Supplement to the Questions to Stephanus

^A 6. But since Christ said, "I shall be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights," it is permitted to argue thus: If someone, bound by a debt, had promised his creditor that he would pay the debt after three days, and we saw him pay it before the appointed time, would we judge him a liar or much more truthful? Moreover, if Christ rose sooner than He had pledged, His power shines forth all the more, and there is no room for blame. Suspicion, on the other hand, and falsehood would have resulted from delay: falsehood, because the stated deadline would have passed; suspicion, because, when the guards had departed, the matter would have been deemed a theft.

EXPLICIT EPITOME.

TO THE READER Hitherto we have edited the continuous and pristine, illustrious Epitome of the Eusebian work, as it exists in the most beautiful Palatine codex Vat. CCXX, from folio 61 to 96, where the work in fact concludes, with the subsequent pages left blank. There were, however, as we have seen, 20 questions; namely, 16 to Stephanus, 4 to Marinus. Although supplements of both parts were available to us from various sources, we did not wish to mix them with the Epitome, lest we disturb the series of a work in itself neat and perfect by their insertion. Now, however, the supplements which we have found, both of the questions to Stephanus and also to Marinus, must be appended. And first, certain fine parts from the great manuscript catena of Nicetas on Luke in codex A, or Vat. 1611, which it appears were culled not from the Epitome but from the complete work; although Nicetas himself also seems sometimes, as happens in catenae, to abbreviate Eusebius; an indication of which is that there are sometimes certain particles in the Epitome which Nicetas subtracts, even though otherwise, in the parts cited by Nicetas, Eusebius is for the most part intact, and everywhere fuller. Now therefore, in the first place, the supplements of the questions to Stephanus.

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA PARTS FROM THE MORE COMPLETE WORK OF THE GOSPEL QUESTIONS in the Catena of Nicetas, ms. on Luke.

^B 1. That Matthew traces the successions from above, but Luke proceeds in the reverse order, since both travel the same road, there is no place for blame. For no one would say that those who travel the path upward, and those who conversely descend by the same road, are walking by a different path: because, clearly, one path is trodden by both, that is, by those ascending and by those descending. In like manner also, in recounting the successions of a lineage, it is permitted to anyone, according to their choice, to move either from the lowest [descendants] upward, or, having taken the beginning from the ancestors above, to finish at the latest [descendants]. And this mode was pleasing to the Hebrews of old, etc. But if, because neither did Luke in ascending stop at Abraham, nor did Matthew begin from Adam, in whom Luke finished; it ought not to have been omitted.

^A If anyone should say that they are discordant with one another, he does not judge rightly. For each of the evangelists has set forth his description according to his own reckoning; one indeed beginning from Abraham, the other even passing beyond Abraham himself and ascending as far as the first man; and not persisting even in this, he connects the series of his history with God. But what antagonism is there in these things? If to Matthew indeed, because of the scope of his writing, it seemed useful to deduce the genealogy from Abraham and onwards; but to Luke it was pleasing, on account of the mystery of regeneration in Christ, to elevate the man regenerated by the laver beyond the bounds of any generation whatsoever. Observe, in fact, that he has in his entire discourse kept silent the word "generation," but carries Jesus upwards by regressive movement, until he stops not at some man, but at God himself, the author of all, to whom he joins him as one who is truly his Son. ^B 2. But come, so that we may even convict the ignorance of the one who says this, and that no one may henceforth suffer scandal through ignorance of the truth, I will set forth the genuine history of the facts. But first, it is time to examine the proposition set before us. Matthew indeed descends from Abraham to David, and so to Solomon and his successors even to Jacob, from whom Joseph, the reputed father of Christ, is sprung. Luke, however, says that Joseph is not sprung from Jacob, as Matthew does, but from Heli; then ascending from Heli, he proceeds to others, none of whom Matthew mentions. And thus, running as it were a lateral path, he arrives not at Solomon, the son of David, but at Nathan, who was likewise a son of David. Yet it would have been necessary, if both evangelists were weaving one and the same genealogy, for Luke to weave the same series as Matthew, or for Matthew to recite the same names that Luke has. But these are so far from agreeing with one another, that one says Joseph is the son of Jacob and of Solomon, born of David; while the other says not of Jacob, but of Heli and Nathan, likewise born of David; in which plan of writing they seem to disagree greatly among themselves. How then is the proposed objection to be countered? Come, opening the eye of the soul, let us fix our mind accurately upon the very words, and let us look into what Luke says: "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being as was supposed [the son] of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Melchi." ^C But indeed Matthew did not use the expression "as was supposed," etc. And this is the first answer. ^D 3. There is perhaps also another deep and hidden sense in the things before us. For Matthew, clearly narrating the carnal origin of Christ, and wishing to demonstrate Joseph as truly sprung from David, makes the opening of his discourse such as was appropriate, saying: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ," and the rest; and consequently he places the whole following history after the catalogue of his forefathers, namely, the Magi, Herod's [fury, the flight of Jesus into Egypt, the return from there, the […]]

