J Bible Recept 2018; 5(2): 235–257

Bogdan G. Bucur* “God Never Appeared to :” of Caesarea’s Peculiar of the Burning Bush https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2018-0005

Abstract: The exegesis of the burning bush theophany set forth in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Prophetic Extracts and Proof of the adds a distinctive and original voice to the rich chorus of Jewish and Christian interpreters of Exodus 3. Eusebius posits a disjunction between the visual and the auditory aspects of the theophany – the angel appears, the Lord speaks – and departs from the main- stream of Jewish and Christian tradition by depicting Moses as a spiritual neo- phyte whose attunement to God ranks much lower than that of the patriarchs of old. Even though scholars point to the overall anti-Jewish context of this exege- sis, it is difficult to find satisfactory terms of comparison for some of its details. It appears, therefore, that Eusebius’ understudied Prophetic Extracts and Proof of the Gospel offer a surprisingly original interpretation that should enrich the scholarly account of the Wirkungsgeschichte of the famous burning bush episode.

Keywords: Eusebius; ; Sinai; Moses; reception.­

1 Introduction

Scholarship dedicated to the Wirkungsgeschichte of the famous “burning bush” episode has already charted many of the exegetical avenues followed by Jewish and Christian writers of the early centuries.1 This article contributes to the

1 See, among many other examples, the studies collected in Dieu et l’être: Exégèses d’Exodus 3,14 et de Coran 20, 11–24, ed. P. Vignaux (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1978); Celui qui est: Interpré- tations juives et chrétiennes d’Exode 3:14, eds. A. de Libera and E. Zum Brunn (Paris: Cerf, 1986); The Revelation of the Name YHWH to Moses: Perspectives from , the Pagan Graeco-Roman World, and Early , ed. G. H. van Kooten (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006). See also Bogdan G. Bucur, “Ὁ ὤν εὐλογητὸς Χριστὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν: Observations On the Early Christian Interpre- tation of the Burning Bush Scene,” JAAJ 5 (2017), forthcoming.

*Corresponding author: Bogdan G. Bucur, Duquesne University, Department of , 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, USA, e-mail: [email protected]

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM 236 Bogdan G. Bucur

­discussion by analyzing a surprisingly original exegesis of Exodus 3 found in some Eusebius of Caesarea’s under-studied writings, the Prophetic Extracts and the Proof of the Gospel. Eusebius carries on the christological interpretation of theophanies, which is generally acknowledged to be a distinctive feature of pre-Nicene theology,2 while also marking the transition towards the more mature and technically precise articulation of doctrine by councils and theologians within the new socio- political frame of a Christian Empire.3 An eminent specialist on Eusebius notes the following:

Eusebius’ use of theophanies is [...] a privileged place of conjunction between the polemi- cal tradition stemming from Justin and the Alexandrian scholarly tradition of and .

The argument from theophanies in Eusebius has never been the object of thorough exami- nation. Those few authors who have shown some interest in this topic have not guessed its riches and importance in the history of doctrines. Eusebius’ thought intervenes, neverthe- less, at a moment, after the death of Origen and before the beginning of the Arian crisis. Arian recourse to the ancient theophanies has led later theologians to distance themselves from the argument. Here just as elsewhere, Eusebius appears to be the last representative

2 The so-called argument from theophanies was probably forged (or, at least, popularized) by Justin of Neapolis in the heat of his engagement against Marcion, reused in the anti-Jewish po- lemic of the Dialogue with Trypho, and subsequently used to various apologetical and polemi- cal ends by writers such as of , , , and Clement of . See Georges Legeay, “L’Ange et les théophanies dans l’Ecriture Sainte d’après la ,doctrine des Pères,” RThom 10 (1902): 138–58, 405–24; 11 (1903): 46–69, 125–54; Gervais Aeby Les missions divines de Justin à Origène (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires, 1958); Benedict Kominiak, The Theophanies of the in the Writings of St. Justin (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 1948); Bucur, “Justin ’s Exegesis of Biblical Theophanies and the Parting of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism” TS 75 (2014): 34–51; idem, “’s Exegesis of Old Testament Theophanies,” Phronema 29 (2014): 63–81. 3 On Eusebius’ exegesis of theophanies, see Jean Sirinelli, Les vues historiques d’Eusèbe de -Césarée durant la période prénicéenne (Dakar: Mâcon, 1961), 259–92; Sébastien Morlet, La ’Dé monstration évangélique’ d’Eusèbe de Césarée: Étude sur l’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin (Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2009), 442–57. For the use of theophanies during the fourth century, see Jules Lebreton, “Saint Augustin, théologien de la Trinité: Son exégèse des théophanies,” Miscellanea Augustiniana 2 (1931): 821–36; Laurens Johan van der ”’,Lof, “L’exégèse exacte et objective des théophanies de l’Ancien Testament dans le ’De Trinitate Augustiniana 14 (1964): 485–99; Basil Studer, Zur Theophanie-Exegese Augustins: Untersuchung zu einem Ambrosius-Zitat in der Schrift ‘De Videndo Deo’ (Rome: Herder, 1971); Manlio Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo (Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, 1975), 506–11; Michel René Barnes, “Exegesis and Polemic in Augustine’s De Trinitate I,” AugSt 30 (1999): 43–60; Kari Kloos, Christ, Creation, and the of God: Augustine’s Transformation of Early Christian The- ophany Interpretation (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM God Never Appeared to Moses 237

of pre-Nicene theology: still a stranger to preoccupations that would only emerge after the council of Nicaea, he offers in the Proof of the Gospel and, earlier, in the Prophetic Extracts, the longest, most elaborate, and certainly richest reflection of any pre-Nicene author had ever consecrated to the question of ancient theophanies.4

2 Eusebius as Traditional Exegete of Theophanies

In his interpretation of theophanies, Eusebius of Caesarea stands in undeniable continuity with earlier tradition. Like his predecessors, he finds in theophanies the doctrinal foundation for the qualified reception of wisdom traditions outside of Israel; like he calls the δεύτερος θεός,5 identifies the Logos with the ,6 and understands theophanies as manifestations of the Logos “concerning himself with the work of mankind’s salvation even before the Incarnation.”7 Eusebius interprets Genesis 18 (the theophany), Genesis 22 (the Peniel theophany), 6, and so on, as scriptural reports about the manifestations of the Son or Logos of God,8 and emphatically rejects the notion of theophanies as mere angelic apparitions.9

Sébastien Morlet, La ’Démonstration évangélique’ d’Eusèbe de Césarée: Étude sur l’apologétique 4 chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin (Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2009), 457, 440–1. Translation mine. 5 For example, Eusebius, Extracts 1.12 (PG 22:1068 C); Dem. ev. 5.30 (PG 22:409 D; Ferrar, 271). 6 The Logos speaking to Moses was ὁ Κύριος ὁ […] διὰ τοῦ τετραγράμμου δηλούμενος (Euse- bius, Extracts 1.10–12 [PG 22:1053D; 1056C; 1065 A, C; 1068A]). There are many passages in which Eusebius identified YHWH with the Son, although an identification with the Father also occurs. ”,See Sébastien Morlet, “Mentions et interprétations du tétragramme chez Eusèbe de Césarée REAug 60 (2014): 213–52, esp. 226–27, 242–7. For Justin’s YHWH , see Christian Oeyen, “Die Lehre von den göttlichen Kräften bei Justin,” SP 11 (1972): 214–21, and Bucur, “Justin Mar- tyr’s Exegesis of Old Testament Theophanies” esp. 44. 7 Eusebius, Extracts 1.10 (PG 22:1056A). 8 On this point, Eusebius represents the exegetical consensus of the first five centuries. See Bucur, “I Saw The Lord: Observations on the Early Christian Reception of Isaiah 6,” Pro Ecclesia 23 (2014): 309–30 and “The Early Christian Reception of Genesis 18: From Theophany To Trini- tarian Symbolism,” JECS 23 (2015): 245–72, and Marie E. Doerfler, “Entertaining the Una- wares: Genesis XVIII in Western Christian Interpretation,” JEH 65 (2014): 485–503. 9 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.2.10 (SC 31:8); Dem. ev. 5.9 (GCS 23:231–32); Eccl. Theol. 2.21 (GCS 14:130); Ecl. proph. 3 (PG 22:1028–36); Comm Isa 1.41 (GCS 55:37); Comm. Ps. 79 (PG 23:952C). See also Ex- tracts 1.10 (PG 22:1056 B), on the Lord (Logos/Son) manifesting himself directly [αὐτὸς δι’ ἑαυτοῦ], not by angelic mediation [δι’ ἀγγέλου] and Extracts 1.12 (PG 22:1068 C), which declares theophanies to be, undisputedly, neither manifestations of the Father, nor of some angelic power, but appari- tions of the divine Logos, the “second God” [ἀναμϕιλέκτως οὔτε ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς, οὔτε ἀγγελική τις δύναμις ἦν ἡ χρηματίζουσα τῷ Μωσεῖ, αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θεῖος Λόγος, ὃν ἀκριβῶς πεπιστεύκαμεν μετὰ τὸν τῶν ὅλων Πατέρα καὶ Κύριον δεύτερον εἶναι τῶν ἁπάντων Θεόν τε καὶ Κύριον].

