Part II – Rediscovering Eusebius of Caesarea’s Sainthood : His Feast Days, Icons, and Orthodoxy

By Dcn. Clement (Logan Polk), M.A. – Chief Overseer of the Center for Orthodox Studies (COS) – 31/05/21, St. Mary & St. Raphael E.O.T.C., Memphis, TN

If one were to look for the feast day of St. Eusebius of Caesarea, blessed author of such masterworks as the Ecclesiastical History and Preparation for the Gospel, they would have an extremely difficult time of finding it. In fact, most would be led to believe he has never had a feast day at all. The ever-popular Wikipedia, for instance, used to say [1] Eusebius was “never recognized as a saint.” An extensive, ecumenical biographical dictionary of the Saints I own containing many Saints from all Church traditions created by Rt. Rev. F.G. Holweck, says “…the ecclesiastical writer Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea in Palestine (d. 338) never has been canonized as a saint.” [2] His feast day would, from all intents and purposes, appear to have been lost. In my previous article for Urho – The Way (which can be found here: https://urhotheway.com/2021/05/06/rediscovering-eusebius-of-caesarea/)the editor of the piece included as the main image an icon of St. Eusebius taken from an Armenian Gospel manuscript I had never seen before. I was most intrigued by the fact he was granted a halo in this miniature. I knew the Armenians hailed St. Eusebius as a great historian, Church Father, and indispensable to their own history, given their lauding of both his Ecclesiastical History and his Chronicon, of which a full translation only exists in the Armenian language, but never that they gave him the honor of a nimbus. Such a find sent me on a wild hunt to see if more existed, and I have invariably found well over a dozen at this time of writing, which may be seen in the collage created by myself above (see the endnotes for a proper list of where each of these icons come from). It may be noted with great pleasure just how many of these Armenian depictions of him bear a halo, and indeed only two of them do not. [Refer to fig. 1] This discovery sent me deep into annals and archives of the Apostolic Church in a feverous attempt to locate more proof of St. Eusebius’ recognized sanctity, and as a result, I have found irrefutable proof of his canonization, that being the days his Feast was and is celebrated, both in the Ancient and Modern Church, all of which has been completely and utterly obscured today. That veil will now be promptly lifted, so that all may know when this man was and continues to be properly venerated as a true Saint in the Universal Church of Christ across both East and West, alongside some notes and sources defending St. Eusebius’ Orthodoxy.

First Known Feast Day: May 30

Despite the fact it has been stated Eusebius has never been canonized or recognized as a Saint, ironically he is honored in the oldest Martyrology extant from the East, the Syrian Martyrology of 411 AD, which was discovered by the famed Orientalist William Wright in around 1865 AD. Why such a remarkable fact is utterly shrouded and hardly mentioned anywhere can hardly be excused by modern scholars. Even talking to several clerics of my own Ethiopian Church, none had ever heard of or had any notion that St. Eusebius is listed as a Saint anywhere. An English translation of the Martyrology by Wright states under the entry for May 30, “The commemoration of Eusebius, bishop of Palestine” [3]. The preface of the translation also notes that this listing is indeed our “Eusebius of Caesarea,” [4] which Wright uses to help date the Martyrology.

Such dating is startling for multiple reasons. Firstly, there remains the fact that most people, scholars included, have no idea that St. Eusebius has any sort of recognition among the Saints whatsoever. Even the most courteous works towards him today will still note he was never regarded as a Saint due to some form of “Arian sympathy” (Arianism means denying Christ’s divinity and believing He was created by God rather than eternally consubstantial). Yet if St. Eusebius were so regarded by the early Church, it remains a great blunder and indeed a massive black spot upon Martyrologies that Eusebius is celebrated on the earliest edition available in the world. As I stated in my previous article, if recognition of him as a Saint in a Saints’ calendar could be found, such would “first and foremost, immediately prove that the notion of St. Eusebius as an Arian or even Semi-Arian to be a false claim.” [5] Now it is proven that he was lauded as a Saint, and most amazingly less than seventy-five years after his death in 339 AD. That means the date, May 30, is most likely the day he died, and would explain why several historians prefix “May 30” to his 339-340 AD death date, though for whatever reason they never mention this Martyrology as the source point for the date. For someone who did not die a Martyr, less than a century can be considered quick canonization in those days. For that matter, he is the only non-Martyr in the entire book, besides only Saint Jacob of Nisibis, to be given a feast day. Such an inclusion in a book of only Holy Martyrs should speak volumes as to how well the Syrians regarded St. Eusebius, and it is worth mention that several of his works can only be found preserved in Syrian manuscripts. [6]It will be demonstrated later that the Syrian Orthodox Church still regard him as a Saint to this very day. Clearly, the ancient Church of Syria did not regard St. Eusebius as an Arian. Now, let the eyes of the reader be shifted to the West, where it will be determined how St. Eusebius was remembered there.

