Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T11:31:48.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Blackness of Ethiopians: Classical Ethnography and Eusebius's Commentary on the Psalms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2006

Aaron P. Johnson
Aaron P. Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The copious works of Eusebius of Caesarea are rarely investigated for their importance as testimonials to ancient knowledge of racial groups or to classical conceptions of ethnicity. Ancient ethnographical literature is not, however, an unimportant background for reading the bishop's works; nor are conceptions of race and ethnicity absent from his prolific literary output. In fact, racial assumptions are integral features in the development of various aspects—especially ecclesiological—of Eusebius's thought. Eusebius's prominent characterization of Christianity, which remains consistent throughout his entire literary career, is “the Church from the nations.” Such an appellation carried within itself the impulse to describe and define further the “nations” from which members of the Church were drawn. Persians, Scythians, Phoenicians, Egyptians and other “barbarian” nations, as well as Greeks, left behind the identities of their former lives when they adopted the new way of life and the new identity offered by Christ.

Information

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 99 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 165 - 186
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

The copious works of Eusebius of Caesarea are rarely investigated for their importance as testimonials to ancient knowledge of racial groups or to classical conceptions of ethnicity.1

Irfan Shahid, “Eusebius and the Arabs,” in Rome and the Arabs (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1984) 95–112, is a solitary instance. Also, to a lesser extent, Sebastian Brock, “Eusebius and Syriac Christianity,” in Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism (ed. Harold Attridge and Gohei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992) 212–34. For broader treatments of Christianity and ancient ethnography, see especially Hervé Inglebert, Interpretatio Christiana: Les mutations des savoirs (cosmographie, géographie, ethnographie, histoire) dans l'Antiquité chrétienne (Paris: Institut d'Études Augustiniennes, 2001) 109–92; Denise Kimber Buell, Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005); David Olster, “Classical Ethnography and Early Christianity,” in The Formulation of Christianity by Conflict through the Ages (ed. Katharine Free; Lewiston: E. Mellen Press, 1995) 9–31.

Ancient ethnographical literature is not, however, an unimportant background for reading the bishop's works; nor are conceptions of race and ethnicity absent from his prolific literary output.2

See Aaron P. Johnson, Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). For an overview of Eusebius's literary productivity see Lorenzo Perrone, “Eusebius of Caesarea as a Christian Writer,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia (ed. Avner Raban and Kenneth Holum; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 515–30. I use the following abbreviations when referring to Eusebius's works: Comm. Ps. (Commentaria in Psalmos); Comm. Isa. (Commentaria in Isaiam); Proph. Ecl. (Propheticae Eclogae); PE (E Praeparatio Evangelica); DE (E Demonstratio Evangelica); HE (E Historia Ecclesiastica); SC (de Sepulchro Christi); Theoph. (Theophania).

In fact, racial assumptions are integral features in the development of various aspects—especially ecclesiological—of Eusebius's thought. Eusebius's prominent characterization of Christianity, which remains consistent throughout his entire literary career, is “the Church from the nations.” Such an appellation carried within itself the impulse to describe and define further the “nations” from which members of the Church were drawn. Persians,3

See e.g., PE 1.4.6; SC 16.9.

Scythians,4

See e.g., PE 1.4.6; Theoph. 3.7; 5.17; SC 16.9.

Phoenicians,5

See e.g., PE 1.10.54 (repeated verbatim at 2.praef.1); 2.praef.4.

Egyptians6

See e.g., PE 2.1.51; Theoph. 3.12–13; Comm. Isa. 1.76–77.

and other “barbarian” nations,7

See e.g., PE 1.4.6–7; E DE 1.2.13; E Theoph. 4.4–5; 5.26, 46.

as well as Greeks,8

See e.g., PE 1.5.10, 11, 13.

left behind the identities of their former lives when they adopted the new way of life and the new identity offered by Christ.9

See Johnson, Ethnicity and Argument, ch. 7.

Among such nations, the Ethiopians played a crucial role in the articulation of Christian identity, although this is limited almost exclusively to contexts where Eusebius grappled with determining the historical fulfillment of Hebrew prophetic texts that mentioned Ethiopians. Eusebius's commentaries on the Psalms and on Isaiah (both abundant repositories of often neglected material that illuminates Eusebius's thought)10

See, however, Michael Hollerich, Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Isaiah (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999); Carmelo Curti, Eusebiana, I: Commentarii in Psalmos (Catania: Università di Catania, 1987); Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981) 97–104.

provide most of the relevant passages. In what follows I want to offer a survey of the evidence from his commentary on the Psalms in order to appreciate more fully the salience of Ethiopian ethnicity in Eusebius's construction of ecclesiological identity. At the same time, I hope to delineate the discourses on Ethiopian identity within which Eusebius is working, and against which he positions himself. Doing so will deepen our understanding of Christian representations of both Ethiopians and blackness in late antiquity. Recent interest in the subject has certainly done much to bring such representations to modern attention.11

See Gay L. Byron, Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature (New York: Routledge, 2002); David Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003).

The value of tracing the literary function of Ethiopians in Christian literature can hardly be ignored. The portrayals range in tone from rather abrasive racism (as in Egyptian monastic texts)12

See Philip Mayerson, “Anti-Black Sentiment in the Vitae Patrum,” HTR 71 (1978) 304–11; on ancient racism generally (though unfortunately omitting any comment on Ethiopians and other blackskinned peoples), see Benjamin H. Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).

to more reserved admiration (in, for instance, the stories of the Ethiopian Moses, although this offers at the same time a stark picture of that racism).13

See Byron, Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference, 115–20; David Brakke, “Ethiopian Demons: Male Sexuality, the Black-Skinned Other, and the Monastic Self,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 10 (2001) 501–35.

Eusebius made his own significant contribution to the Christian literary construction of Ethiopian identity.

Eusebius's commentary on the Psalms adopted a positive stance—indeed, one of the most positive among early Christians—toward the dark-skinned Ethiopians while also putting them to good use within his larger (apologetic) argument for Christian triumphalist identity. Remaining incapable of excising totally traditional Ethiopian exoticism in Greek and Roman ethnographical discourses, Eusebius nonetheless showed a remarkable resolve to curb negative portrayals of Ethiopians in Christian biblical interpretation (especially as developed by Origen). In spite of his unabashed liking for Origen as a theologian and biblical scholar, Eusebius formulated a critical approach to Origen's readings of biblical Ethiopians.14

See generally HE 6, with Patrica Cox Miller, Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983) 69–101. For Origen's influence on Eusebius, see variously, Charles Kannengiesser, “Eusebius of Caesarea, Origenist,” in Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, 435–66; George Florovsky, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Iconoclastic Controversy,” CH 19 (1950) 77–96; Michael J. Hollerich, “Origen's Exegetical Heritage in the Early Fourth Century: The Evidence of Eusebius,” in Origeniana Quinta (ed. Robert J. Daly; Leuven: Peeters, 1992) 542–48; Jörg Ulrich, “Euseb und die Juden. Der origeneische Hintergrund,” in Origeniana Septima (ed. Wolfgang A. Bienert and Uwe Kühneweg; Leuven University Press, 1999) 135–40.

In these two scholars we see a divergence of interpretation with respect to the biblical Ethiopians towards two separate nodes of identity: that of color symbolism and that of geographical remoteness.

