Eusebius
Both the Christian world and historian world owe much to Eusebius. In his writings one finds priceless information regarding the early Church. He has preserved many precious reports, letters and accounts of this primitive community, some stretching back to the generation after Christs Apostles, offering first-hand experiences of the early Christians and what issues they struggled with. What is noteworthy in the historians The History of the Church is his use of authors that reflect his own orthodox beliefs. The reader is made immediately aware of his strong Christian perspective on the very first page of Book 1:
The lines of succession from the holy apostles, and the periods that have elapsed from our Saviors time to our own (Bk.1, ch. 1, pg. 1)
The reader also senses a strong faith in Eusebius by his quoting many Bible verses throughout his manuscript.
Eusebius focused on the calamities of the Jewish people and used their plights as examples of certain patterns in human history. In Book 1, chapter 2, pages 7-8, he described man (Adam) as being lost to the divine command of God (one that would give the human race blessedness) and falling into a state of despair. Adams descendants would fair even worse, lost in a downward spiral of wickedness. In the first of many patterns to come, God responded with cataclysms and conflagrations and continual famines and pestilences, and again with wars and thunderbolts. Then Moses was given to them by God to bestow laws and rituals to restore order. Eusebius wrote about the same patterns occurring when Christ appeared on earth. He believed that Christ was the divinely-sent messenger and teacher of God:
our Savior, the Word who was in the beginning with God and was God, called Son of man because he ultimately became a man (Bk. 1 ch. 3, pg. 9).
Because Eusebius considered Christ a divine being, in History he described anyone who attempted to hurt or blasphemy Him in any way as being divinely punished. King Herod was greatly shaken by the advent of the Christs birth and had plotted the destruction of all male infants in Bethlehem. Eusebius recorded this as a crime against Christ and claimed Herod was overtaken by divine justice (Bk. 1, ch. 8, pg. 23). Eusebius also mentioned a younger Herods army being destroyed as a direct result of his order to behead John the Baptist, a friend of Christs. But nowhere was the pattern of divine judgment demonstrated more than in the historians treatment of Christs death.
On page 41 of Book 2, chapter 5, Eusebius used an account from Josephuss Antiquities to describe the sufferings of the Jews during the Emperor Gaius reign. In the paragraph immediately after this report, Eusebius is not shy in blaming the Jews for Christs suffering and death:
quoting only those points that will make abundantly clear to my readers the calamities which befell the Jews so promptly and after so short an interval, in consequences of their crimes against Christ.
Stephen, who was the first after the Lord
to be put to death, stoned by the Lords murderers.
And in Book 4, pages 105-108, Eusebius recorded more accounts of the Jews calamities as if judging and condemning them for putting Jesus to death.
These patterns of calamity recorded by Eusebius seemed to come from a somewhat apocalyptic nature. Although his descriptions of what would befall humanity if it displeased God in any way were not necessarily end times, they did serve as a warning. He obviously had a great affection for his Lord and approached his History with very strong Christian convictions. If people did something in the name of Christ (with the exception of the heretics) they were portrayed in a positive light; in fact, anything pertaining to Christ was positive. Anyone who betrayed Christ or did something to blasphemy Him, however, was seen in a very bad light, and Eusebius reported on this almost to the point of obsession. With regard to the Jews plights, his approach was fiercely anti-Semitic. He seemed to be explaining these calamities as a warning to those who are tempted to blasphemy the name of his Lord in any way, and wrote about these patterns as if they were a direct result of disobeying some divine command or rebelling against Gods word. Eusebius could almost be heard saying: See what happens to those who are against Christ? On a side note, I found it interesting how Eusebius failed to mention the decline of Christianity in Jerusalem in light of the Jewish War. In Josephus Histories (Bk. 3, ch. 6, pg. 69-73 the Christian historian used a section of the book that described the desolation the Jews experienced as a result of this War and again attributed it to what he considered the Jews crimes against his Savior. Eusebius very carefully worded his interpretation of the Jews calamities, twisting the facts to make Christianity more victorious than it really was:
“After the Ascension of our Savior, the Jews had followed up their crimes against Him by devising plot after plot against His disciples
in constant danger from murderous plots were driven out of Judaea. But to teach their message they traveled into every land in the power of Christ, who had said to them: Go and make disciples of all the nations in my name
.the members of the Jerusalem church, by means of an oracle given by revelation to acceptable personas there, were ordered to leave the City before the war began and settle in a town called Pella
as if holy men had utterly abandoned the royal metropolis of the Jews and the entire Jewish land, the judgment of God at last overtook them for their abominable crimes against Christ and His apostles” (Bk.3, ch. 5, pg. 68).
