We Can't Keep Ignoring Philostorgius and His Witness to an "Arian Edition" of Eusebius's Historia Ecclesiastica

 Philostorgius is often treated as little more than a hostile, late Anomoean footnote to “real” church history. But in this short notice preserved by Photius, he tells us something absolutely concrete about Eusebius of Caesarea that modern editors quietly sidestep. The value of the passage lies precisely in how un-theoretical it is. Philostorgius is not speculating. He is reporting what he thinks Eusebius wrote and how others in his milieu remembered that work.

First, here is the key Greek in a normalized form:

Ὅτι τά τε ἄλλα καὶ ὅσα πρὸς ἱστορίας ἥκει λόγον ὁ Φιλοστόργιος τὸν Παμφίλου Εὐσέβιον ἐπαινῶν, περὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν διαμαρτάνειν φησί. καὶ τὸ ἁμάρτημα ὁ δυσσεβὴς διηγούμενος, διότι ἄγνωστον τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἀκατάληπτον ἡγοῖτο, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα φησὶν αὐτὸν πλημμελεῖν. καταπαῦσαι δὲ αὐτὸν τὰς οἰκείας τῆς ἱστορίας μνήμας μέχρι τῆς τῶν παίδων διαδοχῆς τοῦ μεγάλου Κωνσταντίνου συνεπιμαρτύρεται.

What follows is the exact significance of what this Philostorgian passage confirms—not what later scholars would like it to mean, but what the Greek itself actually asserts.

Eusebius praised as a historian

Philostorgius begins by acknowledging Eusebius’ excellence as a historian:

ὅτι τά τε ἄλλα καὶ ὅσα πρὸς ἱστορίας ἥκει λόγον … ἐπαινῶν

“that Philostorgius, in other matters and in whatever concerns historical narrative, praises Eusebius…”

This is already striking. From Philostorgius’ perspective, Eusebius’ historical work, as history, is admirable. Whatever disagreements follow are not about narrative skill, sources, or historical reach, but about doctrine. Even an Anomoean polemicist feels obliged to concede that, on the level of historiographical craft, Eusebius does an excellent job.

Eusebius condemned as theologically defective

The criticism comes “perì tḕn eusébeian”:

περὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν διαμαρτάνειν φησί

“he says that [Eusebius] goes wrong in matters of piety.”

Philostorgius then specifies the supposed error:

διότι ἄγνωστον τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἀκατάληπτον ἡγοῖτο

“because he supposed the divine nature to be unknowable and incomprehensible.”

From Philostorgius’ Arian-Anomoean standpoint, this is a serious fault. Eusebius’ theology, in his eyes, is too “Origenist,” too apophatic, too philosophical. God is being treated as the utterly unknowable and incomprehensible, rather than as an object of the kind of sharp metaphysical definition that Arianizing theology wanted.

So when Philostorgius calls him δυσσεβής (“impious”), this does not mean that Eusebius is secretly a pagan or some sort of crypto-heretic in the modern sense. It means Eusebius is not Arian enough. His metaphysics of God does not satisfy Philostorgius’ standards of doctrinal clarity. The historian is being attacked, ironically, for failing to conform to a more radical Arian system.

Philostorgius is not attacking Eusebius as a historian. He is attacking him as a bad Arian.

The crucial line: Eusebius’ history runs to the succession of Constantine’s sons

Then comes the sentence that modern debates tend to wave away:

καταπαῦσαι δὲ αὐτὸν τὰς οἰκείας τῆς ἱστορίας μνήμας μέχρι τῆς τῶν παίδων διαδοχῆς τοῦ μεγάλου Κωνσταντίνου συνεπιμαρτύρεται.

“…and he is co-attested [by others] to have brought his own historical records to an end at the succession of the sons of Constantine the Great.”

Every important word here carries weight.

“τὰς οἰκείας τῆς ἱστορίας μνήμας” – “his own historical records,” that is, Eusebius’ Church History.

“μέχρι τῆς τῶν παίδων διαδοχῆς τοῦ μεγάλου Κωνσταντίνου” – not just to Constantine’s victory, not just to his twentieth year, but “up to the succession of the sons of Constantine the Great.”

That means at least to 337 CE, the year of Constantine’s death and the accession of Constantine II, Constans, and Constantius II. This is twelve years beyond the usual endpoint of our surviving text, which closes with the celebrations around 325 and the dedication of churches.

Philostorgius, in other words, attests a “longer Eusebius” whose Church History extended significantly beyond what we now possess.

And Philostorgius is not alone

The final verb is just as important:

συνεπιμαρτυρεῖται

“he is co-attested [in this] by others.”

Philostorgius is not presenting this as his own quirky opinion. He appeals to a broader tradition: other people, other writers, knew and affirmed that Eusebius’ historical work ran down to the succession of Constantine’s sons.

The implications are straightforward and uncomfortable for the standard editorial narrative.

First, Philostorgius clearly knew, or believed he knew, a form of Eusebius’ Church History that went past the Nicene Council and the twenty-year jubilee. Its chronological scope continued at least to 337 CE.

Second, Philostorgius insists that this was not a private fantasy of his. Others “co-testify” to the same fact. There was a remembered, shared tradition about a longer Eusebian history.

Third, this makes it extremely difficult to maintain that the ten-book edition in its present form is simply Eusebius’ original and final authorial version. Philostorgius is saying otherwise. Either he—and the “others” he invokes—are badly mistaken about something as basic as how far Eusebius’ history extended, or our text is incomplete.

What Philostorgius’ testimony actually gives us

Putting it all together, the passage supports the following points.

Eusebius’ historical skill was admired even by an Anomoean critic. As far as history-writing goes, Philostorgius praises him.

Eusebius’ theology, however, is condemned as defective. From Philostorgius’ Arian perspective, Eusebius errs by viewing the divine nature as “unknowable and incomprehensible” in an Origenist, apophatic sense.

Most crucially, Philostorgius states that Eusebius’ Church History originally extended to the succession of Constantine’s sons, that is, beyond 325 and into the late 330s.

He further states that this was not merely his private view but was “co-attested” by others.

From this it follows that the ten-book form we now possess cannot simply be equated with the fullest, final form of Eusebius’ history known in late antiquity. There is ancient testimony to a longer version, covering precisely the period of Constantine’s death and the early reign of his sons—a period of enormous significance for Arian and pro-Nicene struggles alike.

Conclusion

Philostorgius, our supposedly marginal Anomoean historian, turns out to be one of the most important witnesses to the textual history of Eusebius’ Church History. In a few lines, he tells us that Eusebius was both an excellent historian and, in his opinion, a theologically defective non-Arian—and that Eusebius’ history once ran down to the succession of Constantine’s sons, a fact known not only to Philostorgius but also to “others.”

If we take this testimony seriously, we are compelled to reckon with the likelihood that our present ten-book edition represents a shortened, reworked, or otherwise altered form of a longer Eusebian project, and that the missing stretch would have covered precisely the years in which Constantine’s dynasty achieved its greatest triumphs and set the stage for the doctrinal conflicts that followed.