Second Known Feast Day: June 21

Given Saint Jerome’s (d. 420 AD) well-known and vicious attacks upon Saint Eusebius during the Origenian controversy (even though he earlier regarded Eusebius as “Saintly” in the preface of his Martyrologyand used him frequently across all his early writings), where he refers to Eusebius with malicious titles such as “Prince of the Arians” (in his “Second Apology Against Rufinus”), it would not be wrong to assume St. Eusebius’ reputation was forever tarnished in the West. Yet, his reputation was not as tarnished as many scholars seem to think, and as much as an atheist and low-church Evangelical scholars enjoy using his tarnished reputation to denounce and ridicule his writings as the works of a “heretic,” for many Western authors, Eusebius was considered not merely a renowned and brilliant scholar and a historian unmatched, but as a Saint.

There exists a wealth of examples where St. Eusebius is given his proper due in the West. Particularly, the classical philologist and classical historian Valerius, or Henri Valois (d. 1676) wrote an extensive list of the Ancients both in favor and against St. Eusebius, and he himself quite lauded St. Eusebius in the preface to his own translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. The most important section of this list of writers and Fathers in favor of St. Eusebius is several entries that confirm his sanctity and even his feast day among the Latin Churches. The following passages will all be taken from Valesius’ meticulous and excellent list of ancients in favor of St. Eusebius. [7] One of the earliest mentions where he is referred to as a Saint comes from the Great Paschal Canon of Victorius of Aquitaine (Southwestern France), who, writing in 457 AD to Pope Leo I, refers to St. Eusebius as “the blessed Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, a city in Palestine, a man pre-eminently accomplished and learned.”Next, in a letter from a man only known as Manecharius to Ceraunus (d. 614 AD), Bishop of Paris, Manechariusstates endearingly, “Wherefore thou art worthy of being compared in zeal with Eusebius of Cæsarea, and art worthy of being remembered perpetually with an equal share of glory.” Interestingly enough, such a statement of both being remembered as Saints proved to be prophetic, as Ceraunus is in fact venerated as a Saint by both the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox today, with a feast day of September 27. After these very early references to St. Eusebius’ sanctity come explicit mentions of St. Eusebius in the early Catholic Martyrologies.

Firstly, the monk Usuardus of Saint-Germain-des-Prés (d. 875 AD)wrote in his Martyrology dedicated to Emperor Charles the Bald, “On the twenty-first day of June, in Palestine, the holy Eusebius, bishop and confessor, a man of most excellent genius, and a historiographer.” Thus, once again, there is a set date for St. Eusebius’ feast day. In the East, his feast day was May 30, but now it is seen his feast day in the West was June 21. Usuardus’ Martyrology would go on to be used throughout much of the Middle Ages as the most important staple of Martyrologies up to the 1500s AD, making St. Eusebius’ inclusion all the more fascinating if he were truly regarded throughout the Church Universal with scorn and derision as an “Arian heretic” as modern scholars consistently imply. Another early Martyrology, this one compiled by someone considered a Saint in the Roman Catholic tradition, Blessed Notker the Stammerer (of St. Gall, d. 912 AD) states “On the twenty-first day of June, the deposition in Cæsarea of the holy bishop Eusebius.”Nor are these all the pieces of evidence for the June 21 feast day within the list composed by Valesius, but let these two important Martyrologiessuffice for now. Let the question now be answered as to why, if St. Eusebius was canonized in the Latin Church on June 21, he is not featured there today.

