Translator's Introduction
T r a n s l a t o r ' s I n t r o d u c t i o n Best known in modern times as the author of the Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius was better known in antiquity as an apologist and erudite biblical scholar.1 And yet, despite his reputation in antiquity as a formidable student of Scripture, neither of Eusebius of Caesarea's magisterial works of exegesis—neither the Commentary on Isaiah nor the Commentary on the Psalms—has been available in complete form in any modern language until the publication of this translation. The fact that the Commentary on Isaiah has never before appeared in any modern language is all the more remarkable when one remembers that this commentary is the first Christian commentary on the prophet Isaiah to have survived to the present. Complete portraits of Eusebius of Caesarea's theology have been absent as a result of the inaccessibility of the Commentary on Isaiah. It is my hope that this translation will facilitate and encourage new scholarship on Eusebius of Caesarea's theology and the history of fourth-century Christian exegesis.
The Date of the Commentary There has never been any dispute over the authorship of the commentary, but consensus has not yet been achieved concerning its date. The majority of scholars have been willing to venture only that the commentary was written after the Nicene Council in a.d. 325—reasoning that the optimism that permeates the commentary clearly reflects the Constantinian epoch. The discussion of the date of Eusebius's Commentary on Isaiah effectively has not developed since Adolf von Harnack, according to whose research the terminus a quo is to be set to 324 and the terminus ad quem cannot be set before the date of Eusebius's death in 339.2 In setting the terminus a quo to 324, Harnack first notes that Eusebius speaks of persecution as a past reality, especially in 1D. S. Wallace-Hadrill writes in his classic study: "To the historian, Eusebius is the author of the Chronicle and the Ecclesiastical
History. To the classical scholar, he is the author of the Praeparatio Evangelica, a storehouse of information about many centuries of Greek literature. The geographer knows him for his Onomasticon. The student of the biblical text looks to Eusebius as one who not only had himself a lively interest in matters concerning the text and canon of the scriptures, but who also quoted the scriptures copiously in almost every work he wrote. The theologian knows him for his part in the fourth century [sic] christological controversies following the rise of Arianism. Excavations of fourth-century churches in Palestine are made in the light of Eusebius' detailed descriptions of some of the great foundations of his time. From these and other view-points his work has been read, and an extensive bibliography of specialist studies in these different fields might be compiled" (Eusebius of Caesarea
[London: A. R. Mowbray, 1960], 7).
2Adolf von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1958), 2.2.123.
Commentary on Isaiah Comm. in Is. 44.5.3 Harnack further notes that in Comm. in Is. 49.23, Eusebius exults in the conversion of Constantine and his programmatic privileging of the church. Although Eusebius does not specifically state that he is referring to Constantine, the allusion is unmistakable:
He then states that kings will be the foster fathers of the church of God, and he says that the women who rule them will be her nurses. And we saw with our own eyes this literally fulfilled among them, for those who bear authority in the abovementioned position have carried the church of God as foster fathers. And the women who rule over them (here the text is clearly referring to those who are served as the "principalities and powers" over each nation and each district in the abovementioned kingdom) will provide for those of the church who are in need as nurses, supplying them with an abundant allowance by royal sanction [νεύματι βασιλικῷ τὰ σιτηρέσια χορηγοῦσαι].
. . . And whoever has seen with his own eyes the aforementioned "principalities and powers" in the church of God bending their knees and pressing their foreheads to the ground, how could he not confess that he has witnessed the literal and historical fulfillment of this exact prophecy, which says: On the face of the earth they shall bow down to you, and they shall lick the dust of your feet.4
The above reference to the "abundant allowance by royal sanction" reads remarkably similarly to Eusebius's description from Vita Constantini of the charity Constantine bestowed on the church:
But to the churches of God in particular he was exceptionally generous in his provision, in one place bestowing estates, and elsewhere grain allowances [σιτοδοσίας ἐπὶ χορηγίᾳ] to feed poor men, orphan children, and women in distress. Then with great concern he also provided huge quantities of clothing for the naked and unclad. He singled out as worthy of special honour those who had dedicated their lives to godly philosophy. He would all but worship God's choir of those sanctified in perpetual virginity, believing that in the souls of such as these dwelt the God to whom they had consecrated themselves.5
Scholarship after Harnack has produced no more decisive conclusions. Wallace-Hadrill avers: "We cannot be more definite about its date than placing it well after 324."6 In his Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, Charles Kannengiesser offers only that the commentary "probably dates from the years following the Council of Nicaea, 325."7 Michael J.
Hollerich, whose Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Isaiah has thus far been the only
3Wallace-Hadrill agrees: "The Commentary on Isaiah cannot be dated with certainty, but the references to the persecution which occur throughout the work make clear that it was composed after the persecution was ended" (Eusebius of Caesarea, 32).
4Comm. in Is. 49.23; Joseph Ziegler, ed., Der Jesajakommentar (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1975), 316.
5Vita Const. 4.28; Eusebius, Life of Constantine: Introduction, Translation and Commentary, trans. Averil Cameron and Stuart
G. Hall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 163; Friedhelm Winkelmann, ed., Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin (Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1975), 130.
6Eusebius of Caesarea, 52. Wallace-Hadrill is willing to commit only to the conclusion that "the Commentary on Isaiah is unambiguously a post-Nicene work" (51).