His hatred of the Jews obviously had no boundaries. The historian used this as a way of defending his beliefs against Jewish critics and recorded a passage in Justins Dialogue against the Jews to emphasize his apologetic tactics. In this passage Justin accused Trypho, a Jew, of feeling no remorse for his [meaning the Jews] crimes. The interpretation Eusebius put on this passage was of how the Jews contrived a plot against the teaching of Christ and how Justin, through his Dialogue, hurled reproaches at Trypho (Bk. 4, ch. 18, pg. 127). Eusebius felt the Jews were to blame for Christs death and was not shy about reminding them, nor was he shy in using them as an example.
The historian also described a pattern of calamity that occurred in his own time among his fellow Christians. During the reign of Emperor Gallienus, the Christians enjoyed a time of peace and prosperity. But eventually this period had a negative affect on the followers of Christ:
“
But increasing freedom transformed our character to arrogance and sloth; we began envying and abusing each other
unspeakable hypocrisy and dissimulation were carried to the limit of wickedness.” (Bk. 8, ch. 1, pg. 257)
As a result of this, churches were destroyed, Holy Scriptures burned, and pastors went in hiding, which was, according to Eusebius, the result of divine judgment on the Christians for their behavior.
Eusebius harbored no ill will towards the Roman emperors, at least not in the early Books of his History. He used the work of Tertullian, an early Christian writer, when he discussed Emperor Tiberius reaction toward Christians (Bk. 2, ch2, pp. 38-39). Because the emperor threatened to punish anyone who accused Christians, Eusebius felt that he was sent by heavenly providence so that the gospel message would spread safely throughout the world. Tiberius was kind to the Christians; therefore Eusebius put him in a favorable light. To take this further, I think it is fair to say that Eusebius didnt criticize these early Roman emperors as being evil (with the exception of Nero). He saw them as more of a vessel to suppress the people who crucified his Lord, the Jews, and for that reason the emperors were praised. He exalted Vespasian after his dazzling success in the campaign against the Jews (Bk. 3, ch. 5, pg. 68). The historian also made frequent use of Josephus Histories and he seemed to pick certain books or passages that emphasized the consequences of the evil Jews. With the exception of Nero, Eusebius never did this with the Romans because they were attacking the Jews, who, in his mind, deserved their calamities because of their evil actions towards Christ. The Romans were never depicted as instigators; with Eusebius it was always the Jews (Bk. 4, ch. 2 pp. 105-106).
Eusebius views of the Romans changed, however, with the onset of the persecutions. He didnt consider them true enemies of the church until Domitian, comparing him with Nero, showed enmity and hostility to God by his appalling cruelty to Christians (Bk. 3, ch. 17, pg. 80). An indication of Eusebius belief that his was the true religion is found in Book 8, chapter 14, pages 274-275 with his description of Maximins behavior. The historian painted the emperor in a very bad light because his conduct, namely the use of witchcraft, did not conform to Eusebius orthodox belief of charity, missions work (Bk. 3, ch. 37, pg. 100) and worshipping Christ, Eusebius never did this with the Romans because they were attacking the Jews, who, in his mind, deserved their calamities because of their evil actions towards Christ. The Romans were never depicted as instigators; with Eusebius it was always the Jews (Bk. 4, ch. 2 pp. 105-106).