St. Eusebius of Caesarea remained a prominent fixture upon Roman Martyrologies for centuries, going almost as far back as the ancient Syrian Martyrology, and he was included as late as the 1500s AD. [refer to Valesius’ list, which gives breviaries and missals including St. Eusebius as a Saint up to the early 1500s, and also Bp. Lightfoot, endnote 8] However, his cultus was suppressed in Rome much like my own patron, and the Saint from whom I take my Deacon name, Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was suppressed in 1586 by Pope Sixtus V. Only one year prior, Pope Gregory XIII would remove St. Eusebius of Caesarea from the Martyrology in his ordered revising of the work. According to the brilliant Anglican Bishop, translator, and Orientalist J.B. Lightfoot (d. 1889), while St. Eusebius “in the MartyrologiumRomanum itself he held his place for centuries,” unfortunately in “the revision of this Martyrology under Gregory XIII his name was struck out, and Eusebius of Samosata was substituted, under the mistaken idea that Caesarea had been substituted for Samosata by a mistake.” [8] Thus tragically, St. Eusebius was struck from the Roman Martyrology because it was assumed he could not be the right Eusebius mentioned therein, presumably because of his degradation by both the Latin St. Jerome and the Eastern St. Photios (d. 893 AD) as an “Arian,” in spite of centuries of Martyrologiesincluding him in the West. To this very day, St. Eusebius of Samosata is included in what was St. Eusebius of Caesarea’s spot in the Martyrology, on June 21. Thankfully, St. Eusebius has not been cast aside among the modern Churches in spite of such incidents, for the Syrian Orthodox Church still lauds him as a Saint today.

Third Known Feast Day: February 29

Finally, the pièce de résistance of this paper is the proof that St. Eusebius is in fact regarded as a Saint, and said the proof was published only a few years ago. ChorbishopDr. K. Mani Rajan of the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, who has published the Syrian Lives of the Saints for several years now includes St. Eusebius in his ever-expanding and currently a seven-volume set of works entitled Martyrs, Saints, and Prelates of the Syriac Orthodox Church(which is approved by the current Syrian Patriarch himself; see below). The entry, located in Volume 2, states after the biographical section that “The Church Historian and Metropolitan of Caesarea for twenty-five years are included, on the list, among the Syrian martyrs and those who vouched for true faith (Wace & Piercy, 1999). His memory is celebrated on 29 February.” [9]. As to why his feast day is now February 29 rather than May 30 as it is in the oldest Syrian Martyrology, I do not have a proper answer to that question, but it still remains that he is properly venerated as a Saint. I reached out to the Corbishop Dr. Mani Rajanpersonally via email and he was kind enough to confirm St. Eusebius is indeed venerated today by the Syrians, giving him the title of St. Eusebius the Historian. Thus there exists undeniable proof, written in a current Saints Calendar by a well-respected and still living prelate of the Syrian Orthodox Church, that St. Eusebius of Caesarea is celebrated as a Saint of the Apostolic Church.

A Brief Defense for St. Eusebius against Claims He Was an Arian

I have begun to realize that, given how much scholarship is already extant on St. Eusebius, the events surrounding the Council of Nicaea, and Arianism, it would better behove me to write a book on the subject matter when it comes to mounting a full defence against claims that he was an Arian sympathizer up to his death, which I am currently planning to do. However, as an English teacher, it appears to me whenever one states they plan to launch into some massive project over a perceived subject and put off sharing their resources, notes, and such until later, it will almost inevitably never get done and the work is forever lost or left in fragments (Dostoevsky’s planned sequel to The Brothers Karamazov or JRR Tolkien’s incomplete Silmarillion immediately come to mind). Ergo, I will include some of my notes of research as to why St. Eusebius of Caesarea, while holding to Arian sympathies prior to the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), renounced them forevermore afterwards and became a champion for Orthodoxy. He should be rightfully read by all Christians as such with the same voracity Christian clergy, scholars, and laity consume works such as Saint Augustine of Hippo’s Confessions. Let it be observed with what high praise St. Eusebius receives in a breviary (book of daily services for the Church) from the Lemovicensian (Southwestern France) Church [refer to endnote 7]:

“Of the holy Eusebius, bishop and confessor.

“Lesson 1. Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, on account of his friendship with Pamphilus the martyr, took from him the surname of Pamphili; inasmuch as along with this same Pamphilus he was a most diligent investigator of sacred literature. The man indeed is very worthy of being remembered in these times, both for his skill in many things, and for his wonderful genius, and by both Gentiles and Christians he was held distinguished and most noble among philosophers. This man, after having for a time labored in behalf of the Arian heresy, coming to the council of Nicæa, inspired by the Holy Spirit, followed the decision of the Fathers, and thereafter up to the time of his death lived in a holiest manner in the orthodox faith.

