from the choir of the apostles, and from the glory of the heavenly Master, Jesus began to be sorrowful and troubled, and says: *My soul is sorrowful even unto death.* A This He said, not that He feared death, but He was sorrowful concerning the perdition of Judas; He was sorrowful and troubled concerning the soul of that wretched man, because he was perishing. But the wretched devil thought that He was sorrowful because He feared death, and therefore he hastened to set up the cross. O the tender mercies of the Master! He was sorrowful on behalf of His betrayer; for the Immortal did not fear death, since Christ was not the cause of his perdition, but his own insatiable will.
We ought now to speak about the consultation of the devil with Hades; but, since the day is already far spent, we omit this today, and if God shall count us worthy, tomorrow we shall hear about that matter also; but to Christ be glory and honor and power, now and always, and unto the ages.
ANOTHER EDITION
...of the heavenly, Jesus began to be sorrowful and troubled, and says: *My soul is sorrowful even unto death.* This He said, not that He feared death, but He was sorrowful concerning the perdition of Judas; He was sorrowful concerning the soul of that man, because he was perishing. But the wretched devil thought that He was sorrowful because He feared death, and he hastened to set up the cross. O the tender mercies of the Master! He was sorrowful on behalf of His betrayer; for, being immortal, He did not fear death. Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, unto all the ages of ages. Amen.
EUSEBIUS OF EMESA: FRAGMENTS
I.
TWO FRAGMENTS CONCERNING THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST
FRAGMENT I.
For what cause does He fear death? Is it lest He should suffer something from death? For what was death to Him? Was it not the C withdrawal of power from the flesh?
A For it did not receive a nail B or power, so that it should fear. For if our soul, while being with the body, does not suffer the things of the body, but the eye is blinded, and the intellect remains whole, the foot [index: entries preserved]
A is cut off, and the reason does not limp: and nature bears witness, and the Lord confirms it, saying: "Do not fear those who can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul" (Matth. x, 28). If they cannot—not because they do not wish to, but because they are unable, even if they should wish—bring about that the soul should suffer what the body to which it is joined suffers: does the One who created the soul, and fashioned the body, Himself suffer the passions of the body, even if He most of all receives the passions of the body unto Himself? But Christ suffered for our sake, and we do not lie. For "the bread," He says, "which I will give, is my flesh, which he gave for our sake" (Joan. vi, 52). That which is held was held; that which is crucified was crucified. But He who has the power both to dwell within and to depart, says this: "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" (Luc. xxii, 46)—not into the hands of those who use force so that it might depart. I am not contentious, but I abstain from contention; rather, I wish to inquire about the matters in controversy with gentleness, as if with brothers. Is it not true what I say, that the passions of the flesh could not fall upon the Power? Therefore, I fall silent. Let him who wishes say what the Power suffered. Did it fail? Behold the danger. Was it extinguished? Behold the blasphemy. Was it no more? For that is the death of the Power. Say what can overcome it, so that it might suffer, and I will not contend. But if you cannot say, why are you angry at me because I do not speak? That which you do not have, it did not receive. Drive a nail into the soul, and I will receive it into the Power. "But it sympathized (compassa est)." Explain to me that: "it sympathized." What is "it sympathized"? For example, the nail is in the flesh, but in the Power there is pain. B Let us call this "it sympathized." The Power suffered pain without being struck. For pain is always the companion of passion. But if the body also very often, while the mind is sound, despises pains on account of the strength of its thought, let someone here explain without contention what suffered, or what sympathized. What then? Did not Christ die for our sake? How did He die? "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." The spirit departed, the body remained; without the spirit, the body remained. Is He not therefore dead? He died for [us]. C
The Shepherd offered the sheep; the Priest offered the sacrifice; He gave Himself for us, and "He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all" (Rom. VIII, 32). I do not reject the words, but I seek the meaning of the words. The Lord says that the bread of God came down from heaven, and interpreting it—although I cannot speak more clearly because of the mysteries—He says this much (John VI, 51), "It is my flesh." Did the flesh of the Son come down from the heavens? It did not come down from heaven. How, then, does He say, "The bread of God lives, and has come down from the heavens," and interpret it? Since the Power that took it up came down from the heavens, whatever the Power possesses is reckoned to the flesh. Therefore, reverse it: whatever the flesh suffers is reckoned to the Power. How did Christ suffer for us? He was spat upon, He was struck on the cheek, they placed a crown around His brow, His hands and feet B were pierced. All these are sufferings of the body, but they are referred to the One who dwells within. Cast a stone at the image of the emperor; what is said? "You have insulted the emperor." Tear the garment of the emperor; what is said? "You have risen up against the emperor." Crucify the body of Christ; what is said? "Christ died for us." But what need is there of me or of you? Let us approach the evangelists. How did you receive from the Lord, how did the Lord die? They read, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" (Luc. XXIII, 46). The spirit is above, and the body on the cross is for us; for He offered [it] as a sheep, whatever is reckoned to Him by reason of the body.
