the dates and editions of eusebius chronici canones and historia ecclesiastica

8/12/2019 The Dates and Editions of Eusebius Chronici Canones and Historia Ecclesiastica

1/34

THE DATESANDEDITIONSOFEUSEBIUS'CHRONICI CANONESAND HISTORIAECCLESIASTICA

THE earliest evidence we have for the existenceofEusebius' nowlost XpoviKoiKav6ves (Chronici canonesor Chronological Tables)conies from other works of Eusebius: theHistoria ecclesiastica(HE) (1.1.6), the first editionofwhichisvariously dated betweenpre-293 and 313 (see below); the preface to book six of theGeneralElementary Introduction, of wh ich four books (69)survive under the title Eclogae propheticae (PG 22.1023A), dated303/312;1 and the Praeparatio Evangelica (10.9.11), datedc.314/318. This early evidence demonstrates that there must havebeenanedition earlier than theone of 325, where theuniversaltestimonyofthe surviving witnesses placesitsconclusion.2 Untilnow, there has beennosolid evidence to suggest when any suchputative first edition may have been produced and consequentlythere has been much debate and discussion.

The following are cited by short title only:Barnes, 'Editions'= T . D . Barnes, 'TheEditions of Eusebius' EcclesiasticalHistory', GRBS 21 (1980), 191 -201 .Barnes,CandE=T. D .Barnes, Comtantine and Eusebius(Cambridge, M ass.,1981).Louth, 'D ate '= Andrew Louth, 'The DateofEusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica',JTS, NS, 41 (1990), 111 -23 .1 The tenth and last bookoftheGeneral Elementary Introductionsurviving asthe Commentary onLukemust date after 309;see D . S. Wallace-Hadrill,'EusebiusofCaesarea's Comm entary on Luke: Its Origin and Early History',HTR67 (1974). 63.2 See Alden A. Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius and GreekChronographic T radition (Lewisburg, PA, 1979), 38, 61 , 62 -6 3, 75- F rthe conclu-sion inyear twentyofConstantine ( = A D 325),seee.g. Eusebius, Chronographia(Greek: John Anthon y Cramer, Anecdota GraecaeCodd. Manuscriptis BibliothecaeRegiae Parisiensis, vol.2 (Oxford, 1839; repr. Hildesheim, 1967), 160.8-9;Armenian translation: Josef Karst (ed.), Eusebius Werke5 :Die Chronik aus dentArmemscken Obersetzt mittextkritischem Com mentar ( G C S 20; Leipzig, 1911),62 .3-5) ;Chrorddcanones(Latin translation of Jerome: Rudolf Helm (ed.),EusebiusWerkey: DieChronik desH ieronymus1 (GC S 47;Berlin, 1984)), 6.17 -8 , 231';Chromcon mtscellaneumadannum Domini 724pertinens (Syriac epitome of theCanones; CSCO 4, Chron. min. 2:Scriptores Syri, series 3,tomus 4,versio,byJ.-B. Chabot), 100.22, 32-3; Samuel Aniensis, Summarium temporum,PG19.665;Chromcon Paschale (Ludwig Dindorf (ed.), CSHB 16(Bonn , 1832)) s.a. 325,pp. 526.5-6; 527.2-5; andJames of Edessa, Chromcon (Syriac continuationofEusebius;CSCO 6, Chron. min.3 :SS series 3, tomus 4, versio, by E. W. Brooks),1 9 9 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 5 , 2 0 9 , 2 1 4 .C Oxford Un lre nit y P ress 1997[Journal of Theological Studies, NS ,VoL48, PL a, October 1997 ]

atUniversityofOttawa

onNovember24,2010

jts.oxfordjournals.

org

Downloadedfrom
http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/


2/34

472 R. W. BURGESSIThe communis opinio is that the first edition was completed inor around 303.3This view was first popularized by an influentialarticle in Pauly-Wissowa by Eduard Schwartz, who believed thatthe Canones had to date before the Eclogae propheticae, but didnot believe that Eusebius could have written such a work duringthe persecution. He therefore stated that Eusebius had written itor at least collected his materials before 303.4The recent currencyof 303, however, chiefly depends on an article written by D. S.Wallace-Hadrill in 1955, which was based on the earlier hypo-theses of Joseph Karst, editor of the Armenian translation of theCanones} Wallace-Hadrill accepted K arst's argum ent that theArmenian translation represented the first edition of this workand that the terminal date of the Armenian Canones,Year 16of Diocletian (=300), was thus the concluding date of the firstedition. He also attempted to buttress Karst's hypothesis withother evidence for a visible 'joint' between the first and secondeditions. He cites from Jerome's translation three additions andalterations to the Canonesthat '[cluster] round the year 303'(pp.249-50).' However, though these probably are all later addi-tions and alterations, there is no reason why such 'rewriting in

3 For this date, see, for exam ple, Otto Bardenhewer,Geschichteder altkirchlichenLiteratur 3 (Freiburg, 1923), 24 8- 49 ; Kirsopp Lake,Eusebius. The EcclesiasticalHistory 1 (Lo eb Classical Library; N ew York, 1926), xvii; Johann es Quaste n,Patrology 3 (Utrecht/A ntwer p, i96 0), 312; Berthold Altaner,Patrology (New York,1961), 264; Mossham mer (cit. n. 2), p. 32; R. M . Grant, Eusebius as ChurchHistorian (Oxford, 1980), 1; Johannes K arayannopulos and Gflnter WeiQ,Quellenkunde zur Geschichte von Byzanz (324-1453) 2 (Wiesbaden, 1982), 244;Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon(Lon don, 1983), 5; W . H. C . Frend,The Rise of Christianity (London, 1984), 457, 477, 478; Robin Lane Fox, Pagansand Christians (London, 1986), 606; C. Curti in Angelo Di Berardino (ed.),Encyclopedia of the Early Church 1 (New York, 1992), 299; and others cited byBarnes in 'Editions', p. 193, and C and E, p. 341 n. 67.

4 RE 6.1 (1907), p. 1376.9 D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, 'The Eusebian Chronicle: The Extent and Date ofCom position of its Early Ed itions',jfTS 6 (1955), 24 8- 53 (repeated in hisEusebiusof Caesarea (London, i960), 43) and Karst (cit. n. 2), pp. xxx-xxxiii.6 Th ese are the notic e concernin g Con stantine's accession in the fourth year ofthe persecution = 306) under Year 19 = 303), the alteration of the month of theinception of the persecution from April to March under Year 19, and the referenceto the martyrdom of Peter of Alexandria in the ninth year of the persecution(t^S November 311) under Year 19 (though Wallace-Hadrill did not know thatthis is Jerome's error: in Eusebius' original it was dated to Year 17. For a recon-struction of Eusebius' original text for these years, see my paper 'The Chronicicanones of Eusebius of Caesarea: Chronology and Content, AD 282-325' , which isnearing completion. These entries may appear in Year 19 of Diocletian in Jerome,but only one actually has anything to do with 303.


onNovember24,2010

jts.oxfordjournals.

org

Downloadedfrom


3/34

CHRONICI CAN ONE S/HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA 473the light of later knowledge' could or should have occurred onlyat the end of the first edition. The key point is, in fact, that theyall relate to later knowledge concerning the persecution, whichbegan in 303. These entries, therefore, have no bearing on thedate of the first edition.Wallace-Hadrill also notes that Eusebius' list of the bishops ofapostolic sees stops in 302 (p. 250). This is true, but apart fromRome (for which information would have been difficult forEusebius to obtain during the persecution), no further bishopswere ordained in Antioch, Jerusalem, or Alexandria until about312/3 (Vitalis, Macarius, and Achillas, respectively). FollowingWallace-Hadrill's argument any date as late as 312/3 is thereforepossible. But the episcopal lists in both the Canonesand the HEpurposely cease with the beginning of the persecution, not theend of the first edition of the Canones. Eusebius explicitly saysthis in the HE (7.32.32 and 8 pref.), though he does not explainwhy. For some reason apostolic succession was no longer import-ant during the persecution or in its aftermath. If the end of thelist simply marked the end of the first edition, there is no reasonwhy Eusebius should not have continued the list in the latereditions of both works, especially the HE. Once again, the cruxis the b eginning of the persecution, n ot the end of the first edition.