Eusebius views of the Romans changed, however, with the onset of the persecutions. He didnt consider them true enemies of the church until Domitian, comparing him with Nero, showed enmity and hostility to God by his appalling cruelty to Christians (Bk. 3, ch. 17, pg. 80). An indication of Eusebius belief that his was the true religion is found in Book 8, chapter 14, pages 274-275 with his description of Maximins behavior. The historian painted the emperor in a very bad light because his conduct, namely the use of witchcraft, did not conform to Eusebius orthodox belief of charity, missions work (Bk. 3, ch. 37, pg. 100) and worshipping Christ, which appeared to be some criteria of the historians Christianity. And because of this non-conformity Maximins actions, and those of other later Roman emperors, were shown as arrogant, vile and blasphemous while the actions of the martyrs, themselves arrogant and defiant like Alexander at Lyons (pg. 146 being in conformity to Christian orthodox, were considered heroic by Eusebius. He also attributed Galerius recantation to divine intervention (Bk. 8, ch. 17, pp. 278-280). The emperors punishment was described in a most graphic way. I believe this served as a warning to those who, in Eusebius mind, would dare go against what he considered the right belief. This is closely related to his apocalyptic notions of human nature discussed earlier, that if humans rebel against the divine word of God or blasphemy His Son in any way, God will punish them until they either recant or are destroyed.
After the onset of the persecutions, the only Roman emperor Eusebius favored was Constantine (and partly Licinius simply because he was the first to feel pity for the victims of tyranny at Rome (Bk. 9, ch. 9, pg. 292). Eusebius attributed Constantines victory over Maxentius to divine providence, claiming that he was victorious because he clung to God (Pg. 292). Constantine was instrumental in formulating laws favoring Christians, exalting bishops, and ending the martyrdoms. According to Eusebius, both Constantine and Licinius made it their priority to rid the world of Gods enemies and give their devotion to God, and thus Christianity triumphed (Bk. 9, ch. 11, pg. 302). Eusebius felt that since Constantine favored Gods children, he should be portrayed positively. The historian wrote negatively about Maximin, however, because of the emperors crimes against the Christians. Again the historian used vivid words in describing his punishments and plight, as he did the Jews in the generation after the crucifixion. Similar to the Jews persecution of Christ, Maximin, and all other Roman emperors that hurt Christs followers, was made out to be the enemy. Even the emperors sympathizers were made examples (Bk. 9, pp. 299-300). This again is reminiscent of the earlier apocalyptic explanation of what Eusebius considered the punishment and destruction of all Christs enemies.
With regard to the rise of heresies, I discovered both a physical and spiritual explanation. Eusebius used the writing of Justin to put forth this argument. According to Eusebius and all Fathers of the Church, the Samaritan Simon Magus was the father of all heresies and many later Christian writers traced every heresy, mainly Gnosticism, back to him (pg. 417). According to Eusebius, this man was sent as a spiritual response to the spreading of faith in Christ. Simon was the product of the enemy of mans salvation (Bk. 2, ch. 13, both Constantine and Licinius made it their priority to rid the world of Gods enemies and give their devotion to God, and thus Christianity triumphed (Bk. 9, ch. 11, pg. 302). Eusebius felt that since Constantine favored Gods children, he should be portrayed positively. The historian wrote negatively about Maximin, however, because of the emperors crimes against the Christians. Again the historian used vivid words in describing his punishments and plight, as he did the Jews in the generation after the crucifixion. Similar to the Jews persecution of Christ, Maximin, and all other Roman emperors that hurt Christs followers, was made out to be the enemy. Even the emperors sympathizers were made examples (Bk. 9, pp. 299-300). This again is reminiscent of the earlier apocalyptic explanation of what Eusebius considered the punishment and destruction of all Christs enemies.
With regard to the rise of heresies, I discovered both a physical and spiritual explanation. Eusebius used the writing of Justin to put forth this argument. According to Eusebius and all Fathers of the Church, the Samaritan Simon Magus was the father of all heresies and many later Christian writers traced every heresy, mainly Gnosticism, back to him (pg. 417). According to Eusebius, this man was sent as a spiritual response to the spreading of faith in Christ. Simon was the product of the enemy of mans salvation (Bk. 2, ch. 13, pg. 47 or, in Christian terminology, the Evil One or Satan. The historian included words from Justins Defense to back his beliefs:
After the Lord was taken up into heaven the demons put forward a number of men who claimed to be gods
Simon
thanks to the art of the demons who possessed him, worked wonders of magic (pg. 47).