Greek Constructions of Ethiopian Identity

Already in Homer the extreme remoteness of the Ethiopians, geographical and mythical, appears central to their representation in the Greek literary imagination. They dwell “apart furthest of men, some beyond the setting sun, others beyond the rising sun.”15

Od. 1.23–24

.

The division of Ethiopia into two parts, one in the west and the other in the east, would become fixed in the Greek geographical tradition on Ethiopia. This allowed for an almost deliberate ambiguity as to where these distant people dwelt.16

See Bonnie MacLachlan, “Feasting with Ethiopians: Life on the Fringe,” QUCC 40 (1992) 15–33; J. Y. Nadeau, “Ethiopians,” Classical Quarterly 20 (1970) 339–49; James Romm, The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992) 49–54; Philip Mayerson, “A Confusion of Indias: Asian India and African India in the Byzantine Sources,” JAOS 113 (1993) 169–74; Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham, 18–19.

A certain amount of cartographic indeterminacy perpetuated the radical alterity of the Ethiopians within Hellenizing discourse. These were a people living in lands so far away that one could never precisely fix them within the domain of geographical knowledge. In some sense, Homer's Ethiopia was perfectly suited to become a “floating signifier,”17

I take the term from Stuart Hall, “Race: The Floating Signifier,” videorecording (Northampton, Mass,: Media Education Foundation, 1996).

imbued with a fruitful potency in constructing the world in which the Greeks imagined themselves distinctively placed.18

Similarly see James Redfield's comments on Herodotus (“Herodotus the Tourist,” in Greeks and Barbarians [ed. Thomas Harrison; New York: Routledge, 2002] 24–49, at 30).

Their very remoteness especially qualified these epic Ethiopians for flights of utopian fantasy. In fact, Homer's description of the Ethiopians gives us a first glimpse of the sort of fantastical imagination about societies beyond the range of civilized Mediterranean life, untrammeled by the vices of Greek urban life, which found popular expression in the utopian literature of the Hellenistic age.19

See John Ferguson, Utopias in the Classical World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975) 18–19, esp. 12; MacLachlan, “Feasting with Ethiopians,” 26–30. Moses Hadas, “Utopian Sources in Herodotus,” CP 30 (1935) 113–21, attempts to elucidate the pre-Herodotean utopian material.

As Homer's Menelaus recalls, the distant peoples he had visited, the Ethiopians and others, inhabited lands of bucolic abundance and fantastic profusion of natural resources. It was in these far-off lands that “the rams grow their horns quickly. Three times a year their flocks give birth, and there no lord would ever go wanting, nor would his shepherd, for cheese or meat, nor for the sweet milk either, but always the sheep yield a continuous supply for their sucklings.”20

Od. 4.84. Translation modified from Lattimore. The passage is alluded to in Virgil, Ecl. 10.68; see Nadeau, “Ethiopians,” 340–41.

The land of the Ethiopians touched the streams of Oceanus; as Iris declares in her anxiety to be on her way: “I go to the streams of Oceanus, to the land of the Ethiopians.”21

Il. 23.206. See also Il. 1.423.

The earth ended with the Ethiopians. This special liminality on the earth's surface marked Ethiopia as occupying a space where the human met the divine. Dwelling beside Oceanus, the Ethiopians inhabited the geographical and conceptual limits of humanity. Any attempt to go beyond Ethiopia was to leave things human for things divine.22

For those who dwell beyond Oceanus, see Theog. 215 (Hesperides); 274 (Gorgons); 289–94 (Heracles crossed Oceanus).

Ethiopia was thus conceived as the earthly retreat of the gods. The Ethiopians' proximity to the gods carried a moral idealization succinctly expressed in the epithet “blameless Ethiopians.”23

Il. 1.423, pace MacLachlan, “Feasting With Ethiopians,” 22, who sees the epithet as having a purely esthetic reference; see Diodorus Siculus 3.2.3; Strabo 1.1.6; 1.2.28; Lucian Jup. Trag. 37; Prometh. 17. Though not labeled an Ethiopian, the black-skinned and wooly-haired herald Eurybates is praised for his loyalty and upright moral character; see Od. 19.246–248; Frank Snowden, Before Color Prejudice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983) 69.

It is among the Ethiopians that the gods would feast with humans on familiar terms.24

Il. 1.423; 23.206; see Statius, Theb. 5.426–430; Silv. 4.2.53–56; Virgil, Aen. 4.206–208 (where the Mauretanians represent the western Ethiopians, see Nadeau, “Ethiopians,” 341).

Such sacrality was strengthened by the claim that the gods not only frequented the land touching Oceanus, but that they found their very beginnings in Oceanus. Homer named Oceanus “the origin of the gods.”25

Il. 14.201; Plato, Crat. 402b (quoted with Orphica fr. 15 [Kern]).

Hesiod provides further details, enumerating the various offspring (usually sea nymphs, “three thousand slender-ankled daughters,” Theog. 364–366) of Oceanus.26

See Theog. 240–269; 287–288; 337–370; 907–911; 956–962; 979–983.

Iris herself was descended from Oceanus.27

Ibid., 265–266.

This mythic portrayal of the Ethiopians would retain much of its strength even in later historical and geographical literature, and this in spite of their placement within new frameworks and the strong urge toward “domestication,” which was inherent in the production of ancient ethnographic knowledge.28

See François Hartog, “The Greeks as Egyptologists,” in Greeks and Barbarians (ed. Thomas Harrison; New York: Routledge, 2002) 211–228, at 212.

Although Herodotus questioned the existence of Oceanus,29

Herodotus 2.23; 4.8, 36; see Ptolemy Geogr. 7.5.2.

he maintained the Ethiopians' remoteness “at the ends of the earth” (3.25).30

See also Herodotus 2.31; Romm, The Edges of the Earth, 54–60.

His narrative of Persian-Ethiopian contact via the Fish-eaters not only perpetuated, but in fact enhanced, the representation of the Ethiopian as the noble savage.31

The encounter between Persian and Ethiopian cultures has been described as “ethnologic satire” by Romm, The Edges of the Earth, 59. Incidentally, the episode is briefly and obliquely noted, although as a defeat of the Persians rather than merely an abortive campaign, by Eusebius at Comm. Isa. 1.61 (Ziegler 80.4–5).

Unconcerned with foreign conquest, and unimpressed by Persian gold and scarlet robes, their king displayed the heroic strength of the Ethiopian, stringing his massive bow, which was a feat difficult to imitate (3.19–24). Herodotus's Ethiopians were “long-lived,” (3.21) and they were said to be the tallest and best-looking people in the world (3.20). The blackness of Ethiopian skin, absent from Homer, becomes part of the ethnographic picture after Herodotus,32

Their skin color results from the hot climate: Herodotus 2.22.

while climatic considerations become an integral element in deterministic accounts about the Ethiopians.33

See Strabo 17.2.1 (note the absence of skin color).

The utopianizing impulse continued. Menelaus's account of the marvelous productivity of Ethiopian flocks is complemented by Herodotus's report of the spontaneous appearance of meat (already cooked) on the Table of the Sun (3.18).34

The meat produced at the Table of the Sun stands in sharp contrast to the still “raw” meat that Odysseus's men had eaten in Od. 12.352–396; see Jean-Pierre Vernant, “Food in the Countries of the Sun,” in The Cuisine of Sacrifice Among the Greeks (ed. Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant; trans. Paula Wissing; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989) 164–69.