FRAGMENT II
He came to save our nature, not to destroy His own. If I wish to say that a camel flies, you are immediately astonished, because it does not befit its nature; and you do well. If I wish to say that men inhabit the sea, you do not tolerate C it; and you do well in this, for nature does not allow it. Just as, therefore, if I say foreign things about these natures, you are astonished, so if I say that that Power, which is before the ages, which is incorporeal in its nature, impassible in its dignity, which is with the Father, which is beside the Father, which is at the right hand, which is in glory—if I say that that nature, the incorporeal... D
suffers, do you not stop up your ears? If you do not stop up your ears when you hear these things, I shall stop up my heart. Can we do anything to an angel, for instance, strike him with a sword, or rend him at all? Why do I speak of an angel? Can we do it to a soul? A soul does not receive a nail, a soul is not cut, it is not burned. And if you say to me: Why? I say to you: For so it was created. Its works are impassible, and is He Himself passible? I do not reject the dispensation, but I embrace the injuries to which He was subjected. Christ died for us, and was crucified. So it is written, so the nature received it; I do not blot out the words, nor do I blaspheme the nature. But these things are not true. Let more true things be said. The benefactor who teaches is not harsh, nor is He an enemy, unless the one being taught is ungrateful. Do you have something good to say? The ears are opened with grace. Is someone contentious? Let him exercise his desire in his leisure. Were the Jews able to crucify the Son of God, and to punish the Power Itself with death? Can a living thing die? B The death of such a power is its own eclipse. Our body, when we die, remains. If we were to put that power to death, we would reduce it to non-existence. I do not know if you have been unable to hear: if the body dies, the soul is separated and remains; but if the soul dies, since it is incorporeal, it is absolutely not. A soul that dies is absolutely not. For death, in the case of those who are immortal, is to non-existence. Think of the other point. For I do not even dare to speak. We say these things as we understand them. But we do not lay down the law, if someone is contentious. But one thing I know, that each person is destined to enjoy the fruits of that which he believes. And each one C goes (74) to God—the thoughts concerning the faith, the Knower of hearts, small-mindedness, all things are manifest. . . the analogy of the faith according to the measure of faith. For do not think that God reads books, or is troubled by memories, "what you have said, and who has heard?" (the Judge sits), (is brought forward, approaches, came up, Paul is brought forward here). . . . you called me a human being here, a mere man. . . . [the] Photinians, and the followers of Photinus, have said that Christ was a mere man born of the Virgin.
Another approaches: You said that I am one of existing things. . . . [calling the Son] a creation or a creature [. . . the dignity] that He did not take on a body. Those who do not confess Jesus Christ D coming in the flesh. Cf. II John 7; I John 2, 5. Another approached: You said that I was not born of the Virgin, in order to save the body of the Virgin, [but] I do not save...
you. Thus, each one receives the fruit of his own faith. B
NOTES. Emphasis seems to be present in the words: "in order to save the body of the Virgin." There were already, in ancient times, those who taught the passage of Christ through Mary (as if through a conduit of water), but not a true and saving incarnation. Irenaeus speaks of them, Adv. haer. book I, ch. 1; book I, ch. 31, 22, and passim. Cf. Theodoret, Heretical Fabulae Compendium, book V: "Concerning the oikonomia of the Savior." Opp. Vol. IV, p. 420 ff.
From these few things brought forward by us, it appears that these fragments, although they are too brief for a certain and perfect judgment to be formed about them, nevertheless contain some things which do not appear to be entirely negligible in the history of dogmas.
1. SOME EXEGETICAL FRAGMENTS FROM THE CATENAE
PREMONSTRANCE.
