Eusebius of Caesarea: the Manuscripts of the "Church History"

• The Greek Text
• The Syriac Text
• The Armenian Text
• The Latin Text

The Historia Ecclesiastica or Church History is probably the most famous work by Eusebius of Caesarea.  Revised several times, although scholars disagree about how many (the '3' and '4' versions listed here follow the theory of Schwartz), the reader is referred to the literature for a discussion of the composite nature of the text.  Composition began around 311, and 4 versions were issued.  The final version of the text appeared soon after the fall of Licinius in 323, and consisted of removing material about him which was no longer politically safe.  However much of it survives in the ATER group of Greek MSS.

The Greek Text

Primary MSS

These fall into two groups, BDMΣL, and ATER; and the remainder are secondary MSS.

In BDMΣL, M most frequently differs from B and D.  Usually this means M is in error, but sometimes BD have an error in common against M because they have been influenced by a "learned recension" (see below) which did not affect M.  The combination MD is usually inferior, so B is on the whole the best MS in this group.  The decision between B and M can often be made with the help of the ATER group of MSS.  The Syriac is much better than Rufinus, who seems to have found Eusebius difficult and so paraphrased a lot.

In ATER, A is generally the best MS although it has many individual errors. TER seems to have much in common and probably represent a later recension.

Schwartz believed that BDMΣL represent the text of Eusebius' 4th edition with mistakes but no mixing with other editions; ATER represent the same text modified with the help of a copy of the 3rd edition.  However the latter is often free of the individual mistakes which marr the first group, and so can be used to correct it.

In addition, it can be shown that there was a later "learned recension" which affected MSS of both groups, and is now found in ERBD and in some corrections in T, referred to as T^c. 

Secondary MSS derived from one primary MS

Secondary MSS derived from more than one primary MS

None of the secondary MSS are of importance for the text.

Summaries, tables of contents, chapter titles

There are summaries at the start of every book.  These are thought authorial, because of a note at the end of the summary of book 2; "Our book was compiled from those of Clement, Tertullian, Josephus and Philo".  The medieval chapter divisions are derived from these.

The Syriac Text

A Syriac translation of the Church History survives in two ancient manuscripts, and there are also some fragments in other manuscripts.  Curiously the later manuscript is the better text, the other having some corruptions.  Since one manuscript dates to 462, yet shows evidence of being copied many times, and an Armenian translation was made from the Syriac at the start of the 5th century, it is reasonable to suppose that it was translated from Greek either during the life of Eusebius himself or soon after (W. Wright, A short history of Syriac Lit. p. 62).

The Syriac text has summaries, and is divided into chapters.

The Armenian Text

An Armenian translation was printed at Venice by the Mechitarists in 1877 from two modern mss in a cursive hand.  There may be a third in Vienna (the catalogue is vague).

This version was created from the Syriac at the start of the 5th century, and reflects a good and ancient version of the Syriac, free of some of the corruptions that affect both A and B of that version.  However the printed edition is itself full of copyist errors.

All three mss derive from the same older exemplar, since they share common lacunae.  The orthography has been changed since letters are found which were only introduced in the 12th century.  The translation is of the utmost accuracy.  However the translator did not understand Greek or Latin, as his transcription of names from those languages makes clear.

The translation may have been one of those mentioned by Moses of Chorene (III. 60).  In the early 5th century Mesrop Mashtots, the inventor of the Armenian script, and Isaac the Great, sent translators to Edessa to make copies from Syriac of all the fathers, translated into Armenian.  We still have translations from the Syriac of Ephraem, Aphrahat, Labubna; the letters of Ignatius of Antioch; Irenaeus, possibly Hippolytus.  The style of the translation of Aphrahat is identical to that of the Eusebius.

The Latin Text

The HE was translated very early into Latin by Rufinus, who compressed books 1-10 into 9 books, and added two fresh books 10-11 of his own composition.  The first manuscript is 5th century.

A number of the Latin manuscripts are online (information via Peter Kirby):

Further mss can be found linked here.

Bibliography

K. LAKE, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History, London: Heinemann, New York: G.P.Putnam (Loeb Library), (1926).
P. Bedjan, Eusebe de Cesaree: Histoire ecclesiastique.  Editee (en syriac) pour le premier fois. Leipzig (1897).  Printed in the Nestorian hand.
W. WRIGHT and N. McLEAN, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac.  Cambridge (1898).  Online at archive.org

See also Google translation of Russian web page.

Constructive feedback is welcomed to Roger Pearse.