and finally Archelaus. And [how] immediately after these things John, appearing in public to the sight of men, in the thirtieth year of Jesus' age, preached the baptism of repentance in the desert, and how among others Jesus also came there to be baptized by John in the Jordan. You see therefore in these matters the context and the sequence of the historical narrative which Matthew sets forth, a man who was a Syrian, a publican by profession, and a Hebrew by tongue.

4. But Luke was by birth from that renowned ^B Antioch, in which all the most learned men boast that they are descendants of the Ionians. But beyond the Hellenism innate to the citizens, Luke had progressed somewhat further in letters, because he was skilled in the science of medicine. And yet, such as he was, when beginning his writing of the Gospel, he narrates first the matters concerning Zacharias and Elizabeth. Then, adding the appearance of Gabriel to Mary, he sets forth those wondrous births in order, mentioning no genealogy of Joseph. Afterwards, recording the twelfth year of Jesus, he does not yet mention any genealogy. But after the times of Augustus, when Tiberius was holding the empire of the Romans, in his fifteenth year, he says that John preached in the desert the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; and he expounds his preaching; and after all these things, he says that when Jesus had been baptized and was praying, it came to pass that heaven was opened, and the Spirit descended in the likeness of a dove, and a voice was borne from there: "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." ^C Furthermore, having advanced to this point, as if waking from sleep, he introduces the mention of the genealogy unseasonably, as one might think, saying: "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Melchi," and the rest.

5. Who then in this place would not be perplexed? Since it appears that Matthew composed his narrative skillfully, and used the genealogy at the proper time, but that Luke was of such thoughtlessness that, when he ought to have placed the genealogy in its own proper place, he omitted it then; and although he had written so great a part of the history, namely from the birth of Christ up to his thirtieth year, he recognized no suitable time for inserting the genealogy; but now at last, when Christ, having already reached thirty years of age, approaches the baptism of John, ^D contrary to all reason and timing, he introduces the genealogy as a kind of insertion into the writing. But truly, if anyone were to reproach him in this way, the divine evangelist would not allow his answer to be wanting; but he would speak, as is fitting, divine and wise things and things worthy of the divine Spirit that dwelt within him. For my part, I think that he, also wishing to record the genealogy of the fleshly birth of Jesus, did this now; for if he were doing this according to his own judgment, he was not ignorant of when he ought to set it forth. But since he now makes mention of the regeneration through the bath, introducing him as the Son of God, he desires that, as an example for

that which follows ^A that every one who is regenerated in God, even if he truly be supposed to be a son of men because of the flesh with which he is clothed, yet the things of the generation do not stand for him in the parents according to the flesh, nor do they reach as far as the progenitors of the body; but even if he be supposed to be a son of men because of the generation of the body, nevertheless he is not established as alien to the adoption of God. Wherefore I suppose that he also used the genealogy at the appropriate time, and also the addition of the phrase "as was supposed." For it was consistent, since the witness from heaven had said to Jesus, "Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased," no longer to proclaim him a son of men in the same way, but with the addition of "as was supposed." For he was proclaimed Son of God by nature, but he was not, as was supposed, the son of Joseph by nature, but he was supposed to be, yet was not naturally his son.

6. Since these things are so, it seems to me that I have also given the reason why Matthew, beginning his writing before the conception of Mary and before the incarnate generation of Jesus, appropriately places the genealogy according to the flesh at the beginning of his history ^B. Therefore he brings the generations downward, hinting at the descent from the better state of him of whom he speaks: for the incarnate Word of God did truly descend, seeing that being in the form of God, he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. But Luke, if indeed he had intended to demonstrate the advent of the Word in the flesh in the same way as Matthew, would himself also have written the history of the lineage at the time of the conception or certainly of the birth; and beginning in an orderly manner from the elders, he would have descended to the latest. But because he did not unfold his narrative according to the mind of Matthew ^C, he rightly transcends that time and arrives at the regeneration through the bath; and here he sets forth the contrary succession of generations, both rising from the last to the first, and at the same time avoiding the mention of the guilty and sinful men recorded by Matthew. Since he who is regenerated in God becomes alien to the fleshly origin and to the fathers who were sinners according to the flesh, after he has become the Son of God and of all those who have lived blamelessly according to God. Thus also it was said to Abraham: "But thou shalt go unto thy fathers," by which words are denoted, as if by an enigma, not the fleshly parents, but those who were like him in piety according to God, the Word hinting at the similarity of piety.

