Please provide footnote text

CHAPTER 4 Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Ignatius of Antioch

Introduction

In previous chapters, with the goal of demonstrating a fourth-century contro- versy over Ignatius of Antioch, this study has examined fourth-century tex- tual alterations found within manuscripts of the Ignatian middle recension and the engaging question concerning the identity of the interpolator and forger of the Ignatian long recension as well as this person’s motivation. As we continue in our demonstration that Ignatius of Antioch was one of the battle- grounds upon which the Arian controversy was fought, I now direct attention to the intriguing reality that two leading fourth-century bishops with opposing understandings of the relationship of the Son to the Father both quote the writings of Ignatius of Antioch in an affirming manner. Thus, neither of these bishops takes issue with the Christology of Ignatius of Antioch. This is addi- tional evidence that Ignatius was a figure that both Nicene and non-Nicene parties appealed to in order to articulate and/or defend their understanding of orthodox Christological belief. Since it is indisputable that both Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius of Alexandria extol Ignatius of Antioch, the central task of this chapter is to demonstrate how is it possible for both Eusebius and Athanasius to extol the writings of Ignatius when Eusebius and Athanasius hold to fundamentally different Christological understandings. Eusebius mentions Ignatius briefly in his Chronicon. He also makes a brief mention of Ignatius on three differ- ent occasions in his Historia ecclesiastica (3.22, 3.38, and 5.8).1 In a fourth ref- erence, Eusebius quotes at length from Ignatius’ letter to the Roman church (3.36). Finally, Eusebius quotes Ephesians 19.1 in his Questions and Answers on the Genealogy of our Saviour Addressed to Stephanus. Athanasius mentions Ignatius only once in his entire surviving corpus. He quotes Ephesians 7.2 in his De synodis 47. But he does so, as we shall see, during an important discussion. There are three avenues involved in my demonstration of how Eusebius and Athanasius both are able to affirm the writings, and thus the fundamen- tal Christology, of Ignatius of Antioch. 1) Eusebius of Caesarea must have

1 As we shall see, these references are significant even though they are brief.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004342880_006 134 CHAPTER 4 possessed a manuscript of the Ignatian middle recension that contained more authentic readings than those found in the Medicean manuscript. I suggest that the Greek manuscript that Eusebius worked with must have resembled more closely the readings found in the Armenian translation of the Ignatian middle recension. The Armenian translation was discussed in detail in the opening chapter. In other words, Eusebius worked from an Ignatian manu- script in the library of Caesarea that did not merge the figures of Father and Son so closely together that a distinction between the two figures is hard to find as is often found in the Medicean manuscript. 2) Athanasius is a master at reconciling conflicting church authorities from the past to his own point of view. Also we must consider the possibility that Athanasius was quoting from a corrupted Ignatian manuscript found in the library at Alexandria or, as some have thought, Athanasius deliberately changed the manuscript he had before him to suit his own sincerely held theological agenda. 3) Both traditions that Eusebius and Athanasius wish to emphasize—the distinction of Father and Son for Eusebius and the equality of Father and Son for Athanasius—go hand in hand in many pre-Nicene writers such as Ignatius of Antioch. In other words, though these traditions would become divorced from one another in the fourth-century disputes, they are presented side by side, and in the same breath, in many pre-Nicene writers such as Ignatius of Antioch. Before displaying the evidence that leads me to these conclusions, I need first to discuss foundational issues upon which we will build. They are: 1) a listing of all citations from Ignatius of Antioch during the fourth century. This brief discussion will serve to provide a wider context for the quotations of Ignatius found in Eusebius and Athanasius. 2) The Christologies of Eusebius and Athanasius will be discussed in order to demonstrate that indeed a Christological gulf does exist between these two figures. This will not be new material. Nonetheless, in light of my overall argument that both Nicene and non-Nicene factions found Ignatius representative of their own christlogical understandings, an articulation of my own understanding of the Christologies of Eusebius and Athanasius is necessary. 3) The characteristic manner in which Eusebius and Athanasius handle and cite figures from the Christian past will be documented. Before we turn our attention to Eusebius’ and Athanasius’ handling of Ignatius of Antioch, it is important to gain a sense of the manner in which they generally handle figures from the Christian past. After a discussion of these issues, I will then demonstrate how Eusebius and Athanasius can both claim Ignatius as a predecessor to their understanding of orthodox belief concerning the relationship of the Son to the Father.2

2 There are two works that are particularly important to a scholarly investigation of Eusebius and Athanasius written by Timothy D. Barnes. They are Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge,