Gregory of Neocaesarea: a re-examination of the biographical issue’ di Francesco Celia The dispute over the figure of Gregory of Neocaesarea, better known as “Thaumaturgus’, is one of the ‘most intricate in the history of Early Christianity. For centuries Gregory has been considered the author of the In Origenemt Oratio Panegyrica and the third-century bishop who evangelised Pontus, and whose prodigious deeds were collected by Basil of Caesarea (De Spiritu Sancto 29,74), Gregory of Nyssa (De Vita Gregorii Thaumaturgi), Rufinus (Historia Ecclesiastica 7,28), and a large number of hagiographies in several different languages. This identification was considered authoritatively corroborated by Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica (6,30), which is the earliest external testimony on Gregory, by Jerome's De virisillustribus (65), where the PanOrat is explicitly mentioned, and by Socrates of Constantinople’s Historia ecclesiastica (4,27), where itis attested that the PanOrat was contained in Pamphilus’ Apologia pro Origene. Indeed, all of them, though to different degrees of accuracy, reported some pieces of biographical information contained in the PanOrat and also referred to the episcopal activity of Gregory. According to the traditional reconstruction of these sources’, Gregory was born to a pagan family from Neocaesarea of Pontus in about 213 with the name ‘Theodore’, which he later changed at his baptism. At the age of fourteen, after the loss of his father and under the influence of his mother, Gregory was taught rhetoric and the first elements of Latin and Roman law in his homeland. When his sister needed an escort to Caesarea in Palestine to join her husband, who worked as a legal consultant to the Roman governor of Palestine, Gregory decided to take this opportunity to study Law at the famous school of Beirut, But, on his arrival in Caesarea, Gregory met Origen, who convinced him to study other subjects and also influenced his piety. After five years studying logic, geometry, physics, ethics and Holy Scripture, with his brother Athenodore (Eus. H.e. 6,30), Gregory went back to his homeland to start his career as a lawyer. Some time after Gregory's departure, Origen wrote a letter to him (Epistula ad Gregorium), in which he expressed the wish for Gregory to use his education in profane sciences to extract from them an introduction to the Christian faith and to interpret the Scripture, Eusebius says that Gregory and his brother Athenodore became bishops in Pontus when «still young» and that they participated in the first synod of the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata (H.e. 7,28,1) Gregory of Nyssa’s Vita adds that our Gregory was consecrated as the first bishop of Neocaesarea by Phaidimos of Amaseia, converted crowds of heathens with his words and miracles, consecrated the bishop of Comana, and faced an anti-Christian persecution, which scholars identify as that of Decius. Gregory's episcopal activity was also corroborated by the ascription of the Epistula canonica, in which Gregory counselled an unknown bishop about the disciplinary measures to be taken in his community after the invasions of Pontus by the Goths and Boradi during the 250s, Gregory's death has been dated to either before 269, because his name is missing in the synodal letter which sanctioned the condemnation of Paul of Samosata (Eus. H.e. 7,30,2), or under the reign of Aurelian (270-275), as attested by the Suda Lexicon (I 452) ‘The foundations of this reconstruction of Gregory's biographical profile were rejected in 1977 by Pierre Nautin, who argued that Eusebius had mistakenly identified three different persons and that both the manuscript tradition of the PanOrat and all the other testimonies about Gregory were not reliable, " Part of this article has been delivered as a paper at the Seventeenth International Conference on Patristc Studies (Oxford 2015). {wish to express my gratitude to Maya Goldberg for a number of suggestions to improve my English, All unattributed translations are my own, Here it suffices to mention Des Gregorios Thaumaturgos Dankrede an Origenes, als Anhang der Brief des Origenes an Gregorios Thaumaturgos, hrsg. von P. KoErscHav (SQS IX), Freiburg im Breisgau-Leiprig 1894, v-xxis ©. BARDENHEWER, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, Bd. 2, Freiburg im Breisgau 1914°, 315-318; Grégoire le ‘haumaturge, Remerciement @ Origene suivi de La lettre d’Origene a Grégoire. Texte grec, introd. trad, et notes par H.CRouzat, (8C 148), Paris 1969, 14-27. See this latter volume forthe critical texts of the PanOrat and the EpGr. ImADAMANTIUS 22 (2016) because they adopted Eusebius’ mistake’. His objection consisted of a complex analysis of Eusebius’ text aimed at distinguishing between his written sources and his editorial processing of data, ‘The core of his hypothesis was based on few lines from Eusebius’ account, where we read: «many came to him [Origen] [...] among these as especially distinguished we know to have been’ (...] Theodore, who was the selfsame person as that renowned bishop in our day, Gregory». From these lines Nautin extracted two important conjectures, firstly that Theodore was the name of the author of the PanOrat in the copy at Eusebius’ disposal, and secondly that Eusebius had personally met Gregory, the bishop of Pontus, when he was a child, Nautin consequently argued that Eusebius had made two mistakes: first, ‘when he identified the author of the PanOrat with the addressee of Origen’s letter, misled by certain similarities between the two characters; and second, when Eusebius identified the Gregory of Origen's letter as the bishop he had met in his childhood, only because of their homonymy. As a further result of these assimilations, Eusebius wrongly supposed the participation of Gregory in the Council of Antioch (He. 7,28,1), because he had found the name ‘Theodore among the signatories of the synodal letter (EL. 7,30,2). Therefore, in Nautin’s view, there were three different persons behind the ‘Gregory’ whom Eusebius had written about: Theodore, the real author of the PanOrat; Gregory, the famous bishop of Neocaesarea; and another pupil of Origen named Gregory, to whom Origen’s letter was addressed. Nautin concluded that the only reliable information on Gregory of Neocaesarea is that he was a bishop ata time when Eusebius could have met him. Finally, the identification between Theodore and Gregory of Neocaesarea had had a clear apologetic purpose, since the PanOrat was published in the Apologia pro Origene in order to «montrer ladmiration et la reconnaissance qu'il [Origen] avait inspirées A un grand saints" Two years later Henri Crouzel strongly contested almost all of Nautin’s hypotheses* with arguments which have convinced the majority of scholars that Gregory's traditional figure is reliable”. Nonetheless, others have acknowledged Nautin’s criticism and have rejected it’ or have deemed the issue an open question. The Proceedings of the only conference held on Gregory in 2002 in Italy are evidence of this scholarly disagreement’ > P, NAUTIN, Origine. Sa vie ef son oeuvre (CAnt 1), Paris 1977, 81-86. “+ «We met (2yvwuev)», according to Nautin’s translation, SP. NAUTIN, Origéne, cit, 146, In the preceding pages (134-144) Nautin argued that one of Pamphilus’ reasons to compose the Apologia pro Origene was the presence of an anti-Origenistc group in the community of Caesarea of Palestine, which included an unknown bishop who succeeded Agapius. This view has not been endorsed by other scholars: Pamphile et Eusébe de Césarée, Apologie pour Origene suivi de Rufin d’Aquilée, Sur la falsification des livres @Origéne, Il, Etude, comm. philologique et index par R-AMACKER et f. JUNOD (SC 465), Paris 2002, 81-85; R. WILLIAMS, Damnosa hacreditas: Pamphilus’Apology and the Reputation of Origen, in Logos: Festschrift fir Luise Abramowski zum 8, Juli 1993, hrsg. von H.C. BRENNECKE ~ F.L, GRASMOCK ~ C, MARKSCHIES (BZNW 67), Berlin- New York 1993, 160-164, SH. Crouzet, Faut-il voir trois personnages en Grégoire le Thawmaturge?, Gr. 60 (1979) 287-319. Bg: Gregorio il Taumaturgo, Discorso a Origene. Una pagina di pedagogia crstiana. Trad, intr. € note a c. di E. MAROTTA (CTePa 40), Roma 1983; R. LANE Fox, Pagans and Christians, London 1986, 517-545; Gregor der Wundertiter. Oratio prosphonetica ac panegyricam in Origenem, Dankrede an Origenes, im Anbang: Origenis Epistula ad Gregorium Thaumaturgum, Der Brief des Origenes an Gregor den Wundertater,ibersetzt von P. GUYOT, engeleitet von R, KLEIN (FC 24), Freiburg-Basel-Wien-Barcelona-Rom-New York 1996; St. Gregory Thaumaturges. Life and Works. Transl. by M. SLSSER (FaCh 98), Washington 1998; S. MIrCitEtL, The Life and Lives of Gregory Thaumaturgus, in J.W. DRIVERS ~ J.W. WATT, Portraits of Spiritual Authority. Religious Power in Barly Christianity, Byzantium & the Christian Orient, Leiden 1999, 10 Gregorio il Taumaturgo (2). Encomio di Origene. Introd, trad. e note di M. Rizzi (Letture Cristiane del primo rillennio 33), Milano 2002, 81-85; M. RIZZI, Un'ipotest sulla provenienza dell'Encomio di Origene altribuilo a Gregorio il Taumaturgo, Adamantius 11 (2005) 124-132; G. DORIVAL, Estil égitime d'éclairer le Discours de Remerciement par la Lettre & Grégoire et réciproquement? Ou la tentation de Pasolini, in La biografia di Origene fra storia e agiografia. Atti del VI Convegno di Studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su «Origene e la Tredizione Alessandrina», acura di A. MONACI CASTAGNO (Biblioteca di Adamantius 1), Verucchio 2004, 9-26. ° II giusto che fiorisce come palma. Gregorio il Taumaturgo fra storia e agiografia. Atti del Convegno di Stalett (CZ), 9-10 Novembre 2002, ac. di B, CLAUS! ~ V. MiLAZZ0 (SEAug 104), Roma 2007, 172FRANCESCO CELIA ~ Gregory of Neocaesarea: a re-examination of the biographical issue Here there is no need to reconstruct this dispute in detail, for we can already count on the careful status questionis by Richard Klein, and on another concise overview of the scholarly debate until the 2000s by Michael Slusser, who has also pointed out further serious weaknesses in Nautin’s reasoning”. What interests us to underline is that, while Nautin’s reconstruction was never defended in its entirety by anyone!', men of learning have attached a certain importance especially to two points raised against the trustworthiness of Eusebius’ account, and, thence, of Gregory's figure: the issue of the double name, and the impossibility that the EpGr was addressed to the author of the PanOrat. Along these lines, Manlio Simonetti, who has repeatedly pondered over this question, at first defended Eusebius because he might have had access to sources unknown to us”, But, later, he has given more credit to Nautin’s reconstruction - without subscribing to it definitively nonetheless - and also proposed to assume that Eusebius and/or Pamphilus had fabricated the identification of ‘Theodore’ and Gregory in order to reinforce «the Origenian front». Simonett’s change of view is also due to his becoming more and more convinced that the works attributed «with minor improbebility» to Gregory of Neocaesarea show a Monarchian theological tendency in contrast to Origen’s'. As a result of the issues surrounding Gregory's biographical and literary profiles, Simonetti argued that «the whole issue should be still considered sub iudicen' "R. Kunin - P. Guvor (eds), Gregor der Wundertater. Oratio prosphonetica, cit Thaumaturgus, ET 120 (2009) 573-585. Scholars tend to agree that P. NAUTIN, Origéne, cit, 186-188, 155-157, has given flawed outlines of the biogeaphhical profiles of the author of the PanOrat ~ a young man forced by his Christian brother-in-law to have Origen as a private teacher ~ and the addressee of the EpGr ~ a pupil of Origen originary from Palestine who was studying philosophy and Law in Alexandria of Egypt. The idea that the Gregory of the letter was a Palestinian in Alexandria derives from Nautin’s view that Caesarea could not have offered the facilites for studying law and philosophy, and from the literal interpretation ofthe reference to ‘Hadad! and of the various occurrences of «Egypt» and «Egyptians» (see below). The first assumption is due to his lack of information, see: LL. LEVINE, Caesarea under Roman Rule, Leiden 1975, 57-60; H. LAPIN, Jewish and Christian Academies in Roman Palestine: Some Preliminary Observations in Caesarea Maritima: a Retrospective after Two Millennia, ed. by A. RABAN ~ K.G. HOLM (DMOA 21), Leiden 1996, 496-512; C.M. LEHMANN ~ K.G, HOLUM, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima (The American Schools of Oriental Research. Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima Excavation Reports 5), Boston 2000, 6-26. The literal reading of the letter was already proposed by J. DRASEKE, Der Brief des Origenes an Gregorios von Neocisarea, JPTh 7 (1881) 115-124, and rebutted by P. KOFTSCHAU (ed.), Des Gregorios Thaumaturgos Dankrede, cit, xv-xvii, and, after Nautin, by CROUZEL, Fautil voir tris personnages cit, 301-303. G. DORIVAt, Est-il légitime d’éclairer le Discours, cit, first considered debatable both that Gregory was Palestinian and that he lived in Alexandria, but immediately after, in Origéne d’Alexandrie, DPA 4, Paris 2005, 815-816, he has presented these conjectures as fats. As far as we have been able to assess, no one has accepted Nautin’s understanding of the story of heodlore’ without any reservations, ef, F, NOELLE, Origene (vita e opere), in Origene. Dizionario, la cultura, il pensiera, le opere, ac. di A. MONACI CASTAGNO, Roma 2000, 296-297; agains it sce H. CROUZEL, Faut-il voir trois personages, cit, 292-295. =, SIMONETTI, Una nuova ipotesi su Gregorio il Taumaturgo, in ID., Origene esegeta ¢ la sua tradizione, Brescia 2004, 277-298, esp. 292-294 (= RSLR 24 [1988] 17-41}; ID., Origene dalla Cappadocia ai Cappadoci, in Origene PAlessandrinismo Cappadoce (I-IV secolo). Atti del V Convegno del Gruppo italiano di ricerca su ‘Origene ¢ la tradizione alessandrina’ (Bari, 20-22 Settembre 2000), a c. di M. GIRARDI ~ M. MARIN (QVetChr 28), Bari 2002, 13- 28, © M, SIMONETTI, Gregorio il Taumaturgo © Origene, in B. CLAUS! ~ V. MILAZZ0 (eds), II giusto che fioisce come palma, cit, 29-30. Simonetti tends to think that the author of the invention was Eusebius, since the first edition of the Historia ecclesiastica would precede the edition of the Apologia by more than ten years. But this hypothesis is now rejected by other experts, see n. 19. Simonetti refers to the Dialogue with Gelian, the Ad Theopompun (CPG 1767) and the Ad Philagrium (CPG 1774/3222) }°M, SIMONETTL, Gregorio il Taumaturgo, in Nuovo dizionario patristco ¢ di antichita crstiane, 2, ac. di A. Dl BERARDINO, Genova-Milano 2007", 2477 (thereafter: NDPAC). Less sceptical is the «maximalistc» approach of Slusser, who has preferred «to take into account all the works that are attributed to him by external attestation, provided they appear to be contemporary with him», instead of conforming him sto modern scholarly presuppositions [...|'by cutting him down to size’ priori as it were» (Saint Gregory Thaumaturgus, cit, 47-63; M, SLUSSER, Saint Gregory 173ADAMANTIUS 22 (2016) In this article we will re-examine the foundations of Gregory's biography. This is necessary not only because of the importance of the traditional ascription of the PanOrat for the discussion of the rest of Gregory's corpus", but also because many scholars have not paid much attention to later testimonies, while others have put forward questionable hypotheses and at times changed their minds on not insignificant points of the matter. First, we will engage in testing the main criticisms raised by Nautin against the traditional view, considering also more recent opinions", This investigation will concern in particular four points concerning Eusebius’ account: 1) the presence of the PanOrat and of the EpGr; 2) the source of the double name; 3) the sources of Gregory's episcopal activity; 4) the issue of the EpGr. Secondly, we will add to the picture the later testimonies of Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome and Socrates of Constantinople. We will show that their data did not depend on He, 6,30 or drew on it as their only source of information, and contend that the links between ancient sources are in fact different from what is often assumed. These indeed seem to point directly to Pamphilus as the one who first identified the author of the PanOrat as Gregory of Neocaesarea, 1. Nautin’s Challenge and Other Ci 1.1. The presence of the PanOrat and of the EpGr in Eus. He. 6,30 ticisms ‘The point of departure of Nautin’s reconstruction is Eusebius’ account: ‘Now while Origen was plying his accustomed tasks at Caesarea, many came to him, not only of the natives, but also numbers of foreign pupils who had left their own countries. Among these as especially distinguished we now to have been Theodore, who was the selfsame person as that renowned bishop in our day, Gregory, and his brother Athenodore. Both of them were strongly enamoured (Sewax énconaévo.) of Greek and Roman studies, but Origen instilled into them a passion (Ep) for philosophy and urged them to exchange their former love (oxov6A) for the study of divine truth. Five whole years they continued with him, and made such progress in divine things that while still young both of them were deemed worthy of the episcopate in the churches of Pontus" Nautin identified the EpGr and especially the PanOrat as the two textual sources of this description and claimed that Eusebius had personally met Gregory of Neocaesarea when he was a child. That Eusebius had a direct knowledge of these works seems reasonable for two reasons: the PanOrat was first edited by Pamphilus and Eusebius within the Apologia pro Origene, that is before the first edition of the Historia ecclesiastica”; the EpGr was probably among the over one hundred letters discovered and "© As Simonetti has frequently pointed out, this discussion has been based on the assumption that Gregory was a continuator of Origen's theology, as attested by the PanOrat and the Confessio fidei. The hesitation to endorse this approach was strengthened by an important study by 1. AFRAMOWSKI (Das Bekenntnis des Gregor Thaumaturges bei Gregor von Nyssa und das Problem seiner Fchteit, 7KG 87 [1976] 145-166), who sharply questioned the ascription of the Confesio. With the exception of those by Rizzi (see n. 8), who has deduced from some internal elements of the PanOrat that “Theodore’ was originally from Antioch or Laodicea and hypothesised that his brother-in-law was Caius Furius Sabinus Aquila Timesitheus, an officer of equestrian rank who was also procurator in Palestine. The investigation of, Rinzi’s views exceeds the scope of this article. We will provide it in our doctoral thesis "Bus, He, 630: Ta & Tpryéver inl xe Karoapelag ca evv4in nparvoves nohAol nposiieoay 08 wovov ov Emywpiny, Ada Kal ve Godaniic pupior gortmTad Tac RaTpiBas dohirdvteC Sy émIoABous HANoTa EyveLEY @ed5up0v, Og Ay atdg OStOG 6 Kal” Has ExtoKOnaV SiaBontos TpnydPIOs, TY te TOBTOU AbEAGSV AUMYEd4pOV, ofc dugi ta FAAVwY kal ta’ Pauaiy padhyara Setvirs értonpévanc, govogiag aroig Evelc Epwra, TAC MpoTépaC oovdiig Ty Olav doxnow avrikaTadAdgaodai npovrpévaro: tévte 8 Ado1s Eteow ats ovyyeVopevor, ToaadTAY daryvéynaveo aepl te Bria BeAriwory, dg En véors dyigw értoKorty Tay Kare Tloveov éxeANoLSY AfwAA Val Ed. rusebius Werke II: Die Kirchengeschicht, hrsg. [..] von E.SCHWARTY, [...] Die Lateinische Ubersetzung des Ruins beatb [...] von T. MOMMSEN, I Die Bicher VI bis X, Uber die Martyrer in Palistina (GCS 9), Leipzig 1908, 584 Engl. transl. Eusebius, The Feclesastical History with an Eng, Transl. by J... OULTON, Tl (LCL 265), London- Cambridge, MA 1942°, 83, E WINKELMANN, Euseb von Kaisareia. Der Vater der Kirchengeschichte, Berlin 1991, 188-191; A.J. CARRIKER, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (SVigChr 67), Leiden-Boston 2003, 37-41; 8. MORLET, Eusébe de Césarée: biographie, chronologie, profil intellectuel, in Eusébe de Césarée, Histoire Kcclésastique, Commentaite, I, Etudes dintroduction, 174FRANCE CO CELIA ~ Gregory of Neocaesarea: a re-examination of the biographical issue collected «in special volumes» by Eusebius. However, that Eusebius had in mind the EpGr while ‘writing his account on Gregory is highly questionable”; and that Eusebius met Gregory is improbable (see next paragraph), Nautin argued that Eusebius’ references to the strong enthusiasm of Gregory and Athenodore for the «Greek and Roman studies» and to their change of interest to «the study of divine truth» at the hand of Origen attest that Eusebius was referring to the beginning of the EpGr, where Origen says: Your natural skills can certainly make you a perfect Roman lawyer and a Greek philosopher of one of those schools deemed in high repute. But I wished that you would employ all the power of your skills finally for Christianity” ‘This point is specious because Eusebius’ account of Gregory's change of interests offers a coherent summary of what we read in PanOrat 6,$$78-84, as Oulton had already noted”, Furthermore, as Nautin himself has rightly pointed out, Origen is not inviting Gregory to study philosophy®, and this somewhat weakens his assumption that Eusebius had taken this passage in the wrong way. At any rate, there is no plain trace of the EpGr in H.e. 6,30. Even though we do not find good reasons to question Eusebius’ direct knowledge of the PanOrat, despite the fact that he does not cite it, itis important to dwell upon the evidence of his use of it according to Nautin. This will help us in evaluating the foundations of other points in Gregory's traditional biography and the hypothesis put forward by Dorival. According to Nautin there are two elements in He. 6,30 which show that Eusebius had read the PanOrat. First, the «€pw¢ for philosophy» would remind us of PanOrat 6,875, where Gregory says that Origen convinced him to stay at his school with a discourse in which he praised philosophy and its lovers» (épactal)”. Second, the number of years spent by Gregory at Origen’s school. For Nautin, Eusebius wrote «five years» instead of «eight» because he had simply forgotten the number he had read in PanOrat 1,83: for eight years Ihave not spoken or written a discourse great or small myself, nor have heard anyone else writing ‘or speaking in private, or delivering panegyries or disputations in publi, except these admirable men who have ‘embraced the good philosophy" sous la direction de S. MORLET~ L. PERRONE, Paris 2012, 13-14, The Apologia is dated to 308/10. That there was no edition ofthe Historia ecclesiasica before the 313 is shown by A. LOUTH, The date of Busebius’ Historia Feclesiastica, JYhS n.s. 41 (1990) 123 and RW. BURGESS, The Dates and Editions of Eusebius’ Chronici Canones and Historia Ecclesiastica, JTRS n.s. 48 (1997) 283-284. * Bus. He. 66,3. According to P. NAUTIN, Origine, cit, 227, Jerome's lst of Origen’s works (Ep. 33) was copied from the catalogue of the library of Caesarea of Pamphilus which Eusebius published in the Vita Pamphil. P.NAUTIN, Lettres et écrivains chrétiens des I ef ITT sitcles (Pate. 2), Paris 1961, 240-244, argued also that Fuscbius had modified the original list after having collected other leters written by and addressed to Origen, ® Cf. M, SLUSSER, Saint Gregory Thaumaturgus, cit, 575, ® According to Nautin’s translation: epour connaltre Dieu» (Origéne, cit, 81). » Orig. EpGr 1,6-10. See below for the text. ® Oulton pointed at $78 (Origen encourages Gregory to choose the philosophical life), §83 (the love for the hieros Logos flares in Gregory's heart), $84 (abandonment of previous profane studies for philosophical ones). ® P NAUTIN, Origine, cit, 157, * G, SEAMENI GASPARKO, Origene ‘Uomo divino’ nellEncomio del discepolo di Cesarea, in B. CLAUS! ~ V. MILAZZ0 (eds., Il giusto che fiorisce come palma, cit, 143, has considered a petiio principit to claim that Eusebius was referring to the PanOrat * In fact there are other passages which would better parallel Eusebius’ words: $133, where Origen is described as athe first and the sole (ripixog xai vos)» who persuaded Gregory to pursue the studies of Greek philosophy: $147, 13-19: Epaorag 8¢ fide 8x Spysrracov épioveag Epwra, Snep én’ adeip 4vov Tou, Kal nédat KaxeoTHGAtO b Bavpaotac obroc Kal gidos ta Aperay xal RpohyopoG Eumoujoac gpwra TH adTOD Apert Kal TOO KAAAOUE TIE Bravoosyns [...] Tg épaqwwrarye cogiag Tic @ANBOKG, Kai cwgpoaiyns Tig Beoe1BoK [..; $83,70. ® Gr. Thaum. PanOrat 1,$3,10-16: [...] OxtaeTc Ho xPdVOG O0OG HB, & o8 ode adTds eind TA ypayas Acé>yov rva Heya §) uimpOv BoC THyXAWE, OUre GALOD Fixoved tov Ibi ypagovTOS fl AyovTOG, f} Kal Sqnooia xavnyeprKodg AdyoUs Kal AywviortKOig AaPEXOPEVOD, Sut HH TGV Baypadlwy codTEY avépav, tv G, DontvAt, Esti légitime d'élairr le Discours, it, 20. » Respectively, He, 7,32,25 and 7.32.2 176FRANCE CO CELIA ~ Gregory of Neocaesarea: a re-examination of the biographical issue However, neither in the case of Pamphilus nor in that of Dorotheus do we have difficulty with the dating”, whereas Gregory's case is complicated by a problem of this sort. As we have seen, there are two hypotheses of dating Gregory's death: 1) between 264 and 268/9, namely between the first synod of the Council of Antioch which Gregory participated in (He. 7,28,1), and the synodal letter (He. 7,30,2), where Gregory’s name is missing from among its subscribers; 2) after 270, because the Suda Lexicon reported that Gregory «died under Aurelian» (270-275)", Even if we endorsed this second dating, it ‘would be hard to imagine why Gregory and Athenodore did not attend the last session of the Council of Antioch, whereas they traveled, according to Nautin’s supposition, from Pontus to Caesarea (?) at a time when Busebius, born in about 263, could meet them «comme un enfant ou un adolescent connait deux évéques célébres qu'il apercoit dans une cérémonie>. Furthermore, if Eusebius met personally the famous bishop of Neocaesarea, why then does he not mention him among the greatest bishops of his age in Hee, 7,32 As to the fact that “Theodore” was the original name of the author of the PanOrat, Nautin’s argument is based on the mere assumptions that Eusebius did not have other sources of information except for the PanOrat and the EpGr and that he must have found the name "Theodore’, and only it, in the original title of the PanOrat", Nautin’s theory about the source of “Iheodore’ in Eusebius’ account has been accepted by Crouzel who hypothesised that ‘Theodore had been baptised after having delivered the PanOrat but before having received Origen’s EpGr. Crouzel found a confirmation of that in the supposition that Gregory was taught Christian theology only at the end of his cursus studiorum in Caesarea; according to him, Origen’s school provided a sort of introduction to Christianity for young pagans and to philosophy for Christians, but «not a catechumenate teaching the truths of faith necessary for baptism». However, » Eusebius met Dorotheus when Cyril was bishop of Antioch, that is between 260 and 302. % Suda T 452: érekedmaev éxt AvpmAtavos (ed. Suidae Lexicon, I, edidit A. ADLER [Lexicographi Graeci I), Lipsiae 1928, 543,5-6). We wonder whether the Suda compiler confused here Gregory of Neocaesarea with the ‘Theodore’ cited as one of the signatories ofthe letter of condemnation of Paul of Samosata, which Eusebius dates to after the accession of Aurelian (Fe. 7,284). As far as we have been able to determine, the only scholars who considered possible the identification of Gregory with the unknown Theodore were I.