Anthony Grafton and Megan Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press 2006). ISBN 13: 978-0-674-02314-7 and ISBN 10: 0-674-02314-5. $29.95.

Reviewed by Mary C. Sheridan

This book left me, initially, with a loss for words, (which loss I’ll soon overcome) because I had conflicting responses as I read this book. These conflicting responses were:

My anticipation was that I would be in awe of the accomplishments of Origen and perhaps for those of Eusebius. I looked forward to a discussion of these men and their works as neither of these men have been a concentration of study for me. I have heard what a vast genius Origen was; I have also heard that Eusebius "could not be entirely trusted." So my expectation was that I would have the opportunity to make my own decisions regarding each of these men, and I looked forward to finding out that Eusebius was a misunderstood scholar who would prove to be trustworthy.

However, the other, second, response while reading this book was that I was often confused, thinking that I was wandering around in a mass of material that seemed somehow "messy." It took me some time to figure out why I felt so conflicted about this book. What I finally discovered was that these authors spent many pages discussing a topic that led me down a path I thought was going some place only to tell me at the end of a lengthy discussion that this path most likely was not the "right" path. Then a paragraph would follow of what the "right" concept might be. I found this "misleading" tendency of the authors frustrating.

Third, there was also an issue of my disagreeing with minor points of the writing and composition of the material. Normally, I would consider these points almost irrelevant in evaluating a book; everybody has his/her own style.  Yet as I proceeded through the book to the end, these minor points accumulated.  I realized that what I first thought were minor issues sometimes became areas where I found myself saying, "What does this sentence/paragraph really mean?"

In general Grafton and Williams (hereafter G&W) attempt too much and lose their focus in this book. They want to cover the history of the book from the first century to the twenty-first century. So, G&W start with a discussion of Johannes Trithemius (1462-1516), move back in time to "a vast technical literature" that "began to flourish in later antiquity," and jump forward to this technical literature "exploding in the last four decades."  This "jumping around" from period to period had me wondering just what it was G&W wanted to say. Furthermore, I found that to trace down a particular topic or even a point the authors wanted to make I had to refer back and forth among pages in a chapter and even between chapters. Such scattering of material actually hinders the reader’s ability to ferret out information on the main topics.

Let me try to find the gems of information hidden within the introduction of this book. Origen and Eusebius lived in a time of "seismic cultural change…when one regime of book production and storage supplanted another, and when the nature and practices of Christian scholarship were being redefined" (p. 6).  Origen and Eusebius built upon the intellectual tradition and the written materials of their time and "developed these in new directions" (p. 7). As Origen’s and Eusebius’ "technical mastery of the production of complex books" developed, these two masters used their newfound "technical mastery [as] the basis of new kinds of intellectual authority which in turn shaped new modes of scholarly inquiry" (p. 7). In addition Grafton and Williams state that they will show that Eusebius took the writing of books from the support of private patrons to the support of institutions. We learn in Chapter Four that Eusebius was the first to use his office as bishop to promote the Library at Caesarea and the work done there; later Eusebius was commissioned by Constantine to produce copies of the Scriptures. Thus, Eusebius, who started with the private patronage of Pamphilus moved to using the ecclesial institution to support his work and eventually garnered governmental support for his work from Constantine.

G&W propose a fresh look at "key terms like ‘book’ and ‘library.’ " The "basic physical form of the book was in a state of flux" in the second to fourth century (p. 10).  Initially, "books" at the time "consisted of rolls" held in "vast sets of pigeonholes" or in "Capsae—round leather cases."  These Capsae contained smaller collections and made rolls portable (p. 10). Codices (singular codex) were made of wood, parchment (animal skin), or papyrus (plant material) that were bound together in the early form of the book (p. 10). However, G&W note that the "transition from roll to codex happened only very gradually." Both forms were in use for at least 150 years or more (p. 16). The codex developed eventually into the "book" and came to contain "far longer, or far more, texts than any single roll could."  So in its beginning the codex functioned as a "small library" (p. 12). [1] But G&W caution the modern reader not to conjure up modern images when the words "book" and "library" are used referring to the time period in discussion (p. 11). In addition the book (roll or codex) "held social and emotional charges" (p. 14) that it does not hold today. The roll or codex "was not a commodity, but had a status closer to that of a work of art" (p. 14). G&W point out that the rolls and codices of antiquity "served as particularly powerful expressions of links between like-minded members of an inward-looking social group" (p. 14). Here I think of the early house churches and especially of the Gnostics. Giving a book to a person in the time we are discussing (and even long after) was no small gift but was a "bid for favors in return, perhaps in the form of offices and benefactions" (p. 14).

In calling attention to how the reader must alter his/her idea of a library, G&W tell us that there "was no publishing industry" in those days; the ancient library "had to include facilities for the making of books" (p. 13).  The library in ancient times was a "means of storing cultural capital in material form" (p. 14). [2]

The materials in the library "made the library a privileged locus for the accumulation of storage of influence [emphasis added] (p. 14). G&W hold that Origen and Eusebius were

pioneering Christian scholars [who] devised new genres of learned literature….At the same time, they created new settings for book production and consumption: scriptoria [often part of the library] that could turn out complex and even unprecedented works of technical literature and libraries where the sources they drew upon were assembled (p. 15).

Thus, what we consider the publication of a book was part of the library.

But these revolutionary men had one problem. To put the problem bluntly in modern terms: Who would "bank roll" them so they could devote their lives to the vast projects they undertook? Thus, Origen and Eusebius both had to have "patrons." G&W discuss the patrons of Origen and Eusebius in the particular chapters devoted to each man. More on this later.

G&W note Origen "devoted a vast amount of time and effort to refuting both pagan critics of Christianity and wrong-headed Christians like the Gnostics [emphasis added] whom he condemned as heretics" (p. 16).  The term "wrong-headed" referring to the Gnostics is a debatable term in this context. Perhaps G&W are using hindsight to label as "wrong-headed" groups of Christians who were in a state of flux when it came to exactly what Christianity would be and would include. G&W, however, do admit that Origen learned "a vast amount" from "Clement of Alexandria and Jewish thinkers like Philo" and also from the "Gnostic and pagans" (p. 16). I wonder then, how to reconcile these two seemingly conflicting statements: In one sentence the Gnostics are labeled "wrong-headed" and in another they are acclaimed for the "vast amount" Origen and Eusebius learned from them.

G&W observe that Origen (184-254 C.E.) wrote a "massive exegetical corpus" (p. 16). They tell us that massive amounts of Origen’s writings have, sadly, "sunk almost without a trace, yet even the debris that remains is of monumental proportions" (p. 16). The words "sunk…without a trace" leave one heartsick. 

The authors note that, while both agreed on the contents of the book and reviewed each other’s work. Megan Williams wrote Chapters One and Two on Origen; and Anthony Grafton wrote Chapters Three and Four on Eusebius. Although the specific chapters are written by individual authors, G&W themselves call attention to the fact that "each of us has intervened so often in the other’s sections that the whole book is really our joint work" (pp. xii-xiii).  But because G&W specify that one author "researched and drafted" (p. xii) his/her own specific chapters, I will refer to Williams in Chapters One and Two and to Grafton in Chapters Three and Four. When discussing the "Coda," I will return to referring to both authors.