Finally, Wallace-Hadrill points to twelve differences betweenthe Armenian translation and Jerome's translation (pp. 251-52),claiming that these arise because each translation represents adistinct editionthe Armenian the first edition, Jerome's Latinthe third edition. The argument is irrelevant, however, since noneof these twelve items relates to 303. It is further flawed by thefact that the Armenian translation is not a different edition fromJerome's and is not complete as Karst believed; it is simply adefective translation of a composite Armenian/Syriac version ofthe same 325 edition as Jerome's.7 The differences that Wallace-

7 In the Armenian translation of the Chronographia, which is Eusebius' lengthyintroduction to his sources and establishment of the individual chronologies forth e Canones,there is a note that mentions the twentieth year of Con stantine (K arst(cit. n. 2), p. 62.3-5, which is the same as the Greek fragment printed by Cramer(cit. n. 2), p. 160.8-9) a n d a n identical Armenian translation was used by SamuelAniensis in the late-twelfth century for his Armenian chronicle and he records theconclusion of E usebius' chronicle in 325 as well(fG 19.665). Furthermore, the lastentry in the Armenian translation (on Hermon of Jerusalem) appeared under Year17 of Diocletian in Eusebius' Greek original (see my paper cited in n. 6, above)and has mistakenly slipped back a year, thus avoiding the oblivion shared by therest of the text after Year 16. Karst claimed that the Armenian translation hadbeen contaminated by the edition of 325. See Mosshammer (cit. n. 2),pp. 59-60 , 75.


onNovember24,2010

jts.oxfordjournals

.org

Downloa

dedfrom


4/34

474 R. W.BURGESSHadrill points out (andmany others that he does not mention)arise simply because the Armenian versionis not a completeoraccurate translation; itsvarious translators and redactors omittedand altered textual material andchronological markers throughwilful error, carelessness, or lack of interest (for two examples,see nn. 19 and 27, below). Unfortunately, on occasion Jeromemade mistakesaswell.8

The major problem with Wallace-Hadrill's argument, however,is that heclaims to accept Karst's conclusionsas the foundationofhis ownargument, yet redefines them: Karst's hypothesiswasthat the first edition ended inYear16 of Diocletian, that is 300,but Wallace-Hadrill changes thisto 303(which for some reasonhe insists on labelling 'Diocl. 18',whenit is in fact 'Diocl.19').Karst's entire case restedon the supposition that theArmeniantranslation wascomplete. Wallace-Hadrill abandons that supposi-tion, stating thatthe first edition'did notextend farbeyondthemutilatedend of theArmenian text' (p.250),but in sodoingheunwittingly abandons Karst's entire hypothesis and hence thefoundation of hisown:if the Armenian translation does not endin 300, the evidence shows that it must have concluded in 325and it is consequently irrelevant to Wallace-Hadrill's argumentfor 303.Hetriestopaper overthegap betw een300 and 303witha rather nonsensical note'If Diocletian became emperorin284,his 16thyear is 300,though the Arm.Chron. aligns the regnalyears with the Olympiadsso as tomake it 303' (p. 248 n. 8)9but the fundamental contradiction remains. Th ere is, therefore,no valid evidence that Eusebius concluded theCanonesinor justbefore303.

More recentlyT. D.Barnes has com eoutstrongly infavourof277 (Year2 ofProbus)as aterminal datefor theCanonesand theearly 290sas thedate of composition, though this view has notgained widespread acceptance. T hi s date depend s chiefly u ponhisearly dating of Eusebius' OnomasticonandHE, both of whichmust have been written aftertheCanones}0 The specific terminaldateof277 for theCanonesfollows an earlier sugg estionbyRudolfHelm.11 The sole direct evidence for this conclusion is the fact* For the problems with the Armenian translation, see Mosshammer(cit. n. 2), pp. 6063, 73~79- F r Jerome,see R. W. Burgess, 'Jerome and the

Kauergetchichte', Hatoria 44(1995), 355 n. 31, and my forthcoming paper citedinn. 6, above.The overall accuracy of Jerome is confirmed by comparison withthe Syriac traditionsandother Greek witn esses.9 In hisbook(cit. n. 5) he strays even further fromhis ownargument and thetruth: 'thesixteenth yearofD iocletian ... in Eusebius' dating is303' (p.43).10 Forthis,seebelow,nn. 17 and 29.11 'Editions', p. 193, and C and E, pp. I I O - I I , 113, and 146.

atUniv

ersity

of

Ottaw

aonN

ov

em

ber24

,2

01

0

jts.oxford

journ

als.

org

Downlo

a

dedfrom


5/34

CHRONICI CAN ON ES/HISTOR IA ECCLESIASTICA 475that it is in this year that one finds a synchronism of five localeastern calendarsthose of Antioch, Tyre, Laodicea, Edessa, andAscalonwith Year 2 of Probus.12 The first problem with thedate of 277 is that Eusebius would only have been at most seven-teen years old when he wrote the chronicle.13 This is virtuallyimpossible and Barnes actually posits composition almost fifteenyears later, in the early 290s,14 yet such a large gap between thedate of composition and the conclusion of the work is mostimplausible.15 Barnes explains the gap by claiming that Eusebiusended his chronicle in 277 as a compliment to Anatolius, Bishopof Laodicea Canones 2231), whose famous Easter canon eitherbegan or ended in that year, but he does not explain the connectionbetween Anatolius and the five local calendars noted by Eusebius.Unfortunately, there seems little reason why Eusebius would haveended the Canones,a work of universal Christian history andchronology, with such an obscure and irrelevant set of local syn-chronisms, simply because a famous Easter canon began or ended

12 O n this synchronism , see the commen ts of Mossham mer (cit. n. 2), p. 75;Grant (cit. n. 3), pp. 7 -9 ; and Eduard Schwartz, Eusebius Werke 2. DieKtrchengeschiehte (G C S 9.3; Leipzig, 1909), ccxlvi-cc xlvii. M osshamm er claimsthat this summary 'has no parallel except at the very end of the work', but this isa misrepresentation of the final supputatio, which records the number of yearselapsed from seven key dates in history to the conclusion of the chronicle. It isnot in any way similar to this list of dates.11 Born around 260/265; s e e Barnes, C and E, p. 277.14 Barnes actually believes that e.293 is theterminus antequern (evident from Cand E,pp. 11o - 1 1 , and The New Em pire of Constanttne and Diocletian (Cambridge,Mass. , 1982), 215, discussing boundary changes to Palestine c.293 that he uses todate the Onomasticon (see n. 17, below)), but he is unduly vague about the exactdate of composition: 'he had completed the Chronicle by ... ca 295', 'Editions',p. 193; 'before the end of the third century', C and E, p. 111; 'at least a decadeearlier [than303]',p. 113; 'before 300', p. 277; 'c.295', p. 346 n. 10; and 'the 290s','Scholarship or Propaganda? Porphyry Against the Christians and its HistoricalSetting', BICS 39 (1994 ). 59-11 Eusebius' youth in c.280 is noted with some surprise by Brian Croke ('TheOrigins of the Christian World Chronicle', in B. Croke and A. M. Emmett (eds.),History and Historians in Late Antiquity (Sydn ey, 1983), p. 128 n. 4), who seemsunaware of Barnes' argument for later compilation and assumes that the Canoneswould have been completed within a few years of the date of its conclusion (seealso Brian Croke, 'Porphyry's Anti-Christian Chronology', JTS, NS, 34 (198 3),171 and 184). In a later article ('The Era of Porphyry's Anti-Christian Polemic',JRH 13 (1 98 4- 85 ), 10 n. 53) he suggests the 280s since 'the Chronicle is not thework of a novice'. Croke's reaction is to be expected since it is unheard of for achronicler to conclude an original chronicle ten to fifteen years before the time ofwriting. Andrew Louth ('Date', p. 121), with reference to the HE, which Barnesdates to the same period as the Canones (see II I, below ), states, 'Eusebius wasthen in his twenties, or even passing from his mid-teens to his mid-twenties: onewonders if he could really have read as much as the Historia Ecclesiasticapresup-poses by then.'


onNovember24,2010

jts.oxfordjournals.org

Downloadedfrom


6/34

476 R. W. BURGESSin that year. It makes no sense for Eusebius to have charted thehistory of the world from the birth of Abraham in 2016 BC, onlyto ignore the history and chronology of the most recent fifteenyears of Christian growth and advancement as a compliment tothe author of merely one of what mu st have been many com petingEaster canons. There is no connection between the two works orthe authors, apart from the fact that Eusebius admired Anatolius(cf. HE 7.32.13-21, where Eusebius quotes from his works,including the canon, simply as an example of Anatolius' widelearning), and even if there were, the synchronization would stillbe a tribute to Anatolius whether the Catumet ended there ornot.16 Year 2 of Probus cannot therefore have been the conclusionof the first edition. Barnes also offers a series of lesser interlockingarguments in support of a date of composition in the early 290sbut these do not stand up to careful scrutiny.17