“Lesson 2. He was, moreover, very zealous in the study of the sacred Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus, the martyr was a most diligent investigator of sacred literature. At the same time he has written many things, but especially the following books: The PræparatioEvangelica, the Ecclesiastical History, Against Porphyry, a very bitter enemy of the Christians; he has also composed Six Apologies in Behalf of Origen, a Life of Pamphilus the Martyr, from whom on account of friendship he took his surname, in three books; likewise very learned Commentaries on the hundred and fifty Psalms.

“Lesson 3. Moreover, as we read, after having ascertained the sufferings of many holy martyrs in all the provinces, and the lives of confessors and virgins, he has written concerning these saints twenty books; while on account of these books, therefore, and especially on account of his PræparatioEvangelica, he was held most distinguished among the Gentiles, because of his love of truth he condemned the ancestral worship of the gods. He has written also a Chronicle, extending from the first year of Abraham up to the year 300 a.d., which the divine Hieronymus has continued. Finally this Eusebius, after the conversion of Constantine the Great, was united to him by strong friendship as long as he lived.”

Such praise certainly sings in the ears of one who venerates the great St. Eusebius and serves as quite the vindication. However, even in spite of such high praise, and specific mention that he repudiated his Arianism and came fully to Orthodoxy after Nicaea, the narrative is still pushed that he was fully Arian. The Encyclopedia Aethiopica, for example, imitating St. Jerome, refers to St. Eusebius as “a champion of Arianism” and states his reputation was “never to recover from a faithful pro-Arian stance,” [10] and yet as has been thoroughly demonstrated, his reputation did in fact recover and he is still regarded as a Saint to this very day. His Sainthood alone should already call heavily into question the idea he was ever a Semi-Arian, much less a full Arian, after the Council of Nicaea. Those who would question such a turn-around of a man from Arian sympathy to Nicaean Orthodoxy would do well to remember the conversions of other Saints in a single day, such as St. Paul (from the fanatical Pharisees), St. Augustine (from Manicheanism), St. Vladimir the Great of Kyiv (from Paganism), St. Constantine the Great (from Paganism) and many others. A perfect example would be Saint Artemius of Antioch (feast: October 15 for the Coptic Church, October 20 in others), who himself was an Arianfor a time.

In Rev. F.G. Holweck’s entry for St. Artemius, he quips “…during the reign of Constantius [the Arian son and heir of St. Constantine the Great, d. 361 AD] he was a fanatical Arian, hunting down S. Athanasius and other bishops, monks, and virgins. But if Artemius persecuted the Catholics, he also worried the pagans by plundering their temples and knocking off the heads of idols. Perhaps he was converted to the Catholic faith after the death of Constantius,” and further, “the acts of his martyrdom do not mention the Arian tendencies of their hero; the Greek Church, relying on these acts, has adopted Artemius into the sacred Calendar and Baronius drafted him … into the Rom. Mart.” [11]St. Athanasius the Great himself writes of St. Artemius in his Festal Letter no. 32 (XXXII), of which only the Syrian index summary appears to remain, that “This prefect and Artemius Dux, having entered a private house and a small cell, in search of Athanasius the Bishop, bitterly tortured Eudaemonis, a perpetual virgin.” [12]In spite of his vehement Arianism, physically attempting to chase down and arrest the greatest champion of Nicaean Orthodoxy, and torturing of other Martyrs, the Church’s narrative (East, West, and Oriental)states that he did indeed convert from Arianism to Orthodoxy after watching so many martyrdoms and persecutions personally, and would be martyred himself by Emperor Julian the Apostate for his destruction of many pagan idols, as Rev. Holweck notes. However, St. Eusebius witnessed dozens of martyrdoms personally as well and wrote an entire book on the many Martyrs he personally watched pass on into glory in his The History of the Martyrs in Palestine. Why is it believed, then, that St. Artemius can be converted almost instantaneously by witnessing such horrors, but St. Eusebius could not be, after witnessing far more martyrdoms of Orthodox Christians as a Bishop and also personally participating in the Council of Nicaea and getting to personally witness proper Orthodoxy put into place? I do not deny the sanctity of St. Artemius, but neither do I deny the sanctity of St. Eusebius. Both were originally Arians, with St. Eusebius defending Arius and St. Artemius going so far as martyring fellow Christians for the Arian Emperor Constantius, but both had true and miraculous conversions through the grace of the Holy Spirit. For St. Eusebius, it was after witnessing the gathering at the Council of Nicaea, witnessing St. Constantine the Great embraced Orthodoxy and having his questions on the Creed answered, and for St. Artemius it was seeing the gentle sanctity of the Martyrs in their passionate deaths, whom he would soon join.