I expected to "dig right into" the works of Origen with the first chapter, but I could not get a focus on this chapter. I discovered there is no outline to the chapter. Most of the text of this book was written the way two people talk informally, starting with one topic, moving to another, returning to the first topic, switching to a third topic, etc. However, such informal conversational mode is not best used in a scholarly text. [3]  

To illustrate: Williams discusses Origen and the Middle Platonists and Neoplatonists; she includes discussion on Porphyry, Ammonius Saccas, and Plotinus. She goes on to discuss what philosophy was and how philosophers lived and debated.  She then talks about Sophists, Longinus, Stoics, the excavation of the Library at Herculaneum, the Epicureans, and Philodemus. She continues with a discussion of how the philosopher lived, includes a discussion about Numenius and the Pythagoreans. She discusses Jerome. With each one of these philosophers and the discussion about him, Williams states something about Origen and how he was or was not influenced by these philosophers. Williams uses Origen in "reaction" to the philosopher. It would seem to me that in a book with Origen in its title and in a chapter on Origen, he should be the main focus in any discussion.

A discussion about the "evolution of the school" at Alexandria diverts to a discussion about the population of Christians during the second to fourth centuries and Lampe’s book. [4] The chapter concludes with a discussion of how Origen supported himself in his endeavors but then diverts to a discussion of Rabbinic culture and Hellenistic Judaism and their influences on Origen. 

Williams notes that Origen is represented by his biographers as sui generis—the founder, the beginner of generations. Williams maintains Origen had the idea that philosophy was important, but foreign and, therefore, dangerous. Her discussion covers pages 22-24. But buried in a footnote (p. 296, n 9) is the crucial point in the discussion regarding Origen and his study of philosophy.  Williams notes in the footnote that "Origen’s powers as a biblical exegete…include[d] all fields of inquiry under one (hyperbolic) umbrella." Quoting Gregory Thaumaturgus, Williams continues:

For that reason [because Origen considered nothing out of his field of inquiry] nothing was unspeakable…for us, nothing was hidden and inaccessible; rather it was possible for us to learn every field of knowledge [logos], both barbarian and Greek, whether connected with religious secrets or with public affairs, both divine and human.

In this quote buried in a footnote Gregory T. does not seem to be describing any philosophy that was "dangerous" nor really "foreign" to Christianity.  Rather Gregory T. tells us that Origen was a man interested in every kind of learning that could in any way contribute to the material he was studying.  If Origen was truly the genius the authors depict, if Origen was truly the sui generis, burying this crucial argument in a footnote is a gross error. Some readers may never read a footnote.

Williams tells us Origen’s patron was Ambrose a "wealthy layman who would be his patron for the rest of his [Origen’s] life" and that both men "saw themselves as engaged in a joint pursuit of deeply Christian ends, passionate and ascetic" (p. 78).  

On page 82 Williams jumps from a discussion of Origen’s study of the original Hebrew Old Testament, to his being a unique Greek scholar, to a statement that other philosophers studied only Greek translations of the Hebrew texts, back to Origen’s serious consideration of "the exegesis of his Jewish contemporaries."  Why not state directly: Origen, unique from all the other philosophers of his time, studied the sources of the works that were of interest to him in their original language, specifically, Hebrew. Secondly, Origen’s study in the original languages of Hebrew and Aramaic is important because by the second and third century "Hebrew had lost all significance" for Jews.  Many "Jews in the Roman world…knew no Hebrew, or very little. They relied on Greek translations for their access to the Scriptures. The language of their liturgy, like that of the inscriptions that adorn their synagogues, commemorate their dedications, and mark their graves, was…Greek" (p. 84).  Williams concludes this chapter noting that Origen, a Christian, gave "ultimate expression" to the Hellenized Jewish culture of the Roman world.

Although Williams launches directly into a study and explanation of the Hexapla, I still found this chapter somewhat confusing; again, the writing seemed to wander all over the place, my constant complaint about this book.

Williams notes that the "Old Testament was originally composed in Hebrew" (p. 86) except for the Books of Daniel and Job which were originally composed in Aramaic (p. 315, note 1). Williams simply uses the terms "Old Testament" and "Septuagint" interchangeably. However, the Septuagint was the very first translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek and, therefore, holds a special place in any discussion of the Old Testament.

By the time of Origen, Williams notes, "Christians and Hellenized Jews read it [the Septuagint] in any of a number of Greek versions that often differed both from the original and from one another. No classical text existed in so wide a variety of forms" (p. 86). Origen’s massive contribution in writing the Hexapla "brought many of these together in a single, radically innovative work" (p. 86). Furthermore, Williams notes the Hexapla was "[c]omplex, difficult to produce, and extremely expensive, its execution would have required tremendous resources both in terms of patronage and in terms of learning and labor" (p. 86). So the main two points contained in the rest of this chapter are: exactly what the Hexapla was and exactly what and who the production of this work included.

Tragically, this massive work of Origen does not survive; one can only grieve at its loss. What a treasure trove we would have if only one copy of this massive work had survived. [5]   Williams tells us that even "Origen himself never refers to the Hexapla" (p. 87). How astonishing! But, Williams gives us no further information about this fact. Are there not even any speculations about why Origen himself never referred to the Hexapla?

Now exactly: What was the Hexapla? Frankly, no one knows; but Williams notes that it is possible to ferret out a "reasonably secure and detailed reconstruction of the original work" (p. 87); but we must keep in mind and remain "in full awareness that every detail is controversial" (p. 88).  So we must remember that all that follows is conjecture. However, Williams tells us that there is some information about the physical form of the Hexapla, and that information comes from some "fourth-century Christian writers [who] had the opportunity to examine the Hexapla." Furthermore, there are "two fragmentary copies of the work [that] preserve material from the original" (p. 87).

Williams gives a brief description of what the Hexapla might have looked like. Across "Two halves of the original folio" (p. 98) were six columns:

Column One: The Hebrew text in Hebrew letters.

Column Two: The Greek transliteration of Hebrew text.

Column Three: The Greek version of Aquila. This column was a hyper-literal version of the Hebrew.

Column Four: The Greek version of Symmachus. This version was "more fluent" (p. 88). However, Williams does not tell us which version(s) Symmachus’ version was compared to.

Column Five: The Septuagent itself. In this column Origen "adopted the Jewish scribal convention of writing the name of God in square Hebrew letters" (p. 88). [6]

Column Six: The version of Theodotian which was a "Jewish product of the Roman period, drawing on a Hebrew tradition similar to that which underlay the work of Aquila, though its Greek was less heavily semiticizing" (pp. 88-89).

These columns of the Hexapla were set across "two halves of the original folio" (p. 98).

Another possible set up of columns in the Hexapla was that "some books of the Bible, particularly those written in verse" had "as many as three additional columns containing anonymous Greek translations" that "appeared to the right" of the Version by Theodotian (p. 89). Jerome not only describes this version, he consulted the "original [Hexapla] at Caesarea" and possessed "Hexaplaric volumes of his own, which he used extensively in his translations and commentaries" (pp. 91 and 92).

Williams also states that the section of the Hexapla on the "Pentateuch may also have included a column containing the Samaritan text" (p. 89). This Samaritan text is of interest because the Samaritans were "descendants of the Assyrians sent to colonize the Northern Kingdom (or Samaria…) when it had been conquered and the indigenous Israelites deported. Some of the new inhabitants had subsequently adopted the religion of Israel." Thus, the Samaritans had a version of the Hebrew Scriptures, however changed it became over the centuries. Because of the syncretism of the Samaritans’ original non-Jewish religion(s) with Judaism, their Pentateuch must have varied from the various versions of the Pentateuch the Jews had. [7]

Furthermore, Williams calls attention to an issue of particular interest about the columns of the Hexapla, however many there were. This is a mistake that not only the ancient reader made but that even the modern reader appears to make. Williams tell us that the ancient "reader would interpret the order of the columns as [being in an] historical [order]"—which they are not (p. 94).  Origen placed columns in a particular order only for comparison purposes, not historical purposes. Origen was interested in comparing the text of the various "editions" of the Hebrew Scriptures and had no interest in any historical comparison.