7 Charles Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 2:677. xxii
Translator's Introduction monograph-length study of this work, deduces that the absence of direct references to the Arian controversy may indicate that the commentary "was written in the immediate wake of the Council of Nicaea."8 Timothy D. Barns, who has conducted the most exhaustive study of the chronology of Eusebius's works, concludes that Eusebius was "at work" on the commentary around the year 330.9
In the process of translating the commentary, I came across a pair of previously unnoted paragraphs that I am convinced allude to the baptism of Constantine. If my thesis proves correct, we may advance the terminus a quo of the Commentary on Isaiah to 337, and we may therefore date the commentary to the very end of Eusebius's life. The first of the relevant passages comes in Comm. in Is. 60:3-4, in which Eusebius comments on the Septuagintal phrase "nations shall walk by your light, and kings by your brightness":
For it was this light [φωτί] that you announced before, and it was by this light that the prophets and patriarchs and all those among the Jews who lived as citizens of the godly commonwealth had the eyes of their souls enlightened [ἐφωτίσθησαν], and it is by this light that the Gentiles, foreigners and people of other races will be enlightened
[φωτισθήσεται]. The text also speaks of brightness [λαμπρότητι], for you announced that the city has been wiped [ἐσμηγμένη] and scrubbed [ἀποσμηχομένη] and brightened
[λαμπρυνομένη] and cleansed [καθαιρομένη] from every filth [ῥύπον] and stain [κηλῖδα] by the divine words [λόγοις θείοις]. And foreign kings will be cleansed by this brightness and scrubbed in the power of the divine mysteries [θείων μυστηρίων]. One has to marvel and be amazed at the fulfillment of the oracle, how it was fulfilled during our times when the above kings were deemed worthy [καταξιουμένων] of the grace "by washing" [cf. Tit 3:5] [διὰ λουτροῦ].10
It is noteworthy that Eusebius has reversed the order of the terms kings and nations as they appear in the Septuagint, thus arriving upon the phrase "kings by your brightness."
Eusebius's alteration of the text is not arbitrary but motivated by his conviction that the baptism of Constantine is to be seen as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. When one compares the paragraph above with Eusebius's description of the baptism of Constantine in Vita Constantini, the allusion becomes clear:
But when he became aware that his life was ending, he perceived that this was the time to purify [καθάρσεως] himself from the offences which he had at any time committed [πεπλημμελημένων], trusting that whatever sins it had been his lot as a mortal to commit [διαμαρτεῖν], he could wash [ἀπορρύψασθαι] them from his soul by the power of the secret words [λόγων ἀπορρήτων] and the saving bath [σωτηρίῳ λουτρῷ].
. . . [The bishops] in their turn performing the customary rites fulfilled the divine laws and imparted the secret gifts [ἀπορρήτων], giving such preliminary instruction as is required [ὅσα χρὴ προδιαστειλάμενοι]. Alone of all the Emperors from 8Michael J. Hollerich, Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Isaiah (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 12.
9Timothy D. Barns, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), 278.
10Ziegler, Der Jesajakommentar, 370-71. xxiii
Commentary on Isaiah the beginning of time Constantine was initiated by rebirth [ἀναγεννώμενος] in the mysteries of Christ [Χριστοῦ μυστηρίοις], and exulted in the Spirit on being vouchsafed [ἁξιούμενος] the divine seal [θείας σφραγῖδος], and was renewed and filled with divine light [φωτὸς θείου], rejoicing in his soul because of his intense faith, awestruck at the manifestation of the divinely inspired power. When the due ceremonies were complete, he put on bright [λαμπροῖς] imperial clothes which shone [ἐκλάμπουσι] like light [φωτὸς], and rested on a pure white couch, being unwilling to touch a purple robe again. Then he lifted up his voice and offered up a prayer of thanksgiving to God, after which he went on to say, "I know that now I am in the true sense blessed, that now I have been shown worthy [πεφάνθαι ἄξιον] of immortal life, and now that I have received divine light [θείου φωτός]."11
The second relevant passage comes in Comm. in Is. 60:10-11, when Eusebius again appears to allude to the baptism of Constantine:
Therefore, it has been said: And your gates shall always be opened—day and night they shall not be shut. And who are the gates of the city of God except the teachers who instruct in elementary and introductory doctrine [αἱ στοιχειώδεις καὶ εἰσακτικαὶ διδασκαλίαι], whom the text says are opened night and day to all so as to admit all who have been elected from all the nations to serve God? Therefore, the text says: To bring to you the power [δύναμιν] of nations, and he promises to admit even the kings of their nations into the aforementioned gates. For, the powers [δυνάμεις] of nations are the ones who are able to say: "I can do all things in him who strengthens me," and their kings are the chosen ones who are worthy of the kingdom of heaven. And, since we have now seen literal kings—Roman emperors—run through the gates of the church of God and be deemed worthy [καταξιουμένους] of the mysteries [μυστηρίων] within these gates, how could anyone not testify to the truth of the prophecy?12
Why does Eusebius merely allude to the baptism of Constantine, speaking of the king who was "deemed worthy of the grace 'by washing'" and the Roman emperor who ran
"through the gates of the church of God" and was "deemed worthy of the mysteries"? Why does Eusebius not name Constantine? It may be that doing so would have offended Eusebius's poetic sensibilities—at least, we can say that Eusebius does not even consistently supply names in his account of the baptism of Constantine in Vita Constantini.13
Setting the terminus a quo of the Commentary on Isaiah to the date of the baptism of 11Vita Const. 4.61.2, 4.62.4-4.63.1; Life of Constantine, 177-78; Winkelmann, Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin, 145-46.