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM 238 Bogdan G. Bucur

Twice in his Eusebius states that the “Lord God” mentioned in Genesis 18 was none other than “Christ himself, the Word of God.”10 The same christological interpretation of the Mamre theophany also occurs twice in the : once in a statement by Eusebius himself, and the second time in a letter addressed by the Emperor Constantine to the civilian and ecclesiastical authorities of Palestine – hence also to Eusebius – mandating the destruction of the local shrine, the eradication of all practices deemed “sacrilegious abomina- tions” at Mamre, and the building of a magnificent church.11 Indeed, the place was, at that time, a lively inter-religious pilgrimage site attracting , pagans, and .12 In the Proof of the Gospel, Eusebius even mentions having seen a cultic artifact at Mamre, which depicted the scene of the three visitors enjoying Abraham’s hospitality, and notes that “he in the midst surpasses them in honour. This would be our Lord and Saviour.”13 Similarly, at Peniel, “He that was seen by

10 Eusebius, Hist eccl. 1.2.7; 1.4.12 (SC 31:7; 20). 11 Eusebius, Vit Const. 3.51.1 (SC 559:416): “Having heard that the self-same Saviour who erewhile had appeared on earth had in ages long since past afforded a manifestation of his Divine presence to holy men of Palestine near the oak of Mambre, he ordered that a house of prayer should be built there also in honor of the God who had thus appeared”; Vit Const. 3.53.3 (SC 559: 420): “There first the Savior himself, with the two angels, vouchsafed to Abraham a manifestation of his presence.” 12 See Eusebius, Vit Const. 3.51–53. A vivid description of the place is given by (Hist. eccl. 2.4.2–3 [SC 306:246; trans. NPNF]): “Here the inhabitants of the country and of the regions round Palestine, the Phœnicians, and the Arabians, assemble annually during the summer sea- son to keep a brilliant feast; and many others, both buyers and sellers, resort there on account of the fair. Indeed, this feast is diligently frequented by all nations: by the Jews, because they boast of their descent from the patriarch Abraham; by the Pagans, because angels there appeared to men; and by Christians, because He who for the salvation of mankind was born of a virgin, after- wards manifested Himself there to a godly man. This place was moreover honored fittingly with religious exercises. Here some prayed to the God of all; some called upon the angels, poured out wine, burnt incense, or offered an ox, or he-goat, a sheep, or a cock.” 13 Eusebius, Dem ev 5.9 (GCS 23:232; trans. Ferrar 1:254, emphasis added): “they who were en- tertained by Abraham, as represented in the picture (ἐπὶ γραϕῆς ἀνακείμενοι), sit one on each side, and he in the midst surpasses them in honour. This would be our Lord and Saviour, Whom though men knew Him not they worshipped, confirming the Holy Scriptures. He then thus in per- son from that time sowed the seeds of holiness among men, putting on a human form and shape [ἀνθρώπειον ... εἰδός τε καὶ σχῆμα], and revealed to the godly ancestor Abraham Who He was, and shewed him the mind of His Father.” As it happens, archaeology has turned up a fifth-century mould for stamping ritual cakes, with, on one side, the image of three angels seated at table and the inscription “May the angels be merciful to me,” and, on the other, an image of Aphrodite Ourania, perhaps assimilated with the Virgin Mary, with the inscription “Rejoicing, I receive the heavenly one [goddess].” The middle figure on the mould is clearly distinguished among the three. If the mould is a Christian artifact, its imagery concurs with Eusebius’ report and with his view that Abra- ham’s visitors were the Son of God and two accompanying angels. For image and descriptions, see Margaret English Frazer, “A Syncretistic Pilgrim’s Mould from Mamre(?),” Gesta 18 (1979): 137–45.

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM God Never Appeared to Moses 239

Jacob was none other than the Word of God,”14 and, in Daniel 7, the Son of Man represents the Logos, God’s First-Born, Wisdom, and Divine Offspring, “called ‘the Son of man’ because of his final appearance in the flesh,” and foreseen as end-time universal judge.15 In his Commentary on Isaiah, while presenting his christological interpretation of Isaiah 6, Eusebius revisits all previous theopha- nies and ascribes them to one and the same agent: the Logos.16 It is therefore a very traditional exegesis of theophanies that one encoun- ters in Eusebius, with only very exceptions.17 As Jörg Ulrich observes, Eusebius’s

14 Eusebius, Dem. ev. 7.2 (trans. Ferrar, 2.83; see also, less developed, Dem. ev. 4.16, trans. Fer- rar 1.210): “it is the God that dwells therein, Who was seen by Jacob in human form and shape, wherefore he was deemed worthy of the name, Seer of God, for such is the translation of his name. And I have established in the early part of this work that He that was seen by Jacob was none other than the Word of God.” 15 Eusebius, CH 1.2.24–26 (SC 1:12–3); Prophetic Extracts 1.44 (PG 22: 1173 CD). 16 Eusebius, Comm. Esa. 1.41: since “nobody has ever seen God” (John 1:18) or “the Father” (John 6:46), “the Lord of hosts who appeared to the was another than the unbegot- ten and invisible and incomprehensible divinity. And who could this be but ‘the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father’ [John 1:18], who stepped down from his own exalted position, made himself visible and comprehensible to humanity? [Eusebius now rehearses the most important theophanies to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Ezekiel] […] He assumed a certain form before Abraham and was seen in the figure of a man when Abraham was ‘by the oak’ and ‘washed the feet’ and shared a table with the divine stranger […] And Jacob also said concern- ing this, ‘For I have seen God face to face, and my life has been preserved.’ And the present prophet [scil. Isaiah] saw and also witnessed glory. Thus, as we discussed above, he saw the glory of our Savior Christ. Thus it was for Moses and for Ezekiel too” (GCS 55:36–37; Trans. in Commentary on Isaiah. Eusebius of Caesarea. Translated with an introduction and notes by Jonathan J. Armstrong, ­edited by Joel C. Elowsky [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015], 27–28). All these theophanies anticipate the Incarnation, since in all of them the Son descends from his own greatness “making himself small” [σμικρύνων τε αὐτὸν] so as to become visible and perceptible by humans (GCS 55:36). See also Eusebius, Dem. ev. 7.1 (GCS 23: 297–298): before delivering his prophecy of the virginal birth (Isa 7:14), Isaiah bears witness of his glorious vision of Christ’s divinity, by writing “I saw the Lord sitting upon a high and lofty throne, etc (Isa 6:1)”; Dem. ev. 9.16 (GCS 23:438). 17 One such exception is Eusebius’ fine analysis of Hab 3:2 LXX [ἐν μέσῳ δύο ζῴων γνωσθήσῃ], which leads him to part ways with the exegesis of his predecessors, to whom he ascribes the reading “living beings.” See Eusebius of Caesarea, Dem. ev. 6.15 9 (GCS 23: 270; trans. Ferrar 2:21): “Our Lord and Saviour, too, the Word of God Himself, ‘was known between two lives.’ The word ζωῶν is plural and accented with circumflex on the last syllable as the plural of the singular noun ζωή [life]. It is not ζώων accented acute on the penultimate from ζῶον [a living creature], but with circumflex on the last syllable [ζωῶν] from nominative plural ζωαί [lives]. He says, ­therefore, He was known between two lives. One life is that according to God, the other that according to man; the one mortal, the other eternal. And the Lord having experienced both is rightly said to have been made known between two lives in the LXX translation. Aquila translates

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM 240 Bogdan G. Bucur consistent interpretation of Old Testament theophanies as manifestations of the Logos simply follows Christian exegetical tradition on this point.18 His exegesis of the burning bush scene, however, is in many ways very peculiar.