-S. LE NAIN DE TILLEMONT, Mémoires pour servir a UHisloire Feclésiastique des six premiers sigcles, IV, Paris 1696, 336, and RYSSEL, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, cit, 17-18, The majority deny it. See R. LANE FOX, Pagans and Christians, cit, 517. This fact is not in disagreement with Busebius’ claim that Gregory was his contemporary (ka®” pq), for this expression implies the contemporaneity of the event narrated ‘with Eusebius’ life. See, also for Eusebius’ date of birth, SCHWARTZ, Eusebias von Caesarea, PRE 11, Stuttgart 1907, 1370. * On the unreliability of the tile handed down by the manuscript tradition see P. NAUTIN, Origene, cit, 83-84, and Hi, Crouzst, Faut-il voir trois personnages, cit, 291-292. > H, CRoUzaL, Fautil voir trois personnages, cit, 308-309; see also ID., Cultura e fede nella scuola di Cesarea di Origene, in Crescita dell'uomo nella catechesi dei Padri (Eta prenicena). Atti del convegno della Facolta di Lettere cristiane e classiche (Pontificium Institutum Altioris Latinitatis), 14-16 marzo 1986, a c. di S. FELICI, Roma 1987, 203-209. Years before (Le ‘Remerciement @ Origene’ de saint Grégoire le Thaumaturge. Son contenu doctrinal, SBC 16 [1964] 59-91), Crourel had defined the school of Caesarea as a sort of religious novitiate where both philosophical and theological subjects were taught more scholastico, Crouzel adjusted his position in a later article (L'Ecole Origene & Césarée: Posscriptum a une édition de Grégoire le Thaumaturge, BLE. 71 (1970) 15-27), in which he amended several views of A. KNAUBER (Das Anliegen der Schule des Origenes zu Casarea, MTBZ. 19 [1968] 182-203), ‘who had considered Origen’s school as a missionary school for pagans and deduced that Gregory had not even been Christian from an alleged avoidance of Christian terminology in the PanOrat, M. SLUSSER (ed.), St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. Life and Works, cit, 19-21, agreed with Crouzel with regard to the school of Caesarea, and concluded that the PanOrat testifies to an unmistakably Christian cultures, J.W. TRIGG, God's Marvelous Oikonomia: Reflections of Origen's Understanding of Divine and Human Pedagogy in the Address Ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, JECS 9/1 (2001) 27-52, has successfully disproved Knauber’s views. In the same line see also A. C.JACORSEN, Conversion to Christian Philosophy ~ the Case of Origen’s School in Caesarea, ZAC 16 (2012) 150-151 On the biblical allusions in the PanOrat see E. MAROTTA, I rflessi biblici nelforacione ad Origene di Gregorio il Taumaturgo, VetChe 10 (1973) 59-77. On the school of Caesarea see also A. LE BOULLUEC, D*Origene a Eusébe, cit, 239-261. 17ADAMANTIUS 22 (2016) Simonetti has defined Crouzel’s theory of dating Gregory's baptism right before the EpGr as an escamotage because the author of the PanOrat is manifestly Christian", and because of presumed contradictions between the PanOrat and the EpGr which we are going to clarify below. Even though Klein and Slusser have justly underlined that there is no clear evidence of Gregory's baptism in the PanOrat'', and independently of the precise aim of the school of Caesarea, Simonetti’s opinion is undisputable, because it is unlikely that Gregory had a close personal relationship with Origen for five ‘years without being baptised, when the catechumenate usually lasted three years®. ‘As a matter of fact, Crouzel’s escamotage turns out to be unnecessary because there are no substantial reasons to rule out that the author of the PanOrat had two names" and that the manuscript of Caesarea preserved the name of Gregory as well". Thus, considering that the PanOrat is a story both of formation and conversion® and that Gregory was ostensibly not baptised before meeting Origen’, it seems plausible that both names were commemorated in the title of the work as a tribute to Origen's influence on Gregory's conversion to Christianity. 1.3. The sources of Gregory's episcopal activity Lastly, for Nautin, there was another written source at Eusebius’ disposal, ie. the synodal letter of Council in Antioch quoted in H.e. 7,30,2-17, where no Gregory is actually mentioned. Even though Nautin’s denial that Gregory and Athenodore participated in that Council has lately gained support”, it remains unsubstantiated, as the following reconsideration of Eusebius’ information aims to show. Eusebius dates the time when «Gregory and his brother Athenodore were ruling the churches of Pontus» under Gallienus®, that is between 260/1 and 268, and says that they took part in what scholars think was the first session of the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata®, to be dated to 264%, Eusebius quotes different passages from the synodal letter but the large amount of information provided in his description of the Council (Fe. 7,27-30) implies that he drew on other documents as well. “© M, SIMONETTI, Una nuova ipotesi su Gregorio il Taumaturgo, cit, 293, Thus already E. MAROTTA (ed.), Gregorio i “Taumaturgo. Discorso a Origene, cit, 41. Cl previous note “R KLEIN P. GuYOT (eds.), Gregor der Wundertiter, Oratio prosphonetica, cit, 615 M, SLUSSER (ed), St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Life and Works, cit. 2 ©. SAXER, Les rites de Uinitiation chrétienne du He au Vle siécle. Esquisse historique et signification d’aprés leurs principaux témoins (Centto Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo 7), Spoleto 1988, 147-194, esp. 155-187, where Clo VIL144-45 i at issue. © C MARKSCHIES, Origenes und sein Erbe. Gesammelte Studien, Berlin-New York 2007, 59 (n. 111), aptly mentioned by M. Suussen, Saint Gregory Thaumaturgus, eit, 576-577, compares Gregory's case to those of Caecilius Cyprianus, qui et Thascius (Cypr, Epist. 66), and Origenes, qui et Adamantius (Hier. Vir. ill. 54). “B, MAROTTA (ed.), Gregorio il Taumaturgo. Discorso a Origene, cit. 40-41 © See C. MAZZUCCO, La componente autobiografica nel Discorso di Ringraziamento, in B. CLAUSt ~ V. MILAZz0 (cds.), Il gusto che fiorsce come palma, cit, 118-134 ““"The only passage from the PanOrat where Gregory refers to his piety before coming to Caesarea is 5,$548-53, where he relates the death of his pagan father when he was fourteen years-old to the first time he encountered the @eiog ASyos and to the simultaneous maturity of his Av@pioravos Abyos, It appears arbitrary to deduce from it that Gregory was baptized at that time. © See C, MORESCHINT = E. NoRELLI, Farly Christian Greek and Latin Literature, A Literary History, 1: From Paul fo the Age of Constantine. Transl by M.J. O'CONNOR, Peabody, MA 2005, 309 Bus. He, 7,14. For the participants to the first council see G. BARDY, Paul de Samosate. Btude historique Etudes et Documents 4), Louvain 1925, 283-295, That there were at least two synods summoned against Paul is clearly deduced from He. 7,27-28 © Bus. He. 7.13 ® For an updated introduction to him see P. D& NAVASCUES, Paolo di Samosata, NDPAC Il, 3858-3861. "Bus. He. 728.1. See G. BARDY, Paul de Samosate, cit, 283, and P. DE NAVASCUES, Pablo de Samosata y sus adversarios. Estudio histérico-teol6gico del cristianismo antiogueno en el silo III (SEAug 87), Roma 2004, 183-208, Who argues in favour of the opinion that there were at least three synods between 264 and 268/9, 178FRANCE CO CELIA ~ Gregory of Neocaesarea: a re-examination of the biographical issue Eusebius lists «the brothers Gregory and Athenodore, pastors of the communities in Pontus» as the most distinguished participants in the first synod of the Council”, together with at least two followers of Origen, Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia and Theotecnus of Caesarea in Palestine” Eusebius tells us that it was the learned priest Malchion who was finally able to demonstrate Paul's heresy in another synod, dated to between 268 and 269%, Then the bishops wrote the synodal letter, addressed primarily to Dionysius of Rome and Maximus of Alexandria, which sanctioned the condemnation of Paul. It was subscribed by Theotecnus of Caesarea together with others, including an unknown Theodore", whereas Gregory, Athenodore and Firmilian were missing. ‘The letter says also that Firmilian died before arriving to Antioch to express disapproval of Paul of Samosata®, but, unfortunately, it does not say anything about Gregory and Athenodore. ‘Their absence has been explained with their death”, but Nautin argued that Eusebius had invented their presence at the Council of Antioch on the basis of the presumption that he had identified the Theodore of the PanOrat with the unknown Theodore of the synodal letter"; obviously, as Nautin noted, itis impossible that this Theodore was Gregory of Neocaesarea, since a bishop would not have signed a synodal letter with his pagan name, ‘The flimsiness of this position is disclosed by two facts ignored by Nautin. First, the Council of Antioch consisted of at least two synods. ‘Therefore, Crouzel justly noted that it remains impossible to explain «comment la présence de ce Thédore au dernier concile a amené Eustbe A conclure que Grégoire et Athénodore se trouvaient dans le premier»®. Second, Eusebius had direct access to a documentation broader than the only synodal letter and met personalities directly involved in the Council. Eusebius might not only have found the names of Gregory and Athenodore in now lost written documents, but might also have been informed of their participation in the Council by Theotecnus of Caesarea, who was a contemporary of Eusebius®, and participated in at least two of the sessions of the Council: the first one, where Gregory and Athenodore were present, and the final one, where they were not. In conclusion, the conjecture of Nautin is basically undocumented, while Eusebius’ information makes perfect sense. Pus. Fhe. 728,1 ® According to Eus, He, 6,27, Firmilianus invited Origen into his region, when he was staying in Palestine, «for the benefit ofthe churches» and spent some time with him to perfect his knowledge of divine things. According to Fe. 7,14, Theotecnus was «of the school of Origen» (cic 8’ ptyévous SraxpiBig). Eusebius adds (He. 7,27; 28,3) that Dionysius of Alexandria, who could not participate in the Council, delivered a letter explaining his position on Paul's doctrine and died after the first synod. Bus. He 729,23 © Bus. Hoe. 7,30, 5 191-193. * Bus, He. 7.3035, also attests that Firmilian went twice to Antioch to condemn Paul. For this reason several scholars agreed with Nicephorus Callistus in supposing that there were three councils, see BARDY, Paul of Samosate, 293, Sec, for instance, Eusthe de Césarée, Histoire Bcclésiastigue, Texte gee tad, et ann, par G, BARDY (SC 41), 214 (a. 2. ™ More precisely, as we read in Grégoire dit le Thaumaturge, DHGE 22 (Paris 1988) 40, Eusebius found the name Theodore’ in the synodalleter, then «il 'aassimilé avec le Théodore du Discours, précédemment assimilé avec le Grégoire de Ia letre, lui-méme assimilé avec Févéque Grégoire de Néoctsarée, et il déclare en conséquence que Grégoire de Néocésarée et son fréve Athénodore ont prs part 4ce conciles, *'H. Crouzel, Faub-il voir trois personnages, cit, 310 (n. 70). However, Nautin continued in maintaining his position in Grégoire dit le Thaumaturge, ct, 40, " Fus. He 7,14 «As to Caesarea in Palestine, on the death of Theoctistus, Domus succeeded to the episcopate, but after he had Continued in ofice a short time Theotecnus, our contemporary (6 ai” fds), was appointed to succeed him, He also was of the school of Origen» (transl. [E.L. OULTON, Il, 171). In Hoe. 7,32:24 we read that Agapius sueceeded to Theotecnus. We deduce from these data that Theotecnus had been bishop of Caesarea since the first years of the 260s (Theoctistus died in about 258; Dominus was bishop for «a short times) onwards, but itis Impossible to establish when Agapius took his place (the latter died at last two years after the beginning ofthe great persecution, that is after 305). G. BaRDY, Paul de Samosate, cit, 298-302, and P. DF NAVASCUSS, Pablo de Samosata, cit, 179ADAMANTIUS 22 (2016) Furthermore, itis important to note that the dating of the first synod to 264 may explain why Eusebius says that Gregory was his contemporary (kab fqidg)', but not why Gregory and Athenodore are said to have become bishops «while still young», since Gregory left the school of Caesarea when he was at least twenty-five years old in 238/9". Thence, Eusebius