Additionally, further on in Comm. in Is. 60.4, Eusebius writes: "For, since they are tender souls and still infants, 'longing for the spiritual and pure milk like newborn babes,' and since they are 'children of Abraham' through rebirth in Christ [ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναγεννήσεως], they are borne along and carried on shoulders and lifted up by their teachers who lead them by the hand [ὑπὸ τῶν χειραγωγούντων αὐτὰς διδασκάλων]" (Ziegler, Der Jesajakommentar, 371). These lines parallel Eusebius's description of the "preliminary instruction" that Constantine received before baptism (Vita Const. 4.62.4; Life of Constantine, 178).
12Ziegler, Der Jesajakommentar, 375. Eusebius's enthusiasm for interpreting the Constantinian revolution as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy continues in Comm. in Is. 60:16, when he perhaps again alludes to the catechetical instruction that Constantine received before baptism and definitely alludes to Constantine's lavish construction projects for the church.
13In explaining why Eusebius of Caesarea does not mention that it was Eusebius of Nicomedia who baptized Constantine, Cameron writes: "It is standard practice for Eusebius of Caesarea as for other panegyrists to leave even major figures unnamed" (Life of Constantine, 341). xxiv
Translator's Introduction Constantine, several days before the emperor's death on May 22, 337,14 we therefore conclude that this work represents one of the final works of Eusebius's life. This was a time of intense literary activity for the aged bishop of Caesarea, for in these final months Eusebius finished not only the Commentary on Isaiah but also Against Marcellus and Ecclesiastical Theology. Because Eusebius celebrates the beauties of Constantine's Church of the Holy Sepulcher in his Commentary on the Psalms, and because it is known that this church was consecrated in 335, we may add this monumental work to the list of books that Eusebius completed in his final years.15 Eusebius died on May 30,
339, as one of the best respected biblical scholars of his day and one whose ecclesiastical responsibilities had thrust him into some of the most controversial theological intrigues of the century.16
The Manuscript History of the Commentary A critical edition of the Commentary on Isaiah has been available since 1975, when Joseph
Ziegler published Der Jesajakommentar in the Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller (GCS) series. The fact that the commentary has been available in a critical edition for a relatively short time stands as the primary reason why the commentary has been so little studied thus far. Before the appearance of the GCS edition, scholars had access to the text of the commentary only in volume 24 of J. P. Migne's Patrologia Graeca series.17 The text reproduced by Migne represents the work of the Maurist patristic scholar Bernard de Montfaucon.18 Montfaucon collated his edition from four Medieval Greek manuscripts, all of which are housed at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. Two of these Greek manuscripts date from the tenth century (codices 1891 and 2437), one dates from the twelfth century
(codex 2438), and one dates from the thirteenth century (codex 1892). Three of the four manuscripts are disheveled and fragmentary, but the manuscripts are relatively unanimous in their testimony to the first sixteen chapters of the commentary. After chapter sixteen of the text, there are significant differences between the manuscripts, and careful research was required to reconstruct the text. In the preface to the GCS edition, Ziegler explains the most important of the editorial decisions necessary in preparing the critical edition of the Greek text for publication, and I must refer the interested reader to his expert introduction for further details.19
14Life of Constantine, 340.
15See Comm. in Ps. 87.10.
16See J. B. Lightfoot, "Eusebius of Caesarea," in Dictionary of Christian Biography, ed. William George Smith and Henry Wace
(London: J. Murray, 1887), 2:318-34. This article remains one of the most complete accounts of Eusebius's biography available.
17ΕΥΣΕΒΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΜΦΙΛΟΥ ΥΠΟΜΝΗΜΑΤΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΕΣΑΙΑΝ, EUSEBII PAMPHILI COMMENTARIA IN HESAIAM
(Paris, 1857), 77-526.
18Collectio nova Patrum et Scriptorum Graecorum II (Paris, 1706), 347-593.
19Ziegler, Der Jesajakommentar, x-xviii; see also Hollerich, Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Isaiah, 15-18; Robert Devreesse,
"L'édition du Commentaire d'Eusèbe de Césarée sur Isaïe. Interpolations et omissions," Revue Biblique 42 (1933): 540-55. xxv
Commentary on Isaiah Early Christian Exegesis of Isaiah Eusebius's work is the first Christian commentary on Isaiah to have survived antiquity.
