12. New Perspectives on Eusebius’ Questions and Answers on the Gospels: The Manuscripts [1]

Claudio Zamagni
Eusebius wrote a large number of works; each of them would probably have been enough to make him one of the major Christian authors of his time. Among his less famous works stand the Questions and Answers on the Gospels, [2] an innovation in Christian literature—a sort of compendium of exegesis concerning different controversial passages of the Gospels.
This work consisted exclusively of a series of questions and answers, and was divided into two parts. The first was devoted to difficulties concerning Jesus’ genealogies according to Matthew and Luke and other related topics. This first part had probably fifteen questions, [3] was composed of two books, and was dedicated to a certain Stephanos, who is presented as having asked the questions which Eusebius answers. The second part, probably in a single book, is also dedicated to another unknown figure, named Marinos, who is also supposed to have asked a set of questions. The questions in the second part totaled more than four and concern the resurrection of Jesus and the events that follow it, such as the manifestations of angels at Jesus’ grave and the appearances of the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem or elsewhere. The two parts circulated in antiquity separately, [4] which indicates that they were possibly composed at different times, although the unity of the work is assured by the preface dedicated to Marinos. Concerning the date of composition, we can assume that at least the first part of the book to Stephanos was composed in the same period as the Demonstration of the Gospel (before 320), as both the Questions and the Demonstration contain explicit cross references. [5]
One can easily get an idea of the content of Eusebius’ text by considering four of the questions of Marinos that Eusebius answered (translation by David J. D. Miller, slightly modified): [6]
How is it that the Savior’s resurrection evidently took place, in Matthew, “late on the Sabbath” (Mt 28:1), but in Mark, “early in the morning on the first day of the week” (Mk 16:2)?
How is it that the Magdalene, who according to Matthew had witnessed the resurrection “late on the Sabbath” (Mt 28:1) is, according to John, the very person who stands at the tomb in tears “on the first day of the week” (Jn 20:1, 11)?
How is it that the same Magdalene who has, according to Matthew, touched the Savior’s feet with the other Mary, “late on the Sabbath” (Mt 28:1), is told “do not touch me” (Jn 20:17) early in the morning on the first day of the week, according to John?
How is it that in Matthew Mary of Magdala, with the other Mary, has seen one angel outside the tomb, sitting on the stone of the tomb (Mt 28:1–2), and how, according to John, does Mary of Magdala see two angels, sitting inside the tomb (Jn 20:11–12); but according to Luke it was two men that appeared to the women (Lk 24:1–4), and according to Mark it was a young man that was seen by them—Mary of Magdala, James’ Mary, and Salome—sitting to the right of the tomb (Mk 16:1–5)?
As one can clearly see, it is quite possible to locate these kinds of questions on the Gospels within the context of anti-Christian polemic, because their content mirrors the criticisms made by the philosopher Porphyry against Christian Scriptures not many years before Eusebius wrote his questions. [7] It has even been argued by Pierre de Labriolle and others that the questions proposed by Eusebius were asked in a polemical context. [8] This is certainly not true, for many reasons. For example, many of the questions had already been discussed among Christians for centuries, and the two people supposed to have asked the questions, Stephanos and Marinos, are clearly Christians, as we learn from the epilogue to the first part and from the preface of the second part. Furthermore, Eusebius sometimes proposes open answers, or answers that contradict each other, and certainly such a habit does not seem appropriate in a controversial context. The questions of Eusebius are certainly not an apologetic text in themselves, although much of their content could have been of some utility in responding to anti-Christian polemics. [9]
The genre of the book was new among Christian texts, but was not new in itself. Since the beginnings of the Hellenistic period, and in the first centuries of our era, books written as a collection of questions-and-answers were relatively common. But, although the scheme of question-and-answer literature is plain, we lack a clear comprehension of this genre in antiquity. This is partly because we do not have many relevant examples of this genre earlier than the Questions and Answers on the Gospels by Eusebius. But it is also because the definition of this genre is somewhat unclear in most of the secondary literature. Gustave Bardy, for example, considers even texts that clearly belong to other well-defined literary genres, like epistles or commentaries, as pertaining to this genre as long as these texts use a question-and-answer scheme in at least one of their sections. [10] In such cases, I prefer to consider the question-and-answer scheme simply as a rhetorical tool. That is why we need to differentiate between a literary genre and a literary pattern (or literary format, procedure). [11] In other words, for practical reasons, and on a purely formal basis, we can find and recognize the pattern of a question (and its answer) in any kind of text, but only the works composed exclusively of a collection of questions-and-answers should be considered as pertaining to the literary genre of questions-and-answers.
The book of Eusebius is one of the first true specimens of this genre that we possess. It is also one of the more studied; yet, we still lack a complete comprehension of its cultural setting, of its transmission and influence, and—most of all, of course—we lack a global explanation for its context. After Eusebius, this genre had an immediate impact in Christian literature of the fourth and fifth centuries, and the work of Eusebius had an important impact among the Christian writers of that period. [12] We find that many of the questions asked by Eusebius, as well as the content of his answers, can be found within many other Christian texts, both Greek and Latin. We find the content of his questions in very different works, such as the letters of Jerome, the homilies of Ambrose of Milan, works of John Chrysostom, and collections in Syriac, Coptic, Arabic and Ethiopic. [13]
In the centuries that follow, the questions-and-answer genre becomes a way for Christians to express their attempts to define themselves and their relationships with others—heretics or pagans—in a process of religious and philosophical interaction that lasted for centuries. This is why we have many question-and-answer books coming from ancient and medieval Christian authors. [14] This is not, however, the case for the classical and Hellenistic question-and-answer texts that inspired our Christian examples. [15]
I would argue that one of the reasons for the success of Eusebius’ Questions lies in the way they have been written, much more than in the collection’s innovative form. In his questions, Eusebius tries to consider all the sources available to him in his rich library. He works as if he were trying to prepare for each question a complete status quaestionis that considered all possible questions and solutions involved, as long as they had been discussed by earlier authors. His major point of reference is obviously Origen, although he is far from being Eusebius’ only influence. Only in the second place does he try to sum up all his findings, eventually also proposing his new explanation to the given question. This method is not so distant from the way in which Eusebius writes his better known and more complex works, like the Ecclesiastical History or the Preparation of the Gospel, in which he always tries to be as complete as possible, tends to use the greatest number of sources available to him in the library of Caesarea, tries to compare different versions of each single episode, or in our case all the exegeses made on the passage at hand. [16]
Eusebius probably worked by making card-files based upon his lectures, eventually also using copyists and secretaries to prepare his final draft, based on these card-files. In any case, he usually does not take a precise position on a question, except when he is sure of his evidence or is willing to demonstrate something that is for him a theological truth. [17] He probably knew that there is no “objective” historian, nor an “objective” exegete, at least in the sense that history and exegesis are “interpretations” of raw data and, because of this, they are always susceptible to corrections and adjustments and open to new explanations. In this sense, Eusebius is very different from Origen and much more a “literalist,” not only because his interests were not mainly devoted to allegory, but because they were especially devoted to documents and to their interpretation. Eusebius seems generally to prefer literal exegesis, but his version of literal exegesis is enhanced by his broad cultural interests and by his great erudition. [18] Although they contain very few explicit quotations, Eusebius’ Questions are still written in a complex dialogue with the exegetical tradition of the past centuries on the same topics. The Questions only seem a very simple and not at all erudite text. And, in this sense, the library of Caesarea certainly represents the condition that has made the Questions possible, which is of course also true for most of his other works. [19]
The Questions of Eusebius are unfortunately lost in their original form, but there are two main Greek textual traditions that retain parts of Eusebius’ lost work. There is a shortened Greek form, containing twenty questions-and-answers, the ekloge (selection, choice), as it is titled. This shortened form exists in a single manuscript (Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 220), which was edited by Angelo Mai in 1825. [20] Then we have many Greek fragments in the Catena on Luke by Nicetas of Herakleia (eleventh century). [21] These two traditions partly cover the same sections of the text, but each one also has its own sections. This demonstrates that both come directly from the original lost text, and that both are equally important to its reconstruction. The texts from the Catena on Luke by Nicetas were published in 1847 by Angelo Mai, and their edition is based on a single manuscript (Vaticanus Graecus 1611). [22]
Besides these two main Greek traditions, there are also other Greek fragments. The majority of those available were also published by Angelo Mai in 1825 and 1847. In his first edition of 1825, Mai published what is essentially the shortened text of the ekloge, followed by some minor fragments in Greek, both of which come primarily from exegetical catenae or from unpublished manuscripts that he could read directly in the Vatican Library where he worked, for a total of nineteen Greek fragments and a single fragment in a Latin translation. [23] This first edition has an introduction that also collects indirect evidence on the Eusebian questions (testimonia). [24] In his second edition, Mai offers again the ekloge, together with a larger section of fragments, including some very long sections of the text, that derive mainly from the Catena on Luke by Nicetas of Herakleia. In his first edition, the ekloge represented more than 80 percent of the published text; in his second only some 50 percent of the text is occupied by the ekloge. This is due to the fact that a great number of fragments had arisen from the Catena by Nicetas, wherein Mai identifies a total of twenty-three new fragments (his numbering is questionable, but it remains a widespread reference). [25] Some of these fragments are of the utmost importance, as many of them preserve parts of the original text that are not reproduced in the ekloge or elsewhere. Mai also added seven other new Greek fragments that derive from minor textual traditions. [26]
