RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Trans. Paul Maier. Kregel.
While the book sometimes gives the feel of “Fairy Tales for Fundamentalists,” it’s hard to imagine doing early church history without Eusebius. Indeed, it would be irresponsible. Paul Maier’s editing makes a fine edition. He offers critical summaries and analyses at the end of each book, and he cleans up Eusebius’s sometimes tortured prose.
Eusebius’ exegesis is often better than the typical allegorical accounts one might associate with the early church. Indeed, he is sometimes quite profound. Concerning the pre-incarnate word, he quotes Psalm 107/8, “He sent his Word and healed them.” This is obviously Jesus.
Eusebius himself remains ambivalent on continuing miracles and kingdom gifts. On one hand, he doesn’t want to grant the Montanists any legitimacy, yet he believes (or reports) that miracles continue to his day. True, he says none of them resembled the apostles in raising the dead, but they do continue.
He notes that the problem with Montanus is not simply that people were led away by false prophecy. Rather, prophecy was still going on (III.4). Concerning Irenaeus, modern miracles workers don’t raise the dead like the apostles (quoted in Eusebius III.7). On the other hand, even well after the canon, they still manifest power, prophecy, heal, and cast out demons (III.7.4).
Eusebius on the canon is far more complex than people normally admit. He holds largely to the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, but he includes the Wisdom of Solomon. On the other hand, he is aware of books like Ben Sirach but specifically doesn’t include them.
Concerning the New Testament, he doubts that John the Apostle wrote the Revelation. He acknowledges 1 John as legitimate and maybe 2 and 3 John. He notes that the style of 2 Peter is completely different than 1 Peter and concludes they aren’t by the same person. Hebrews might have Paul’s thoughts but certainly not his writing and syntax.
His account of the martyrdom of Polycarp ranks as some of the most beautiful of church literature.
The narrative of persecution calls for attention. Contrary to older lore, the early church wasn’t persecuted 24/7. Eusebius makes repeated mention of noble pagan rulers who had a moderate view towards Christians. On the other hand, pace some Pacifist readings of church history, there were moments of brutal persecution to which Constantine could only have been a welcome relief.
While the book sometimes gives the feel of “Fairy Tales for Fundamentalists,” it’s hard to imagine doing early church history without Eusebius. Indeed, it would be irresponsible. Paul Maier’s editing makes a fine edition. He offers critical summaries and analyses at the end of each book, and he cleans up Eusebius’s sometimes tortured prose.
Eusebius’ exegesis is often better than the typical allegorical accounts one might associate with the early church. Indeed, he is sometimes quite profound. Concerning the pre-incarnate word, he quotes Psalm 107/8, “He sent his Word and healed them.” This is obviously Jesus.
Eusebius himself remains ambivalent on continuing miracles and kingdom gifts. On one hand, he doesn’t want to grant the Montanists any legitimacy, yet he believes (or reports) that miracles continue to his day. True, he says none of them resembled the apostles in raising the dead, but they do continue.
He notes that the problem with Montanus is not simply that people were led away by false prophecy. Rather, prophecy was still going on (III.4). Concerning Irenaeus, modern miracles workers don’t raise the dead like the apostles (quoted in Eusebius III.7). On the other hand, even well after the canon, they still manifest power, prophecy, heal, and cast out demons (III.7.4).
Eusebius on the canon is far more complex than people normally admit. He holds largely to the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, but he includes the Wisdom of Solomon. On the other hand, he is aware of books like Ben Sirach but specifically doesn’t include them.
Concerning the New Testament, he doubts that John the Apostle wrote the Revelation. He acknowledges 1 John as legitimate and maybe 2 and 3 John. He notes that the style of 2 Peter is completely different than 1 Peter and concludes they aren’t by the same person. Hebrews might have Paul’s thoughts but certainly not his writing and syntax.
His account of the martyrdom of Polycarp ranks as some of the most beautiful of church literature.
The narrative of persecution calls for attention. Contrary to older lore, the early church wasn’t persecuted 24/7. Eusebius makes repeated mention of noble pagan rulers who had a moderate view towards Christians. On the other hand, pace some Pacifist readings of church history, there were moments of brutal persecution to which Constantine could only have been a welcome relief.