Nevertheless, Eusebius was not the first Christian to begin drafting a commentary on Isaiah, and it would certainly not be true to say that it fell to Eusebius alone to develop a Christian reading of Isaiah. Jesus quoted Isaiah often, and the apostolic community continued to explain Christian tradition in the language of the prophet Isaiah. Origen of Alexandria was the first to venture to commit a systematic interpretation of Isaiah to writing, but despite the fact that he dedicated thirty volumes to the monumental project, Origen's commentary extended only to Isaiah 30:6.20 In his own commentary, Eusebius repeatedly refers to Origen's earlier work, informing the reader at which point several of the volumes of Origen's commentary ended.21 It is therefore apparent that Eusebius worked with Origen's commentary open beside him, and we may conclude that many of Eusebius's observations found their source in Origen, although because Origen's commentary has been lost (except for a couple of fragments), there is no way to verify the exact percentage of Eusebius's commentary that was copied from Origen's.22
Jerome provides conflicting accounts concerning whether Eusebius published his own commentary in ten or fifteen books,23 and this has led some to speculate that Eusebius circulated the first ten books before completing the entire commentary.
Jerome records that Hippolytus of Rome (d. ca. a.d. 236) and Victorinus of Pettau (d. ca. a.d. 304) both composed commentaries on Isaiah before Eusebius.24 However, Eusebius appears not to have been aware of Hippolytus's commentary on Isaiah, since he does not mention it in his list of Hippolytus's works,25 and Eusebius never anywhere demonstrates knowledge of Victorinus's works, which were written in Latin. Only the briefest of fragments of Hippolytus's commentary survives, and nothing from Victorinus's is known to exist, rendering a comparison of these earlier works with Eusebius's Commentary on Isaiah impossible. After Eusebius, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Procopius of Gaza each published commentaries on Isaiah. Jerome acknowledges that he had access to both Eusebius's commentary and to Origen's when he wrote his own. It appears that Jerome relied in places so completely on Eusebius that his citations of the text of Isaiah are drawn neither from the Septuagint nor from the Vulgate
20Eusebius mentions Origen's commentary on Isaiah among Origen's Caesarean works (Eccl. Hist. 6.32.1-3), not among Origen's earlier Alexandrian works (Eccl. Hist. 6.24.1-3). Eusebius attests: "Origen himself was busy at that time putting together his
Commentary on Isaiah. . . . On the third section of Isaiah, as far as the vision of the beasts in the desert, thirty books have come into my hands" (Eccl. Hist. 6.32.1 [The History of the Church, trans. G. A. Williamson (London: Penguin, 1989), 269]).
21Comm. in Is. 7:5-9; 10:7-11, 22-23; 13:16; 14:4-7, 8-21; 16:7-8; 30:5.
22Origen's commentary on Isaiah has been lost, but nine of his homilies on Isaiah have been preserved in Jerome's translation (see
PL 24:901-36).
23See Jerome De Vir. Ill., 81.2; Comm. in Is. 1.1.
24De Vir. Ill. 61.2; 74.2.
25Hist. Eccl. 6.22.1-2. xxvi
Translator's Introduction but directly from Eusebius's commentary.26 Inasmuch as it greatly informed Jerome's own interpretation of Isaiah, Eusebius's commentary enjoys a colossal legacy not only in Greek exegesis but in the Latin exegetical tradition as well.27
Eusebius's Theory of Interpretation The first point of reference in any discussion of Eusebius's hermeneutics is Origen— whose protégé Eusebius proves himself to be in so many respects—and yet, one cannot explain Eusebius's exegesis by examining the theories of Origen alone. Wallace-Hadrill writes insightfully: "Eusebius was too devoted a disciple of Origen to be a good Antiochene in exegesis, too Palestinian to be a thorough-going Alexandrian."28 One recalls that Origen maintained that the Scripture is tripartite and contains three levels of meaning: the literal sense, the moral sense and the spiritual or allegorical sense.29 Whereas Origen expends by far his greatest energy and creativity in expounding the allegorical sense of the text, Eusebius demonstrates a commitment to the literal sense of the text and historical research that is not found in Origen's exegetical writings.30
In the preface to the commentary, Eusebius clearly articulates his theory of interpretation: the biblical text is bipartite and contains two levels of meaning—the literal sense and the deeper or allegorical sense. Eusebius thus streamlines Origen's system into what he must have perceived to be a more workable paradigm. The opening line of the commentary reads: "At times the Spirit delivered his revelation to the prophet plainly, so that there was no need of allegory to explain the message, but only an understanding of the actual words themselves. But at other times, the Spirit communicated through symbols and circumstances, placing other meanings in certain key words and even in names."31
Eusebius then proceeds to advocate the legitimacy of allegorical interpretation by appealing to the story of Joseph and the words of Jesus. Eusebius first writes: "For example, in Joseph's dreams, the number of the 'eleven stars' that appeared 'to bown down' represents
'his brothers.' At another time, he saw his 'brothers' gathering 'ears of corn,' thus foreshadowing the famine. And so it is for the prophet Isaiah."32 As the Holy Spirit inspired
Joseph's dreams with an allegorical meaning, so we should learn to read the prophecies of Isaiah, Eusebius reasons. Eusebius then turns to the authority of Jesus in order to dem26Ziegler, Der Jesajakommentar, xlviii. The formulas that Jerome uses to introduce a particular citation of Scripture often even correspond to the formulas that Eusebius had used in the same passage (xlix).
27See Hollerich, Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Isaiah, 13.
28Eusebius of Caesarea, 97.