Williams tells us that the Hexapla was actually used by Jerome, that Eusebius testifies to its content and existence but notes that what Eusebius "says can probably [emphasis added] be trusted" (p. 89), and that "[t]wo other fourth-century writers, Epiphanius of Salamis and Rufinus, also refer to the Hexapla, describing it in terms that corroborate the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome" (p. 92).

Williams spends perhaps ten pages or more of this chapter discussing scholarly debates about the Hexapla: the opinions of ancient and modern scholars on just what constituted the Hexapla and what the Hexapla might have looked like.  She also includes a discussion of codices and their development. Williams does tell us that it is possible to develop a picture of what the original Hexapla might have been. She describes it "as a veritable library in itself, a collection that would fill almost forty codices of 400 leaves (800 pages) each" (p. 105).

Imagine such a work! Imagine versions of the many books of the Old Testament. Then imagine this entire opus, at least six versions, all arranged in columns. Further, imagine how many "volumes" this text would occupy. Such a "book" would indeed be a library in its own right and take up the space of a library. In fact isn’t the term "book" inappropriate when applied to the Hexapla? Then imagine what Origen accomplished. Lastly, we are left only to grieve the loss of this work of inestimable value.

Williams discusses the production of the Hexapla. It "must have presented a major logistical challenge to the scribes who created and reproduced" (p. 105) the columns of the Hexapla (however they were arranged). She notes that for the Hexapla the "papyrus or parchment…pages were probably ruled beforehand, to lay out the columns into which the various texts were then written" (p. 106), then these individual pages were "later assembled and bound" (p. 105).  So: "We can only begin to imagine how Origen and his scribes worked together to create the complex guidelines necessary to govern the arrangement of the many columns, especially when we consider that their number differed from one biblical book to another" (p. 106).

Following this train of thought, even one "copy [of] the Hexapla was extraordinarily expensive" (p. 106). Williams gives estimates in denarii from the times of what the cost of one copy of the Hexapla would cost. Using the information supplied, I came up with a figure that only one copy of the Hexapla would cost the equivalent of a full year’s pay for a laborer. (See p. 106 and p. 324 notes 39, 41, 42, 43, and 44). Who could afford such a book?  Williams tells us only the very richest. She then notes the "Hexapla would have been well within the reach of a bishop like Cornelius of Rome in the 250s" (p. 107)

Two questions remain to be discussed by Williams in this chapter. (But as we will see, these "two" questions soon morph into many questions.) First:  "[W]hat cultural resources did Origen draw upon in assembling the Jewish materials he used"? And second, "how did the work itself fit into his larger program of philological research?" (p. 107). Again, the perennial problem of this book: The answers to these two questions are intertwined, become "foggy", and one is left to sort out what answers belong to which question—and even if answers are given. But the questions are the following.

The first question is actually divided into three interesting questions: 

First: "Where did Origen obtain" the materials he used in composing his Hexapla (p. 107)?

Second: "[H]ow did he have access to the skills necessary to copy them into his six-column Old Testament?" (p. 107).

Third: The last question has to do with a topic I have not so far addressed in this review—what Williams calls the "critical signs." These "signs" were an "obelus that Origen used to distinguish material in the Septuagint that was absent from the Hebrew tradition and the asterisk with which he marked material lacking in the Septuagint but present in the Hebrew" (p. 108). 

Williams tells us scholars debate a "problem of the fifth column" (p. 108).  There is a question of whether these signs were present in the Hexapla or whether they were "part of a separate project, a recension of the Septuagint that reflected its divergences from the Hebrew tradition" (p. 108). What exactly does Williams mean by the "separate project"? Does she mean that the "separate project" was Origen’s? Or does she mean that there was some other project done by Jewish scholars? After several readings of this material on page 108, I came to the following conclusion: We are left to guess that most likely Williams and her partner think that the "problem of the fifth column" was a separate project of Origen’s.

Williams goes on to raise additional extremely interesting questions:

One: "Why did Origen create it" [the Hexapla]?

Two: "[H]ow did he use it?"

Three: "What…motivated this immense undertaking?" (p. 108). Williams states that she relies heavily on the work of Ruth Clements who has "reexamined many of these problems" (p. 108).

How did Origen actually make the comparison in the columns of the Hexapla?  Williams continues to ask further questions, namely: "[O]nly someone who could read both Hebrew and Greek with confidence could correlate the Hebrew columns of the Hexapla with the Greek" (p. 108). But this Hebrew/Greek comparison leads to another issue: The Hebrew of the Septuagint was very different from the Hebrew actually used by Jewish scholars of Origen’s time. So, how did Origen go about comparing the Hebrew in the Septuagint with the Greek of his day?

In an extended discussion (109-114), Williams states the possible answers to the above issues in the form of more questions:

First: Did Jews before Origen produce scholarly works that compared the various Greek translations with the original Septuagint?

Second: Did Origen have an assistant who was fluent in Hebrew? Scholars speculate that perhaps such an assistant or informant was a Jew who was a Christian convert (p. 112).

Third: Did Origen know enough Hebrew to compare the Hebrew with the Greek in the columns of the Hexapla? But, Williams notes that when Origen did use Hebrew, he made many mistakes; so Origen likely did not himself do the transliteration of the Septuagint (p.112). Interspersed within this discussion is the speculation that perhaps in Alexandria Origen started with a four-column "version" of the Hexapla and expanded it in Caesarea to the greater, final work (pp. 113-114).

Fourth: Had a Jewish scholar done a pre-existing Hebrew transliteration or synopsis of the Septuagint into Greek, thus eliminating the need for the "assistant" or the "informant"? (p. 113).

Fifth: Williams notes that perhaps all of the above four "helps" may have aided Origen in his work on the Hexapla.

Concluding this aspect of the discussion on why Origen created the Hexapla in the first place and after over a hundred pages of telling the reader about the astonishing work the Hexapla was, Williams disappointingly and confusingly states that perhaps "the Hexapla was not unique, [emphasis added] as its cost and complexity might suggest, but spawned a range of imitations and adaptations intended for a variety of users" (p. 114). But once again: Exactly what does this sentence mean? Did others plagiarize Origen’s work? Why would plagiarism of Origen’s work diminish the unique quality of his Hexapla?

Now to the question of "What…motivated this immense undertaking" of the writing of the Hexapla (p. 108). Again, Williams states that the "question will prove difficult to answer" and that the "evidence is scarce and ambiguous, even contradictory, and there has been no consensus as to its interpretation" (p. 117). Williams gives us opinions of scholars such as Swete, Nautin, Brock, Kamesar, and Clements. These scholars’ opinions are as follows:

First: Some scholars think there had been recensions in Hebrew of the original Septuagint and that these recensions were poor revisions of the original translation of the Septuagint.

Second: Others claimed Origen "created the Hexapla to assist him in reconstructing the original Hebrew [emphasis in original] text of the Old Testament" (p. 117).

