own children, nor should the service of the law he established within it. And, how these things have been fulfilled, many words are not wanted (to shew) ; because, we can easily see with our own eyes, how the Jews are dispersed into all nations; and, how the inhabitants of that which was formerly Jerusalem,–but is now named Aelia by Aelius Hadrian,–are foreigners, and the descendants of another race. The wonder therefore of the prophecy is this, that He said of the Jews, “they should be led captive into all nations;” and, of the Gentiles, “that Jerusalem should be trampled on by them.” This miracle is then complete : the Jews being now fully (dispersed) throughout the whole creation, so that they are (found) remaining among the Ethiopians, the Scythians, and in the extremities of the earth. It is only their own city, and the place in which their worship formerly was (carried on), that they cannot enter⁶⁹! But, if the city itself had been utterly desolated, and without inhabitants, men would have thought that this was the cause (of their exclusion from it). Now however, that the place is inhabited by foreigners, the descendants of a different race, and that it is not allowed to them alone even to set a foot in it, so that they cannot view even from a distance the land of their forefathers⁷⁰; the things foretold of it are fulfilled, in exact accordance with the prediction: (viz). “They shall be led captive into all nations, and Jerusalem shall be trampled on by the Gentiles“

 The manner moreover of the captivity, points out the war. of which He spoke; “For (said He) there shall be (great)⁷¹ tribulation upon the land, and great wrath upon this people : and they shall fall by the edge of the sword.” We |253 can learn too, from the writings of Flavius Josephus, how these things took place in their localities, and how those, which had been foretold by our Saviour, were, in fact, fulfilled. He also shews plainly the fulfilment of the prediction of our Saviour, when He said, “Woe to those that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days⁷².” For he has put it on record, how the women roasted their children by the fire and ate them, on account of the pressure of the famine which prevailed in the city. This famine therefore, which took place in the city, our Saviour foresaw, and counselled His Disciples that, in the reduction which was about to come upon the Jews, it was not for them to take refuge in the city as in a place guarded and preserved by God, but in which many should suffer ; but, that they should depart thence, and “flee to the mountains;” and, that those, who should be within Judea, should give up to the Gentiles; and those, who were in its lands, should not take refuge in it as in a fortified place. On this account He said, “Let those who are in its borders⁷³ not enter into it, since these are the days of vengeance, that all may be fulfilled which has been written.” Any one therefore, who desires it, may learn the results of these things from the writings of Josephus. And, if it is right we should lay down a few things from him in this book, by way of testimony, there is nothing that should hinder us from hearing the historian himself, who writes in this manner;–

From the sixth Book of Josephus⁷⁴.

21. “And, How can it be necessary, that I should describe the severity of the famine, as to things inanimate? I come then to the making known of a fact, the like of which has not been recorded, either among the Greeks, or the Barbarians : one which, it is shocking to mention, and, to the hearing, incredible. I myself indeed, would |254 gladly have left this calamity (unmentioned)–that I might not be thought by those who shall come after, to have related falsehoods,–had I not had many witnesses among those of our own times. I should indeed otherwise have rendered but a doubtful good, as to the land of my fathers, had I omitted to mention the things which, it has, in fact, suffered. A certain woman, of those who resided on the other side of the Jordan,–whose name was Mirian, well known on account of her family and wealth,–took refuge with many (others) in Jerusalem, and with them was shut up (in the siege). This woman’s other possessions, as they were after she left the passage (of the Jordan) and came into the city, the Tyrants seized. The residue of her treasures moreover, should it have sufficed for her daily sustenance, was invaded and seized by the attendant soldiers. Grievous indignation therefore, took possession of her; and many times did she excite the robbers against herself, by curses and reproaches. But, when no one put her to death.–either on account of her indignation or in mercy; and she became weary of seeking sustenance for others from every quarter, and (as) suspicion was excited against her, even if she found (it) : hunger, at the same time, remaining in her bowels, and indignation inflaming her more than hunger;–she took for her counsellor impetuosity and necessity, and dared to do that which was contrary to nature. She seized upon her son,–for she had a sucking infant,–and said, “Wretched (babe) ! for Whom do I preserve thee in war, famine, and tumult?– that thou shouldest be a slave to the Romans ? If thou shouldest indeed live happily with them, still famine precedes (this) servitude ; and the seditious are cruel. Come ; be thou thou to me for food; to the seditious, the vengeance;–and to the world, the tale which alone is wanting to (complete) the sufferings of the Jews ! And, saying this, she at once killed her son. She then roasted him, and ate a part of him ! the rest she hid, and kept⁷⁵!” |255 These sufferings out of many, I have here set down on account of the Divine prediction of our Saviour, which declared, “Woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days:” and because it adds this also to the predictive words of our Saviour, “There shall be great tribulation on the land, and great wrath upon this people:” or, as Matthew has said⁷⁶, “For there shall be at that time great tribulation, the like of which has not been since the beginning of the world, even until now ; nor shall be” (hereafter). It will be well therefore, to hear this writer himself, when thus putting on record the fulfilment of these same things.