Several Sources Demonstrating St. Eusebius Was Not an Arian:

In order to thoroughly upheave the popular opinion that St. Eusebius died an Arian or even a Semi-Arian heretic, never truly subscribing to the Orthodoxy of Nicaea, I will include a list of some quintessential sources to read on the matter, which I hope to elaborate on and include many more sources with much depth in a future novel. I will note one major warning before the reader delves into these sources. There are two prominent Eusebius(s) of this time period: Saint Eusebius of Caesarea but also Eusebius of Nicomedia, the true “Prince of the Arians.” Eusebius of Nicomedia was the main defender of Arius, was the chief attacker and deposer of St. Athanasius, and was most responsible for Arius nearly being restored to his priesthood in the Orthodox Church, continuing his attacks on Orthodox Christianity several years after St. Eusebius of Caesarea’s passing into glory, with his most heinous act being the conversion St. Constantine the Great’s son Constantius to Arianism. Thus, keep in mind when reading these sources, whenever the single name of “Eusebius” is mentioned, that is most certainly not always Eusebius of Caesarea. St. Eusebius of Caesarea’s name is generally suffixed with “Pamphilii,” symbolizing his friendship and possible family relations with St. Pamphilus the Great Martyr. Without further ado, in no particular order:

1. Firstly, the previously referred to an article by Bishop J.B. Lightfoot, found in Henry Wace’s A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End Henry Wace of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies is absolutely a must-read on the subject at hand, particularly because he also gives the most comprehensive and complete list of St. Eusebius’ writings, a proper defense of his Orthodoxy, details of his canonization in both East and West, a list of authors in his own day who defended St. Eusebius (as well as detractors), and more. (See Endnote 8) See also the entry on Arius by Wace for excellent insight and defense of St. Eusebius and the Creed (pp. 99-105).
2. The Anglican priest and translator, Reverend Samuel Lee (d. 1852), wrote a mighty dissertation defending St. Eusebius from any trace of Arianism, going through each one of his works with a fine comb. Whenever a passage seems to denote Arianistic phrases, Samuel Lee demonstrates thoroughly and masterfully how, if one understands St. Eusebius’ phraseology and style of writing, these passages are not Arian at all, but indeed are Orthodox. It bears noting that the Good Reverend Lee is also the sole translator of the only existent manuscript of St. Eusebius’ On the Divine Manifestation, to which translation from Syriac he attaches his dissertation. A link to the full preliminary dissertation can be found here: https://preteristarchives.org/samuel-lee-on-theophania-or-devine-manifestation-of-our-lord/
3. Valesius’ Life and Writings of Eusebius, separately from his list of those ancients in favor of St. Eusebius (which is included in the Endnotes and referenced above) also includes a defense of his Orthodoxy and writes with great precision key details such as a defense of St. Eusebius against the 7^th Ecumenical Council (Second Nicaea) which branded him an Arian. It can be found in full here: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A38749.0001.001/1:7?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
4. William Cave, Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1713 AD) wrote a strong biography and defense of St. Eusebius, though he defends the spurious letter of St. Eusebius to Empress Constantia, used by iconoclasts in the 700s to show he supposedly detested sacred images of our Lord, as authentic. Of St. Eusebius’ Preparation for the Gospel and Proof of the Gospel, he states that so important are they to Christian apologetics “that the Christian World can never think it self sufficiently indebted to his Memory.” Particularly, section XXII-III offers a wonderful testimony to the Orthodoxy of St. Eusebius using Eusebius’ own writings to show he was not an Arian at all, similarly but not as strenuously as Rev. Lee would after him. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/B18837.0001.001/1:11.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
5. Likewise, Anglican Bishop George Bull (d. 1710 AD), known as a staunch and great defender of the Holy Trinity against Unitarianism (which in itself is a revival of Arianism) writes surprisingly a great deal on St. Eusebius being Orthodox in his writings, but most precisely and compactly in pp. 334-338 of his Works on the Trinity (Vol. 1 &2), which includes some references to his other works where he discusses St. Eusebius, and which can be found at: https://archive.org/details/bishopbullswork00bullgoog
6. The Historian Socrates of Constantinople (d. 439), whose own Ecclesiastical History is a continuation of St. Eusebius’ own, gives an entire chapter within to defend St. Eusebius’ Orthodoxy, going so far as to say indignantly: “what ground is there for assuming that he was himself an Arian? The Arians are also certainly deceived in supposing him to be a favorer of their tenets.” He goes on, much like Samuel Lee, to give several long passages by St. Eusebius that supports his Orthodoxy and how he truly repented of Arianism after the First Council of Nicaea. It can be found in Book 2, Chapter 21 of his Church History: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26012.htm
7. The Ecclesiastical History of Gelasius of Cyzicus (d. 475) [though it is today thought to not be written by Gelasius but an anonymous author] also heavily defends St. Eusebius, referring to him as “amazing” (p. 5), “excellent” (p. 6), “most noble of all writers” (p. 13), and “the most truth-loving Eusebius, son of the all-praiseworthy Pamphilus” (p. 17). https://www.fourthcentury.com/anonymous-church-history-cpg-6034/
8. IlariaRamelli’s recent article “Origen’s Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line” (published by VigiliaeChristianae 65, 2011. pp. 21-49https://afkimel.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/origens-anti-subordinationism-by-ramelli.pdf) goes mainly over Origen, who has also been accused of being a chief of the Arians and even the precursor to Arianism and shows such claims to be bunk. However, she also includes a lengthy segment on St. Eusebius, and defends him from being called Arian as well, and serves as a very important piece with rare sources on the subject matter. She even addresses how St. Athanasius even uses St. Eusebius to show he subscribed to the Nicene Creed and demonstrate to Arians why their views are wrong. In her own words, “Origen inspired Marcellus, who was anti-Arian, Eusebius, who was in fact no ‘Arian,’ Athanasius, the champion of anti-Arianism, and the Cappadocians” (22).