Besides Oudin (Commentar. de scriptor. antiq. eccl. Vol. I, pp. 391-92, cf. p. 426), who affirms that absolutely all the writings of Eusebius of Emesa have perished, other learned men teach that some of his exegetical fragments have been preserved for us in the Catenae of the Fathers. Thus, in the very rare book by Phil. Labbe, De Scriptor. eccles. (Paris, 1660, 8, Vol. I, p. 779), it is written: "There exist from his Commentaries on Holy Scripture certain things among Theodoret and in the Catenae of Greek Explanations." El. Dupin agrees in Nov. Biblioth. auctorum eccles. (Vol. II, Colon. 1692, 4, p. 126): "And there are still found in the Greek Catenae on Scripture very many fragments which are ascribed to Eusebius of Emesa." The same is judged by Franc. Combesis in Biblioth. Concion. (Vol. I, p. 12): "In the name of Eusebius of Emesa, except for a few trifles from the Greek Catena, none exist for us."
Thus also other learned men judge; but none of them, as far as I know, has indicated which those fragments are, and in which editions of the Catenae they are found. From the Catenae themselves, however, little help is to be gained. For in the editions which I was able to inspect and examine, the name of Eusebius of Emesa is indeed read in the list of authors; but in the Excerpts themselves, the name "Eusebius" is usually placed alone, so that it is left in total doubt to which among so many who bear the name of Eusebius a scholion should be ascribed. By which fact all things are rendered doubtful and uncertain.
Since Eusebius of Emesa, according to Jerome, illustrated the New Testament above all, you would believe that very many of his remains are contained in the Catenae of the Greek Fathers on the N.T.; but in vain. The name of Eusebius is rarely discovered there, and where it occurs, it designates either Eusebius of Caesarea, or remains uncertain and doubtful. In the learned dissertation of J. A. Nosselt, "On Observations on the Catenae of the Greek Fathers on the New Testament," which was published again in Nosselt's *Opuscula ad Histor. eccles.* (Fascic. III, Halle, 1817, 8, pp. 321-402), not even a trace of Eusebius of Emesa is to be found. To one examining the Catenae on the four Gospels (the Catena on Mark and Luke exists for us only in a Latin version), nothing presented itself which seemed to be ascribable to Emesenus with any semblance of probability, besides some Excerpts on John xx, which are read in the Catena of the Greek Fathers on St. John (Antwerp, 1630, f. p. 448 ff.), and which have been added by us, but as doubtful.
The ancients (or rather Jerome, who nevertheless attributes innumerable books to him, the chief of which he designates, and in another place praises him as the master and exemplar of Diodorus of Tarsus and John Chrysostom) do not call our Eusebius an interpreter of the Old Testament; but it would be most false if in this matter...
by chance a rule were established: from the silence of one who speaks, a valid consequence for a denial of the thing does not follow, nor would we follow it. A The master of the two most celebrated Fathers whom we have named, and the disciple of Eusebius of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis (famous for the Greek version of the Old Testament), must be presumed to be an interpreter of the Old Testament. Even if perhaps he were considered not at all skilled in the Hebrew language (although in a Syrian man and a student of the school of Edessa and Antioch this might also be assumed), nevertheless, in the manner of the Fathers, he may be considered a commentator on the Alexandrian version. But now, in the B *Catenae* of the Fathers on the Old Testament, the name of Eusebius is very frequent; and not only that, but we also often read the name *Eusebius of Caesarea* prefixed to the Scholia: by which fact we have some information, at least a little more certain, though not yet sufficient, to prove the true Eusebius of Emesa.
In the *Catena on Genesis* from sixty or so ecclesiastical authors, etc., by the author Aloysius Lippomano, Bishop of Methone and Coadjutor of Verona, Paris, 1546, f. p. 30, 118, and 424, before the Excerpt it reads: *Eusebius of Emesa*, and p. 59: *Eusebius, Bishop of Emesa*, who is also distinguished in the Index of writers by Eusebius of Caesarea, whose Scholia are also cited (besides nine places where *Eusebius* is expressed simply), C and is placed in the correct chronological order. Yet this Latin Emesenus was suspicious at first sight, and I thought him to be no other than the one whose Homilies, under the falsely attributed name of Eusebius, were edited by Gagnée and others, and regarding whom Oudin’s *Commentarius* vol. I, p. 392-426, dealt at greater length. But since I did not find our passages there, I became more confident in those things which the editor asserts in his Preface: "Wherever you encounter the Greek doctors in your reading, with the exception only of Basil, Origen, and Chrysostom—spare and bear with an equal mind if we have not noted the place where we have excerpted what is said." For their sayings were extracted from a most ancient apostolic Greek library codex, in which the letters were so D falling away that they could scarcely be read, where also no location sign was found. Therefore, from the Greek codex (the Greek *catena*, as it seems) our Eusebius was also translated; a fact which increases confidence. Since, furthermore, I had seen that the Syriac version (undoubtedly that ecclesiastical one which is called the *Peshitta*, and which Ephrem the Syrian also commented upon) was cited by the author, and the Hebrew text, I did not delay any longer to hold these places as genuine fragments of Eusebius of Emesa and to communicate them as such to the readers.