IIUnfortunately, an edition concluding in 303, 300, or 277 suffersfrom another more serious problem and that concerns the indica-tions of the date of composition derived from Eusebius' own

chronology. The key lies in two examples of obvious, and in onecase bizarre, tampering with the regnal year chronology of Carus,Carinus, and Numerian, and Diocletian. Eusebius assigns thereign of Carus and his sons only two years instead of three, apeculiar mistake for a contemporary reign that Eusebius shouldhave known well.18 Even more peculiar, he omits the single regnalyear of Constantius I (= 305), but attributes to the preceding Year20 of Diocletian = 304) two Years of Persecution (2 and 3,March/April 304 to March/April 306), two Years of Abraham16 There is also the observation made by Barnes (C and E, p . m ) and R. M.Grant (cit. n. 3, pp. 7-9), who point to the appearance of the eighty-sixth Jubileein the same year of Probus, but what relevance this could have to the calendarsynchronization is unknown.17 Th ese chiefly concern the argument that theCanona and theHE were writtenbefore the Onomasticon, dated by Barnes to c.293, which is demonstrably false,since the dedication to Paulinus alone dates the work to .31324. Barnes' greatestimpediment is that he accepts as ultimately Eusebian passages in Jerome's Latintranslation of the preface to the Onomasticon that do not appear in the originalGreek. A number of other problems are discussed by Louth, 'Date', pp. 11820.18 Since Carus became emperor in the autumn of 282 and Diocletian soleemperor around the summer of 285 (a period of just under three years), Carusand his sons should have been allotted three regnal years (for 282, 283, and 284).For Eusebius' regnal years, see below. That Eusebius knew that they did indeedreign 'for not three whole years' is demonstrated by HE 7.30.22. The regnal yearsin the HE appear to derive (often in an extremely careless manner) from eitherth e Canona or the sam e sources as theCanones.


onNovember24,2010

jts.oxfordjournals.

org

Downloadedfrom


7/34

CHRONICI CANONES/HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA 477(2321 and 2322), and two Olympiads (271.1 and 2). ThoughConstantius' death appears in the second half of this split regnalyear (Persecution 3, 2322 Abr., and Olymp. 271.2), his regnal yeartotal, twelve years, only counts Year 20 of Diocletian once (hisaccession is dated to Year 9 of Diocletian, though this was alteredby Jerome as was the regnal year total in consequence). Thisdoubling up of Year 20 appears in Jerome (228d~8) and is confirmedby the Years of Abraham in Pseudo-Dionysius, who assigns 2321Abr. (p. 112.27) t o Jerome's entry 228**, the retirement ofDiocletian, and 2322 Abr. (p. 113.1) to entry 228 , the death ofConstantius, both in Year 20 of Diocletian.19 It is also confirmedby the total number of years of Abraham noted in Eusebius'supputatioas preserved in theChron. 724(p. 100.23): though thereare only 297 regnal years covered between Year 15 of Tiberiusand Year 20 of Constantine (325-28 = 297), Eusebius lists 298Years of Abraham (23422044 = 298). This attribution of twocalendar years (Years of Persecution), two Years of Abraham, andtwo years of an Olympiad to a single regnal year, which itselfrepresents a single calendar year, is unique in the chronicle. Anexplanation of this tampering requires an understanding ofEusebius' use of regnal years and his regnal year chronology.20

Throughout the early imperial period, starting with JuliusCaesar's sole rule in 48 BC,Eusebius' regnal-year chronology isalmost perfectly accurate. Each regnal year is treated as the equiva-

19 Jerome's Years of Abraham elsewhere generally agree with those in Pseudo-Dionysius (J.-B. Chabot (trans.), Chromcon Pseudo-Dionysiamim uulgo dictum,CSCO 121:5 5 senes 3,tomus 1, versio; Louvain, 1949), exceptin a fewplaceswhere scribal corruptionorsimp le cop ying errorsareinvolved. Socrates{HE1.2)mentions thedeath of Constantius (inEusebius=Year202), butdoes notrealizethat thereare twoOlympiads in the oneregnal Year (theyareonly marked everyfour years), andsoquotes the Olympiad for Year 20',271.1. This Olympiad agreeswith that forYear 201inJerome. Chron. Patch. (518.11, with 514.18 and519.3;and 524.17, with 524.9) assigns Year 1 ofConstantine toOlymp. 271.3andYear20to27 6.2, justas inJerome (though theOlympiadsare off by one for thereignof Diocletian becausetheChron. P atch, assignsacorrect three yearstoCarusandhis sons). Th ese agreements show that the Armenian translationis notan accurateaccount of the chronological relationship amon g the regnal years, Years ofAbraham, andOlympiads inEusebius:e.g.Year201inJeromeis 2321 Abr. andOl. 271.1;inPt-Dion. is2321 Abr.;inSocrates,is Ol.271.1; in Samuel Aniensis(whichisbased upontheArm enian translation) is Ol.271.4 (col. 663);and in theArmenian translation would be2323Abr. and 01.271.4,if it went thatfar.3 0 Itshould be noted that Jerome completely altered Eusebius' chronologyforthe reignofConstantinetoactually count the doubled regnal Year20 ofDiocletianastwocalendar years =305and 306), and Helm's marginal accounting of yearsfollows Jerome's sequencenotEusebius'. Eu sebius counted Year 1ofConstantineas306 and thefollowing years insequenceup toYear 20 in 325. For thedetailsof this,andwhat follows below,see mypaper citedin n. 6, above.


onNovember24,2010


Downloadedfrom


8/34

478 R. W. BURGESSlent of a full calendar year, whatever calendar it was that he wasusing.21 In reality, of course, an emperor's first and last regnalyears were only part of a calendar year. When regnal years aretreated only as indivisible full years some accommodation mustbe made. Eusebius did this by placing the death of Emperor Aand the accession of Emperor B a year early, so that Emperor B'sfirst regnal year would correspond to the true calendar year of hisaccession. Each emperor's accession imm ediately follows the deathof his predecessor and the first regnal year of an emperor immedi-ately follows his accession. Thus the death of Emperor A and theaccession of Emperor B occur in the same year, the last year ofEm peror A, and Emperor B's first regnal year then usually beginsimmediately. Eusebius was able to maintain a perfect chronologythroughout the early part of his imperial history because of theaccurate records of the lengths of imperial reigns and detailedinformation concerning the years in which the emperors came tothe throne and died. Within the first 260 years he errs only once,bu t that error was deliberate and makes no difference to the overallsum of regnal years.22However, once he advanced his chronologyinto the third century, he made three serious errors that he didnot fully compensate for and that therefore disrupted his entirechronological sequence: he assigned Caracalla seven regnal yearsinstead of six, Philip seven instead of five, and Decius one insteadof two.23By the time he reached the accession of Carus in 282 hischronology was consequently two years ahead ofitself: Year 1 ofCarus was the equivalent of 284 instead of 282.

The chronological tampering with the reigns of Carus and his11 Eusebius derived his accession dates for the emperors from Caesar toCaracalla, at least, from an Olympiad chronicle that equated each Olympiad with

a S eleucid/Macedo nian year that appears to have begun in the middle of Septemberor perhaps on 1 October.22 All th e em perors betw een Caesar and Caracalla in clusive , and thenConstantine, have their accessions placed in the correct Olympiad/Seleucid year,with the exception of Augustus, whose accession was delayed to 45 BC so that thefamous murder of Caesar could appear in the correct 44 BC. If the calendar onwhich Eusebius' O lympiad dates were based did begin on 1 October (as it did inAntioch, for instance, the standard Eastern calendar), the accession of Nerva (18Sept 96) would have been placed one year too late (97) as well.21 The same figures for the first two appear in HE 6.21.1 (actually seven yearsand six m onths ) and 39.1 . In 7.1.1 he says that Deciu s reigned 'for not two wh oleyears', which is correct (about a year and eight months). The one year and threemonths of the Canones must therefore be a misreading of the source that he readmore carefully for the HE. The accessions of the following emperors are con-sequently late: by one year, Macrinus, Elagabalus, Sev erus Alexander, M aximinu s,Gordian III, Philip; by three years, Decius; by two years, Gallus and Volusianus;Valerian and Gallienus; Claudius; Aurelian; Ta citus; Probus; C am s, Carinus, andNumerian; by one year, Diocletian.


onNovember24,2010


Download

edfrom


9/34

CHRONICI CANONES/HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA 479sons, and Diocletian is serious and complicated. Why wouldEusebius have fiddled these regnal years in such a bizarre andobvious manner? The answer arises from the consequence of thetampering: by cutting Year 3 of Cams, Carinus, and Numerian,and Year 1 of Constantius, Eusebius was able to shed in a shortspace of time the two extra regnal years that he had accumulatedthroughout the third century (Year 7 of Caracalla plus Years 6 and7 of Philip minus Year 2 of Decius). In Year 2 of Cams and hissons Eusebius' overall regnal year chronology was still out by twoyears, having been one, two, or three years ahead of itself for almostseventy years, yet within twenty-one years, by Year 1 ofCons tantine,it was once again synchronized with the overall chro-nology of calendar years, as it had been in the first and secondcenturies. This chronological tampering can only be explained bythe hypothesis that Eusebius was determined to conclude his chro-nology with a correct overall correlation between calendar andregnal years (which is, of course, the whole point of compiling sucha chronology). If we look at his entire imperial chronology fromYear 1 of Caesar (=48 BC) to Year 20 of Constantine (=AD325)we can see that Eusebius assigns 373 regnal years to 373 calendaryears. This synchronization is valid back to Year 1 of Constantine( =306,thus 354 regnal years over 354 calendar years). Any furtherback and the sequence is disrupted, by one year for Diocletian andby one or two years for much of the rest of the third century. Onlyin Year 6 of Caracalla does it come back into synchronization.

