Eusebius of Caesarea

Posted under Uncategorized on May 10th, 2007 by with no responses 

Eusebius of Caesarea

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275 – May 30, 339) (often called Eusebius Pamphili, “Eusebius [the friend] of Pamphilus”) was a bishop of Caesarea in Palaestina and is often referred to as the father of church history because of his work in recording the history of the early Christian church and forging unity among proto-orthodox advocates. An earlier version of church history by Hegesippus, that he referred to, has not survived.

Contents

* 1 Biography
* 2 Works
o 2.1 Works on Biblical text criticism
o 2.2 The Chronicle
o 2.3 The Church History
o 2.4 The Life of Constantine
o 2.5 Minor historical works
o 2.6 Apologetic and dogmatic works
o 2.7 Exegetical and miscellaneous works
* 3 Estimate of Eusebius
o 3.1 His doctrine
o 3.2 His limitations
* 4 See also
* 5 External links
o 5.1 Online works
o 5.2 Other links
* 6 Notes
* 7 References

Biography

His exact date and place of birth are unknown, and little is known of his youth. He became acquainted with the presbyter Dorotheus in Antioch and probably received exegetical instruction from him. In 296 he was in Palestine and saw Constantine who visited the country with Diocletian. He was in Caesarea when Agapius was bishop and became friendly with Pamphilus of Caesarea, with whom he seems to have studied the text of the Bible, with the aid of Origen’s Hexapla and commentaries collected by Pamphilus, in an attempt to prepare a correct version.

In 307, Pamphilus was imprisoned, but Eusebius continued their project. The resulting defence of Origen, in which they had collaborated, was finished by Eusebius after the death of Pamphilus and sent to the martyrs in the mines of Phaeno in Egypt. Eusebius then seems to have gone to Tyre and later to Egypt, where he first suffered persecution.

Eusebius is next heard of as bishop of Caesarea Maritima. He succeeded Agapius, whose time of office is not known, but Eusebius must have become bishop soon after 313. Nothing is known about the early years of his tenure. When the Council of Nicaea met in 325, Eusebius was prominent in its transactions. He was not naturally a spiritual leader or theologian, but as a very learned man and a famous author who enjoyed the special favour of the emperor, he came to the fore among the 300 members of the council. The confession which he proposed became the basis of the Nicene Creed.

Eusebius was involved in the further development of the Arian controversies. For instance, in the dispute with Eustathius of Antioch, who opposed the growing influence of Origen and his practice of an allegorical exegesis of scripture, seeing in his theology the roots of Arianism, Eusebius, an admirer of Origen, was reproached by Eustathius for deviating from the Nicene faith, who was charged in turn with Sabellianism. Eustathius was accused, condemned and deposed at a synod in Antioch. The people of Antioch rebelled against this action, while the anti-Eustathians proposed Eusebius as the new bishop, but he declined.

After Eustathius had been removed, the Eusebians proceeded against Athanasius of Alexandria, a much more dangerous opponent. In 334, Athanasius was summoned before a synod in Caesarea; he did not attend. In the following year, he was again summoned before a synod in Tyre at which Eusebius presided. Athanasius, foreseeing the result, went to Constantinople to bring his cause before the emperor. Constantine called the bishops to his court, among them Eusebius. Athanasius was condemned and exiled at the end of 335. At the same synod, another opponent was successfully attacked: Marcellus of Ancyra had long opposed the Eusebians and had protested against the reinstitution of Arius. He was accused of Sabellianism and deposed in 336. Constantine died the next year, and Eusebius did not long survive him. Eusebius died (probably at Caesarea) in 340 at the latest and probably on May 30, 339.

Works

Of the extensive literary activity of Eusebius, a relatively large portion has been preserved. Although posterity suspected him of Arianism, Eusebius had made himself indispensable by his method of authorship; his comprehensive and careful excerpts from original sources saved his successors the painstaking labor of original research. Hence, much has been preserved, quoted by Eusebius, which otherwise would have been destroyed.

