Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History

Rating:
Summary: The first few centuries after Christ's resurrection
Review: Considered by most to be the father of Church History, this text's primary focus is on the period from the 2nd century to the 4th culminating with Emperor Constantine and the famous council of Nicea. This is certainly a classic text and a must for anyone interested in the history of Christianity. The reader should find a host of interesting topics and can see much of the progression of Christianity and how the theology developed. A special emphasis on martyrdom is given but is appropriately balanced with the periods of times in which Christianity was accepted. On the darker side, one can certainly see the seeds of anti-semitism and the division of the church even in Christianity's adolescense. Considering the many changes that transposed in these earliest years when many of the second generation Christians still lived as evident from this reading, it is no wonder that Christianity is so far removed from its core beliefs today. Finally, I found it most interesting to examine the biographical notes of some of the faith's most influential members, its heroes and its villians.

Rating:
Summary: The Church History of Eusebius
Review: Eusebius wrote THE Church history. The only church history attempted before him was Luke's, and that only carried the story up to AD 62. Eusebius brings it up to his own times, the early 4th century. In the course of his narrative Eusebius describes the martyrdoms, the heresies, the controversies, supplementing with copious quotations of primary sources describing the events. Much of the writings of the early Christians has been preserved only in Eusebius's book.

I'll discuss the merits of the Williamson translation versus the Cruse translation. The Williamson translation is more recent and probably more accurate (Cruse's was written in the 19th century). It is also more readable. And as a reference work Williamson is much superior: he includes a "Who's Who in Eusebius" which I have found very valuable, and it outlines where in the history such and such person is mentioned. In contrast the index in Cruse is very incomplete, sometimes inaccurate (for example, it describes Narcissus as the 3rd bishop of Jerusalem, when he was actually the 30th).

Yet Cruse does have its bonuses. He includes the "Book of Martyrs," aka "Martyrs of Palestine" which is another historical work Eusebius wrote about the Great Persecution and it is not included in Williamson's. Cruse also has a very informative essay on the Nicene Council, and translations of 7 letters associated with the council, in which the different parties set forth their views.

Considering all this, I would recommend you get the Williamson translation first, particularly for students who would need to reference it often. If you like what you see, then get Cruse.

Rating:
Summary: A Stunning Chronicle of Early Christianity
Review: Eusebius' 'Ecclesiastical History', also known as Eusebius' 'Early Church Recordings', is a true tour de force on the development of the early Christian Church from the second century to the fourth century AD. His account is so striking for a multiplicity of reasons, starting with the fact that the works is a chronicle of people, ideas, and events which filled the deep groove of esoteric challenge left by Jesus the Christ. I find no more convincing evidence of the raw power of Jesus than I do here, for his infleunce in these very early accounts proved to be incredibly fortituous and contagious. In Eusebius' chronicles we are exposed almost first hand to what people were thinking and saying about Christ, and how they were acting, including becoming martyrs, in the wake of his presence. What this means is that Eusebius has preserved for us a non-fictional look into the time directly after Jesus' departure, and in reading all these separate but not conflicting accounts of the early Christian pilgrims we get not only a fundamental understanding of the more immediate influence of Jesus upon the people of the Near East, but of the foundations upon which the Christian Church grew upon- not upon physical churches per se, but upon people whose faith was so unwavering that they were willing to face axes and lions to maintain the religion's message. We thus see how the Christian Church was formed not upon stones and government regulations, but upon persecuted peoples who were so moved by Jesus' message that they sprouted up between the cracks of the cruel fasces of thier era until the wave of religious growth overwhelmed the statecraft authorities.

This works takes us as far forward as the aegis of Constantine and the Nicene Council, and no further. The fact that C. F. Cruse has kept true to the original, unabridged language as far as is possible in a translation is refreshing. All too many religious scholars can not keep from injecting their slant or propaganda into the works they purport to be conveying 'unabridged'. But C. F. Cruse sticks to the facts and to historicity, and has included some additonal information concerning the early martyrs- 'the Martyrs of Palestine', as some refer to them.

It is with chagrin that one must concede that the drama in the New Testament has become so second-nature to our understanding of Christianity that for many the Bible might seem like an old TV re-run. What Eusebius phenomenal 'Ecclesiastical History' does here is make fresh again the grandeur of Christ and his message by showing us new angles in a very historic sense, by following the movemnets and sacrifices of common individuals, and by relating accounts less 'theatrical' and more 'real'. This is, after all, a non-fiction. The seriousness of the works and Eusebius' in-depth reporting is truly stunning in its crucial insight into those incipient days of Christianity.