From the fifth Book of Josephus⁷⁷.

22. “It would be impossible to give an account of each and every of their iniquities singly; we say then summarily, that no (other) city (ever) suffered all these things; and, that there never was a generation so fruitful in vices as this⁷⁸ : for they destroyed the city itself⁷⁹! and (were the cause) that the Romans should be recorded,– as forced by them against their own wills,–to this sad |256 victory ! They accordingly dragged them on forthwith, unopposed, to the Temple ; and viewed from the upper city, the fire that was burning within it.” Nor were they pained, nor did they weep at these things ! Because, “there should be at that time great tribulation, such, that its like existed not since the beginning of the world.” This very thing was foretold by our Saviour, which this writer attests ! the whole of which was fully brought to pass¹ forty years afterwards, in the times of Vespasian the Roman Emperor. Our Saviour moreover, added to His predictions,–determining the time,–how long Jerusalem should be trampled on by the Gentiles; for He said, “Until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled:” intimating by this, the end⁸⁰ of the world.

Again, on the laws of the Jews, (viz.) that they should no more be observed, either on mount Gerizim, or in Jerusalem. And, on the service worthy of God, which should be set up in His Church. From the Gospel of John.

23. On the side of this our neighbouring city Neapolis of Palestine,–which was not small, but is even (now) a city of celebrity,–a woman of Samaria drew near to Him ; and, after other words, said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that thou art a Prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this |257 mountain; but ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where (men) ought to worship.” Upon which, our Saviour returning this answer, said to her, “Believe me woman, the hour cometh (in) which, neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem shall they worship the Father.” And, after a few other things, He said : “The hour cometh, and now is, (in) which the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh even such as these to worship Him. God is a, spirit, and it is right that those who worship Him, should worship him in spirit and in truth⁸¹.” And, by these things also, He fully proved that His foreknowledge was not small. For formerly, in the days of Tiberius the Roman Emperor,–in whose times these things were said,–the Jews were particularly collected together in Jerusalem, for the observance of the precepts of their Law; and the Samaritans, on the mount called Gerizim which they honoured, on the side of Neapolis, affirming that it was right the Law of Moses should there be observed. Now, these mounts are, as it were, anathemas of God. With both, certain parts were honoured; and of both, the Scripture of each bears record ; that of Moses, respecting Gerizim ; and those of the Hebrew Prophets, respecting Jerusalem⁸². The sentence of judgment therefore, put forth in the Divine enouncement of our Saviour was, That no more, either in Jerusalem, or on mount Gerizim, should those henceforth worship, who then adhered so pertinaciously to these places : which came to pass soon after. (For), in the days of Titus Vespasian, and in the reduction which happened in those of Hadrian, both these mounts were, according to His words, desolated. That on the side of the city Neapolis, was defiled by unbecoming Images, by Idols, |258 by Sacrifices, and the shedding of blood, and (thus) rendered abominable. The Temple also of Jerusalem was rased to the foundations, and has remained, during the whole of the time mentioned, in utter desolation and (destruction by) burning. And, from that time and even until now, has the prediction of our Saviour been fulfilled, which declared, ” The hour cometh, (in) which neither in this mount, nor in Jerusalem shall they worship,” He terms the time (meant) “the hour;” which was not yet at hand, but was about to be. And, speaking to His Disciples on the rational service to be completed by Himself, He added, ” The hour cometh, and now is, that the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth.” He necessarily added therefore here, It “now is.” For immediately, from the very hour (in) which he said these words, (viz.) ” The true worshippers”–of whom He was the Head and Teacher,–His Disciples, who received the rational service,–from Him, did perform the service of God, “in spirit and in truth.” But the thing, above all (others) prophesied of in these words, implies, that no more on any mount, nor in any distinct corner of the earth, but throughout the whole creation, should those ” true worshippers” worship the God who is above all, and should present to Him the Divine services, which should be performed without blood, “in spirit and truth.” Not by similitude, nor by those things of which He was the antitype, as were those of Moses observed by both Jews and Samaritans, in slaughter, sacrifices, incense, fire, and many other bodily modes;–that all of these should be abolished through the things now before us, did THE WORD OF GOD here predict. He also said, henceforth “in spirit and truth.” That is, “the true worshippers” shall render to God, the service which is worthy of Him, in a manner divine and with both the soul and mind.