Third: Origen wanted to expand the exegesis of the Old Testament (p. 118). 

Fourth: The Hexapla was an attempt to subsume a version of the Hebrew tradition within the sphere of Christian truth, so as to turn that weapon against both internal Christian opponents and Jewish interlocutors at Caesarea" (p. 118). 

Stated another way:

Origen clearly expresses his belief that the Septuagint text in use among Christians had been providentially provided for them, and that it therefore embodied an independent expression of the divine inspiration of Scripture. By contrast, he relegated the texts in the possession of the Jews to a lower level of authority (p. 121).

Thus, according to this fourth argument, Origen wanted the Hexapla as a polemic tool.

Williams also notes that Origen’s "acute sense of the dangerous attraction that Jews, and their biblical manuscripts, held out to…Christians…seems less like theologically inspired paranoia than a realistic assessment of the situation" (p. 124). But—once again hidden within a footnote (p. 328, n81)—may be the real motive for Origen’s "dangerous attraction to things Jewish." Williams states: "We would suggest that…mere Christian legitimacy, rather than ‘hegemony,’ was still the real stake in the debates with Jews in the mid-third century."  Thus, perhaps the problem was not polemics but insecurity on the part of the Christians; they themselves needed to feel a bedrock of legitimacy for their religion—and the Hexapla would have been a strong tool in shoring up the security of the Christians vis-à-vis the other religions of the time, especially the Jewish religion. Again: Why bury such a strong point in a footnote?

Williams concludes her discussion of the Hexapla, stating that it "was one of the greatest single monuments of…scholarship, and the first serious product of the application to Christian culture of the tools of Greek philology and criticism" (p. 131). She further notes that Origen’s "creation was not merely expensive; its design pushed the limits of third-century book technology.  Without abundant support from private patrons, it could never have been made….the creation of the Hexapla drew upon…centuries-old tradition, that of Hellenistic Jewish biblical learning" (pp. 131-132). The "Hexapla exemplified the nascent Christian mode of scholarship" (p. 132).

"Eusebius lived from around 260 to 330 CE. One of the most prolific and original Christian writers of the fourth century, he also served from 314 CE until his death as bishop of Caesarea" (p. 133). Furthermore, Grafton extols Eusebius saying he "has often been imagined as the direct inheritor of Origen’s scholarly tradition" and even a kind of disciple and/or inferior imitator of Origen’s work (p. 133). Grafton also tells us

Eusebius went beyond his idolized predecessor on the conceptual level, by applying his formal innovations in book design and production to a range of problems of which Origen probably could not even have conceived. He also built an infrastructure for the production of learning, and of learned books, that far surpassed anything Origen could ever have imagined.  This infrastructure was supported by forms of patronage that had never before been available to Christian scholars, and yielded an institutional legacy that survived Eusebius for several centuries (p. 133).

Grafton tells us that he will do three things in this first chapter on Eusebius: 1) Detail "one of Eusebius’s most massive and influential works, his Chronicle, [8] which he seems to have completed…in the years around 300 CE." 2) "[R]econstruct the local circumstances that enabled Eusebius to produce it." 3) Concentrate "on the ways in which [Eusebius] built on Origen’s legacy" (p. 134).

Grafton also notes in his introduction to Eusebius that the "concern, in both chapters, [on Eusebius] will be to bring out Eusebius’s distinctive profile as scholar, writer, and impresario of research and book production. It will become clear that Eusebius’s scholarship both shaped and was shaped by the institutions he created" [emphasis added] (p. 135).

The "central theme" of Eusebius’ life was a "passionate interest in the spatial arrangement of texts for easy reference" (p. 141). Eusebius used these methods in the Chronicle. One use to which he put his chronology was to "prove" that "Moses was older than any Greek writer" (pp. 136-137). This sounds strangely similar to Clement of Alexandria who maintained that the Greeks had gotten many, if not most, of their ideas from Moses. [9] So was Eusebius’ contribution purely a technical one of spatial arrangement?

The Chronicle was a two-part work. Grafton tells us that the first part of the Chronicle, the Chronography, was basically an "encyclopedia or an "anthology of supporting evidence" (p. 152); but Grafton does not specify what this evidence supported. From the context of the paragraph it may be that Grafton means that Part One of the Chronicle eventually became supporting evidence to prove the information Eusebius put in Part Two of the Chronicle. (p. 160).

Eusebius also told the people of his day that the Bible was not history, noting the discrepancies in " ‘divergent forms in the Hebrew texts’ "(p. 159). Such a concept was extremely radical at the time.

Eusebius started with the idea that the "Hexapla played a central role in…reframing… world history" (p. 170). The entirety of Grafton’s Chapter Three is based on proving this point. In fact, Grafton notes that Origen’s Hexapla "laid out in columns, seems the obvious prototype for Eusebius’s effort to lay out time in the same way" (p. 142). In fact, the Hexapla was "one in a long series of brilliant and effective experiments in the processing of both information and texts, experiments by which [Eusebius] transformed the practice of scholarship" (p. 143).

Eusebius also went so far as to make changes in Origen’s Hexapla. It seems Eusebius did this correcting and annotating because he found that the "parallel columns of Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint texts [of the Hexapla] made clear…that biblical chronologies differed radically" (p. 169). But Origen was concerned with text; Eusebius was interested in spatial arrangement. Yet it seems spatial arrangement led Eusebius to contradictions he found in time problems. Though Grafton mentions this annotation and correction by Eusebius of Origen’s work several times, nowhere does he give even one example of such changes. Of course, neither the Hexapla nor the Chronicle is extant; so it may very well be that the only information about this comes from Eusebius’ saying that in other works of his that he made changes to Origen’s work. But Grafton does not tell us that piece of information.

Eusebius "offered his reader…two general results, one negative and one explicitly tentative: ‘first, that no one will fool himself into imagining…that he can achieve absolute certainty in chronological computation, and second, that everyone will know this is only intended as matter for debate’ " (pp. 167-168).  It seems to me, then, that Eusebius’ contribution was not limited to "spatial arrangement"; but his contribution was designed to get people re-thinking and reconsidering topics that they had never conceived of questioning. Even as a serendipitous result, getting people to rethink and reconsider what they have taken for granted for centuries is an important contribution to have made.

The "Chronicle…grew into something like a comprehensive political, religious, and cultural history of the ancient world, one that served until the sixteenth century as the richest single source of information for anyone interested in the history of human culture" (pp. 137-140). Other scholars, in particular Julius Africanus had attempted similar types of anthologies, but Eusebius’ Chronicle "redefined the enterprise of Christian chronography" and articulated a "radically different vision, at once complex and open, of the past" (p. 154). In short the Chronicle was a "scholarly genre that combined form and content, mise-en-page and erudition, in a new way" [emphasis added] (p. 142).

"Part One" of the Chronicle, the Chronography:  

The "scholarly basis" of Part One of Eusebius’ work was to note "what chronologers call key synchronisms between Greek, Roman, and Jewish history—years to which he could connect dates from more than one kingdom and calendar" (p. 136). Then he "used these—notably the synchronism of Moses with Cecrops [the half-man and half-snake who was the founder and first king of Athens [10] ]—as the grounds for arguing that Moses was older than any Greek writer" (pp. 136-137). Grafton quotes Eusebius:  " ‘I will divide the periods of those who ruled each people into separate sections, and I will lay out the numbers of each one’s years in the appropriate places across from one another, so that one can find out easily and quickly when any given person was’ " (pp. 140-141).

