EUSEBIUS’ EXEGESIS BETWEEN ALEXANDRIA AND ANTIOCH: BEING A SCHOLAR IN CAESAREA (A TEST CASE FROM QUESTIONS TO STEPHANOS I)

Claudio Zamagni*

Eusebius’ Exegesis between Alexandria and Antioch

Since the last comprehensive monograph on Eusebius by David Wal- lace-Hadrill, the exegesis of the bishop of Caesarea has been under- stood through his auspicious definition: Eusebius as an exegete has to be placed, like his city, between Antioch and Alexandria, halfway between the literal and the allegorical exegesis.1 Within such a frame- work, Carmel Sant has tried to settle a developing line in Eusebius’ career as an exegete. At its outset, under the influence of Pamphi- lus and Origen, Eusebius’ exegesis leans mainly toward the allegorical reading. Later, in the period between his appointment to the epis- copacy of Caesarea and the Council of Nicaea, there is a tendency to balance in Eusebius, and allegorical exegesis is perfectly offset by the ‘literal’ exegesis. Finally, in his last phase, which includes the

* I am grateful to Aaron Johnson, University of Chicago, for his helpful suggestions about this paper and for his precious revision of my English. A big part of this essay is based on my dissertation, Les Questions et réponses sur les évangiles d’Eusèbe de Césarée. Étude et édition du résumé grec (Lausanne – Paris, 2003). 1 D.S. Wallace-Hadrill, Eusebius of Caesarea (London: Mowbray, 1960), 96–97 (American edition: Westminster, MD: Canterbury Press, 1961). These convictions are driven by an analysis of Eusebius’ philological and exegetical works related to the Bible (see ibid., pp. 59–99). This comprehension of Eusebius’ exegesis has also been recently confirmed by the remarkable study on the Commentary on Isaiah by M.J. Hollerich, Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary on Isaiah. Christian Exegesis in the Age of Constantine (OECT; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 70–102 (especially pp. 94–102) and 610 n. 1. See also C. Sant, “Interpretatio Veteris Testamenti in Eusebio Caesarensis”, VD 45 (1967), 77–90, p. 80; Id., The Old Testament Interpretation of Eusebius of Caesarea: The Manifold Sense of Holy Scripture (Malta: Royal University of Malta, 1967), xiii–xiv; C. Curti, “L’esegesi di Eusebio di Cesarea: caratteri e sviluppo”, in Le trasformazioni della cultura nella tarda antichità . . ., I (Roma: Jouvence, 1985), then in Id., Eusebiana I, Commentarii in Psalmos (Saggi e testi classici, cristiani e medievali 1; Catania: Centro di studi sull’antico cristianesimo, Università di Catania, 11987 = ibid., 21989), 193–213, pp. 195–196; M. Simonetti, Lettera e/o Allegoria. Un contributo alla storia dell’esegesi patristica (SEAug 23; Roma: Institutum Patristicum “Augustinianum”, 1985), 113–124. 152 claudio zamagni commentaries on the Psalms and on Isaiah, the allegorical meaning tends to disappear completely, while the literal exegesis expands dispro- portionately; in these commentaries, Eusebius shows all his erudition, his philological interests, his knowledge on ethnography, geography, and ancient history. Carmel Sant identifies exactly four steps in this development of Eusebius’ exegesis:2 in a first stage, Eusebius is greatly influenced by Origen’s exegesis (e.g., in the Prophetic excerpts); in a sec- ond successive phase, he gives more importance to the historical facts, because of his enlarged interest in apologetics (e.g., in the Evangelical demonstration); in a third step, Eusebius mainly uses his philological competences to attack some works by other theologians or adversaries (e.g., in his Against Marcellus and Ecclesiastical theology); and finally, in a last period (when he comments on Isaiah and Psalms), Eusebius reaches the maturity of his widely-known ‘historical’ exegesis, which is to be regarded as a prelude to the forthcoming Antiochene exegesis. According to Sant, this course clearly shows that Eusebius’ interests in historical matter increases during his life.3 Later, Carmelo Curti has proposed virtually the same kind of intel- lectual journey for Eusebius’ exegesis, defining an increasing interest on any ‘historical’ aspects,4 except that he does not consider the third stage proposed by Sant.5 Recently, studying Eusebius’ exegesis of Isa- iah 8.4, Sébastien Morlet has subjected Curti’s conclusions to a close inquiry, proposing to consider such an approach in Eusebius’ exegesis not in a merely mechanical way.6

2 Sant, “Interpretatio Veteris Testamenti in Eusebio . . .”, cit., 87–88. 3 Cf. Sant, ibid., 80 and Id., The Old Testament Interpretation . . ., 118–119 and 124. 4 Curti, “L’esegesi di Eusebio di Cesarea . . .”, cit., 202–213. 5 The work of Sant is mentioned only once by Curti (ibid., 196 n. 7), and apparently disregarded thereafter. 6 S. Morlet, “Le commentaire d’Eusèbe de Césarée sur Is 8,4 dans la Démonstration évangélique (VII, i, 95–113): ses sources et son originalité”, Adamantius 13 (2007), 52–63, especially pp. 61–63. There is, in any case, a peculiar aspect of Origen’s influ- ence on Eusebius that cannot be fitted into this scheme, and concerns the way of argument using quotations and biblical allusions. According to Hollerich, this even represents the most notable issue of Eusebian exegesis (Hollerich, Eusebius of Cae- sarea’s Commentary on Isaiah, cit., p. 10). He uses for such conclusions (based on the Commentary on Isaiah) the remarks proposed by T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press, 1981) especially pp. 106–125, although this phenomenon has been many times observed in Eusebius: see for example Sant, “Interpretatio Veteris Testamenti in Eusebio”, cit., 85 (in reference to Quaest. ad Steph., VII); M. Simonetti, “Esegesi e ideologia nel commento a Isaia di Eusebio”, RSLR 19 (1983), 3–44, pp. 4–12.41–44 and Id., “Eusebio e Origene. Per una storia dell’Origenismo”, Aug. 26 (1986), 323–334, pp. 327–330; F. Winkelmann, Euseb