On the people which should be set up out of foreign nations, by means of his teaching. From the Gospel of John.

24. “I am⁸³ the good Shepherd, and I know my own, and my own know me. Even as the Father hath |259 known me, so know I the Father….And I lay down my life (lit. self) for my sheep. And I have other sheep, those who were not of this fold; and it is necessary that I should bring in these, and that they should hear my voice. And there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” By other words (too) He taught and said, “I am not come, but to the sheep that have strayed of the house of Israel⁸⁴.” It was the Jewish people then, that He named under this figure; but, by the things before us, He predicted, that it was not those only who had become His disciples from among the Jews, that were considered (as) of the number of His flock; but those also who were without this fold. For thus, the word (Scripture) usually names at one time, the whole Jewish people; at another, Jerusalem, and the service there performed according to the Law of Moses.–That “He would collect other sheep which were not of that fold” implies the whole creation; and He foretold by these things, that out of them (this) rational flock should be so brought together to Him, that to the one and self-same worship of God, all, (both) Jews⁸⁵ and Idolaters believing in Him, should come over; and, that there should be ” one flock and one Shepherd.” This is His Church, which has been established both from among the Jews, and Gentiles. And thus, has it come to pass ! For at once, at the outset of the preaching of the Gospel, great multitudes of the Jews were convinced that He was the Christ of God, who had been preached of by the Prophets. And with these, (those), who believed on Him from among the Gentiles, were brought together in one Church, under the hand of the one Shepherd,–of Him who is THE WORD or GOD. For in Jerusalem itself arose, from among the Jews, one after another fifteen bishops of the Church there, from James who was the first⁸⁶. There were too thousands, at once both of Jews and Gentiles there, who had been brought together, even to the time of |260 its reduction in the days of Hadrian. And, that He was the (good) Shepherd who had been many times preached of in the words of the Prophets, it is obvious to us: the words (I say), which mention THE WORD OF GOD and teach, that He is the Shepherd of the souls of men, as of rational flocks. For it is thus said on one occasion by the Prophets: ” The Lord feedeth me (as a shepherd), and I shall lack nothing⁸⁷.” And on another; “Shepherd of Israel look, (thou) who leadest Joseph as a flock⁸⁸:” and, on another, He introduces (one) saying, “He is the Lord, and the Shepherd of the sheep⁸⁹.” He therefore alone, is truly declared to be the Shepherd of rational souls. For, just as the case is among men, the nature of the sheep is one, and that of the shepherd another; and, (as) the rational nature rules and leads that which is irrational; so also is it with respect to the superiority of the Shepherd (here), THE WORD OF GOD, the nature far excels that of man. We indeed are His flock, and, as compared with His power, we are less rational than any sheep. But He is in truth the good and pure Shepherd, who does not so neglect His flock, that it may be devoured by the wolves; that is to say, by the wicked demons, the corrupters of souls. This constrains us to look to His word which declared, with great power and might, “I am the good Shepherd;” and which also said, “I lay down my life for my sheep.” (This) He said in a mystery respecting His death. He also taught at the same time the cause; viz. that it was for the redemption of the souls of the rational flocks, that He (so) gave His life. And this also: “I have other sheep,” shews, that the Jews were not His only possession; but also, that the whole of the nations had been given to Him of His Father, according to this (declaration), “Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance.” |261

How His death was the cause of the redemption of many. From the Gospel of John.

25. He was often with the Jews, because to them were known the predictions of the Prophets respecting Him. But, because the Greeks upon one occasion also approached His Disciples, desiring to see Him,–it is written, that, when they had told Him this, He said: “⁹⁰The hour is come, that the Son of Man should be glorified. I say unto you, that unless the grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it will remain alone; but if it (so) die, it will bring forth much fruit.” By these things also) He obviously declared in a mystery, that, among the Greeks, among foreign nations and the children of a different generation, those things which comprehended the praises of His Godhead should be embraced. For it was not when He was among the Jews that he said, “His hour had come that He should be glorified,” but, when the Greeks⁹¹ drew near to Him. After this, he necessarily continued shewing of His own death, His resurrection, and of the calling of the people, among whom He then was. For, just as the grain of wheat, before it falls into the earth, remains alone, but contains the life-producing-power, with the energies⁹² of the seed included within it, (and) which the ears shall produce; but, after falling into the earth,–just as that which lives after death,–it will increase, and, from the power vested within it, produce many ears of corn; so did He also declare respecting Himself, that the things should be. And this indeed, the result of them has plainly evinced. |262 For, it was not the Greeks alone who, after His death, received of His power and of the provisions of His Godhead, but also many nations. He was therefore, that seed which fell, and sprang up again, “He who was dead, but is alive⁹³.” He, who after His fall which was by death, increased greatly, is He who has, by His resurrection, filled the lands of the heathen, as it were cultivated fields, with the Divine unutterable power. On this account He said, “The harvest⁹⁴ is great, but the labourers are few.” And again, “Lift⁹⁵ up your eyes and see the fields, that they are white for the harvest.” These things He also foretold (figuratively), of those who should after His death establish themselves in Him, through the pure faith which is by Him; the multitude of whom should, throughout the whole creation both of Greeks and Barbarians, constitute the Church to be established in myriads of congregations ;–collected together, as it were, (the produce of) rational well-cultured fields, into one place ; (that is) the souls of men, into the granaries of His Church. Hence it has been said, “He⁹⁶ whose fan is in His hand, and who will cleanse His floor, and collect the wheat into (His) treasuries: but the straw He will burn with fire unquenchable.”

---

STORY OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE THEOPHANY

Roger Pearse post: Angelo Mai comments on a catena fragment of Eusebius “Another delightful thing has happened to me.   While I was translating from Greek into Latin all the passages of Eusebius in the MS of Nicetas’ Catena on Luke, I fortunately observed that the last passage of Eusebius, written on the two final pages of the MS, corresponded word-for-word with Theophania bk 4 chs.8 and 9, as read, in translation from Syriac, in the English edition of the Rev. Samuel Lee, top of p.224 – top of p.229.”

“British Museum, Add, MS. No. 12,150.” Under these symbols scholars recognize a manuscript which Dr. Cureton is quite justified in calling ” that wonderful volume of the Nitrian Collection.” It is wonderful not only for its contents, and its singular history and recovery, but for its immense antiquity. It is believed by all competent judges to have been transcribed fourteen hundred and fifty years ago, in the year of our Lord 411. Of the four treatises in the Syriac language which this precious manuscript contains, the first three have already been printed. The late Dr. Lee, Hebrew Professor at Cambridge, edited and translated the long-lost book ofEusebius on the Theophania, or Divine Manifestation of our Lord; and Dr. P. A. de Lagarde published, at Lsipsic and Berlin respectively, Syriac versions of the Ilecognitiones of Clement of Rome, and also of the controversial work of Titus, Bishop of Bostra in Arabia, against the Manichaeans. At last, in the volume before us, Dr. Cureton lays before the world an edition and a translation of another lost work by Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea—his contemporary History of certain Martyrs in Palestine. Before we proceed to notice this treatise more particularly, it may be allowed us to recall some particulars as to the remarkable Nitrian manuscript containing it, which we find, not in the volume now under review, but in a former work by Dr. Cureton—his edition of the Festal Letters of Athanasius, which was printed thirteen years ago by the Society for the Publication of Oriental Texts. A more curious history is not to be found in any of the annals of literature.

It is now nearly twenty years ago that Dr. Tattam, who has since been made Archdeacon of Bedford, was commissioned by Government to purchase in Egypt certain Syriac manuscripts which were known to exist in the monastery of S. Maria Deipara, in the valley of Nitria, or of the Natron Lakes. This scholar returned to England

* History of the Martyriin Palatine. Ey Easebins, Bishop of Caesurea. Discovered in a very nncient Syriac Manuscript. Kdited and translated ikto English by William Cureton, D.D., Member of the Imperial Institute of France. London: Williams aud Worgate. Paris: Borranl 1861.

