11. Origen as an Exegetical Source in Eusebius’ Prophetic Extracts

Sébastien Morlet
The study of the relationship between Eusebius and Origen as exegetes is still conditioned by Carmelo Curti’s article “L’esegesi di Eusebio di Cesarea: caratteri e sviluppo.” [1] This article contains, in my view, three major hypotheses:
  1. Throughout his life, Eusebius was attached to the principle that Scripture contains two meanings, the letter and the spirit. In the Prophetic Extracts (hereafter Ecl. Proph.), Eusebius would concentrate on the search for the “allegorical” meaning; the Demonstratio Evangelica (hereafter DE) would witness a certain balance between the two senses; in the Commentary on the Psalms (hereafter CPs), finally, Eusebius would have favored the literal meaning.
  2. These differences would attest to an evolution of Eusebius’ exegetical practice.
  3. The search for the “allegorical” sense in Eusebius would be indebted to Origen; on the contrary, the “literalism” of the CPs would foreshadow the so-called “Antiochene school.”
In an earlier analysis of the first two hypotheses, [2] I tried to show that Curti’s description seems correct, generally speaking, but that his hypothesis of an evolution of Eusebius is difficult to sustain, since it appears, rather, that Eusebius could have commented differently on the same text because he had specific interests in doing so. This is not to say that Eusebius was a “cynical” interpreter. But his interpretation may slightly change according to his rhetorical strategy (i.e. more or less polemical) or the literary genre of the work (i.e. commentary, apology, theological speculation, etc.). Hence, it is often not necessary to hypothesize an intimate evolution of Eusebius’s exegesis.
What is particularly striking in Curti’s article is that the scholar discusses the relationship between Eusebius and Origen only in terms of general hermeneutics, according to the principle “allegory is Origenian” (which is, moreover, extremely reductive); he never tries to evaluate the debt of Eusebius to Origen’s commentaries and, significantly, he never quotes any text by Origen in the core of his demonstration. This gives his inquiry a very abstract turn. Our aim is to proceed along more philological grounds. We already began this inquiry in the case of the DE. We would like to ask here how far we can identify the Origenian background of the Ecl. Proph. Such an inquiry, as one knows, is far from simple, since huge parts of Origen’s commentaries are no longer extant, at least in direct tradition. But this study will show that the research is not impossible.
In a previous publication, I argued that the prologue of the Ecl. Proph.’s book 4 is based on several passages from Against Celsus (see Appendix 2). [3] It remains to be seen if Eusebius is also indebted to Origen’s commentaries in this work.

Eusebius’ Method in the Ecl. Proph.

The exact date of the Ecl. Proph. is unknown. [4] It was composed between 304 and 313, and probably around 311/312 if one accepts Burgess’ dating of the Chronicle. [5] It formed books 6 to 9 of the General Elementary Introduction (Gen. El. Intr.), from which we only have fragments from the first books. There is no reason to think that this work was not, as the title indicates, a real “introduction,” viz. an exposition of the Christian faith addressed to beginners. [6] The plan was probably the following: first, exposition of the fundamental principles of Christian doctrine, with a discussion about Christ (books 1–5); second, prophetical proofs about Christ (books 6–9); third, refutation of heresies (book 10). [7]
The Ecl. Proph. are a collection of proof-texts (testimonia) about Christ and associated ecclesiological themes (the calling of the nations, the rejection of the Jews), with a commentary by Eusebius. The work contains several passages in which Eusebius explains his own method. [8] At the beginning of the Ecl. Proph., he specifies the kind of interpretation he will make:
῎Εσται δὲ καὶ διὰ βραχέων μετρία τις ἡμῶν ἐξήγησις, ὅτε μὲν ἀπόδειξιν περιέξουσα τοῦ κατὰ μόνον τὸν ἡμετέρον Σωτῆρα πεπληρῶσθαι τὰς ἱερὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ προρρήσεις, ὅτε δὲ τὴν ἡμετέραν γνώμην ἣν ἐχόμεν περὶ τῶν ἐκτεθησομένων σημαίνουσα.
“And our interpretation will be short and moderate. On the one hand, it will contain a proof that the sacred predictions of God have been accomplished only at the time of our Savior. On the other hand, it will show the opinion we have concerning the passages we will quote.”
This text defines the σκοπός [9] of the commentary in a twofold way: not only will Eusebius comment on a selection of passages, but he will also content himself with a selective commentary. The latter will be based on the demonstration that Jesus has fulfilled the prophecies. But Eusebius states that he will also give his own opinion concerning the texts. At first sight, this way of defining the commentary is rather puzzling, since one does not clearly see why Eusebius’ opinion could not be the same thing as the conviction that Christ has fulfilled the prophecies. Besides, this conviction is expressed in every commentary. For this reason, it seems impossible to understand the text as if Eusebius was saying that he will “sometimes” (ὅτε μέν) demonstrate the accomplishment of the predictions, and “sometimes” (τότε δέ) give his own opinion. One should probably rather understand ὅτε μέν . . . τότε δέ as meaning “on the one hand, on the other hand.” Thus, the text could mean that Eusebius intends primarily to show that Jesus accomplished the prophecies, and also (probably secondarily) to provide other comments, which do not necessarily correspond directly to the first and fundamental issue of his commentary.
In the commentary itself, Eusebius follows this principle. He comments on the testimonia only by referring them to Christ or associated themes. [10] In that respect, the commentary is only a development of the ὑπoθέσεις that are given at the beginning of the books (except at the beginning of book 1, which is lost, and of book 4, which apparently lacks such a pinax in the preserved manuscripts). It is short (διὰ βραχέων), [11] gives only indications “in passing” (ἐν παρέργῳ καὶ παραδρομῇ), [12] and Eusebius compares it to an ἐπιτομή. [13]

“Concluding Formulas” in the Ecl. Proph. as Indications to Readers

Eusebius, however, often feels the need to give some indications to the reader who would like to go further and would be in need of a complete commentary. Eusebius gives these indications at the very end of his comments. [14] Their recurrence is striking. The “formulaic” character of the phrases used by the exegete is also notable. Eusebius addresses himself to the “lover of learning” (the φιλομαθής). [15] He often explains that his σκοπός prevents him from going beyond a selective commentary and that a deep investigation of the texts must be left for another time (καιρός [16] ) and would require some leisure (σχολή [17] ). Sometimes, the concluding remarks allude to a section of the text that Eusebius does not want to comment upon because it would be too long and too far from his aim, or because it would lead him to too difficult an explanation, and such an explanation must be rejected from a work that is addressed to the beginners. At other times, the indication does not allude to a portion of the text that is not commented upon, but to a level of understanding that Eusebius, for the same reason, prefers to leave unaddressed.
Sometimes, Eusebius concludes commentaries by noting that he cannot go further, but does not include any indication to the reader who would like to know more. At other times, Eusebius explains the kind of exegesis which the text would need: he may indicate that it needs a spiritual interpretation, or give a more specific indication, for instance, that the text is to be understood with reference to Christ alone, or that the reader would only have to adapt to the whole text Eusebius’ comments about another passage or passages (see Appendix 1).
A few times, Eusebius even refers his reader to other commentaries. He sometimes makes it clear that if he does not need to give a complete commentary, it is because such commentaries exist. [18] The problem is: what are these other commentaries?
Most often, the reference is anonymous: about the Psalms, Eusebius refers to τοῖς εἰς αὐτὸν ὑπομνηματισαμένοις (2.1), τὰ ὑφ᾿ ἑτέρων εἰς τὸν Ψαλμὸν ὑπομνηματισθέντα (2.7), or to a πληρεστάτη διήγησις (2.2); about Isaiah, he alludes to τὰ εἰς τοὺς τόπους ὑπομνήματα (4.7). But it is not difficult to identify these commentaries. About the same Isaiah, Eusebius refers one time to τὰ εἰς τοὺς τόπους τοῦ θαυμασίου ἀνδρὸς ἐξηγητικά, “the exegetical remarks of the marvelous man about these passages” (4.7). About the Song of Songs, Eusebius writes that the book has already found a “very complete clarification” (πληρεστάτη σαφηνεία) “in the commentaries of the very industrious exegete of the divine Scriptures” (ἐν οἷς ὁ φιλοπονώτατος τῶν θείων γραφῶν ἐξηγητὴς ὑπεμνηματίσατο). [19] These two texts can hardly refer to a man other than Origen. They tend to prove that each time Eusebius refers to another commentary (that is to say about the Psalms, Isaiah, and the Song), he refers primarily, and highly probably, only, to Origen’s commentaries. [20] Besides, the possibilities are not many. [21]
But one could and perhaps should go further. These few references to Origen’s works already indicate that Eusebius has in mind his predecessor’s commentaries when he composed the Ecl. Proph. and that these commentaries were for him (at least at that time) the best commentaries one ever wrote or would write (as he presents the Against Celsus, at the beginning of the Against Hierocles, as the prototype of every possible refutation). [22] Thus, it is reasonable to think that the concluding formulas in the Ecl. Proph. are often, if not always, an allusion to Origen’s commentaries.
The type of exegesis that Eusebius excludes from his Extracts tends to sustain this hypothesis. This exegesis is excluded because it is too long, [23] too precise, [24] or too respectful of every word (ἑκάστη λέξις) in the text; [25] it is too deep, [26] too difficult for a beginner; it deals with the deepest meaning of the text (called by Eusebius ἡ δι᾿ ἀλληγορίας ὑπονοία, [27] νοῦς, [28] διάνοια, [29] or θεωρία [30] ), which would need to be understood spiritually (πνευματικῶς), [31] with the help of “tropology alone” (μονὴ τροπολογία), [32] or “the laws of allegory” (νόμοι ἀλληγορίας). [33] It would be the commentary of someone who could search (ἐξετάζειν) [34] and scrutinize (ἐρευνᾶν). [35] These phrases not only suggest Origen’s exegesis, which was known in antiquity to be at the same time precise, respectful of every letter in the text, and based on the research of the deepest meaning, but they are part of Origen’s own exegetical vocabulary. [36]
Now, if we must be convinced that Eusebius has Origen in mind when he speaks about what he could do, but does not, does that mean that his commentary is not indebted to Origen, or, on the contrary, that it is? The only way to know is to compare, every time it is possible, Origen’s preserved exegesis with Eusebius’. It would be impossible to discuss every commentary in the Ecl. Proph. We will concentrate on book 2, which deals with the Psalms, and will take only three examples. Origen’s exegetical works on the Psalms included a long commentary (the Tomoi on the Psalms); homilies; and at least two collections of scholia (or “excerpts”). [37] Of this material, almost nothing remains. From the Tomoi and the excerpts, we only have a few fragments given in the catenae. Origen, though, often mentions the Psalms in his other works. His exegesis may correspond partly to what he wrote in his commentaries on the Psalms, but may sometimes also be different. Jerome’s Commentarioli in Psalmos, however, are a good (but selective) witness to the Tomoi, since Jerome writes in his preface that he will give some brief indications about the Psalms derived from Origen’s Tomoi and homilies, or based on his own opinion. [38] The following analysis will show the difficulty, but also the interest of comparing Eusebius’ Ecl. Proph. to what remains of Origen’s exegesis on the Psalms. [39]

Eusebius’ Exegesis of the Psalms in the Ecl. Proph.