Rating:
Summary: Important historical information
Review: I have a soft spot for Eusebius. This cleric came out of Diocletian's persecution alive. Survival skills he then put to good use at Constantine's court, which was a dangerous place to be, even for members of the dynasty. In the comfort of American democracy it might be hard to imagine what these circumstances can do to an individual's integrity and ambitions. But from the spot where I am coming from and who had lost relatives in the death-camps, Eusebius looks a bit like an honest Nazi. It would be as silly to reject his testimony simply because he carried the wrong membership card, as it would be silly to reject Hšss's diaries as evidence for the killings in Auschwitz. As a high ranking cleric Eusebius had an obvious bias. It comes with the territory. But he did not completely lack a sense of critical insight. After all it is Eusebius who, based on Dionysius's analysis, rejects the authenticity of "Revelations" and even names a certain Cerinthus as the actual author.! This is pretty bold, coming from a man like him, and it is reflected by BultmannÕs curt treatment of ÒRevelationsÓ in his monumental ÒTheology of the New Testament.Ó (See my review.) Or, to give another example, the darling of apologetic theology these days uses to be Papias's Òtestimony," which wouldn't even exist without Eusebius. But it was Eusebius who called Papias "... a man of very small intelligence, to judge from his books.Ó It is interesting to see how modern scholars gingerly navigate around this verdict and stack a tower of speculations on this Òwitness.Ó (And what is Papias witnessing to? That he personally knew somebody who knew someone else who claimed to have seen the daughters of a nebulous apostle Phillip. Papias apparently prided himself to report hearsay and nothing but hearsay.) So it is almost impossible to overstate the importance of Eusebius for Christian history of the first 3 centuries, because, apart from the patristic literature and earlier apolog!ists, Eusebius is practically the bottleneck of Christian traditions before ConstantineÕs edict. This is a sad fact, and we should have no illusions about the fictional character of the exodus to Pella by the Jerusalem Church after the fall of Jerusalem. However, I see no reason to doubt that the sectarians as long as they had stayed in Jerusalem, had selected their leadership from the family of their first leader. This is common practice for budding sects almost everywhere. After Mohammed's death the early Muslims recruited their leaders from the prophet's own clan. It speaks for EusebiusÕs relative integrity that he felt compelled to explain the discrepancies in the GospelÕs genealogies. Apparently modern ÒscepticsÓ were not the first to put a finger on this sore. Eusebius ascribed to the so called Arian heresy. What this meant can be expressed in one sentence: ÒThere is no God but God and Jesus is his prophet.Ó In other words the emphasis was on Jesus human nature. Well no!t quite. This would have been the EbioniteÕs faith, and we all know of course that Ebionites are evil heretics. Eusebius says so himself. Arius proposed a more arcane teaching that had God and the ÒLogosÓ (familiar from JohnÕs gospel as the word from the beginning that turned flesh) (co-)existing from all eternity until God suddenly called into existence the Universe. Logos then took care of all the creation within the Cosmos except for Òthe SonÓ and mankind. This, for dessert, God Father reserved for himsel. Not what we would consider an orthodox belief these days. But by the good grace of his god, Eusebius was spared to see himself condemned (or worse) in his own lifetime. I told you he was a survivor. My point here is not that we cannot put our trust in Eusebius alone, my point is that we have little choice. Decius and Diocletian had rounded up clerics for deportation and in a systematic fashion had collected scriptures for the shredder. Consequently we have no complete te!xt of the Christian canon from before Constantine. In fact we have barely anything complete from that period. So when the persecutions finally abated, missing scriptures needed to be replaced. The criteria and means of how this was accomplished is still a moot and little researched subject. For instance only by disassembling the fragments of TatianÕs ÒDiatessaronÓ (a harmony of the 4 canonical gospels) we get a glimpse on the state of the gospels short before 174 AD. There can be little doubt that the decades after 311 AD. had been assiduous in scriptural and apologetic fabrications of every kind and some accuse Eusebius of having participated in this industry. I donÕt really know. He might, but then, he may not. One has to use critical judgement. For instance Acts 5 gives a rather typical illustration for sectarian life: With his gang of devoted thugs (the Òyoung men,Ó) a cult-leader - Peter - enforces his rule of terror over a new sect. 2 members hold back on their contrib!utions and get the treatment for backsliding. They ÒmysteriouslyÓ die. All very plausible. Has been seen before and since. So the statement deserves some credence. The same test applied on Eusebius, will leave enough to feed an academic career. ConstantineÕs vicar was a rather bright fellow and the Tyrant knew his name. We cannot choose the time where we live; Eusebius was no exception. He survived the most severe of all persecutions, he is AntiquityÕs first ecclesiastic historian who has reached us intact; and if he is not trustworthy, than it is time that we say good bye to that notorious Papias as well.

Rating:
Summary: Important historical information
Review: Scholars over time have called into question certain information contained in Eusebius. However, in many instances, while there may not be proof confirming what he claims, neither is there proof denying what he claims. Given the scarcity of actual materials from the time period, scholars work with copies and confirmations from other sources. Manuscripts perserved in monasteries, the occasional archeological find, etc, have provided general confirmation of some information; however, to dismiss Eusebius (or any other ancient historian) because of a lack of "scientific" or "archeological" information is a rather short-sighted and biased methological principle in itself. In fact, by these lights most all ancient historians would have to be dismissed out of hand. Having said as much, Eusebius provides an historical account of the development of the early Church, informed by the Faith itself. While it is unlikely he had access to a large volume of source materials and the like in the manner of contemporary historians working from archives, the oral traditions and information avialable to him at the time provide a good outline of what can be gathered in regard to early Church history. Contrary to what another reviewer wrote, Eusebius does not deny the authenticity of John's Revelation (he does deny a Revelation ascribed to Peter); rather, in the case of Cerinthus -- a Jewish gnostic and heretic -- he points out how Cerinthus' heresy lead him to make spurious claims in regard to our state after the Second Coming of Christ. This itself is interesting since Eusebius mentions St. Ireneaus and writings against gnostic heresies, many of which find present-day counterparts in today's New Age movements. Eusebius provides interesting information on early Church practices, the scriptures employed, and the existence of an ecclesiology even in these early days. If one is interested in the development of tradition and the early Church, Eusebius is well worth reading.