Nevertheless, in his second edition Mai omitted nine fragments he had published in his first edition: two fragments from the questions to Stephanos (including the fragment in Latin translation), [27] five from the questions to Marinos, [28] and two other fragments that were reproduced in a footnote to his first edition. [29] Mai also left out a quotation of Eusebius’ text reproduced in the Questions of Anastasius of Sinai (seventh century), [30] but adds other quotations that come from the same Anastasius and other authors, [31] as well as a very large section of Latin fragments that are nothing more than testimonia from Ambrose of Milan (Sermons on Luke) and from Jerome (Commentary on Matthew). [32]
All the fragments that Mai omits in his second edition are discarded because the new ones he identifies and publishes cover the same parts of Eusebius’ original text, but in a more complete form. This shows that the intention of Mai in publishing his second edition was not to provide all the evidence available, but to offer instead only the fragments that were most likely to complete the text of the ekloge, avoiding any duplication as far as possible. [33] Excluding Nicetas, the total number of Greek fragments Mai edited in his two editions is twenty-seven fragments. Other Greek fragments, however, have been found in other sources published after Mai’s editions, especially the eight fragments from the catenae on the Gospels edited by John Cramer, [34] another transmitted in a letter of Isidore of Pelusium (or, perhaps better, together with it), [35] and another partially published from a Venice manuscript by Christophe Guignard. [36] Besides Nicetas, the total number of known published fragments is thus at least thirty-seven. As in the case of Nicetas’ fragments, we still lack a critical edition for these fragments, and many other Greek fragments probably remain in unpublished manuscripts. Certainly, from what we can determine, these Greek fragments seem less important for the reconstruction of the original lost text than the textual remains in Nicetas’ catena or in the ekloge, but a complete study of their text is required in order to provide an edition of the Questions prepared according to modern standards.
In his second edition, Mai also reported the existence of a Syriac version, providing an edition of two “questions” in Syriac. [37] The Syriac textual tradition has since been studied and published by Gerhard Beyer between 1925 and 1927. [38] The results of his study show that, rather than a plain version of Eusebius’ text, there were two different Syriac translations. The best known version is a resumed translation, partially edited by Mai (ms. Vaticanus Syriacus 103); it is an appendix to the catena on the Gospels by Severus of Antioch, to be dated between the end of the seventh and the beginnings of the eighth century. Among the indirect testimonia, George of Beelthan (eighth century) witnesses a second, more ancient and literal Syriac translation, to be dated to the fifth century (ms. Vaticanus Syriacus 154). [39]
Other indirect and less important textual traditions have been found in Coptic (Bohairic), Arabic, and Ethiopic translations that derive from a Greek catena or, perhaps, from a monophysite dogmatic florilegium; this text, to be dated from the sixth or seventh century, was once considered written in Egypt, but it is more likely to have come from the Palestinian (perhaps Antiochian) region. [40] The Coptic translation was published in 1886 by Paul de Lagarde (born Paul Boetticher) using a Robert Curzon manuscript now at the British Library (Orientalis 8812). [41] This Coptic tradition seems to contain three fragments that come from the Questions of Eusebius. [42]
The Arabic version seems to be translated from Coptic, but from a slightly different textual tradition of the text; for example, among the extracts concerning Matthew’s Gospel, the Arabic has five extracts of Eusebius, two of which are not in the Coptic, while the Curzon manuscript has just four extracts, one of which is not in the Arabic. There is a partial critical edition of this Arabic version, covering the texts on Matthew’s Gospel, published in 1969 by Francisco Caubet Iturbe using nine manuscripts divided into three families. [43] In the introduction to the translation, Caubet Iturbe correctly indicates that two of the five passages attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea came from his Questions. [44] In the unpublished part of this Arabic version, there should be at least another fragment of Eusebius’ work. [45]
The Ethiopic version is translated from Arabic, but no recent study of it has been undertaken since its identification by Hermann Zotenberg in the Catalogue of the French National Library of 1877. [46] Of course, there are also dozens, if not hundreds, of indirect testimonia of Eusebius’ Questions in many other authors, many of them already indicated by Mai. [47]
As a first step toward a complete critical edition, I have started a new search of Greek manuscripts. My research has not been limited to the catalogs of Greek manuscripts, but also extended to the Latin manuscripts and those in other ancient languages containing indices of authors, works, and biblical passages. Consulting the catalogs of Greek manuscripts was simplified by the use of the latest available edition of the classic guide of Marcel Richard, [48] whose references have been almost completely verified in the collection of the Greek section of the Institut de Recherche et Histoire des Textes in Paris, where I also searched the Pinakes database of the Greek Index Project, originally created by the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies at Toronto and now freely available online. [49] For manuscripts in other languages ​​(as well as for catalogs missing at the I.R.H.T.), I have used the collections of catalogs available at the Library of Lausanne, at the Library of Geneva, as well as the catalogs available at the Vatican Apostolic Library in Rome. This research was carried out mainly between 1998 and 2000 (although it is still in progress), and was primarily intended to search for other manuscripts of the ekloge, or for a complete copy of Eusebius’ Questions, which was reported to be in Sicily in a letter by Latino Latini written 1563 and quoted by Mai. [50] Unfortunately, I have found no trace of a complete manuscript of the Questions, nor of another copy of the ekloge, but I nevertheless found many manuscripts containing parts or fragments of Eusebius’ Questions. [51]
As for the catena of Nicetas on Luke, this research has identified a total of thirty-seven manuscripts, only some of which have been studied so far. The edition that Angelo Mai published in 1847 remains the only available edition and was made using a single manuscript (Vaticanus Graecus 1611). In 1902 Joseph Sickenberger studied a total of eighteen manuscripts of this catena and demonstrated that this is one of the best manuscripts available, [52] at least among the manuscripts he studied. This would not, however, exempt us from a study of all the known manuscripts, especially since, even according to Sickenberger’s study, the manuscript used by Mai does not represent the only textual tradition of the catena. [53]
Concerning the other Greek fragmentary traditions that are not in Nicetas’ catena, the results are even more challenging. [54] I have prepared a comprehensive list of Greek manuscripts containing (or probably containing) one or more fragments of Eusebius’ Questions. The list identifies sixty-one Greek manuscripts that are likely to contain parts of this text (only a further study of these manuscripts will permit us to refine such a number). The number of manuscripts thus identified suggests that this fragmentary Greek tradition may contain something more than the thirty-seven fragments that have been hitherto printed, [55] although many manuscripts often contain the same questions. In any case, no direct study has ever been undertaken on these manuscripts.
During the making of this inventory, I have prepared a list of manuscripts containing unidentified fragments of Eusebius. There are a total of 146 manuscripts (mostly Latin) that should contain fragments taken from the works of Eusebius, but that the printed catalogues do not define more precisely. It is rather usual that catalogues, especially the oldest, merely state the authors of the texts in describing collections of miscellaneous works, sometimes with a very brief note on the fragment’s content, without trying to identify its original source, nor giving an exact number of folios. Of course, it is likely that these fragments derive from other and better known works of Eusebius; in many cases, especially in the case of Latin texts, I also suspect that these extracts may come from another homonymous author.
Concerning traditions in other ancient languages, we already know of a total of five manuscripts containing different traditions of Eusebius’ questions in Syriac, published partly by Mai in 1847 and partly by Beyer between 1925 and 1927. [56] The research for new Syriac witnesses has brought me to a total of ten manuscripts possibly containing remains of Eusebius’ Questions. Although I have checked all catalogs of manuscripts in other ancient languages (mainly at the Vatican Library), I spotted only a Coptic manuscript hitherto unknown, but no new Arabic or Ethiopic manuscript of the so-called monophysite dogmatic florilegium published by De Lagarde and Caubet Iturbe. [57]
This inventory is intended as a provisional list of manuscripts, and certainly much in the list remains to be checked and verified. In preparing this catalog, I tried to be as complete as possible concerning the reported manuscripts, listing each manuscript, the description of its content vis à vis Eusebius, and, originally, the bibliographical references to the catalogs (or to other sources) examined. [58] This explains, though certainly does not excuse, the lack of some technical data on the manuscripts, as well as many inconsistencies in the way of indicating the manuscripts themselves. [59]
To get a complete critical edition of this Eusebian text, we must study all these manuscripts and all the different textual traditions they embody. This is of course a very challenging task, and obviously not a task for a single scholar. We should in any case carefully study the catena on Luke by Nicetas, which contains very interesting passages that have no corresponding passages in the ekloge, especially for the questions to Marinos. And the yet-unpublished Greek fragments? May they also contain some new sections of this lost work of Eusebius? To answer this simple question, much work still has to be done.