The literary productions of Eusebius reflect on the whole the course of his life. At first, he occupied himself with works on Biblical criticism under the influence of Pamphilus and probably of Dorotheus of the School of Antioch. Afterward, the persecutions under Diocletian and Galerius directed his attention to the martyrs of his own time and the past, and this led him to the history of the whole Church and finally to the history of the world, which, to him, was only a preparation for ecclesiastical history.

Then followed the time of the Arian controversies, and dogmatic questions came into the foreground. Christianity at last found recognition by the State; and this brought new problems- apologies of a different sort had to be prepared. Lastly, Eusebius, the court theologian, wrote eulogies in praise of Constantine. To all this activity must be added numerous writings of a miscellaneous nature, addresses, letters, and the like, and exegetical works which include both commentaries and treatises on Biblical archaeology and extend over the whole of his life.

Works on Biblical text criticism

Pamphilus and Eusebius occupied themselves with the text criticism of the Septuagint text of the Old Testament and especially of the New Testament. An edition of the Septuagint seems to have been already prepared by Origen, which, according to Jerome, was revised and circulated by Eusebius and Pamphilus. For an easier survey of the material of the four Evangelists, Eusebius divided his edition of the New Testament into paragraphs and provided it with a synoptical table so that it might be easier to find the pericopes that belong together.

The Chronicle

The two greatest historical works of Eusebius are his Chronicle and his Church History. The former (Greek ? ?±?½±½? ± (Pantodape historia), “Universal History”) is divided into two parts. The first part (?§?½³??±?± (Chronographia), “Annals”) purports to give an epitome of universal history from the sources, arranged according to nations. The second part (?§?½½? ±?½½ (Chronikoi kanones), “Chronological Canons”) attempts to furnish a synchronism of the historical material in parallel columns, the equivalent of a parallel timeline.

The work as a whole has been lost in the original, but it may be reconstructed from later chronographists of the Byzantine school who made excerpts from the work with untiring diligence, especially George Syncellus. The tables of the second part have been completely preserved in a Latin translation by Jerome, and both parts are still extant in an Armenian translation. The loss of the Greek originals has given an Armenian translation a special importance; thus, the first part of Eusebius’s “Chronicle”, of which only a few fragments exist in the Greek, has been preserved entirely in Armenian. The “Chronicle” as preserved extends to the year 325. It was written before the “Church History.”

The Church History

In his Church History or Ecclesiastical History (Historia Ecclesiastica), Eusebius attempted according to his own declaration (I.i.1) to present the history of the Church from the apostles to his own time, with special regard to the following points:

(1) the successions of bishops in the principal sees;
(2) the history of Christian teachers;
(3) the history of heresies;
(4) the history of the Jews;
(5) the relations to the heathen;
(6) the martyrdoms.

He grouped his material according to the reigns of the emperors, presenting it as he found it in his sources. The contents are as follows:

* Book i: detailed introduction on Jesus Christ
* Book ii: The history of the apostolic time to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus
* Book iii: The following time to Trajan
* Books iv and v: the second century
* Book vi: The time from Septimius Severus to Decius
* Book vii: extends to the outbreak of the persecution under Diocletian
* Book viii: more of this persecution
* Book ix: history to Constantine’s victory over Maxentius in the West and over Maximinus in the East
* Book x: The re?«stablishment of the churches and the rebellion and conquest of Licinius.

In its present form, the work was brought to a conclusion before the death of Crispus (July, 326), and, since book x is dedicated to Paulinus of Tyre who died before 325, at the end of 323, or in 324. This work required the most comprehensive preparatory studies, and it must have occupied him for years. His collection of martyrdoms of the older period may have been one of these preparatory studies.

Eusebius blames the calamities which befell the Jewish nation on the Jews’ role in the death of Jesus. This quote has been used to attack both Jews and Christians. See Christianity and anti-Semitism.

“that from that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other in quick succession, and never ceased in the city and in all Judea until finally the siege of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit against Christ.” (Hist. Eccles. II.6: The Misfortunes which overwhelmed the Jews after their Presumption against Christ) [1]

This is not simply anti-semitism, however. Eusebius levels a similar charge against Christians, blaming a spirit of divisiveness for some of the most severe persecutions.