For example, as I noted above, in Year 2 of Probus Eusebiusnotes the synchronization of five local calendars. In the case oftwo of these, Antioch and Edessa, he has in fact noted the date ofthe beginning of each era in its correct place. The beginning of theera of Antioch is noted at is6b in 1969 Abr. (=48 BC). Eusebiusstates that Probus 2 (2295 Abr.) is year 325 of the era of Antioch(as it is, 277+48), but there are 327 years of Abraham betweenthe two notices since Probus 2 is the equivalent of 279, not 277as it should be. He also notes the beginning of the era of Edessaat i26hin 1706 Abr.(=311BC,i.e. the well-known Seleucid era),stating that Probus 2 is year 588 of the era of Edessa (as it is,277+311), but there are 590 years of Abraham between the twonotices.24 In theHE (7.32.32) he states that there were 305 yearsbetween the birth of Christ and the inception of the GreatPersecution (= March/April 303, assigned to 2320 Abr., which is304),but since he places the incarnation in Year 42 of Augustus,

24Theseshowthatthecorrelation ofthesefivelocal eras with Year 2of Probuswascopied by Eusebius from another work.


onNovember24,2010

jts.oxfordjournals.

org

Downloadedfrom


10/34

480 R. W. BURG ESSwhich is 2015 Abr. =2 BC 2320-2015 = 305), this is one year toomany (302years+ 2years=3O4years, or 2319-2015 = 304)."As I noted above (n. 21), for the early part of his imperialchronology, from Caesar to Caracalla, Eusebius had a source thatdated even ts by Olympiads and this provided him w ith the correctyear of each emperor's accession. Thus from 48 BCto AD 216 hisimperial chronology is perfectly accurate. From the reign ofCaracalla, however, he had to rely solely on the length of eachemperor's reign in years and months to construct his regnal yearchronology. To this he must have added a local era, such as theyears of Antioch or Edessa, that would have provided knowncontemporary dates leading back to a beginning fixed at someaccurately established point in the past. It was while he was usingthese sources that his chronology got ahead of the correct calendaryears since he did not know in what year anyone became emperor,he only knew how long each was emperor (and this informationwas often inaccurate). H e obv iously knew his contemporary ch ro-nology and was easily able to equate current regnal years with theyears of his local calendar and then work them backwards withperfect accuracy. We can see from his preface andsupputatio thathe did indeed work his chronologies both backwards and forwards(Jerome, 10-18, 250). It was only when his inaccurate non-contemporary history, worked forwards, met his accurate contem-porary history, worked backwards, that he ran into difficulty: hefaced an overlap of two years.

It is Year 20 of Diocletian that marks this final 'seam' betweenEusebius' accurate contemporary chronology and his inaccuratenon-contemporary chronology. He seems not to have been ableto calculate where the errors of his earlier chronology were andhe could not simply cut two years from the end of Diocletian'sreign. He made his first cut in the reigns of Carus and his sons.This left one year unaccounted for at the end of Diocletian's reign,and so rather than cut Diocletian's total, he ingeniously opted tocut the single regnal year of Constantius (1 May 305 to 25 July306). In this way Constantine's regnal years could start with Year1 accurately associated with the equivalent of 306 right after Year20 of Diocletian, even though Year 20 of Diocletian was theequivalent of 304 (since Year 1=285). The solution was almostperfect. Unfortunately for Eusebius, at exactly this point he wasdealing with a subsidiary 'local' chronology, the Years ofPersecution, which extended from Year 19 of Diocletian. When

23 I count two years because Eusebius would have dated the Nativity to6 January 2BC not 25 December, which is a western tradition.


onNovember24,2010

jts.oxfordjournals.

org

Downloadedfrom


11/34

CHRONICI CA NO NES/HISTO RIA ECCLESIASTICA 481he cut Year i of Constantius, he also cut Year 3 of Persecution.In order to maintain his overall accounting of regnal years, butstill be able to take account of the cut regnal/persecution yearlocally, he added the events of Constantius' sole year as emperor(the death of Constantius and the accession of Constantine) andthe marker for Year 3 of Persecution to Year 20 of Diocletian,which was already Year 2. The doubled years of Abraham andOlympiads are a later compilation error created in the final draftby mistakenly counting the Year 3 of Persecution as a regnal year,hence the extra Year of Abraham noted above (p. 477). The Yearsof Persecution consequently run correctly in spite of the excisedregnal year, there being ten Years of Persecution b etwe en Year 19of Diocletian (303) and Year 7 of Constantine (312), even thoughthere are only n ine regnal years involved (2 + 7).

Confirmation that this doubling up of dates is in fact an attemptby Eusebius to maintain what he perceives to be the correctchrono logy co m es from a similar chronological 'fudge' to be foundat Jerome, 105106. From his research Eusebius knew that therebuilding of the Temple took place in the second year of Dariusand Olympiad 65.1 (Chronographia, pp. 57-59 (Karst); Canones,10.12-3, 18.3-5,a d io5a c). Unfortunately his Persian chronologyis one year short, so the second year of Darius actually ends upin Olymp. 64.4. To rectify the situation he repeats Darius' secondyear again in Olymp. 65.1, even though the regnal years for theparallel kingdoms advance one year (Tarquinius Superbus of theRomans from 27 to 28 and Amyntas of the Macedonians from 33to 34. Next to the first second year he adds the following note,Ideo secundus annus bis scribitur, quia unus annus inmagorumfra-trum VII tnensibuscomputatur (H elm , 105a"; cf. 1048 .22-26 ). T h isis essentially the reverse of what I have described above underDiocletian, an expansion of regnal years rather than a contraction.If the Canoneshad been c om piled at any date before 306 thechronology at the end of the work would have come back intosynchronization around the date of composition, as Eusebius triedto match contemporary chronology worked backwards with non-contemporary chronology worked forwards. Year 2 of Probusshould be the equivalent of 277 (following Eusebius' method ofplacing Year 1 in the year of accession), yet it is in fact the

equivalent of 279. The accession of Carus is also two years late,284 instead of 282. The reigns of Probus and Carus are thereforetreated just as vaguely and inaccurately as any of the earlier third-century reigns; there is no evidence of contemporary compilationaround Year 2 of Probus. It cannot be the concluding point of thefirst edition. The reign of Diocletian is also out by one year, so


onNovember24,2010


Downloadedfrom


12/34

482 R. W. BURGESSneither 300 nor303can be the concluding point ofthefirst edition.We have seen above both the lengths that Eusebius went on toachieve correct contemporary chronological synchronization at theend of his work and his ability to calculate accurately and recordalmost 370 years of imperial chronology. We have no grounds forassuming that such zeal for chronological accuracy and the accom-panying skill were lacking in the first edition. The first edition oftheCanones must therefore date after 306, since that is obviouslythe seam between contemporary and non-contemporary history.In the tangled web of controversy concerning the dating of theCanonesand theH E, this chronological observation is the strong-est evidence yet advanced. And if the Canones must date after306, then theHE must as well.

