Clayton Coombs - Literary Device or Legitimate Diversity: Assessing Eusebius’ use of the Optative mood in Quaestiones ad Marinum

Perhaps because of the comments concerning the nature of the manuscript evidence for the ending of Mark’s gospel in the fourth century, the first section of Eusebius’ Ad Marinum has attracted much scholarly attention. Not so the rest of the document. An important aspect of the interpretation of this section is Eusebius’ use of the optative mood for a possible solution to a discrepancy between the timing of the resurrection in Matthew and Mark’s gospels that involves non-reception of Mark’s “Longer Ending.” Eusebius’ choice of the optative mood here has received some scholarly comment, but to date no sustained analysis. From these preliminary comments, however, some important questions emerge. Does Eusebius use the optative mood to express reservation, to describe the gathered opinions of others, or simply to outline more than one interpretive option for achieving gospel harmony? Or indeed, does this usage describe a development in his own thinking that occurred over time? Which if any of the solutions provided reflect the author’s own judgment and to what extent can this be determined by correctly understanding the changes in mood that occur in the solutions he provides? 

              This paper compares Eusebius’ use of the optative mood in the first section of the Ad Marinum to its use throughout the document. In the first place it finds that the particular construction used in 1.1 is indicative of a rhetorical pattern used throughout. The optative mood is alternated with the indicative mood to outline the various solutions to the problems Eusebius discusses. Second, It is found that while Eusebius typically does express a preference for the solutions posed in the indicative mood, these are preferences rather than prescriptions and reflect what Eusebius considers to be legitimate interpretive diversity. Finally, from a comparison between the optative/indicative pattern, and the formulaic “It should be said . . . ” sections at the end of the Ad Marinum it is found that while Eusebius’ discussion permits some diversity in the finer details, he does express a singular opinion on the broad parameters within which a harmony of the resurrection accounts between the four gospels ought to be pursued.