“But when on account of the abundant freedom, we fell into laxity and sloth, and envied and reviled each other, and were almost, as it were, taking up arms against one another, rulers assailing rulers with words like spears, and people forming parties against people, and monstrous hypocrisy and dissimulation rising to the greatest height of wickedness, the divine judgment with forbearance, as is its pleasure, while the multitudes yet continued to assemble, gently and moderately harassed the episcopacy. (Hist. Eccles. VIII.1: The Events which preceded the Persecution in our Times.) [2]

The Life of Constantine

Eusebius’ Life of Constantine (Vita Constantini) is a eulogy or panegyric, and therefore its style and selection of facts are affected by its purpose, rendering it inadequate as a continuation of the Church History. As the historian Socrates Scholasticus said, at the opening of his history that was designed as a continuation of Eusebius, “Also in writing the life of Constantine, this same author has but slightly treated of matters regarding Arius, being more intent on the rhetorical finish of his composition and the praises of the emperor, than on an accurate statement of facts.” The work was unfinished at Eusebius’ death.

Minor historical works

Before he compiled his church history, Eusebius edited a collection of martyrdoms of the earlier period and a biography of Pamphilus. The martyrology has not survived as a whole, but it has been preserved almost completely in parts. It contained:

(1) an epistle of the congregation of Smyrna concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp;
(2) the martyrdom of Pionius;
(3) the martyrdoms of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonike;
(4) the martyrdoms in the congregations of Vienne and Lyon;
(5) the martyrdom of Apollonius.

Of the life of Pamphilus, only a fragment survives. A work on the martyrs of Palestine in the time of Diocletian was composed after 311; numerous fragments are scattered in legendaries which still have to be collected. The life of Constantine was compiled after the death of the emperor and the election of his sons as Augusti (337). It is more a rhetorical eulogy on the emperor than a history but is of great value on account of numerous documents incorporated in it.

Apologetic and dogmatic works

To the class of apologetic and dogmatic works belong:

(1) the Apology for Origen, the first five books of which, according to the definite statement of Photius, were written by Pamphilus in prison, with the assistance of Eusebius. Eusebius added the sixth book after the death of Pamphilus. We possess only a Latin translation of the first book, made by Rufinus;

(2) a treatise against Hierocles (a Roman governor and Neoplatonic philosopher), in which Eusebius combated the former’s glorification of Apollonius of Tyana in a work entitled “A Truth-loving Discourse” (Greek, Philalethes logos);

(3) Praeparatio evangelica (‘Preparation for the Gospel’), commonly known by its Latin title, which attempts to prove the excellence of Christianity over every pagan religion and philosophy. The Praeparatio consists of fifteen books which have been completely preserved. Eusebius considered it an introduction to Christianity for pagans. But its value for many later readers is more because Eusebius studded this work with so many fascinating and lively fragments from historians and philosophers which are nowhere else preserved. Here alone is preserved a summary of the writings of the Phoenician priest Sanchuniathon of which the accuracy has been shown by the mythological accounts found on the Ugaritic tables, here alone is the account from Diodorus Siculus’s sixth book of Euhemerus’ wondrous voyage to the island of Panchaea where Euhemerus purports to have found his true history of the gods, and here almost alone is preserved writings of the neo-Platonist philosopher Atticus along with so much else.

(4) Demonstratio evangelica (‘Proof of the Gospel’) is closely connected to the Praeparatio and comprised originally twenty books of which ten have been completely preserved as well as a fragment of the fifteenth. Here Eusebius treats of the person of Jesus Christ. The work was probably finished before 311;

(5) another work which originated in the time of the persecution, entitled “Prophetic Extracts” (Eklogai prophetikai). It discusses in four books the Messianic texts of Scripture. The work is merely the surviving portion (books 6-9) of the General elementary introduction to the Christian faith, now lost.