3 Eusebius on the Burning Bush

Whom or what did Moses meet on Sinai, when an angel appeared to him in a fiery flame out of the burning but unconsumed bush (3:2), and the prophet drew near to see that “great sight” (3:3, τὸ ὅραμα τὸ μέγα τοῦτο), and heard a divine voice addressing him (3:4)? Eusebius answers differently in different places. In his Church History Eusebius puts forth the conventional view:

The great servant Moses and before him in the first place Abraham and his children, and as many righteous men and as afterward appeared, have contemplated him with the pure eyes of the mind, and have recognized him and offered to him the worship which is due him as Son of God […] You will perceive also from the same words that this was no other than he who talked with Moses.19

Elsewhere, however – namely in the Prophetic Extracts, which predate the Church History – Eusebius emphatically states that “throughout all of Scripture God is not even once said to have appeared to Moses” as he is said to have appeared to the patriarchs.20 This statement is difficult to reconcile with the numerous biblical passages stating that God disclosed himself to Moses in a more direct and intense

­differently: ‘In the nearing of the years, cause it to live.’ What does ‘it’ mean here but ‘thy work’? And says: ‘In the midst of the years, cause him to live,’ and renders: ‘Within the years, revive him.’ They all by the use of ζώωσον [cause to live] shew clearly that the word in the original does not refer to irrational or rational animals. And so following the render- ing of the , ‘He was made known between two lives,’ and not the commentators who have preceded me, I understand that the two lives of the Subject of the prophecy are referred to, the Divine and the Human.” 18 Jörg Ulrich, Euseb von Caesarea und die Juden: Studien zur Rolle der Juden in der Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), 183: “Daher werden sämtliche alttestamentli- che Theophanien von Euseb (wiederum in Übereinstimmung mit der antiken christlichen Tradi- tion der Exegese) ganz selbstverständlich und konsequent als Logophanien beziehungsweise Christophanien gedeutet.” 19 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.2.6, 13 (SC 31:7, 9; trans. NPNF). 20 Eusebius, Extracts 9 (PG 22:1052 A): οὐδὲ ἅπαξ ἂν εὕροις δι’ ὅλης τῆς νομοθεσίας τὴν γραϕὴν σημειουμένην ὡς ὅτι δὴ ὤϕθη ὁ Θεὸς ἢ ὁ Κύριος τῷ Μωσεῖ, ὅπερ ἐπὶ μόνων τῶν τριῶν πατριαρχῶν εἰρημένον ἐμϕαίνεται; Extracts 12 (PG 22:1061A): οὐδ’ ἅπαξ ὁ λόγος μαρτυρεῖ λέγων ὅτι ὤϕθη αὐτῷ ὁ Κύριος, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν πατριαρχῶν εἰρηκὼς τετήρηται.

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM God Never Appeared to Moses 241 way than to others. What about Exodus 6, Exodus 33, Numbers 12?21 And what about the burning bush?

3.1 The Angel Appeared, the Lord Spoke

Eusebius takes the wording of Exod 3:2 literally – “Now an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a fire of flame out of the bush” – and repeats, again and again, “it was not the Lord, but an angel who appeared.”22 This is not, however, a demo- tion of the burning bush theophany to “mere” angelophany. What Eusebius means is that the undeniable presence of the Lord is conveyed initially through an angelic apparition, which then gives way to the verbal interaction with the Logos. The sharp distinction between the visual and the auditory components of the theophany at the burning bush is actually best articulated in his discussion of the Sinai theophany of Exodus 19, where Eusebius distinguishes between divine παρουσία and angelic ὀπτασία. There is no question that the subject of the the- ophany is, according to Eusebius, “not some subordinate power that is being put to use, but the Lord himself, He-Who-Is;”23 the visual phenomenon, however, is not the Lord’s but that of angelic conveyers of the divine presence.24 As Eusebius

21 “I appeared to Abraam and Isaak and Iakob, being their God, and my name, Lord, I did not make known to them” (Exod 6:3, NETS); “The Lord spoke to Moses face to face [ἐνώπιος ἐνωπίῳ], as if one should speak to his friend” (Exod 33:11, NETS); “If there is a prophet of you for the Lord, in a vision [ἐν ὁράματι] I will be known to him, and in sleep [ἐν ὕπνῳ] I will speak to him. Not so my attendant Moyses; in my whole house he is faithful. Mouth to mouth I will speak to him, in visible form [ἐν εἴδει] and not through riddles. And he has seen the glory [τὴν δόξαν] of the Lord” (Num 12:6–8, NETS). 22 οὐχ ὁ Κύριος ἀλλ’ ὁ ἄγγελος ὦϕθαι τῷ Μωσεῖ ἀναγέγραπται, δι’ οὗ καὶ ὁ Κύριος ὥσπερ δι’ ἑρμηνέως χρηματίζων διδάσκει, ὅτι μὴ εἴη ὑποβεβηκυῖά τις δύναμις ἡ χρηματίζουσα, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς ὁ ὤν (Eusebius, Extracts 9 [PG 22:1049C]); ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ Μωσέως ὤϕθη μὲν οὐχ ὁ Κύριος ἀλλ’ ὁ ἄγγελος· ἐκάλεσε δὲ αὐτὸν οὐκέτι ὁ ἄγγελος, ἀλλ’ ὁ Κύριος· Κύριος μὲν γὰρ ἦν ὁ διαταττόμενος, ἄγγελος δὲ ὁ τοὺς θείους λόγους διακονούμενος (Eusebius, Extracts 9 [PG 22:1052A]). 23 Eusebius, Extracts 9, PG 22:1049C: “To be very accurate, in all these instances it is recorded that to Moses there appeared not the Lord but the angel, which the Lord uses and teaches, as through an interpreter, that He is not some subordinate power that is being put to use, but the very One-Who-Is” [Σϕόδρα παρατετηρημένως ἐν τούτοις οὐχ ὁ Κύριος ἀλλ’ ὁ ἄγγελος ὦϕθαι τῷ Μωσεῖ ἀναγέγραπται, δι’ οὗ καὶ ὁ Κύριος ὥσπερ δι’ ἑρμηνέως χρηματίζων διδάσκει, ὅτι μὴ εἴη ὑποβεβηκυῖά τις δύναμις ἡ χρηματίζουσα, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς ὁ ὤν]. 24 Eusebius, Extracts 9 (PG 22:1052D): παρουσία μὲν ἐγεγόνει τοῦ Κυρίου· ὀπτασία δὲ, οὐκ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ δῆλον ὅτι τῶν ἀμϕ’ αὐτὸν δορυϕόρων ἀγγέλων, δι’ ὧν χρησίμως τῷ λαῷ ϕοβερὰν καὶ καταπληκτικὴν ἐποιήσατο τὴν ὀπτασίαν.

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM 242 Bogdan G. Bucur explains, the same Logos appears to the patriarchs, to Moses, and to the people,25 but the mode [τρόπος] of the apparition differs: to Moses and the people, who were more “material,” the presence of the Logos was mediated by angel, pillar, cloud, and voice, whereas to the patriachs, who did not need all of these veils, he appears himself and in a more direct manner, “simply,” “nakedly” and “clearly” [ἁπλῶς, γυμνῶς τρανῶς].26 The relationship between the Lord and the angel, and the “mechanics” of revelation are described by careful distinguishing the verbs used: the Lord com- manding, the angel ministering.27 Both in the Extracts and in the Proof of the Gospel Eusebius uses the analogy to prophetic inspiration: as in the cases of Isaiah or Jeremiah, a man was seen, but it was God who would be delivering the prophetic oracle by using the prophet as an instrument [ὡς ἂν δι’ ὀργάνου θεσπίζων], so also at the burning bush.28 In the Extracts, he also provides another analogy: “the Lord dispenses his teaching as through an interpreter.”29

3.2 Demotion of Moses

Eusebius’ exegesis of Exodus 3 is an aspect of his peculiar theory that Moses was spiritually inferior to the patriarchs, a mere beginner, “not fit for aught than

25 Eusebius, Extracts 9 (PG 22:1053 C): οὐκ ἦν ἀγγελική τις δύναμις ἡ διὰ τῆς νεϕέλης χρηματίζουσα, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς ὁ Θεὸς; cf. Eusebius, Extracts (PG 22:1068 C), where theophanies are, undisputedly, neither manifestations of the Father, nor of some angelic power, but manifestat- tion of the divine Logos, the “second God” [ἀναμϕιλέκτως οὔτε ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς, οὔτε ἀγγελική τις δύναμις ἦν ἡ χρηματίζουσα τῷ Μωσεῖ, αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θεῖος Λόγος, ὃν ἀκριβῶς πεπιστεύκαμεν μετὰ τὸν τῶν ὅλων Πατέρα καὶ Κύριον δεύτερον εἶναι τῶν ἁπάντων Θεόν τε καὶ Κύριον]. 26 Eusebius, Extracts 1.9 (PG 22:1049D): ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ νῦν ἐπιϕαίνεται, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὁμοίως γε τοῖς προπάτορσιν; Eusebius, Extracts 1.10 (PG 22:1053 C): ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ λαοῦ, οἷα σωματικωτέρου τυγχάνοντος, δι’ αἰσθητῆς ϕωνῆς ὁμίλει, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν πατριαρχῶν, οὔτε νεϕέλης οὔτε στύλου πυρὸς δεομένων, ἕτερος ἐγίγνετο τῆς τε ὀπτασίας καὶ τῆς πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁμιλίας ὁ τρόπος; Euse- bius, Extracts 1.9 (PG 22:1052 B): οὐχ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἁβραὰμ καὶ τοῦ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ τοῦ Ἰακὼβ ἁπλῶς εἴρηται ὅτι ὤϕθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Θεὸς; Eusebius, Extracts 1.12 (PG 22:1061B): οὐ μὴν καὶ ὁμοίως τῷ Ἁβραὰμ ἢ τῷ Ἰσαὰκ ἢ τῷ Ἰακὼβ ὤϕθη αὐτῷ … ἐκείνοις μὲν γὰρ γυμνῶς καὶ τρανῶς ἄνευ τινὸς εἴδους ὀϕθεὶς ἀναγέγραπται. 27 Eusebius, Extracts 1.9 (PG 22:1052A): Κύριος μὲν … ὁ διαταττόμενος, ἄγγελος δὲ ὁ … διακονούμενος. 28 Eusebius, Dem. ev. 5.13 (GCS 23: 239; trans. Ferrar, 258–58): διὰ τοῦ ϕανέντος ἀγγέλου τὰ προκείμενα θεσπίζει; Eusebius, Extracts 1.9 (PG 22:1052A): ὁ Κύριος δι’ αὐτοῦ χρηματίζων. On Eusebius’ views about biblical inspiration, see Arieh Kofsky, Eusebius of Caesarea Against Pa- ganism (Leiden: Brill, 2002), esp. 138–47 (“Pagan Oracles and Hebrew-Christian Prophecy”). 29 Eusebius, Extracts 1.9 (PG 22:1049 C): δι’ οὗ [scil. ἀγγέλου] καὶ ὁ Κύριος ὥσπερ δι’ ἑρμηνέως χρηματίζων διδάσκει.