I. Manuscript of the ekloge

  1. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. Gr. 220 (parch.; X), fol. 61–96.

II. Manuscripts of the catena on Luke by Nicetas of Herakleia

  1. Athos, Vatopedi, 457.
  2. Athos, Vatopedi, 529 (XIV), fol. 30r–122v.
  3. Athos, Vatopedi, 530 (XII), 1–585v.
  4. Athos, Dionysiou, 377 (n. 3911; paper; XVII).
  5. Athos, Iviron, 371 (n. 4491; fol. 1–409: parch.; XIII; fol. 410–626: paper; a. 1576), 1–626.
  6. Athos, Iviron, 1439 (XIII), fol. 1–8.
  7. Bruxelles, Bibliothèque Royale Albert I, I.8232–33 (n. 3337; XVII), fol. 271–272.
  8. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 759 (paper; XIV), fol. IV.264.
  9. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 1611 (parch.; a. 1116–1117), fol. I.320.
  10. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 1642 (parch.; XI/XII), fol. I.296.
  11. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 1933 (paper; XVII), fol. XII.626.
  12. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. Gr. 20.
  13. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottob. 100 (XV/XVI), fol. 2–105.
  14. Firenze, Biblioteca Mediceo Laurenziana, Conventi Soppressi 176 (XII/XIII).
  15. Istambul, Taphou 466 (XII/XII).
  16. London, Lambeth Palace Library, 763 (XVIII), fol. 63–79v.
  17. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, O 245 sup. (n. 608; XVI), fol. 19r–v.
  18. München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Gr. 33 (a. 1553), fol. 1–397v.
  19. München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Gr. 146 (XI), fol. 249–254.
  20. München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Gr. 318 (XIII), fol. 1–69.
  21. München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 473 (XIII).
  22. Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale, Gr. 3* (Vind. Suppl. Gr. 6; XI) fol. 196–314.
  23. Oxford, St. John’s College, 44 (XVI), fol. 201–266v.
  24. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 193 (paper; XVI).
  25. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 208 (paper; XIV).
  26. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislin 201 (paper; XIV/XV), fol. 1–605.
  27. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Suppl. Gr. 71 (paper; a. 1659), fol. 1–43.
  28. Patmos, Moni Agiou Ioannou tou theologou, 203 (XIII).
  29. Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, Gr. 100 (XII).
  30. Roma, Biblioteca Casanatense, 715.
  31. Sankt Peterburg, Rossiyskaya Natsionalnaya Bibliotyeka [National Library of Russia], Duh. Akad. 370, fol. 41–42.
  32. Schleusingen, Henneberg. Gymn., 3 (XVII).
  33. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. 26.
  34. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. 331 (XIII/XIV).
  35. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. 494 (coll. 331; paper, XIII), fol. 3–58.
  36. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. 495 (coll. 1048; paper; XIV/XV), fol. 373–435.
  37. Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Theol. Gr. 71 (parch.; XIII).

III. Greek Manuscripts Containing Parts of Eusebius’ Questions

  1. Athinai, Ethnike bibliotheke tes Hellados, 2164 (parch.; a. 1088), fol. 96; fol. 98.
  2. Athinai, Katholikon Orthodoxon Patriarcheion [Jerusalem], 22, fol. 159.
  3. Athinai, Katholikon Orthodoxon Patriarcheion [Jerusalem], Saba 31 (XI), fol. 88–100.
  4. Athos, Lavra, Γ119 (n. 359; X), fol. 108r–v; fol. 110–111.
  5. Alexandria, Bibliotheke tou Patriacheiou, 71 (n. 219; paper; XII), fol. 175r–184v.
  6. Cambridge, University Library, Oo. VI. 91. (n. 3163; paper/parch.; XV/XVI/XVIII), fasc. 19, n. 17.
  7. Cambridge, Trinity College, B. 7. i vac. (n. 178; X), fol. 140–145; fol. 148–149.
  8. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 358 (parch.; XI), fol. 110r; fol. 110v–111v.
  9. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 384 (paper; a. 1553), fol. 127–129; fol. 131–133.
  10. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 840 (paper; XIV), fol. 173v–174r.
  11. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 1532 (paper; XI), fol. 140v–142r; fol. 143v–145r.
  12. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 1692 (parch.; X), fol. 85r–v; fol. 86r–87r.
  13. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 1767 (paper; XVI), fol. 103r–105v.
  14. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 1915 (parch.; X/XI), fol. 37v–38v.
  15. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 2658 (X/XI), fol. 238r–278v.
  16. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb. Gr. 562 (X/XI), fol. 120v–125v.
  17. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pii II Gr. 9 (paper; XV), fol. 141.
  18. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. Gr. 46 (Montfaucon 938; paper; XV/XVI), fol. 82–83.
  19. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ross. Gr. 7 (XIII), fol. 2v–4r.
  20. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ross. Gr. 211 (XIII), fol. 2v–3v.
  21. El Escorial, Madrid, Biblioteca de S. Lorenzo, K. II. 10. [deperditus] (parch.), fol. 116v–117v; fol. 119–120.
  22. El Escorial, Madrid, Biblioteca de S. Lorenzo, K. III. 12. [deperditus] (n. 534; paper; a. 1580 circa), fol. 122r–123v; fol. 125v–128r.
  23. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. VI. cod. 5 (parch.; XII), fol. 68–75; fol. 76–77.
  24. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. VI. cod. 33 (parch.; XI).
  25. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, S. Marco 687 (X/XIV), fol. 83v–86v.
  26. Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijkuniversiteit, Voss. Misc. 22 (paper; XVII), fol. 59–61.
  27. London, British Library, Harley 5643 (XVI/XVII), fol. 11r–v.
  28. Meteora, Moni Metamorphoseos, 28 (bomb., XIV), fol. 97–99; fol. 126v–127.
  29. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, A 62 inf. (n. 797; parch.; XI), fol. 26r–27v.
  30. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, H 257 inf. (n. 1041; parch.; XIII), fol. 156r–158v.
  31. München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Gr. 146 (XI), fol. 249–254.
  32. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocc. 197 (XIV), fol. 212v–227.
  33. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud. Gr. 33 (XI), fol. 79–80; fol. 80.
  34. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Misc. 182 (T.1.4; X/XI), fol. 80; fol. 169–172.
  35. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 186 (parch.; XI).
  36. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 199 (parch.; XII), fol. 176v.
  37. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 200 (parch.; XI/XII), fol. 130v.
  38. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 201 (parch.; XI/XII), fol. 112r–v.
  39. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 206 (parch.; a. 13071308), fol. 1r–v; fol. 3v–5v.
  40. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 255 (paper; XV).
  41. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 572 (paper; XV/XVI), fol. 239r–240.
  42. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 700 (parch.; X), fol. 43v–46r.
  43. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 701 (parch.; IX/X), fol. 137v–143.
  44. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 702 (parch.; X), fol. 122–126.
  45. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 704 (parch.; X/XII), fol. 53v–57.
  46. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislin 195 (parch.; X), fol. 165–168.
  47. Patmos, Moni Agiou Ioannou tou theologou, 59 (IX-X), fol. 105r–106r; fol.107v–108r; fol. 235r–236r.
  48. Patmos, Moni Agiou Ioannou tou theologou, 60 (XI), fol. 375v–377r; fol. 379r–381r.
  49. Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, B. 1. 7. (n. 67; parch.; X/XI), fol. 59r–60r; fol. 61v–63r.
  50. Roma, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, C 34 (n. 36; paper/parch.; XII/XVI), fol. 402r–404r; fol. 407v–411r.
  51. Roma, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, F 25 (n. 89; paper; XIV), fol. 37–38.
  52. Sankt Peterburg, Rossiyskaya Natsionalnaya Bibliotyeka [National Library of Russia], Gr. 216 (parch.; a. 862/863), fol. 346r.
  53. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. I, 34 (coll. 1070; parch.; XII), fol. 111v–112v; fol. 114r–115v.
  54. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. II, 144 (coll. 1362; parch.; X), fol. 3r–4r (marg.).
  55. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. 61 (parch.; X; fol. 1–2: XI), fol. 1–2.
  56. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. 494 (paper, XIII), fol. 111–112; fol. 143–144.
  57. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. 495 (coll. 1048; paper; XIV/XV), fol. 143bis–144.
  58. Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Theol. Gr. 153 (paper; XIII), fol. 260r.
  59. Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Theol. Gr. 199 (paper; XVI), fol. 1–45.
  60. Unknown, Paris, Collège de Clermont, 75 (Schoenberg n. 188178; paper; XV).
  61. Unknown, Den Haag, Gerard and Johan Meerman Collection, Ms. 76 (Schoenberg n. 45161; parch.; XII).