Grafton notes that the Chronography "resembled the anthologies of earlier sources that had formed a part of Hellenistic Jewish literature" (p. 154). Eusebius showed that the information available to scholars of the third and fourth centuries about the "ancient kingdoms of Egypt and Babylon could not be reconciled with the biblical account of human history" (p.154). Eusebius "denied that the Bible could support a firm chronology, and provided detailed comparative tables that proved the point" (p. 155).  Did Eusebius shock his readers? Or had other scholars tried to reconcile ancient cultures with the Old Testament in the same way Eusebius did? Grafton does not tell us. Grafton does say that in "its form, the Chronography resembled the anthologies of earlier sources that had formed a part of Hellenistic Jewish literature" (p. 154). So does Eusebius’ work differ from the work of other scholars in that he was the only one to state outright that ancient cultures and the Old Testament could not be reconciled? Grafton does not clearly state.

It actually seems that Eusebius may have started the Chronography, Book 1, for one purpose and ended up using it as an anthology of supporting evidence in which he included "chapter after chapter, [of] what Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and others had to say about the whole course of history" (p. 160). Grafton does employ, now and then, some descriptive analogies that catch one’s attention. For instance, he notes that the texts of the various cultures had passed through a "whitewater rapids" of "textual transmission which had left them battered and in part almost unrecognizable" (p. 160). 

Eusebius was not surprised by the differences in the textual histories from the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Greeks; it was the "core of the message" that "horrified Eusebius" (p. 160). For instance, Grafton tells us that Eusebius "longed to reject the Chaldeans’ long chronology" out of hand (p. 162); but Eusebius began to wonder. After an extended discussion, Grafton tells us that Eusebius felt he "could not solve all of the problems that confronted him" with regard to the fact that these various cultures had a longer history than was originally thought by Christian historians (p. 165). To Eusebius’ surprise, "data seemingly…implied… that the kingdom of Egypt had existed before the Flood" (p. 165). Grafton states this succinctly: "Eusebius…allowed different, and quit divergent, voices to speak in the first book of his chronology.  Though he suggested ways of harmonizing what they said, he also admitted, at least implicitly, that he could neither wholeheartedly reject nor perfectly explain their testimony" (p. 166).

Think of it! We simply take for granted such facts as the Egyptians having a longer history than the Jews; but Eusebius was an innovative radical in realizing this information and in actually putting it into Part One, the Chronography.  So, in Part One of the Chronicle, Eusebius followed Origen’s methodology.  Grafton notes:

Like Origen, he [Eusebius] produced not only a synthesis, but also a polyglot collection of research materials from which other scholars could draw what conclusions they liked. Like Origen, too, he took foreign traditions very seriously even when he set out to show that they were wrong on vital points (p. 166).

"Part Two" of the Chronicle, the Canon: 

In the second part of Eusebius’ major work, the Canon or Tables, he "did something completely different. He decided that he could draw up a precise, coherent, and schematic chronicle of world history, at least from the time of the patriarch Abraham" (p. 137), the start of the Jews’ history and thus also the history of the Christians. Eusebius "reassembled in formal tables the basic chronological information about some nineteen states…down to the Romans that he had presented in separate chapters in Book I," the Chronography (p. 137). Eusebius "lucidly explained how he had ordered his work, in terms that assumed the novelty of its form as well as the clarity of the historical lessons that it taught" (p. 140). Grafton quotes Eusebius: " ‘I have cut the entire mass of years into decades….I have set them across from each other, so that anyone may easily determine in which Greek or barbarian’s time the Hebrew prophets and kings and priests were’ " (p. 140). Eusebius had a "passionate interest in the spatial arrangement of texts for easy reference that…would remain the central theme throughout his life" (p. 141). Grafton calls Eusebius’ tables a "stunningly effective visual display of information" clearer than any prose account could describe (pp. 141-142).

The Canon had a "distinctive and remarkable tabular layout" (p. 142). Its "central achievement…lay in its vivid display of synchronisms—a technical term for the dating of a given event in multiple systems of chronological reckoning" (p. 143). Grafton engages in an extended discussion of others who had done "synchronisms" before Eusebius; however, Grafton comes to the conclusion after this extended discussion that the "evidence suggests" that the Canon, Part Two of the Chronicle, "represented a dramatic formal innovation" from what others had done. Eusebius’ "tables amounted to a stunningly original work of scholarship" (p. 175). Grafton concludes that "book 2 provoked lively discussions in the fifth century and later. Once edited, translated into Latin, and brought up to date by Jerome, Eusebius’s tables provided the model for Latin world chronicles for centuries to come. Translations into Armenian and Syriac spread the text’s influence" (p. 175).

Grafton quotes Jerome who stated how stunning the Canon was for its time: " ‘it has barbarous names, things unknown to the Latins, dates too complex to unravel, lines interwoven with both the events and the numbers, so that it is almost harder to work out the order of the text to be read than to arrive at the knowledge of its content’ " (p. 175). Does this quote mean that reading the information in the tables of Part Two of the Chronicle would have ended up confusing the reader; however, seeing the information set out in tables suddenly made the information clear to the reader? Or does Jerome mean that the information in the tables of the Canon was so new and the reader was so surprised at reading information he/she never conceived of before that the reader could hardly believe the content? Perhapd Jerome meant both of these possibilities.  Even though this is a quote from Jerome, Grafton should clarify the confusion.

In conclusion to this chapter, Grafton makes the following points:

One: It was reading the "Hexapla column against column…[that] taught Eusebius to compare texts word by word" (p. 69). 

Two: Eusebius "turned chronology from a fixed, perfect armature for the history of the world into an open, hotly debated discipline" (p. 170).

Three: Eusebius "established the need for chronologers, as the only experts capable of adjudicating these difficult and obvious problems for Christian readers" (p. 170).

Four: "Many followed the model [Eusebius] offered in book 2 [the Canon]…which seemed to trace a cogent providential story across the centuries." Unfortunately, the "many" mentioned in the first part of this sentence "politely ignored such problems as the…existence of Egyptian dynasties before the Flood" (p. 176). Jerome was one of those who ignored these issues.

Five: Eusebius’ Chronicle had a different effect on the East than on the West: In the East, "Eusebius’s whole book…provoke[d] debate…Byzantine scholars never forgot that Egyptian and Chaldean chronology posed serious problems" compared to history as it is stated as starting in the Old Testament (p. 176). However, in the West, "many Christian chronologers believed…that they could extend Eusebius’s work backward, dating all events and following all the paths of providential history right back to Adam" (p. 176).

So in the East readers did not stop pondering the fact that the history of some cultures predated Adam. The West, however, apparently "buried its head in the sand," refusing to allow for the reality that some cultures predated events as depicted in the Old Testament.

Chapter 4: Eusebius at Caesarea: A Christian Impresario of the Codex:

Grafton gives two versions of what he intends to do in this chapter. In Chapter Three he states that in Chapter Four "we will follow Eusebius’s experiments in scholarship and book production through his career. We will try to reconstruct both his experiences as a young student and his accomplishments as a mature scholar" (p. 134). However, in Chapter Four Grafton states, "we [will] follow the complex interplay between the man [Eusebius] and his environment. Our concern will be to tease out the ways in which each shaped, and was shaped by, the other" (p. 178). At first thought the difference in stated purposes in these two chapters might be the same thing stated in a different way. But these stated purposes each require a different approach.