In the ample work which bears the title: *Exposition of the Greek Fathers on the Psalms, edited in Greek and Latin by Balthasar Corderius*, Antwerp, 1646, vols. I-III, so many Eusebian excerpts are displayed that they fill more than a tenth of the whole work. But who are those Eusebii occurring everywhere on the pages? Sometimes indeed he is declared to be *Eusebius of Caesarea*, yet regarding the others there is much doubt. Who would not believe that our own is among them? But it is a very difficult task indeed, not to say impossible, to prove what belongs to him and what does not. I thought to append the passages for the sake of a specimen and example among many others to be chosen, because in them I perceived a certain kinship and similarity with the Eusebian orations. Regarding this judgment, whether I have fared well or ill, let the more expert judge, to whom I willingly submit that which I feel.
You have, therefore, benevolent reader, some exegetical fragments collected from the *Catenae* of the Fathers, which in my judgment can probably be ascribed to Eusebius of Emesa. They are certainly Eusebian; nor will it perhaps matter much whether we have the Scholia of the Caesarean master or those of the Emesene disciple. However that may be, I trust and ask that you will easily grant the small space which these little fragments fill.
EXEGETICAL FRAGMENTS FROM THE CATENAE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
I. EXCERPTS FROM THE CATENA OF LIPPOMANO ON GENESIS.
I. Cat. p. 50, on Gen. 1, 6: *Eusebius of Emesa*. They are inquired after: do the luminaries act their course at a distance from the sky like stars, or are they fixed in the sky, or do they travel through the sky like wayfarers? And if truly [some] should say that they run below the sky, let them hear Homer, with whom the sun ascends from the flowing Ocean to the middle of the sky, then, his course finished, he sets. Nor can they be said to be fixed to the sky; for by that reason one would never be faster than the other, which, however, is so manifest that it cannot be denied. Therefore, the sacred and divine Scripture testifies that the sky is firm and immovable, but the sun and moon are moved in the sky and carry out their own course. For it is said in Joshua: *Sun and moon, stand still*; it does not say: *O sky moving the moon or sun, stand still*. Likewise it is said by Hezekiah: *Let the sun turn back*; it does not say: *O sky moving the sun, turn back*.
II. Cat. p. 59, on Gen. II, 4: *Eusebius, Bishop of Emesa*. Others indeed report that the place in which paradise was planted is called Eden. Others, however, wish paradise itself to be understood by the name Eden, but that the interpreter put the interpretation itself for the name. But it is asked, was paradise planted after the man was made? For the words of Moses seem to signify that it was planted on the third day together with other trees. The Syrian interpreter, however, translated: *And God planted a paradise in Eden*, not as others [*ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς*], that is, *from the beginning*. Many, however, report that paradise was founded and planted by God after other things. For when Moses had said: *And God planted a paradise and set in it the man whom he had formed*, he immediately subjoined: *and God produced as yet from the earth every tree beautiful to the sight*, and the rest. For *as yet*, or *furthermore*, signifies the plants of paradise were set after those things which were made at the start of creation. Idem: Others say that Eden is the place in which paradise was set and planted, and that it is placed in the middle of the world.
III. Cat. p. 118, on Gen. VI, 26: *Eusebius of Emesa*. In the Hebrew it reads: *He hoped to be called by the name of the Lord*, that is, to be called God, and the Son of God. For the just, who were from the seed of Seth, were called the sons of God.
IV. Cat. p. 424. col. b., on Gen. XLIX, 16: *Eusebius of Emesa*. *Dan shall judge*, etc. This, therefore, is referred to Samson, who thus easily ruled over the twelve tribes, just as he ruled over one. *Let Dan be to himself a serpent*, etc., that is, just as when a horse's heel is bitten by a serpent on the road, it is necessary that the rider fall backward,
and likewise he who has no hope except in the help and aid of God; by the same reasoning, Samson, having been bitten by Dalila [according to the Hebrew text, Delilah] as if by a serpent, fell; and with him fell the people of Israel, who were carried by Samson as if by a horse, until, being strengthened again by divine power, he took vengeance upon the Philistines by right and by merit.