29Origen writes: "For as man is said to consist of body, and soul, and spirit, so also does sacred Scripture" (ANF 4:359). See
Comm. in Is. 49:11, where, very unusually, Eusebius interprets the word Jerusalem precisely according to Origen's tripartite interpretive scheme.
30Wallace-Hadrill continues: "Eusebius' association with the sites and peoples of the Bible and his interest in the biblical associations of his own region gave the humanity of Christ an importance for him that it never had for Origen, and centered his theology in the Incarnation" (Eusebius of Caesarea, 97).
31Comm. in Is., preface.
32Ibid. xxvii
Commentary on Isaiah onstrate the undeniable admissibility of allegorical interpretation: "Such things are also found in the teachings of the Savior, in which it is recorded that he said: 'Do you not say,
"There are four months, then comes the harvest"? Lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already white for harvest.' It is clear what this verse is about, and yet one could find countless meanings. The same is true concerning writings of the prophet at hand."33
This saying of Jesus clearly contains a figure of speech—the "fields" that are "white for harvest"—but the metaphor is so elementary to students of Gospel literature that the modern interpreter may not immediately understand that Eusebius claims this metaphor as an "allegory" and therefore as a precedent for his own allegorical reading of Isaiah.
Equipped with these examples from the Old and New Testaments, Eusebius confidently enters the complexities of the Isaianic oracles.
One further note on Eusebius's theory of interpretation could be drawn from the preface to the commentary. In his use of the Joseph story, Eusebius subtly alters the biblical text in order to accommodate his allegorical exegesis. To be entirely accurate, Eusebius conflates two accounts from the life of Joseph: the story of Joseph's dream about the sheaves of his brothers from Genesis 37:5-8 and the story of Pharaoh's dream about seven ears of corn from Genesis 41:5-7. In the biblical narrative, Joseph's brothers are gathering sheaves, not ears of corn, and the dream signifies Joseph's future elevation, not a coming famine. One at first imagines that Eusebius failed to remember the precise details of the accounts from the life of Joseph, and this may indeed be the case. However, as Eusebius moves from the story of Joseph to the words of Jesus, one could also conclude that this rearrangement of the biblical text serves Eusebius's exegetical end, for the rearranged account from the Joseph narrative corresponds perfectly to Jesus' "allegory." We therefore witness Eusebius's conviction that the allegorical significance in some way represents the true structure of the text. We witness this conviction throughout the commentary as Eusebius attempts not only to indentify allegorical meanings for isolated words and concepts but in fact to weave a comprehensive allegorical subtext.
Sometimes Eusebius exhibits this conviction in the complexity that he is willing to see in a single allegory, as in the passage on the vineyard of the Lord from Isaiah 5. The vineyard represents the Jewish people; the hedge around the vineyard represents the prophets; the choice vine among the vineyard stands for the inspired Scriptures, or perhaps the people whom Moses led up from Egypt during the exodus or perhaps Jesus, who called himself the "true vine"; the tower in the midst of the vineyard represents the temple, and the wine vat represents the altar before the temple; the clouds that sent no rain represent the absence of the prophetic ministry after Jesus; and the thorns that the vineyard produced represent the Jews' rejection of the Christ.34 More frequently, however, Eusebius
33Ibid.
34Comm. in Is. 5:2-7. This is the most carefully developed allegory in the entire commentary, and Eusebius cites this passage as the paradigmatic allegory in the preface and elsewhere. xxviii
Translator's Introduction demonstrates his conviction of the priority of the allegorical sense in his tendency to return to an allegorical precedent in order to explain the imagery of the current passage.
For example, when Eusebius encounters the women who are enlightening the city (Is
27:11b), he is confident that these women are to be interpreted as the women who first witnessed the empty tomb, since several verses prior in Isaiah 27:2 the theme of the vineyard of the Lord reemerges, therefore establishing the spread of the apostolic preaching— the fruit that the master of the vineyard had always hoped to see—as the interpretive framework. Now and again Eusebius will even select the Greek translation on which he comments based on the criterion of which rendering most compellingly sustains the continued development of his allegorical interpretation.
In a curious turn of irony, Eusebius understands the very concept of biblical prophecy in a surprisingly literal way: prophecy is not purely moral exhortation but the foretelling of historical events. In Comm. in Is. 44:24–45:13, Eusebius exults in the dramatic fulfillment of the prophecy that Cyrus the Great would release the Jews from the Babylonian captivity.35 For lesser known prophecies, too, Eusebius often finds a specific event from the historical record to be the most attractive reading. Eusebius interprets the story of Shebna's removal from the priesthood as a picture of the loss of the Jewish priesthood after the destruction of Jerusalem.36 Eusebius avers that the phrase "he will blaze up and not be overwhelmed" should be read as a foreshadowing of the resurrection of Christ.37 In scores of passages, especially the oracles of judgment, Eusebius presents interpretations that evidence careful historical research.38 Jerome in fact even complains that Eusebius's commentary is unacceptably literal, conjecturing that Eusebius's method must have been to expound the literal sense of the text in so far as his command of the historical record allowed and only to retreat to an allegorical interpretation when his knowledge of history failed him!39
Jerome's judgment of Eusebius is premature. Examples could be multiplied in which Eusebius prefers an allegorical interpretation over a literal one. In one passage, Eusebius
35Eusebius even calls on Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 11.1.3-4, in order to validate his historical claim (Comm. in Is. 45:8).
