(2) Testimonies of the Ancients, in favour of and against Eusebius, collected by Valesius (Henri de Valois), and appended to the Prolegomena on The Life and Writings of Eusebius in Dr. MGiffert's English edition of the Church History (Parker, Oxford, 1890).
(3) The very interesting and learned Introduction to the Greek text of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, edited for the Clarendon Press by the late Dr. W. Bright, Canon of Christ Church, and Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, 1872.
(4) Bishop Lightfoot's article, Eusebius of Caesarea, in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography (ii. 308-48), of which Dr. MGiffert says with perfect truth: 'Lightfoot's article is a magnificent monument of patristic scholarship, and contains the best and most exhaustive treatment of the life and writings of Eusebius that has been written.'
In each of these works the student will find abundant references to earlier sources of information.
There is, however, one interesting and important |vi question concerning Eusebius, for a satisfactory explanation of which I have sought in vain even in these copious and excellent biographies. What was the true relation of Eusebius to Pamphilus? In other words, What is the exact meaning of the title Εὐσέβιος ὁ Παμφίλου ?
The inquiry is interesting because it is in connexion with Pamphilus that we first hear of Eusebius; and it is not unnecessary, because the older traditional explanations are very various, while in our own more critical days we find the title sometimes rendered as 'Eusebius Pamphilus,' and even as 'Eusebius the beloved of all,' a strange designation for one who was so well hated by his more orthodox brethren.
It will be convenient to begin with the summary account of the traditional notices given by Fabricius in his great work Bibliographia Graeca, Tom. vi. p. 30: 'Eusebius Pamphili, not the martyr's son, nor his sister's son (consobrinus), nor his slave, but a friend so peculiarly intimate that he took his name from him.'
On the supposed relationship it is sufficient to quote Bishop Lightfoot's judicious remark: 'Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. vi. 37) makes him a nephew ( ο τουτου αδελφιδους ) of the martyr. Yet it is somewhat strange that he himself should never allude to this connexion, if it were so close. On the contrary, he speaks of his becoming acquainted with Pamphilus in such a manner as to suggest that there was no existing relationship which brought them together.'
In a note on the passage already quoted Fabricius defends the rendering 'friend of Pamphilus' by supposed examples of a similar usage. 'Thus C. Avianus Philoxenus acquired the name Avianus from his friend Flaccus Avianus, as Cicero writes, Epist. ad Familiares, xiii. 35: "The name Avianus he received because there was no man with whom he was more intimate than with Flaccus Avianus, who, as I think you know, was my own most intimate friend."' |vii
Of this example it is enough to say that the Latin usage is no authority for the Greek.
In the same note Fabricius adds: 'Etiam Iudas Iacobi et Petrus Damiani dictus uterque a fratre.' On Luke vi. 16 Ιουδαν Ιακωβου Meyer remarks that it is usually rendered '"Judas the brother of James," and therefore the son of Alphaeus; but without any foundation in exegesis. . . . Hence here and in Acts i. 13, we must read "Judas son of James, " of which James nothing further is known': and on Acts i. 13 Meyer again remarks that 'The relationship is arbitrarily defined as " brother of (the younger) James." It is: son of (an otherwise unknown) James.' This interpretation is now almost universally accepted. Thus Huther on Jude 1 writes: 'It is arbitrary to supply to Ιακωβου αδελφος instead of the usual supplement υιος , ' and Reuss, Introduction to Jude: 'Cette derniere formule doit signifier necessairement "fils de Jacques," et non frere de Jacques.' Compare Viger, De Idiotismis Graecis, p. 12 ' o( vel involvit substantivum ὑιος aut παῖς , filius, vel pro illo sumitur.' On which Hermann remarks Annot. ad Vig. De Idiot, p. 701 ' Σωκρατης ο Σωφρονισκου significat aut hunc fuisse Sophronisci unicum, aut illum esse cui pater fuerit Sophroniscus, quo ab aliis Socratibus distinguatur. Σωκρατης Σωφρονισκου dicitur qui Sophroniscum, non alium, habet patrem.'
Even, however, if we could admit the rendering ' brother of James,' this extension of the genitive of kindred would not justify its further extension to the relation of 'friend': and the same objection applies to 'Petrus brother of Damianus,' as to whom see Fabric. Tom. viii. p. 88; Tom. xiii. p. 814.
St. Jerome, writing about sixty years after the death of Eusebius, speaks of him as the 'friend, eulogist, and companion' of Pamphilus: Apolog. adv. Rufin. i. 9 'Ipse Eusebius amator et praeco et contubernalis Pamphili tres libros scripsit elegantissimos vitam Pamphili continentes.' Again in the Preface to his translation of the work of |viii Eusebius On the names of places in Holy Scripture Jerome mentions that 'he took his surname from the blessed martyr Pamphilus'; while in the Preface to his Commentary on Isaiah and elsewhere he calls him simply 'Eusebius Pamphili.'