IV. Syriac Manuscripts Containing Parts of Eusebius’ Questions

  1. Berlin, Alte Bibliothek [Königliche], Syr. 81 (n. 311; XVI/XVII [fol. 1–15.157–259: XIX]); fol. 84.
  2. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Pal. Or. 47, fol. 1v–2v [published by Beyer, but to be considered a testimonium].
  3. London, British Library, Syr. 853, fol. 176–182; fol. 232.
  4. London, British Library, Add. 12144 (a. 1801) [copy of Vatican Library, Syr. 103].
  5. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Syr. 103 (parch.; IX/X), fol. 302r–307v; fol. 368v.
  6. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Syr. 154 (parch./bomb.; VIII/IX), fol. 3–9; fol. 21–22; fol. 209.
  7. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Syr. 155, fol. 26r and 35v at least.
  8. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Syr. 156, fol. 11–13; fol. 32r; fol. 159v; fol. 315r.
  9. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Syr. 284 [or 283] (paper).
  10. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Syr. 541 (paper; a. 1555), fol. 153r–225r [a catena on Luke containing Eusebius’ texts, text to be checked].

V. Coptic Manuscripts of the So-called Monophysite Dogmatic Florilegium

  1. London, British Library, Or. 8812 (n. 249; Parham 106; parch.; a. 888/889).
  2. London, British Library, Add. 14740 (n. 740; parch.).

VI. Arabic Manuscripts of the So-called Monophysite Dogmatic Florilegium

  1. Al-Qahira, Coptic Museum, 1157–Graf 166 (XIV/XV).
  2. Al-Qahira, Coptic Patriachate, 41–Graf 195 (paper; a. 1735).
  3. Al-Qahira, Coptic Patriachate, 567–Graf 411 (paper; XIV).
  4. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ar. 410 (paper; XIII/XIV).
  5. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ar. 411 (paper; XIV).
  6. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ar. 452 (paper; a. 1214).
  7. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, (Karšhuni) Syr. 531 (a. 1486).
  8. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, (Karšhuni) Syr. 541 (paper, a. 1555).
  9. Bagdad, Chaldean Patriarchate, Library of Mossul Chaldean Patriarchate, 131 (Diyarbakır, 131; a. 1498).
  10. Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen, Ar. 103 (paper; XIII/XIV, restored a. 1811).
  11. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hunt. 262 (n. 26; paper; XVI, before a. 1575).
  12. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ar. 55 (paper; a. 1619).
  13. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ar. 93 (paper; XIV).
  14. Strasbourg, Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire, Or. 4315 (paper; XVI).

VII. Ethiopic Manuscripts of the So-called Monophysite Dogmatic Florilegium

  1. London, British Library, Aeth. 11 (add. 16220; parch.; XVII).
  2. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Aeth. 65 (parch.; XVII).