36Comm. in Is. 22:15-25.
37Comm. in Is. 42:4.
38Wallace-Hadrill notes: "Eusebius, for all his scorn of Jewish exegetical method, may have followed Origen in seeking information on historical points from the Jews. . . . If Eusebius is, in fact, seeking information from Jewish sources, it shows him as being very concerned to establish the most literal and historical meaning of his biblical texts. It was, perhaps, a course of action to which he turned only late in life, for in his early Prophetic Eclogues he writes derisively and often of the failure of Jewish attempts to make sense of their scriptures by such literal methods of exegesis without reference to Christ" (Eusebius of Caesarea, 79-80).
39Jerome, Comm. in Is. 18.1. Quasten notes that Jerome "adds that Eusebius promised in the title an historical exposition, but often forgets his promise and ends in the allegorism of Origen" (Johannes Quasten, Patrology [Westminster, MD: Newman
Press, 1960], 3:338; see Jerome, Comm. in Is. 5.86 [Roger Gryson, ed., Commentaires de Jerome sur Le Prophete Isaie {Freiburg:
Herder, 1993}, 611]). Wallace-Hadrill concludes against Jerome: "The proportion of the total number of verses of Isaiah which Eusebius allegorises is hardly sufficient cause for complaint that he deserts the literal sense" (Eusebius of Caesarea, 83). Perhaps
Jerome is reflecting on Eusebius's statement: "And we already observed in the preface to this commentary, sometimes the prophetic message is to be rendered literally and not allegorically, and sometimes, when the people are unwilling to listen, the spirit is forced to express the prophecy as an allegory" (Comm. in Is. 11:15; see also 19:5-7). xxix
Commentary on Isaiah interprets the "ox" and the "bear" as those boorish people who are able to understand only the literal sense. Eusebius's voice is here indistinguishable from Origen's: "There are savage and coarse people who understand only the literal interpretation of the graces of the divine Scripture. The divine Scripture is the nourishing word of souls, but its secrets escape the notice of our minds, for the meaning is surrounded by a husk."40 In Comm. in Is.
19:18, Eusebius interprets the five cities of Egypt that swear allegiance to the Lord as standing allegorically for the five offices of the church: bishops, elders, deacons, the enlightened and those who merely attend services.41 In passages where one would anticipate a more historical reading, Eusebius surprises his modern reader with an allegory: the "rock" on which Jesus promised to build his church in Matthew 16:18 is the gospel.42 In passages where one would imagine an elaborate allegory as more appropriate, Eusebius restricts his comments to a historical scope: the "wine and milk" that Isaiah encourages one to buy without money reminds Eusebius that milk used to be administered alongside the wine of the Eucharist to newly baptized Christians.43
As has been noted previously by many scholars, as Caesarea lies somewhere between Alexandria and Antioch, so Eusebius's exegesis lies somewhere between the Alexandrian school of interpretation and the Antiochene school.44 Perhaps Eusebius's first and last principle of interpretation is what Christian exegetes would come to call the analogia fidei, that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. Eusebius's most consistent hermeneutical principle is to introduce the reader to other passages of Scripture that share a common vocabulary and theological theme.45 Robert Louis Wilken, who has investigated Eusebius's commentary on Isaiah extensively, writes enlighteningly: "In contrast to modern theological writings in which the Bible is cited in support of theological ideas, and hence
40Comm. in Is. 11:7; cf. Origen, First Principles 4.1.20; see also Eusebius, Comm. in Is. 59:10.
41See also Comm. in Is. 42:11-12.
42Comm. in Is. 28:16.
43"And you should not be ignorant of the fact that, in former times, mystical milk was administered to those who were born again in Christ along with the body and blood of the new covenant. And, they say that this custom is preserved in certain churches still even now. But, if this text is not interpreted according to the literal sense, the mystical blood of Christ is administered to those who are deemed worthy of regeneration in Christ instead of wine and instead of milk" (Comm. in Is. 55:1; cf. Tertullian,
De Corona 3). Wallace-Hadrill remarks in reference to Eusebius's other treatises: "Allegorical reference to the Eucharist is conspicuously absent from these works" (Eusebius of Caesarea, 90).
44Hollerich articulates Eusebius's exegetical aim about as precisely as can be done: "We will see that for Eusebius the difference between 'literal' (historical) and 'spiritual' interpretation meant something like the difference between fact and interpretation.
His blend of literal and spiritual interpretation was marked by a dedication to grammatical analysis of the text, an acceptance of the church's traditional apologetic exegesis, a belief in the supernatural inspiration of biblical prophecy, a moderate and cautious exploitation of figurative interpretation, and a vivid sense of the hand of God in the events of his own day" (Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Isaiah, 67).