If it seems strange that Jerome, who lived in the next generation to Eusebius, has failed to give a correct paraphrase of his adopted name, we must remember that Latin, not Greek, was Jerome's native language, and that in the Preface to his translation of the Chronicon of Eusebius he speaks in the strongest terms of the difficulty of rendering 'the peculiar and, so to speak, the native idiom of the language.'
On this point the Greek writers of Church History are better witnesses than Jerome. Socrates in the first words of his Ecclesiastical History (circ. 430 A. D.) calls him simply Ευσεβιος ο Παμφιλου , without any comment on the surname, which ought therefore to be taken in its usual and well-known sense.
Sozomen, a contemporary of Socrates, in his Hist. Eccles. i. 1. 9 writes Ευσεβιος ο επικλην Παμφιλου , where επικλην may imply a patronymic, and may be illustrated by Xenophon, Oeconom. vii. 3 ονομαζοντες με Ισχομαχον πατροθεν προσκαλουνται .
In a much later age Photius, Epist. 73, begins a bitter invective against the reputed heretic with the words EusebioV o tou Pamfilou eite douloV eite sunhqhV . Upon this the editor Baletta makes the usual remark that 'Eusebius was the disciple and friend of the martyr Pamphilus, from whom he took his surname': but it is evident that Photius himself either was or pretended to be ignorant of the actual meaning of the title; and his insolent insinuation, eite douloV , is of course rightly rejected, as we have seen, by Fabricius. Bishop Lightfoot in the article already referred to writes with just indignation: 'It was either a blundering literalism or an ignoble sarcasm, which led Photius ( Ep. 73 Baletta) to suggest the |ix explanation that he was the slave of Pamphilus. Any man might have been proud to wear the slave's badge of such a devotion.'
We come at last to the positive testimony of one who at least knew the proper sense of the title ο Παμφιλου .
The oldest MS. of the Praeparatio Evangelica (Paris, n. 451) has a Scholion on the passage i. 3 (Vig. 7 c 3) which refers to the works of earlier Christian writers. 'Such,' says the Scholiast, 'as were holy Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian, Clement the author of the Miscellanies, Origen, and moreover Pamphilus himself the father of our present author Eusebius, Παμφιλος ο του παροντος Ευσεβιου πατηρ .'
Dr. Harnack in his description of this MS. in Texte u. Untersuch. i. 1. 34 remarks on this Scholion: 'It is worthy of notice that Pamphilus is described as the father of Eusebius ( Ευσεβιος ο Παμφιλου ). So obscure already was the Scholiast's historical knowledge.'
In a foot-note to this passage Dr. Harnack asks 'why Pamphilus is mentioned here at all. Did the author perhaps think of Lucian, or allow himself to be misled by the title of the Apology for Origen? ' Again on p. 177 Dr. Harnack says: 'This Scholion is of later origin. . . . Add to this that the learned Arethas cannot have supposed Pamphilus to be the father of Eusebius.'
As to Dr. Harnack's first objection, there is nothing to surprise us in the Scholiast's mention of Pamphilus as one of the 'recent authors' of whom Eusebius might have been thinking. His literary work was of a different character, less popular, and less generally known than the writings of the Apologists previously mentioned, and for these reasons, as it seems, the Scholiast in adding his name to theirs introduces it by the words καὶ αυτος ετι Παμφιλος .
Dr. Harnack's passing remark that 'the Scholion is of later origin' is not accepted by his very learned co-editor Oscar v. Gebhardt, who made a most careful examination of the Codex, and assigned this particular Scholion to the |x hand of Arethas himself (Texte u. Unters. i. 3. 183, n. 70).
Thus, instead of an ignorant Scholiast of a later age, we have the learned Archbishop Arethas asserting that the title is to be understood in its proper sense, 'Eusebius son of Pamphilus,' and this we shall find to be consistent with all that we know of the relations between Pamphilus and Eusebius.
Pamphilus, we know, was many years older than Eusebius, was the director as well as the partner of his studies, and is always mentioned by him in terms not only of admiration and affection but of the most profound respect. Thus he calls him 'the great glory of the diocese of Caesarea, most admirable of the men of our time ,' of all my companions by me most fondly regretted, a man most glorious of the martyrs of our time for every virtue ,' 'the name to me thrice dear,' 'a man who through his whole life shone pre-eminent in every virtue '; and when we add to such language the still more remarkable expressions quoted by Bishop Lightfoot from Cureton's edition of the Syriac Martyrs of Palestine, that 'heavenly martyr of God,' 'my lord Pamphilus,' 'for it is not meet that I should mention the name of that holy and blessed Pamphilus without styling him "my lord "'----with such testimony of filial reverence we can hardly doubt that when Eusebius adopted the patronymic o Pamfilou , he meant it in its full and proper significance, that henceforth he would call no man 'father' save this best and dearest friend of his early manhood. 'How else,' as Bishop Lightfoot says,' could he express the strength of his devotion to this friend, who was more than a friend, than by adopting his name. He would henceforward be known as "Eusebius of Pamphilus."' Let us only complete the title, 'Eusebius son of Pamphilus,' and so do justice to the old Scholiast, that is, to the learned archbishop himself. |xi