appears to have drawn on a source of information unknown to us to say so. 14, The issue of EpGr What is left to examine are the internal inconsistencies which would prevent the identification of the author of the PanOrat with the addressee of the EpGr. Since there is no trace of the EpGr in Eusebius’ H.e. 6,30, the issue raised by Nautin rests on a petitio principii. Nonetheless, a study of his and others’ hypotheses is still indispensable. For Nautin, Eusebius would have identified “Theodore’ with Gregory because both the pupils of Origen studied Roman law (PanOrat 1,87; 5,958-62), and because ‘Theodore’ tells that he studied at Origen’s school the disciplines which Origen had exhorted Gregory to make good use of for the interpretation of the Scriptures ( PanOrat 8,5113: geometry and astronomy). Nautin raised two points against the identification: the ‘fact’ that the two figures had different names; the difficulties faced by historians in establishing which of the two works came first. Nautin outlined these obstacles as follows® The EpGr cannot be placed before the PanOrat because Origen wrote to someone who had already begun to study philosophy, while Theodore did not know philosophy before he met Origen (PanOrat 6,873), The EpGr cannot be placed after the PanOrat because: «Origen writes to someone who is studying the Law and philosophy», while Theodore would have begun a public career ( PanOrat 16,8192); Origen recommends to Gregory to use philosophy to the advantage of Christianity, and this, advice appears superfluous for a pupil who has spent seven® years with his master’, The reasons to reject the first explanation are sound; those to reject the second one are not, for, in principle, we cannot rule out that Thedore-Gregory could have changed his mind and gone back to school to refine his studies, and that Origen wrote to his pupil to remind him of his master's expectations. However, what appears to be more debatable is to argue that Gregory was a student on the mere grounds that Origen wrote «your natural skills can make you a perfect Roman lawyer anda Greek philosopher» (sce the text below). To this end, it is worthy to note that all the scholars who agree, or tend to agree, with Nautin’s views have held a different position with regard to this point. Nautin thought that Gregory was studying, while all the others follow Marguerite Harl, who thought that Gregory had not started his higher studies yet’. Despite this difference, both positions go against the common view, because the author of the PanOrat had completed his higher studies with Origen and continued to study Roman law. Still, we agree with Crouzel's and Klein's view that the EpGr seems to presuppose that Gregory had already studied !aw and philosophy’, as we will argue with further arguments, " See n. 37. On the date of the first synod see n. 51 » All the more so in the remote case that the PanOrat was delivered in 245, as Nautin and others have argued. * For a more detailed overview of these positions see G. DORIVAL, Est-illégitime d'éclairer le Discours cit, 13-15, “This was the opinion of J. DRASEKE, Der Brief des Origenes, cit, 115-124, and of F.CAVALLERA, Origene éducateur, BLE 44 (1943) 65. On this count see P. NAUTIN, Origéne, cit, 380 (n. 54) “ Also this objection dates back to Driseke. ” Origine. Philocalie, 1-20: Sur les Ecritures et la Lettre d Afficanus sur Vhstoire de Suzanne, Introd, texte, trad. et notes par M. HARL et N. DE LANGE (SC 302), Paris 1983, 401: «Origéne conseille 4 son éléve, qui va poursuivre des études supérieures, de ‘prendre’ dans la philosophie grecque ce qui sera ‘utile’ pour linterprétation des Feritures sacréess; M. SIMONETTI, Una nuova ipotesi su Gregorio il Taumaturgo, cit, 294; M. Rizzi (ed.), Gregorio il Taumaturgo (?). Encomio, cit, 84; G, DORIVAL, Fst-illgitime d’élairer le Discours, cit, seems to agree with Harl at p. 15,and with Nautin at p. 18. °H. Crouzet, Fautil voir trois personnages, cit, 308 180FRANCE CO CELIA ~ Gregory of Neocaesarea: a re-examination of the biographical issue But before reconsidering the internal elements of the EpGr it is important to stress that the difficulty in understanding this text is mainly due to the usual approach to reading it, that is, looking for a direct link to the PanOrat. There are two external facts that should make one suppose that we cannot ascertain what kind of doubts or questions Origen was to answer in the EpGr. First, Jerome attests that in the library of Caesarea there were «two books of letters to him [Origen] by Firmilian, Gregory and others» and many other volumes of letters”. It is then probable that the EpGr marked only a phase of the correspondence between Origen and Gregory, which we cannot reconstruct because the rest of itis lost. Second, the EpGr derives from the Philocalia, which in itself is a selection of passages, and may have been cut short, This may appear to be the case with the last lines, which do not contain farewells but, oddly enough, end with a phrase of subordinationist flavour” Let us then read the most discussed section of the EpGr: ‘As you know, the natural skills of intelligence, when they go with askesis can produce a work” which leads, so far as possible, if may use the expression, to the end (réAo«) ofthat which one wishes to practice (4oxeiy). Your natural skills can certainly make you a perfect (ré\e10v) Roman lawyer and a Greek philosopher of one of those schools deemed in high repute, But I wished that you would employ all the power of your skills finally (zehixios) for Christianity in practice (rowvxi), for this purpose I would beseech you to draw from the philosophy of the Greeks all that can be used as encyclical instructions or preparatory studies to Christianity”, and from ‘geometry and astronomy all that will be useful for the interpretation of the holy Scriptures. ‘Thus, what the children of the philosophers say about geometry and music, grammar, rhetoric, and astronomy, as handmaids to philosophy, we may say about philosophy itself in relation to Christianity” The first phrase, which is unexpectedly convoluted, has a general meaning. Origen says that if intelligence and askesis go hand in hand, they can reach their goal. In the second phrase, going from the general claim to Gregory's case”, Origen praises his skills and assures him that they «an make» him a perfect lawyer or a philosopher; Origen’s expression does not have any temporal connotation’ and this gives his discourse a theoretical nuance. Accordingly, there is no need to see here that Gregory was a student That Gregory was not a novice appears to be confirmed by Origen’s use of technical terminology, for instance speaking of good natural skills (ebguta)” and exercise/practice (oxnaic)”, and alluding to the © Hier. Epist. 33 (ed. NAUTIN, Origine, cit, 229,67-69) B, NEUSCHAFER, Origenes als Philologe (SBA 18/1-2), Il, Basel 1987, 412-413, suspects interpolations or errors in the textual transmission of EpGr 1. ” Orig. EpGr 4.95.99. ™ Nautin’s translation of fpyov into ‘ace’ i to be rejected. Both in Plato (Resp. 1,352e) and Aristotle (BE 2,1218b,37- 1219a,13) the ergon is the characteristic ‘function’, ‘activity’ or ‘work’ ofa thing, which defines the essence of that thing itself. Thus, the ergon of a human being consists ofthe activity ofthe rational part of the soul in accordance with virtue (1097b,22-10988,20), On the meaning and contents of encyclical paideia see I. HADOT, Arts libérauax et philosophie dans la pensée antique, Paris 1984, 263-293, Orig. EpGr 14-14: ‘H tle odvearv, we oiata, edguta Epyov gépeiy Bivarar Goxnow npoaraBoioa, Ayoy éni co Kata TO svBexOpevor, Iv’ obtg dvoHdIW, TEAaG ExLivoD, dxep doKeiV Tic BoReTaL, ddvara oBV f edguia cov ‘Pupiaidy of vouidy novfeat véAEov Kal ENANVIKOY twa @ASOGOY XaV VORIOKEVAY EAROyijY alpeoswv. BAR! Eyds i Mdon tic edgquiag dvvsper Gov ePovkduny KaTaXpoacBal Je TEAIKEE HEY cic xpIoTIAVIOUOY: MoMrIKG BE Ga oO &y NOEAANY RapaAaBelv ae Kal @ROTOgIaG”EAAHVAY TA olovEl cic xpLeTiavICUOY Bovaqeva yevecDa EyRORAIA uadipara f nponaieduara, Kal tk And yeuperpiac Kal Aotpovouiag xphowie EoOpeva Eig TY TAY lepdy ypagay dehynow. See the change: the first phrase has pres. ind. + pres. inf. (gépetv Siva); the second phrase has pres. ind. + aor inf. @ovarat[...] rovjoa). " J, HUMBERT, Syntaxe Greeque, Paris 1960°, 160. 7 Aristotle defines eigvia in Tap. 8,14,163b,10-17 and in EN 3,7,1114b,9-12 explains their importance for everyone's view ofthe telos~ that is the happiness. In BE 1214a,15-26 (cf. EN 1,9,1099b,9-11) Aristotle stars examining the way happiness can be attained by wondering about the importance of nature (physs), learning (mathess) and practice {askesis) CE. also Alcin. Didase 28,182,3-14 (ed. Alcinoos, Enseignement des doctrines de Platon. Intro. texte éabli et comm, par J. WHITTAKER et tad. par P. LOUIS, Paris 1990, 57) IslADAMANTIUS 22 (2016) ‘final cause’ (réhos)”. Moreover, it is perhaps significant that Origen, in contrast to the typical Middle Platonic pattern which he had certainly in mind", does not mention didaskalia or mathesis in his theoretical discourse on natural skills and askesis, as ifhe took for granted Gregory's education. In the second part of the passage we find the aim of Origen’s letter. He writes to his pupil in order to. beseech» him to «finally» invest his intelligence on behalf of Christianity, that is (romrnxic) to draw from Greek philosophy «all that can be used as encyclical instructions or preparatory studies to Christianity, and from geometry and astronomy all that will be useful for the interpretation of the holy Scriptures». If we separate these words from the rest of the letter, nothing would lead us to rule out that Gregory was studying, Yet, we find it hard to believe that Origen was addressing a student, expecting him to achieve such a demanding goal. The meaning of Origen's words appear more clearly by supposing that Gregory was already well prepared to fulfil his master’s expectations. Origen’s tone is serious and the rest of the letter confirms this impression, Origen explains that the project of establishing encyclical studies and Greek philosophy as subordinate and introductive to Christianity is signified by Ex, 11,2-3 and 12,35-36: it was with the precious materials stolen from the Egyptians that the Israclites made the objects for their cult", Then he stresses the risk of heresy and idolatry when «dwelling among the Egyptians, that is the sciences of the world», after having been brought up «on the law of God and the Israelite service to him»" Origen thus takes the example of the schism provoked by Hadad the Edomite (identified with Jeroboam)®. After his descent to Egypt, ‘Hadad’ went back to the land of Israel and recognized in the golden calf the god that had let the Israelites leave Egypt. According to Origen, ‘Hadad’ represents those who, because of a certain aptitude for the sciences of the Greeks, can easily engender «heretical ideas»", when they go back to the Holy land (that is the Christian theology). But the Hebrews were able to create the sacred objects for divine worship from the Egyptians’ spoils thanks to God's wisdom". For this reason, Origen urges his pupil to devote himself to the reading and the studying of the Holy Scriptures with much attention «so that we may not say or think anything too hasty about them»", with faith and with prayer” «to seek the meaning of the Divine Scriptures hidden from the many (tv xexpvpjiévov toig ROMAoIg VoOV THY Beiwy ypapytdrwv)>" It is evident that Origen has esteem for Gregory and does not consider him a simple student, and even judged it necessary to declare his «paternal love (naxpuxiy &yarmn)» for justifying the «ventures" to make such recommendations, From all these elements we can extrapolate that Origen wished that Gregory, after his conversion, would use his knowledge to build up a Christian paideia and to interpret the ™ On the relation between natural endowments, instruction and/or exercise/practice in classical thought see: Isoc. ‘Antid, 186-192; Protag. Frgm. B 3; Pl. Men. 70a, Resp. 5455b-c and 7,5352- * CEB, NEUSCHAPER, Origenes als Philologe, cit, Tl, 413. Origen cites three definitions of the véRog as Aristotelian in Selecta in Psalmos (PG 12,1053A), but only two of them are correct, Origen seems to have known Aristotle by way of, a lexicon, See G. BARDY, Origéne ef Varistotelisme, in Mélanges Gustave Glotz, I, Paris 1932, 75-83; H. CROUZEL, Origene et la philosophie (Theol[P] 52), Paris 1962, 32; G. DoRIVAL, Origene et la philosophie grecque,in Orig. V, 195. * See Alcin. Didasc.1,152,23-27, and 30,183,17-19, ed. J. WHITTAKER, 2 and 60; Philo Abr. 52-54; Clem. Str. 1,5,315. For further occurrences ofthese three factors in Clement and Philo see $. LILIA, Clement of Alexandria. A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism, Oxford 1971, 66-69 and Philon. De congressu eruditionis gratia, Int, trad. et notes par M. ALEXANDRE, Paris 1967, 128-130 (n. 3) "Thus, already according to Philo Somn. 1,205-207 (cf. Her. 272-274). For the idea of the subordination of philosophy to wisdom see Congr. 79-80, the same list of encyclical studies provided by Origen can be found in Gongr. 