Less flattering portraits were added to Greek discourse on Ethiopian identity as well. According to physiognomical theory, the Ethiopians' black skin marked them as cowards.

35

Pseudo-Aristotle, Physiog. 812a13–14. It should be noted that the author adds the additional observation that those who are excessively white, such as women, were also cowards (812b1–2).

Their wooly hair further cemented their connection to cowardice.36

Ibid., 812b30–332.

Philo of Alexandria would pick up this identification. While the land of Ethiopia was surrounded by the river Geon, which signified courage, Ethiopia itself signified

, “since cowardice is lowly.”

37

Philo, Leg. 1.68; cp. Origen, Sel. Gen. §§ 39–40 (PG 12:100B), discussed below. See Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham, 243 n. 10.

Though Diodorus represented the Ethiopians as the first to honor the gods and foremost in piety,38

Diodorus Siculus 3.2–7; cf. Lucian, Astrol. 3–5.

other Greek authors in the Roman period drew opposite conclusions from the Ethiopians' black skin. Blackness represented evil,39

Philo, QG 2.82.

and black men possessed bad character.40

Plutarch Lib. ed., 12E; cf. Pindar, frag. incert. 225 Snell. See Byron, Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference, 35–36.

A man's black skin evinced his suitability for the life of a slave.41

Lucian Paras. 41.

Origen's Ethiopians

While early Christian authors wrote about Ethiopians, it remained for the literary industry of Origen to develop fully what would become standard Christian ideas about Ethiopians. Impetus for such development in the Christian ethnic imagination came predominantly from grappling with problematic passages in the Hebrew scriptures that named Ethiopians. Origin's discussions centered on the application of color symbolism to the soul. Origen considered the occurrence of Ethiopians in key passages of the Hebrew scriptures to signify the blackness of a sinful soul in need of the cleansing that Christ's teaching offers. Adopting Philo's etymology of Cush as “dirt,”42

Sel. Gen. §§ 39–40 (PG 12:100B); see Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham, 17 with n. 3.

Origen interpreted biblical Ethiopians in such a way as to funnel the various elements of Ethiopian identity into a focus upon the blackened color of their skin.

Origen's commentary on the Song of Songs exhibits his most detailed treatment of Ethiopians. Solomon's bride, who is “black and beautiful” (nigra sum et formosa) symbolizes the sinful soul that converts to Christianity.43

Origen, Comm. Cant. 2.1; see, Byron, Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference, 72–75; Jean Marie Courtès, “The Theme of ‘Ethiopia’ and ‘Ethiopians’ in Patristic Literature,” in The Image of the Black in Western Art, vol. 2, pt. 1 (ed. Jean Devisse; New York: William Morrow and Co., 1979) 14–16.

The Ethiopian bride's blackness signified, for Origen, her ignoble birth and her lack of enlightenment by the Law, which stood in contrast to the rich ancestral heritage of the chosen people.44

Origen, Comm. Cant. 2.1.3.

She represented, therefore, the souls of the gentile nations who had been drawn into the embrace of Christ the bridegroom. She was the “Church of the Gentiles.”45

See Luc Brésard and Henri Crouzel, Origène. Commentaire sur le Cantique des Cantiques (SC 375; Paris: Cerf, 1991) 39–40.

But despite her humble origins, Solomon's bride bore the image of God; hence like other biblical black things, such as the tents of Cedar or the curtains of Solomon, she was beautiful.46

Origen, Comm. Cant. 2.1.5.

This contrast between souls brought to Christ (without the Mosaic Law), and the Jews, recently made jealous by gentile inclusion, guides Origen's discussion of other biblical Ethiopians . There follows a string of interpretations of Moses' Ethiopian bride, Queen Sheba's visit to Solomon, the Ethiopians of the psalmist and of Zephaniah, and Jeremiah's Ethiopian rescuer, Abdimelech.

Harsh feelings of Jewish resentment toward gentiles, who had been accepted into the kingdom and possessed a “spiritual law,” found ample foreshadowing, in Aaron and Miriam's jealousy towards Moses' Ethiopian wife. The allegorical approach, for which Origen has become so well-known, is fundamental here. While Miriam represented “the forsaken synagogue,” and Aaron represented the priest hood and Pharisees, Moses (“that is, the Law of the Lord”) had found conjugal embrace with an anonymous Ethiopian bride (“that is, the spiritual law).”47

Ibid. 2.1.23; see also, Origen, Hom. Num. 6.4.

God would duly punish the jealous arrogance of Miriam and Aaron,48

Origen dedicated his seventh Homily on Numbers to this theme.

and He would show favor toward the gentile.

Such inclusion is repeated in the narrative about the queen of the South. Sheba, who received a share of Solomon's wisdom, was not, however, explicitly identified as Ethiopian in the relevant biblical passages. Hence Origen adds important glosses to cement the connection: the passage refers to Sheba as the queen of the south, “because Ethiopia lies in the southern parts”; she comes from the ends of the earth because Ethiopia, “is, as it were, situated in the farthest place.”49

Origen, Comm. Cant. 2.1.14.

As such, she perfectly represents the church of the gentiles. Similarly, Abdimelech aiding Jeremiah when he was cast into a pit signified those non-Jews who believed in the resurrection from death of Him whom the Jews had handed over to death.50

Ibid. 2.1.47.

The faithful behavior of Ethiopians like Sheba or Abdimelech exhibited well Origen's claim that, in accordance with Psalm 67 (“Ethiopia shall stretch out her hands to God”), the souls of gentiles not only found inclusion among God's people, but they even outstripped the Jews in coming to God.51

Ibid. 2.1.42.

Throughout his treatment of biblical Ethiopians in his Song of Songs commentary, Origen reiterates that it is not merely the non-Jewish ancestry of the Ethiopians that make them an important type of the church of the gentiles; their black skin, in particular, made them apt representatives for souls darkened by sin. The declaration in Zeph 3:10, that those “beyond the rivers of Ethiopia” would be saved refers, according to Origen, to those exceedingly darkened by many sins.52

Ibid. 2.1.44; Origen adds the further interpretive possibility that the phrase could refer to those coming to Christianity who are above and beyond the “fullness of the gentiles;” see Hom. Jerem. 5.4.

Significantly, he does not emphasize (as we might expect given the dominant conceptions in Greek discourse on Ethiopians) the geographical remoteness that such a phrase might evoke. Already when he sought to explicate the allegorical significance of Sheba, his glosses on Ethiopia's location in the farthest south functioned only to connect Sheba with Ethiopia in order to portray her encounter with Solomon as another example of the gentiles' inclusion among God's people.53

Origen, Comm. Cant. 2.1.14.

Such geographical notes were made in passing and were never emphasized. The motif of spiritual remoteness, of a soul's darkness as a result of sin, dominates his conception of Ethiopia. Origen concludes: “Every single soul is black (nigra) because of sins, but beautiful (formosa) on account of repentance.”54

Ibid. 2.1.56.

For good reason, Origen's discussion in his commentary on the Song of Songs has found ample attention in modern treatments of early Christian representations of blacks or Ethiopians. Despite some omissions,55

For instance, the episode of the Ethiopian eunuch's conversion at the hands of Philip (Acts 8.26–40) is raised in Comm. Jo. 1.15.85 only with regard to what Philip says; Origen exhibits a disinterest in drawing the interpretive richness of the Ethiopian's racially and sexually exotic status. For discussion of the passage's importance, see Byron, Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference, 109–15.