45This, too, may be read as a heritage from Origen, as Ronald E. Heine explains: "A third premise of Origen's hermeneutic is that the way one discovers the hidden meaning of a passage of Scripture is by searching for 'similar expressions . . . scattered about in the Scriptures' (Princ. 4.3.5). Origen expresses the principle in the language of the Hebrew teacher who told him the story about the house full of locked rooms whose keys lay scattered about" (Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church [Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2010], 135). Heine elaborates: "One way Origen enters this hidden world of Scripture is by using the principle that he had learned from 'the Hebrew' in his early days at Alexandria and which he labeled with the Pauline phrase of 'comparing spiritual things with spiritual.' He searches in Scripture for all the other occurrences of a key word in his text and uses these other contexts to suggest nuances of meaning for the target text" (ibid., 208). xxx
Translator's Introduction usually relegated to the footnotes, in the early church words of the Bible were the linguistic skeleton for the exposition of ideas."46 Eusebius's constant comparison of the Greek of the Septuagint with the translations of Symmachus, Aquila and Theodotion tells us that Eusebius searched for possible theological significance in even the minutest exchange of synonyms.47 For Eusebius, the task of the text critic and the exegete—as well as the task of the historian, geographer and philosopher—is one and the same. Eusebius was a polymath, and precisely for this reason his theory of interpretation cannot be perfectly described according to professional standards of any one discipline. But, perhaps also precisely for this reason, Eusebius has something new to offer every reader. Sometimes breathtakingly brilliant, sometimes unspeakably mundane, Eusebius's commentary on Isaiah deserves fresh study today.
Eusebius works his way systematically through the entire text of Isaiah. Of course, the Scriptures were then not divided into chapter and verse, and the amount of text that Eusebius comments on per section in his commentary varies. The words in italics in this translation represent quotations from the passage on which Eusebius comments in the specific section. Where the Greek of Eusebius's Old Testament citations correspond exactly with the Greek of Alfred Rahlfs's Septuagint, I used nets as a neutral translation for this project.48 Where the Greek of Eusebius's New Testament citations correspond exactly with the Greek of the UBS4 New Testament, I used the rsv as a neutral translation of the text. Not infrequently, the full sense of Eusebius's comments cannot be understood without reference to the Septuagint text of the specific passage from Isaiah. In the text of this translation, boldface, bracketed numbers reflect Scripture passages or the page numbers in the critical text of Eusebius's commentary. It should be readily apparent which are chapter and verse numbers and which are page numbers.
Eusebius and the Jews A word on Eusebius's attitude toward the Jews is necessary. Only a few months after beginning the translation of the text, I discovered that the commentary is littered with language that one would classify as anti-Semitic in the contemporary theological milieu.
Alarmed by the prejudiced and disparaging statements that I encountered, I approached my mentor about the possibility of producing an abridged version of the commentary in which the anti-Semitic lines were expunged. In the course of our conversations, it became clear that such a version of the commentary would be neither fair nor serviceable to either
46Robert Louis Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2003), 43. Kannengieser echoes this conclusion in his analysis: "[Eusebius] also quotes other biblical books, literally or by paraphrasing them, in such a massive frequency that his own writing seems entirely permeated by Scripture" (Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 2:677).
47It should be noted that Eusebius also appeals to the various Greek translations of the Old Testament in his other exegetical and apologetic works, and therefore this feature is not unique to Eusebius's exposition of Isaiah. See Wallace-Hadrill, Eusebius of Caesarea, 87.
48Benjamin G. Wright and Albert Pietersma, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). xxxi
Commentary on Isaiah the modern Christian or Jewish reader. I henceforth proceeded to translate the text as faithfully and clearly as possible, but I then decided that a candid discussion of Eusebius's attitude toward the Jews would be a mandatory part of the introduction.
At first it seems that Eusebius misses few opportunities to interpret the oracles of judgment as literal or allegorical condemnations of the Jews. At the beginning of the commentary, in his comments on Isaiah 1:1, Eusebius plainly states his understanding that Isaiah "informs the listener that the entire case of his prophecy is against the Jewish nation." One can imagine that Eusebius's statements perhaps read more innocently seventeen centuries ago, but today one can only read them as injurious: "The Holy Spirit convicts the Jewish nation and considers them miserable and the worst of all nations, since they derive profit neither from their adoption as sons, nor from the honor of which they were deemed worthy by God."49 Egregiously, Eusebius blames the Jews for the crucifixion of the Christ,50 frequently claiming that the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70 was a direct punishment for the rejection of the Messiah. Eusebius blatantly advocates replacement theology—that is, Eusebius believes that God's chosen people are no longer the Jews but now Christian Gentiles. Speaking in reference to the "godly polity," the blessed rule of God among his people, Eusebius writes: "This government was organized by the Jewish people long ago, but it has since collapsed, and now from out of the whole world it has been raised up again in the church of Christ and has been 'founded on the rock.'"51
Eusebius's enthusiasm for Constantine's favorable policies toward Christians is to be expected, but his appeal to this favor as an argument that God has abandoned the Jews is theologically indefensible and unchristian.
Eusebius's anti-Semitic statements are as obvious as they are painful, and I therefore will not reproduce them all here. However, lest I prejudice the reader against Eusebius as an anti-Semite and thereby preclude an opened and balanced analysis of Eusebius's theological legacy, it is appropriate that I not leave the statements in which Eusebius expresses hope and goodwill for the Jews unmentioned. Eusebius indeed blames the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus, but he nevertheless also states that forgiveness can be granted even for this sin and that the Jews can receive salvation.52 In his discussion of Isaiah 1:27, although Eusebius declares dogmatically that the Jews will never be regathered to the Holy
Land, still he interprets the phrase "its captivity shall be saved with judgment and with 49Comm. in Is. 1:2-3.