Psalm 1, 1-2 [40] (= Ecl. Proph. 2.1)

1 Blessed is the man who did not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
      Nor stand in the path of sinners,
      Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!
2 But his will is in the law of the Lord,
      And in his law he will meditate day and night. [41]
Eusebius’ commentary aims at showing that the text can in no way refer to a simple man, but only to Christ, since the virtue of the man mentioned in the Psalm “surpasses every human nature.” [42]
This passage is often referred to in the first three centuries, though always as an allusion to the faithful or the just man (not to Christ). [43] The only two exceptions before Eusebius are Hippolytus and Origen. The former left a very short commentary applying the text to Christ. [44] The other commented many times upon the two verses. Most often, Origen reads it as an allusion to the faithful, [45] and sometimes more precisely to those who are eager to find the deepest meaning of the Scriptures (they “meditate on the law day and night”). [46] There are, however, at least two fragments of Origen’s Tomoi on the Psalms, preserved in the catenae, which apply the text to Christ. The first fragment is attributed to Origen in three manuscripts. [47] Because Origen seems more often to apply the text to the faithful, E. Goffinet is a bit skeptical towards this fragment. He judges that it does not reflect Origen’s “usual doctrine” (sic) but that it “might” have been contained in his commentary on the Psalms as an illustration of a “current theory” (that is to say, an interpretation that Origen did not completely admit). The problem is that we also have another fragment from the same commentary, which contained two close parallels with Eusebius’ commentary in the Ecl. Proph. [48] This fragment explains that Christ alone must be indicated in the Psalm, because of his exceptional virtue, and argues, exactly like Eusebius in the Ecl. Proph., that this interpretation is confirmed by reference to the Hebrew text, which contains an article before the word ἀνήρ, which demonstrates, to the commentator’s view, that the text does not refer to “a” man, but to “the” only man who could accomplish the prophecy. [49]
In one manuscript (Vindobonensis Theologicus Graecus 59), the fragment is attributed to Origen; in another manuscript (Oxoniensis Bodleianus Baroccianus 235), it is attributed both to Eusebius and to Origen, the manuscript suggesting that the text is derived from Eusebius using Origen (Εὐσεβ. Καισαρ. ὁμοίως ωρ.). Goffinet thinks that the text is a Eusebian commentary exactly reflecting Origen’s, which is possible. [50]
In any case, these different testimonies attest that:
Origen, in his Tomoi, also applied the Psalm to Christ;
Eusebius used this interpretation in his own Commentary on the Psalms, probably rewriting (at least partly) Origen’s exegesis;
the Ecl. Proph. already reflect Origen’s interpretation in the Tomoi; moreoever, since the passage about the article in the Hebrew text is found again in the catenae and is attributed both to Origen and to Eusebius, there is a strong probability that at least this passage is already, in the Ecl. Proph., a rewriting of Origen’s Tomoi. It is thus also probable that the rest of the commentary is strongly inspired by Origen’s commentary. This intuition is confirmed by Jerome’s Commentarioli in Psalmos. Jerome first applies the text to the just man who meditates upon the Law of God, but since the Jews, as he says, apply the Psalm to Josias, he explains that it would better (melius) be applied to Christ. [51]
We can thus demonstrate that in his Tomoi, Origen suggested at least two interpretations (and referred to a third, “Jewish” one, if Jerome follows him in this as well): first, that the Psalm refers to the just man; second, that it would refer to Josias, according to the Jews; third, but that it better applies to Christ. Thus, Origen was not reluctant towards the Christological interpretation of the text, as Goffinet tended to think. [52] The testimony of the Ecl. Proph. could already have permitted Goffinet to revise his opinion, since at the end of the commentary, Eusebius, as we noted, tells the reader that he will find every detail of the christological meaning of the text in commentaries which, as we have shown, are Origen’s Tomoi.
The conclusion is that Eusebius’ commentary in the Ecl. Proph. is directly inspired by Origen’s Tomoi. [53] The bishop of Caesarea selected, from the three possible exegeses mentioned by Origen, the one that best suited his purpose.

Psalm 2, 1-2 (= Ecl. Proph. 2.2)

1 Why have the nations been in an uproar
      And the peoples devised a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth have taken their stand
      And the rulers have taken counsel together
      Against the Lord and against His Anointed.
Eusebius’ commentary is that the text not only (οὐ μόνοι) refers to those who plotted against Christ during his lifetime (e.g. Herod and Pilate), but also (ἀλλὰ καί) to all the kings and even to all those who ever plotted against him in any time. Besides, the “kings” and the “rulers” would not only refer to the human and visible sort, but also, and far better (πολὺ μᾶλλον) to the “intelligible and invisible rulers of this age” (τοὺς νοητοὺς καὶ ἀοράτους ἄρχοντας τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου). The “nations” and the “peoples” could also be the Jews.
First quoted in the NT as a prophecy of Herod and Pilate (Acts 4:25–26), this passage is often mentioned by the first Christian exegetes. [54] They often reference the quotation of the text in Acts 4, but there is no elaborate interpretation of the passage before Tertullian. [55] The latter does not see in the text simply an allusion to Herod and Pilate, but also to all the persecutions against the Christians. In the De resurrectione, [56] he specifically applies “nations” to Pilate, “peoples” to the Jews, “kings” to Herod, and “rulers” to Annas and Caiaphas. This partly recalls Eusebius’ interpretation. But analysis shows that the latter is far closer to Origen.
The Greek tradition transmits several commentaries by Origen. They show the close dependence of Eusebius on his spiritual master. Most often, Origen applies “kings” and “rulers” to the demons, [57] which tends to suggest that he had at least a preference for this spiritual interpretation of the text. The phrases he uses strongly recall Eusebius (ἀντικείμεναι ἐνεργείαι, [58] ἀόρατοι δυνάμεις, [59] ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου [60] ). A Latin translator speaks of the “invisible kings and rulers of this world” (inuisibiles reges et principes saeculi huius). [61] Once again, however, Origen’s exegesis seems to have been changing. In his Homilies on Ezechiel, he states that the text can in no way refer to physical rulers. [62] But in the Latin version of the Commentary on Matthew, Origen (if it really is Origen) says that it can refer to all those who plot against Jesus. [63]
Now if we turn to Jerome’s Commentarioli, the dependence of Eusebius on Origen’s Tomoi becomes particularly clear. Jerome states that the Psalm not only (non solum) refers to Herod, but also (sed etiam) to the demons (quorum regna ei in puncto temporis diabolus ostendit). [64] The idea and the style clearly recall Eusebius. Thus, the double testimony of Jerome and Origen himself tends to demonstrate that Eusebius’ commentary in the Ecl. Proph. is closely inspired by Origen’s Tomoi. Let us add that Jerome’s commentary, like Eusebius’, begins with an allusion to Acts 4:27, where the Psalm is quoted by Peter. This element also must stem from Origen’s commentary.
A fragment from Origen’s Tomoi confirms this view: it applies the text to Herod and Pilate, all the kings and nations who ever plotted against Jesus, and finally to the demons and the Jews, who would be the “peoples” mentioned in the text. [65] This is exactly the movement of Eusebius’ commentary in the Ecl. Proph. Moreover, the text also alludes to Acts 4. The consequence is, at least in this respect, that Eusebius’ more complete commentary on verse 2 is a more faithful witness of Origen’s commentary in the Tomoi than Jerome’s. Another conclusion of this analysis is that there is no need to assume any other source than Origen behind Eusebius’ commentary. The only discrepancy between Eusebius’ and Origen’s (preserved) commentaries is that Eusebius sees an allusion to the Jews not only in the “peoples” but also in the “nations.” He is apparently the first one to do so. This interpretation seems paradoxical since the word ἔθνη in Greek would have been more naturally interpreted as an allusion to the “pagans,” not the “Jews.” There is a good reason to think that Eusebius is the “inventor” of this exegesis. In a work such as the Ecl. Proph., he preferred to apply the negative passage about the “nations” to the Jews for an obvious polemical purpose (the nations being always presented in the work in a positive way).

Psalm 18, 4-7 (= Ecl. Proph. 2.10)