II. EXCERPTS FROM THE CATENA ON THE PSALMS
1. Cat., vol. III, p. 223 ff. On Psalm CIX [al. CVIII]. 2. Excerpts from the Greek Exposition on Psalm CX [al. CIX], vol. III, p. 238 ff. (These can be read among the works of Eusebius Pamphili; see column 1334, 1335, 1336, 1337, 1340, 1341 of this Patrology.)
EXEGETICAL FRAGMENTS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT CATENAE
(Catena Patrum Gr. on St. John. Edited by Balthasar Corderius. Antwerp, 1630, p. 448 ff.)
ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, CH. XX, 1, 2
If Matthew says, "In the end of the Sabbath," and John says, "Early, when it was yet dark," let it not disturb you; for both are speaking of the same time, using different words and in a broader sense. For Matthew uses "late" (*opse*) to mean "tardily" or "at a late hour of the night"; John, on the other hand, called that same late hour of the same night "early," and, interpreting himself, added "when it was yet dark," so that no one might suppose he was speaking of the dawn itself. And since Matthew used "in the end of the Sabbath" (*opse sabbaton*), so that no one might think the evening hour was meant, he added, "As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week." There, and accurately, he did not say the "evening of the Sabbath"—lest one might assume it to mean the evening after sunset—but "the late [part] of the Sabbaths," he says. For it was the custom to call the whole week "the Sabbaths," and to name all the days in that manner. Thus it is spoken of by the evangelists as "the first of the Sabbaths," and then the third, and so on.
Thus, therefore, Matthew called that time which is shining toward the dawn of the Lord's Day "the late part of the Sabbaths." He did not say "the evening of the Sabbath," nor "the late part of the Sabbath," since we would have had to celebrate the feast on the day of the Sabbath after the sun had set, when evening had come, and no longer celebrate the Lord's Day, but the evening of the Sabbath—if that was what the evangelist meant. But now we do not do so, but we celebrate the feast late at night, or around midnight, or at cockcrow, or toward the dawn; so that in reality, and according to the custom deeply rooted in the Church of God, it is clearly evident that the time denoted by "the late part of the Sabbaths" is not the evening hour itself, but the time which Matthew himself indicated by adding: "As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week." For he was not speaking of the evening of the Sabbath itself.
Since such wonderful things were happening around the Savior's monument, did not all the inhabitants of the city know what had occurred? For if a great earthquake had taken place at the evening hour, while everyone was still awake, how would it not have been perceived by all? And how would there not have been a gathering at the monument when the angel appeared there and rolled away the stone from the door of the monument? But the guards of the place, and the troop
as well as those of the Jews who with the guard were watching the tomb, how did they not immediately report the events that had taken place to the chief priests and the rulers of the Jews? For it was consequential that, once the stone had been overturned miraculously, the guards should immediately hasten and report what had been done, the hour allowing them to do so. Yet they were even instructed to spread among the crowd that His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were sleeping; a thing which it would have been impossible for them to fabricate with any appearance of truth if He had risen in the evening. But I think it is proven by this that what is said by Matthew, *In the end of the Sabbath*, does not signify the evening hour of the Sabbath, nor the time of the evening, but as Matthew himself added, the hour dawning towards the first day of the week, which according to John was in the morning, while it was yet dark 79.
ON JOHN XX, 3-7
Forte dicent aliqui: How is it that, while the guard was keeping watch over the sepulcher, Peter and John came running and entered the monument? We respond that, with the earthquake that occurred at the resurrection, the soldiers departed to report to the chief priests all that had happened, and thus, being freed from the military guard, they were able to come to the monument and enter it, having heard from Mary Magdalene that none of the adversaries were there, and that the place was free for those who arrived to behold the saving resurrection. For this was indeed the chief cause of the appearance of the angel; for he did not roll away the stone for the sake of the resurrection, but partly to drive away the guards, and partly that, receiving the women who arrived to behold the sight, he might inform them of the resurrection; and of this Matthew is a witness, saying: *And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men* 45. For the Savior, by rising, even anticipated the angel, and did not await the moving of the stone; but even with it lying at the door, and sealed with the seals of the chief priests, and with the guards surrounding the tomb, He went forth from the monument invisible, rising by divine power, at an hour which no one knew, and around the time which was signified by the evangelists, and He rose while the stone remained unmoved and sealed. The angel, however, was present as a messenger of good things to men; contributing nothing to the resurrection by his presence, but ministering much for the salvation of men: wherefore he also manifested himself in the splendor of lightning and in white apparel, bearing before him an omen of excellent things, and himself becoming the first to celebrate the beginnings of the saving feast.