in 1842 with a large collection of most valuable manuscripts, more or less imperfect. His bargain with the monks had been that he should purchase the whole collection; but it was afterwards ascertained that they had concealed and withheld a large part of their library. This fact was brought to light by Mr. Pacho, a native of Alexandria, who had been authorized to make a further search for similar literary treasures in other Egyptian convents. It was in 1847 that this gentleman discovered and procured nearly two hundred volumes from the same house of S. Maria Deipara, whence the first instalment had been obtained. It seems that the monks of this convent, who had contrived to deceive and defraud Dr. Tattam, required very delicate handling before Mr. Pacho could be sure that he had received all the remaining Syriac manuscripts in their possession. However, he was as astute as they were, and the second moiety of the collection was added, after some interval of doubt whether the French Government would not make a larger bid for it, to the first moiety in the British Museum. The literary value of the whole collection is incalculable, and the National Library in which it is deposited has become the richest in the world in Syriac manuscripts.

The particular volume from which the present treatise of Eusebius is taken is perhaps the most curious of the whole number. Dr. Lee, when editing from it the Theophania of Eusebius, expressed an opinion that the manuscript must be at least a thousand years old. Afterwards he discovered on the margin of one of the leaves in the body of the volume a transcript of a note of the date of the writing, which added nearly five centuries to the age of the manuscript. He was naturally reluctant to accept so almost fabulous an antiquity, but after weighing the whole question deliberately, he decided that the date was genuine. Dr. Cureton, who, from the peculiar duty which devolved upon him as an assistant keeper of the manuscripts, of examining and arranging the whole collection, had acquired more practical experience than any other scholar as to the quality and condition of the vellum, the color of the ink, and the style of Itand-writing, as indications of age, immediately concluded, when he saw this volume, that it was the most ancient one that had ever come into his hands. Judging from no less than sixty dated manuscripts, which ranged from A.D. 1292 up to A.d. 464, he attributed to this particular volume an antiquity of fifty or sixty years above the earliest of the collection. This would give A.d. 414 or 404 as the date of the manuscript — a most close approximation to the truth, for the actual date noted in the margin is, when reduced to modern chronology, A.d. 411.

The interest attaching to the treatise oi Eusebius which is now given to the world is chiefly a moral one. It -does not- contribute many, if any, new facts to our knowledge oi the history or the theology of the Church of  the fourth century. But it is impressive to read here the record of actual martyrdoms for the faith of Christ which the author witnessed with his own eyes. His narrative, in its simplicity and the general absence oi exaggeration, bears upon it the stamp oi veracity; and many to whom this volume Would be without interest in its critical aspect may find pleasure and profit in the English translation, considered merely as a piece of devotional reading. It is affecting to read the details of the cruel deaths and tormerits of the Christian martyrs and confessors who suffered (as Eusebius words it) ” in such a year of the persecution in our days,”—the persecution, that is, of Diocletian, beginning in A.D. 303.

In illustration of the details of the martyrdoms here described, Dr. Cureton refers continually to the work of Gallonius, De Sanctorum Martyrum Cruciatibus. This book is by no means common; and some extracts from it would have been acceptable. Another curious treatise, that of Hieronymus Magius de Equuleo, covers the same ground, and is enriched with copious appendices from Gallonins himself and other writers. In reading the Confession of Pamphilus we are struck with one passage in which Firmilianus, President of Palestine, questions the victim under ” the combs and cauteries of fire “as to ” what city and in what country was that Jerusalem which was said to belong to the Christians only.” It will be remembered that at the time when these martyrdoms took place Jerusalem was known to the Romans by no other name than Aelia Capitolina. Here we have an undesigned historical coincidence of great value. We have no wish to distress our readers with extracts describing the horrid tortures to which these Palestinian martyrs, both men and women, were exposed. We will only notice one fact which we do not remember to have seen noticed before. It appears that the victims who were doomed to the Ludus—that is, the gladiatorial exhibitions were not immediately taken to the amphitheatre, but were handed over to the Procuratores in order to undergo a long course of preparatory training. The Christians, of course, refused to submit to this discipline, and were treated with untold severities for their non-compliance with the rules. It is impossible to close this volume without hoping that the monasteries of the East may afford us yet more of the lost works of antiquity. A distinguished English scholar is understood to have employed the late autumn in a fresh search for such treasures among the convents of Mount Athos.

---

Roger Pearse (2000): “Little more has been heard of this discovery since the initial reporting.  Papyrology seems to have a real problem.  On the one hand it is an obscure subject – so much so, that workers in the field seem to be few, and I’ve seen suggestions in the literature that the funding is so limited that there is a career for only a handful of papyrologists.  Furthermore, quite specialised training is required – not everyone can read Coptic!  On the other hand there are masses of fragments available, even without the desperately needed further excavations.