4 There is no speech, nor words;
      Their voice is not heard.
5 Their sound has gone out through all the earth,
      And their utterances to the end of the world
      In the sun He has placed his tent.
6 Like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
      It rejoiced as a giant to run his course.
7 Its exit is from one end of the heaven,
      And its circuit to the other end of it.
According to Eusebius, the beginning of the text could only refer to the apostles. The “sun” could be the “divinity” in which Christ took his “sojourn” (μονή, κατασκήνωσις) or the body he took from the Virgin. Verse 6 would refer to Christ as the Church’s “bridegroom,” victorious over his enemies. The end of the passage would be a prophecy of Christ’s Ascension.
Until Eusebius, the most frequently quoted verse is verse 5, already mentioned in the NT (Rom 10:18). Christians before Eusebius see it as a prophecy of the preaching of the Gospel. [66] The “giant” (verse 6) is identified with Christ. [67] The “bridegroom” is always interpreted as Christ engaged to the Church (Tertullian), [68] the flesh (Novatian), [69] or the Church (Cyprian). [70] Usually, verse 7 is considered as an allusion to the Ascension. [71] The most problematical passage seems to have been “in the sun He has placed his tent.” Hermogenes is probably the first to interpret the passage as an allusion to the “body” (the tent) that Christ placed in a region called “the belt of the sun” at the time of his Ascension. [72] Clement of Alexandria says that certain people interpret the “tent” as the body of Christ, others, as being the Church. [73] He himself applies the passage to the second coming of Christ and prefers to see the “tent” as the Church; [74] the “sun” would be either the brightness which will illuminate the just ones, either the physical sun where they will be placed at that time, [75] or God himself (because of the false paronomasia El/ἥλιος), [76] but in that case, it seems that Clement prefers to see the “tent” as an allusion to the angels. [77]
Origen’s commentary in the Tomoi is not directly known, apart from Origen’s comment about the “sun” (thanks to Pamphilus’ Apology of Origen [78] ) and Jerome’s Commentarioli (which do not comment on the other verses). Jerome only writes that “By ‘sun,’ we understand mystically ‘Christ’” (Per solem mystice de Christo intellegitur). [79] In the fragment preserved in the Apology, Origen refutes the Hermogenian exegesis, which consists in seeing the “tent” as the body that Christ will bring to the “belt of the sun.” Instead, he thinks that the tent is the Church, which Christ has placed in the sun of justice. This interpretation recalls Clement, but Origen refers to the first coming of Christ, and identifies the “sun” with the “sun of justice,” which was, however, probably identified in another passage of the Tomoi with Christ himself. [80] Here, the only common point between Eusebius and Origen is that both, it seems, applied the passage to Christ. Eusebius’ exegesis stems, perhaps, from Clement’s own Prophetic Extracts. Even if it is not Clement’s own exegesis, the latter may be the source for Eusebius’ identification of the “tent” as the body of Christ and of the “sun” as his divinity (or God, in Clement). It is all the more tempting to think that Eusebius’ Prophetic Extracts depend here on Clement’s work of the same title. But it remains of course possible that this exegesis, though it may be inspired by Clement, was also mentioned in Origen’s Tomoi as another way of understanding the text—this would be quite consistent with his habits as a commentator, even if Origen may have preferred the interpretation preserved in Pamphilus’ (and Eusebius’) Apology for Origen. As a variant of this hypothesis, we could imagine that the identification “tent” = “body” stems from Origen’s preserved passage in the Apology of Origen, and that Origen had said in another passage that the “sun” could also be understood, as Clement did, as the “divinity.”
Concerning the beginning of verse 2, the loss of any trace of Origen’s Tomoi does not prevent us from detecting a possible dependence of Eusebius on Origen, since the latter frequently commented on the passage, like Eusebius (but also like his own predecessors), as a prophecy of the preaching of the apostles. [81]
Finally, Origen’s exegesis of verse 6 is known from two texts that apply the passage to Christ. [82] In a fragment about the Song of Songs, Origen (if he is really the author of the fragment) alludes to the verse by telling that Christ is the bridegroom of the angels and the archangels. [83] But this does not mean that in the Tomoi, Origen’s exegesis could not have been the same as Eusebius’ (first attested, as it seems, in Tertullian). Besides, the theme “Christ as the bridegroom of the Church” is coherent with Origen’s interpretation of the Song of Songs. It is difficult to imagine that this interpretation was not mentioned in the Tomoi on the Psalms.
The conclusion here is more problematical than in the previous two cases. First, Eusebius agrees with Origen only on verse 2, but here his exegesis is also traditional. Second, there is an apparent contradiction between Eusebius’ and Origen’s interpretations of the end of verse 5. And, third, there is no clear connection between their interpretations of verse 6, though the theme of Eusebius’ commentary recalls Origen (but also Tertullian). We should not, however, automatically conclude that this commentary is not derived from Origen. On the contrary, there is no reason to think that Eusebius elaborated this commentary differently from the others. We must think that he used, as a primary material, a commentary by Origen. But this time, two possibilities appear:
On the basis of the available evidence, Eusebius seems to have followed Origen’s commentary, except in the case of the “tent” placed in the “sun.” His commentary appears here to be original. He may have drawn it from Clement, because he could not find in Origen a clear christological interpretation of the text.
Another hypothesis would be that every element of Eusebius’ commentary stems from Origen’s Tomoi. But this hypothesis is less economical than the first, because it is not based on facts, but on an assumption. It is not impossible, but it has no philological foundation.


This analysis tends to confirm that Origen’s Tomoi were Eusebius’ main source in Ecl. Proph. 2. [84] The same must be true in the other books. Origen was his main source, but that did not prevent him from using other authors (such as Clement) and giving original comments. [85] Moreover, some of the texts mentioned above tend to confirm the comparison between the prologue of Book IV and Origen’s Against Celsus: Eusebius may follow his master so close that when he does, he sometimes reproduces literally (with little or no modifications) what Origen writes. [86] The consequence is that the Ecl. Proph. are a major witness of Origen’s lost exegesis. [87] This is not surprising. At that time, Eusebius had learned, in the circle of Pamphilus, to read and admire the Alexandrian. Before the death of Pamphilus in 310, he had spent a long time copying Origen’s opera omnia along with his friend. We can guess that the “teaching” of Pamphilus, alluded to in the History of the Church and the Martyrs of Palestine, was based of course on the Bible, but probably as much on Origen’s works. [88] The friends of Pamphilus would have spent a long time reading and meditating on the thought of their spiritual master. We can imagine that Eusebius knew whole passages of Origen by heart. [89] But that should not lead us to think that in a work like the Ecl. Proph., he draws upon Origen from memory. The fact that he may rewrite Origen’s commentaries proves that he had a text under the eyes. On the other hand, this text cannot be constituted of Origen’s whole commentaries. We should not imagine Eusebius sat at a desk writing the Ecl. Proph. with Origen’s opera omnia (in the form of rolls, possibly) [90] on the table (a rather awkward way to compose a work, I may add). As writers in antiquity were accustomed to do, [91] he used one or several anthologies of extracts derived from Origen’s works. [92] These anthologies cannot be confused with the one he made with Pamphilus when both friends composed the Apology for Origen. The latter anthology contained passages supposed to show the orthodoxy of Origen’s thought. We may assume that before Eusebius worked at the Ecl. Proph., he had composed at least two other anthologies: an anthology from the Against Celsus, from which he took at least the passages on the prophets he used in book 4, and an anthology derived from Origen’s commentaries, where he selected only the christological comments. But since readers in antiquity were often reluctant to read without also taking notes (in the form of extracts), we are also quite sure that Eusebius had made specific anthologies when he read each one of Origen’s works. We cannot know whether these “primary” anthologies where already selections of exclusively christological passages, or also contained other kinds of extracts which could not be used directly for the purpose of a demonstration about Christ. In any case, the Ecl. Proph. are not only extracts from the Bible; they also are or at least reflect extracts from Origen’s commentaries. Such a conclusion should lead us to reexamine the hypothesis that at least some of Origen’s “extracts” on the Psalms known to Jerome were actually anthologies constituted from his works, perhaps by Pamphilus and Eusebius. [93]
It is quite sure that the Origenian anthologies Eusebius used for the Ecl. Proph. were used again in the DE, as we can be quite sure that the anthologies of Josephus and Philo Eusebius certainly used in the DE and the HE, [94] were already available to him when he wrote the Ecl. Proph. This would tend to prove that a good part of the matrix of the HE and the DE was constituted before Eusebius wrote the Ecl. Proph.
If this analysis is correct, it sheds new light on a work that has long been considered as a minor work or as an “early work” of Eusebius (which is paradoxical: if Eusebius was born around 260/265 as we think, he would have been around forty years old when he composed it). The Ecl. Proph. were not only a collection of proof-texts. They were also a kind of epitome of Origen’s exegesis addressed to the beginners. The “concluding formulas” show that it could even be used, in Eusebius’ view, as an introduction to Origen’s commentaries.

Appendix 1: “Concluding formulas” in the Ecl. Proph.