11, CZ also Clem. Str. 15,2832 © Orig, EpGr 351-54 © On this combination see P. NAUTIN, Origéne, eit, 159 (0.21) Orig. EpGr 3,69- Orig. EpGr 3.45~ © Orig, EpGr 481-83, © Orig. EpGr 489-91. © Orig. EpGr 488-89. © Orig, EpGr 494-95, Origen uses twice the verb vols 182FRANCE CO CELIA ~ Gregory of Neocaesarea: a re-examination of the biographical issue Scriptures. Origen speaks to him with much respect and a certain gravity, even warning him that this task runs the risk of heresy. ‘There is also another reason th: ¢ should make one think that Gregory could not be a student at the time of the letter. Origen addresses him as «excellent lord and very venerable son Gregory (xipté 1ov onovdaidrate Kai aldeodrare vit Tpnyépte)>”, The term vidg recalls the link between master and pupil”, The term xpos was employed to address high-ranking persons as early as before the time of Constantine”, and during the fourth century it became, together with aifeoysétavos, more and more typical to use it in reference to bishops”. It does not appear fortuitous then that Origen used xipiog ‘when writing to his benefactor Ambrosius™, who was indeed a man of high ranking and a deacon’, while avoiding it when writing to Africanus”, who was a Christian and a man of as high ranking as Ambrosius, but not an ecclesiastic”, This is not sufficient evidence to conclude that also Gregory was an ecclesiastic, but Origen’s words give the clear impression that he was a person of high standing, Despite the caution needed to compare the contents of the EpGr with those of the PanOrat, it turns out that the personal profiles of the addressee of the former and of the author of the latter match smoothly. Both were high-ranked persons and had studied at length. In conclusion, if ever Eusebius, or Pamphilus, were led to identify the author of the PanOrat as the addressee of the EpGr, we do not see on what basis it can be said that they were confused, made a mistake or committed a fraud. A further objection against the traditional identity of the addressee of the EpGr has been put forward by Eric Junod on the basis of an external indication. ‘The fact that the kephalaion of the Philocalia introducing the EpGr does not say that Gregory was the bishop of Neocaesarea would be inexplicable if they were the same person, because Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil of Caesarea were supposed to know him and to mention his bishopric see. Even though Junod did not regard this sole reservation as decisive, Slusser and Rizzi, to different degrees, considered it solid enough to have the traditional identification rejected”, But this objection can be overturned, for the Cappadocians might have found it unnecessary to add something about Gregory in a letter of Origen; moreover, since the authorship of the Philocalia has no solid foundation, as Har! and Junod himself have shown", this argument should be handled with more caution. ® Orig. EpGr 1,1-2: wipe vit again in 4,80. The term vidc rarely occurs in second- or third-century papyri but was often used to refer to pupils, and not only to relatives. See W.V. MaRTITZ, vidg, in TNDT 8 (1972) 334-340, esp. 337; L DINNEEN, Titles of address in Christian Greek epistolography to 527 A.D., Washington D.C. 1928, 75. ” See W. FOERSTER, Kyrios, in TNDT 3 (1972), 1045-1046, and MF CHKOWSKI, Kyrios, in RAC 22 (2008) 763. 1, Dineen, Tiles of address in Christian Greek epistolography, cit, 54.66 * Orig. EpAfr 24,5-6 (ed. N. Di LANGE, 572): xiptds tov Kal aBeAgdc lepb AuBpbdK0s » Hier Vir il 56 * Orig. EpAfr 11 (ed. N. DE LANGE, 522): ayant &deAgoc, which is typical of Paul's letters and was applied to any Christian until of the end of the third century. See L. DINNEEN, Titles of address in Chivstian Greek epislolography, cit, 17-20; A. Nowas, Beloved Brothers in the New Testament and Early Christianiy, in The New Testament in Its First Century Setting: Bssays on Contest and Background in Honour of B.W. Winter on His 65° Birthday, ed, by PJ. WILLIAMS ~ A.D, CLARKE ~ M, HEAD ~ D, INSTONE-BREWER, Grand Rapids, MI 2004, 143-150; LH. BLUMELL, Lettered Christians. Christians, Letter, and Late Antique Oxyriynchus, Leiden-Boston 2012, 68-70, In his cam Julius Africanus uses xipioc and vlc when writing to Origen, see Iul. Afr. Ep. Orig. 1,1-2 (ed. N. DE LANGE, 515). Since scholars tend to date Africanus’ letter to about 240, that is after Origen's ordination, his kipiog say refer to Origen’s priesthood. ® E.JUNOD, Partculartés de la Philocalie, in Orig, 186-187. Junod agreed with the hypothesis of Nautin, who had already stated iin Histoire des dogmes et des sacrementschrétiens, AEPHE.R 77 (1968) 273 7M, SLUSSER (ed), St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. Life and Works, cit, 36-37; M. RIZZI (ed), Gregorio il Taumaturgo (. Encomio, cit, 84 ¥©M, HARL - N. Di LANGE (eés.), Philacalie 1-20, cit, 19-27: E. JuNoD, Basile de Césarée et Grégoire de Naztanze sont ss les compilateurs de la Philocalie d'Origéne? Réexamen de la Lettre 115 de Grégoire, in Mémorial Dom Jean Gribomont (1920-1986) (SEAug 27), Roma 1988, 349-360. Junod has held different positions on the issue in other 183ADAMANTIUS 22 (2016) 2. Later Authors 2.1. Gregory of Nyssa Gregory of Nyssa delivered the De Vita Gregorit Thaumaturgi in 380", in all likelihood in the church of Neocaesarea™, and, considering its remarkable length, very likely not in its entirety. ‘The work tells the story of an educated young man who abandoned philosophical studies to embrace Christianity, and who then tried to live an ascetical life but was forced to become a bishop and who converted pagan masses through his words and especially through his miracles. In fact, its narrative is focused on the praise of the exceptional character of the Saint while little room is left for biographical data”. Since the debate between Koetschau and Ryssel about the links between the Greek version and the Syriac one preserved in the ms, British Library Add, 14648, itis usually acknowledged that Gregory of ‘Nyssa mainly drew his information from local oral traditions™, After all, Gregory of Nyssa’s own personal and familial history must have ensured him access to them: he was probably born in Neocaesarea; his paternal grandparents had lived in the province of Pontus; Macrina the Elder ‘had received the traditions of Gregory ‘Thaumaturgus™; and Annesi, where Macrina the younger and Emmelia had practised asceticism, was not far from Neocaesarea However, since Gregory of Nyssa explicitly reproached «the artificial conceit of the writers (Aoyoypapor)» with misreporting the extraordinary deeds of the Saint™, and since Basil had a few years earlier complained about the spreading of «pseudo-prophetical visions» in the Church of Neocaesarea'”, itis plausible that another more extravagant hagiography circulated at that time". Now, independently of the influence of sources unknown to us, before Nautin proposed his hypothesis, neither Koetschau nor Crouzel had found any traces of the PanOrat in Gregory of Nyssa’s work. But, later on, Crouzel has argued, though without presenting his argumentation as conclusive, that Gregory of Nyssa had read the PanOrat and the EpGr and that he had identified Gregory of Neocaesarea as the contributions: Remarques sur la composition de la “Philocalia” d'Origene par Basile de Césarée et Grégoire de Nazianze, RHPhR 52 (1972) 149-156; Philocalie 21-27 (SC 226), Paris 1976, 11-12 and rev. ed. Paris 2006. "Suffice it to mention P.MARAWAL, Chronology of Works, in The Brill Dictionary of Gregory of Nyssa, ed. by 1,F, MATEO-SECO ~ G, MASP5RO, Transl. by 8, CHERNEY (SVigChe 99), Leiden-Boston 2010, 164 "© Thus think J. BERNARDI, La prédication des Peres Cappadociens, Paris 1968, 309, and, more cautiously, R. VAN DAM, Hagiography and History: The Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus, CIA 1/2 (1982) 277 ¥© These data cover seven pages (7-13) out of more than fifty of the critical edition by G. Her in GNO X, 1, Sermones pars Il. Ediderunt G. J.P. CavaRwos - O. LENDLE |...] curavit F. MANN, Leiden-New York: Kebenhavn-Kéln 1990, 3-57. On the literary aspect of the work see L. MERIDIER, Linjluence de la Seconde Sophistique sur Voewvre de Grégoire de Nysse, Paris 1906, 239-242; Gregorio di Nissa. Vita di Gregorio Taumaturgo. Trad, introd. e note a cdi L. LEONF (CTePa 73), Roma 1988, 5-7; R. VAN DAM, Hagiography and history, eit, 277- 280; A. Dé NICOLA, Il OFIOE TAN ETKOMION AOTOE nella ‘Vita di San Gregorio Taumaturgo’ di Gregorio Nisseno, in La narrativa crstiana antica. Codici narrativ, strutture formali,schenai retorici. Atti del XXIII Incontro di studiosi dellantichita cristiana, Roma, 5-7 maggio 1994 (SEAug $0), Roma 1995, 283-300. LV. Ryssst, ine syrische Lebensgeschichte des Gregorius Thaumaturgus. Nach cod. Mus. Brit. Syr. Add. 14648 aus ddem syrischen ibersetzt, TRZS 11 (1894) 228-254; P. KOETSCHAU, Zur Lebensgeschichte Gregors des Wundertaters, ‘ZWTh Al (1898) 211-250; H, HLGENFELD, Die Vita Gregor's des Wunderthaters und die syrischen Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, ZWTh 41 (1898) 452-456, According to KM. OorzKA, Ipnydpioc 6 Neoxsoxpelac énloronos 6 ‘@ayuaroupyéc (Ca, 211/3-270/5), ABFvat 1969, 56-59, also the Armenian and Latin lives depend on oral traditions +P, MARAVAL, Biography of Gregory of Nyssa, in LF. MATEO-S#CO ~ G. Mas?eRO (eds), The Brill Dictionary of Gregory of Nyssa, cit, 103-104. Indeed, it cannot be said that Macrina the Elder (270-3402) had been a direct pupil of Gregory of Neocaesarea. Basil’s Ep. 204,6, which is the passage usually mentioned to substantiate this assumption, only says that «the words of the blessed Gregory which, having been preserved until her time by uninterrupted tradition, she also guarded» (cf, also Fp. 210,1,13-20; 223,3). That the paternal grandparents of the Cappadocians ‘were born at the latest during the last years of Thaumaturgus’ life was already noted by R. VAN DAM, Hagiography and history, cit, 283, Gr. Nyss. V. Gr. Thaum. $9 (ed. G. Het, 23,10-11). On the rhetorical strategy of Gregory of Nyssa see A. DE Nicota, I @EIOE TAN EFKOMION AOTOS, cit, 286-28. °© Bas, Bp, 211; 207,1,27-28; 210,2,20; 210,3,9-13;210,6, All these letters are dated from 375 onwards. ° CES, MITCHELL, The Life and Lives of Gregory Thaumaturgus, cit, 129-130. 184FRANCE CO CELIA ~ Gregory of Neocaesarea: a re-examination of the biographical issue author of the former and the addressee of the latter’. However, Crouzel could detect as evidence only general thematic similarities between them and a single passage of the Vita ($12, ed. Hrs, 9,3-10,7)", which describes how the study of Greek philosophy led the Thaumaturgus to the understanding of Christianity: 1) the transition of Greek studies to Christianity; 2) the topic of the inconsistencies among philosophical schools (PanOrat $§153-168); 3) the opposition of evangelical simplicity to philosophical subtleties (§$170-183); 4) the idea that astronomical knowledge is «foundation (Sx6Bapa, ‘pedestal’) for the contemplation of the transcendental good» ($114, where the same image is used to refer to geometry). Nautin, who had initially ignored later traditions, was inclined to acknowledge the vague reminiscences pointed out by Crouzel as evidence that Gregory of Nyssa did not escape the influence of Eusebius’ error""!, However, the elements pointed out by Crouzel do not show any dependence on the PanOrat and on the EpGr for they mirror a typical Alexandrian thought pattern which Gregory of Nyssa, who shared it, had no need to look for in any of these two works!” As a matter of fact, even if the problem of Gregory of Nyssa’s sources is rather complex", the biographical elements of the Vita not only remarkably contradict the PanOrat, but also can hardly depend on Eusebius. Indeed the Vita tells that Gregory of Neocaesarea 1) was bereaved of both parents (S11), 2) studied philosophy in Alexandria (615)'“, 3) first abandoned his philosophical studies, 4) then met Firmilianus of Caesarea and went with him to study at Origen’s school (§22), 5) and finally went back to his homeland looking for a calm place to live a philosophical life (§§23-24). Furthermore, it ignores the study of rhetoric and the planned journey to Beirut, and pays no attention to the studies Gregory accomplished with Origen. In summary, the PanOrat and the Vita contradict one another except for reporting that Gregory of Neocaesarea was a wealthy pagan who became a pupil of Origen and with a public career ahead, As to the Historia ecclesiastica, the Vita disagrees with it except for Gregory's being a pupil of Origen and a successful bishop. Gregory of Nyssa ignores also the fact that the Thaumaturgus participated in the council of Antioch though he cites Firmilian of Caesarea. In fact the episode of their meeting implies an anachronism, because it is said that Gregory Thaumaturgus had met Firmilian before he became bishop", but Firmilian was consecrated in about 230, and Gregory left Neocaesarea for Caesarea in Palestine surely after that date! °° H. CRouzst, Faut-il voir trois personnages, cit, 312-319. | follow the division into ‘chapters’ introduced in his English translation by M. SLUSSER (ed.), St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. Life and Works, cit. 41-87. "" Grégoire dt le Thaumaturge, cit, 40. Also H. CROUZEL, La cristologia in Gregorio Taumaturgo, Gr. 61 (1980) 747 took for granted his argumentation. ©The rare term dxoB40pa significantly occurs in Alcin, Didasc 7,161,26-33 (ed, WHITTAKER, 17) ~ which is closer to Gregory of Nyssa's statement, for it says thatthe astronomical knowledge i the foundation efor the search of the ings, than to the PanOrat, where geometry and astronomy serve to access «the heaven» only ~and in Clem. Str. 68,67 (ed. Clemens Alexandrinus. Werke II, Stromata I-VI, hrsg, von O. StAHLIN ~ L, FROCHTEL [GCS 52], Berlin 1960°, 465) ~ where it defines Greek philosophy with respect to the Christian one. +9 tis sufficient to remember that Simonetti changed his mind several times on the issue without providing any decisive argument. See: Una nuova ipotesi su Gregorio il Taumaturgo, cit, 2865 Origene dalla Cappadocia ai Cappadoci cit., 15; Gregorio il Taumaturgo e Origene, cit, 21; Gregorio il Taumaturgo cit, 2 Te seems out of the question that Gregory of Nyssa could interpret literally the EpGr~ the same way Nautin did, as suggested by H. CROUz#!, Faut-il voir trois personages, cit, 316. 