I found this chapter a "difficult read"—once again, I was not sure exactly what the outline of the chapter was (seems to be a mantra); in fact, once again, I think the writer tried to do too much and did not have a clearly stated purpose of what he intended to do in Chapter Four. So, again, the reader is left swimming through a mass of material and does not have even a piece of driftwood to use to stay afloat in the mass of material in this chapter. I think the author intended to extol Eusebius and his contribution to the development of the book; but found that while Eusebius did make a real contribution to the development of the book, this contribution was not anywhere near the contribution that Origen made in his massive Hexapla. Thus, I think he was left trying to "sell" Eusebius.

Grafton notes that Eusebius did the following:

First, he built a "unique institution" [the Library of Caesarea].

Second, he "worked out genuinely new ways to organize scribal labor." I must also point out: The topic of scribal labor and its place in the library as it contributed to book publication deserves much more discussion, but it receives only short mention in the Introduction of this book on page 15.

Third, he developed ways to correct the Bible and to create "new forms of historical and polemical text. But, the reader soon discovers that Eusebius was not unique in these contributions; he worked from developments that had already been made and achieved by people before him. 

So let us start with this last point—the people who came before Eusebius: There is a kind of "genealogical line" that is both literary and educational that flows from Origen to Eusebius. This line started with Origen who in turn influenced Pierius. About all that is known of Pierius is his name, the fact that he was "Alexandrian," and was a "follower of Origen" (p. 179). The only other information known about Pierius is that he in turn influenced Pamphilus. Pamphilus, in turn, was a great influence on Eusebius; and receives a lot of mention in this chapter. (See p. 179 for what I am calling the "literary and educational genealogical line" of these men.) 

Origen:

Grafton states that the Library at Caesarea "probably did not have a continuous institutional history" (p. 179). However, some "facts seem clear. Origen left the Hexapla and other works behind [emphasis added] in Caesarea" (p. 179). I found the word "behind" a somewhat strange word to use in the circumstances. This word gives the impression that Origen might have walked away from his master work. However, McGuckin [11] tells us that Origen got caught up in the persecution of Decius where he was "tortured slowly…so he would not die before he denied the faith." This torture left Origen permanently crippled and thus unable to work. In 253 C.E. Origen was "taken into convalescence by the Church" during which time he "spent a year dying." Thus Origen died "with a martyr’s honor, if not a martyr’s crown."  So, Origen in a sense had no choice but to bequeath his works to the Library at Caesarea; and those who followed him benefited from having his works available to them. While there is no fault in those who followed Origen benefiting from his legacy, it seems to me that Grafton does not give enough attention to the circumstances under which Origen "left behind" his great work.

Pamphilus:

Since information about Pierius is conspicuous by its absence, we now proceed to Pamphilus. Grafton tells us that Pamphilus was a "wealthy Christian presbyter" (p. 179) and that he "settled in [Caesarea] and began to accumulate a library of sacred works" (p. 179). Eusebius became a disciple of Pamphilus. It is from Eusebius that we get information about Pamphilus. Pamphilus "devoted not only his fortune, but also his own labor as a copyist, to building his rich library of Christian books" (p. 179).  Furthermore, Eusebius notes that Pamphilus was the "descendant of a noble family," was a master of "Greek culture and the Bible," and possessed a "charismatic charm that attracted young men to work and suffer with him" (p. 180). Pamphilus was martyred in 310 C.E. during the persecution of Diocletion.

There is evidence that supports a "number of inferences" regarding Pamphilus.

One: He "had a solid classical education."

Two: He built a "substantial Christian library." 

Three: He "trained a number of other young men in disciplines of the book, in ways that did much to form his star pupil, Eusebius." 

Four: "His enterprises, though organically connected to those that flourished before and after him in Caesarea, also differed from them in vital ways." (P. 180).

Five: If Pamphilus was a "descendant of a noble family," we have the answer to the unspoken question of where Pamphilus, as a presbyter, might have had the money to "bank roll" the library at Caesarea, Eusebius, and even his other students: He must have been independently wealthy. 

Grafton notes that Pamphilus’ books "survived him" and that "Eusebius used both some of the texts and the methods he had learned from Pamphilus to transform Caesarea into a new center of Christian scholarship" (p. 179). The question then becomes: Did Pamphilus continue "an enterprise begun by Origen"? Or was there a break in the "continuous institutional history" of the Library at Caesarea? (p. 179). Grafton states that he and Williams agree with the theory that there was a break in the history of the library at Caesarea; Grafton states that it is clear that "Origen left the Hexapla and other works…in Caesarea," that Pamphilus’ "Christian collection…centered on Origen but may also have contained pagan texts," and that Eusebius "built up a massive library" which included the works Origen and Pamphilus had collected. 

However, it seems to me that the argument Grafton is making for the evidence of a break in institutional history actually proves the opposite, a continuous history. After noting that the information is clear and stating the reasons for the conclusion that there was a break in the institutional history of the library, Grafton then calls the points "scanty evidence" (p. 180). While the above is not a major argument within the entirety of information in this book, it does seem to me to be evidence of what I found to be "fuzzy" interpretation of information and/or thinking that seems to pop up too often in this book.

Grafton quotes Jerome (347-420 C.E.) quoting Eusebius, about Pamphilus (so this information is "third-hand"). Pamphilus is noted as a "friend to all who studied," a man who helped out those who did not have the "basic necessities of life"; a man who gave "copies of the sacred scriptures, not only to be read, but also to be kept [emphasis added]…not only to men, but also to those women who had shown him that they were devoted to reading." Pamphilus was a man who himself "prepared many codices" to give to his students, and lastly, he was a man who "devoted himself to intensive meditation" on the scriptures (p. 181). I found myself liking Pamphilus and thinking that I’d have been honored to have Pamphilus as a teacher.

Jerome, quoting Eusebius, notes that Pamphilus did not write any works of his own (p. 181). Grafton points out, though, that Eusebius "distorted" the record in respect to Pamphilus’ writing; Grafton notes that the "two men (Pamphilus and Eusebius) collaborated, during Pamphilus’s last years, in composing the first five books of a defense of Origen" (p. 181).  Furthermore, Grafton notes, "all the evidence agrees" that Pamphilus not only collected books, but he also "set them into order and drew up a sort of catalogue" (p. 182). But, Eusebius notes that, "he did not need to give a catalogue of Origen’s works. It would take too much space, he argued" (p. 182). Once again, Eusebius seems to be not quite honest. And I found myself wondering when I would find the major contributions Grafton would note about Eusebius.

Grafton further tell us that Pamphilus himself "had to chase down and collect Origen’s writings," that he "copied the greater part of Origen’s works…in his own hand" (p. 183) and that he adopted as his "own project" the collecting of books Origen brought with him to Caesarea.  Thus, "Pamphilus emerges as a distinct figure—an eager intellectual disciple who spent much of his capital and his immense energies on preserving the works" of Origen (p. 183). So far, Pamphilus seems to garner more respect from me than does Eusebius.

Eusebius

Grafton summarizes Eusebius’ work saying, he "rose to prominence about sixty years after Origen died in 254" (p. 17). We already know Pamphilus died in 310. Eusebius was born "around 260" (p.xv); we might speculate that Eusebius started work with Pamphilus when he was between ten and twenty years old, which would mean that Eusebius started working with Pamphilus about 270 or 280. So Eusebius would have worked with Pamphilus for approximately 20-30 years before Pamphilus died. G&W note (p. 17-18) that Eusebius "idolized" Origen,

propagating his methods and building on his technical innovations. Like Origen, Eusebius defended Christian truths against all comers. And like Origen, he found the weapons he wielded in his life-long combat on behalf of orthodoxy not only in the Bible and in [the writings of] earlier Christian thinkers, but also in a wide range of pagan and Jewish texts.  As priest and eventual bishop of Caesarea, however, Eusebius operated under conditions rather different from Origen’s. While we have comparatively little direct information about Eusebius’s scriptorium and library, rich evidence proves that he received a formal training in Christian scholarship from his first patron, Pamphilus.