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM God Never Appeared to Moses 243 angelic visions” [μηδὲν πλέον ἀγγελικῆς ὀπτασίας χωροῦντι],30 spiritually infe- rior to the patriarchs of old, who were “worthy of a superior insight,”31 because they were better and more perfect, they saw God “nakedly” and “clearly;”32 there- fore, to them it was the Word himself who appeared, while Moses saw not the Lord but an angel.33 In the Proof of the Gospel Eusebius draws a contrast between Jacob’s nightly fight at Peniel and Moses’ divine encounter at the burning bush. In the case of Jacob, Eusebius writes, “if we were to suppose that he saw an angel […] we should clearly be wrong;”34 at Sinai, however, “an angel appears to Moses” whereby the speaker of the words is “no longer an angel” but the Lord, “the Word of God before the ages.”35 The same distinction is evident between Moses and his successor, Joshua: God speaks to Joshua through the captain of his power – the Logos – whereas he speaks to Moses through an angelic appearance.36 Sébastien Morlet signals two interesting differences between the Extracts and the Proof of the Gospel, which offers “a polemical redrafting of the reflexions in the Prophetic Extracts.”37 First, the Proof of the Gospel adds a prophetic dimension to theophanies, such that theophanies become foreshadowings of the Incarna- tion, “an idea which had been absent in the Prophetic Extracts;”38 second, in the Extracts Eusebius restricts direct apparitions of the Logos to the patriarchs, as warranted by the biblical occurence of ὤϕθη,39 while in the Proof of the Gospel he extends vision of God to all the “fathers.” In my view, the prophetic turn in the use of theophanies is a question of emphasis rather. The christological interpretation of theophanies, even when not explicitly connected to the Incarnation, implies this connection by its very “loca- tion,” since the “Word” as subject of theophanies is always (for proto-orthodox Christian writers from Justin onwards) the Word-who-was-to-become-man. At any

30 Eusebius, Dem ev. 5.13 (GCS 23:240; Ferrar 258). 31 Eusebius, Extracts 1.9 (PG 22:1049D). 32 Eusebius, Extracts 1.12 (PG 22:1061 B): οὐ μὴν καὶ ὁμοίως τῷ Ἁβραὰμ ἢ τῷ Ἰσαὰκ ἢ τῷ Ἰακὼβ ὤϕθη αὐτῷ … ἐκείνοις μὲν γὰρ γυμνῶς καὶ τρανῶς ἄνευ τινὸς εἴδους ὀϕθεὶς ἀναγέγραπται. 33 Eusebius, Extracts 1.9 (PG 22:1049D–51A): ἐκείνοις γὰρ ἅτε μείζοσι καὶ τελειοτέροις αὐτὸς ὤϕθη … ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ Μωσέως ὤϕθη μὲν οὐχ ὁ Κύριος, ἀλλ’ ὁ ἄγγελος. 34 Eusebius, Dem ev 5.11 (GCS 23:237; Ferrar 255–6). 35 Eusebius, Dem ev 5.12 (GCS 23: 238; Ferrar 256). 36 Eusebius, Dem ev 5.19 (GCS 23: 246; trans. Ferrar 263): νῦν μὲν διὰ τοῦ ἀρχιστρατήγου τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, Μωσεῖ δὲ διὰ τοῦ ὀϕθέντος ἀγγέλου θεσπίζει. 37 Morlet, La Demonstration evangelique d’Eusebe, 456. 38 Morlet, La Demonstration evangelique d’Eusebe, 448, 450. 39 Eusebius, Extracts 1.7 (PG 22:1041C).

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM 244 Bogdan G. Bucur rate, neither of these two differences between the Extracts and the Proof alter the problem at hand: the apparent demotion of God’s initiate, prophet, and lawgiver to a mere neophyte. Eusebius compares the Sinai theophany in Exodus 19, which grants Israel the vision of God’s glory, with the more direct visions granted to the patriarchs.40 The Law was delivered by angels, as if through pedagogues and administrators, because it was given to a people that was spiritually imature, barely beginning its path of initiation [εἰσαγομένοις]41 – just like Moses, also characterized as εἰσαγόμενος “one who is being initiated”! Moses, in other words, is placed in the same category as the people, and juxtaposed to the patriarchs. Needless to say, this position is at odds with the biblical passages mentioned earlier and with the mainstream of Jewish and Christian tradition. Yet, Eusebius manages to dismantle any suggestion of Mosaic superiority over the patriarchs. Commenting on Exod 33:9–23, Eusebius notes that the episode where Moses entreats God to see his glory does not illustrate the prophet’s supposed spiritual advancement.42 Quite the opposite, in fact: if Moses asks to see God’s glory, and God tells Moses that he cannot gaze upon the divine πρόσωπον, it is because Moses had never before had that experience. Moreover, speaking to God ἐνώπιος ἐνωπίῳ is not quite the same as an encounter πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον;43 besides, Eusebius reminds us, Scripture never says, not even once, that the Lord appeared to Moses!44 In fact, ἐνώπιος ἐνωπίῳ is precisely the opposite of a face- to-face encounter such as that of Jacob as Peniel: even if [we read that] “the Lord spoke to him face to face, he still spoke to him through [the mediation of] the cloud.”45

40 Eusebius, Extracts 1.9 (PG 22:1052 B): οὐχ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἁβραὰμ καὶ τοῦ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ τοῦ Ἰακὼβ ἁπλῶς εἴρηται ὅτι ὤϕθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Θεὸς Eusebius. 41 Eusebius, Extracts 1.9 (PG 22:1052B): τὴν πᾶσαν νομοθεσίαν τοῖς κατὰ τὸν τότε λαὸν, οἷα δὴ νηπίοις τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ εἰσαγομένοις, διδομένην ὥσπερ διὰ παιδαγωγῶν καὶ οἰκονόμων παραδεδόσθαι. 42 Eusebius, Extracts 1.12 (PG 22:1060 D): Ἐμϕαίνεται δὲ διὰ τούτων οὐχ ἡ τυχοῦσα τοῦ προϕήτου προκοπή. 43 Eusebius, Extracts 1.12 (PG 22:1060 D). 44 Eusebius, Extracts 1.12 (PG 22:1061 A): οὐδ’ ἅπαξ ὁ λόγος μαρτυρεῖ λέγων ὅτι ὤϕθη αὐτῷ ὁ Κύριος. Cf. Eusebius’ earlier statement: οὐδὲ ἅπαξ ἂν εὕροις δι’ ὅλης τῆς νομοθεσίας τὴν γραϕὴν σημειουμένην ὡς ὅτι δὴ ὤϕθη ὁ Θεὸς ἢ ὁ Κύριος τῷ Μωσεῖ (Eusebius, Extracts 1.9, PG 22:1052 A). 45 Eusebius, Extracts 1.12 (PG 22:1061 A): εἰ καὶ ἐλάλει αὐτῷ κύριος ἐνώπιος ἐνωπίῳ, ὅμως διὰ τῆς νεϕέλης ἐλάλει αὐτῷ.