Origen's commentary remains one of the most systematic and comprehensive attempts by Christian thinkers in the ancient world to make sense of the Ethiopians in the Hebrew scriptures. Other less-noticed discussions in Origen's corpus, however, add considerably to our understanding of his manipulation of Ethiopian identity. Throughout we find a persistently allegorical vision of biblical Ethiopians.56

The only exception seems to be in his apology against Celsus (Cels. 5.34, 37, 38), where, apparently drawing on Herodotus 2.29, Origen notes that unlike the Arabs and Egyptians, the Ethiopians worship only Zeus and Dionysus.

In his commentary on the Song of Songs, Origen allowed for a somewhat positive conceptualization of Ethiopians inasmuch as the souls blackened by sin were nonetheless beautiful because of the impress of the image of God. Other statements, however, reveal a more straightforwardly negative sense. These other discussions seem to be driven solely by his attempt to engage allegorically with whatever text is under consideration. While some verses provoked a more negative interpretation, Origen's general approach to biblical Ethiopians remained more or less consistent: their skin color confined them to the role of symbols for sinful souls.

Following a quotation of Song of Songs 1:5, Origen reiterates in his homily on Jeremiah (11.6) his interpretation of the black bride as the sinful soul. But while his commentary on this passage left the Ethiopian as a symbol for the church of the gentiles in their present identity, the homily draws a distinction between the soul's pre-conversion and post-conversion identities. “At first we are likened to the Ethiopians in our souls, then we are cleansed in order that we might become whiter according to the passage that says, ‘Who is she who comes up whitened (

)’ (Song 8.5).”

57

Origen, Hom. Jerem. 11.6 (Pierre Nautin, Origène. Homélies sur Jérémie [SC 232; Paris: Cerf, 1976] 430):

The purified soul of the Christian has, therefore, been freed from its darkened Ethiopian-like state. Ethiopian identity, allegorically understood, is the pre-conversion state of a soul; it is an identity to be shunned, a sinful darkness to be washed in the whitening process of conversion.

Tharseis (= Tarshish), whose exact location seems to shift among early Christians (as we will see below with Eusebius), becomes linked with the Ethiopians and carries, for Origen, a similar signification. A note on Ps 47:8 (LXX) first makes the connection: “Tharseis refers to a part of Ethiopia; the city Tarsus is called Tharseis by Jonah.”

58

Origen, Sel. Ps. 47.8 (PG 12:1440BC):

.

Later he supplements this information in the Selecta in Psalmos. When the psalmist declares “the Ethiopians will fall before Him, and his enemies will lick the dust, the king of Tharseis and the island … (Ps. 71.9LXX),” Origen explains, “I suppose a difference from those coming to Christ is indicated in these words.”59

Origen, Sel. Ps. 71.9 (PG 12:1524C):

. Rather than take the phrase as “the difference of the Christians,” I opted for “difference from the Christians.” My choice follows from consideration of the verbal form's relationship with the genitive:

gen. = “differ from someone” (see LSJ s.v. III.4). The noun form combined with the genitive can be taken either as “a difference of one person [toward someone else]” (see LSJ s.v. II; Lampe s.v. 1b) or as “a difference from someone” or “between someone and another” (see BAGD s.v.; Herbert W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920] 334§1430). Because of the brevity of Origen's comment, certainty is impossible. But my translation of the phrase as a genitive of distinction is strengthened by the fact that Origen's previous note was based on a psalm announcing the destruction of kings who are hostile to Zion, among them the king of Tharseis. Furthermore, in the present note, the king of Tharseis seems to stand in a series of enemies who are nonetheless brought into submission to the Lord. While Eusebius will offer a positive reading of the passage (for which, see below), such a reading may not be warranted here.

Another note on the same verse continues: “Tharseis is an Ethiopian nation (

). Further, the word Tharseis indicates the hyacinthine (

) color, as we have from the prophet: ‘Their likeness [was] like Tharseis.’ ”

60

Ibid.:

.

A number of difficulties attend these brief glosses on Tharseis and the Ethiopians. Important for the present inquiry is the connection being made between the city and the nation. Biblical prophecies against the city and king of Tharseis, delivered because of their hostility to God, extended to the Ethiopians as a whole. Here Ethiopians were not “black and beautiful,” their beauty had been eclipsed by darkness.

The force of this negative interpretive schema for the Ethiopians is played out in other relevant passages. Origen adopted the Philonic etymology: Ethiopia was Cush in Hebrew; as such it “indicates darkness … because of the darkness of their skin, which Ethiopia has beside its other brothers.”

61

Origen, Sel. Gen. 11.13 (PG 12:100B):

. It should be noticed that in contrast to Philo's treatment of the same passage (where the river Geon represented courage and Cush represented cowardice), Origen here merely limits himself to the etymology of darkness and omits further moral evaluation.

Commenting upon Is 43:3–4 (“I gave Ethiopia and Egypt as your exchange [

], and Syene for you”), Origen leads on, “Let the one who is able enquire if the exchange, that is the true Ethiopia and spiritual Egypt, of the true Israel was given by God, redeeming Israel from all lawlessness.”

62

Origen, Comm. Matth. 12.28 (PG 13:1045A, 1048A), citing Ps 129:8 (LXX):

.

Before concluding his remarks on Ethiopia, he ventures to say, “that I might make a more bold interpretation, Syene is the exchange for Jerusalem, Egypt for Judaea, Ethiopia for those who fear [the Lord].”63

Ibid.:

.

Assuming his reader can easily identify the true Ethiopia and the true Egypt, Origen continues his discussion (on “what will someone give in exchange for their soul”). But the point is sufficiently clear: the true Ethiopia and Egypt are distinct from, or are even in opposition to, the true Israel and those who fear the Lord. Ethiopia is certainly no figure of the Church here.64

For the opposite interpretation of this passage see Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 2.24 (Ziegler 277).

Origen's tone is harsher in his explanation of the daily, or rather, “supersubstantial,” (

) bread in the Lord's Prayer.

65

Origen, Or. 27.12. General discussion of Origen's argument here may be found in Virginia L. Noel, “Nourishment in Origen's On Prayer,” in Origeniana Quinta, 481–87.

Here the Ethiopian soul, one that has “nourished upon the serpent,” is beyond the point of redemption; but the one who receives the supersubstantial bread becomes a son of God:

The one who partakes of the serpent is none other than the spiritual Ethiopian, openly changing even himself into a snake through the food66

Alistair Stewart-Sykes supplies “snares” after the neuter article here (Tertullian, Cyprian & Origen on the Lord's Prayer [Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2004] 182).

of the serpent so that he is abused by the Word, and should he say that he wants to be baptized, he hears “snakes, brood of vipers, who showed you to flee from the coming wrath?” (Matt 3:7).67

Origen, Or. 27.12:

In this passage Origen derived his spiritual Ethiopian from the psalmist's declaration, “You will crush the heads of the serpents on the water; you crushed the head of the serpent, you gave him [as] food to the Ethiopian peoples” (Ps 73:13–14 LXX).

“But if it is not clear,” Origen proceeds, “that, since the son of God substantially subsists (

), and the opposing one also subsists, the nourishment of each of them is [the food] of this one or that one [that is, the child of God and the “spiritual Ethiopian”], why do we shrink from receiving [nourishment] from any power—whether better or worse?”