I l lEusebius states in HE 1.1.6 that hisChronici canoneswas com-pleted before the HE, though he gives no indication of the lapseof time. The nature of the comment suggests that it had beenlong enough for theCanones to get into general circulation, since

he is countering a potential criticism of his new work, that itcovers the same ground covered by the Canones. He states thattheCanoneswas merely animrofj.^, while theHE had a narrativethat wasnXripeard-rq. It is obvious that he has used theCanonesasa source, however summarily, but he has revised some of thechronology and content as a result of his more extensive andcareful reading, one supposes, though he failed to emend the textof the Canones in accordance with it, even in his later editions,probably because of the daunting nature of such a task.This is an important observation, because it disproves any theorythat holds that there were major differences between editions ofthe Canones.26 A further example confirms this conclusion. In theCanones he states that there were 406 years between the firstOlympiad (1241 Abr.) and the capture of Troy (835 Abr.) (11.8,24 See Mosshammer (cit. n. 2), pp. 75: 'a major change in format between the

two versions is not likely. Eusebius had only to add a few pages to the Chronicle,not rework the whole', and 61, quoting J. K. Fotheringham, 'Aliud est producere,aliud redigere'. See Croke ('Era', cit. n. 15), pp. 12-13, es\>- P- '3 : 'Given thetedium and complexity of copying a chronicle like that of Eusebius, it is scarcelylikely that the whole chronological frame-work set out in the Chronographiawasreworked when the point of the second edition was simply to bring the workup-to-date, that is by expanding the canons'.

atUniversityofOttawaonNovember24,2010


Downloadedfrom


13/34

CHRONICI CANONES/HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA 48313;6oac; 250.10, 14 [1561-1155=406], and 1241-835 =406)," yetin thePraeparatio Evangelica (written between c.314 and 318) hetwice gives the figure as 408 years (10.9.6 and 7). If, as some claim,Eusebius had revised the text of theCanonesfor the edition of 325,he obviously would have changed his chronology of 406 years to408 years as part of that revision, to accord with his new calcula-tions. He obviously did not, which indicates that the chronologyof the 325 edition remained unrevised in the light of new calcula-tions made in the 310s. As we shall see below, there is no evidencethat he undertook extensive revisions of the HE either.There are a number of hypotheses concerning the date of thefirst edition of the HE, the most common being that it originallyconcluded with book seven (c.303, but before the persecution,thus at the same time as the Canones),with book eight (c.311), orwith book nine (313/14).28 As I have noted above, T. D. Barnesargues for a first edition before c.293, concluding, like the chron-icle,around 277, near the end of book seven. In his view the HErepresents a universal history of the church only down to the late270s, which must therefore mark the end of the first edition.29 Itis these early dates especially that must concern us now, for solidevidence dating the HE before 306 would seriously underminethe date for theCanones that I am proposing.The manuscripts reveal traces of editions completed in 313/4,315/6, and 324/5, and a modification of the 324/5 edition in 326to remove Crispus (this latter only in the Syriac translation).30The evidence for these editions is chiefly the textual variantsarising from later emendation in the early Greek manuscript tradi-

27 T he 405 years stated at 86a* is a scribal error on Jerome's part. T h e Arm eniantranslation gives 405 years between the two events because it antedates the startof the Olympiads by one year (1240 Abr. instead of 1241). Jerome's chronologyis confirmed by other witnesses.M For various supporters of these views, see Barnes, 'Editions', pp. 191 n. 2and 199, and C and E, pp. 346-47 n. 10; Quasten (cit. n. 3), pp. 315-16; Wallace-Hadrill (cit. n. 5), pp. 39 -4 3; Lake (cit. n. 3), pp. xix-xxin ; and L outh , 'D ate',pp. 112-13 , I I 4 ~ I 5 . and 122-23. To these can be added Grant (cit. n. 3),pp. 1415, for a date not much earlier than 303. Grant's reasons for dating thework to this period are too subjective to be of assistance in this analysis ('an earlierdate rather than a later one would allow adequate time for the changes within thefirst seven b ooks which w e hop e to establish', p. 15). With regard to these chan ges,Barnes rightly concludes, 'I do not believe that Grant has established [his conclu-sions] satisfactorily', CandE, p. 346. See also T . D . Barnes, 'Some In consistenciesin Eusebius',JTS, N S 35 (1984), 470-75.29 'Editions', pp. 190-201; C and E, pp. m , 128-2 9, 145-47; and personalcommunications.30 This was first established by Schwartz (cit. n. 12), pp. xlvii-cxlvii, and isdescribed by Q uasten (cit. n. 3), p. 315; Barnes, 'Editions', pp. 196 -98; Grant(cit . n. 3), pp. 10-13; and Louth, 'Date', pp. m - 1 2 , 113-14.

atUniv

ersity

of

Ottaw

aonN

ov

em

ber24

,2

01

0

jts.oxford

journ

als.org

Downlo

adedfrom


14/34

48 4 R. W. BURGESStion: minor tampering for political reasons in most places and therewriting of book eight in 315/6 to compensate for the removal ofthe short recension of the Martyrs of Palestine (see Appendix 1).There is no trace in the manuscripts of any edition earlier than313, especially in books six and seven, where the supposed differ-ences between the earlier and later editions w ere great (see below),even though Barnes' putative first edition of before c.293 w a s mcirculation for almost twenty years and that of c.303 for ten years,certainly long enough to leave some trace in a tradition that canotherwise distinguish editions completed fewer than five and tenyears apart. This lack of manuscript evidence makes an editionbefore 313 most doubtful.31

Adding to this doubt are the obvious later references scatteredthroughout books one to seven.32N on e of these references suggestsa date later than the end of book nine, which corresponds to themanuscript evidence, an important agreement that seems to havebeen overlooked. A number of these references indicate otherworks that Eusebius had written, such as theEcloguepropheticae(303/312; 1.2.27) and the Life of Pamphilus (310/311; 6.32.3;7.32.25), or works of others that did not appear until later, suchas the forged Acts of Pilate (probably c.311; 1.9.34, I X- 9 ) F theDoctrine of Addai (c.300; 1.13), and Porphyry's Against theChristians (c.300 (or perhaps c.275); 6.19. 2-11). Nowhere doesEusebius refer to works written after 313. Louth notes thatEusebius' account of Origen, which takes up much of book six(roughly 1-6, 8, 14-19, 21, 23-28, 30, 32-33, 36-39 of 46 chap-ters), refers three times to Pamphilus and Eusebius' Defence ofOrigen (6.23.4, 33-4. 36.4) and almost certainly derives from it,though it was not written until 308/3 io .3 3 If this material had notoriginally existed, book six would be much shorter indeed andwould lack its central unifying focus. In books one to sevenEusebius also makes reference to later events, especially the Great

11 On this, see also Lane Fox (cit. n. 3), p. 607.12 Barnes provides lists in 'Editions', p. 201 n. 28, and C and E, pp. 146, 346n. 10, and 355 nn. 166 -67, 17. '72= 1.1.2, 2.14 -16 , 2.27, 9. 3- 4, 11.9, 13; 4.7.14;6.19.2-15, 23.3-4, 3*-3. 33-4. 36.4-7; 7.18.3, 30 index and chapter heading, 30.22,31, 32.1-4, 22-32. To these can be added 7.11.26 (on the persecution) and 7.30.21(which refers ahead to 8.1.79). Yet Barnes claims that Eusebius only 'slightlyretouched' the first seven books when he created the second edition (C and E,p. 149). A s a general, though n ot invariable, princ iple, I agree with G. A.Williamson in the preface to his Penguin translation of theHE: 'in the absence oftextual evidence that they are afterthoughts we ought to treat all references to lateevents as proof of late writing' (p. 21).

" 'Date', pp. 121-2 2. See also Lane Fox (cit. n. 3), pp. 607 and 774 n. 33. SeeWallace-Hadrill (cit. n. 5), pp. 160-65, who derives all or parts of 1-3, 8, 15-16,18-19, 23. *8. 3. 33. 36, 37, and 39 from theDefence of Origen.

atUniv

ersity

of

Ottaw

ao

nNov

em

ber24

,2

01

0

jts.oxford

journ

als.o

rg

Downlo

adedfrom


15/34

CHRONICI CAN ON ES/HISTO RIA ECCLESIASTICA 485Persecution: 1.1.2; 7.11.26; 7.30.22; 7.32.1, 4, 25, 28, 29, 31. Thereference to Peter of Alexandria at7.32.31,for example, can hardlybe an addition made at the same time as 9.6.2 (the correct chrono-logical place for the notice), since it contains more informationthan the later note. Its appearance does, however, make perfectsense if Eusebius wrote books seven to nine as a single block(though most of the current book eight is a later addition, includ-ing the reference to Peter in 8.13.7), commenting on Peter as hecame up in the narrative, directly or through association. Sonumerous and so integral to the content and structure of thehistory are all these passages that if we were to accept them aslater additions, the only possible hypothesis would be that theywere included as part of a complete rewriting of almost the entirework for the edition of 313/4, not as part of a simple revision tokeep the work up to date. Yet apart from the replacement of bookeight there is no evidence for alteration or revision on this scalein later editions.Like book six, book seven could hardly have existed as it doesnow simply with the later references removed, 'ending almostexactly where the first edition of the Chronicle ended' with areference to the death of Aurelian, the accession of Probus(7.30.22), a section on two recent bishops of Laodicea (32.521),and 'a brief statement of the names of the bishops who occupiedthe principal sees at the time of writing'.34 Those who argue fora date of c.303 must also explain why Eusebius would have con-cluded his history with the beginning of the persecution inMarch/April 303, a perverse and ignoble conclusion for such awork (unless he happened to finish it in January or February ). Itshould also be noted that Eusebius' list of emperors at 7.30.22omits Tacitus and Florianus, short-lived Augusti of 275-76,incorporating their regnal year into Aurelian's total. It appears tobe a deliberate simplification and as such is understandable in313,almost forty years later, but is rather harder to explain in theearly 290s or even in 303. An early date of composition can onlybe maintained by positing massive revision at a later date especi-ally to books six and sevenrevision for which there is noevidence. The same problems exist for an edition concluding withbook eight.35