5 Gr. Nyss. V. Gr. Thaum. $22 (ed. G. Het, 134-7) © However, the fact that Gregory and Firmilian had met at Origen’ school is historically admissible since Eusebius (Hee, 6:27) knew that the latter went to Caesarea of Palestine, probably during those years. Cf. M. SIMONETTI, Origene dalla Cappadocia ai Cappadoci cit 15 he indeed ever read it - 185ADAMANTIUS 22 (2016) ince the biographical elements gathered by Gregory of Nyssa substantially differ from those we find in Eusebius and in the PanOrat, the Vita appears to be not dependent on them’, and this reinforces the authenticity of the traditional figure of Gregory of Neocaesarea 2.2. Jerome Jerome's De viris illustribus (393) provides the earliest Latin account on Gregory", As is well known, its first seventy-eight chapters, that is those concerning authors of the first three centuries of Christian history, are heavily based on Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica®. Scholars have shown that Jerome often copied and sometimes misunderstood his source™. Also Pierre Courcelle's research, which in some cases illustrated that Jerome had had first-hand knowledge of what he wrote, turned out to confirm that he had known very little about the authors and the texts he quoted". Courcelle thought that Jerome's knowledge of the Greek authors between Origen and Eusebius had depended on the Historia ecclesiastica or on other intermediaries. Nautin hypothesised that the source of information about the literary output of the authors preceding Eusebius had depended on the lost Vita Pamphili which contained Pamphilus’ catalogue of the library of Caesarea'. Nonetheless he never supposed that this was the case for Gregory's account, as it seems to be. ‘Theodore, later called Gregory, bishop of Neocacsarea in Pontus, while still adolescent went with his brother Athenodorus from Cappadocia to Beirut and thence to Caesarea in Palestine in order to stady Greck and Latin letters. When Origen had seen their excellent disposition, he exhorted them to study philosophy, into which he ‘gradually introduced the Christian faith, and also made them his followers. Instructed by him in this way for five years, they were sent back to their mother. One of them, Theodore, before his departure, wrote a Panegyric of thanks to Origen, which he recited before a large assembly, Origen himself being present, and which survives down to the present day. He also wrote a Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes, brief but very useful. And other epistles of his are widely known, but especially the signs and miracles, which, when he was already a bishop, he performed for the great glory ofthe churches (Vir. ill. 65)" 1 W. TELFER, The Cultus of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, HTHR 29/4 (1936) 229; R. VAN DAN, Hagiography and history, cit, 281; A. MONACI CASTAGNO, L'agiografia cristiana antica, Testi, contesti, pubblico (LCA 23), Brescia 2010, 163 "11s Greek translation (7-9 cent.) was the main souree for the account on Gregory supplied by the Suda Lexicon. See J.A. FABRICIUS, Bibliothecae Graecae, Lib. V, Hamburgi 1712, 247; Hieronymus. Liber de viris inlustribus, Gennadius. Liber de virisinlustribus, hrsg. von F.C. RICHARDSON, Der sogennante Sophronius, hrsg. von O. VON Gestiaapr (TU 14/1), Leipzig 1896, VILL 41-42. ° Jerome himself writes in the prologue fuert: "© §, VON SYCHOWSKI, Hieronymus als Litterarhistoriker. Eine Quellenkritsche Untersuchung der schrift des H. Hieronymus "De Viris llustribus" (KGS 2/2), Minster i, W. 1894; J, HurMER, Studien zw dem dtesten christlich- lateinischen Literarhistorikern. 1, Hieronymus De viris illustribus, WSt 16 (1894) 121-158; C.A. BERNOULLI, Der Schrifistellerkatalog des Hieronymus. Ein Beitrag cur Geschichte der alfchrstlichen Litteratur, Freiburg i. B.-Leipzig 1895. A. VON HARNACK, Geschichte der altcristlchen Literatur bis Eusebius, 1/1, cit, L (n. 1), ratified these studies by claiming that «Jerome used the Historia ecclesiastica of Busebius as the latter the library of Caesarea». Cf. also T.D. BARNES, Tertullian. A Historical and Literary Study, Oxford 1971, 236-238. 1 P, COURCELLE, Les Lettres Grecques en Occident, De Macrobe & Cassiodore, Nouv. &d, rev. et augm. (BEFAR 159), Paris 1948, 78-115, © Foid, 103.112. © p. NAUTIN, Lettres et écrivains chrétiens, cit, 256, “Theodorus, qui postea Gregorius appellatus est, Neocaesareae Ponti episcopus, admodum adolescens, ob studia Graecarum et Latinarum litterarum, de Cappadocia Berytum, et inde Caesaream Palaestinae transit, juncto sibi Jfratre Athenodoro. Quorum cum egregiam indolem vidisset Origenes, horlatus est eos ad philosophiams, in qua ;paulatim Christ fidem subintroducens, sui quoque sectatores reddidit. Quinquennio itague eruditi ab eo remittuntur ad matrem, ¢ quibus Theodorus profciscens, namyopxd edxapiotiac scripsit Origeni: et convocata grandi frequentia, ipso quoque Origene praesente, recitavit, qui usque hodie exstat. Scrpsit et werégpaacy in Eccesiasten brevem quidem, sed valde utilem. Et aliae hyjus vulgo ferunturepistola, sed praccipue signa atgue miracula, quae iam episcopus cum multa Beclesiarum gloria perpetravit. Ed. Gerolamo. Gli uomini illustri, a c. di A. CERESA GASTALDO (BPat 12), Firenze 1988, 168-170. Jerome lists «Theodore, later called Gregory, a man gifted with apostolic signs and 1 De viris illusribus that Eusebius’ work maximo nobis adiumento 186FRANCE CO CELIA ~ Gregory of Neocaesarea: a re-examination of the biographical issue That Jerome depended on H.e. 6,30 for his account on Gregory appears evident, but several pieces of information are independent of it: the references to Beirut and to Gregory's mother, which seem to stem from the PanOrat, and the mention of Neocaesarea and of Gregory's miracles and works. According to von Sychowski, Jerome read the PanOrat but was wrong in stating that Gregory had actually gone to Beirut, while Neocaesarea would have been already part of his traditional figure" Bernoulli thought that Jerome had had scant knowledge of the PanOrat”. Nautin deduced from the reference to Beirut that Jerome had read it, and from the reference to Neocaesarea that he had access to the copy contained in the Apologia pro Origene, which he had read several years before, because also Socrates reports this detail!” Jerome seems to have known the Metaphrasis first hand for he quotes it, but Bernoulli questioned that this quotation implied a «wirkliche Bekanntschaft> of the work", He perhaps knew also of the Epistula Canonica, which was one of the most important ancient Christian documents concerning penance”. Clausi has argued that Jerome knew of Gregory's miracles through Basil's De Spirito Sancto!”* and not through the Vita, for Jerome did not mention it among Gregory of Nyssa's works nor any of the unique information contained in it™. It is possible, nonetheless, that Jerome heard of Gregory's prodigious activity when he lived in the about a decade before the composition of the De Viris Ilustribus had been his teacher", ‘The same explanation could be advanced for the referen A further minor detail independent of Eusebius is the reference to Cappadocia, It is unclear whether Jerome thought that Gregory had been originally from Cappadocia, whether he distinguished it from Pontus or simply had a scant knowledge of geographical borders". At any rate, it is important to note East", perhaps directly from Gregory of Nyssa, whom Jerome had met , or from Gregory of Nazianzus, who to Neocaesarea, Jerome's inaccuracy, because after Diocletian's administrative reform of the twelve dioceses in about 294, there were three different provinces - that is Cappadocia I, II and Pontus Polemoniacus = belonging to the diocesis Pontica'”. On this point even Socrates is more accurate than Jerome. In summary, on the one hand, scholars have admitted with a certain mistrust that Jerome had a first hand knowledge of Gregory of Neocaesarea’s works; on the other hand, Jerome reports biographical data about Gregory which are independent of Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica virtues» in Bpist. 70,4 (397/398) among those Christian authors who «filled their works with the doctrines and sentences of the philosophers. This lst draws on the information and the order of the De Viris illustribus. Se P. COURCELLE, Les Letires Grecques en Occident, cit, 78-79. 5 §. VON SYCHOWSKI, Hieronymus als Litterarhistoriker, cit, 158-159, BERNOULLI, Der Schrifistllerkatalog des Hieronymus, cit, 276-278 © P NAUTIN, Lettres et écrivains chrétiens, it, 259-260, 263, ™ Hier. In Feels. PL23,1103, Jerome completed this work in Bethlehem in 388/389, cf F. CAVALLARA, Saint Jéréme Sa vie ef som oeuvre, I (SSL 1), Louvain-Paris 1922, 134-137; J.N.D. KELLY, Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies, London 1975, 110 © CA. BERNOULLE, Der Schrifistllerkatalog des Hieronymus, cit, 279 © §. VON SYCHOWSKI, Hieronymus als Litterarhistoriker, cit, 159-160; P. NAUTIN, Lettres et écrivains chrétiens, cit, 263-264, Hier. Vir ill. 16. © B, CLAUS) L'altro Gregori, Intorn alla tradizione agiografca latina sul Taurnaturgo, in B. CLAUS ~ V. MILAZZ0 (eds. Il giusto che forisce come palma, ct, 192-193, CE. C.A. BERNOULLI, Der Schrifstellerkatalog des Hieronymus, cit, 279, 2 CA. BeRNOULL Hier. Vir ill 128. ° Hier. Epis 50,1; 52,8; Vir. ill 117; Adv, Rufin, 1.13.30; Adv. lovin, 1,13. +" Pontus was created a province atthe time of Alexander Severus, while it was part of the province of Galatia under Vespasian and part of the province of Cappadocia (separated from Galatia) under Trajan, See: B. REMY, LEvolution administrative de VAnatolie aux trois premiers sigcles de notre ére (Collection du Centre d'Etudes Romaines et Gallo- Romaines 5), Lyon 1986, 51-61.101-104.106-108; M, CiRisTOL - X. LORIOT, Le Pontus et ses gouverneurs dans le second tiers dw II siéce, in B. REMY (Ed.), Centre Jean-Palerne. Mémoires Vi, Saint-Etienne 1986, 13-40. ° See Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, ed. by R. TALBERT, Princeton 2000, pl 100 and 101 ibider. 187ADAMANTIUS 22 (2016) In our view, the most plausible explanation for these different elements is that Jerome depended on Pamphilus’ catalogue of the library of Caesarea'™, Eusebius says that in the Vita Pamphili he quoted «athe lists (pinakes) of the library that he [Pamphilus] had brought together of the works of Origen and of other ecclesiastical writers»™, and Jerome himself attests that they were inserted in its third book'® Jerome, who spoke of the library of Caesarea as «collected by Origen and Pamphilus»"™,, tells us also that Pamphilus travelled toto orbe with the desire «to equal Demetrius Phalereus and Pisistratus in his zeal for a sacred library» in search of books, maxime those of Origen, and eventually «left behind for us an index of these discoveries». He also quotes a passage from the Vita Pamphili where Pamphilus was said to have read «very zealously and perpetually dwelled in meditation on the treatises of the ancient writers», Therefore, although Pamphilus ran and enlarged the library also with the help of Eusebius™, there is little doubt about who was the person in charge of its pinakes'® It is the configuration of Gregory's entry itself that shows that Jerome depended on the Caesarean catalogue. Indeed it presents the double structure with biographical and bibliographical information that characterised the Alexandrian listing method introduced by Callimachus' Pinakes. This work was not a mere librarian’s catalogue collecting names and titles, but also discussed biographical data and issues of authenticity of the works. And, as Rudolf Blum has shown, this method was adopted by Pamphilus in his catalogue, on which both Eusebius and Jerome relied!” As is suggested also by the fact that he left in Greek the titles of two works, Jerome may have essentially translated the pinax dedicated to Gregory of Neocaesarea by Pamphilus. However, it remains impossible to ascertain whether all his bibliographical references stem from the catalogue, and whether the pinax mentioned Gregory's miracles". If Vir, ill, 65 did substantially stem from the catalogue of the library of Caesarea, it may lead us to endorse Nautin's view that Theodore was the name found in the manuscript conserved there. Indeed, Jerome begins his entry on Gregory with the name of Theodore, adding that he was postea called Gregory, and repeats that «Theodore [...] wrote a Panegyric of thanks to Origen». ™ M, WILLING, also relying on Rudolf Blum's studies (see below), believes that the existence of the pinakes of the library explains how the Ilistoia ecclesiastica provided information which Eusebius could not be aware of in Eusebius von Casarea als Helreseograph (PTS 63), Berlin-New York 2008, 10-11 and passim. See also J.A. AHO, Using References in the Work of Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260-3389) to Understand the Collection of the Library of Caesarea, Ph.D. diss, University of Texas 2002, 96. ™ Bus, He. 632.3; transl, JEL. OULTON, 85-87. “® Hier. Adv. Rufin. 