50See also Comm. in Is. 1:31; 5:2-7, 11-17; 6:11-13; 22:2-3, 4-6; 27:12-13; 29:3; 33:3-4; 50:4-5, 9; 51:4, 17; 52:4-5; 59:3, 11-12,
14-18. At the same time, Eusebius can also say that the apostle Paul was "in all ways and all over stained with the blood of the Savior" in his persecution of the church (Comm. in Is. 4:4). After a particularly stinging passage in which Eusebius blames the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ, Eusebius yet adds, "one could apply these general principles and this generic threat to all who are wise in their own conceit" (Comm. in Is. 5:21-23), therefore indicating that his fervor was not always directed uniquely against the Jews.
51Comm. in Is. 1:25-26. Concerning Eusebius's theme of the "godly polity," see especially Hollerich, Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Isaiah, 103.
52Comm. in Is. 53:9-10. xxxii
Translator's Introduction mercy" as a reference to the Jews who shall convert to Christianity and be saved.53 In Comm. in Is. 7:21-25, although Eusebius can say that "since the captivity in Babylon and the uprising from that place, the Jews have been in the most extreme poverty regarding
God," yet in the same paragraph Eusebius also says that the one who is nourished from the "one young cow and two sheep" represents the one "who after careful study may gain one or two lessons from the Jewish teachings."54 In Comm. in Is. 25:6-8, in which context the Lord promises to prepare a feast for all nations, Eusebius notes that the feast of eternal salvation will be "neither for Israel nor the Jewish people exclusively but for all nations."55 In his comments on Isaiah 41:9, Eusebius interprets those whom the Lord called from the ends of the earth as the Jews, adding: "For there were many Jews who welcomed the word of Christ during the apostolic times, not only in the land of Judea but also in the other nations."56 Eusebius indeed blames the Jews for the destruction of Jerusalem, but he also can embrace the Jewish foundations of Christianity: "For just as the Jews were responsible for its destruction, so again they became the builders of the new structure—the apostles of our Savior and the disciples and evangelists, through whom the Church of God was raised up from the nations."57 One final passage in which Eusebius appears to voice a ray of hope for the Jews should be reviewed:
And he then says there shall be a pure way, and it shall be called a holy way. And one could say that this way leads to the thrice-blest destination "of the heavenly city of God," and the Savior spoke of this way when he said: "I am the way." Therefore, the saving word directs those who go to the Father and into the kingdom of heaven through him. It is prophesied that only the saints will be permitted to travel the way established in the wilderness, and it is evident that no one who is unclean shall pass through this way. But he also says those who have been dispersed shall walk on it. And who are these ones if not those who were once scattered abroad by God and who had wandered far from the truth? For these ones shall run back again and, after finding the straight and steady way, they shall walk in it.58
Eusebius does not specifically mention the Jews, and therefore some scholars may not admit this as evidence to inform our understanding of Eusebius's attitude toward the Jews. In my judgment, the most reasonable conclusion is that Eusebius is speaking of the Jews when he says that the people "who were once scattered abroad by God and who had wandered far from the truth" shall be restored to the way of salvation.
53See also Comm. in Is. 60:1-2.
54In Comm. in Is. 32:20, too, Eusebius can affirm: "Therefore, because the apostles of our Savior cast the gospel seed 'to the Jews first and afterwards to the Greeks,' the text rightly says: Happy is the one who sows beside every water, where ox and donkey tread.
In this context, water alludes to the inspired Scriptures, which were treaded out by the Jews and the people of the nations."
55See also Comm. in Is. 61:8.
56See also Comm. in Is. 43:13; 48:17-19.
57Comm. in Is. 49:17.
58Comm. in Is. 35:7-8. xxxiii
Commentary on Isaiah Conclusion Eusebius produced four monumental works during his life, the first pair apologetic in nature and the second pair exegetical: the Praeparatio Evangelica, the Demonstratio Evangelica, the Commentary on the Psalms and the Commentary on Isaiah. In his first apologetic work, Eusebius aims to demonstrate the religious superiority of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and in the second, he seeks to explain the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity. Eusebius's exegetical works are best set within the scope of his grander, apologetic project. In his Commentary on Isaiah, Eusebius advances his longstanding apologetic aim of demonstrating the superiority of Christianity—in this case, the superiority of the Christian reading of Scripture over the Jewish reading. But, as Brevard Childs writes, Eusebius understood that the message of Isaiah was neither for Gentile nor Jew alone but for all peoples: "The flow of the nations to Mount Zion in search of the law of Christ sounds the book's preeminent note: the revelation of a universal salvation culminating in the ingathering of all nations."59 The reason for Eusebius's selection of Isaiah is clear—Isaiah inspired the apostolic vision of Jesus' messianic mission. Jesus communicated the purpose of his own ministry in the language of Isaiah, and therefore the prophecies of Isaiah are part of the very definition of the gospel. This is the message that Eusebius hoped to elucidate in his commentary, and this is the message that I hope will be conveyed in this translation.
59Brevard Childs, The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 85. xxxiv