Grafton later states that "the flavor and texture of [Pamphilus’] everyday practices as a scholar emerge clearly from the subscriptions.  It [the relationship between Pamphilus and Eusebius] was a collaborative and specialized enterprise" (p. 189). Here again, I found a problem. I started out with the idea that when I got to the section on Eusebius, I’d see the major connection Grafton states so clearly existed between Origen and Eusebius.  But then as I read Chapter Four, I began to realize that Eusebius’ major influence had to have been Pamphilus. After all, Eusebius and Pamphilus are the two who worked together for years; Origen was dead four years before Eusebius was born and had been dead for perhaps 20 or more years before Eusebius started his work with Pamphilus. Did not Eusebius "idolize" Pamphilus too? While this may be a small matter, I found it one more incidence of confusion in reading this book.

Grafton continues to tell us that Pamphilus’ method of working was to have a scribe in training read the "base text aloud, while Pamphilus followed and entered corrections in the new text. It seems likely that the young men who worked with Pamphilus began by reading aloud and only later, if ever, actually corrected manuscripts on their own" (pp. 189-190).  However, Grafton also notes that when Pamphilus worked with Eusebius, "Pamphilus did the collating, while Eusebius corrected the text and wrote the colophon." (p. 190). Grafton speculates why Pamphilus reversed the process with Eusebius, stating that Pamphilus may have chosen the

humbler task out of humility and respect for a specially gifted pupil. More likely he did so in order to oversee the younger man’s first efforts to prepare a new manuscript for sacred reading. If so, the collaborative work recorded in the colophons amounted to an apprenticeship [for Eusebius] in textual criticism (p. 190).

I wonder if there may be a simpler explanation of this reversal of position between Pamphilus and Eusebius that serendipitously worked in Eusebius’ favor: In an age when not even bifocals had been invented, could Pamphilus have been losing his sight? It may have been a simple matter to have the younger man with better eyesight do the reading. Grafton does not consider this possibility.

Now let us examine the concept of "correcting" that Eusebius and Pamphilus did. Grafton states there are several interpretations about what Pamphilus and Eusebius did in these corrections.

First: Pamphilus or Pamphilus and Eusebius "produced a recension of the Septuagint based on the fifth column of the Hexapla, which they used as a standard" (p. 187). Does Grafton mean Pamphilus and Eusebius did their own version of the Septuagint and used their version as a standard? Again, the reader cannot be sure.

Second: "Origen himself produced such a recension [and] Pamphilus and Eusebius might have [emphasis added] taken this as their standard" (p. 187).

Third: "[W]hen the two men claimed to have collated copies of the Old Testament books against the Hexapla, they actually meant that they had used a recension of the Septuagint derived from it" (pp. 187-188).  One starts to question how many errors would have been in the recension, thus multiplying any errors.

Fourth: We could "take the subscriptions literally and assume that Pamphilus and his helpers used the Hexapla itself as their standard" (p. 188). Ultimately, Grafton tells us that we are left with "vital details of their work in obscurity" (p. 188).

Finally, Grafton states:

But as scribes omitted or mistranscribed the critical marks, the distinctions that Origen—and, presumably, Eusebius and Pamphilus—tried to preserve between the Septuagint and other versions "became blurred so that what now passed for ‘the LXX’ was in fact a badly corrupted text’ " (p. 189). 

This is an astonishing statement, and one that has one wondering about our own Old Testament texts. All one can say is "good grief."

There is a problem that bothered me throughout this entire chapter and that was never solved. Grafton refers many times to either Pamphilus or Eusebius and sometimes both men "correcting" the Hexapla or portions of the Hexapla. Nowhere does Grafton explain exactly what "correcting" means.  Does this phrasing mean that what these men, either together or separately, actually changed Origen’s original work? Or: Does "correcting" mean that these men compared copies made by scribes to the original Hexapla of Origen, found errors made by scribes, and changed the material back to the original work of Origen? It is possible there is no answer to this question, but Grafton does not even bring up the question, much less offer a speculation.  Frankly, I find it disconcerting that Grafton does not address this issue of exactly what "correcting" means when Eusebius (and for that matter Pamphilus) are "correcting" Origen’s work.

But then Grafton makes a small statement that really set me wondering about what (particularly) Eusebius was doing when he "corrected" Origen’s Hexapla. Grafton states: "Eusebius did not always reproduce the documents exactly, and he sometimes drew tendentious inferences that could not be verified" (p. 224).  Now "tendentious" means a deliberate tendency or aim to advance a definite point of view. Grafton further states that, "these flaws…marked nothing new [emphasis added] in his [Eusebius’] work, and in this case [presumably a reference back to Eusebius’ Church History] could have resulted in part from the poorly coordinated efforts of collaborators" (p. 225). Basically, Grafton blames Eusebius’ "tendentiousness" on other people who worked with Eusebius, not on Eusebius. I must say, I found this excusing of Eusebius disconcerting. I went back to reread the section on Eusebius’ work with Pamphilus and particularly the part about Eusebius’ correction of Origen’s texts and found Grafton’s excusing of Eusebius in this regard troublesome.

Did Eusebius contaminate the original work of Origen?  Grafton does not seem to even ask the question, much less grasp the implications of what the question might infer. I also wonder: Has Grafton done the same thing with Eusebius’ work that Eusebius did with Origen’s (and maybe Pamphilus’) work? Has Grafton himself taken a "tendentious" approach to Eusebius? Specifically, has Grafton presented Eusebius in a more favorable light than he deserves because Grafton himself wants to "promote" Eusebius and his work?

Then too, there is the question of exactly what Origen himself would have thought of all the "correcting" indulged in by those who followed him. Would he be grateful that someone continued his work, found errors in it, and corrected it? Or is he spinning in his grave?

Positive Contributions of Eusebius:

But let us look at Eusebius’ contribution to the book and sincerely appreciate the positive contributions Eusebius made to the book and the library.

Time Map: Grafton has an extended discussion about the scholarly debate concerning the "originality of Eusebius’s Canon and its place in the chronological tradition" (p. 170). Grafton concludes that Eusebius’ work was an "ingenious effort to make book 2 of his Chronicle a literal ‘time map’—a visual narrative whose plotline no reader could miss" (p. 173). Grafton further confirms his opinion by citing Rudolf Helm who held that "none of the earlier tables, varied as they were, anticipated Eusebius’s effort at comprehensiveness or his emphasis on the synchronicity of events in so many different kingdoms and societies….These arguments still seem cogent" (p. 173).

Contribution to the Gospels: Grafton tell us that, "Eusebius learned from the Hexapla…that a tabular presentation could make information take on radically new meanings. He applied this lesson to a number of problems" (p. 194). He used the "tabular format to enable quick comparisons across the pages of a codex" and then further applied this tabular format to a "variety of textual problems and tasks" (p.194). Eusebius "devised elegant new tools that made the most important texts accessible to readers" (p. 194).