2,2 (ed, Saint Jérome. Apologie contre Rufin, Introd. texte crit, trad et index par P. LARD=T [SC 308], Paris 1983, 164,32-34), 4 Hier. Vi ill U3. "© Hier, Epist. 34,1 (382-384) (ed, S.Jérome, Lettres, ® Hier. Adv. Ruf. 19. ™ On the book activity within the Caesarean library see G. CAVALLO, Scuola, scriptorium, biblioteca a Cesarea, in Le Biblioteche nel mondo antico ¢ medievale, ac. di G. CAVALLO, Roma-Bari 1989, 65-78, and H.Y. GAMBLE, Books and Readers in the Early Church. A History of Early Christian Texts, New Haven-London 1995, 154-161. Jerome found in Caesatea the copies of Origen’s works prepared by Pamphilus’ own hand (Vir. il. 75). © See also J.A. AHO, Using References in the Work of Eusebius, cit, 95-96, and AJ. CARRIKER, The Library of usebius, cit, 54 (n. 61). On this see R PFEIFFER, History of Classical Scholarship. From the Beginning to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford 1968, 127-131. The twenty-five Greek fragments concerning the pinakes were edited in Callimachus, ed. R. PreirvER, 1, Fragmenta, Oxonii 1949, 344-349, and translated into English by J.B. Witty, The Pinakes of Callimachus, Library Quarterly 28 (1958) 132-136. A more recent edition consists of seven fragments, see Kallimachos Werke, Griechiseh und Deutsch, Hrsg. und Gbersetzt von M, AsPER, Darmstadt 2004, 516-519. HR. BLUM, Kallimachos. The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography, transl. by H.H. WELLISCH, Madison, WI 1991 (1 German ed.: Frankfurt a, M, 1977); Die Literaturverzeichnung im Altertum und Mittlaler. Versuch einer Geschichte der Biotibliographie von den Anfangen bis zum Beginn der Neuceit, AGB 24 (1983) 89-113. © The earliest literary evidence of Gregory's miracles is found in Basi’s De Spirtu Sancto, but Eusebius already took it for granted that Gregory was reckoned as sespecially distinguished» by his readers, and this may be evidence that Gregory was well known as a miracle worker at Eusebius’ time (thus P. NAUTIN, Origene, ct, 82). , Texte et, et trad, par J. LABOURI, Paris 1949, 44,8-18) 188.FRANCE CO CELIA ~ Gregory of Neocaesarea: a re-examination of the biographical issue Even so, this does not imply necessarily that Theodore had no second name at the time when he composed the PanOrat, because the meaning of postea is not clear, and that its original manuscript did not preserve both names. In order to better ponder this issue, and since Nautin and Simonetti have suspected both Eusebius and Pamphilus of apologetic aims, it is important to take into account the fact that Jerome never dared to call into doubt the identity of Gregory of Neocaesarea during his clash with Rufinus over Origen’s theories at the turn of the fifth century. Here itis of no interest to describe that clash in detail!®, but only to remember that Jerome fiercely and wrongly accused Rufinus for having ascribed the Apologia pro Origene™, of which the latter had translated the first book into Latin in 397, to the «saint martyr» Pamphilus' rather than to the «Arian» Eusebius (Epist, 84 [399]), Even if Jerome ventured to say that the «style and taste» of the work could lead him to think that Pamphilus had composed it!®, he charged Rufinus with fraud because Pamphilus had written nothing". He also argued that if Pamphilus had been the author of the Apologia, then his martyrdom was necessary to purify «his sole sin by the effusion of his blood». The objective of Jerome, whose arguments are Various and deliberately confusing, was simply to deny that an eminent martyr and intellectual such as Pamphilus could have ever defended Origen, even if this implied the use of assertions of bad taste and contradicting what he himself had previously stated" At the end of the first book of his Apologia contra Ilieronymum (401), after having shown that had previously shared the theories of Origen he later considered heretical, Rufinus argued that Jerome's condemnation of the doctrine of apokatastasis put him in opposition to a number of illustrious Fathers of the Church who had been in agreement with or influenced by Origen: Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Neocaesarea (Gregorius ille Ponticus, vir apostolicarum virtutum), Gregory of Nazianzus and Didymus"* The only two Fathers who could have been mentioned in the Apologia pro Origene are Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Neocaesarea’™, and Socrates confirms that the Apologia contained not only the PanOrat but also another separate account about our Gregory (see, below 2.3.). Therefore Rufinus’ reference to Gregory must have been particularly caustic to Jerome, because the PanOrat had surely been the most authoritative piece of the Apologia pro Origene, as it was written by a direct pupil of Origen who enjoyed widespread reputation as a learned evangelist, saint and wonder-worker. s striking then that Jerome never doubted the ascription of the PanOrat and never replied to Rafinus’ reference to Gregory of Neocaesarea as a supporter of the doctrine of apokatastasis. In our view, this fact neutralizes the assumption that the traditional profile of Gregory was the outcome of an ™ For the period of the Origenist controversy here taken into consideration, see F. CAVALLERA, Saint Jérdme, cit. 193-286, Il, 97-101; J.N.D. KELLY, Jerome, cit, 195-208, 227-58; P, LARDET (ed.), Saint Jéréme. Apologie contre Ruin, cit, 30-75 © Scholars do not give great credence to the claims made by Jerome and Rufinus during this dispute. The touchstone is Photius’ account (Bibl. cod. 118) that reports that the fist five books were Pamphils’ work and the sixth one was added by Eusebius. As has been well stated by Junod (SC 465,23), both Rufinus and Jerome told a part of the truth: the former avoided saying that Eusebius too had participated in the work; the later refused to admit that the Apologia had been primarily a work by Pamphilus. See also E, JUNOD, L'auteur de 'Apologie pour Origéne traduite par Rufin. Les témoignages contradictoires de Rufin et de Jéame a propos de Pamphile et d’Eusébe, in Recherches et tradition, Mélanges patristiques offers & H. Crouzel SJ, sous la direction dA. DUPLAIX (TAH 88), Paris 1992, 165-79, and F. CAVALLERA, Saint Jérdme, I, cit, 100, °t Rufin, Prologus in Apologeticum Pamphili Martyrs pro Origene. For the edition of Rufinus’ apologetical works we refer to Tyrannii Rufini, Scripta Apologetica, rec. M. StMONETTI (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiae Aquileiensis 5/1), Aquileia-Roma 1999, which reproduces the text edited in CCL. 20. "© Hier. Epist 84,11 (ed. S.Jér6me. Lettres, IJ, Texte ét. et trad. par J. LABOUR, Paris 1953, 137,22-25). °° Hier. Epist 84,11 (ed. J. LABOURT, 137,20-22) ‘1 Hier, Epis. 84,11 (ed. J. LABOURT, 138,17-18). Hier. Vir. ill. 75, Above all, Jerome contradicted Eusebius’ H.e. 6,334. For Jerome's subsequent attempt to explain his mistake see Adv. Rufin. 2,2; see also 1,8-10; 2,15 and 3,12, On its fiimsiness see F. CAVALLERA, Jerome IL, cit, 100. Cf. also Rufin. Apol. adv. Hier. 234 * Rufin, Apol. adv. Hier. 1,45 (ed. M. SIMONETTI, 150,1440-152,1448). "© The mention of Clement of Rome is explained by Rufinus’ attribution to him of the pseucdo-Clementines 189ADAMANTIUS 22 (2016) apologetic manoeuvre by Pamphilus or Eusebius. Indeed, being in the middle of his dispute with Rufinus, Jerome would have certainly tried to refute the attribution of the PanOrat if he had had the chance. But he did not, and this is noteworthy because, whatever name or names he found in the heading of the PanOrat contained in the Apologia pro Origene, and despite his accounting that «Theodore [...] wrote a Panegyric of thanks to Origen», Jerome did not find in this any pretext to question its authorship or the identity of Gregory of Neocaesarea 2.3, Socrates of Constantinople Socrates of Constantinople composed his Historia ecclesiastica in about 439/40 with the purpose of continuing the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, treating the period between Constantine and Theodosius IL, as Rufinus did. Socrates himself declares that he used the tenth and eleventh books added by Rufinus to his translation of Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica and that he collected further information from different written and oral sources for his third through his seventh book (H.e. 2,1). It would appear plausible then that Socrates knew and used the rest of Rufinus' translation, also because he was acquainted with some of Gregory's miracles mentioned by Rufinus in H.e. 7,28,2 (GCS 9,953 956)". However, Socrates’ dependence on Rufinus is not convincing, as we will see shortly. Socrates writes about Gregory of Neocaesarea after having treated the figures of Origen’s famous followers such as Didymus of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzen (H.e. 4,25-26). ‘The passage is inserted by Socrates to explain that Gregory of Nyssa, who is mentioned for a moment, cannot be confused with the Thaumaturgus. This expedient clearly serves to show the greatness of the Origenist tradition through the portrayal of one of its most illustrious exponents, But since a few are confused by the homonymy, itis necessary to know that Gregory of Pontus isa diferent person, who was a native of Neocaesarea in Pontus and who was of greater antiquity than the others; indeed he ‘was a disciple of Origen. This Gregory's fame was great at Athens, Beirut, throughout the entire diocese of Pontus and I might add in the whole world. When he had withdrawn from the schools of Athens, he studied Law in Beirut fier having heard that Origen interpreted the Holy Scriptures in Caesarea, he quickly went there. Having listened to his resounding investigation of the Holy Scriptures, bidding farewell to the study of the Roman law he became inseparable from Origen; thereafter, when he had acquired from him the true philosophy, he was recalled by his parents and returned to his homeland™. There, while still a layman, he performed many miracles, healing the sick and casting out devils by leters, and drawing to himself the pagans by his discourses and especially by his acts. Pamphilus Martyr mentions him in the books which he wrote about Origen, in which there is also a farewell oration by Gregory to Origen. There were then, to summarize, three Gregories: this ancient one who was Origen’s disciple, the Nazianzen and the brother of Basil...) ° CF Socrate de Constantinople. Histoire Ecelésastique, Livres IV-VI, Trad, par P. PERICHON et P, MARAVAL, notes par P. MaRAVAL (SC 508), Paris 2006, 118-119 (n. 1) "Cf n.170 "® Here Hansen's critical text (see next note) adds «and Eusebius who bears his name», We agree with Amacker et Junod who tend not to consider this reading as original for it comes from the Armenian, Syriac and Latin translations of Socrate’s Historia. They think that «la mention du seul Pamphile [..] pourrait indiquer que Socrate le considére comme auteur principal de I'Apologie ou qu'il cherche a mettre en évidence la réputation de Grégoire auguel un “martyr” a rendu hommage en le citanto, See R, AMACKER ~ E, JUNOD (eds), Apologie pour Origene I, cit, 57. For this reason we changed aétoic (I 11) to adt@ in Hansen’s text (cf his apparatus), 2 Socr, Hee. 427: ExeiBi 5€ tives éx Tg dpuvopiag Mavdovrat {Kal &x Tay érrypaapouevery Fpnyopion PiPiwv}, Sei i6évax dt GAoc éativ 6 Toveds Tpnyopios, Sonic &x Tig £v Tlévrw Neoxaioapeiag SpuoKevoc apxaistepos cobrwy éaciv: uadneig yap Npryévovs eyivero. Tepl robrov cob Tpnyopiov mohic 6 hoyos Ev te AOiivacG Kal Bqpord al Bly wh Hoven} Stoners, de 62 eltelv kal mdoy cf oikovEvN. Odrog yap se civ ABHvNOL naSevmpivy dvaxwpivas év rh Bnpveg vonorc épavBavev, ww8bnevos {re} év ef] Kawwapeig ca iepa ypayuara, Epynveteiv peyévny, Spopaios Eni thy Kavodpeiay xapayiverat, Axpoacdy.evss +e The Heyahogiovor Cewpiag xv ‘cpa ypanudtey, roAAA xalpery cindy Toic PepalKoic vopOIG AxsipiaT06 Hy Tod AOLTOD, Kal Or? aos maUBevOeIc Thy AAgOA giRocogiay {Kai} werd tabea én Thy naTpiba THY YovewY KadeoaVTOY avexsipnae. Kaxel npOTOY eV Aaikig Gy TOAAA onpteia éxoinaey, vocodvrag Beparciy Kai daltovac 61 ETTOAGY guyadeiav Kal tode TEAAnvovtac tole te ROyoAs Kal TAEOY To%g yivoEVOLG On’ aro] MpocayoueVos. Méuv7 at 82 aod Kal ITaygAos 6 Hdprv Ev cote xepl Mpryévous sovnBeiany airs BiBNiovg, £v of¢ Kal cuveaeTIKdS 190FRANCE CO CELIA ~ Gregory of Neocaesarea: a re-examination of the biographical issue Even at first glance Socrates seems to mix freely various data from written texts and oral traditions. In general, scholars have not paid too much attention to the most important aspect of this passage", namely that Socrates explicitly mentions his source of information. When Socrates writes that Pamphilus «mentions him in the books which he wrote about Origen, in which there is also a farewell oration by Gregory to Origen», he attests that the Apologia contained both the PanOrat and further references to Gregory by Pamphilus’ hand?’ ‘That Socrates had Eusebius’ Hee. 6,30 as source of information appears plausible™, even if there are some omissions of information, which Socrates may have considered minor in an entry introduced by an issue of homonymy, such as the two names, Athenodorus and the years spent in Caesarea However, we have to underline the fact that Beirut is mentioned neither by Eusebius nor Rufinus, but only by Jerome and somehow equivocally by the PanOrat'. As to Jerome, we have no evidence that Socrates knew the De viris illustribus. We cannot even say that Socrates had a first-hand knowledge of the PanOrat. Indeed, if Socrates had actually read it, he in all likelihood would not have said that Gregory 1) attended the «schools of Athens», 2) had any previous intention to study Holy Scripture with Origen in Caesarea, and 3) was recalled by his parents. A further, perhaps negligible, clement that confirms the impression that Socrates did not read the PanOrat is the fact that he does not give a full report of the studies undertaken by Gregory before meeting Origen (rhetoric) and then under his guidance. There is indeed a certain contrast between the detailed accounts that Socrates provides of the studies of Didymus, Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus", and the entry on Gregory ‘Thaumaturgus, where even his testimony to Origen’s teaching is substantially omitted. Likewise, if he had Gregory of Nyssa's Vita or Rufinus’ translation as sources of information, it is hard to understand why Socrates did not mention the Confessio fidei, since it fit perfectly with his interests to prove that Origenism could not have been in any way the root of the Arian heresy'”. Socrates did not seem to know even the writings of the Cappadocians. He never mentioned Basil of Caesarea’s De Spiritu Sancto. As to Gregory of Nyssa, William Telfer detected three elements in Socrates’ account that allude to the Vita: the references to miracles made by the Thaumaturgus before Aéyos Tpnyopiow ig Mpryévny napdertau. Teybvacry aby, dg Ev Kegahaiyy sineiv, Tpnydpios, 8 te dpyaiog otros xa uaOnsi}¢ “Apryévovc, Kai 4 Natiavinvds Kal d &6ehgdg BaciAelov [..J. Ed. Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, Hisg, von G.C, HANSEN (GCS NF 1), Berlin 1995, 262-263, "© See, for instance, the notes by H. CROUZEL (€d.), Grégoire le Thaumaturge. Remerciement @ Origene, cit, 34: M. Rizzt (ed.), Gregorio il Taumaturgo (2). Encomio, cit, 98; C. MAZZUCCO, La componente autobiografica nel Discorso, cit, 103. More careful are F. JUNOD, L’Apologie pour Origene de Pamphile et Eusdbe et les développements sur Origine dans le live VI de ! Histoire Feclésiastique, in. A. MONACI CASTAGNO (ed), La biografia di Origene, cit, 185; M, SLUSSHR, Saint Gregory Thaumaturgus, cit, 5793 M. SIMONETTI, Gregori il Taumaturgo ¢ Origen, cit, 30 (n 19), "© CEP. PERICHON ~ P. MARAVAL.(eds,), Socrate de Constantinople. Histoire Ecclésiastique, cit, 118 "See Hansen's apparatus fontium. "In PanOrat $71 Gregory recounts that it was an angel who secured his journey to Caesarea and «set aside everything else and Berytus as well, which we believed it was our main impulse» (5,105-110: «To1yaposv ob & exparuding, Beiog 6¢ uc ovvodorndpo¢ Kal xopdg ayRABdG Kal @URAR, 6 iA naveds vO! Piov cosrou donep Haxpac Sbomopiag Siacdiwv Has, Tapayeryauevos Ta Te GAAa Kai ty Bnpurdv, Ac wAAoTA Spy évradea AOnuey, Evraa gépav KaccorHoato). According to Crovzel (SC 148,123-124), Marotta (CtePa 40,63) and Guyot (FC 24,142) ra ve Aa means ‘other cities’, but a less interpretative translation is rightly preferred by Metcalfe ((ct. 1, 28] 57), Slusser (FaCh 98, 102) and Rizzi ([cit. n. 8] 135), who consider these words as referring to ‘other considerations. The first solution implies that Gregory ‘moved on’ from Beirut, but this is not clear, all the more so i we consider that the subject of the phrase is the angel, However, it cannot be ruled out that Gregory stopped at Beirut Socrates also highlights their purity of lfe and their opposition to the Arians. In H.e.4,22-24 Socrates recalled the persecutions ofthe pro-Nicene factions in Egypt by Valens 4 Suffice it to mention that when A. GAILLMELER still thought that the Confessio was authentic, he viewed in Arius’ ‘Thalia a probable direct refutation of it. See Christ in Christian Tradition, I: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), transl. by J. BOWDEN (I ed. 1965), Atlanta GA 1975, 232-238, 191ADAMANTIUS 22 (2016) his ministry; his peculiar skill in «casting out demons by letters'; his activity of evangelisation of the ENAnviovtes’ «by his discourses and especially by his acts». Nonetheless, Telfer carefully held that Socrates’ «references to the miracles of the saint are hardly to be reconciled with his ever having seen the text. At the same time they could conceivably be the result of a second hand acquaintance with the gist of i? Therefore, when Socrates refers to Gregory’s miracles, he is likely reporting oral traditions not directly dependent on the Vita, as is also shown by the fact that Gregory of Nyssa, unlike Socrates, claimed that the Thaumaturgus had studied in Alexandria and had lost both his parents in his youth. In summary, it seems that Socrates’ account is the result of the mixing of two main sources, the oral traditions somehow linked to those known to the Cappadocians and Pamphilus’ account on Gregory contained in one of the books of the Apologia pro Origene. This latter source seems to have provided a little more extensive biographical information on Gregory than Eusebius, mentioning Gregory's studies in Beirut and Neocaesarea as his episcopal see, and probably the call back home by his mother! 3. Conclusions Our research into the documentation concerning the biographical profile of Gregory of Neocaesarea leads us to two main conclusions. First, it is not possible to explain the ancient accounts simply on the basis of their direct dependence on Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica. We have argued that Jerome and Socrates used two works containing information about Gregory which preceded Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica, that is, respectively, the catalogue of the library of Caesarea composed by Pamphilus and then published by Eusebius in the Vita Pamphili, and Pamphilus’ account on Gregory included in one of the lost books of the Apologia pro Origene. A mere comparison of Jerome's and Socrates’ data with those provided by Eusebius seems to suggest that Pamphilus’ lost accounts contained almost certainly the reference to Beirut, and very likely those to Gregory's mother, his miracles and Neocaesarea, If our hypothesis is correct, then it had been Pamphilus who provided the first written information about Gregory of Neocaesarea, on which Eusebius, Jerome and Socrates depended to different degrees'. Gregory of Nyssa’s Vita does not contain any significant feature that proves its reliance on any previous written source known to us and, consequently, confirms the traditional figure of the miraculous bishop of Neocaesarea as a pupil of Origen. Second, there are no internal contradictions among the PanOrat, the EpGr and He. 6,30 to cause us to deny the reliability of Gregory's traditional figure. Nautin has read H.e. 6,30 under the influence of the prejudice that Eusebius’ statements should be considered unreliable unless we are able to verify them through the sources used by Eusebius himself, But there are only four points in Eusebius’ account which cannot be conclusively explained either on the basis of the texts at our disposal and of what the Acts of the Council of Antioch might likely have contained: 1) the two names of Gregory, 2) the presence of Athenodorus at Origen’s school, 3) the number of years of study, 4) the episcopal consecration of the two brothers when they were «still youngy. "P, VAN NUBFELEN, Two fragments from the Apology for Origen in the Church History of Socrates Scholasticus, JTRS 56 (2005) 112-113, has acknowledged Socrates’ reliance on Gregory of Nyssa's Vita on the basis However, Gregory of Nyssa attributes to the Thaumaturgus the power to make the demon «come back» (not be ‘cast out), as does Rufinus (ef. Gr. Nyss, GNO X, 1,22,5; Rufin., GCS 9,955,11-12), PW. TeL#ER, The Cultus of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, cit, 239. > Socrates writes that Gregory ureturned to the homeland of his parents who recalled [him]» (éni tv narpl6a tov yovday xaheodvtwy dvexcipnae). But itis possible that Socrates found yntépa instead of arpida in the Apologia, and, since he did not read the PanOrat, considered pcépa as an oversight for xatpi8a and decided to adjust the text according to its easiest meaning. We observe the same process in Gregory's entry in the Suda. Its compiler inserted raxpia in place of uevépa, which he read in the Greek translation of Jerome's De viisillustribus. “H. CROUZEL, Faut-il vir trois personages, cit, 288, had already noted that if Gregory's traditional profile were the outcome of a confusion of persons, as Nautin believed, it dated back to Pamphilus, because « Apologie pour Origéne [..-] reproduisait le Remerciement sous le nom de Grégoire le Thaumaturge». this resemblance. 192FRANCE CO CELIA ~ Gregory of Neocaesarea: a re-examination of the biographical issue In our view, these elements should not be taken as point of departure for other untenable hypotheses grounded on a general discredit of the credibility of Pamphilus and Eusebius". They should rather lead us to admit that Pamphilus and Eusebius had further sources of information, although we cannot determine if they were written or oral or both, and how many there were. Despite the necessary caution in handling it, under no circumstance should we deny a priori the reliability of the information which Pamphilus and Eusebius can have gathered being in contact with the circle of Origen’s followers, where Gregory was certainly well known. We have shown that this was the case of Theotecnus, who was bishop of Caesarea and a contemporary of Pamphilus and Eusebius and met Gregory during at least one of the synods of the Council of Antioch, ifnot already at Origen’s school. Not even the presumed apologetic purposes of Pamphilus and Eusebius in ascribing the PanOrat to the famous bishop of Neocaesarea appear persuasive. On one hand, He, 6,30 lacks the amplifications which we would expect from Eusebius while dealing with a man gifted with prodigious powers”. On the other hand, we have no evidence that the authorship of the PanOrat was ever called into doubt during the different phases of the Origenist controversy. Above all, it is remarkable that Jerome, who intensely disputed with Rufinus that Pamphilus had not been the author of the Apologia pro Origene, and who found in Pamphilus’ catalogue that it had been «Theodore, later called Gregory» who had written the PanOrat, never questioned this attribution, not even after Rufinus affirmed that by condemning Origen’s doctrine of apokatastasis Jerome was in contradiction to men of the likes of Gregory ‘Thaumaturgus. Apparently Jerome had no doubt that Theodore was the same Gregory of Neocaesarea and trusted Pamphilus, the knowledgeable reader of «the treatises of the ancient writers». In conclusion, along with the contemporaries of Eusebius and Jerome, we do not find any decisive reasons either to doubt the attribution of the PanOrat to Gregory ‘Thaumaturgus, or assign apologetic aims to it. Francesco Celia Faculty of Theology Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam De Boelelaan, 1105 1081 HV Amsterdam. francescocda@ gmail.com Abstract Inthe last forty years the figure of Gregory of Neocaesarea has been the subject ofa complicated debate, in particular after Pierre Nautin raised serious doubts about the ascription of the In Origenem Oratio Panegyrica and supposed it the result of a mistake made by Eusebius of Caesarea. In this article we will first re-evaluate the main hypotheses put forward by Nautin and other scholars which go against Gregory's traditional figure, Then we will take into consideration the information about Gregory of Neocaesarea from later authors, such as Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome and Socrates of Constantinople, who have been generally overlooked by scholars. Infact, a more careful survey of all the main accounts on Gregory suggests a different perspective of investigation into some aspects of the dispute and provides further arguments in confirmation of the reliability of Gregory's traditional biography. Keywords: Gregory of Neocaesarea; In Origenem Oratio Panegyrica; Pamphilus; Eusebius of Caesarea; Jerome. "© Against the tendency to mistrust them see E. PRINZIVALL, Presentazione, C. MAZZUCCO, La componente autobiografica nel Discorso, and G, SFAMENI GASPARRO, Origene ‘Uomo divino’ nell'Encomio, in B, CLAUS! — V. MILAZzo (eds. II giusto che firisce come palma, cit, 8.103.142-144 (respectively) "On the contrary, M. SIMONETT, Gregorio il Taumaturgo e Origene, cit, 30, sees a confirmation of Eusebius’ bias in this lack of emphasis: Eusebius would have purposely introduced the identification of Theodore and Gregory as current information of little importance. 193