On page 47 Eusebius considered Simon to be the initiator of every heresy. It is here that the historian went on to expose the idolatrous behavior of the heretic and his followers, and the specific mention of their more secret rites hinted at Eusebius desire to defend his beliefs against the Gnostics and their secret teachings. Eusebius explained in great detail the order of the gospels, including the writings accepted as sacred and those not accepted (Bk. 3, chs. 24-25, pp. 86-89 and he used these explanations not only to help maintain the truthfulness of his religion but also as a way to defend Christianity against the Gnostics as well as other heresies such as the Montanists of Phrygia, Artemons assertion that the Savior was merely human (Bk. 5, ch. 28, pg. 175 and the heterodox deviation of the Manichees, the maniac whose name (Mani) reflected his demonic-inspired heresy (Bk. 7, ch. 31, pg. 249). After the historian recorded what he knew about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John he recognized certain Books accepted as the New Testament and immediately made a point to mention the Disputed Books, none of which were considered canonical:
but I have been obliged to list the latter separately, distinguishing those writing which according to the tradition of the Church are true, genuine, and recognized, from those in a different category, not canonical but disputed, yet familiar to most churchmen; for we must not confuse these with the writings published by heretics
Gospels of Peter and Thomas
the ideas and implications of their contents are so irreconcilable with true orthodoxy that they stand revealed as the forgeries of heretics (pg. 89).
The Gospels of Peter and Thomas were Gnostic writings and had been known among churchmen at the time. In the above quote Eusebius was clearly protecting and defending his idea of what constituted true religion: the correct, accepted Canon. Marcion, a leading Gnostic, was criticized by Justin, and Eusebius did not hesitate to report this criticism in his History:
“There was one Marcion of Pontus, who is still busy teaching his adherents to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. All over the world, with the help of the demons, he has induced many to speak blasphemously, denying that the Maker of his universe is the Father of Christ, and declaring that the universe was made by another, greater then He” (Bk. 4, ch. 11, pg. 114).
The historian also used Origens references on the canonical Scriptures and Irenaeus Against Heresies to defend his orthodoxy (Bk. 4, ch. 14, pg.116; Bk. 6, ch. 25, pp. 201-202). An even stronger case against the Gnostics was written during the reign of Constantine. Eusebius borrowed a letter addressed to Paul, the Bishop of Tyre, during the festival oration on the building of the churches:
“The Father of the universe
our Guide to the knowledge of God, the Teacher of true religion” (Bk. 10, ch. 4, pg. 308).
By using the above two quotes, Eusebius had a strong desire to acknowledge only One God and refute the notions of the Gnostics who claimed there were two gods, the creator god Yahweh and God the Father. In the orthodox tradition Eusebius was adamant in defending the belief in only one God, the Father of the Christ, thus claiming monotheism as a criterion for this orthodoxy.
It is clear that Eusebius used many early Christian writers to defend and reinforce Christian orthodoxy. One particular passage in Hegesippus Epistle to the Corinthians was used by Eusebius because it also mirrored the historians claim to right orthodoxy:
The Corinthian church continued in
we were refreshed with
the true doctrine
In every line of bishops and in every city things accord with the preaching of the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord (Bk. 4, ch. 22, pg. 129).
Eusebius quoted the same writer to explain and warn against the rise of false teachings of his day, reports that pointed to blooming heresies in the Church:
They used to call the Church a virgin for this reason, that she had not yet been seduced by listening to nonsense
From these in turn came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who split the unity of the Church by poisonous suggestions against God and against His Christ (Bk. 4, ch. 22, pg. 129).
After the death of Christ, the church was created by his immediate apostles (excluding the Gentile Christians hero Paul) and carried on by certain members of his family. Peter, one of the twelve, was the leader in Jerusalem until he was put in prison. Then James, Christs brother, became bishop of the Jerusalem church and when he was martyred a cousin of the Lord took his place. This is why Hegesippus considered it a virgin church: nothing false or outside the immediate relations of the Lord had yet corrupted it. Eusebius used Hegesippus passage to emphasize to his readers this purity of the orthodox belief as opposed to the falsifications of heresies and non-apostles, purity that could be found in the apostolic succession.