(6) the treatise “On Divine Manifestation” (Peri theophaneias), dating from a much later time. It treats of the incarnation of the Divine Logos, and its contents are in many cases identical with the Demonstratio evangelica. Only fragments are preserved in Greek, but a complete Syriac translation of the Theophania survives in an early 5th century manuscript.

(7) the polemical treatise “Against Marcellus,” dating from about 337;

(8) a supplement to the last-named work, entitled “On the Theology of the Church,” in which he defended the Nicene doctrine of the Logos against the party of Athanasius.

A number of writings, belonging in this category, have been entirely lost.

Exegetical and miscellaneous works

Of the exegetical works of Eusebius, nothing has been preserved in its original form. The so-called commentaries are based upon late manuscripts copied from fragments of catenae. A more comprehensive work of an exegetical nature, preserved only in fragments, is entitled “On the Differences of the Gospels” and was written for the purpose of harmonizing the contradictions in the reports of the different Evangelists. While this latter work existed in the 16th century, it has since been lost apart from an epitome. It was also for exegetical purposes that Eusebius wrote his treatises on Biblical archeology:

(1) a work on the Greek equivalents of Hebrew Gentilic nouns;
(2) a description of old Judea with an account of the loss of the ten tribes;
(3) a plan of Jerusalem and the Temple of Solomon.

These three treatises have been lost. A work entitled “On the Names of Places in the Holy Scriptures,” an alphabetical list of place names, is still in existence. Further mention is to be made of addresses and sermons some of which have been preserved, e.g., a sermon on the consecration of the church in Tyre and an address on the thirtieth anniversary of the reign of Constantine (336). Of the letters of Eusebius only a few fragments are extant.

Estimate of Eusebius

His doctrine

From a dogmatic point of view, Eusebius stands entirely upon the shoulders of Origen and Arius. Like Origen, he started from the fundamental thought of the absolute sovereignty (monarchia) of God. God is the cause of all beings. But he is not merely a cause; in him everything good is included, from him all life originates, and he is the source of all virtue. God sent Christ into the world that it may partake of the blessings included in the essence of God. Christ is God and is a ray of the eternal light; but the figure of the ray is so limited by Eusebius that he expressly emphasizes the self-existence of Jesus.

Eusebius was intent upon emphasizing the difference of the persona of the Trinity and maintaining the subordination of the Son (Logos, or Word) to God (he never calls him theos) because in all contrary attempts he suspected polytheism or Sabellianism. The Son (Jesus), as Arianism asserted, is a creature of God whose generation, for Eusebius, took place before time. Jesus acts as the organ or instrument of God, the creator of life, the principle of every revelation of God, who in his absoluteness and transcendent is enthroned above and isolated from all the world. This Logos, as a derivative creature and not truly God as the Father is truly God, could therefore change (Eusebius, with most early theologians, assumed God was immutable), and he assumed a human body without altering the immutable divine Father. The relation of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity Eusebius explained similarly to that of the Son to the Father. No point of this doctrine is original with Eusebius, all is traceable to his teachers Arius and Origen. The lack of originality in his thinking shows itself in the fact that he never presented his thoughts in a system. After nearly being excommunicated for his heresy by Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius submitted and agreed to the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea.

His limitations

Eusebius is often regarded as the first court appointed Christian theologian in the service of the Constantine Roman Empire, seeing the Empire and the Imperial Church as closely bonded.[3] Notwithstanding the great influence of his works on others, Eusebius was not himself a great historian. [4] His treatment of heresy, for example, is inadequate, and he knew very little about the Western church. His historical works are really apologetics. In his Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2, he points out, “We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.”

In his Praeparatio evangelica (xii, 31), Eusebius has a section on the use of fictions (pseudos) as a “medicine”, which may be “lawful and fitting” to use [5]. With that in mind, it is still difficult to assess Eusebius’ conclusions and veracity by confronting him with his predecessors and contemporaries, for texts of previous chroniclers, notably Papias, whom he denigrated, and Hegesippus, on whom he relied, have disappeared; they survive largely in the form of the quotes of their work that Eusebius selected and thus they are to be seen only through the lens of Eusebius.