VIII. Greek and Latin Manuscripts Containing Other Eusebius’ Extracts or Unidentified Questions on the Gospels

  1. Arras, Abbaye Saint-Vaast, 158 (XII).
  2. Athinai, Ethnike bibliotheke tes Hellados, 408.
  3. Athinai, Katholikon Orthodoxon Patriarcheion [Jerusalem], Saba, 232 (parch.; XI).
  4. Athinai, Katholikon Orthodoxon Patriarcheion [Jerusalem], Panagiou Taphou, 257 (paper; XVII), fol. 9–21.
  5. Athos, Dionysiou, 71 (n. 3605; parch.; X).
  6. Athos, Koutloumousiou, 178 (n. 3251; paper; XIII), fol. 11–13.
  7. Athos, Lavra, A37 (n. 37; X), fol. 1–9 et 9–20.
  8. Athos, Xenophontos, 53 (n. 755; paper; XVII), sect. 3.
  9. Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek [Königliche], Q. VI. 58. (n. 110; paper; XV), fol. 221v.
  10. Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek [Königliche], Domkapitel, 141 [B. III. 36] (n. 86; parch.; XI–XII).
  11. Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, A XI 71 (paper; XV), fol. 161.
  12. Bern, Bibliotheca Bongarsiana, AA 90 fasc. 4 (parch.; XI–XII), fol. 1–3.
  13. Besançon, Bibliothèque, 186 (parch.; IX), miscellanea patristica, fol. 32–70.
  14. Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria, 3637 (paper; XIV), fol. 81–83.
  15. Brescia, Biblioteca Civica Queriniana, F II 1 (parch.; IX).
  16. Brescia, Biblioteca Civica Queriniana, C V 10 (paper; XVII–XVIII).
  17. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 404, fol. 7–9.
  18. Cambridge, Trinity College, O. 8. 22 5939–53 (n. 1397), fol. 15–16; fol. 77–81.
  19. Cambridge, Public Library, 151 (n. 2331).
  20. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Lat. 3832, fol. 29.46.
  21. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 875 (paper; XIII), fol. 300–301.
  22. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 1618 (paper, XVI), on Mt 1:1–21.
  23. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 1637 (parch.; XVI), fol. 103r–105v.
  24. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 1890 (paper; XV/XVI), fol. 123r–128v.
  25. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. Gr. 100 (paper; XV/XVI).
  26. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. Gr. 134 (paper; XVII).
  27. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. Gr. 408 (paper; XVI).
  28. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. Gr. 20 (bomb.; XIII).
  29. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. Gr. 129 (paper; XV/XVI).
  30. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. Gr. 46 (Montfaucon 938; paper; XV/XVI), fol. 59–60; fol. 66.
  31. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. Gr. 57 (paper; XV–XVI), fol. 456.
  32. Dublin, Trinity College Library, 148 (XV), fol. 15–45v.
  33. Dublin, Trinity College Library, 422, fol. 39.
  34. Dublin, Trinity College Library, 2100, fol. 152v.
  35. El Escorial, Madrid, Biblioteca de S. Lorenzo, Cod. Gr. E. (4 codici).
  36. El Escorial, Madrid, Biblioteca de S. Lorenzo, Γ 14. 118.
  37. El Escorial, Madrid, Biblioteca de S. Lorenzo, Γ II. 4.
  38. El Escorial, Madrid, Biblioteca de S. Lorenzo, Γ II. 7.
  39. El Escorial, Madrid, Biblioteca de S. Lorenzo, Χ. IV. 11. (n. 406; paper; XIV), fol. 8v–36v.
  40. El Escorial, Madrid, Biblioteca de S. Lorenzo, Λ. IV. 20. [deperditus] (n. 601; parch.), fol. 15r–v.
  41. El Escorial, Madrid, Biblioteca de S. Lorenzo, Κ. II. 13.
  42. Firenze, Biblioteca Moreniana, 13 (paper; XVIII), fol. 272–276.
  43. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. IV. cod. 26 (paper; XVI).
  44. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. VI. cod. 4 (parch.; XIV).
  45. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. VII. cod. 15 (parch.; XI), fol. 150; fol. 154; fol. 189; fol. 192.
  46. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. IX. cod. 26 (parch.; XIV), fol. 84.
  47. Firenze, Biblioteca Riccardiana, Ricc. 907 (N III 16; paper; XV a.).
  48. Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, 996 (paper; a. 1579).
  49. Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Theol. 1518c.
  50. Istambul, Maurogordateios Bibliotheke, 264.
  51. Klosternburg, Bibliotheca Augustiniana, 205 (paper, XV), fol. 188–247.
  52. Lyon, Bibliothèque Municipale, 598 (parch.; XII), cf. fol. 112–114.
  53. London, British Library, Harley 3089.
  54. London, British Library, Harley 3651.
  55. Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 4749 (n. 198; paper; a. 1555), fol. 43–46; fol. 183v–185v.
  56. Marseille, Bibliothèque, 198 (paper; XVII).
  57. Meteora, Moni Barlaam, 137 (paper; XVI), fol. 76–87.
  58. Meteora, Moni Barlaam, 195 (paper; XVII), fol. 50–105.
  59. Meteora, Moni Metamorphoseos, 243 (paper; XIV).
  60. Meteora, Moni Agiou Stephanou, 110 (paper; XIX), fol. 124r; fol. 126v.
  61. Meteora, Moni Agiou Stephanou, 130 (paper; XIX), fol. 5.
  62. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, A 84 sup. (n. 273; parch.; XIII), fol. 86.
  63. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, C 30 inf. (n. 850; parch.; XII).
  64. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, E 16 sup. (n. 273; parch.; XIII), fol. 57.
  65. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, E 20 sup. (n. 276; parch.; XIII), fol. 74.
  66. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, E 64 sup. (n. 290; paper; XV), fol. 218.
  67. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, F 140 sup. (n. 375; parch.; XIII).
  68. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, G 76 inf. (XVI).
  69. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, M 57 sup. (n. 520; parch.), fol. 139.
  70. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, M 83 sup. (n. 529; parch.; XIII).
  71. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Q 50 sup. (n. 678; paper; XIV), fol. 160–231.
  72. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Q 74 sup. (n. 681).
  73. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, S 23 sup. (n. 732; parch.; XII), fol. 163; fol. 165–168.
  74. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Z 75 sup. (n. 752; paper; XVI).
  75. Mons, Bibliothèque Publique, 47/217, fol. 26r–32v; fol. 32v–38r.
  76. Moscau, Gosudarstvyenniy Istorichyeskiy Muzyey [State Historical Museum], Gr. 29–119/CXX.
  77. Moscau, Rossiyskaya Gosudarstvyennaya Bibliotyeka [Russians State Library], 82 (n. 137; IX), fol. 170r–175r.
  78. München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Gr. 381 (XIII), fol. 1–69.
  79. München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 26690 (n. 2213; XV).
  80. Nürnberg, Pfarriche St. Sebald Bibl., 141 [B. III. 36] (n. 86).
  81. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmol. 393, fol. 80.
  82. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barrocc. 76 (n. 76) fol. 177–215.
  83. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digbeian. 196 (n. 1797), fol. 18.
  84. Oxford, Corpus Christi College Library, 232 (n. 1699).
  85. Oxford, Christ Church College Library, 45 (XIII/XV), fol. 241–245.
  86. Oxford, Jesus College Library, 25.
  87. Oxford, Jesus College Library, 65, fol. 138–140.
  88. Mons, Bibliothèque Publique, 47/217, fol. 26–32; fol. 32–38.
  89. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, 968 (paper; a. 1462), fol. 87–89; fol. 94–134.
  90. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, 1631 (paper; XVII).
  91. Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte Geneviève, 212 (paper; a. 1743–1745).
  92. Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte Geneviève, 1416 (parch.; XIII), fol. 135r–142r.
  93. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 221 (parch.; XII).
  94. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 633 (parch.; a. 1186).
  95. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 854 (bomb.; XIII), fol. 17.
  96. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 922 (parch.; XI), fol. 236–240.
  97. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 1555A (bomb.; XVI), fol. 179–186.
  98. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 2511 (paper; XV), fol. 46–55.
  99. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 2665 (paper/bomb.; XIV/XV), fol. 209–210.
  100. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Supplément grec 771 (XV).
  101. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislin 20 (parch.; X), fol. 165–168.
  102. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislin 23 (parch.; XI).
  103. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislin 112 (paper; a. 1329).
  104. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislin 115 (parch.; XII).
  105. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislin 120 (parch.; X), fol. 31–204.
  106. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislin 122 (paper; XIV).
  107. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislin 296 (parch.; XII), fol. 120–162.
  108. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislin 371 (parch.; X), fol. 51–55; fol. 91–92; fol. 94.
  109. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Lat. 1568 (parch.; IX–XV), fol. 40–67 [IX].
  110. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Lat. 1860 (parch.; XIII), fol. 153v–217r.
  111. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Lat. 3396 (XVI).
  112. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Lat. 3497 (parch.; XIV); fol. 37.
  113. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Lat. 3508 (paper; XV).
  114. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Lat. 3508A (paper; XV).
  115. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Lat. 10685 (XII).
  116. Patmos, Moni Agiou Ioannou tou theologou, 56.
  117. Patmos, Moni Agiou Ioannou tou theologou, 203, fol. 120–191.
  118. Praha, Státní Knihovna [National Library], XIII D 24 (n. 2316), fol. 333–335.
  119. Praha, Státní Knihovna [National Library], XXV B 7 (parch.; X/XI), fol. 9v–10r; fol. 115v; fol. 183r; fol. 298r; fol. 191r–v; fol. 307r.
  120. Reims, Bibliothèque, Saints Pères 284 (parch.; XI).
  121. Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, A. 4. 1. (n. 57; paper; XV), fol. 192.
  122. Roma, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, E 40 (n. 72; parch.; XI).
  123. Roma, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Gr. 137 (n. 213).
  124. Salisbury, Library of the Cathedral Church, 61, fol. 35.
  125. San Daniele del Friuli, Biblioteca Guarneriana, 87, fol. 77v–78v.
  126. Sinai, Aghia Katerina, 529 (XVII), fol. 8v–10v.
  127. Skiathos, Moni Evangelistria, 11 (XIV), fol. 2–25.
  128. Toulouse, Bibliothèque, 624 (n. 82), fol. 2; fol. 37.
  129. Uppsala, Universitätsbibliothek, C 937 (n. 339), fol. 18–21.
  130. Venezia, Museo Civico Correr, Fondo Morosini-Grimani, 94 (XVII), fol. 229.
  131. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. II, 77 (paper; XVI), fol. 97.107.
  132. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. II, 90 (paper; XVI), fol. 212–231.
  133. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. III, 4 (paper; XVI).
  134. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. 27 (coll. 341; parch.; X–XI), fol. 93.
  135. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. 28 (coll. 364; parch.; XI), fol. 4–136; fol. 137–281.
  136. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. 138 (parch.; X).
  137. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. 139 (parch.; XI/XII), fol. 50–51.
  138. Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. 410.
  139. Venezia, Biblioteca del monastero di S. Michele, 120.
  140. Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Phil. Gr. 248 (paper; XIV/XV), fol. 132r–191r.
  141. Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, Ehemaligen Dombibliothek, M. p. th. f. 61 (parch.; VIII/IX).
  142. Unknown, apud P. Labbe, Nova bibliotheca manuscriptorum librorum, Parisiis 1653, 184, ‘De triduo sepolturae Domini.’
  143. Unknown, Sens, Library of M. [Gratien-Théodore] Tarbé, 22 (parch.).
  144. Unknown, Toulouse, Bibliothèque de l’archévêque Charles de Montchal, 220.
  145. Unknown, [York,] Library of Thomas Gale, 115 (Schoenberg n. 163425; n. 5949; [E. Bernard,] Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum Anglie et Hiberniae in unum collecti, II,1, Oxoniae 1697, 188), ‘Eusebi sermo de sepoltura Christi triduana.
  146. Unknown, Aedes Jacobaei, 591 (ibid., 244S; Schoenberg n. 165132; n. 8313).