Ecl. Proph.   Passage
I 2 μυστικῆς δὲ καὶ ἀπορρήτου θεωρίας ἐχόμενα τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον οὐ νῦν ἀναπτύσσειν καιρός. Gen 11, 5–7
I 3 πολλῆς δὲ καὶ βαθυτάτης δεομένων θεωρίας τῶν κατὰ τὸν τόπον, ἱκανὰ καὶ ταῦτα πρὸς τὴν παροῦσαν ὑπόθεσιν. Gen 12, 1–19, 19
I 6 ἅπερ εἰ οὕτως ἔχοι ὁ φιλομαθὴς ἑκάστην λέξιν νόμοις ἀλληγορίας ἐξετάσας εἴσεται. Gen 27, 29
I 8 τὰ δ’ ἑξῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ, δεσμεύων πρὸς ἄμπελον τὸν πῶλον αὐτοῦ, τῆς δι᾿ ἀλληγορίας ὑπονοίας ἀρτημένα τοῖς φιλομαθέσι ζητεῖν καταλείψομεν, πλεονάσαντες καὶ ἐν τοῖς εἰρημένοις, οὐ κατὰ τὸν προτεθέντα μὲν σκοπόν, ὅμως δ᾿ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὑπὲρ σαφοῦς διηγήσεως τῶν κατὰ τὸν τόπον. Gen 49, 1; 8–10
I 12 πῶς τε εἴρηται τό, σκεπάσω τῇ χειρί μου ἐπὶ σέ, καλύμματος καὶ σκέπης ἐπιτιθεμένου τῷ νόμῳ, ὡς διὰ τοῦτο τὸ καλύμμα τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω δύνασθαι ὁρᾶν, οὐκέτι δὲ τὰ προηγούμενα καὶ διαφέροντα· ἰδίᾳ κατὰ καιρόν, ᾧ μέλει τῆς τούτων ἐρεύνης, ἐπιστήσας εἴσεται. Ex 33, 9–34, 9
I 19 πλείονος δὲ σαφηνείας δεομένων τῶν τόπων, τούτοις ὡς οἷόν τε ἦν διὰ βραχέων εἰρημένοις ἀρκεσθησόμεθα. 1 Kings 2, 27; 35–36
I 23 καὶ ταῦτα, ὅμοια ὄντα τοῖς ἐκ  τῆς δευτέρας τῶν Βασιλειῶν προεκτεθείσης, σημειωσάμενοι, διὰ τὸ μὴ πολλὴν εἶναι τὴν τούτων πρὸς ἐκεῖνα παραλλαγὴν ἀρκεσθησόμεθα τοῖς εἰς ἐκεῖνα εἰρημένοις. 1 Chr 17, 11–14
II 1 ὅτῳ δὲ φίλον διαγνῶναι τὸ ἀκριβὲς τῆς ἐπὶ τὴν Σωτῆρα τῶν ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ λεγομένων ἀναφορᾶς,  τοῖς εἰς αὐτὸν ὑπομνηματισαμένοις ἐντυχὼν εἴσεται. Ps 1, 1–3
II 2 ὅλα δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὸν ψαλμὸν διηγεῖσθαι οὐ τοῦ παρόντος τυγχάνει καιροῦ, μάλιστα ὅτε πληρεστάτης ἤδη τετύχηκεν διηγήσεως. Ps 2, 1–2; 4–5; 6–8
II 7 τοῦ δὴ Πέτρου τοίνυν ἀποδεδωκότος εἰς τὸν Σωτῆρα τὴν τῆς προφητείας ἑρμηνείαν, παρέσται τῷ μὴ πάρεργον τὴν τούτων ἔρευναν ποιουμένῳ, ἤτοι ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐν τῷ Ψαλμῷ λέξιν ἀκολούθως ἐφαρμόζειν οἷς καὶ ὁ Πέτρος ἐξείληφεν, ἢ τοῖς ὑφ᾿ ἑτέρων εἰς τὸν Ψαλμὸν ὑπομνηματισθεῖσιν ἐντυχεῖν· ἡμῖν γὰρ ὁ σκοπὸς οὐδέν τι πλεῖον τῶν εἰρημένων λέγειν εἰς τοὺς τόπους ἐπιτρέπει. Ps 15, 8–11
II 9 οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς θεότητος καὶ τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους καταβάσεως αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις δηλοῦσθαι τοῦ Ψαλμοῦ· ἅπερ οὐ τῆς ἐν παρέργῳ καὶ παραδρομῇ δέοιτ᾿ ἂν ἐξηγήσεως ἀπορρητότερον εἰρημένα, οἷα ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τοῦ, καὶ ἔκλινεν οὐρανοὺς καὶ κατέβη, καὶ γνόφος ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἐπέβη ἐπὶ Χερουβὶν καὶ ἐπετάσθη, ἐπετάσθη ἐπὶ πτερύγων ἀνέμων· καὶ ὅσα τούτοις παραπλησίως ἐπὶ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον ἀναφέρεται. Ps 17, 10–11; 44–46
II 10 εὐχερῶς δ᾿ ἄν τις ἑαυτῷ τούτοις ἀναλόγως ἐξεργάσεται τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον. Ps 18, 4–7
II 11 καὶ ὅλα δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἐφαρμοσθείη ἂν αὐτῷ τῆς προσηκούσης τυχόντα ἐξηγήσεως. Ps 19, 6–7
II 12 καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ δὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ ὡς περὶ τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως δόξης λεγόμενα, οὐ μικρὰ ὄντα, ἁρμόττοι ἂν  τῷ Χριστῷ μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ Δαυὶδ τῆς ἀξίας τυχόντα σαφηνείας. Ps 20, 2; 5
II 13 καὶ ὅλα δὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ ἐφαρμόσαι ἂν τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν αὐτοῦ, καθ᾿ ἣν ἐπεβουλεύθη, περιέχοντα. Ps 141, 8; 3–4; 7
II 14 καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ δὲ τοῦ ψαλμοῦ πνευματικῶς ἐκλαμβάνων νοήσειας. Ps 143, 3–5
III 6 καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα ἐναποκέκρυπται τῇ βίβλῳ ἀπορρητότερα μαθήματα, ἃ καὶ πληρεστάτης ἤδη σαφηνείας ἔτυχεν, ἐν οἷς ὁ φιλοπονώτατος τῶν θείων γραφῶν ἐξηγητὴς ὑπεμνηματίσατο. Song of Songs (whole book)
III 14 καὶ διὰ τούτων σαφῶς τὰ τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἐπιδημίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ προφητεύεται· ἐπὶ σχολῆς δ᾿ ἂν ἑκάστη λέξις ἀκριβεστέρας τύχοι σαφηνείας. Am 4, 12–13
III 23 πολλῆς δὲ τῶν κατὰ τὸν τόπον δεομένων ἐξηγήσεως ἱκανὰ καὶ ταῦτα ὡς πρὸς τὴν παροῦσαν ὑπόθεσιν. Zech 3, 1; 4–5; 8; 6, 9–10; 11–14
III 27 καταλείψαντες αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ διεσκορπίσθησαν· τούτου δὴ χάριν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσημειωσάμεθα τὸ ῥητόν, ὃ καὶ πολλῆς δεόμενον ἐξετάσεως εἰς ἐπιτήδειον ἀναθησόμεθα καιρόν. Zech 13, 7
III 33 εἰ δὲ καὶ βαθυτέρας ἔχοιτο θεωρίας τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον, οὐδὲν πρὸς ἐκεῖνο λυπεῖ καὶ τὰ εἰρημένα. Jer 11, 18–19
III 46 ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἐπιτεμόμενοι τὴν διήγησιν παρατεθείμεθα.  
IV 4 τὰ δὲ κατὰ τὴν λέξιν ἕκαστα ὁποῖον ἔχει νοῦν, τοῖς εἰς τοὺς τόπους τοῦ θαυμασίου ἀνδρὸς ἐξηγητικοῖς ἐντυχὼν ὁ φιλομαθὴς εἴσεται. Isa 7, 10–16
IV 7 δι᾿ ὅπερ ἀναπέμψαντες τοὺς φιλομαθεῖς ἐπὶ τὰ εἰς τοὺς τόπους ὑπομνήματα, ἡμεῖς τὸ προτεθὲν διαπερανούμεθα. Isa 9, 5–7
IV 10 τὰ δ᾿ ἑξῆς τῆς προφητείας ἅπαντα διὰ μόνης ἀποδοθήσεται τροπολογίας. Isa 19, 1
IV 11 καὶ ὅλα δὲ τὰ ἑξῆς τῆς προφητείας βαθυτέρας ἤρτηται διανοίας, ἣν οὐχ ὁ παρὼν ἀναπτύσσειν καιρός. Isa 19, 19–21
IV 17 ἐν τῇ πάλαι δὲ ἐρήμῳ, τῇ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἡ τοιαύτη γενομένη φωνὴ ἑτοιμάζειν παρακελεύεται τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· ἅπερ ἐπὶ σχολῆς ᾧ μέλει τῆς τούτων γνώσεως ἐρευνήσας εἴσεται.  Isa 40, 3–5
IV 18 τὰ μέντοι γε λοιπὰ οὐκ ἔτι νῦν καιρὸς ἀπαιτεῖ διηγεῖσθαι· ὅθεν ἐφ᾿  ἑτέραν τραπησόμεθα περικοπήν. Isa 40, 9–11
IV 20 πρόκειται δὲ τῷ φιλομαθεῖ ἑκάστην ἐξετάζειν τῆς προφητείας λέξιν, καὶ ἀναλόγως τοῖς ὑφ᾿ ἡμῶν εἰρημένοις ἐπὶ τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰ ὑποπίπτοντα μεταφέρειν. Isa 42, 1–7
IV 23 ἑκάστην μέντοι γε λέξιν  τῆς περικοπῆς ἐξετάζειν οὐ τῆς παρούσης ἐστὶν πραγματείας. Isa 48, 12–16
IV 24 ἅπερ ἐπιπλεῖον βασανίζειν πνευματικώτερα ὄντα, καὶ κατὰ μόνην διάνοιαν ἀποδιδόμενα, οὐ τῆς παρούσης  πραγματείας τυγχάνει. Isa 49, 1–11
IV 26 ὁποῖον ἔχει νοῦν ὁ φιλομαθὴς ἐρευνήσας εἴσεται. Isa 52, 5–7
IV 27 ἐπιμελέστερον οὗτος ἐρευνήσας τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς εἴσεται. Isa 52, 10–54, 1

Appendix 2: Eusebius’ Use of Origen’s Against Celsus in Ecl. Proph. IV Prol.