A
ON JOHN XX, 19, 20
How is it that, according to Luke and John, Jesus appeared so often to his disciples in Jerusalem itself, while according to Mark and Matthew, the same disciples are commanded through the women to go away into Galilee, as though they were not to see him in Jerusalem? If the writings of the Gospels had maintained that only the eleven disciples of the Savior believed, then one might rightly say there was no lack of reason for Jesus to appear to them once or twice secretly, while they were hiding in Jerusalem, in order to comfort them, as they did not yet believe the promises of the women. For in Galilee he did not appear secretly, nor once or twice, nor, furthermore, with the doors shut for fear of the Jews, but openly, with the greatest freedom and authority, he displayed the manifest signs of his divinity, showing himself alive to them after his passion B by many proofs, appearing to them for forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God, eating with them, as Luke says in the Acts. And this is the first solution.
But since, among the disciples, some were eminent and held the first place, filling the choir of the twelve, and a second rank among them was held by the seventy, of whom Luke speaks in the Gospel—and after this the Lord revealed himself to another seventy, and there were indeed many other friends of the Savior who were also called by the name of disciples, to whom it was not possible to appear all at once when gathered in Jerusalem after his resurrection—it is with good reason that two of the evangelists, Luke and John, write that he appeared only to the eleven in Jerusalem, while the other two write that he appeared in Galilee, not just to the eleven, but simply to all the disciples. C Therefore, there were many and various visions granted to the disciples after the resurrection. And some record these things, others those; some say he said these things, others that he also did other things. And sometimes, in recounting from the beginning, the second fills in what the first omitted.
APPENDIX TO THE EXEGETICAL FRAGMENTS
After the exegetical Fragments, which were collected by us not without labor from the various editions of the Catenae that were at hand, had already been set in type, we discovered in two books, where we had not searched, some further Excerpts from the Catenae under the name of Eusebius of Emesa. Those books are: Bernh. de Montfaucon, *Hexaplorum Origenis, quæ supersunt, etc.*, vol. I, Paris, 1713, fol. pp. 16, 21, 22, 26, 33, 120. Jo. Chr. Wolf, *Anecdota Græca, sacra et profana, etc.*, vol. III, Hamburg, 1725, 8vo, p. 146 seqq. Excerpts from the manuscript Catena on the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic Epistles.
We have thought it all the more gladly that these Excerpts should be appended, because they not only bear the commendation of men who deserve immortality for their work on critical questions, but also correspond much more closely to the genius, manner, and style of Emesenus, as we know them from his genuine treatises, than those which we presented as doubtful and suspect, and concerning which we gave warning above. We add only this, that by this new example it is confirmed that Eusebius of Emesa was an interpreter of the Old Testament as well, and therefore of the original text, and no less of the Syriac version.
FRAGMENTA EXEGETICA IN PENTATEUCHUM.
I.
SUPER GENES. II, 6.
A Montfaucon Hexapl. Orig. t. I, pag. 16: In hae verba (v. 6: καὶ ἐπιφλυγμός) Catenæ omnes Regiæ mss. hæc afferunt ex Eusebio Emeseno:
A certain Hebrew says: It does not say, "But a fountain went up from the earth," but a certain kind of mist or very dense condensed air; which he said welled up from the earth and covered the face of the earth, whether from the humors or by God so disposing it, I cannot say.
II.
SUPER GENES. IV, 26.
Ibid. p. 21: Catenæ all have the version from the Hebrew under the name of Eusebius of Emesa, of which it is pleasing to bring the whole passage:
It is not so in the Hebrew, but: "He hoped to be called by the name of the Lord God"; that is, to be called a son of God and God; for those who were of Seth were righteous; whence Scripture, agreeing with itself, says afterwards: "And the sons of God saw the daughters of men"; that is, the righteous; for there was no mixing of the sons of Seth with those of Cain.
B III.
On Genesis V, 5.
Ibid. p. 22: But regarding the years of the generations, I shall bring forward a notable passage of Eusebius of Emesa taken from the papers of Combefis:
The Hebrew and the Syrian and Symmachus always weave their genealogies omitting one hundred years. For example, it is written of Adam himself that he was two hundred and thirty years old when he begat Seth; in the Hebrew, however, it is one hundred and thirty; yet the Hebrew restores these one hundred omitted years to the rest of Adam's life.
C IV.
ON GENESIS VIII, 21.