7. Rightly, therefore, does Luke, inasmuch as he is narrating the regeneration, not go the same way as Matthew ^D. Wherefore he does not make the enumeration of Solomon or of the wife of Uriah, or of Tamar, or of Ruth, or of Jechoniah, and of the men interspersed between them not without reproach, but proceeds through other blameless ones, and indeed introduces the regenerated one from the prophet Nathan. And he who in Matthew is born according to the flesh was the son of Abraham, the genealogy being deduced from that point, because to Abraham first the promise of the blessing of the nations had been given, in no other way than through the seed

which was to come from him. But he who is reborn in God, naming others as his fathers according to God, holding them not indeed as his true fathers, but as such accounted by reason of the similarity of their character, ascends to the true Father after all, having been named Son of God. But let this account be left for us among the mysteries. And so that no one may suppose that we are merely quibbling, I shall make use of a most ancient history from which it is possible to find the solution to the disagreement supposed to exist between both evangelists. The author of this history was Africanus, a learned man and illustrious among those who are trained in secular learning; among his many other excellent discourses, there is also an epistle to Aristides regarding the supposed disagreement of the evangelists concerning the genealogy of Christ, which is as follows. ^A

OF AFRICANUS (48)

8. Not accurately, however, do some say that this different enumeration and mixing of names—of the priestly, as they think, and of the royal men—has been rightly made, so that it might be shown that Christ was worthily both priest and king. As if anyone were in doubt about this, or had another hope, namely that Christ is not the eternal High Priest before the Father, offering our prayers to Him, and a super-mundane King, whom He freed by feeding them with the Spirit, having become a cooperator in the ordering of all things. And this was declared to us not by the catalog of the tribes, nor by the mixing of the recorded lineages, but by the patriarchs and prophets. Let us not, therefore, descend to such pettiness of religion, that by an exchange of names we should attempt to confirm Christ’s kingship and priesthood. For even otherwise, the priestly tribe of Levi was allied to the royal tribe of Judah, from which tribe Aaron took to himself Elisabet, the sister of Naasson, ^B as his wife, and again Eleazar took the daughter of Phatiel, and from them offspring were born. Therefore, say they, the evangelists lied, while they bring forward not the truth, but an imagined praise. And for this cause, the one, through Solomon from David, traced the genealogy of Jacob, who was the father of Joseph; but the other, from Nathan the son of David, brought down [the genealogy of] Heli, who was likewise in another way the father of Joseph. Yet it was not becoming for them to be ignorant that each of the ordered lists of the men enumerated is of the race of David, the royal tribe of Judah. For if Nathan was a prophet, then so was Solomon, and the parent of both of them (David). From many tribes, indeed, prophets arose, but priests were of none of the twelve tribes, save only the Levites. In vain, therefore, has this falsehood been fabricated by them; nor shall such a discourse prevail in the Church of Christ ^C against the accurate truth, namely that a lie should be stitched together for the praise and glorification of Christ. For who does not know that most holy word of the Apostle, preaching and proclaiming the resurrection of the Savior

and affirming the truth of the matter with great fear, when he says ^A: "If some deny that Christ has risen, but we declare and believe this, and we also hope and preach it, we are false witnesses toward God, because He raised Christ, whom He did not raise." If, therefore, he who glorifies God the Father fears lest he seem to be a liar, by recounting a wonderful deed, how would he not justly fear if, by means of a falsehood, he were to forge a standing for the truth, or compose a glory that is not true? For if the genealogies were divergent, and no genuine seed were traced to Joseph, but the matter were stated solely to provide support for the One who was to be born—namely, that the coming One would be king and priest—without proof, and with the entire ornament of the speech resulting in a futile hymn, it is certain that no praise would accrue to God from this, because it is entirely a lie; but rather, condemnation would be gathered by him who speaks it, because he boasted that what is nothing in reality is something. ^B