68

Ibid.:

.

After citing the example of Peter being told to eat all foods before meeting with Cornelius, Origen adds: “Some such beings can serve as nourishing food for us, while of others quite the opposite is true, unless69

Regarding the use of “unless,” I follow Stewart-Sykes, Tertullian, Cyprian & Origen, 183.

God purifies them and makes them all nourishing—even those of every kind.”70

Ibid. (translation modified from O'Meara):

.

Origen's attitude in this discussion of the supersubstantial bread is intriguing, and his identification of the psalmist's Ethiopian with the soul that partakes of the supersubstantial serpent—satanic nourishment to be sure—is consistent with the trend we have seen in his other statements on biblical Ethiopians. In spite of attempts at conversion and baptism, the one nourished by the serpent's sustenance finds only rejection from Christ. We find, then, that Origen's manipulation of the trope of the biblical Ethiopian has now turned back on itself: elsewhere the figure of the Church of the gentiles, the Ethiopian is here linked with the powers of darkness to such an extent that redemption is made impossible (though even in the De oratione there is some slippage: “unless God purifies them and makes them all nourishing”). The darkness of the Ethiopian's skin has dimmed the prospects of inclusion among the people of God.

A final passage provides the furthest point toward which Origen shifts away from his vision of the Church as the Ethiopian bride. Origen comments on the phrase “the end (

) of the nations,” which occurs in a prophecy by Ezekiel on the destruction of the nations on the day of the Lord (Ezek 30:3): This “is the hand of the Lord against all Egypt and Ethiopia; the prophecies against men are said against the Egyptians, but those against the opposing powers [are said] against the Ethiopians.”

71

Origen, Sel. Ezech. 30.3 (PG 13:824C):

.

Ethiopia becomes a figure of demonic forces (i.e., “opposing powers”). Such a conception has moved beyond the range of human souls darkened by sin to spiritual powers that lie opposed to God.

Eusebius and the Tropes of Ethiopian Identity

As one of the foremost biblical scholars of antiquity, and as the inheritor of Origen's library,72

See HE 6.32; on Eusebius's library see the thorough study of Andrew J. Carriker, E of Eusebius of Caesarea (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

Eusebius of Caesarea proves an interesting figure in early Christian discourse on Ethiopians. Interestingly he consistently off-sets Origen's increasingly negative image that had been fostered with so much exegetical care. Although biblically-rooted, Eusebius's conceptualization of Ethiopian identity followed lines already laid down by classical authors. Furthermore, his rhetorical aims differed from his scholarly forebear at Caesarea. He located Ethiopian identity more firmly than Origen in geographical remoteness, and at the same time, he eschewed the color symbolism that had formed an integral part of Origen's interpretive design. In the following remarks I hope to elucidate Eusebius's motivations for manipulating Ethiopian identity in his commentary on the Psalms by offering a survey of those passages whose authenticity is beyond doubt.73

Issues of authenticity regarding the commentary material contained in PG 23 and 24 have been discussed by Eduard Schwartz, “Eusebios von Caesarea,” RE 11 (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler sche Buchhandlung 1909) cols. 1435–1436; Marie–Josèphe Rondeau and Jean Kirchmeyer, “Eusèbe de Césarée. Les psaumes,” in Dictionnaire de spiritualité (ed. André Rayez; Paris: Beauchesnes, 1961) 4.2.1689–90.

Four psalms in particular warranted the Caesarean commentator's attention: Psalms 67, 71, 73 and 86. In spite of the near-total neglect of Eusebius in surveys of Christian attitudes toward the Ethiopians,74

Eusebius is omitted from, for example, Byron, Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference; and Courtès, “The Theme of ‘Ethiopia’ and ‘Ethiopians’ in Patristic Literature.”

his Psalms commentary alone requires careful consideration by anyone seeking to appreciate Christian ethnographic imagination in late antiquity.75

While the present discussion focuses on his Comm. Ps., there are important discussions in his other (primarily exegetical) works; e.g., Proph. Ecl. 4.22 (PG 22:1229C); Comm. Isa. 2.24 (Ziegler 277); 2.28 (Ziegler 294); DE 5.4.3; Theoph. 1.38. Each of these is noteworthy for their seemingly more negative attitude to the Ethiopians; however, in almost every case they seem to be guilty by association with Egypt, the bastion of idolatry, but even then they are often separated, at least to some degree, from the negative portrayal of Egyptians. All but the latter (which has its own difficulties as a Syriac translation) refuse to adopt any sort of color symbolism.

By doggedly pursuing a “triumphalist” interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures, which is epitomized in the phrase “the Church from the nations,” Eusebius interprets biblical passages that mention the Ethiopians in a positive sense. Such instances show his focus upon the geographical remoteness of the Ethiopians. As inhabitants of the hazy horizons of human geography, at the ends of the earth, they evinced the sweeping extent of Christ's kingdom. If even those who dwelt farthest away had become incorporated into the kingdom, then no people could be left out of the universal scope of Christianity.

Ethiopia will extend her hand (Comm. Ps.67:32)

Psalm 67 and the three psalms that precede it were, for Eusebius, prophetic texts about the apostolic proclamation of the Gospel and the rise of Christianity. In particular, these psalms spoke of the “calling of the nations (

),”

76

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 67.2–4 (PG 23:677D).

the prophetic Spirit invoking God, “as if in the character (

) of the apostles,” to strengthen their kerygmatic labors and aid them in completing “the race of the Gospel without hindrance.”

77

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 67.2–4 (PG 23:680AB).

When later the psalmist declared that, “Embassies will come from Egypt, Ethiopia will extend her hand to God (Ps 67: 32),” Eusebius remarks that the context for understanding the references to foreign peoples should be the swift and extensive growth of Christ's teachings:

Clearly, in these words [the apostles] preach to Egypt, secretly meaning the idolaters, since idolatry began from Egypt. But also it says that Ethiopia extended her hand to God, indicating the ends of the earth (

). Then they call together all the kingdoms of the earth, all the nations being indicated in this manner.”

78

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 67.2–4 (PG 23:680B):

.

His introductory comments on the psalm as a whole already lay down the lines Eusebius will take when he eventually reaches the remote Ethiopians in v. 32.

When he finally devotes attention to v. 32, for special treatment of its own (nineteen pages later), Eusebius reiterates his initial evaluation of Egypt as the birthplace of idolatry. When God scattered the nations to create a space for the Church, Egypt seemed a natural starting-point since the inhabitants were “idolaters to the extreme.” And “the Egyptians were the most superstitious of all humans and all nations.”

79

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 67.31–32 (PG 23:717A):

.

Hence the embassies from Egypt, that is, “those who were about to come out of Egypt and cross over to the knowledge of God,” signified “the whole race (

) of idolaters.”

80

Ibid.:

.

While Eusebius reserved for Egypt a space of spiritual remoteness, distinctively idolatrous and superstitious, Ethiopia was strictly allotted the sense of geographical remoteness.

The phrase, “Ethiopia extends her hands to God,” Eusebius argues, “indicates the farthest parts (

) of the human world. For the statement indicates that they will come from all the nations, from the rising of the sun to its setting…. Even in history (

) it is possible to say that this has been fulfilled in the Ethiopian whom the Acts of the Apostles mentions.