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM God Never Appeared to Moses 245

For Eusebius, “the glory of the Lord,” the fire, the cloud, and all elements of theophanic imagery designate the mediated manifestation of the Lord to Moses or the Israelites: not the Lord himself, but his visionary manifestation (οὐκ αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος, ἀλλ’ εἶδος Κυρίου).46 When Numbers 12 is read through the aforemen- tioned lens it loses all of its force: to say that Moses sees the glory of the Lord is, precisely, to say that he does not see not the Lord himself, but a veiled manifesta- tion ἐν εἴδει of the Lord.47 Eusebius also invokes Deut 5:3–4, a text where God is said to have spoken to the people πρόσωπον κατὰ πρόσωπον,48 and equates the latter with the phrase στόμα κατὰ στόμα in Numbers 12. In this way, Eusebius relativizes Moses’ expe- rience, which is no longer upheld as uniquely privileged before God, becoming, rather, more or less equivalent to the experience of the other Israelites: “Do not be amazed,” Eusebius tells his readers, “that God manifested himself to Moses and to the people in the very same way.”49 Moreover, reading yet again against the grain, Eusebius twists “[n]ot with your fathers” into an affirmation that the experience of the Israelites (including Moses) is, precisely, unlike that of the patriarchs – οὐ μὴν … ὁμοίως τοῖς πατράσιν ἑωράκει – since Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were granted access to the Lord himself, “nakedly” [γυμνῶς]; unscreened by cloud and fire [ἄνευ ἐπικαλύμματος τοῦ διὰ νεϕέλης ἢ πυρὸς]; devoid of the appearance of the fire and the cloud [ἄνευ τοῦ διὰ πυρὸς καὶ νεϕέλης εἴδους]; more distinctly and purely [τρανότερον καὶ καθαρώτερον]; not mediated by veils [μηκέτι μὲν δι’ἐπικαλυμμάτων], without “alien,” that is to say, angelic, ministration [μὴ δὲ ὑπὸ διακόνων ἑτέρων].50 In his exegesis of Exod 6:3, which states that the divine name, which was being revealed to Moses, had not previously been revealed to the patriarchs, Eusebius suggests a paraphrase of the verse; a rhetorical trick that gives his inter- pretation the aura of divine pronouncement. Eusebius’ midrash-like reading of

46 Eusebius, Extracts 1.12 (PG 22:1061C): Σαϕῶς οὖν διὰ τούτων τὸ θεωρούμενον τῷ Μωσεῖ λέγεται εἶναι οὐκ αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος, ἀλλ’ εἶδος Κυρίου καὶ νεϕέλη καὶ πῦρ, ἃ καὶ δόξαν Κυρίου ὀνομάζει ὁ λόγος. 47 Eusebius, Extracts 1.12 (PG 22:1064 A): Ἄρ’ οὖν τὴν δόξαν μὲν Κυρίου εἶδεν καὶ ἐν εἴδει αὐτῷ χρηματίζοντος, στόμα τε κατὰ στόμα λαλοῦντος ἤκουσεν, οὐ μὴν καὶ αὐτόν τὸν Κυρίον ὁμοίως τοῖς πατράσιν ἑωράκει. 48 οὐχὶ τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν διέθετο κύριος τὴν διαθήκην ταύτην, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ὑμεῖς ὧδε πάντες ζῶντες σήμερον πρόσωπον κατὰ πρόσωπον ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ὄρει ἐκ μέσου τοῦ πυρός 49 Eusebius, Extracts 12 (PG 22:1064 A, B): οὐ θαυμαστόν … καὶ τῷ Μωσεῖ καὶ τῷ παντὶ λαῷ τοῦτον ἐχρημάτιζεν τὸν τρόπον. 50 Eusebius, Extracts 12 (1064 B-C).

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM 246 Bogdan G. Bucur

Exod 6:3 exalts the patriarchs and demotes Moses: “I am the Lord; to your fathers I did not disclose my name, even though they were worthy of greater insight!”51

4 Tradition and Innovation in Eusebius’ Exegesis of the Burning Bush

It may be useful to sum up our findings so far. In the first place, Eusebius intro- duces a disjunction between the visual and the auditory aspects of the Sinai the- ophanies, and maintains that, to Moses and the people, the presence of the Logos is conveyed by angelic mediation. Secondly, he demotes Moses from the privi- leged position that Jewish and Christian tradition ascribes to him, and argues that the same Logos who appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, later spoke to Moses without appearing to him, using instead the visual manifestation of an angel as an external instrument. These two components of Eusebius’ interpretation of Exodus 3 seem to have had diverging and opposite trajectories of utilization: the disjunction between angel-who-appears and the Lord-who-speaks was maintained and confirmed as useful in the Marcellan controversy,52 and later absorbed into ’ biblical

51 Eusebius, Extracts 9 (1049D): τοῖς δὲ σοῖς πατράσιν τὸ μὲν ὄνομά μου οὐκ ἐδήλωσα, καὶ μείζονος γὰρ ἄξιοι τῆς τοιαύτης γνώσεως ἐτύγχανον ὄντες · αὐτὸς δὲ ὤϕθην αὐτοῖς καὶ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ (ἐμαυτοῦ) τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἔστησα (emphasis mine). 52 On the assumption that God is an undivided monad (Fr. 91/77 = Eccl. Theol. 2.19 [GCS 14:124]), Marcellus’ argues that the “angel of the Lord” is one and the same as the Logos who uttered “I am He Who Is” (Exod 3:14), that the divine Logos cannot be distinguished from the Father “with respect to hypostasis” any more than one can distinguish hypostatically between a person and that person’s verbal utterance, and that a strict separation between ὁ ὤν and ὁ τοῦ ὄντος ἄγγελος would amount to equating the Son to a non-existent [μὴ ὤν] (Marcellus, Fr. 87/61 = Against Marcellus 2.2; Eccl. Theol. 1.17 [GCS 14:40; 77]). By contrast, Asterius and Eusebius affirm a disjunction between the angel-who-appears and the Word who speaks, as a guarantee that the latter is affirmed as a real entity and properly distinguished from the Father (Marcellus, Fr. 86/64 = Eccl. Theol. 2.19 [GCS 14:123]). Eusebius also insists on the traditional view: it was undoubtedly the Son of God who spoke to Moses at the burning bush, he who appeared to Abraham at Mamre (Genesis 18), who told Moses that he had manifested himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod 6:2–3), who later proclaimed himself to “be” before Abraham “was” (John 8:56), since he was the “mediator” (Gal 3:20) even before the Incarnation, πρὶν ἢ τὴν σάρκα ἀναλαβεῖν (Eusebius, Eccl. Theol. 2.21.1 [GCS 14:130]). The fragments of Marcellus are given two numbers, corresponding to Markus Vinzent, Die Frag- mente. Der Brief an Julius von Rom (Leiden: Brill, 1997) and the GCS critical edition: Eusebius Werke 4: Gegen Marcell. Über die kirchliche Theologie. Die Fragmente Marcells (GCS 14; 3rd edn; Heinrich Klostermann, revised by Günther Christian Hansen; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1991).

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM God Never Appeared to Moses 247 commentary;53 by contrast, the demotion of Moses plays no role in that debate and, in fact, seems to have been abandoned by the time Eusebius wrote his Church History.54

4.1 Anti-Jewish Polemics and the Demotion of Moses

The meticulous “demotion” of Moses by means of Scripture exegesis and the reference to the views of other unnamed interpreters55 suggests that Eusebius is attempting to counter an established Jewish tradition that affirmed Moses’ spiritual excellence as a tenet of faith, upheld by reference to passages such as Exodus 3, 6, 19, 33–4, and Numbers 12. It is perhaps not too far-fetched to see Eusebius as undermining the kind of “exalted Moses” traditions that scholars of Second Temple Judaism identify in writings such as the Exagoge of Moses, Philo’s Life of Moses, or the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum – especially since the Exagoge was well-known to Eusebius and, indeed, preserved only thanks to his extensive quotation. We would have, in other words, a faint echo (and reutilization) of earlier intra-Jewish polemics opposing the exalted patriarchs of the “Enochic” tradition (Melchizedek, Noah, and Enoch) to the exalted Moses.56

53 Procopius of Gaza’s Commentary (PG 87:524–5). 54 Nevertheless, Eusebius’ view of Moses as a less-than-ideal figure not devoid of certain limits and ambiguities, has interesting consequences for the interpretation of his analogy between Em- peror Constantine and Moses the prophet-king. Whether that analogy was actually introduced by Eusebius or by Constantine himself (with the Christian deftly exploiting the ambi- guity of the biblical character in order to establish certain limits to the new Christian leader’s propaganda), Eusebius entered the ring of with an already formed view of Moses as inferior to the patriarchs. For the discussion of the Moses-Constantine analogy, see Hollerich, “The Comparison of Moses and Constantine in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Life of Constantine,” SP 19 (1989): 80–5; Sabine Inowlocki, “Eusebius’s appropriation of Moses in an Apologetic Context,” in Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions, eds. A. Graupner and M. Wolter (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 241–55; Finn Damgaard, “Propaganda Against Propaganda: Re- visiting Eusebius’ Use of the Figure of Moses in the Life of Constantine,” in Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, eds. A. Johnson and J. Schott (Washington, DC and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), 115–32. 55 Eusebius, Eclogs 1.12, PG 22:1061 A, ὡς νομίσειέν τις; ὡς οἰηθείη ἄν τις. 56 See Andrei A. Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), esp. ch. 3: “Mosaic Polemics in 2 Enoch and Enoch-Metatron’s Title ‘Prince of the Face’” (254–303); “Exo- dus 33 On God’s Face: A Lesson From the Enochic Tradition,” SBLSP 39 (2000): 130–47; “In the Mirror of the Divine Face: The Enochic Features of the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian,” in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, eds. G. J. Brooke, H. Najman and L. T. Stuckenbruck (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 183–99; Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 3rd edn (London: T&T Clark, 2015), esp. ch. 3: “Exalted Patriarchs as Divine Agents” (53–72).