9. Matthew also positioned David before others in his genealogy, because to David first and alone did God promise with a firm oath that Christ would be born of him according to the flesh. It is written, therefore: "The Lord swore the truth to David, and He will not frustrate it: of the fruit of your belly will I place upon your throne." And again: "I swore to David My servant, until the age I will prepare your seed." And in Chronicles: "And it shall be when your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you, who shall be of your belly, and I will prepare his kingdom: he shall build me a house, and I will set up his throne until the age. I will be to him for a Father, and he shall be to me for a son." Things similar to these are also recorded in the second book of Kings. But while those might be drawn toward Solomon, that these things which are at hand pertain in no way to Solomon, one may understand thus. ^C Many years after the death of Solomon, Isaiah prophesying, foretells these things concerning the One to be born of the seed of David: "There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse (this was the father of David), and a flower shall rise up from the root. And the root of Jesse shall be, and He who rises up to rule over the nations; in Him shall the nations hope." And he also prophesies as follows concerning the throne promised to David: "A child is born to us, a son is also given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called the Angel of great counsel; great is his government, and of his peace there is no end: upon the throne of David and his kingdom, to establish it." ^D By what has been set forth, it is said indeed that from the root of Jesse and from David someone shall rise, not so much to reign

^A in Israel as among the Gentiles. It is also said that a child shall be born, and he shall be called the Son, being adorned with strange titles and such as transcend human nature, and that such a one shall take up the throne of David, and establish his kingdom.

10. That these things were prophesied after Solomon regarding some other person who was to come, is clear to everyone. Moreover, the oracles delivered to David could not apply to Solomon, if they are examined with careful scrutiny; for the oracle clearly declares that he who is prophesied will rise after the death of David. But Solomon, while David was still alive, by his direction and will, became his successor in the kingdom; it is said, for instance, that he reigned over Israel for only forty years. How, then, could that be applied to him: "I will establish his throne forever"? But if someone should say that these things were spoken concerning his posterity, one must not be ignorant that the royal succession of David and Solomon lasted until Jechonias and the Babylonian captivity, yet no one sat on the royal throne of David after Jechonias. By what manner, therefore, could the words of the oath be accommodated to the woman-loving Solomon, whose heart was not perfect before the Lord his God? And likewise those words: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"? ^B Nay, these things are far removed from Solomon, but they truly and strongly befit Christ, who, having arisen from the seed of David, built for God a Church worthy of Him, not from inanimate stones, nor in some corner and part of the earth, but throughout the whole world and among all nations, from living and intellectual stones. To Him alone will that saying fitly apply: "He shall be to me a son," since in other places of Scripture too, He is heralded as the Son of God; where it is said: "From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten thee"; and where it is said: "The Lord said to me, Thou art my son"; again where it is written: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works, and before all the hills he begat me." With these, therefore, the voice brought down from heaven upon Him also agrees, which said: "Thou art my beloved Son." And those things contained in the seventy-first Psalm, "He shall endure with the sun," and, "All nations shall call him blessed," would surely coincide with the things revealed by God concerning our Saviour. That these things are so, the testimony from Isaiah is indisputable, who, after the death of Solomon and after very many other successions of the lineage, prophesies that one would come forth from the root of Jesse and David, ^C and that this one would be the Saviour of the Gentiles, saying plainly thus: "And there shall be the root of Jesse, and he that shall arise to rule over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles hope."

11. But since such oracles were delivered to David alone, and with a sworn affirmation concerning

the generation from his seed of the One who was prophesied, and since the whole of Israel, as was to be expected, was daily awaiting the Savior and Redeemer of all men who was to be born of David, Matthew, in proclaiming the arrival of those who were awaited, rightly took the beginning of his discourse from that very expectation which was in hope, calling him the son of David who had recently appeared. From David, however, he ascends to Abraham, because to Abraham first, in turn, various oracles had been delivered concerning the calling of the Gentiles. For before the legislation of Moses, and before the Jewish nation, nay even before circumcision, Abraham, being a foreigner and sprung from the land of the Chaldeans, left behind his ancestral customs and, knowing the God who is over all, was testified as having believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness; and he appeared both just and dear to God, not through the circumcision of the body, nor through the observance of the Sabbath day, of feasts, or of calends, nor through any other will-worship introduced later by Moses, but through another manifestation of God and of the Lord who appeared to him (this was the Savior), and through a life adorned with virtues. To him, therefore, who practiced this kind of religion, the promise concerning the calling of the Gentiles was given, namely, that they too would one day worship God with a fervor equal to that of Abraham, and would be deemed worthy of a blessing no different from that ^B of the man dear to God. Thus it was said to him: "And all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed in thee"; and again: "The Lord said, I will not hide from Abraham my servant what I do; Abraham shall become a great and numerous nation, and in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed." Since these things are so, it was consistent that Abraham, being the forefather of the calling of the Gentiles, should be taken up by the evangelist second, after David. For it was necessary that he who had received the promises concerning the birth of the Savior should be given precedence in order over him who had received the pledges concerning the Gentiles; and that the patriarch of the Gentiles should, I say, be placed second in the genealogy.