14 Barnes, 'Editions', p. 200, and C and E, pp. 129 and 145-46.13 The view of, for instance, Schwartz (cit. n. 12), pp. lv-lvi, and H. J. Lawlorin Hugh Jackson Lawlor and John Ernest Leonard Oulton (trans.), Ewebius,Bishop of Caesarea. The Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine 2(Lon don , 1928), pp. 3- 6. T his hyp othesis rests almost exclusively on an inconclus-ive comparison of the wording between the preface (1.1.2) and passages of booksseven and eight (7.32.32, 8.1.1, 16.1).

atUniv

ersity

of

Ottaw

aonN

ov

em

ber24

,2

01

0

jts.oxford

journ

als.org

Downlo

adedfrom


16/34

486 R. W. BURGESSNo one has produced any evidence that any passage outside ofbook eight is in fact a later addition, apart from the hypothesis ofan early editionitself,which is simplypetitioprincipii, arising out

of the need to dispense with evidence contradicting an early edi-tion. This is, I believe, the Achilles heel of any argument thatplaces the composition of the H E before 313:there is no evidencethat Eusebius ever carried out massive revisions of the sortrequired for the argument of an edition earlier than 313/4 and theburden of proof must lie with those who claim that he did.I can find no solid, objective evidence to suggest an editionearlier than 313, which would therefore be identical to Barnes''second edition': books one to seven, the preface to eight with theshort recension of the Martyrs of Palestine, Galerius' edict (the'palinode'), the 'appendix', and book nine.36 If this is so, and thefirst edition of the HE was written in 313/4, then there is nothingto contradict the dating of the Canones proposed above and itsfirst edition must therefore date between 306 and 313/4.

The reference to theCanones in the preface to book one of theEclogae propheticae, that is to book six of the General ElementaryIntroduction,provides a general confirmation of this date for theCanones.This work could date to any period of general persecutionbetween March/April 303 and May 311, and December 311 andMay 313, since it refers to the suppression of Christian worshipand the detention of bishops, though Eusebius was imprisonedfor a time during the second bout of persecution, making thislater period less likely. As noted above (n. 1), book ten of thiswork would seem to date after 309. Whatever the date, Eusebius'careful explanation of his methodology in composing and arran-ging theCanonesimplies that he was still in the process of complet-ing the work and that the reader would have to take his word forit that he had proved the antiquity of Moses and the succeedingprophets.37 It seems obvious from this unique descriptive refer-ence that Eusebius did not expect his readers to be familiar withthe work; it is quite different from his reference to theCanonesatthe beginning of the HE, where he assumes that his audience isfamiliar with it, just three or four years later. We unfortunately

34 Barnes, 'Editions', p. 201. This is the conclusion ofJ. B. Lightfoot and B. F.Westcott s.v. 'Eusebius', in William Smith and Henry Wace (eds.), A Dictionaryof Christian Biography, Literatures, Sects and Doctrines 2 (London, 1880), 322-23(which is accepted in principle by Lawlor (cit. n. 35), p. 3), Lane Fox (cit. n. 3),p. 608, and Louth, 'Date', p. 123, among others.17 He starts off with 'Let it be known ..

atUniv

ersity

of

Ottaw

ao

nNov

em

ber24

,2

01

0

jts.oxford

journ

als.o

rg

Downlo

adedfrom


17/34

CHRONICI CAN ONES/HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA 487cannot tell how much further than Moseshehad got whenhewas writing this part of theGeneral ElementaryIntroduction. Sincewe cannot date theGeneral Elementary Introductionwith any greatprecision,itcannot help witha specific date for the Canones, butthe two works do appear to have been contemporary, which is animportant confirmation of the general date ofthe Canones putforward here.

Eusebius' stress on the YearsofPersecution, which start fromthe beginning of the persecution in Caesarea in March/April 303,and their use as the basic chronological system in both theCanonesand theM artyrs of Palestine, in contrast to their very infrequentappearance in the H E 7.32.31(ninthyear);8.13.10 (second year);16.1 (tenth and eighth years)),38 suggests a close correlationinconception between the first two works. Eusebius' expedient ofdoubling upthe second and third Years of Persecution, ratherthan just omitting the system altogether and avoiding the entireproblem, suggests that this section was written at a time when hebelieved that a close accounting of the individual years ofthepersecution was of great importance. T he evidence of the differentusesofthis systemin the existing book eight of the HE (it doesnot appear in book nine) and the two recensionsofthe Martyrs(on which, see Appendix 1) indicates that this would have beenbefore 313/4, probably at the same time as the Martyrswas beingcompleted. Ifthe Canones and the Martyrs are seen as comple-mentary, it would help to explain why Eusebius makes no mentionof events during the persecution inth e Canones apart from thedeaths and accessions of emperors.39Thi s really only makes senseif he was relying (or expecting to rely) on another narrative (theMartyrs)to provide the details. One can hardly imagine Eusebius'concluding theCanones at a date before theMartyrs and notcommenting in some way on the persecution he saw around him.The HE, on the other hand, presupposes both works and is anadvance on both:a full narrativeof Christian events, instead ofan epitome, with a revised chronology, combined with an epitom-ized and rewritten version of the Martyrsas one of its chapters.

" The first two ofthese resemble entries inthe Canones, 227* and 228d (themartyrdom of Peter of Alexandria and the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian).n For this, see my paper cited inn. 6,above.

atUniv

ersity

of

Ottaw

aonN

ov

em

ber24

,2

01

0

jts.oxford

journ

als.

org

Downlo

a

dedfrom


18/34

488 R. W. BURGESSV I

A date for theCanonesbetween 306 and 313 is further confirmedby E usebius' own com m ents on its genesis and by its strong apo lo-getic nature. In his preface to the Canones(reproduced and trans-lated in Appendix 2, below) Eusebius makes it clear that it wasPorphyry of Tyre's contradiction of established Christian andJewish chronologies regarding ^Muiaiws ipxaidrns in book four ofhisKaraXpiartavwv (Against the Christians) that led him to under-take his own chronological researches in the first place.40Eusebius'researches revealed that both were incorrect, and he drives thepoint home again and again throughout his preface. The questionof Moses also appears in the preface to the Chronographia, whereit is listed as the first goal of his work (Arm . i . i 6 - i 8 = Grk.167.1820 (see n. 2)). The importance of Porphyry's chronologyfor the date of Mo ses is emp hasized again in Euseb ius' discussionin the Praeparatio Evangelica, where he quotes Porphyry first andanalyses his chronology for Moses at length (10.9.11-25),4 1 beforego ing on to quote and analyse the Mo saic chronolog ies of Africanus(chapter ten), Tatian (chapter eleven), Clement (chapter twelve),and Josephus (chapter thirteen), four of the five Christian andJewish authors he qu otes in the preface to theCanones(only Justusis missing). The discussion of his own methods (deriving from hispreface to the Canones)covers only 9.210. Thr ice in Praeparatio

4 0 Be c a us e he dat e s t he Canones abo ut t e n ye ars be f or e t he appe ar a nc e of Againstthe Christians Bar ne s de n i e s t ha t Eu s e b i us us e d Por ph yr y i n h i s f ir st e d i t i on ( Cand E, p . 113, and 'Sch ola rsh ip' ( c i t . n . 14) , 64; c f. ho w eve r , p . 59 of th e lat terar t i c l e and idem, 'Pagan Percept ions of Chr i s t iani ty ' , in I . Haz le t t ( ed. ) , EarlyChristianity. Origins and Evolution to AH. 600. In Honou r of W. H. C. Frend( L on do n , 1991) , 23 9- 40 ) . Th i s c aus e s h i m a nu m b e r o f d i f fi c u lt i es , no t le as t t ha the must pos i t Eusebius ' use of Porphyry for the f i r s t t ime in the lat ter hal f of 325,no t ev en a year af ter Con sta nt in e ' s ord er cal l ing for the bu rn ing of a ll cop ies o ft he wor k and h i s pr e s c r i p t i on o f t he de at h pe na l t y for any one w ho p os s e s s e d ac opy o f i t ( on whi c h , s e e Bar ne s , C and E, p . 21 1, and 'S cho larsh ip' ( c it . n . 14) ,p . 53 ) . Th i s hypot he s i s a l s o r e qu i r e s i m pr obabl y e x t e ns i ve r e v i s i on t o t he Canones( s e e a b o v e ) . B a r n e s' s u p p o r t i n g a r g u m e n t b a s e d o n E u s e b i u s ' m e t h o d s o f q u o t i n gt h e Canones in the Praeparatio Evangelica i s c ont r ad i c t e d by t he ve r y aut h or i t y hec i t e s ( Kar l M r as ( e d . ) , Eusebius Werke 8: Die Praeparatio Evangelica ( G C S 4 3 .2 ;Be r l i n , 1 956) , 466 ) . M y dat e f or t he Canones woul d r e m ove pe r haps t he l ar ge s tobs t ac l e t o Bar ne s ' da t i ng o f Against the Christians to c .30 0, ins tead of the m or ewi de l y ac c e pt e d c . 275 ( s e e n . 45 , be l ow) .