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM 248 Bogdan G. Bucur

In fact, rabbinic tradition­ also speaks about Moses as “a novice in prophecy” (so that God must make provisions for his spiritual limitation, by first using the voice of Moses’ father and only later revealing himself as the God of his father) and a novice in the interpretation of the Law (clearly overwhelmed by the mys- teries of his , which had remained veiled to him, but were being disclosed in Akiva’s classroom).57 Yet, perhaps Eusebius was targeting Jewish traditions that were simply assert- ing a spiritual primacy of the Jews over the Gentiles. I second here the observa- tions of Aaron Johnson:

Significantly, Eusebius overturns the biblical ordering, ‘first to the Jews, then to the nations,’ with the bold claim that God had first called the nations and only secondly the Jews, or “the circumcision” (540C): ‘For before there was Israel there were the nations, and it was to the nations first that the oracles of God and theophanies were given, when the Israelitic name was not yet even present among men. For Enoch, being uncircum- cised, was a gentile (ἐθνικός) [...] and Noah [...] was deemed worthy of receiving oracles from God, though he, too, was uncircumcised; and Melchizedek was more ancient than the people of the circumcision [...] and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were deemed worthy of oracles from God [...] And was an Idumean [...]’ (Commentary on Luke, 540CD). The nation of the Jews, on the other hand, feigned obedience to God, but were deemed

57 Exod Rab 3.1: “R. Joshua the priest, son of Nehemiah, said: ‘When God revealed Himself to Moses, Moses was a novice in prophecy; hence God thought’: ‘If I reveal Myself to him in a loud voice, I will terrify him, and if in a soft voice he will think lightly of prophecy.’ So what did He do? He revealed Himself in the voice of his father. Moses thereupon said: ‘Here am I; what does my father desire?’ Then God said: ‘I am not thy father, but THE GOD OF THY FA- THER; I have come unto thee gently so that thou be not afraid.’” See also, for the subordina- tion of Moses to Rabbi Akiva to personify the notion of Scripture woven into the sophisticated tapestry of later rabbinic interpretation, BT Men 29b: “Rav Yehuda quoted Rav: When Moses ascended to the heights [to receive the Torah] he found God sitting and drawing crowns upon the letters. Moses said to God, ‘Master of the Universe, what is staying Your hand [from giving me the Torah unadorned]?’ God replied, ‘There is a man who will arise many generations in the future, his name is Akiva ben Yosef. He will interpret mound upon mound of halachot (laws) from each and every marking.’ Moses requested, Master of the Universe, show him to me. God said, ‘Turn backwards [and you will see him].’ Moses [found himself in R. Akiva’s classroom where he] sat at the back of the eighth row. He didn’t understand what they were talking about and felt weak. Then, they came to a matter about which the students asked Akiva, Rabbi, how do you know this? He told them, ‘It is the [oral] law given to Moses at Sinai.’ Moses felt relieved. He returned to God and said, ‘Master of the Universe, you have a person like this and [still You choose to] give the Torah through my hands?’ God replied, ‘Silence! This is according to My plan.’”

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM God Never Appeared to Moses 249

unworthy of higher forms of revelation and ultimately rejected his fullest theophany (541AB).58

Placing Moses in the same category as the people of Israel, as spiritually inferior to the patriarchs, is part of Eusebius’ grand project of establishing the church as the heir of the spiritually advanced “Hebrews” of old59 – as opposed to the

58 Aaron P. Johnson, “The Ends of Transfiguration: Eusebius’ Commentary on Luke (PG 24.549),” in Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, eds. A. Johnson and J. Schott (Washington, DC and Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2013), 189–205, at 199, (capitaliza- tion in the original). 59 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.4.6, 10, 15 (SC 31:19, 20): “If the line be traced back from Abraham to the first man, anyone who should describe those who have obtained a good testimony for righteousness, as Christians in fact, if not in name would not shoot wide of the truth […] it is clearly necessary to consider that religion, which has lately been preached to all nations through the teaching of Christ, the first and most ancient of all religions, and the one discov- ered by those divinely favoured men in the age of Abraham […] What then should prevent the confession that we who are of Christ practice one and the same mode of life and have one and the same religion as those divinely favoured men of old? Whence it is evident that the perfect religion committed to us by the teaching of Christ is not new and strange, but, if the truth must be spoken, it is the first and the true religion.” Cf. Dem. Ev. 1.5 (PG 22:45 C; Ferrar 1.26: “If then the teaching of Christ has bidden all nations now to worship no other God but Him whom the men of old and the pre-Mosaic believed in, we are clearly partakers of the religion of these men of old time. And if we partake of their religion we shall surely share their blessing. Yes, and equally with us they knew and bore witness to the Word of God, Whom we love to call Christ. They were thought worthy in very remarkable ways of beholding His actual presence and theophany.” 60 According to Eusebius, the pure religion of the ante- and post-diluvian “Hebrews” (Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job) revealed by the divine Logos and plagiarized by all pagan wisdom, is neither Jewish nor Greek, but “the third form of religion [θεοσέβεια], midway be- tween Judaism and Hellenism” (Dem. ev. 1.2 [PG 22:25A; Ferrar 1.9]); those saintly “Hebrews” have no part in the Mosaic legislation – they do not keep the Sabbath, are not circumcised (this applies to Melchizedek, Noah, and Enoch), and do not distinguish clean from unclean food – and are declared to be “living a distinctly Christian rather than Jewish life” (PG 22:49; Ferrar 1.29). As such, the “Hebrews” offer the perfect pattern for Christianity, which is also “neither a form of Hellenism, nor of Judaism” but “a religion [θεοσέβεια] with its own characteristic stamp,” “nor new neither original,” but “of great antiquity” (Dem. Ev. 1.2 [PG 22:24A; Ferrar 1.7]). Oppossed to this spiritual filiation, Eusebius establishes a second one, inaugurated by Moses: the spiritual decay brought about by Israel’s slavery in Egypt made necessary the Mosaic legisla- tion, which was “a constitution adapted to their (low) moral condition:” this is the beginning of the Jewish nation and of the “Old Covenant.” See Eusebius, Prep Ev 7.8.37–41 (SC 215:196, 198); Dem ev 1.6.13–7 (PG 22:49–57; Ferrar 1.28–34). On Eusebius’ understanding of the term “old cov- enant” see his remarks at Dem ev 1.6 (PG 22:64B; Ferrar, 1.39): “Do not allow the covenant of the

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM 250 Bogdan G. Bucur

“nation of the Jews,” whose low spiritual condition determines the pedagogical limitation of the Mosaic Law as befitting weaklings and sinners.60 As for Moses himself, although he is “a Hebrew of Hebrews,”61 he is presented as “something of a lone Hebrew who had seen more of God than the Jewish nation but less than his ancestors.”62 Needless to say, this is a major departure from the biblical and post-biblical tradition in which Moses appears as, precisely, different and better than his contemporaries. Morlet states that the difference between the patriarchs and Moses reflects the “dichotomy between the Hebrews, who have seen the Word in person due to their spiritual perfection, and the Jews, who were incapable of seeing him other than through the intermediary of angels.”63 He believes, moreover, that Eusebius’ exploitation of theophanies, which provides “confirmation of the Jews’ spiritual inferiority to the Hebrews,” is an element of originality.64 What he does not clarify is whether casting Moses as a representative of the spiritually decadent Israel of the captivity is an original move on the part of Eusebius, or an element of received tradition. It transpires that a clear precedent in earlier tradition cannot be established. Despite lingering uncertainty, Eusebius appears to have proposed an original exegesis.

pre-Mosaic Saints to be called ‘the old covenant,’ but that which was given to the Jews by the Law of Moses.” On Eusebius’ use of “Hebrews” and “Jews,” and its relevance for casting Christianity as the only rightful continuation of divine revelation to Israel, see Aryeh Kofsky, “Eusebius of Caesarea and the Christian-Jewish Polemic,” in Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews, eds. O. Limor and G.G. Stroumsa (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 59–83; Jörg Ulrich, Euseb von Caesarea und die Juden: Studien zur Rolle der Juden in der Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 57–109; Andrew Jacobs, Remains of the Jews: The Holy Land and Christian Empire in (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), esp. 26–36; Aaron P. Johnson, “Ancestors as : The Lives of Hebrew Saints in Euse- bius’ ,” GRBS 44 (2004): 245–64 and Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica (Oxford: , 2006), 94–125 (“Rewriting Hebrew His- tory: The Descent of the Ancient Hebrews”). 61 Eusebius, Prep. Ev. 7.7.1 (SC 215:172). 62 Johnson, “The Ends of Transfiguration.” 63 Morlet, La Demonstration evangelique d’Eusebe, 447. 64 Morlet, La Demonstration evangelique d’Eusebe, 445. Cf. Sirinelli’s passing remark (Les vues historiques d’Eusèbe, 274) about the extensive argumentation for the inferiority of Moses as indi- cating that Eusebius was innovating on this point.