What are these problems that Eusebius addressed?  Eusebius criticized the fact that previous attempts to arrange the four Gospels in some kind of "parallel passages" had failed. So Eusebius "devised a radically different approach" from that of those who preceded him.

He divided the Gospels [emphasis added] into numbered sections. Then he drew up ten tables, which listed parallel or related passages, first in all four Gospels, then in any three of them, then in any two, and finally set out those found in only one system. A simple, elegant system of numerical cues enabled the reader to move immediately from a passage to any parallel in any of the four Gospels (p. 195).

Grafton cites James O’Donnell, noting that "the triumphantly successful Canon Tables were extraordinarily original and effective information retrieval devices: the world’s first hot links" (p. 199).

Infrastructure: Grafton notes that after Eusebius became bishop of Caesarea the "diocesan complex of buildings as it emerged under Eusebius’s episcopate housed something resembling a staff of scribes trained well enough to follow complex directions and produce nontraditional texts. This infrastructure played a central role in many of Eusebius’s projects" (p. 200). Grafton, however, does not give, anywhere in the book, any further information on what must have been a kind of "factory" that produced the Scriptures. Nor does he give any information on who worked in these "factories" as scribes or how these people were educated.

Ecclesiastical and Civil History Distinguished:  As a result of the infrastructure Eusebius developed, Grafton notes that "Eusebius made the direct quotation of documents…a central feature of his history of the church" (p. 200). Furthermore, Grafton notes that "Eusebius claimed [emphasis added] that his work was radically novel, and that it consisted in the creation of a particular kind of anthology," which anthology consisted of a "systematic excerpting of a vast range of sources" (p. 202). Furthermore, Grafton quotes Hollerich, stating that Eusebius’ writings are " ‘treasure troves for scholars on the trail of lost or fragmentary works.’ " And in turn the "direct quotation of documents" then "became a lasting characteristic, one that sharply distinguished ecclesiastical from civil history" (p. 200). 

Eusebius as Entrepreneur: Grafton states that after Eusebius became bishop of Caesarea, "the library seems to have developed in two complementary ways" (p. 208). Eusebius became a "deft entrepreneur, a manager of others’ systematic scribal labor" (p. 208). Once again, we see a kind of "factory" producing books. Eusebius added many new kinds of materials to the library, including "accounts of martyrdoms" and "many letters of Origen" (pp. 209). Grafton also notes: "Tiny but telling clues suggest…the range and diversity of the non-Christian texts in the library" (p. 211), but he does not elaborate on the "tiny but telling clues.". This collection of books in the library "was more than a collection of books. It was also a center for their production" (p. 212).

However, Grafton then states: "Often Eusebius himself omitted or distorted vital facts because he saw history as ‘an apologetic tool to promote and vindicate the truth of Christianity and the person and policies of Constantine and his sons’ " (p. 213). Even though Eusebius was promoting Christianity, we are back to Eusebius’ "tendentiousness," wonder again if he can be trusted.

"Production" of the Scriptures: Regarding Eusebius and his connection to Constantine, Grafton does tell us some very interesting information. Quoting Eusebius, Grafton tells us Constantine asked Eusebius to produce

"fifty volumes with ornamental leather bindings, easily legible and convenient for portable use, to be copied by skilled calligraphists well trained in the art, copies that is of the Divine Scriptures, the provision and use of which you well know to be necessary for reading in church" (p. 216).

Constantine even commanded that these copies be made quickly and also that the "carts of the cursus velox, or state express service…transport the copies to Constantinople" (p. 217). Grafton notes that, "Eusebius…knew how to mobilize the skilled labor that the task demanded" (p. 217). We do learn that there was a version of "Fed Ex" in the fourth century. But more significantly, I could not help but think of the almost inevitable possibility for innumerable, and perhaps very serious, mistakes in all this haste and copying by many scribes. Grafton does not even propose the issue of potential for errors in these hastily produced copies.

Eusebius’ "Field Work": Grafton also discusses Eusebius’ "Onomasticon, a detailed gazetteer of Palestine" which Eusebius completed most likely in the 320s (p. 221). Grafton notes that Eusebius actually "gathered some of his information in the field, as he visited sites in the course of his travels" (p. 222). I wonder: How this "gathering information in the field" is such a unique accomplishment? Did not Strabo (64 B.C.E to C.E. 25) do the same thing and in much greater depth?

General Criticisms:

Let me take some time here for a few general criticisms. I did think that this book could have benefited from some subtitles and subheadings in the chapters, enabling the reader more easily to follow the outline that the authors had in mind. Specifically, information that should be together is often scattered over diverse pages.

I found that often the writing was at times unnecessarily obtuse. Let me give a few examples. Williams writes: "As for Rufinus, Jerome tells us that he possessed copies of the Jewish translations compiled in the Hexapla, obtained at considerable expense" [emphasis added] (p 94). There are many others like this sentence throughout the book, and they are confusing.  Tell me: Who is "he" in the quote and who "obtained them at considerable expense"? "He" should refer to Jerome and the question of who put out the money for these materials has no specific pronoun to which it refers. Therefore, I had to re-read the entire paragraph to come to the conclusion that Williams is saying that Jerome said that Rufinus had these copies of the Jewish translations of the Hexapla and that Rufinus spent a great deal of money on obtaining them.

In another place Williams writes: "Of necessity, Eusebius relied on a rich library of previous works, including Origen’s as the basis for his literary production. His [emphasis added] library exemplified, on a particularly impressive scale, the linking of collection, production, and dissemination" (p. 18). Once again, after one does a "double take" on this sentence one realizes that "his literary production and his library" must refer to Eusebius’ library, not Origen’s. Such confusion is really inexcusable.

In other places Grafton’s use of foreign phrases sent me to a foreign language dictionary to find the meaning of the term when a "plain old" English word would do. For instance, on page 234 Grafton uses the phrase "and their soi-disant cultural heirs." Why not simply say their "so-called" cultural heirs. In another place on page 220, Grafton, speaking of poetic texts says they were "laid out…and arranged per cola et commata," again sending me to a Latin dictionary to come up with a translation that probably means "according to poetic practice or phrasing." On page 205 Grafton states Eusebius "learned the uses of bricolage from his beloved master." This word sent me to a French dictionary to determine that this word means either "do it yourself work" or "makeshift repairs." In particular, the use of this French word set me wondering if Eusebius’ corrections are seen by Grafton as "repairs" or if Grafton sees these repairs as "makeshift"? The question then is: How good and valuable were these repairs? In particular I wondered if Grafton used this phrase to hide the implications of what he was saying about Eusebius.

Of minor importance, I found two places where Greek words were used incorrectly—and I will be the first to tell you that my knowledge of Greek is minimal to say the least. On page 61 the word Stromateis is used where Stromata would be more correctly used. On page 217 the word sōmatia is used where sōmata would be more appropriate for the context.  A minor issue but another instance of the annoying "foreign language" problem.

When I first found this book, I was thrilled at having found it and anticipated totally enjoying the read and the review.  But regretfully I have to say that after reading G&W’s book, I can only partially agree with the final point they make: that the "model of ecclesiastical learning that took shape in the library at Caesarea shaped the whole, millennial tradition of Christian scholarship, in subtle but vital ways. In many respects, we are still the heirs of Origen and Eusebius" (p. 243). The question of how Eusebius’ "tendentiousness" shaped that millennial tradition remains, for it is not Origen’s Hexapla that we inherited but the recensions we have received through Eusebius.