Eusebius’ Ecl. Proph. IV Prol.* Origen Against Celsus
(main source of the passage)
Other parallels in Origen
Τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν Ἡσαΐου Προφητικὰς
Ἐκλογὰς μόνας ἡμῖν λειπούσας
ἀπανθίσασθαι πειρώμενοι, πρὸς
τοὺς ἀπίστως περὶ τὰς προφητείας
διακειμένους  ὀλίγα προδιαληψόμεθα
εἰς παράστασιν τῆς τῶν προφητῶν
ἀληθείας. Καὶ δὴ πρῶτον καλῶς καὶ τοῖς
πρὸ ἡμῶν τετηρημένον παραθήσομαι
Εὖ γοῦν εἰρηκέναι μοι δοκοῦσιν, ὡς ἄρα
τοῖς ὑπὸ τὸν Μωσέως νόμον αὐτὸς ὁ
διαμαρτύρεται, ὅτι δὴ τὰ ἔθνη ὧν
μεταξὺ πολιτεύσονται κληδόνων καὶ
μαντειῶν ἀκούσονται· σοὶ δέ, φησιν, οὐχ
οὕτως ἔδωκε Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου
· καὶ ἔτι
γε εἴργων αὐτοὺς ὁ θεῖος λόγος ἔκ τε
οἰωνιστικῆς καὶ πάσης τῆς διὰ δαιμόνων
περιέργου μαντείας ἐπιφέρει,
λέγων, προφήτην ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου
ἀναστήσει σοι Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου
. Ἆρ᾿
οὖν τούτων αὐτοῖς ἀναγεγραμμένων,
μὴ ἔργῳ δὲ γενομένων, μηδὲ παρόντων
αὐτοῖς προφητῶν ἀνδρῶν, δύνατον ἦν
αὐτοὺς πιστεύειν τῷ νόμῳ, καὶ τῷ ταῦτα
ἐπαγγειλαμένῳ λόγῳ οὕτω προφανῶς
καὶ ἐναργῶς ψευδομένῳ, ἢ δῆλον
ὅτι ὑπ’ αὐτῆς τῆς περὶ τὴν πρόγνωσιν
τῶν ἐσομένων λιχνείας ἀγόμενοι
κατεφρόνησαν <μὲν ἂν> τῶν ἰδίων,
ὡς οὐδὲν ἀληθὲς ἐχόντων οὐδὲ θεῖον
διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς προφήτας,
αὐτόμολοι δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν μαντεῖά
τε καὶ χρηστήρια μετῄεσαν <ἄν>
Ἀλλὰ γὰρ φαίνονται οὐ μόνον Μωσέα,
ἀλλὰ καὶ πλείους μετ᾿ αὐτὸν ὡς Θεοῦ
προφήτας προσιέμενοι, οὐκ ἄλλως
δῆλον ὅτι ἢ τῷ πείραν τῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς
θειότητος εἰληφέναι· οἵδε γὰρ
αὐτοῖς οὐ μόνον περὶ τῶν μακροῖς
ὕστερον χρόνοις μελλόντων ἔσεσθαι
προὐθέσπιζον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περί τινων
προχείρων καὶ βιωτικῶν
οἷον περὶ ὄνων ἀπολωλυιῶν, καὶ περὶ
νοσούντων ἐπισφαλῶς εἰ βιώσονται
ἢ μή
, καὶ περὶ μελλούσης ἔσεσθαι τῷ
λαῷ εὐθηνίας, καὶ περὶ ἄλλων μυρίων,
ἃ ταῖς κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἱστορίαις ἐμφέρεται·
ἅπερ εἰ μὴ τοῦτον γεγόνει τὸν τρόπον,
ἀποκρινέσθω τις, τίνι δή ποτε οὖν λόγῳ
προφήτας ἡγοῦντό τε καὶ ἀπεκάλουν, ἢ
διὰ τί γραφῆς τοὺς λόγους αὐτῶν ἠξίουν;
Τίς δ’ ἡ αἰτία, δι᾿ ἣν καὶ τοῖς μετέπειτα
παισὶν ἑαυτῶν, ὡς ἂν δὴ θείας, αὐτῶν
τὰς γραφὰς παρεδίδοσαν; μηδὲν γάρ τι
θεῖον μήδε παράδοξον ἐν τοῖς ἀνδράσιν
ἑορακότας εἰκῇ καὶ μάτην οἴεσθαι περὶ
αὐτῶν τοιαῦτα διειληφέναι πάντων
ἐστὶν ἀπιθανώτατον.
Εἰ δ’ ἀναδράμοι τις ἐπὶ τοὺς τότε χρόνους
τῇ διανοίᾳ, τί ἄρα ἐπινοήσειεν, ὁρῶν
ἄνδρας ἀγροίκους καὶ τὸ σχῆμα λιτοὺς,
αἰπολοὺς τινὰς καὶ ποιμένας, εἰς μέσον
παντὸς τοῦ ἔθνους παριόντας, καὶ ὡς
ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Θεοῦ τινα λέγοντας,
καὶ  τάδε λέγει Κύριος ἀναβοωμένους,
ἐπί τε βασιλέων καὶ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ
μετὰ παραστήματος ἀκαταπλήκτου
δημηγοροῦντας, καὶ σοφίαν ὑπὲρ
ἄνθρωπον ἐνδεικνυμένους, τὴν
καὶ εἰς ἔτι νῦν ἐν ταῖς προφητείαις
αὐτῶν φερομένην, μυρία τε ἄλλα
δι᾿ αἰνιγμάτων καὶ παραβολῶν
ἀπόρρητα φιλοσοφοῦντας, ἠθικήν τε
καὶ δογματικὴν τῇ Ἑβραίων φωνῇ
διδασκαλίαν τῷ λαῷ παραδιδόντας, καὶ
πρὸς ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν βίον τοῖς λόγοις
αὐτῶν κατάλληλον ἐνδεικνυμένους, καὶ
τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀκολακεύτως ὁμιλοῦντας, εἰς
πρόσωπόν τε τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς διελέγχοντας,
ὡς καὶ ἐπιβουλεύεσθαι πρὸς αὐτῶν
μέχρι θάνατον
, ῥωμαλέῳ καὶ γεννικῷ
παραστήματι τῷ ἀληθεῖ
λόγῳ παρισταμένους; Ταῦτά τις εἰς
νοῦν εὐγνωμόνως θέμενος, πῶς οὐκ ἂν
ὁμολογήσειεν  κατὰ θείαν ὡς ἀληθῶς
ἐπίπνοιαν ταῦτα πάντα περὶ αὐτοὺς
γεγονέναι; Διὸ καὶ τότε θαυμάζεσθαι
αὐτοὺς εἰκὸς ἦν παρὰ τοῖς ἔμφροσιν, καὶ
τοὺς λόγους αὐτῶν ἀναγράπτους παρὰ
τοῖς ἱερογραμματεῦσι φυλάττεσθαι, εἰς
ἔτι τε νῦν παρ᾿ ὅλῳ τῷ ἔθνει προφήτας
γεγονέναι τοῦ Θεοῦ πιστεύεσθαι· ὃ καὶ
ἐναργέστατα μάλιστα παρίστησιν ἡ
ἡμετέρα περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ διάληψις, καθ’
ἣν ἀποδείκνυμεν πᾶσαν τὴν κατ᾿ αὐτὸν
οἰκονομίαν γεγενημένην, τά τε περὶ τῆς
διδασκαλίας αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῆς ἐξ ἁπάντων
ἐθνῶν γενομένης δι᾿ αὐτοῦ κλήσεως
ἀκριβῶς προεγνῶσθαί τε καὶ πρὸ μυρίων
ὅσων ἐτῶν τοῖς θεσπεσίοις ἐκείνοις
ἀνδράσι προειρῆσθαι· ὧν τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους
Ἰουδαῖοι μᾶλλον ἂν ἡμῶν εἶεν
ἀξιοπιστότεροι μετὰ πάσης σεβασμίου
τιμῆς περιέποντές τε καὶ προφέροντες.

Τὸ δ’ ἀναγκαῖον οὕτω παραστήσομεν.
Τὰ ἔθνη, ὡς γέγραπται καὶ ἐν  αὐτῷ
τῷ τῶν Ἰουδαίων νόμῳ
, κληδόνων
καὶ μαντειῶν ἀκούσονται
· τῷ δὲ λαῷ
ἐκείνῳ εἴρηται· Σοὶ δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἔδωκε
κύριος ὁ θεός σου
. Καὶ ἐπιφέρεται τούτῳ
τὸ Προφήτην ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου
ἀναστήσει σοι κύριος ὁ θεός σου

Εἴπερ οὖν τῶν ἐθνῶν χρωμένων
μαντείαις εἴτε διὰ κληδόνων εἴτε
δι᾿ οἰωνῶν εἴτε δι᾿ ὀρνίθων εἴτε δι᾿
ἐγγαστριμύθων εἴτε καὶ διὰ τῶν τὴν
θυτικὴν ἐπαγγελλομένων εἴτε καὶ
διὰ Χαλδαίων γενεθλιαλογούντων,
ἅπερ πάντα Ἰουδαίοις ἀπείρητο,
Ἰουδαῖοι εἰ μηδεμίαν εἶχον παραμυθίαν
γνώσεως τῶν μελλόντων, ὑπ’ αὐτῆς
ἂν τῆς  ἀνθρωπίνης περὶ τὴν γνῶσιν
λιχνείας τῶν ἐσομένων ἀγόμενοι
κατεφρόνησαν μὲν ἂν τῶν ἰδίων
ὡς οὐδὲν ἐχόντων θεῖον
ἐν ἑαυτοῖς
καὶ οὐκ ἂν μετὰ Μωϋσέα προφήτην
οὐδ’ ἀνέγραψαν αὐτῶν τοὺς
λόγους, αὐτόμολοι δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν
μαντεῖα καὶ χρηστήρια μετέστησαν

ἐπεχείρησαν ἂν ἱδρῦσαί τι τοιοῦτον καὶ
παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς. Ὣστ᾿ οὐδὲν ἄτοπόν ἐστι
καὶ περὶ τῶν τυχόντων τοὺς παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς
προφήτας εἰς παραμυθίαν τῶν τὰ
τοιαῦτα ποθούντων προειρηκέναι, ὥστε
καὶ περὶ ὄνων ἀπολωλυιῶν προφητεύειν
τὸν Σαμουὴλ καὶ περὶ νόσου παιδὸς
τὸν ἐν τῇ  τρίτῃ τῶν Βασιλειῶν
ἀναγεγραμμένον. (I.36)

Ἆρα γὰρ ὡς ἔτυχε ταῦτ᾿ ἔλεγον
οἱ  προφῆται σὺν οὐδεμιᾷ πιθανότητι,
τῇ κινούσῃ αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὸ μὴ μόνον
εἰπεῖν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀναγραφῆς ἀξιῶσαι
τὰ λεγόμενα; Ἆρά γε τὸ τοσοῦτο τῶν
Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος, πάλαι χώραν ἰδίαν
εἰληφὸς οἰκεῖν, σὺν οὐδεμιᾷ πιθανότητί
τινας μὲν ὡς προφήτας ἀνηγόρευον
ἑτέρους δὲ ὡς ψευδοπροφήτας
ἀπεδοκίμαζον; Καὶ οὐδὲν ἦν παρ᾿
αὐτοῖς τὸ προκαλούμενον συναριθμεῖν
ταῖς ἱεραῖς εἶναι πεπιστευμέναις
Μωϋσέως βίβλοις τοὺς λόγους τῶν ἑξῆς
νενομισμένων εἶναι προφητῶν; (III.2)

… διὰ τὸ τοῦ βίου δυσμίμητον καὶ
σφόδρα εὔτονον καὶ ἐλευθέριον καὶ
πάντῃ πρὸς θάνατον καὶ κινδύνους
ἀκατάπληκτον (. . .). Δι᾿ ἀλήθειαν γοῦν
καὶ τὸ ἐλευθερίως ἐλέγχειν τοὺς
ἁμαρτάνοντας … (VII.7)
Τῶν δ’ ἐν Ἰουδαίοις προφητῶν οἱ μὲν
πρὸ τῆς προφητείας καὶ τῆς θείας
κατακωχῆς ἦσαν σοφοί, οἱ δ’ ἀπ’ αὐτῆς
τῆς προφητείας φωτισθέντες τὸν νοῦν
τοιοῦτοι γεγόνασιν … (VII.7)
Οὗτοι δὴ καὶ ἄλλοι μυρίοι
προφητεύσαντες τῷ θεῷ καὶ τὰ περὶ
Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ προεῖπον. (VII.7)
Ταῦτα δι᾿ αἰνιγμάτων καὶ ἀλληγοριῶν
καὶ τῶν καλουμένων σκοτεινῶν λόγων
καὶ τῶν ὀνομαζομένων παραβολῶν
παροιμιῶν ἀπεφήναντο. (VII.10)
Ἐλιθάσθησαν, ἐπρίσθησαν, ἐπει-
ράσθησαν, ἐν  φόνῳ  μαχαίρας  ἀπέθανον.
Ἐπεὶ δ’ἅπαξ εἰς τὸν περὶ τῶν προφητῶν
ἤλθομεν λόγον, Ἰουδαίοις μέν, τοῖς
πιστεύουσι θείῳ πνεύματι αὐτοὺς
λελαληκέναι, οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἔσται
ἀχρήσιμα τὰ ἐποισθησόμενα καὶ τοῖς
εὐγνωμονοῦσι δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων. (I.36)

Οὐ μόνον προφητείας Ἱερεμίας
ἀνέγραψεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἴδια πάθη, ταῖς
μὲν διδάσκων βασιλείας οὐρανῶν
μυστήρια, τοῖς δὲ διδάσκων ὑπομονῆς
παραδείγματα, τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν
τοιοῦτον οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν κολακείαν
πασχόντων. (FrJr 63)

Ἐλιθάσθησαν, ἐπρίσθησαν, ἐπει-
ράσθησαν … (CmMt X.18)

Notes to Appendix 2 [95]

Eusebius’ text is inspired by several passages from Against Celsus, and probably by other parallels in Origen’s works. Such parallels may also indicate that he also depends on a lost work by Origen, maybe the prologue of the lost commentary on Isaiah. This would account for the presence of this discussion at the beginning of a book devoted to Isaiah.
Since Eusebius speaks about his “predecessors” at the beginning of the passage, we cannot exclude that he also depends on other writers (we have already noticed possible echoes of Clement of Alexandria: see Morlet 2009:338–339).
The comparison shows the way Eusebius can rewrite Origen: sometimes, he is very close to his source (cf. Against Celsus 1.36 here); sometimes, he rewrites Origen more freely (see here Against Celsus 7.7 and 10).
The comparison also shows that Gaisford’s text, which makes no sense, has to be corrected (the mistake is in the codex Vindobonensis Theol. Gr. 29, fol. 43v). According to this edition, one reads that the Jews despised (κατεφρόνησαν) the prophets and passed (μετῄεσαν) to the pagan ones. That is exactly the contrary to what Eusebius means: if God would not have allowed the Jewish prophets to speak about daily problems, the Jews would have despised (κατεφρόνησαν <μὲν ἄν>) them and would have passed (μετῄεσαν <ἄν>) to the pagan prophets. Origen’s text confirms that we ought to assume the fall of the word ἄν in both cases, probably due to the similarity of the word with the ending of both verbs. The copyist thought Eusebius was dealing with the anger of the Jews against the prophets, to which Eusebius indeed alludes, but only in the second part of the text.