Ibid. p. 27: The Royal and Combefisian Catenæ bring forward this lection [LXX: ἐπιμελῶς, Hebr. τὸ πλάσμα τῆς καρδίας] from Eusebius of Emesa, whose words are these:
The Hebrew, instead of "vehemently," says that man is naturally prone to evil from his youth; to which these words come very close: "The figment of man’s heart is prone to evil from his youth."
SUPER GENES. XIX, 23.
Ibid. p. 33: Nearly similar things are present (which interpretation is brought from the fragments of Diodorus of Tarsus), but more sincere, as it seems, in the Royal Catena num. 1888, under the name of Eusebius of Emesa, namely:
Hearing these things: "Because of you it will not be overturned," therefore some say that those who dwelt in Segor were not overturned, but were swallowed up; and therefore the city was called Bala, which is interpreted: "Swallowed up." In another place Scripture calls it D Zogora; but the Syrian calls it Zaari and Bala; and the very wicked deed of Lot’s daughters supports this, indicating that not even one remained in Segor: for otherwise, Lot would not have fled from that city.
FRAGMENTS. VI. ON LEVITICUS XI.
Ibid. p. 120: In this chapter of Leviticus concerning clean and unclean animals, Eusebius of Emesa has this in the manuscript Royal Catenae:
A He commands to eat some, and not to eat others; not because there is anything profane, but for two reasons. First, those things which they worshipped in Egypt, he commands to be eaten, so that they might hold them in contempt; but those things which they ate gluttonously in Egypt, like the pig, he orders them to abstain from. The second reason is this: often, with nature as our guide, we recoil from some things because of their ferocity, from others because of their ugliness, from others because they feed on carcasses, and from others by an instinct of hatred. What had come into custom, the law did not overturn.
EXEGETICAL FRAGMENTS ON THE N.T. I. ON ACTS VII, 20, 21, 31.
Jo. Chr. Wolfi Anecdota Graeca, etc., tom. III, p. 146: Excerpts from a manuscript Catena on Acts vii, 20, 21, 31.
B Of Eusebius of Emesa. At the time when Moses was born. His parents begot him; when they saw that he was beautiful, they spared him; but for fear of the decree, they hid him. Having hidden him, they were moved and rushed to cast him out because of fear, but they contrived a matter through their compassion, and having made an ark in imitation of that which was made for Noah, and having invoked the God of Noah, they cast the child into the river in the ark, so that they might seem to obey the decree while ensuring the safety of the child. They indeed cast him out, but He commands the unsuspecting daughter of Pharaoh to go down to the river; she went down unsuspecting, and she found what she was not seeking.
And after a few words: Moses was saved in the figure of the common salvation of the Churches. For the ark was of wood, and the wood was from the water, and there was salvation for the one who was cast out, and the one who received him was not a Jewess, but a Gentile and an Egyptian.
And again: All things happened so that none of the events concerning Moses might be thought human. For who could have said that Moses was theirs? The parents? But they cast him out. The Egyptians? But they did not beget him. The mother, because she nursed him? But another gave her the wages. Since, therefore, he is found to be no man's, he is a man of God. Being thus born and saved, he learns the knowledge of the Egyptians. For wise was he who was teaching.
For in wars, scouts are sent to investigate the strategies of the enemy beforehand, and thus the battle may begin. Since, therefore, Moses was about to take up arms against the Egyptians, he was piously placed among the Egyptians, so that he might scout the affairs of the Egyptians and prefer God to men.
Of the same. (v. 26). He appeared to them fighting. He found what he was not seeking; but brother against brother...
A he stood in the middle, no longer stirring up zeal but applying exhortation. Do not do wrong, he said, it is your brother whom you are wronging. He applied the address so that he might shame his greed.
II. Of the same. Moses killed, not yielding to anger, nor overcome by fury, but moved by zeal. Whatever is brought to pass at God’s command is piety. And if homicide is committed for the sake of God, it is not homicide. Thus Phinehas, having killed two with one blow, heard: *Phinehas arose, and made atonement, and the plague was stayed*. For different is the intention of a murderer and of one who acts piously, and the deed done by Phinehas was priesthood rather than homicide. For so much did this double homicide avail against the death that was consuming Israel for their impiety, as much as did the censer of his father Aaron; so much did homicide, or rather piety, avail.
And after a few words: The things which he was doing were an enigma of unknown matters. For this deed was a sign that God was about to kill the Egyptians through Moses, and to save those called Israelites.