Endnotes:

[1] This erroneous comment has been edited out in recent months, but as late as August 2019 it stated such, which can be seen on the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20190820050806/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius

[2] Holweck, F. G. A Biographical Dictionary of the Saints: A General Introduction on Hagiology. Herder Book Co., 1924. P. 344.

[3] Wright, William. “An Ancient Syrian Martyrology.” Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record NS VIII, 15 (1865): 45-56; 16 (1866), p. 427. https://archive.org/details/WrightAnAncientSyrianMartyrology/page/n17/mode/2up

[4] ibid. p. 2

[5] Refer to my previous article on St. Eusebius of Caesarea, published by both Urho – The Way and, separately, the Center for Orthodox Studies (COS) here: https://urhotheway.com/2021/05/06/rediscovering-eusebius-of-caesarea/ and https://ocpsociety.org/blog/ocrc/rediscovering-eusebius-of-caesareas-sainthood-and-why-it-matters/

[6] The renowned Syrian Patriarch Mor Ignatius Aphrem I Barsoum writes in his magnum opus The Scattered Pearls: History of Syriac Literature and Sciences that Saint Jacob of Edessa translated the Ecclesiastical History, the Chronicle [now only fully available in a full Armenian translation, Latin fragments from St. Jerome’s translation, and Syrian fragments], the History of the Martyrs of Palestine [now only extant in Syriac], the Divine Manifestation of Our Lord [now only extant in Syriac], and the Defense of the Gospels [unclear on which work this one is, as it could be his Preparation for the Gospel or Proof of the Gospel, or it could be his partially lost Gospel Problems and Solutions] (paraphrased from Barsoum, Ignatius Ephrem I. The Scattered Pearls. 2^nd ed. Gorgias Press, 2003. p. 200). There also exists a potentially spurious work by him only available in Syriac named On the Star, regarding the Nativity of Christ, of which the translator William Wright remarks in regards to St. Eusebius of Caesarea being the true author:“there is no reason, so far as [he] can see, to doubt the correctness of that statement.” (it can be read here: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_star.htm)

[7] All excerpts following from Valesius’ list of those who favored St. Eusebius come from Phillip Schaff’s translation of them, which can be located here: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.iv.html#fnf_iii.iv-p1.2

[8] Written by Bishop J.B. Lightfoot and used in: Wace, Henry. A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies. London, 1911.pp. 674-706.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html

[9] Volume 2 of Martyrs, Saints, and Prelates of the Syriac Orthodox Church appears to only be digitally published and can be found for free on Corbishop Dr. Mani Rajan’s own website: http://rajanachen.com/download-english-books/ If someone finds a place to purchase the volume, so that I may show support to CorbishopRajan, please let me know in the comments section below. The All-in-One edition from 2017 referenced in Figure 5 can also be found at the link above.

