Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context. By SABRINA INOWLOCKI.

Abstract

This is a welcome in-depth treatment of Eusebius of Caesarea's citation and use of non-biblical Greek-language Jewish prose writers in his apologetic magnum opus, the Apodeixis, more commonly known by the titles of its two component parts, Praeparatio Evangelica and Demonstratio Evangelica. The Jewish writers are Aristobulus, Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, and the so-called ‘minor’ Jewish authors, who, according to Inowlocki, were known to Eusebius only through the compilation of Alexander Polyhistor. Inowlocki also examines Eusebius’ use of Pseudo-Aristeas, although she notes that Eusebius erroneously believed him to be a pagan. Despite her focus on Jewish authors in the Apodeixis, Inowlocki also makes frequent comparison with Eusebius’ citation of pagan authors in the Apodeixis, and with his citation of Jewish authors in Historia Ecclesiastica and Eclogae Propheticae. Inowlocki's study of Eusebius’ citation technique is prompted by several philological concerns, among which are that he played an important role in the transmission of manuscripts of Philo and Josephus; that he is our sole extant source for some fragments of the minor Jewish authors and some lost works of Philo; and that some manuscripts of Philo and Josephus have been corrected against Eusebius’ quotations of these authors. Inowlocki criticizes scholars who have engaged in the latter process without sufficient philological justification. But she also counsels against excessive focus on narrow philological issues surrounding Eusebius’ faithfulness in citation. Comparing Eusebius’ citation technique to that of other ancient authors, she argues, perhaps controversially, that in antiquity modifications of quoted material did not indicate unfaithfulness on the part of the citing author, and that ‘the talent of an author resides in altering the initial meaning of quoted material’ (p. 7). Thus some earlier characterizations of Eusebius as either duplicitous in citation or an unoriginal editor of quotations are, according to her, unjustified. Inowlocki aims to treat Euseblus’ citation of Jewish authors as a ‘rhetorical process in its own right’ (p. 4) rather than to focus almost exclusively on the citations themselves.