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM God Never Appeared to Moses 251

4.2 “The Angel Appeared, the Lord Spoke”

Eusebius’ disjunction between the visual and the auditory facets of the theopha- nies on Sinai, and the corresponding disjunction between divine presence and angelic vision, recall earlier Christian writings. One may think, perhaps, of the reading set forth by Trypho, Justin’s Jewish opponent in the Dialogue, who ini- tially posits the presence of God and the angel at the burning bush, and even- tually concedes that a single subject was present at the theophanies at Mamre, Peniel and the burning bush – an undefined agent, whom Trypho even accepts to call “God,” distinct from the supreme God.65 However, for Trypho, the agent “is called and perceived to be an angel of God the Creator of all” (Dial 60.3); while for Justin he “is called an angel, and is God” (Dial 60.4). In short, both see the the- ophanies as manifestations of an agent that is distinct (in number not will) from the supreme deity; but Trypho’s second power is angelic even though it may be called “God,” while Justin’s is divine and angelomorphic. Eusebius seems to echo Trypho’s initial disjunction between the divine and the angelic entities, but his insistence on the angel as a mode of veiling what is, undeniably, a Christophany, shows him to be closer to Justin’s interpretation in this regard. These parallels are unconvincing, however, as, unlike Eusebius, Justin equates the angel straight- forwardly with the Logos and does not view Moses as inferior to the patriarchs. The mystagogical and iconic reality of the angel is expressed beautifully by Origen, who states that “he who comes before an angel also sees God through an angel [δι’ ἀγγέλου],” so that “God was there in the angel being contemplated [ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῷ ἀγγέλῳ θεωρούμενος].”66 But Eusebius differs from the great

65 Justin, Dial. 60.1, 3 (Bobichon, 344): [Trypho speaking]: “it was an angel who appeared in the flame of fire, but God who conversed with Moses; so that there were really two persons in compa- ny with each other, an angel and God, that appeared in that vision […] the God who communed with Moses from the bush was not the Maker of all things, but He who has been shown to have manifested Himself to Abraham and to Isaac and to Jacob; who also is called and is perceived to be the Angel of God the Maker of all things, because He publishes to men the commands of the Father and Maker of all things.” 66 See Origen, Hom. Jer. 16.3–4 (SC 238:138; FaC 97:169–70): “just as he has an opening through which is observed the back of God” so also “you will see the Law through Moses, and through Isaiah his prophecy, and through Jeremiah other words of God,” and so is also Zechariah’s “the angel who speaks in me” (Zech 4:1) to be understood as “I see God in an angelic way” [βλέπω ἀγγελικῶς τὸν θεὸν]. This is applicable to the burning bush scene, where “he who comes before an angel also sees God through an angel [δι’ ἀγγέλου] […] Thus God was there in the angel being contemplated [ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῷ ἀγγέλῳ θεωρούμενος], as God is known through the rock and the opening which is in it.”

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM 252 Bogdan G. Bucur

Alexandrian in that he grants real and independent existence to the “angel” men- tioned in Exod 3:2.67 Needless to say, Origen does not compare Moses unfavorably to the patriarchs.68 also knows (perhaps by reading Eusebius) that the sacred text might impose a distinction between the visual and the auditory com- ponents of the theophany, and that the visual component is likely brought about through the mediation of an angelic presence:

But if at any time, when the Angel was seen, he who saw it heard God’s voice, as took place at the bush … [it was that] in the Angel God spoke. And what was seen was an Angel; but God spoke in him.69

As one would expect, Athanasius applies all necessary theological controls, in order to ultimately identify the “angel” as the Son/ Logos (called “angel” for his

67 There is more similarity with Eusebius’ much younger contemporary, Ephrem of Nisibis, who envisions Moses being at first drawn in by an angelic manifestation, then addressed by God, and eventually subjected to an overwhelming vision of God by means of the angel. See Ephrem, Com- mentary on Exodus 3.1: “When Moses went to look at the bush that the fire did not consume, and as he approached, a simple vision of an angel appeared to him. As he came [closer], it was not the angel that [first] appeared to him that addressed him, but God who later appeared to him by means of an angel in an awesome vision, and said to him: Do not approach this spot as you would some common place. This is a holy place […] on account of God who dwells in the fire that burns in the bush […] Up to this point Moses proceeded without fear. But when he saw a sight that was more than his eyes [could bear], he hid his face out of fear of looking at God the way he looked at the angel” (CSCO 152/153: 129; trans. E.G. Matthews, Jr. and J. P. Amar in FaCh 91:231). of Cyrus, Qu. Exod. 5 (LEC 1:226). Interestingly, Theodoret of Cyrus is the first writer to note the view of “some” that an angel appeared to Moses in the bush; in his own estimation, the entire context (ὅλον δὲ τὸ χωρίον) indicates to him that Moses’ interlocutor was the Only-Begotten Son. Theodoret takes “angel” as a designation of the distinct πρόσωπον of the Son (via “angel of great counsel,” Isa 9:5), while “I am who I am” and “God” indicate his divine οὐσία. 68 Pace Doerfler (“Trinity Unawares,” 488 n. 5), who suggests that “[a] similar emphasis on Abraham as the primordial Jew, superseding Moses, can be found in other apologetic literature from the early Christian era” in Origen’s 1.22. That text, however, while emphasiz- ing Abraham’s universal reputation for holiness, does not compare the two biblical characters. See Origen’s Contra Celsum 1.22 (SC 132:132, tr. ANF): “And it is not Moses alone who mentions the name of Abraham, assigning to him great intimacy with God (οἰκειῶν αὐτὸν θεῷ); but many also of those who give themselves to the practice of the conjuration of evil spirits, employ in their spells the expression God of Abraham, pointing out by the very name the friendship (that existed) between that just man and God (τὴν πρὸς τὸν δίκαιον τοῦ θεοῦ οἰκειότητα). And yet, while making use of the phrase ‘God of Abraham,’ they do not know who Abraham is! And the same remark applies to Isaac, and Jacob, and Israel; which names, although confessedly He- brew, are frequently introduced by those Egyptians who profess to produce some wonderful re- sult by means of their knowledge.” 69 Athanasius, CA 3.25.14 (Athanasius Werke I.1, 3:322; trans. NPNF).

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM God Never Appeared to Moses 253 role in revealing and announcing the Father70) and affirm his status not as an instrument of God, but God’s very own expression.71 Among the later fourth-century writers, it is Eunomius who sounds remark- ably like Eusebius in his exegesis of Exodus 3. Of course, he moves the Eusebian reading of the passage in the opposite direction of Athanasius: “The one that sent Moses was He Who Is, while the one through whom he sent and spoke, is the angel of Him Who Is.”72

5 Conclusion

Eusebius of Caesarea’s exegesis of the burning bush theophany adds a distinct voice to the rich chorus of Jewish and Christian interpreters of this famous bib- lical text. This writer posits a disjunction between the visual and the auditory aspects of the theophany, arguing that the angel appears, while the Lord speaks to Moses; and he demotes the figure of the prophet by insisting that his spiritual attunement to God ranked much lower than that of the patriarchs of old. It is difficult to find an entirely satisfactory term of comparison for this exege- sis of the burning bush. It is clear that Eusebius stands in clear continuity with earlier exegetical tradition: he generally views theophanies as christophanies, unsurprisingly so, since, to quote Morlet, he is “the last representative of pre- Nicene theology,” and echoes Origen’s view about the mystagogical and iconic function of biblical “angels.” Nevertheless, granting real and independent

70 See Athanasius’ remarks, just a few lines earlier, about Jacob’s prayer for his grandsons (Gen 48:16, ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ ρυόμενός με ἐκ πάντων τῶν κακῶν εὐλογήσαι τὰ παιδία ταῦτα): “But if it belong to none other than God to bless and to deliver, and none other was the deliverer of Jacob than the Lord Himself, and Him that delivered him the Patriarch besought for his grandsons, evidently none other did he join to God in his prayer than God’s Word, whom therefore he called Angel because it is He alone who reveals the Father.” (Athanasius, CA 3.25.13 [AW I.1, 3:322; trans. NPNF], emphasis added). 71 Athanasius, CA 3.25.14 (AW I.1, 3:322–23; trans. NPNF): “… But what God speaks, it is very plain He speaks through the Word, and not through another. And the Word, as being not sepa- rate from the Father, nor unlike and foreign to the Father’s Essence, what He works, those are the Father’s works […] And he who hears the Word, knows that he hears the Father; as he who is irradiated by the radiance, knows that he is enlightened by the sun.” 72 Cited in , Eun 3.9.32 (GNO 2:276, trans. S.G. Hall, 210). Cf. Eun 3.9.34 (GNO 2:276; trans. S.G. Hall 211): “He [Christ] is one of the angels.” Greek text and English translation in Gregory of Nyssa: Contra Eunomium III. An English Translation with Commentary and Support- ing Studies. Proceedings of the 12th International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa (Leuven, 14–17 September 2010), eds. Johan Leemans and Matthieu Cassin (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 42–233.