Of the same (v. 51). And he went out to observe. Having come out of the royal palaces, he became a shepherd in the desert, and he did not grieve. For if anyone wishes to save charity and love towards God, whether he is kept in poverty, or is preserved in cities, or is in prison, he does not become indignant. You have in the Scripture the examples of this. B
OF EUSEBIUS OF EMESA ON II EP. PETR. II, 18.
A dumb beast of burden. You ask me to keep obedience to you, but you yourself are not afraid to disobey God. And you are indignant as though you were slighted by me; yet you did not fear when you transgressed the command of God. Therefore the Apostle says in the Catholic Epistle: *A dumb beast of burden*. C
Since it seems to be of little profit to write a commentary upon commentaries, almost nothing will be left to us but to subjoin these few points to those things which were premised above in col. 553:
I. As regards the Fragments on Genesis, p. 45, 46, and c. 4, p. 185, 87, we hesitate not at all to ascribe them now much more confidently to Eusebius of Emesa, since it easily appears that Fragment III, on Gen. iv, 26, p. 46, is a version of the first part of Fragment II, which we presented in c. 4, p. 185, from the Hexaplar work of Montfaucon. The credibility of Lippomano is therefrom increased, who, as was brought forward on p. 44, asserts that his own Latin version was compiled in the Catena from a Greek codex. D
Less conformity, however, is detected in the Fragments on the Gospel of John c. xx, p. 52, 56, which we have added as doubtful. Whether they should be considered part of the book of Eusebius of Caesarea, from which some matters were presented in the Questions of Anastasius Sinaita, p. 155, and in the *Auctarium novum Patrum*, vol. I, p. 781, 783, of Fr. Combefis, many learned men consider. But although some arguments to be sought from the interpretation of John xx, 3, 7, 19, 20, might persuade that the author is Emesenus, we nonetheless willingly confess that they do not have sufficient weight that we should adjudge them away from the Caesarean. Yet we do not regret having appended them, since they can serve as a most ready example and exercise for those who desire to be exercised more accurately in critical disquisitions.
III. The exegetical Fragments on the N.T. from Wolf's *Anecdota*, being diligently examined by comparison with the orations and dogmatic fragments, can scarcely be held as doubtful. That *Breviloquium* and the *Zetetica* method can certainly serve as proof, which would be of great value if it also received external testimony.
561
FRAGMENTA.
562
[The preceding lines belong to a fragment on Acts VII, 20, 21, 31. They appear to be taken from an exegetical work and have the appearance of a commentary written on this book. Those things, however, which are added on II Pet. II, 18, bear a homiletic color, so to speak, and the words also indicate the allegation of an orator rather than the speech of a commentator.]
FRAGMENTS OF THE SAME EUSEBIUS
FROM THE CRAMER CATENA.
I. IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. (CRAMER, III, pp. 115, 154.)
A Cap. VII, v. 29. "And Moses fled in this word." Let no one among us be a friend to the enemies of God; for as much as one loves God, so much does he hate those who resist Him.
B Cap. IX, v. 8. "And Saul arose from the earth; and, his eyes being opened, he saw no one." He was delivered to blindness as if to a soldier to guard him, lest he, being carried away by a preconceived opinion, might say: "It was a certain vision, perhaps I heard the voice incorrectly; and how did He cry out from heaven, Whom I saw on earth?" Therefore, so that his mind might not be divided in such a way, he was delivered to blindness.
II. IN THE EPISTLES TO THE ROMANS. (CRAMER, IV, p. 9.)
C Cap. I, v. 19. "Because that which is known of God is manifest in them." The discourse seems to be directed toward the Greeks more simply, as if it were blaming only one type of impiety, namely, idolatry. However, it is evident that he is not saying these things to those who see more accurately, but is extending the blame further for those who have failed in impiety.
III. IN THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (CRAMER, VI, p. 75.)
D Cap. IV, v. 4. "But he that judges me is the Lord." He admonishes us not to think it honorable to avenge ourselves, nor to judge those who seem to have sinned, nor to be troubled by those things which for the present time are hidden from the sight of mortals; since the Lord Himself, who presides over all, will illuminate the hidden things of darkness of the impious; but as for the just who are in the world, who worship God with their modesty and industry, and are hidden from the common people, He will reveal the counsels of their hearts; to whom He also declares that praise will be given by God.
The homilies which circulate under the name of Pseudo-Eusebius and Eusebius Gallicanus (Biblioth. Patrum, t. VI, 618 sqq.), and a great part of which has been restored to their proper authors in the Patrologia Latina, we have passed over as spurious. See above the notice of Jo. FESSLER, which we published at the beginning of the works of Eusebius of Alexandria. ED. PATR.