Works Cited

Achelis, H. 1897. Hippolytstudien, Texte und Untersuchungen 16.4. Leipzig.
Bardy, G. 1932–1933. “La littérature patristique des ‘Quaestiones et responsiones’ sur l’Écriture sainte.” Revue biblique 41:210–236, 341–369, 515–537; 42:14–30, 211–229, 328–352.
Beyer, G. 1925–1927. “Die evangelischen Fragen und Lösungen des Eusebius in jakobitischer Überlieferung und deren nestorianische Parallelen. Syrische Texte, herausgegeben, übersetzt und untersucht.” Oriens Christianus, Neue Serie, 12–24 (1925), 30–70; Dritte Serie, 1 (1927), 80–97; 284–292; Dritte Serie, 2 (1927), 57–69.
Burgon, J. W. 1871. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark, Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established. Oxford/London.
Cameron, A. and S. G. Hall. 1999. Eusebius, Life of Constantine. Introduction, translation and commentary, Clarendon Ancient History Series. Oxford.
Carriker, A. J. 2003. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 67. Leiden and Boston.
Caubet Iturbe, F. J. 1969. La cadena árabe del evangelio de san Mateo, I. Testo. Studi e testi, 254. Vatican City.
———. 1970. La cadena árabe del evangelio de san Mateo, II. Versión. Studi e testi, 255. Vatican City.
Cavallo, G. 1988. “Scuola, scriptorium, biblioteca a Cesarea.” In Le biblioteche nel mondo antico e medievale, Biblioteca Universale Laterza 250, G. Cavallo, ed., 65–78. Bari.
Courcelle, P. 1959. “Critiques exégétiques et arguments antichrétiens rapportés par Ambrosiaster.” Vigiliae Christianae 13:133–169.
Cramer, J. A. 1840. Catenae in evangelia s. Matthaei et s. Marci, ad fidem codd. mss., Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum 1. Oxford.
———. 1844. Catenae in evangelia s. Lucae et s. Joannis, ad fidem codd. mss., Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum 2. Oxford.
Corderius, B. 1628. Catena sexaginta quinque Graecorum patrum in S. Lucam . . ., luce ac Latinitate donate. Antwerp.
Dorival, G. 1984. “Apercu sur l’histoire des chaînes exégétiques grecques sur le Psautier (V°-XIV° siècles).” In Studia patristica, vol. XV, Texte und Untersuchungen 128, E.A. Livingstone, ed., 146–169. Berlin.
———. 1986. Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes, contributions à l’étude d’une forme littéraire, t. 1., Spicilegium sacrum lovaniense, Études et documents 43. Leuven.
Graf, G. 1944. Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, I. Die Übersetzungen, Studi e testi 118. Vatican City.
Grafton, A and M. Williams. 2006. Christianity and the Transformation of the Book. Origen, Eusebius and the Library of Caesarea. Cambridge, MA/London.
Guignard, C. 2011. La lettre de Julius Africanus à Aristide sur la généalogie du Christ. Analyse de la tradition textuelle, édition, traduction et étude critique, Texte und Untersuchungen 167. Berlin/Boston.
Hollerich, M. J. 1999. Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary on Isaiah. Christian Exegesis in the Age of Constantine, Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford.
Jacob, C. 2004. “Questions sur les questions: archéologie d’une pratique intellectuelle et d’une forme discursive.” In Erotapokriseis. Early Christian Question-and-Answer Literature in Context. Proceedings of the Utrecht Colloquium, 13–14 October 2003, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 37, ed. Volgers, A., and C. Zamagni, 25–54. Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA.
Kannengiesser, C. 2004. Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, II. The Bible in Ancient Christianity 1/2. Leiden/Boston 2004.
Krikonis, Ch. Th. 1973. Συναγογὴ πατέρων εἰϛ τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγελὶον ὑπὸ Νικήτα Ἠρακλείαϛ. Thessaloniki.
Labriolle, P. de. 1948. La réaction païenne. Étude sur la polémique antichrétienne du Ier au VIe siècle. Paris.
Lagarde, P. de. 1886. Catenae in Evangelia Aegyptiacae quae supersunt. Göttingen.
———. 1887a. “Selbstanzeige meiner letzen Schriften.” Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 15 Juni.
———. 1887b. Mittheilungen, II. Band, Göttingen.
Layton, B. 1987. Catalogue of Coptic literary manuscripts in the British Library acquired since the year 1906. London.
Lightfoot, J.B. 1880. “Eusebius of Caesarea, also known as Eusebius Pamphili.” In A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines, ed. Smith, W. and H. Wace, 308–348. London/New York.
Mai, A. 1825. Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, e Vaticanis codicibus edita, tomus I [pars prior], Rome. Reprinted in 1931 and republished in PG 22.
———. 1847. Novae patrum bibliothecae tomus IV. Rome. Republished in PG 22.
Norelli, E. 2001. “La mémoire des origines chrétiennes: Papias et Hégésippe chez Eusèbe.” In L’historiographie de l’église des premiers siècles, Théologie historique 114, ed. Pouderon, B. and Y.-M. Duval, 1–22. Paris.
Papadoyannakis, Y. 2006. “Instruction by Question and Answer: The Case of Late Antique and Byzantine Erotapokriseis.” In Greek Literature in Late Antiquity. Dynamism, Didacticism, Classicism, S. F Johnson, ed., 91–105. Burlington.
———. Forthcoming. “‘Encyclopedism’ in the Byzantine Question-and-Answer Literature: The Case of Pseudo-Kasairios.” In Encyclopaedic Trends in Byzantium?, ed. van Deun, P. and C. Macé. Leuven.
Pearse, R. 2010. Eusebius of Caesarea, Gospel Problems and Solutions. Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum (CPG 3470), Ancient Texts in Translation 1, ed. D.J.D. Miller (Greek, Latin), A.C. McCollum (Syriac, Arabic), C. Downer (Coptic), and others. Ipswich.
Perrone, L. 1990. “Le Quaestiones evangelicae di Eusebio di Cesarea. Alle origini di un genere letterario.” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 7:417–435.
———. 1991. “Sulla preistoria delle ‘quaestiones’ nella letteratura patristica. Presupposti e sviluppi del genere letterario fino al IV sec.” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 8:485–505.
———. 1994. “Echi della polemica pagana sulla Bibbia negli scritti esegetici fra IV e V secolo: Le Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti dell’Ambrosiaster.” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 11:161–185.
———. 1996. “Eusebius of Caesarea as a Christian Writer.” In Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective after Two Millennia, ed. Raban, A. and K.G. Holum, 515–530. Leiden/New York/Köln.
Preuschen, E. 1893. “Eusebius, Bischof von Cäsarea (c. 265–340), Schriften.” In Harnack, A. von, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, I. Die Überlieferung und der Bestand, bearb. unter Mitwirkung von E. Preuschen, 551–586. Leipzig.
Reichardt, W. 1909. Die Briefe des Sextus Julius Africanus an Aristides und Origenes. Texte und Untersuchungen 34.3. Leipzig.
Richard, M. and J.-M. Olivier. 1995. Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs. Turnhout.
Schwartz, E. 1907. “Eusebios von Caesarea.” In Paulys Realenzyklopädie, VI/1. Stuttgart.
Sickenberger, J. 1898. “Aus römischen Handschriften über die Lukaskatene des Niketas.” Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und für Kirchengeschichte 12:55–84.
———. 1902. Die Lukaskatene des Niketas von Herakleia, untersucht. Texte und Untersuchungen 22.4. Leipzig.
Spitta, F. 1877. Der Brief des Julius Africanus an Aristides, kritisch untersucht und hergestellt. Halle.
Zamagni, C. 2003. Les “Questions et réponses sur les évangiles” d’Eusèbe de Césarée. Étude et Édition du résumé grec. PhD Dissertation, Université de Lausanne – EHPE. Paris.
———. 2004. “Une introduction méthodologique à la littérature patristique des questions et réponses: le cas d’Eusèbe de Césarée.” In Erotapokriseis. Early Christian Question-and-Answer Literature in Context. Proceedings of the Utrecht Colloquium, 13–14 October 2003, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 37, ed. Volgers A., and C. Zamagni, 7–24. Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA.
———. 2008. Eusèbe de Césarée: Questions évangéliques. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes. Sources chrétiennes 523. Paris.
———. 2011a. “Porphyre est-il la cible principale des ‘questions’ chrétiennes du IVe et Ve siècles?” In Le traité de Porphyre contre les chrétiens. Un siècle de recherches, nouvelles questions. Actes du colloque international organisé les 8 et 9 septembre 2009 à l’Université de Paris IV-Sorbonne, Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 190, S. Morlet, ed., 357–370. Paris.
———. 2011b. “Eusebius’ Exegesis Between Alexandria and Antioch: Being a Scholar in Caesarea—A Test Case from Questions to Stephanos I.” In Reconsidering Eusebius Collected Papers on Literary, Historical, and Theological Issues, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 107, ed. Inowlocki, S. and C. Zamagni, 151–176. Leiden/Boston.
———. Forthcoming. “Is the Question-and-Answer Literature from IVth and Vth Century an Homogeneous Group?” In Actes du colloque « La littérature de questions et réponses dans l’Antiquité : de l’enseignement à l’exégèse », Université d’Ottawa, 25–26/9/2009, Instrumenta patristica et mediaevalia 64, M.-P. Bussières, ed., 241–268. Turnhout.
Zotenberg, H. 1877. Manuscrits orientaux: Catalogue des manuscrits éthiopiens (gheez et amharique) de la Bibliothèque nationale. Paris.