[10] Encyclopedia Aethiopica, Vol. 2. Ed. by SiegbertUhlig. HarrassowitzVerlag, 2005. pp. 454-455.

[11]Holweck, p. 109

[12] S. Athanasius, The Festal Epistles With Notes and Indices. Tr. John Henry Parker. Oxford. 1854. Revised by Miss Payne-Smith. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/festal-letters-etc-11601Unfortunately there does not seem to be a complete Letter XXXII; only the summary of the letter survives.

[13] Here is a list of the icon locations of St. Eusebius in order, starting from the top left corner and going around clockwise:

1. Walters MS. W.542, Silver Gospels. 1488 AD. Fol. 3v. (Armenian)https://www.thedigitalwalters.org/Data/WaltersManuscripts/html/W542/description.html
   2. UCLA Library. MS.1, Gladzor Gospels. 1300-7 AD. Fol. 4. (Armenian)https://hob.gseis.ucla.edu/Spotlights/mardoyan.html
   3. Unfortunately, the exact manuscript of this one seems to have been lost to internet history, but it was apparently kept in the Digital Library of Poland and dates to the late 1100s AD. See here for the explanation of the manuscript pages, but none of the source links works anymore; even the Wayback Machine has not preserved properly working links: http://bibliodyssey.blogspot.com/2007_09_09_archive.html
   4.Vanderbilt Divinity Library. BibliotecaMedicea-Laurenziana MS. Plut. I.156. Rabbula Gospels. 586 AD. Fol. 2A (Syriac)https://asia.si.edu/exhibition/the-rabbula-gospels/
   5. Fresno State MS. 197, Cicilian Gospels,Akner, Cilicia, 1287 AD. (Armenian) http://www.fresnostate.edu/artshum/armenianstudies/resources/miniatures.html
   6. Walters MS. W.541, Amida Gospels. 17^th. Cent AD. Fol. 3v (Armenian) https://www.flickr.com/photos/medmss/8614600462/
   7. Smithsonian National Museum of Asian Art. The Gospel According to the Four Evangelists. 1669 AD. (Armenian) https://asia.si.edu/object/F1936.15/
   8. Getty Museum Collection, TorosRoslin, Zeytun Gospels. 1256 AD. (Armenian) https://shnorhali.com/word/
   9. Getty Museum Ludwig MS. II, Isfahan Gospels. 1615 AD. fol. 1v. (Armenian) https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/103044/mesrop-of-khizan-decorated-text-page-with-half-figure-of-eusebius-armenian-1615/
   10. Unknown MS, but from the Khndrakatar Monastery, 1584 AD. Currently located at the University Museum and Art Gallery of the University of Hong Kong. (Armenian) https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/short-reads/article/2085367/prayer-scrolls-and-illuminated-leaves-illustrate
   11. Morgan MS. M.620, Dǎsirk Gospels. 15^th Cent. AD. Fol. 1v. (Armenian) http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/2/122663
   12. Unknown MS, AmbaGeshan Monastery, 14^th Cent. AD. (Ethiopian) Found and scanned from p. 33 of The Gamira Gospels: Early Illuminated Gospel Books from Ethiopia by Judith S. McKenzie and Francis Watson (Manar al-Athar: 2016).
   13. British Library Magdala Collection Or. 481, unknown fol. 17^th Cent. AD. (Ethiopian) http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/ttp/ethiopic/accessible/pages6and7.html
   14. Morgan MS. M.749, Van Gospels. 1461 AD. Fol. 12v. (Armenian) http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/15/146986
   15. Walters MS. W.539, T’orosRoslin Gospels. 1262 AD. Fol. 1v. (Armenian) https://manuscripts.thewalters.org/viewer.php?id=W.539#page/8/mode/2up
   16. Matenadaran Collection, MS8321. Matenadaran Gospels. 13^th Cent. AD. (Armenian) http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/armenica.cgi?467864590376361=2=lc=1====lcz0036
   17. The centrepiece icon is the oldest of all and comes from the Abba Garima Gospels, AG II, fol. 259v, dated 350-500 AD. (Ethiopian) Retrieved fromTheGamira Gospels: Early Illuminated Gospel Books from Ethiopia, p. 146

Source:
Dcn. Clement (Logan Polk) – COS