81

Eusebius is followed here by Pseudo-Athanasius, Expos. in Psalm. 67 §32 (PG27:304C).

For he nearly outran the other nations, having been deemed worthy of the knowledge of the Savior before everybody else. The Acts of the Apostles also makes clear that the embassies from Egypt came in history (

) when it says that on the day of Pentecost,” members of all nations, including Egypt, were present, “like embassies of the nations.”

82

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 67.31–32 (PG 23:717A–C):

.

With slightly different wording, Eusebius makes clear his interpretation of the Ethiopians in the passage. At the edges, or the farthest parts of the inhabited world, the Ethiopians represent the entrance into the Church of those most distant of peoples. His assertion that Ethiopia extended her hands to God, referring to the coming of all nations from the rising of the sun to its setting, is interesting. The connection of Ethiopia to both the eastern and western horizons, common in classical literature, is not present anywhere in the psalm. In fact, mention of the western regions occurs in v. 5 (“make way for the One who has come in the places of the setting sun”), and the eastern regions are mentioned in v. 34 (“the Lord has come on the heaven of heavens in the places of the rising sun”). Eusebius soon draws these two horizonal verses together, although for rather different purposes than imagining the universality of the Church's reach. Instead, he allegorically links the setting sun to Christ's passion and death, and he attaches its rising to Christ's restoration (

).

83

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 67.31–32 (PG 23:720A).

His claim, therefore, that Ethiopia's extended hand indicates the incoming of the nations of the world (“from the rising of the sun to its setting”) reveals that the classical conception of Ethiopia divided in both the far East and the far West was a natural assumption on the commentator's part.

Eusebius's discussion is remarkable for its consistent attempt to make the biblical Egyptians and Ethiopians representative of a broader group while at the same maintaining their historical reality in the historical narrative of the expansion of Christianity. For Eusebius, the history of Christianity was marked by a show of God's power in overcoming barriers that may have seemed insurmountable. Such evangelic power had even proved efficacious against the stronghold of idolatry in Egypt, fortified as it was by the antiquity of its impiety and superstition. This evangelic power had, furthermore, broken down the geographical barrier that separated the Ethiopians at the ends of the earth from the rest of humanity. Eusebius concludes his discussion of these Ethiopians: “This was fulfilled not otherwise than through the teaching of our Savior alone. There is therefore no nation (

), no land, no race (

) of humans, no kingdom in the whole world (

) where the peoples (

) established by God do not fulfill their calling.”

84

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 67.31–32 (PG 23:717CD):

.

The Ethiopians will fall before him (Comm. Ps. 71:9)

The commentary on Ps 71:9–11 resumes the classical notion of a divided Ethiopia in the far reaches of the earth in the East and the West, however in attempting to develop a more comprehensive vision of the psalmist's world and of the Ethiopians dwelling there, significant details will tax Eusebius's exegetical skills. “The Ethiopians will fall before him, and his enemies will lick the dust, kings of Tharsis and the islands will bring gifts, kings of Arabs and of Saba will convey gifts.” These Ethiopians, Eusebius affirms, are those who dwell at the edges (

) of our world, “both those toward the rising sun and those towards its setting.”

85

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 71.9–11 (PG 23:805B): …

.

The assertion that Ethiopians were at the eastern and western ends of the earth was a completely natural notion (

). Even non-Christians, “those outside,” were pleased to declare, “The Ethiopians who live apart furthest of men, some beyond the setting sun, others beyond the rising sun.”

86

Ibid., citing Od. 1.22–23:

.

Eusebius's quotation of Homer here is noteworthy for two reasons: 1) it is one of the only places he cites Homer verbatim;87

The first line of the passage cited here (Od. 1.22) is quoted also in VC 4.7.1; other Homeric C lines are found at Mart. Pal. 1.1 (Il. 2.204–205) and LC 2.5 (Il. 4.102). For a useful discussion of these and other allusions to Homer in Eusebius, see Carriker, The Library of Eusebius, 131–33.

and 2) he is the only Christian author to make more than a vague allusion to these Homeric lines. Indeed, since the notion of a divided Ethiopia was commonplace in Greco-Roman literature, it is difficult to connect Christian conceptions of Ethiopia directly to that of Homer. It is only here that the literary evidence is beyond doubt.

From Homer, Eusebius moves on without pause to quote (the already commented upon) Ps 67:32 (“Ethiopia will extend her hand to God”) and Zeph 3:10 (“they will bring me bounty from the ends of the rivers of Ethiopia”). Though marked an outsider, Homer found a place among Eusebius's authoritative scriptural and prophetic witnesses. The context of interpretation, as we will see, was again thoroughly historical. Eusebius's citation of Homer is at odds with the dominant function of the poet within Christian discourse, where Homer's importance lay more in his use as a gold mine of allegorical richness.88

See Jean Pépin, “The Platonic and Christian Ulysses,” in Neoplatonism and Christian Thought (ed. Dominic J. O'Meara; Albany: SUNY Press, 1982) 3–18.

And so, strikingly, Eusebius's invocation of Homer appears as one of the only instances of the poet's historical value for the early Christian imagination.

Eusebius's historicizing interpretation follows the thrust of his comments on Ps 67: 32. Ethiopian worship of the Lord must prophetically signify the incorporation of all nations within the Church. If Ethiopia lies in both the far East and the far West, then prophecies of Ethiopian salvation and piety must also include the nations between these two regions. Ethiopia thus becomes a geographical frame for the entire world; what is attributed to Ethiopia must also apply to all that Ethiopia embraces:

Through all of these verses, Scripture indicates that the ends of the earth will receive the knowledge of the One prophesied and will worship Him, falling before Him and genuflecting…. And the nations within the inhabited world (

) are also indicated through the phrase, “the Ethiopians dwelling at the ends of the earth.” It is manifest that those believing in Him everywhere on the earth…. will send up worship to the God over all.

89

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 71.9–11 (PG 23:805C):

.

The geographical remoteness of Ethiopia at the earth's borders thus effectively represents the universality of the spread of Christianity. Eusebius's interpretive focus is both consistently historical and stubbornly triumphalist.

Strikingly, the phrase directly following that of the Ethiopians (“his enemies will lick the dust”) receives an allegorical turn: “But also his enemies it says will lick the dust, being like their father the serpent…. Thus, then, you will see the enemies of Christ's Church licking the dust and fleshly pleasures.”90

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 71.9–11 (PG 23:805D):

.

Since human bodies were originally fashioned from dust, the signification of the present phrase seems clear for Eusebius. His shift in methods of interpretation in a single verse cautions us from easily slipping Eusebius into one interpretive category or another. He is neither a simple historicist nor a simple allegorist, but he instead demonstrates a complex engagement with scriptural texts in his development of a comprehensive, monolithic vision of the world.91

See Carmelo Curti, “L'esegesi di Eusebio di Cesarea: caratteri e sviluppo,” in Eusebiana, I: Commentarii in Psalmos (Catania: Università di Catania, 1987) 195–213. Elsewhere Eusebius has been accused of lacking exegetical tact (Erik Peterson, “Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der politischen Theologie im Imperium Romanum,” in Theologische Traktate [Munich: Hochland Bücherei, 1951] 90). But applying a modern criterion of “tact” (whatever that might mean) can hardly help us appreciate early Christian reading practices.