[ back ] 1. I am grateful to Pierluigi Piovanelli (Ottawa), who suggested some improvements to me, and to Christophe Guignard (Lausanne), who read a first draft of this paper and kindly directed me to two manuscripts of the Meteors. I am also very pleased to thank Diane Barraud (Lausanne), who checked the first version of my list of manuscripts, more than ten years ago. Part of this essay has been prepared thanks to a grant of the Swiss National Science Foundation.
[ back ] 2. CPG 3470. On the exact title of this work, cf. Zamagni 2008:11.
[ back ] 3. Actually, we have sixteen questions to Stephanus, but the questions 3 and 4 were originally joined together, as the manuscripts and the content of the text show. On this point, cf. Spitta 1877:13–14; Reichardt 1909:23–24; Bardy 1932:210–236; Perrone 1990:417–435; Guignard 2011:48–49.
[ back ] 4. Many ancient witnesses refer to the second part of the work only, using the title of “Questions to Marinos,” while the Syriac versions apparently only know the part of the work dedicated to Stephanos, as does Nicetas of Herakleia, who has only the first half of the questions dedicated to Marinos (which possibly corresponds to the first of the two books to Stephanos); cf. Zamagni 2008:12–13.
[ back ] 5. We can exclude, with John Lightfoot, that such cross references came from a revised edition of these two works by Eusebius himself (Lighfoot 1880:338); on the dating debate, cf. also Zamagni 2008:42–46.
[ back ] 6. Pearse 2010:3; this volume reprints the Sources Chrétiennes’ text and biblical apparatus of the ekloge wrongly ascribing the copyright to the Cerf publishing company, while it is still mine.
[ back ] 7. And, of course, Eusebius did know well the book of Porphyry against Christians, as he is credited with having written a now-lost refutation of Porphyry’s criticism in twenty-five books.
[ back ] 8. Labriolle 1948:292–293, 487–508; among many followers, Courcelle 1959:133–169; against this hypothesis see especially Perrone 1994:161–185
[ back ] 9. For a wider perspective on this debate, concerning Eusebius as well as the whole literature of questions and answers in Christian antiquity, cf. Zamagni 2011a:357–370.
[ back ] 10. Bardy 1932:210–236, 341–369, 515–537; Bardy 1933:14–30, 211–229, 328, 352.
[ back ] 11. I have developed this distinction in Zamagni 2004:7–24 and Zamagni forthcoming.
[ back ] 12. See especially Perrone 1991:485–505 and idem 1990:417–421.
[ back ] 13. Concerning the fortune of Eusebius’ questions, cf. the commentary I have provided in my dissertation, Zamagni 2003.
[ back ] 14. Cf. Papadoyannakis 2006:91–105, and Papadoyannakis, forthcoming.
[ back ] 15. Cf. Jacob 2004:25–54.
[ back ] 16. Cf. my commentary in Zamagni 2003, as well as the example study of the background of the first question to Stephanos in Zamagni 2011b:151–176.
[ back ] 17. Secondary literature is rich here; as an example, see the remarks on Eusebius’ reconstruction of Christian origins according to Papias and Hegesippus in Norelli 2001:1–22.
[ back ] 18. See the remarks in Hollerich 1999:67–80 and Perrone 1996:515–530.
[ back ] 19. Cavallo 1988:65–78; Carriker 2003; Grafton and Williams 2006.
[ back ] 20. Mai 1825:1–82; Mai 1847:218–267 (reprinted in PG 22.879A–957A); Zamagni 2008:80–230 (republished by Pearse 2010:6–128). On the whole textual tradition, cf. Zamagni 2008:13–21.
[ back ] 21. CPG C135.
[ back ] 22. Mai 1847:268–277, 283–298 (PG 22.957B–972D, 984A–1005D; Pearse 2010:134–154, 180–212).
[ back ] 23. Mai 1825:89–101; Mai actually counts only twelve Greek fragments, but this is just because he joins all fragments coming from a same source. The Latin fragment comes from a translation by Balthasar Cordier based on a Greek catena on Luke (Corderius 1628:95).
[ back ] 24. Mai 1825:x–xvii.
[ back ] 25. According to Charles Kannengiesser, Eusebius’ fragment On Easter that comes from the catena of Nicetas may belong to the Questions (CPG 3479; PG 24.693A–705D); cf. Kannengiesser 2004:676. Although not mentioned in the commentary by Averil Cameron and Stuart Hall (1999:326–327), it is nevertheless more than likely that this extract comes from the treatise on Easter that Eusebius sent to Constantine and referenced in VC 4.35, as the first editor Angelo Mai already indicated (Mai 1847:208).
[ back ] 26. Mai 1825:83–101, 374; Mai 1847:268–278, 298–303 (all republished in Pearse 2010:154–167, 214–232).
[ back ] 27. Mai 1825:88–89. The first fragment is now reprinted in Pearse 2010:164–166.
[ back ] 28. Mai 1825:90, 94–100. Two of these fragments have been now reprinted in Pearse 2010:228–232.
[ back ] 29. Mai 1825:78–79. (These fragments have not been republished by Pearse.)
[ back ] 30. Mai 1825:85–87, republished by Pearse 2010:160–164.
[ back ] 31. Mai 1825:100–101, 374; Mai 1847:298, 300–303, and cf. also 298n3, which refers to the fragment at p. 90 of the first edition; Pearse 2010:220–228.
[ back ] 32. Mai 1825:101–106; Mai 1847:304–309. While Migne already chose not to republish these Latin testimonia (PG 22), David Miller and Roger Pearse reprint them among Eusebius’ fragments (Pearse 2010:258–300).
[ back ] 33. Cf. Zamagni 2008:13–16. The second edition of Mai is reprinted by Migne in PG 22, which omits the fragments only printed in the first edition (now partly republished in Pearse 2010:notes 26, 27, 28).
[ back ] 34. Cf. Zamagni 2003:65, 69, 70, 134, 154, 165; Cramer 1840:7–8, 10, 12, 15, 251; Cramer 1844:399–402, 404–406. All these fragments are reprinted in Pearse 2010:166–174, 232–249, which also locates for the first time a fragment in Cramer 1840:13.
[ back ] 35. Isidore of Pelusium, Epistles 2.212 (PG 78.652B–653C). Until otherwise proven, this text is to me a testimonium (Zamagni 2003:196), although Pearse 2010:248–253 considers it as a new fragment (Fr. Mar. Supp. 17 according to his numbering). Similar statements can be found also among Mai’s fragments and it is not my intention to discuss their pertinence in this status quaestionis: to me it is obvious that a new study of the published fragments and of the whole corpus of new manuscripts containing fragments is necessary to make sense of this textual tradition. In this regard, I have to mention that some manuscripts containing fragments of the Questions to Marinos also contain this letter of Isidore—for example: Athos, Laura, G119; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale 201; B.N. 206; B.N. 700; B.N. 701; B.N. 702; B.N. 704.