4 1 Hi s us e o f Por phyr y i n Praeparatio 10.9 is rather dif feren t from that in th eCanones. H e quo t e s h i m c h i e f l y t o de m ons t r a t e t ha t e ve n a pagan aut hor a dm i t t e dt he ant i qu i t y o f M os e s and t he n as a wh i pp i ng bo y t o s h ow t hat h i s c hr o no l og ywas incorrec t . There i s no re ference to the inoXoyta ( ' adm i s s i on ' , ' c onf e s s i on ' ) o fPorphyry in the pre face to the Canones, ye t it app ears tw ice in the Praeparatio( 10 . 9 . 1 1 and 25 ; s e e a l s o 11 , 17 , and 23 ) and i s t he ke y to h i s quot a t i on o f Por p hyr yin that work.

atUniv

ersity

of

Ottaw

ao

nNov

em

ber24

,2

01

0

jts.oxford

journ

als.o

rg

Downlo

adedfrom


19/34

CHRO NICI CAN ONES/HISTO RIA ECCLESIASTICA 48910.9 he refers to ^ Mwoewshpxa-i6-rqs (chap ter nin e tit le, 9.1, 9.11 ;see a l so 9 - i7 : \_IJop^>vpios] naXai.6rf.pov TOV Moiaea ouviorqaiv) a n dstates that it was proven in his Canones. The discussion of theantiquity of Moses in the Praeparatio also links with theEclogaepropheticae, where he says,-H)v Mwvaiws xai row ef ainovirpo^tjTatv&px


20/34

49 0 R. W. BURGESSBarnes, because he dates the Canonesto the early 290s wh enChristianity was secure, widely accepted, and prospering as neverbefore, denies this apologetic aspect of theCanones:

There is ... no reason to infer from the preface (or from any other partof the work) that Eusebius composed theChroniclemainly as a historicalapologia for Christianity. The Chronicle may be interpreted rather asprimarily a work of pure scholarship.4*Barnes' overall view is summarized well by Averil Cameron inher review of Constantine and Eusebius:The Ecclesiastical History and the Chronicle were both begun, on B.'sview, in an uncontentious mood of scholarship, not written from the firstfor apologeticorpolemical purposes. Above all, this Eusebius is primarilya scholar, not a propagandist. So the central chapters of the book can betaken to support the reliance placed on Eusebius in the rest of it.47Unfortunately for Barnes' argument the apologetic aspects of theCanones are manifest, as we have just seen, and multifarious.48

44 C and E, p. 113. Lik e Barnes (see n. 40 above) Joseph-R heal Laurin(Orien tations m attresses des apologistes chritiens de lyo it 361 (Analecta Gregoriana61; Rome, 1954)) claims that the references to Porphyry and his work were addedto a later edition (pp. 11112: 'a l'epoque de la premiere edition, Eusebe ignoraitle Kata Kristiandn') and he claims that the Canones was not a work of apologetic(pp. 106-13), but he is surprisingly ill-informed about the chronicle and Christianchronography in general. For instance, quoting Jerome's translation of Eusebius'preface'Nam Moyses, licet junior supra dictis [Semiramis and Abraham] sit, abom nibus tam en, quos Graeci antiquissimos putant, senior deprehenditur, Ho meroscilicet et Hesiodo Troianoque bello' (Helm, 9.1114)he says 'Cette facon depresenter l'argument est plus evidemment apologetique, mais nous n'avons laqu'un Euseb e remanie par Jerdme. On aurait tort, croyon s-nou s, de tirer la pen seeeusebienne d'une preface ou le traducteur a tant brode autour du texte original'(p . 112). Eusebius' Greek original of this passage, preserved by Syncellus (AldenA. Mosshammer (ed.), Georgii Syncelli Ecloga chronographica (Leipzig, 1984),74 .11 -1 3) , reads as follows: tlpov ... Muivoda i, IAOATJ&US dmiv, rovrwv [Semiramisa n d Abraham]ixkv vtwrtpov, rutv Si nap* wEAXrjuiv ipxanoXoyovfiivtov ndvraiv irpeoflvTa-TOV,'Opujpov Xtyw KCU'HoidSov, xa i afntiiv y


21/34

CHRONICI CAN ONE S/HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA 491Chronology had long been an important tool in the arsenal ofChristian apologists and Christian apologetic chronography had itsroots in Jewish apologetic, the best known example probably being

Josephus' Against Apion. Eusebius was aware of this and in theCanoneshe mentions Josephus and his chronologies in 7.15 , 55a0,113", i74d (=175.11-23), 178", i8id , 185', 187", and 191 s. Thefamous Christian apologists Justin, Tatian, Theophilus, Clementof Alexandria, H ippo lytus, and Julius Africanus all used chronologyas an apologetic weapon in their works and not only does Eusebiusmention Tatian, Clement, and Africanus in the preface to theCanones(see Appendix 2 =J er om e, 7.15) and the chronologies ofAfricanus at 86b11*, 113', and 214, and of C lement at 100a" andiO5bd, but the entire chronological structure of the Canones isclearly based on thesupputationesof such apologists as Th eop hilus,ad A utolycum3.28, and Clement, Stromata 1.101-4 5. Eusebius wasthus fully aware of his predecessors' work and followed in theirfootsteps both in method and in aims.49 Indeed, he could hardlyhave disassociated himself from that tradition and any reader wouldhave immediately seen his work as a part of it. In essence , that wasthe purpose of Christian chronography. Like earlier apologistsnXelaroiOXXoi as Eusebius himself says (Praeparatio 10.9.1)Eusebius uses chronology to prove the greater antiquity of theJewish patriarchs in comparison to the Greek gods and heroes,especially with respect to Abraham, the 'first Christian' (see Jerom e,243d, cf. 34a*),50and to Moses, wh o predated all pagan gods, heroes,and philosophers (as discussed above; see Jerome, 9.1110.4 and12.514.15, and Praeparatio 10.913).

4 9 S e e Adler , 'Eusebiu s' Chronicle' ( c i t . n . 43 ) , p .4 6 8 ; W . H . C . Frend ,'Constant ine a n dEuseb ius ' , JE H 3 3 (1982) , 59 1 : ' I n a l l Christ ian ( a n dJewish)historical writ ing there was anapologet ic edge. Ch ronicles w ere aimed a t d e m o n -strating t h eant iquity o fChrist ianity (or Juda ism) comp are d with pagan reli gions,and this is what Euseb ius intended in h i shistorical writ ings' ; a n d Berkho f (cit .n. 48) ,p .60: 'Di e Chrono logic is t also e in Zweig der Apolo gie . D al iegt der Gr and ,daB Eusebius sich s o e ingehend m i t ihrbefafit hat'.50 S e eHE 1.4; Wa lla ce-H adr ill (cit . n. 5 ) , p . 181, and Adler, Time Immemorial(cit. n . 4 8 ) , pp. 6970, e s p . n . 105 :'Eusebius' decis ion t o begin with A braha m,and not some more remote event o rperson, sho ws .. . that in theCanones Euseb iusthe historian h a d prevai led over Eusebius t h e apologist . I t wo uld have beend is sembl ing if Euseb ius h a d o n t h e o n ehand polemic ized against t h eerrorsa n dflaws o fnon-b iblic al sou rces , and then over looke d the similar prob lem s in H e b r e warchaic history. Gelzer suggests as well that Eusebius' sensit ivit ies t o chronologicalprob lems h a dbeen sharpened b y h i s learned oppo nent Porphyry , a scholarw h owas skilled inident ifying inconsistencies inb ibl ical chronology' . Th is co mm ent i sechoed b y Sirinelli (cit . n . 43) , p .52: 'Eusebe ici es tavant tout u nh istorien, p lusqu'un apologiste ' . Furthermore, b yp lacing Abrah am, Ni nu s , and Semi ram is 'unoeodemque t empore in libelli fronte', a sEusebi us says in thetranslation o f Jerome( 1 6 . 1 3 - 1 4 ) , h ecould im mediate ly refute Porphyry's chrono logy.