What is needed is an upsurge in public interest.  It’s worth remembering that interest in cuneiform was given a massive boost by the discovery of the Epic of Gilgamesh, because of its biblical parallels – indeed a national newspaper promptly funded new excavations.  For biblical papyri, the natural audience is the Christians, who are always interested in the origins of their bible, unless insulted, and always include a significant number of educated and interested people.

But the Christians are not interested in the work of professional papyrologists, it seems.  No doubt the reason for this is that papers, whenever they touch on matters of interest to Christians, invariably make a point of asserting that their religion is untrue.  Consider the spin that Dr. Mirecki put on his discoveries, in the reporting above.  I am quite certain that sales of the ‘Gospel of the Savior’ book suffered markedly in consequence.  Despite my interest in the subject, I didn’t buy one either – I obtained a library copy.  And any Christian who is interested in biblical papyri and makes a media splash, as C.P.Thiede discovered, will be shunned and abused, rather than welcomed as a possible source of new blood in the profession.  What a great recipe to destroy an academic discipline!

The great loser from this is papyrology itself, which remains a cinderella discipline, with little public support or backing, unable even to process existing material and watching helplessly as development in the Middle East destroys irreplaceable documents.  Isn’t it time this was addressed?  Is the culture of keeping Christians out worth the cost?” lost gospel

---

---

Date: 03 Feb 2004
Time:  09:38:53

i just don’t get it.? if all this has taken place and i believe it has, then who are we in the 21st century? do we just live and die?

can you answer me the question of who are we and what are we in the 21st century if all has been fulfilled already? if Jesus already came then what are we here for? what are we waiting for? what is our purpose? why continue? bziegler863

---

Date:  03 Feb 2004
Time:  15:07:46

Those who live in Jesus Christ never die – John 11:25-26. If we raise our expectations about redemption, and allow the fulness of christ’s victory to sink in, we will see plenty to be done around us. Isaiah 9:7 presents a never-ending growth of peace and the kingdom.. be a part of it!

---

Date: 06 Dec 2004
Time:  12:50:43

I noticed this statement on many sites on the Internet, but I cannot find this in the Works of Eusebius. Do you have the book, chapter and paragraph reference? Thanks “Eusebius (AD260-340) who wrote that ‘The apostles passed beyond the ocean to the isles called the Britannic Isles’,

---

Date: 05 Apr 2009
Time: 04:35:11

Sorry. Why do writers write? Because it isn’t there.
I am from Marshall and also now am reading in English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Everybody loves to find cheap airline tickets.”

With love :P, Jurrien.

---

Date: 24 May 2009
Time: 19:58:23

As regarding Eusebius telling a lie to protect the church, it appears to have been a widespread practice of the times as described by these orthodox authorities listed below from Rev. Robert Taylor’s Diegesis, chapter on Admissions of Christian Writers,(Taylor was Unitarian but these statements appear as legitimate orthodox admissions):

18. Even our own orthodox Doctor Burnet, in his treatise De Statu Mortuorum, purposely written in Latin, that it might serve for the instruction of the clergy only, and not come to the knowledge of the laity, because, as he says, “too much light is hurtful for weak eyes;” not only justifies, but recommends the practice of the most consummate hypocrisy, and that too, on the most awful of all subjects; and would have his clergy seriously preach and maintain the reality and eternity of hell torments, even though they should believe nothing of the sort themselves.
Can there be any doubt that the Rev. Dr. Burnet, with all his cant about Christianity and truth, was afraid to promulgate the latter sincerely and openly to the people?

19. Dr. Mosheim, among his many and invaluable writings, published a dissertation, showing the reasons and causes of supposititious writings in the first and second century. And all own, says Lardner, that Christians of all sorts were guilty of this fraud; indeed, we may say, it was one great fault of the times.

21. “There is scarce any church in Christendom at this day, (says one of the church’s most distinguished ornaments) which doth not obtrude, not only plain falsehoods, but such falsehoods as will appear to any free spirit, pure contradictions and impossibilities; and that with the same gravity, authority, and importunity, as they do the holy oracles of God.” — Dr. Henry Moore.

32. In the fourth century, the same great author instructs us “that it was an almost universally adopted maxim, that it was an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interests of the church might be promoted.”—Mosheim, Vol. 1. p. 198.