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM 254 Bogdan G. Bucur existence to the “angel” mentioned in Exod 3:2 differentiates Eusebius from his predecessors. The similarities with Eunomius and, especially, Ephrem of Nisibis require further analysis, which falls outside the scope of this article. Eusebius’ interpretation of theophanies is clearly different from that of Augustine: the bishop of Hippo denied the real presence of the Logos in theopha- nies, and settled, at the mature stage of his reflection, on the notion of theopha- nies as created manifestations of the Trinity. For Eusebius, by contrast, even if the Sinai theophanies are mediated by angelic visual manifestation, that vision [optasia] conveys a real presence [parousia] of the Logos. The exegesis of Exodus 3 is merely one aspect of Eusebius’ views about Moses as spiritually inferior to the patriarchs, which is, in turn, an integral part of Euse- bius’ grand apology designed to carve out a space for the Church as triton genos, superior to the synagogue and more legitimately heir to the patriarchs. Still, the very daring “demotion” of Moses, in defiance of established Jewish and Christian tradition about the incomparable “prophet king,”73 remains puzzling. Perhaps this puzzlement is a measure of the misguided but still prevailing assumption about Eusebius as a dutiful compiler of traditions, but mediocre and unoriginal theologian. It may be time to discard this assumption and read the (unfortunately under-studied) Prophetic Extracts and Proof of the Gospel with heightened expectations. Eusebius’ original exegesis should enrich the scholarly account of the Wirkungsgeschichte of Exodus 3.

Works Cited

Primary Sources

Athanasius Werke. 1998. Band I/Teil 1: Die Dogmatischen Schriften. Lfg. 1: Orationes I et II contra Arianos, edited by Karin Metzler, Dirk U. Hansen, and Kyriakos Savvidis. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum commentarii, edited by Raymond Tonneau. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 152–153/Scriptores Syri 71–72. Louvain: Durbecq, 1955. St. , Selected Prose Works: Commentary on Genesis, Commentary on Exodus, Homily on Our Lord, Letter to Publius, translated by Edward G. Matthews, Jr. and Joseph P. Amar. The Fathers of the Church 91. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1994.

73 I am borrowing the phrase from Wayne Meeks, The Prophet King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Leiden: Brill, 1967).

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM God Never Appeared to Moses 255

Eusebius of Caesarea. 1920. The Proof of the Gospel, Being the Demonstration Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea. 2 vols. translated by, W. J. Ferrar. London: SPCK/ New York: Macmillan. Eusebius of Caesarea. Life of Constantine, trans. and Stuart G. Hall. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Eusebius Werke 4: Gegen Marcell. 1991. Über die kirchliche Theologie. Die Fragmente Marcells, edited by Heinrich Klostermann, revised by Günther Christian Hansen. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 14. 3rd ed. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Eusebius Werke 9. 1975. Der. Jesajakommentar, edited by Joseph Ziegler. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 55. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique I-IV. Critical edition and French translation by Gustave Bardy. Sources chrétiennes 31. Paris: Cerf, 1952. Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentary on Isaiah. Translated with an introduction and notes by Jonathan J. Armstrongm, edited by Joel C. Elowsky (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015). Eusebius of Caesarea, Prophetic Extracts. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca 22: 1021–1262. Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentary on the . Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca 23. Eusèbe de Césarée, Vie de Constantin. Critical edition and French translation by Marie-Josèphe Rondeau. Sources chrétiennes 559. Paris: Cerf, 2013. Gregory of Nyssa: Contra Eunomium III. An English Translation with Commentary and Supporting Studies. Proceedings of the 12th International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa (Leuven, 14–17 September 2010), edited by Johan Leemans and Matthieu Cassin. Leiden: Brill, 2014). Martyr, Justin. 2003a. Justin Martyr: Dialogue avec Tryphon, edited and translated by Philippe Bobichon. Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg. Martyr, Justin. 2003b. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls, revised and with a new Introduction by Thomas P. Halton, edited by Michael Slusser. Washington, DC: CUA Press. von Ankyra, Markell. 1997. Die Fragmente. Der Brief an Julius von Rom. edited by Markus Vinzent. Leiden: Brill. Origène. 1967. Contre Celse I, edited and translated by Marcel Borret. Sources chrétiennes 132. Paris: Cerf. Origene. 1977. Homelies sur Jeremie XII-XX et Homelies latines, index, tome II. edited by Pierre and Pierre Husson. Paris: Cerf. Theodoret of Cyrus. 2007. The Questions on the Octateuch, translated by Robert C. Hill. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.

Secondary Literature

Aeby, Gervais. 1958. Les missions divines de saint Justin à Origène. Fribourg: Éditions Univer- sitaires. Barnes, Michel René. 1999. “Exegesis and Polemic in Augustine’s De Trinitate I.” Augustinian Studies 30: 43–60.

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM 256 Bogdan G. Bucur

Brooke, George J., Hindy Najman, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. 2008. The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity. Leiden: Brill. Bucur, Bogdan G. 2018. “Ὁ ὤν εὐλογητὸς Χριστὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν: Observations on the Early Christian Interpretation of the Burning Bush Scene.” Judaïsme Ancien/ Ancient Judaism 6, forthcoming. Bucur, Bogdan G. 2015. “The Early Christian Reception of Genesis 18: From Theophany to Trinitarian Symbolism.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 23: 245–272. Bucur, Bogdan G. 2014. “Justin Martyr’s Exegesis of Biblical Theophanies and the Parting of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism.” Theological Studies 75: 34–51. Bucur, Bogdan G. 2014. “Clement of Alexandria’s Exegesis of Old Testament Theophanies.” Phronema 29: 63–81. Bucur, Bogdan G. 2014. “I Saw The Lord: Observations on the Early Christian Reception of Isaiah 6.” Pro Ecclesia 23: 309–330. de Libera, Alain and Emilie Zum Brunn, eds. Celui qui est: Interprétations juives et chrétiennes d’Exode 3:14. Paris: Cerf, 1986. Doerfler, Marie E. “Entertaining the Trinity Unawares: Genesis XVIII in Western Christian Interpretation.” Journal Ecclesiastical History 65 (2014): 485–503. Frazer, Margaret English. “A Syncretistic Pilgrim’s Mould from Mamre(?).” Gesta 18 (1979): 137–145. Graupner, Axel and Michael Wolter, eds. Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Michael, Hollerich. “The Comparison of Moses and Constantine in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Life of Constantine.” Studia Patristica 19 (1989): 80–85. Meeks, Wayne. The Prophet King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Hayoun, Maurice R., Ora Limor, Guy G. Stroumsa, eds. 1996. Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Hurtado, Larry W. 2015. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. London: T&T Clark. Jacobs, Andrew. 2004. Remains of the Jews: The Holy Land and Christian Empire in Late Antiquity. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Johnson, Aaron P. 2006. Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johnson, Aaron P. 2004. “Ancestors as Icons: The Lives of Hebrew Saints in Eusebius.’ Praeparatio Evangelica,” GRBS 44: 245–264. Johnson, Aaron and Jeremy Schott. 2013. Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations. Washington, DC and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kloos, Kari. 2011. Christ, Creation, and the Vision of God: Augustine’s Transformation of Early Christian Theophany Interpretation. Leiden: Brill. Kofsky, Arieh. 2002. Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism. Leiden: Brill. Kominiak, Benedict. 1948. The Theophanies of the Old Testament in the Writings of St. Justin. Washington, DC: CUA Press. Lebreton, Jules. 1931. “Saint Augustin, théologien de la Trinité: Son exégèse des théophanies.” Miscellanea Augustiniana 2: 821–836. Legeay, Georges. 1902. “L’Ange et les theophanies dans l’Ecriture Sainte d’apres la doctrine des Peres.” Revue Thomiste 10: 138–58, 405–24; 11 (1903): 46–69, 125–54. Morlet, Sébastien. 2009. La ’Démonstration évangélique’ d’Eusèbe de Césarée: Étude sur l’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin. Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes.

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM God Never Appeared to Moses 257

Morlet, Sébastien. 2014. “Mentions et interprétations du tétragramme chez Eusèbe de Césarée.” Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 60: 213–252. Oeyen, Christian. 1972. “Die Lehre von den göttlichen Kräften bei Justin.” Studia Patristica 11: 214–221. Orlov, Andrei A. 2005. The Enoch-Metatron Tradition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Orlov, Andrei A. 2000. “Exodus 33 On God’s Face: A Lesson from the Enochic Tradition.” Society for Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 39: 130–147. Simonetti, Manlio. 1975. La crisi ariana nel IV secolo. Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum. Sirinelli, Jean. 1961. Les vues historiques d’Eusèbe de Césarée durant la période prénicéenne. Dakar: Mâcon. Studer, Basil. 1971. Zur Theophanie-Exegese Augustins: Untersuchung zu einem Ambrosius- Zitat in der Schrift ‘De Videndo Deo.’ Rome: Herder. Ulrich, Jörg. 1999. Euseb von Caesarea und die Juden: Studien zur Rolle der Juden in der Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea. Berlin: de Gruyter. van der Lof, Laurens Johan. 1964. “L’exégèse exacte et objective des théophanies de l’Ancien Testament dans le ’De Trinitate.” Augustiniana 14: 485–499. van Kooten, George H., ed. 2006. The Revelation of the Name YHWH to Moses: Perspectives from Judaism, the Pagan Graeco-Roman World, and Early Christianity. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Vignaux, Paul, ed. 1978. Dieu et l’être: Exégèses d’Exodus 3,14 et de Coran 20, 11–24. Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes.

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/9/18 5:10 AM