12. For John, indeed, in the writing of the Gospel according to him, delivers the events which took place before Christ while the Baptist had not yet been cast into prison. But the other three evangelists recount the deeds after the imprisonment. To one who examines these, the Gospels will no longer appear to disagree with one another, because ^C indeed the former are in John, while the rest pertain to the latter history.

*Ex Possini catena in Matthæum tom. I, p. 12.*

13. Eusebius. That the Theotokos was found pregnant, and that it was to no one else but to Joseph, the evangelist declared; for it was from the Holy Spirit. To the just man, however, ^D

he says, this is evident; for since Joseph was a righteous man, it was not to be wondered at that he should be made to know through the Holy Spirit, from whom the conception had also taken place. ^A

SUPPLEMENTS TO THE QUESTIONS TO STEPHANUS

14. Eusebius. I encountered an anonymous interpretation which says that Elizabeth was called a kinswoman of the Virgin by the angel, not because she was of the same tribe, but because they both sprang from the same ancestors and, in common, from the same Jewish race; just as the Apostle says: "I could wish that I myself were accursed for my brethren, my kinsmen by the flesh." Many approved interpreters, however, say that the priestly tribe was truly connected by relationship to the royal tribe from the times of Moses. ^B For that Elizabeth, the wife of Aaron, was the sister of Naasson, son of Aminadab, who traced his origin from Juda, son of Jacob, from whom the royal lineage of the Jews was propagated. And in the subsequent time likewise, Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias, had her origin from the tribe of Juda, being the daughter of Jacob, who is the father of Joseph. Therefore, from the stock of this Naasson, the Lord was born according to the flesh. The divine prophet did not teach the mixing with the royal tribe in vain, but to show that the Lord Christ sprang from both, as He who was to function as both King and High Priest according to the human nature; ^C or else one calls them kinswomen because they were descended from the same forefather, Jacob.

15. Eusebius. It is fittingly asked why Matthew composed the genealogy of Christ from above, and Luke from below and from the opposite direction. And it must be said that it is not absurd to traverse the same path both from above and from below; for this was an ancient custom of the divine Scripture. For thus also David is genealogized from above in the book of Ruth, just as Christ is in Matthew; and in the first book of Kings, the father of Samuel is genealogized from below, similarly to Luke. ^D

16. Eusebius. Regarding this, Eusebius in his *On Matthew* speaks as follows: They say that Nathan also prophesied, as is apparent from what is contained in the books of Kings. I myself, says a certain one, have also learned the reason that deterred Luke from the royal line; because the kings, beginning from Solomon, with very few exceptions, were defiled by the crime of idolatry. For this reason, Luke abstained from deriving the genealogy through them.

17. Eusebius. David's repentance over

his sin the evangelist mentions, along with the woman with whom he committed the transgression. For had he not obtained forgiveness for his sin by the merit of repentance, he would not have been counted worthy to become an ancestor of Christ. 18. Eusebius. It was brought as a charge against Jeconiah that he had been proscribed and taken captive; for this reason, he was in contempt among many. This matter divided the genealogists of Christ in two ways, so that some traced the lineage of the family from Solomon, while others traced it from Nathan. For this reason the evangelist mentions Jeconiah, and says that the Redeemer of the captives came to receive them unto Himself through baptism.

ADMONITION

BY THE SAME EUSEBIUS

^A I. How is that which Luke wrote to be understood, saying that Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea in a cave and placed in a manger, when Matthew says that the Magi, when they came to adore Him, found the same child in a house, into which they entered and offered Him gifts?

19. First of all, it must be understood that the events narrated by Matthew are different from those that happened at the time of Christ’s birth, of which Luke wrote. For Matthew omitted those things which Luke had already narrated; and conversely, Luke supplied what had been omitted by him. Therefore, Luke wrote of what manner the conception of our Savior was, when the angel was sent as a messenger to Mary; ^B and for what reason Joseph, along with Mary who was pregnant, went up so that they might register their names. He came, therefore, from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem, the city of Judea, which is the native place of David, because he himself was born of the house and lineage of David: where... [original-script column: see facsimile]