These and other issues have invited controversy. For example, Jacob Burckhardt has dismissed Eusebus as “the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity”. Burckhardt is not alone in holding such a view. However, Professor Michael J. Hollerich thinks such criticisms go too far. Writing in “Church History” (Vol. 59, 1990), he says that ever since Burckhardt, “Eusebius has been an inviting target for students of the Constantinian era. At one time or another they have characterized him as a political propagandist, a good courtier, the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine, the great publicist of the first Christian emperor, the first in a long succession of ecclesiastical politicians, the herald of Byzantinism, a political theologian, a political metaphysician, and a caesaropapist. It is obvious that these are not, in the main, neutral descriptions. Much traditional scholarship, sometimes with barely suppressed disdain, has regarded Eusebius as one who risked his orthodoxy and perhaps his character because of his zeal for the Constantinian establishment.” He concludes that “the standard assessment has exaggerated the importance of political themes and political motives in Eusebius’s life and writings and has failed to do justice to him as a churchman and a scholar”.

He has also been accused of dishonesty at various times, and in various connections by other historians.

* Gibbon[1] dismissed his testimony on the number of martyrs and impugned his honesty by referring to a passage in the Ecclesiastical History, book 8, chapter 2, in which Eusebius introduces his discussion of the Great Persecution under Diocletian with: “We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.”

* Gibbon also pointed out that the chapter heading in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica (xii, 31), says how fictions (pseudos) – which Gibbon rendered ‘falsehoods’ – may be a a “medicine”, which may be “lawful and fitting” to use [6]. But the text is discussing parallels between the Bible and the theories of Plato on education, and Eusebius is suggesting that the Bible also contains such material. Unless it is supposed that Eusebius believes the Bible to be deceptive, it is easy to see why Gibbon confined his remark to the chapter heading (which may not be authorial anyway), and why Gibbon was accused of dishonesty in his attacks on Eusebius.[2] However, it can also be argued that Eusebius would logically have the same thinking when it came to politics, if this was his opinion about mere interpretations of the Bible.

* St. Jerome attacks Eusebius as “prince of Arians” in a letter to a friend.

* Questions were long raised by scholars about whether all the documents in the Life of Constantine were authentic.

* It is not from Eusebius that we learn of the murders of certain of Constantine’s immediate family.

* It cannot be denied that Eusebius at least laid the groundwork for caesaropapism; his praises of Constantine are far too much. For instance, he attributed certain prophecies to the lineage of Caesars!

But other views have tended to prevail.

* Joseph Lightfoot rebutted the arguments of Gibbon[7], pointing out that Eusebius’ very frank statements indicate his honesty in stating what he was not going to discuss, and also his limitations as a historian in not including such material. He also discusses the question of accuracy. “The manner in which Eusebius deals with his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his honesty, is a sufficient vindication against this unjust charge.” But he accepts that Eusebius cannot always be relied on. “A far more serious drawback to his value as a historian is the loose and uncritical spirit in which he sometimes deals with his materials. This shews itself in diverse ways. (a) He is not always to be trusted in his discrimination of genuine and spurious documents.”

* G. A. Williamson has written, “Gibbon’s notorious sneer … was effectively disposed of by Lightfoot, who fully vindicated Eusebius’ honour as a narrator ‘against this unjust charge’.”[3]

* Profs. Averil Cameron and Stuart Hall, in their recent translation of the Life of Constantine point out that writers such as Burckhardt found it necessary to attack Eusebius in order to undermine the ideological legitimacy of the Hapsburg empire, which based itself on the idea of Christian empire derived from Constantine, and that the most controversial letter in the Life has since been found among the papyri of Egypt.[4]

While many have shared Burckhardt’s assessment, particularly with reference to the Life of Constantine, others, while not pretending to extol his merits, have acknowledged the irreplaceable value of his works. The value of his works has generally been sought in the copious quotations that they contain from other sources, often lost.

On this day...

Leave a Comment

www.PurposeDriven.ca // Personal Ministry of Steve Kellar
Request a FREE ESV Bible