atUniv

ersity

of

Ottaw

a

onN

ov

em

ber24

,2

01

0

jts.oxford

journ

als.

org

Downlo

adedfrom


22/34

492 R. W. BURGESSEusebius also explicitly used his new chronological reckoningto combat, rather than further, the immensely popular and widelyaccepted chiliastic views of contemporary Christians, especiallythe popular calculations of Julius Africanus, by reducing the ageof the world by three hundred years and refusing to start hischronology with Creation (Chronographia,1.25-2.6 (Karst)).51 Inthe end, however, it was Eusebius' variant chronology that led tothe disappearance of his work, for many later chroniclers attackedand reworked his chronology, including Diodorus of Tarsus,Annianus, Panodorus, Andronicus, and James of Edessa, often tosuit the standard date of c.AM 5500 for the Incarnation. Indeed,Eusebius' negative attitude towards millenarianism would seem

to have developed as a reaction against the millennial expectationsof many during the Great Persecution and out of his own apoca-lyptic fears that arose during the persecution and that are mani-fested in theEclogaepropheticae.52Other clearly apologetic aspectsof the work include the Euhemerizing interpretation of Greekmythology evident throughout his discussion of early Greek his-tory and the constant stress on the accuracy and truth of the Biblein comparison with the uncertain and conflicting nature of paganhistorians and their chronologies,53 both aspects aimed at sym-pathetic pagan readers;54 the implicitly negative stress on Jewishchron ology (Jerome, 22a" (the beginning of Jubilee 4 1 , thus tw o

51 By placin g the birth of Christ only 519 9 years after Creation, Eu sebiu s is theonly eastern chronographer of his time to reject the six thousand year eschatologypopularized by Africanus that placed the birth of Christ in anno mundi 5500; seeCyril Mango, Byzantium. The Empire of New Rome (London, 1980), 192, andRichard Landes, 'Lest the Millennium be Fulfilled: Apocalyptic Expectations andthe Pattern of Western Chronography, 100-800 CE', in Werner Verbeke, DanielVerhelst, and Andries Welkenhuysen (eds.), The Use and Abuse of Eschatology inthe Middle Ages (Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, Series I/Studia XV; Leuven, 1988),138-39, 141-51, 163-64. On Eusebius' anti-chiliastic views, see Frank S.Thielman, 'Another Look at the Eschatology of Eusebius of Caesarea', VigiliaeChristianae 41 (1987), 22 6-3 7, esp . 235. On both the question of M oses andmillennialism, see William Adler, "The Origins of the Proto-Heresies: Fragmentsfrom a Chronicle in the First Book of Epiphanius' Panariori, JTS, NS, 41(1990), 498.

11 See Barnes, C and E, p. 168, and Thielman (cit. n. 51). These hostile viewsappear in the HE as well: 3.39.11-13." Esp. Jerome, 66a' and 86ad, and e.g. 26b', 40b', 50b", 53b"1, 55b", 56b';Hercules: 40b", 4 3b k , 49 b1, 51b", s6b^, 57b c, 59b', 59b* (=4ob h ) , 6ob d =1574-1196 BC); Homer: 63b*1, 66a', 69b', 7ib b ( = 1 1 6 0 - 1 0 1 7 BC); Hesiod: 7ibb ,84b', 8 7 b ' ( = 1 0 1 7 - 7 6 7 BC); Carthage: 58b', 69b', 71b0, 8 ib b = 1214-850 BC).The same argument against Greek history is made by Josephus, Against Apion,I - I5 -27 . 37 -38 .54 On sympathetic pagans as a likely audience for Eusebius' apologetic, seeBarnes, C and E, pp. 168-69, 178.


onNovember24,2010

jts.oxfordjournals.

org

Downloadedfrom


23/34

CHRONICI CAN ON ES/HISTOR IA ECCLESIASTICA 493thousand years from Adam 55), 46a" (Jub ilee 51), 73ab (Jubilee 61),109" (Jubilee 71), 174" (Jubilee 81; the b eginning of Christ'sministry), 22311 (Jubilee 86), Chron. 724 101.1-2 (Jubilee 86));56the importance of the Incarnation and crucifixion for world history(Jerome, 243d, 34a*, 160-61, 169, 173-75);" the importance ofunbroken apostolic succession (all bishops of Rome, Jerusalem,Antioch , and Alexandria are nam ed and num bered u ntil the perse-cution; see HE 1.1.1, 7.32.32 , 8. pref.); and the conclusion o f thework with Constantine and the great peace that he brought. 58 Itis easy to see that the Canones made a suitable companion pieceto hisGeneral Elementary Introduction,which he worked on at thesame time as the Canones but w hich was begun and finishedslightly earlier.59 It was also a necessary prolegomenon forEusebius' major apologetic works of the 310s, the PraeparatioEvangelica and the Demonstratio Evangelica, for, as Barnessays, these two works consider the relationship of Christianity toGreco-Roman civilization and culture, and its relationship to

59 By Eusebius' calculations, this point is 3,229 years from Adam (see Jerome,250.2223 = 3,1 84 years to Abraham plus forty-five years), thoug h th e first indica-tion of Eusebius' chronology does not appear until Jerome, 46a' (the death ofMoses is 3,730 years from Adam).5 4 See G rant (cit. n. 3), p. 8, wh o cites the contemp orary a pocalyptic viewexpressed in the Babylonian T alm ud that the world would last eighty-five Jubileesand a portion of the eighty-sixth ; Land es (cit. n. 51), p. 206 and n. 8; and Joseph us,Jewish Antiquities 1.13 and 16; 20 .26 1, and Against Apion 1.1, 36, and 39, whosays that the Old Testament recounts the history of five thousand years, of whichjust under three thousand are covered by the Pentateuch and 2,000 since Moses(see previous note). For theChron. 724 (the famous Syriac epitome of theCanones,which contains Eusebius' reference to the eighty-sixth Jubilee in his final supputa-tio), see Ch ronicon miscellaneum ad annu m Dom ini 724 pertinent, CSC O 4 , Chron.min. 2: Scriptores Syri, series 3, tom us 4, versio, by J.-B. Chabot.17 See Chesnut (cit. n. 48), pp. 98 -1 08 (the graphic presentation of the replace-ment of polytheism and polyarchy by monotheism and monarchy through thereduction of multiple columns to one), and James T. Shotwell, 'Christianity andHistory, III. Chronology and Church History', Journal of Philosophy, Psychologyand Scientific Methods 17 (1920), 14647 (who is correct in claiming that 'thisview of universal history places Eusebius on a distinctly higher plane than that ofa mere apologist', p. 147 n. 13). Abraham had initiated the first covenant, Christthe second (Jerom e, 24ad), hence the importance of the two figures for the Canonesand its chronological structure; see also Barnes, C and E, pp. 171-72. In anotherargument aimed at pagan readers, Eusebius quotes from the pagan historianPhlegon of Tralles concerning a solar eclipse and an earthquake in Bithynia thatdestroyed Nicaea at the time of the crucifixion, Snai owf&ti rotsntpi T&ndBos TOOaurrfjpos ijiuuv oviifUf}T]K6oiv (Greek: Syncellus, 394.2-12; Latin: Jerome, 174**, whoalters the year of this entry).

9 1 Obv iously only a feature of the final edition.59 For a discussion of the Eclogae propheticae, books six to nine of the GeneralElementary Introduction, see Barnes, C and E, pp. 167-74.


onNovember24,2010


Downloadedfrom


24/34

494 R. W. BURGESSJudaism,40 the two fundamental structural pillars of the Chronicicanones. A date of 306/313 clearly and closely links the Canoneswith these fundamental works of Christian apologetic.A final important aspect of the apologetic nature of theCanones,as well as the HE and the Martyrs of Palestine, is historicalrevisionism. A lthough, as I have argued above, Eusebius made nomajor revisions to any of these three works apart from the replace-ment of a large part of book eight of the HE to make it lessparochial, he did make a number of smaller alterations. A largeproportion of these alterations were of a political nature, to bringhis narrative into accord with contemporary political realities. FortheCanones,this meant removing a reference to Crispus ' accession

as Caesar after his execution in May 326. This entailed another'edition' after that of c.July/August 325, though Eusebius did notcontinue his chronology beyond the symbolically important Year20 of Constantine. For theMartyrs, it meant shifting more of theblame for the persecution onto Maximinus and heaping extraabuse upon him that would have been dangerous during his life-time.For theH E, it meant the purging of Crispus after his death,as in the Canones, and the addition of invective against and thereduction of

the dates and editions of eusebius chronici canones and historia ecclesiastica

Documents