ት Tergwame Greek · Coptic · Ethiopic · Syriac · Armenian · Georgian · Latin

Greek · Letters ·

Epistula ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum

Eusebius Caesariensis · khazarzar

BothSourceEnglish
JSON Dossier
machine-draft · no human review 1 passages · 318 words

Work dossier · summary and historical context

Summary

Eusebius of Caesarea's letter to Alexander of Alexandria, written after the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), defends the Nicene settlement against Alexandrian objections. The letter engages the Arian controversy, addressing the status of the Son as a creature and the phrase 'from non-being.' It alternates between reporting Alexander's accusations, quoting the accused's confession, and Eusebius's own critique, creating a layered argument. The Greek text survives only in later manuscripts, with the earliest witness a 10th-century codex. Cited by Athanasius and later anti-Arian writers as evidence of Eusebius's shift toward Nicene orthodoxy, its authenticity was occasionally questioned. This edition lacks critical apparatus, hindering verification of textual variants.

This letter is significant for understanding Eusebius's evolving stance on the Arian controversy and his relationship with Nicene orthodoxy. It provides insight into the theological debates of the 4th century, particularly the status of the Son and the phrase 'from non-being.' The letter's citation by Athanasius and others underscores its role in shaping later orthodox narratives, while its disputed authenticity highlights the complexities of early Christian textual transmission.

Historical context

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339/340 CE) wrote this letter after the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), likely between 325 and his death, as it defends the Nicene settlement against Alexandrian objections. The letter is addressed to Alexander of Alexandria, a key figure in the Arian controversy. The Greek text survives only in later manuscripts; the earliest witness is a 10th-century codex, with no autograph or contemporary copy extant. The letter was cited by Athanasius and later anti-Arian writers as evidence of Eusebius's shift toward Nicene orthodoxy, though its authenticity was occasionally questioned. The letter employs formal epistolary Greek with theological precision, reflecting Eusebius's training in rhetoric and his role as bishop-counselor to Alexander. The text is transmitted within the broader corpus of Eusebius's works, often alongside his Ecclesiastical History and other polemical writings.

Apparatus · what the pipeline recorded

Annotation and terms

6 commentary units 2 term1 background1 structure1 caution1 parallel 0 derived notes 1 open questions 1 narrative
What the kinds mean

Pipeline notes

  • coverageNo English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed.
  • limitThe English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve.
  • registerRegister: letter in ancient Greek; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them.
  • structurePassages: 1 narrative.
  • sourceSource edition: khazarzar — Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer

Term index

CopticRenderingCountFirst
no glossary terms recorded
khazarzar-eusebius-caesariensis-epistula-ad-alexandrum-alexandrinum:1 · narrativehigh
Source
1 Μεθ' ὅσης μὲν ἀγωνίας καὶ μεθ' ὅσης φροντίδος ἐπὶ ταῦτα ἦλθον τὰ γράμματα· Κατηγορεῖ αὐτῶν τὰ σὰ γράμματα ὡς λεγόντων, ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος γέγονεν ὡς εἷς τῶν πάντων. οἱ δὲ προήνεγκαν ἑαυτῶν γραμματεῖον, ὃ πρὸς σὲ πεποιήκασιν, ἐν ᾧ τὴν ἑαυτῶν πίστιν ἐκθέμενοι αὐτοῖς ῥήμασιν τάδε ὡμολόγουν· "τὸν νόμου καὶ προφητῶν καὶ καινῆς διαθήκης θεὸν γεννήσαντα υἱὸν μονογενῆ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, δι' οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ τὰ πάντα πεποίηκε, γεννήσαντα δὲ οὐ δοκήσει, ἀλλὰ ἀληθείᾳ, ὑποστήσαντα ἰδίῳ θελήματι, ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον, κτίσμα τοῦ θεοῦ τέλειον, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὡς ἓν τῶν κτισμάτων". εἰ δὴ οὖν τὰ παρ' αὐτῶν γράμματα ἀληθεύει, πάντως δὲ καὶ παρὰ σοὶ φέρεται, ἐν ᾧ ὁμολογοῦσι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, δι' οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας πεποίηκεν, εἶναι ἄτρεπτον καὶ κτίσμα τοῦ θεοῦ τέλειον, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὡς ἓν τῶν κτισμάτων. ἡ δὲ σὴ ἐπιστολὴ κατηγορεῖ αὐτῶν ὡς ἂν λεγόντων, ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς γέγονεν ὡς ἓν τῶν κτισμάτων. αὐτῶν τοῦτο μὴ λεγόντων, ἀλλὰ σαφῶς διορισαμένων, ὅτι "οὐχ ὡς ἓν τῶν κτισμάτων", ὅρα εἰ μὴ εὐθὺς πάλιν αὐτοῖς ἀφορμὴ δίδοται εἰς τὸ ἐπιλαβέσθαι καὶ διαβάλλειν ὁρμᾶσθαι ὅσα καὶ θέλουσι. πάλιν αὐτοὺς ᾐτιῶ λέγοντας ὅτι "ὁ ὢν τὸν μὴ ὄντα ἐγέννησε". θαυμάζω δέ, εἰ δύναταί τις ἄλλως εἰπεῖν. εἰ γὰρ εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ὤν, δῆλον ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ γέγονε πᾶν ὅ, τι καὶ ἔστι μετ' αὐτόν· εἰ δὲ μὴ μόνος αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ ὤν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ἦν ὁ ὤν, καὶ πῶς τὸν ὄντα ὁ ὢν ἐγέννησεν; οὕτως γὰρ ἂν δύο εἴη τὰ ὄντα.
English
With how much anxiety and with how much concern I came to this letter. Your letter accuses them as saying that the Son came into being from non-being as one of all things. But they produced their own document, which they have composed to you, in which, setting forth their faith, they confessed in these very words: "the God of the law and the prophets and the new covenant, having begotten a only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom he also made the ages and all things, having begotten him not in semblance but in truth, having brought him into being by his own will, unchangeable and immutable, a perfect creation of God, but not as one of the creatures." If, then, their document speaks truly, and it is certainly also in your possession, in which they confess the Son of God to be before eternal times, through whom he also made the ages, to be unchangeable and a perfect creation of God, but not as one of the creatures. But your letter accuses them as if they were saying that the Son came into being as one of the creatures. Since they do not say this, but clearly define that "not as one of the creatures," see whether an opportunity is not immediately given to them again to seize upon and to set out to slander whatever they wish. Again I blamed them for saying that "the one who is begat the one who is not." But I am amazed if anyone can say otherwise. For if there is one who is, it is clear that everything that exists after him came into being from him. But if not only he himself is the one who is, but also the Son was the one who is, then how did the one who is beget the one who is? For in that way there would be two beings.
Citation. Tergwame, “Epistula ad Alexandrum Alexandrinum”, khazarzar-eusebius-caesariensis-epistula-ad-alexandrum-alexandrinum:1, machine-draft, 2026. https://naxiai.com/christian/works/khazarzar-eusebius-caesariensis-epistula-ad-alexandrum-alexandrinum#s1
Colophon. Source: khazarzar · licence: Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer · model: deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor · provider: Relace · cost: $0.0012 · generated 2026-11-15.