Before turning to the next passage of his commentary, it is particularly interesting to notice Eusebius's interpretation of Tharsis and Saba, who are mentioned in the subsequent verses of Psalm 71 (“kings of Tharsis and the islands will bring gifts, kings of Arabs and of Saba will convey gifts”). If we keep in mind Origen's argument that Tharsis (Tharseis) was to be identified as a city of the Ethiopians, Eusebius's contrary identification is significant. He begins his discussion of these lines:

In these words, the passage, separating the world (

) into two parts, distinguishes the climate (

) towards the setting sun; [the phrase “kings of Tharsis and the islands”] signifies the sea towards the west and the islands in it…. When Tharseis is related in Ezekiel, the Seventy translate it as Carthage. But the other climate, the one towards the rising sun, is mentioned through the phrase, “the kings of Arabs and Saba.” For the race (

) of the Arabs is eastern; and beyond it the Persian parts and the land of the Sabaites are said to be.

92

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 71.9–11 (PG 23:808AB):

.

Here again, Eusebius exhibits persistent concern to find the universality and worldwide expansion of Christianity in the psalmist's words. By refusing to follow Origen's assumption that Tharseis was an Ethiopian city and instead locating it farther to the West, Eusebius stretches the geographical significations beyond a narrowly delimited region in the far South to an expansive east-west trajectory.

This point is firmly established in his geographical-onomastic digression on “the Arabs and Saba.” Eusebius latches onto the important difference between the Septuagint and other translators over the term “Arabs.” What is translated as Arabs by the LXX is merely transliterated from the Hebrew by Aquila and Symmachus. I offer the digression in extenso because it is a fascinating example of Eusebius's exegetical maneuvering.

Aquila, Symmachus, and the Hebrew Scriptures in agreement with them, say “kings of Saba and Saba,” so that the name uttered is the same, but there is a change in the difference of [Hebrew] letters; for the first “Saba” is conveyed through what is called by the Hebrews sen [“s(h)in”], but the second through the letter “sadē” according to the Hebrew Scripture; whence also our manner of interpretation is changed by them. The Savior mentions this name [i.e., the first Saba], saying: “The queen of Saba will stand up on the day of judgment. …” (Luke 11.31), presenting clearly that the nation (

) of Saba is on the limits of the earth. And the third book of Kings records this about the same nation, “the Queen of Saba heard of the name of Solomon…” (3 Kings 10.1–2). Both the land and the nation of Saba are named from Saba her forefather, who is recorded to have been the son of Cush. Therefore, the writings of Moses say: “The sons of Cush [were] Saba and Hevila and Sabatha” (Gen. 10.7). And Cush means “the Ethiopian.” So it seems that the nation of Saba is an Ethiopic race. And a second Saba is mentioned, about which Scripture says: “The sons of Regma [were] Saba (= Sheba) and Dadan” (Gen. 10.7).

93

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 71.9–11 (PG 23:808B–D):

.

Eusebius's concern centers upon an effort to spread the geographical markers of this verse as far as possible. The first Saba refers to the region of Arabia (where Sheba was from), while the second Saba denotes regions farther to the East. His remarks on the Hebrew terms, confused though they may be (Saba in Hebrew begins with a samech not tzadi [or, sadē as Eusebius has it]),94

The Greek sigma could transliterate the Hebrew šin, sín, and same

, while a tau and sigma (or zēta) transliterated the Hebrew

adi. For Eusebius's knowledge of Hebrew, see the brief comments of Eberhard Nestle, “Alttestamentliches aus Eusebius,” ZAW 29 (1909) 57–58; Hollerich, Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Isaiah, 81–85 (who offers a minimalist view of Eusebius's Hebrew skills); Jörg Ulrich, Euseb von Caesarea und die Juden. Studien zur Rolle der Juden in der Theologie des Eusebius von Casarea (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999) 192–201 (who cautiously puts forth a more positive assessment than Hollerich). For Ulrich, Eusebius had “some competence” in Hebrew. However Ulrich's position is far from solid, as he himself recognizes. But the examples he adduces come mostly from the DE—as well as other material from the Proph. Ecl. and Comm. Ps., such as the present passage—and must be given sufficient weight in any future evaluations of Eusebius's knowledge of Hebrew.

seek to solidify his broadening, geographically expansive interpretation, rooting them in a more ancient history recorded in the scriptures and ultimately going all the way back to Cush, the original Ethiopian.

His encyclopedic-style notes develop a master vision of ancient Ethiopia and its relation to other distant nations, which marked the sort of formulation of a comprehensive meta-narrative that was integral to dominant Christian discourse of the post-Constantinian world. The fact that he bungles the Hebrew, and even then he is only able to substantiate the connection of Saba with Ethiopia (not with regions of the further East), does not obviate his ability to produce a scholarly and exegetically complex way to talk about biblical Ethiopians and others. He categorizes and defines the Ethiopian's interpretive possibilities and their usefulness as tropes of Christian identity. What moderns might characterize as sophistry represents the efforts of one who stood at the forefront of the production of Christian ethnographical and geographical knowledge in late antiquity.

Eusebius's comments on these verses from Psalm 71 conclude with the additional broadening of interpretive vision to include cosmic and spiritual realms as well.

But the prophecy indicates that the kingdoms in the western climate and those toward the setting of the sun will bring gifts to the One prophesied, and so perhaps the nations are indicated by “the kingdoms.” And are the angels presiding over nations never called kings when they do sacred service to God and lead the churches, which are of the nations they rule, as gifts to Him? … The angels are the kings, invisible and unseen rulers of nations … they bring the souls under them as gifts. This will be fulfilled when the fullness of nations has entered, and especially at the second theophany of our Savior.95

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 71.9–11 (PG 23:808D–809A):

. Though not known for his eschatological thought, such notions are not absent from his thinking; see Frank S. Thielman, “Another Look at the Eschatology of Eusebius,” VC 41 (1987) 226–237.

Even in this spiritualized interpretation of the “kings” in Psalm 71, Eusebius persists in reading the “kingdoms” at a nation-historical level, as prophetic of historical events that will be fulfilled after the appearance of Christ; that is, it represents the rapid and sweeping expansion of Christianity throughout the nations of the world. The psalmist's Ethiopians signified the Christians of remote geographical regions—not souls blackened by sin—who would be given as gifts by the angels of nations.

Food to the Ethiopian peoples (Comm. Ps. 73:14)

We saw that Origen presented the reader of his De oratione with a thoroughly allegorical understanding of Ps 73:14 in his discussion of those who partake of the supersubstantial nourishment of the Logos and those who fed upon the serpent. Eusebius's treatment of this verse shows a marked attempt to distance himself from such allegorical readings of biblical Ethiopians. Without naming Origen, Eusebius's allusions to Origen's discussion are, however, clear.

But figuratively (

), someone falling upon these passages will refer these things to invisible and unseen powers, saying that they are those called serpents; and figuratively the sea is their dwelling place and the ruler himself of the wicked spirits is signified through the many-headed serpent; about which someone might say it is spoken, “You crushed the heads of the serpent, you gave it as food to the Ethiopian peoples.” Such a person will ask also who the Ethiopians are by the laws of allegory, saying that they are blackened souls. They also, he will say, eat the aforementioned serpent, in a way similar (

) to those eating the flesh of the saving Logos. And in accordance with this, he will attempt to explain figuratively also the springs broken into swollen rivers and the rivers having been dried up. But we have explained the meaning (

) according to the literal sense (

).