Works Cited

Baehrens, W.A. 1925. Origenis Libri X in Canticum canticorum. Leipzig.
Bandt, C. 2011. “Reverberations of Origen’s Exegesis of the Psalms in the Work of Eusebius and Didymus.” Origeniana Decima. Origen as Writer, ed. S. Kaczmarek and H. Pietras, 891–905. Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA.
Bandt, C. Forthcoming. “Some Remarks on the Tone of Eusebius’ Commentary on Psalms.” Studia Patristica.
Barnes, T.D. 1981. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA.
Brière, M., Mariès, L., and Mercier, C. 1954. Hippolyte de Rome. Sur les bénédictions d’Isaac, de Jacob et de Moïse, Patrologia Orientalis 27, 2–115. Paris.
Burgess, R.W. 1997. “The Dates and Editions of Eusebius’ Chronici Canones and Historia Ecclesiastica.” Journal of Theological Studies 48:471–504.
Cadiou, R. 1936. Commentaires inédits des Psaumes. Études sur les textes d’Origène contenus dans le manuscrit Vindobonensis 8. Paris.
———. 1936b. “La bibliothèque de Césarée et la formation des chaînes.” Revue des sciences religieuses 16:474–483
Carriker, A. J. 2003. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. Leiden/Boston.
Carpino, F. 1986. “Origene, Eusebio e Ilario sul Salmo 118.” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 3:57–64.
Cassin, M., Debié, M., and Perrin, M.-Y. 2012. “La question des éditions de l’Histoire ecclésiastique et le livre X.” Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique, commentaire. T. I.: études d’introduction, ed. S. Morlet and L. Perrone, 185–206. Paris.
Curti, C. 1980. “L’interpretazione di Ps 67, 14 in Eusebio di Cesarea. La sua fortuna presso gli esegeti greci e latini del Salterio.” Paradoxos Politeia. Studi patristici in onore di Giuseppe Lazzati, ed. R. Cantalamessa and L. F. Pizzolato, 195–207. Milano. 
Curti, C. 1985. “L’esegesi di Eusebio di Cesarea: caratteri e sviluppo.” Le trasformazioni della cultura nella Tarda Antichità. Atti del Convegno tenuto a Catania, Università degli Studi, 27 Sett.–2 Ott. 1982, I: 459–478. Roma.
Dorival, G. 1996. “Un astre se lèvera de Jacob. L’interprétation ancienne de Nombre 24, 17.” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 13:295–353.
———. 2004. “Remarques sur les ‘Eklogai prophétiques’ d’Eusèbe de Césarée.” Philomathestatos: Studies in Greek and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for His Sixty-Fifth Birthday/Études de patristique grecque et textes byzantins offerts à Jacques Noret à l’occasion de ses soixante-cinq ans, ed. B. Janssens, B. Roosen and P. Van Deun, 203–224. Leuven.
Gaisford, T. 1842. Eusebii Pamphili episcopi Caesariensis Eclogae propheticae. Oxford.
Goffinet, E. 1963. “Recherches sur quelques fragments du commentaire d’Origène sur le premier psaume.” Le Muséon 76:145–163.
Gounelle, R. 1994. “Il a placé sa tente dans le soleil (Ps 18(19), 5c(6a)) chez les écrivains ecclésiastiques des cinq premiers siècles.” Le Psautier chez les Pères. Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 4:197–220. Strasbourg.
Grafton, A. and M. Williams. 2006. Christianity and the Transformation of the Book. Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea. Cambridge, MA.
Guinot, J.-N. 1987. “L’héritage origénien des commentateurs grecs du prophète Isaïe.” Origeniana quarta, ed. L. Lies, 379–389. Innsbruck.
Hollerich, M.J. 1992. “Eusebius as a Polemical Interpreter of Scripture.” Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, ed. H. W. Attridge and G. Hata, 585–615. Leiden.
———. 1992b. “Origen’s Exegetical Heritage in the Early Fourth Century: The Evidence of Eusebius.” Origeniana quinta, ed. R.J. Daly, 542–547. Leuven.
———. 1999. Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary on Isaiah: Christian Exegesis in the Age of Constantine. Oxford.
Inowlocki, S. 2006. Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context. Leiden.
Jaubert Philippe, M. 2001. Les Extraits prophétiques au sujet du Christ d’Eusèbe de Césarée. Introduction, traduction, annotations. PhD diss., Université du Provence.
Johnson, A. P. 2011. “The Tenth Book of Eusebius’ General Elementary Introduction: A Critique of the Wallace-Hadrill Thesis.” Journal of Theological Studies 62:144–160.
———. 2011. “Eusebius the Educator. The Context of the General Elementary Introduction.” In Reconsidering Eusebius. Collected Papers on Literary, Historical, and Theological Issues, ed. S. Inowlocki and C. Zamagni, 99–118. Leiden.
Junod, É. 1988. “Basile de Césarée et Grégoire de Nazianze sont-ils les compilateurs de la Philocalie d’Origène? Réexamen de la Lettre 115 de Grégoire.” Mémorial Jean Gribomont (1920–1986). Roma.
Kannengiesser, C. 2004. “The Achievement of Eusebius of Caesarea.” Handbook of Patristic Exegesis II:675–683. Leiden.
Le Boulluec, A. 2012. “Pamphilos de Césarée.” In Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, Vol. 5.1, ed. R. Goulet, 111–115. Paris.
Mercati, G. 1948. “La grande lacuna delle Ecloghe profetiche di Eusebio di Cesarea.” Mémorial L. Petit. Mélanges d’histoire et d’archéologie byzantine, Archives de l’Orient Chrétien 1.1–3. Bucharest.
Morin, G. 1959. S. Hieronymi presbyteri commentarioli in Psalmos. Turnhout.
Morlet, S. 2007. “Le commentaire d’Eusèbe de Césarée sur Is 8, 4 dans la Démonstration évangélique (VII, 1, 95–113): ses sources et son originalité.” Adamantius 13:52–63. 
———. 2009. La Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée. Étude sur l’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin. Paris.
———. 2011. “Eusèbe de Césarée: biographie, chronologie, profil intellectuel.” Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique, commentaire. T. I : études d’introduction, ed. S. Morlet and L. Perrone, 1–31. Paris.
Nautin, P. 1953. Le dossier d’Hippolyte et de Méliton. Paris.
Pennachio, M. C. 2002. Propheta insaniens: l’esegesi patristica di Osea tra profezia e storia. Roma.
Prinzivalli, E. 1983. “Hippolyte (Statue d’).” Dictionnaire encyclopédique du christianisme ancien II:1163–1166. Paris.
———. 2000. “Salmi.” Origene. Dizionario, ed. A. Monaco-Castagno, 422–424. Rome.
Rondeau, M.-J. 1982. Les commentaires patristiques du Psautier (III e -V e siècles), I. Rome.
Sant, C. 1964. The Old Testament Interpretation of Eusebius of Caesarea. PhD Diss. Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Rome. (First part published under the title The Old Testament Interpretation of Eusebius of Caesarea. The Manifold Sense of Holy Scripture. Valletta. 1967).
Schwartz, E. 1907. “Eusebios von Caesarea.” Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft VI:1370–1439.
Selwyn, W. 1872. “Emendations of Certain Passages of Eusebii Eclogae Propheticae.” Journal of Philology 4:275–280.
Smith, H. 1916–1917. “Notes on Origen and Eusebius.” The Journal of Theological Studies 18:77–78.
Tuccari, L. 1987. “Eusebio e Basilio sul Salmo 59.” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 4:143–149.
Von Nolte, T. 1861. “Zu den Eclogis Propheticis des Eusebius von Cäsarea.” Theologische Quartalschrift 43:95–109.
Wallace-Hadrill, D.S. 1974. “Eusebius of Cesarea’s Commentary on Luke. Its Origin and Early History.” Harvard Theological Review 67:55–63.