[ back ] 36. This fragment from the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice is used in the critical apparatus of Guignard 2011:296–304. I had independently recorded this manuscript in my list, but I am pleased to learn from Guignard’s dissertation that it certainly comes from Eusebius’ Questions (cf. note 55 below).
[ back ] 37. Mai 1847:279–282 (republished in PG 22.976B–981D).
[ back ] 38. Beyer 1925:30–70, 1927 (Dritte Serie, 1):80–97, 284–292; 1927 (Dritte Serie, 2):57–69.
[ back ] 39. On this topic, see also Zamagni 2008:16–18; Guignard 2011:118–131. Only the main Syriac textual tradition (Vaticanus Syriacus 103) has been republished in Pearse 2010:306–344, with a useful vocalized text by Adam McCollum. If I understand correctly, Pearse and McCollum also identify two new Syriac testimonia (cf. Pearse 2010:304, 344–348).
[ back ] 40. CPG C117, C118, C127, C138, C148 (the Ethiopic and Arabic forms are not recorded in the Clavis, except for the Arabic on Matthew). Concerning this text, usually referred to as a catena, cf. Dorival 1984:166–167 and Dorival 1986:28–29. See also Caubet Iturbe 1970:xxxix–xl; Graf 1944:481–482, and Achelis 1897:167–168. Regardless of the origins of the exegetical extracts, the text actually has the shape of a catena on selected passages of the four gospels, and its Coptic version even provide an old textual form of their text (Lagarde 1887a and Lagarde 1887b:373–374).
[ back ] 41. Lagarde 1886; According Lagarde (1886:iii), and to other sources depending on him, this manuscript had the number 102 in the Curzon library at Parham, but this could be a mistake for 106, as indicated by Layton (1987:xlviii, 393).
[ back ] 42. Roger Pearse and Carol Downer have reprinted all the passages of this work attributed to any “Eusebius” mentioned, without taking any stand (Pearse 2010:352–383), though in my estimation only fragments 1, 4, and 6 (Pearse’s numbering) can be considered as certainly deriving from Eusebius’ Questions; these correspond to the texts in Lagarde 1886:2, 80, 119. Concerning the numbering, it is worth mentioning that the total number of passages which have an attribution to Eusebius is twenty-three (Lagarde 1886:vi), but Pearse and Downer merge many extracts together and include among their fragments two texts that have no attribution: their fragments 5 and 12 are composed of three different passages in each, the fragment 14 of four, and the fragment 15 of two, while their fragments 11 and 17 have no attribution (Pearse 2010:360–362, 368–374, 376–382).
[ back ] 43. Caubet Iturbe 1969. This edition is based on the Vaticanus Arabicus 452, the most important and ancient manuscript, and the apparatus gives mainly variants of the other manuscripts (cf. x, xlvii–l, liii–liv and lvii–lix). Caubet Iturbe knows all fourteen Arabic manuscripts I list hereafter, but excludes five of them from his edition because they do not represent the same textual tradition he is editing (containing the extracts on Matthew), or, in the case of the manuscript of Bagdad, because he couldn’t have access to it (cf. xlvi–xlvii).
[ back ] 44. According to Caubet Iturbe 1969, only passages n. 1 (= Coptic 1) and 5 (= Coptic 6) really come from Eusebius’ Questions (1944:xxi–xxii). For texts and translations of these passages, cf. Caubet Iturbe 1969:8, 251; Caubet Iturbe 1944:9, 268. Again, Pearse republishes all five passages in his edition (Pearse 2010:386–392).
[ back ] 45. On Luke 1:39–40, cf. Lagarde 1886:119–120; Pearse 2010:362–363 (fragment 6 according to his numbering).
[ back ] 46. Zotenberg 1877:73 (the catalogue is published anonymously); cf. Achelis 1897:165.
[ back ] 47. Cf. Mai 1825:notes 24 and 32, as well as my commentary (Zamagni 2003:73–75, 90, 99, 108–110, etc.) and Guignard 2011:86–161.
[ back ] 48. Richard and Olivier 1995.
[ back ] 49. <http://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr>. I have also occasionally used the Schoenberg Database of Manuscripts, <http://dla.library.upenn.edu/cocoon/dla/schoenberg>, and the online catalogues of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, <http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr>.
[ back ] 50. Mai 1825:xii; Mai 1847:217 (reprinted in PG 22.877–878). This letter is now republished in complete form in Pearse 2010:398–402.
[ back ] 51. Excepting the catalogues of Greek manuscripts listed in Richard (cf. note 48), I checked a total of 1174 catalogues. My search terms included Eusebius as an author, as well as fragments attributed to him, Nicetas as an author, Julius Africanus as an author, and any anonymous text concerning arguments or biblical passages discussed in Eusebius’ Questions, as well as the characters he mentioned (Stephanos and Marinos). These search criteria were however reduced in the case of catalogues lacking sufficiently comprehensive indexes.
[ back ] 52. Together with Parisinus Coislinianus 201 and Athos, Iviron 371; on this manuscript, cf. also Krikonis 1973.
[ back ] 53. Sickenberger 1902, and cf. Sickenberger 1898:55–84. See also the recent study of Nicetas’ textual tradition by Guignard 2011:69–76.
[ back ] 54. On the fragments of the Questions, cf. also Burgon 1871:43–44 (note), 47–48 (note x); Schwartz 1907:1387–1388; Preuschen 1893:578–579; Pearse 2010:ix, refers to forty or more Greek manuscripts, using information I provided him by email on March, 1, 2008.
[ back ] 55. The study of the Venetus Marcianus Graecus 61 by Guignard (2011:79–82, 189–193) has demonstrated in practice this statement, because the manuscript has been proved to be a new fragment coming from Eusebius’ Questions.
[ back ] 56. Beyer 1925–1927. Beyer actually edits the Vaticanus Syriacus 103, the Vaticanus Syriacus 154, and the Florentinus Orientalis 47.
[ back ] 57. See notes 41 and 43 above.
[ back ] 58. I have skipped here the description of the manuscripts’ content because it needs a careful checking on the manuscripts themselves and skipped also the bibliographic references because of a lack of space.
[ back ] 59. More than occasionally, these lacks are due to incomplete catalogues, or to the fact that folios containing Eusebius’ passages are not explicitly mentioned.