96

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 73.12–18 (PG 23:864AB):

Though Origen is not named, Eusebius makes clear the identification of “such a person” by his description of the interpretation of Ethiopians as blackened souls, and by his contrast between the food of the serpent and that of the saving Logos.97

Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 103, contrasts Eusebius's reading here with Origen's Comm. Matt. fr. 140 (GCS 41.71).

Eusebius spends little time seriously engaging with Origen's allegorical reading. Instead he dismisses it in a single sentence and reasserts the literal interpretation he offered just previous to his summation of Origen's interpretation.

Eusebius's own interpretation had been consistently historical, although not in a prophetic-historical manner as we saw in other passages referring to Ethiopians (where the historical referent lies in the psalmist's future), but he recalled, rather, the historical past antedating the psalmist's writing. In this case, the verse “you defeated the sea with your power,” indicated the marvelous works God performed long ago, beforehand: “it seems to me that he designates historically (

) the crossing of the people through the Red Sea.”

98

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 73.12–18 (PG 23:861C):

.

The psalm's “heads of the serpent” were symbols for the Egyptians and Pharaoh,99

Theodoret follows Eusebius on this point. Theodoret, Comm. Ps. 73.13–14 (PG 80:1460C).

and of the Ethiopians' serpentine food it might be said that, “their dead bodies, having been cast out of the sea, became food to the birds of the air.”100

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 73.12–18 (PG 23:861D):

. There may be an allusion here to the mythical account of the transformation of Memnon's Ethiopian troops into birds after their leader's death; see Quintus of Smyrna Posthom. 2.642–650. Eusebius seems to be followed here only by Pseudo-Athanasius, Expos. in Psalm. 73.14 (PG 27:336D).

Eusebius does not expound upon this last point since he considers the connection with the historical event of the Egyptians drowning in the Red Sea to be clear. But in fact, Eusebius's interpretation briefly left history behind on the particular issue of Ethiopian food. While he only writes, “someone might say”101

See Curti, Eusebiana, I: Commentarii in Psalmos, 210.

that the verse refers to birds eating the corpses of the drowned Egyptians, Eusebius offers no historical alternative. Ethiopians remain, then, figures for the birds. We do find, however, a more historical explanation later in the commentary of Theodoret. When Pharaoh's army drowned in the Red Sea, Theodoret claims, the Ethiopians were able to invade and “eat up” the Egyptians.102

Theodoret, Comm. Ps. 73.13–14 (PG 80:1461A); later, he will allow for an allegorical interpretation of the Ethiopians as blackened souls; see ibid (PG 80:1464A).

Important for the present discussion is that Eusebius rejected Origen's application of allegory to the Ethiopians in this passage. The later commentator pushed so far away from the allegorizing approach that he attributes it to the past history of the Jewish nation. Eusebius's discussion of Ethiopians here marks the singular instance where he adopted an interpretation that did not lend itself to his dominant “Church of the nations” triumphalism. What this shows is that Eusebius's conceptualization of Ethiopians as representative of the inclusion of even remote nations in the Church was not so narrowly focused that it neglected a careful historical reading of the psalms when it seemed necessary. At the same time, what remains consistent with his previous readings of the psalmist's Ethiopians is his repeatedly positive rendering of Ethiopian identity.

The Ethiopians and the Calling of the Nations (Comm. Ps. 86:4)

The final discussion in Eusebius's Comm. Ps. that is relevant for our inquiry into the interpretive troping of biblical Ethiopians shows more clearly his framework for conceiving Ethiopian identity. Here the psalmist links the Ethiopian people (

) with a series of otherwise disreputable figures: Rahab, Babylon, foreigners (

) and Tyre. All of these figures, Eusebius asserts, stand as symbols for “the calling of the nations,” and it represents those “who have changed and converted from their former way of life (

), being deemed worthy of a second birth in the city of God; these ones the Word wants to remind of their former birth (

)…. What else is this than the second birth of the foreign nations in the city of God?”

103

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 86.4 (PG 23:1048A):

Origen saw the Ethiopian (at least the bride of the Song of Songs) as symbolic of those of ignoble birth, those who could not claim the highly esteemed heritage of the Jews. Yet they were nonetheless included in the Church because of their beauty in the image of God. To a degree, Eusebius follows this line of interpretation. Eusebius's Ethiopians, as well as the others enumerated with them, represented people of dubious racial and spiritual backgrounds: they were born among foreign nations. In spite of such limitations, they were granted participation in the calling of the nations. By recalling the ethnicities of their former birth, the psalmist both reminded them of their former birth, their ignoble lineage, while at the same time highlighting their new status within the Church; that is, their second birth into a new city and people. It is here that Eusebius diverges from Origen's interpretation, which had focused on the individual soul once alienated from God but since accepted as the bride of Christ. For Eusebius, the new birth marks rejection of one's former identity and the adoption of a new one, through a new birth into a new people. It was a social, communal, and indeed, a racial move on the part of the convert.104

Buell, Race, 138–65; Johnson, Ethnicity and Argument, 198–233.

The swift and universal spread of Christianity among all the nations fulfilled the psalmist's prophetic words. “These things,” he writes, “having been fulfilled in deeds, confirm the truth of the words of the salvific grace, even with respect to the Babylonians and the Tyrians, and all the foreign-born and those alien from the Israelitic race (

), both through the washing of regeneration and through the mysteries of the second birth of the new covenant in the aforementioned city of God.”

105

Eusebius, Comm. Ps. 86.4 (PG 23:1048BC):

.

Eusebius triumphantly finds prophetic fulfillment of the psalm in the glorious expansion of the city of God on earth, and in the actual course of real historical events. Eusebius's historicizing and racializing exposition subsumed the spiritual focus of Origen's interpretation. The former's world-historical vision turned its focus away from Origen's emphatic centering of Ethiopian identity within the marker of skin color and shifted attention to their geographically remote habitation at the ends of the earth. In their radical alterity, Eusebius found an interpretive locus of triumphalism for his historical conception of the far-reaching “calling of the nations.”

Conclusion

The Ethiopians of the Hebrew scriptures would continue to play a significant role in the exegetical imagination of Christian thinkers. While the allegorical lines laid down by Origen seem to dominate the portrayal of biblical Ethiopians in Christian literature of the late antique period, Eusebius furnishes a welcome respite from the increasingly negative interpretations we find among both Greek and Latin Christian commentators. Consistently subsumed within his triumphalistic and world-historical interpretive schema, Eusebius's Ethiopians marked the vast and rapid expansion of evangelic teaching and the Christian way of life. Analysis of Origen's and Eusebius's treatment of the Ethiopians highlights the distinction between their respective frameworks, and it calls attention to their different theological and ecclesiological aims. The Ethiopians, “furthest away of men” at the earth's very edges, functioned as a floating signifier and a powerful trope that was ripe for manipulation in conceptualizing either the soul or the Church.

Footnotes

I am grateful to Mark Benassi at the University of Colorado for helpful suggestions on Ethiopians in the Hebrew Scriptures and on Eusebius's own knowledge of Hebrew. A portion of this article was completed while holding an NEH grant in Rome (2005). I am grateful for the support and encouragement of Karl Galinsky while there.