[ back ] 1. See Curti 1985. The influence of this article is notable in Kannengiesser 2004, though the author seems to have totally misunderstood Curti’s description of the Ecl. Proph. as witnessing a taste for allegorical interpretation (p. 677: “In the Eclogae he stresses the literal meanings of the prophecies”). The first global study on Eusebius’ exegesis is C. Sant’s study (Sant 1964). After C. Curti, M. J. Hollerich provided the first monograph on Eusebius’ Commentary on Isaiah (Hollerich 1999). A few studies dealt with Eusebius’ possible use of Origen in the Demonstratio Evangelica, the Commentary on Isaiah, or the Commentary on the Psalms (see, in chronological order: Curti 1980; Carpino 1986; Guinot 1987; Tuccari 1987; Hollerich 1992 and 1992b; Dorival 1996; Pennachio 2002; Morlet 2009:585–622; Bandt 2011 and forthcoming). Such a study should take into account the recent discovery of homilies on the codex Monacensis gr. 314 by Marina Molin Pradel. According to Lorenzo Perrone, these homilies must be attributed to Origen.
[ back ] 2. See Morlet 2007 and 2009:585–622.
[ back ] 3. Morlet 2009:333–339. A. P. Johnson, without knowing my argument, also noticed the use of Against Celsus, 1.36 in this passage (Johnson 2011).
[ back ] 4. We are still dependent on T. Gaisford’s edition (Gaisford 1842). I am preparing a new critical edition for the Sources chrétiennes. Very few studies have dealt with that work since Gaisford’s edition. Except A. P. Johnson’s recent article (Johnson 2011), most of them are not “studies,” properly speaking, but aim at correcting Gaisford’s text or filling in the lacunas of the works (in books 1 and 2): Nolte 1861; Selwyn 1872; Smith, 1916–1917; Mercati 1948; Dorival 2004. Note the French translation, with a few comments, by M. Jaubert Philippe (Jaubert Philippe 2001).
[ back ] 5. Burgess 1997: the first edition of the Chronicle would date to 311. Burgess thinks however that at the time Eusebius was working on the Ecl. Proph., he had probably not finished the Chronicle, which is a way of interpreting the vague mention of the Chronological canons at the beginning of the Ecl. Proph. E. Schwartz thought he could date the work before 310 because of a supposed allusion to Pamphilus, who died in 310, in Ecl. Proph. 4.31; but his analysis seems incorrect (Morlet 2009:81n109).
[ back ] 6. It remains to be seen if such an introduction could have been a real “manual” used at Caesarea in a course (see Schwartz 1907:1386; Barnes 1981:169), or a “literary” introduction, such as the Preparation appears to be.
[ back ] 7. The few fragments we possess from the first part of the Gen. El. Intr. indicate a discussion about ethical themes (good and evil, free will). Fragment 2, from book 1, alludes to the Logos. Eusebius says at the beginning of the Ecl. Proph. that he has spoken about the doctrine and life of Christ before (so, in the previous book or books). It is thus difficult to know if the ethical themes were treated for themselves, or rather within a demonstration about Christ, which is very possible. This discussion was founded on “the testimonies about our Lord and Savior” (= probably the Gospels); “true demonstrations and syllogisms” (= logical argumentation); also, “at the end,” short quotations from the OT, because, as Eusebius indicates, it was not time for him to give a long exposition of the prophecies for readers who were still not convinced that the Scriptures are divinely inspired. The previous development about the prophecies contained, however, a proof of that point, so that the reader is supposed, now (ἤδη), to believe that the Scriptures are divinely inspired. The Ecl. Proph. will thus complete (ἀποπληροῦντα) what “is lacking to them” (τὸ λεῖπον ἐκείναις), viz. the Scriptures or, more probably, the “expositions” (τὰς συστάσεις) mentioned before. At the end of book 4 of the Ecl. Proph. (viz. book 9 of the Gen. El. Intr.), Eusebius announces a discussion on the heresies. This tends to undermine D. S. Wallace Hadrill’s contention that Eusebius’ fragments on Luke (see PG 24.529–606) originally come from book 10 (Wallace-Hadrill 1974:55–63) of the Gen. El. Intr. A. P. Johnson recently refuted Wallace Hadrill’s hypothesis and suggested that these fragments may come from a commentary on Luke (Johnson 2011).
[ back ] 8. This makes the Ecl. Proph. a very valuable (and underestimated) testimony about ancient exegetical practices.
[ back ] 9. The word is used in 1.8; 2.7.
[ back ] 10. There are some exceptions: in 1.8, Eusebius admits that he has gone beyond his σκοπός, because a clear understanding of the passage needed such a development.
[ back ] 11. 1.19.
[ back ] 12. 2.9.
[ back ] 13. 3.46.
[ back ] 14. See Appendix 2. We have already discussed analogous passages contained in the DE (Morlet 2009:117–134).
[ back ] 15. 1.6.8; 4.7.20.
[ back ] 16. 4.11.18.
[ back ] 17. 3.14; 4.17.
[ back ] 18. See 2.2; 3.6.
[ back ] 19. 3.6.
[ back ] 20. The question remains: why does Eusebius not name Origen (the same phenomenon occurs in Ecl. Proph. 4 Prologue: Eusebius depends on Origen, but speaks about his “predecessors,” οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν)? He may have done so in the first books of the Gen. El. Intr. or in the “lacuna” of the Ecl. Proph.’s book 2. If he had not done so, one could wonder if his silence has to do with the fact that Origen’s ideas (and commentaries) were suspected at that time, as the Apology for Origen witnesses. Is it a literary device or even a kind of “code” for the happy few? Do we have to think that Eusebius did not need to name Origen for his audience (which would suggest that the work was intended primarily for a circle of friends, that of Pamphilus); and/or, that this audience revered Origen so much that it would have seemed too irreverent to name the master? Significantly, perhaps, Eusebius does not refrain from naming Origen at the beginning of his Against Hierocles (see note 22), but he probably addresses here an external audience, which did not necessarily know who he was.
[ back ] 21. The other exegete who is known to have written a commentary on the Psalms before Eusebius is Hippolytus (see Jerome, De uiris illustribus 61, and the so-called “statue of Hippolytus” [see Prinzivalli 1983]). If such a commentary existed, the question remains to be seen if the few fragments on the Psalms preserved belong to this work (see CPG 1882). Apart from the fragments, we possess a “homily” edited by P. Nautin (Nautin 1953). The question of whether the bishop of Caesarea knew and used these commentaries must remain open. The question is not posed by A. J. Carriker (Carriker 2003:209–215). On the one hand, there is no clear evidence that Eusebius knew any of them. In the catalogue of Hippolytus’s works, he does not mention them, though he names a few of Hippolytus’ books (HE 6.22: About the Hexaemeron; About what follows the Hexaemeron; On the Song of songs; On parts of Ezechiel). On the other hand, Eusebius states that apart from the list he gives, there were other works of Hippolytus that were not in his possession, but were “preserved among many people” (HE 6.22): thus, he also heard of other works by Hippolytus, and one cannot exclude that he had a knowledge of at least parts of his commentaries on the Psalms (which he may have copied, for instance, from another library than his own one). In Ecl. Proph. 2.7, he refers to the commentaries written by “others” (ἑτέρων): the plural sometimes hides a single source, but if Eusebius has not only Origen in mind, he may also refer here to Hippolytus. The fact that both Origen and Hippolytus seem to be the only ones to have interpreted Ps 1 as a prophecy about Christ before Eusebius (see infra) makes it possible to believe that, though Origen appears to be his main source when he comments on the Psalm, he may also have Hippolytus in mind. One must admit, however, that Origen is, generally speaking, a more “natural” source for Eusebius: if he used Hippolytus (which is not clear), the bishop of Caesarea must have used him only as a very marginal source.
[ back ] 22. About Hierocles’ arguments: ἃ τύχοι μὲν ἂν καὶ αὐτὰ τῆς προσηκούσης κατὰ καιρὸν ἀπελέγξεως, δυνάμει δ᾿ ἤδη καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἰδίας κατ᾿ αὐτῶν γραφῆς ἀνατέτραπται καὶ προαπελήλεγκται ἐν ὅλοις ὀκτὼ συγγράμμασι τοῖς Ὠριγένει γραφεῖσι πρὸς τὸν ἀλαζονικώτερον τοῦ Φιλαλήθους ἐπιγεγραμμένον Κέλσου Ἀληθῆ λόγον, ᾧ τὰς εὐθύνας ἀπαραλείπτως, ἐν ὅσοις εἰρήκαμεν, ὁ δεδηλωμένος παραγαγὼν συλλήβδην ὅσα εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν ὑπόθεσιν παντί τῳ εἴρηταί τε καὶ εἰρήσεται, προλαβὼν διελύσατο, ἐφ᾿ ἃ τοὺς ἐπ᾿ ἀκριβὲς τὰ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς διαγνῶναι ἔχοντας φιλαλήθως ἀναπέμψαντες. The way Eusebius refers here to Origen’s Against Celsus recalls our “concluding formulas” (except that he names Origen: see note 20). This would be a confirmation that Eusebius, in the Ecl. Proph., does refer to Origen.
[ back ] 23. 1.19; 3.27: πολλὴ ἐξέτασις.
[ back ] 24. 1.1; 3.14.
[ back ] 25. 1.6; 3.14; 4.4; 4.20; 23.
[ back ] 26. 2.9; 3.6; 33: βαθυτέρας θεωρίας; 4.11.
[ back ] 27. 1.8.
[ back ] 28. 2.14 (νοήσειας).
[ back ] 29. 4.24.
[ back ] 30. 1.3; 3.33.
[ back ] 31. 2.14. See also 4.24.
[ back ] 32. 4.10. Compare to 4.24: κατὰ μόνην διάνοιαν.
[ back ] 33. 1.6.
[ back ] 34. 3.27; 4.23.
[ back ] 35. 1.12; 4.27.
[ back ] 36. Origen quotes seven times the passage of John 5:39, ἐρευνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς (Against Celsus 3.33; 5.16; Commentary on John 5.6.1; 6.20.109; On Principles 4.3.5; Philocalia 1.21; 5.5). About the necessity of ἐξετάζειν, see for instance Commentary on John 6.14.84; 41.215; Commentary on Matthew 13.4; 15.6; 16.2; Homilies on Jeremiah 10.1; On prayer 5.2.
[ back ] 37. The “Enchiridion” mentioned in Jerome’s Commentarioli in Psalmos is sometimes seen as a third collection of excerpts (see for the problem Rondeau 1982:46–47). E. Prinzivalli notices that it is usual to identify this Enchiridion with the Excerpta in totum Psalterium (Prinzivalli 2000:422). It is sometimes believed that at least one of the two collections of “excerpts” was a collection of extracts from Origen’s other commentaries, viz. Tomoi, Homilies, and Scholia (if one accepts the idea that the other collection of “excerpts” was actually a selective commentary by Origen himself, and not a collection of extracts constituted by later exegetes): see Rondeau 1982:48–49, who notes V. Peri’s hypothesis that the Tractatus in Psalmos attributed to Jerome are a Latin translation of passages from Origen’s homilies and are identical with the Excerpta in totum Psalterium. Many scholars have remained sceptical towards this hypothesis. M.-J. Rondeau admits however that the Excerpta in totum Psalterium would have been extracts from Origen’s homilies.
[ back ] 38. Commentarioli in Psalmos, Prologus, 18–21 Morin.
[ back ] 39. This research is indebted to the Biblia patristica, now on the Internet under the name “Biblindex.” From the many texts attributed to Origen in the catenae, some are now placed among the spuria, others, in the dubia. In the following analysis, I concentrate exclusively on the texts whose authenticity is not questioned.
[ back ] 40. The Psalms are quoted according to the Septuagint numbering.
[ back ] 41. The translations of the Septuagint text are inspired by the New American Standard Bible.
[ back ] 42. Gaisford 1842:68.21–22.
[ back ] 43. Epistle of Barnabas 10.10; Justin Apology 1.1–6; Irenaeus Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 2; Against Heresies 5.8.3; Tertullian Against Marcion 2.19.1–3; 4.42.8; On Modesty 6.4; On Spectacles 3.3; 5; 8; To his Wife 1.4.4; Clement of Alexandria The Pedagogue 1.90.1; 92.1; Stromateis 2.67.1; 3–4; 68.1; 5.31.1; 7.109.2; Cyprian On the Unity of the Church 10; To Quirinus 3.120; Teaching of the Apostles (anonymous work of the third century) 26; Lactantius Divine Institutes 4.16.6; Methodius of Olympus Banquet 5.4; On foods 14.2; On the leech 1.5.
[ back ] 44. See Homily on the Psalms 20 (Nautin 1953:183).
[ back ] 45. Against Celsus 3.60; Commentary on the Song of Songs 3 (p. 181.21 Baehrens); Commentary on Matthew 10.15; Commentary on Romans 9.2; Fragments on Ezechiel C 543.34; Fragments on Lamentations 260.24; Fragments on the Psalms PG 12.1085 B; Fragments on Romans 31 Ramsbotham; Homilies on Leviticus 6.1; 6; 7.6; 9.5; 11.1; 12.4; Homilies on the Psalms 3.10 (PG 12 1346 A 5); On Prayer 29.9.
[ back ] 46. Commentary on the Song of Songs Prologue (p. 77.17 Baehrens); Homilies on Leviticus 7.6; Homilies on Lu ke 39.218.3.
[ back ] 47. See fr. 1 Goffinet (Goffinet 1963): cod. Vindobonensis Theol. Gr. 8; cod. Coislianus 80; cod. Vatopedinus 240.
[ back ] 48. See fr. 3 Goffinet. Another problem is that there is no evidence that this theory was “current” at that time, at least concerning verses 1 and 2 of the Psalm.
[ back ] 49. See both texts: Τὸ δ’ ἐπιδεδεγμένον τῆς ἐκδοχῆς παρίστησιν ἡ κατὰ τὸ Ἑβραϊκὸν ἐντεῦξις ἐπιτετηρημένως οὕτως ἔχουσα, μακάριος ὁ ἀνὴρ, μετὰ τῆς ἄρθρου προσθήκης (Eusebius, Gaisford 1842:68.28–69.1); τοῦτο δ’ ἔοικεν ἡ Ἑβραϊκὴ φωνὴ παριστᾶν, καθ’ ἣν μακάριος ὁ ἀνὴρ μετὰ τῆς ἄρθρου προσθήκης εἴρηται (fr. 3 Goffinet).
[ back ] 50. “Le caténiste a eu en mains le texte d’Eusèbe et celui d’Origène. Il a donné sa préférence à celui d’Eusèbe (. . .). La seule interprétation possible de ὁμοίως est que le caténiste n’a pas voulu faire de répétition et qu’il a éliminé ce qui se trouvait déjà dans le texte d’Eusèbe” (p. 157).
[ back ] 51. Commentarioli in Psalmos, in Ps 1:26–43 Morin.
[ back ] 53. In the Commentary on Romans PG 14.1255 A1, Origen does not go so far as to say that the text is a prophecy of Christ alone, but underlines the difficulty of being perfectly faithful to God. In his Homilies on Numbers 26.2, he admits that the Psalm must only refer to an elite. This recalls Eusebius’ commentary.
[ back ] 54. See for instance Irenaeus Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 74; Against Heresies 3.12.5; Melito On the Passover 62; Tertullian Against Praxeas 28.10; Against Marcion 1.21.1; 3.22.3; 5.3.8; 4.9; 14.8; On Resurrection 20.4; Cyprian To Quirinus 1.13; 3.119; Hippolytus On Genesis p. 56.13 Achelis; Homily on the Psalms 20 (Nautin 1853:183).
[ back ] 55. Irenaeus seems to apply the text only to Herod and Pilate (Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 74; Against Heresies 3.12.5).
[ back ] 56. On Resurrection 20.4.
[ back ] 57. Commentary on Matthew 12.1; 13.9; Fragments on Lamentations 107; Fragments on the Psalms (SC 189, 226, 4); Homilies on Genesis 9.3; Homilies on Numbers 26.7; Homilies on Ezechiel 13.1; On First Principles 3.3.2.
[ back ] 58. Commentary on Matthew 12.1.
[ back ] 59. Commentary on Matthew 13.9.
[ back ] 60. Fragments on the Psalms (SC 189, 226, 4); On First Principles 3.3.2.
[ back ] 61. Commentary on Matthew A 125.
[ back ] 62. Homilies on Ezechiel 13.1.
[ back ] 63. Commentary on Matthew A 115.
[ back ] 64. Commentarioli in Psalmos, in Ps 2:4–6 Morin.
[ back ] 65. PG 12.1109 A 9ff.
[ back ] 66. Justin Dialogue with Trypho 42.1; Irenaeus Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 21; 86; Tertullian Against the Jews 7.3; On Flight from Persecution 6.5; Against Marcion 3.22.1; 4.43.9; 5.19.2; Hippolytus Benedictions of Isaac 2 (Patrologia Orientalis 27 p. 176.7); Methodius of Olympus On the leech 7.1; 9.7.
[ back ] 67. Justin Apology 1.54.9; Dialogue with Trypho 69.3.
[ back ] 68. Against Marcion 4.11.7.
[ back ] 69. On Trinity 13.4.
[ back ] 70. To Quirinus 2.18.
[ back ] 71. Irenaeus Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 85; Against Heresies 4.33.13; Novatian On Trinity 13.4. Hippolytus seems to be the first one to apply the verse to the second coming of Christ (On Antichrist 64).
[ back ] 72. See R. Gounelle 1994.
[ back ] 73. Ecl. Proph. 56–57.
[ back ] 74. Ecl. Proph. 56–57.
[ back ] 75. Ecl. Proph. 56–57.
[ back ] 76. Ecl. Proph. 56–57.
[ back ] 77. See Gounelle 1994:211.
[ back ] 78. Apology of Origen, 147–148.
[ back ] 79. Commentarioli in Psalmos, in Ps 18:8 Morin.
[ back ] 80. Jerome identifies the “sun” with the Christ (see supra) and Didymus, who probably uses Origen’s commentary, clearly identifies the “sun of justice” with Christ (Expositio in Psalmos 155 Mülhenberg). Besides, Mal 3:20, from which Origen draws the phrase “sun of justice,” was often read in antiquity as a prophecy of Christ. Thus, one can imagine that after saying that Christ has placed his Church in the “sun of justice,” Origen identified the latter with Christ himself.
[ back ] 81. Against Celsus 1.62; 3.2; Commentary on John 4 (99.1); 13.115; Commentary on Matthew A 46; Commentary on Romans PG 14 848 B 15; 853 A 11; 1171 C 14–1172 A 3 (the text commented on here corresponds exactly to Eusebius’ initial lemma); Homilies on Genesis 13.3; Homilies on Joshua 3.3; Homilies on Jeremiah 10.2; Homilies on Luke 6 (Rauer:38.24).
[ back ] 82. Fragments on the Song of Songs A 277 D 8; Homilies on Leviticus 12.2.
[ back ] 83. Fragments on the Song of Songs A 277 D 8.
[ back ] 84. See Morlet 2009:453 for the assumption that Eusebius used Origen’s Commentary on Genesis in book 1 of the Ecl. Proph.
[ back ] 85. The fact that Eusebius used Origen’s commentaries as his primary material is not contradictory to the fact that he could also express more personal comments, but it remains very difficult to determine precisely the part of his originality. One should probably be careful about interpreting Eusebius’ own remarks about his “personal” ideas (see for instance, the allusion to his γνώμη in the already mentioned prologue, Gaisford 1842:3.26) as reliable testimonies about his originality. In the Demonstratio Evangelica (10.5.2–3), he says he found a portion of Jeremiah that is not contained in the Septuagint; but the same “biographical” testimony occurs first in Origen (Homilies on Jeremiah 16.10), and it is obvious that Eusebius simply reproduces what his master says (see Morlet 2009:612–614). In a few instances, Eusebius feels the need to justify the quotation of a text within a collection of testimonia about Christ (3.15; 3.27). But such passages tend to show Eusebius’ originality in the testimonia tradition; they do not prove that he is not dependent on Origen. Moreover, we have shown that Eusebius’ originality in the testimonia tradition often stems from the fact that he is the first to quote as a christological proof-text a biblical passage which Origen was apparently the first to apply to Christ (Morlet 2009:358–404).
[ back ] 86. There is, apparently, a great variability in the way Eusebius can use Origen: sometimes, he simply copies the text he has under the eyes; sometimes, he rewrites his source more freely.
[ back ] 87. That is not to say of course that one may uncritically use the Ecl. Proph. to reconstruct Origen’s lost exegesis. We only mean that the work certainly contains an important trace of Origen’s commentaries. Only the careful use of the work, along with a comparison of other supposed testimonies of Origen’s commentaries, may sometimes lead to what Origen could have written.
[ back ] 88. About the nature of Pamphilus’ teaching, see the Martyrs of Palestine (long recension) 4.6 and Morlet 2010; Le Boulluec 2012.
[ back ] 89. Learning by heart was a current practice in Late Antiquity: Palladius tells that Ammonius, a monk from Nitria, had learned by heart passages from Pierius, the master of Pamphilus, himself the master of Eusebius (Lausiac History 12; 14). Amelius, Plotinus’ disciple, had learned by heart passages from Numenius (see Porphyry, Life of Plotinus 3.44).
[ back ] 90. It seems that the process of transferring the rolls contained in the library of Caesarea onto codices did not begin before the successors of Eusebius, Acacius, and Euzoius (see Jerome, De uiris illustribus, 113; Letter 34, 1). See Carriker 2003:23–24 (who discusses the question whether the allusion to a transfer from “papyri” to “parchments,” according to Jerome, is to be understood as a transfer from “rolls” to “codices”) and Cassin/Debié/Perrin 2012:205.
[ back ] 91. See, for instance, the famous testimony of Pliny the Younger Letters 3.5.17; Suetonius Diuus Augustus 89.4; Aulus Gellius Attic Nights Praefatio. We have organized at the University of Paris/Sorbonne, with Olivier Munnich, a project about ancient extracting practices called “Lire en extraits: une contribution à l’histoire de la lecture et de la littérature, de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge” / “Reading in extracts: a contribution to the history of reading and literature, from Antiquity to the Middle Ages” (2010–2012).
[ back ] 92. Such a hypothesis is all the more probable that Eusebius himself appears to have been a notable user of the Extracts as a literary genre (the Praeparatio Evangelica contains a collection of pagan texts; the Demonstratio Evangelica, a collection of prophecies; the History of the Church itself is presented by Eusebius as a literary library: see HE 1.1.4). The composition of personal anthologies is coherent with his activities as a scholar (see Grafton and Williams 2006:205; Morlet 2011:31).
[ back ] 93. See note 37. As far as we know, the idea that both friends could be the “authors” of at least one of Origen’s collections of “excerpts” stems from R. Cadiou (Cadiou 1936 and 1936b). In the same way, we recall that É. Junod suggested some years ago that the Philocalia may have originated in the circle of Pamphilus and Eusebius (Junod 1988:360).
[ back ] 94. For the very reasonable assumption that Eusebius composed a Josephan anthology, see Inowlocki 2006:212.
[ back ] 95. For a more thorough commentary, see Morlet 2009:333–339.