Another criterion Eusebius used to defend his brand of Christianity was his excessive reiterations of this apostolic succession of bishops. There are numerous accounts of this used by Eusebius to identify and defend the orthodox position, accounts mentioning the bishops who followed Paul and Peter (Bk. 3, ch. 21, pg. 83 these earnest disciples of great men built on the foundations of the churches everywhere laid by the apostles (Bk. 3, ch. 37, pg. 100 and in a most obvious defense of orthodoxy he comments on Church writers of the time: In every case writings which show their orthodoxy and unshakeable devotion to the apostolic tradition have come into my hands (Bk. 4, ch. 19, pg. 128). Throughout the first five Books of History Eusebius recorded the many names who took over the bishopric, all in numerical order. The historian used carefully worded phrases to emphasize the rightness of apostolic succession, passages like this one in which he explains a writing of Quadratus:
In it can be found shining proofs of the authors intellectual grasp and apostolic correctness (Bk. 4, ch. 3, pg. 106).
Eusebius considered Quadratus an Evangelist who belonged to the first stage in the apostolic succession
great men built on the foundations of the churches everyone laid by the apostles (Bk. 3, ch 37, pg. 100). Eusebius couldnt stress enough to his readers the importance of keeping to the apostolic tradition in maintaining true Christian orthodoxy. Anything else he considered heresy and adamantly warned his readers against it. Since the apostolic tradition emphasized special authority given to the bishops, he saw Gnosticism as a threat to that authority, especially since he himself was a bishop. Eusebius desire to protect and defend the apostolic succession came from a genuine Christian heart, but I cannot rule out the political implications of his apologetics as well.
The accounts of persecutions Eusebius used by other writers, as well as his own carefully worded interpretations of these accounts, were ways in which he defended his orthodoxy, although not necessarily a criterion of orthodoxy. Eusebius didnt feel martyrdom was required for a person to be considered a true Christian, but his wording, and that of the writers he used, portrayed the martyrs in a much more favorable light than their persecutors. Because they confessed their Christian heritage and did not back down from this confession, Eusebius words made the martyrs actions look heroic and fearless clearly to inform his readers that these people confessed the right belief and that they were hanging onto something remarkable, putting their faith in something much bigger and better than life in the here and now, putting their faith in something much bigger and better than life in the here and now, something feared if disobeyed but beloved if confessed. Those Eusebius considered disobedient, those that denied Christ and tried to make the Christians deny their beliefs were very negatively portrayed in the hopes of what I believe was to convert pagans (or again to make the Jews look like the enemy, depending on what period of history he wrote about). The historian thought that if he could make the pagans look as abominable as possible they would see the error of their ways and turn to the good side. Some interesting quotes and interpretations of Eusebius to reiterate this attempt, and those writings that he used from others:
“
the Jews were disappointed of the hope in which they had devised their plot against [Festus] and turned their attention to James the Lords brother
they demanded a denial of his belief in Christ. But when
he spoke as he liked and showed undreamt-of fearlessness
declaring that our Savior and Lord, Jesus, was the Son of God, they could not endure his testimony an longer
and they killed him” (Bk. 2, ch. 23, pg. 58).
“For the faithful were relieved of half their burden by the joy of martyrdom and hope of the promises, and by love towards Christ and the Spirit of the Father, but the unfaithful were tormented by their conscience
the faithful stepped out with a happy smile, wondrous glory and grace blended on their faces
the unfaithful were dejected, downcast, ill-favored, and devoid of charm” (Bk. 5, ch. 1, pg. 144).
In an effort to help connect Christianity with the pagan world and again defend it, Eusebius used writers like early Christian philosopher-theologians Origen and Clement to back up his apologetics. Hoping to convince his non-believing readers that Christianity can be woven within the tapestry of worldly teachings, he explained the many works of Clement, stating that the teacher had combined Holy Writ with anything that he considered helpful in secular literature. He includes any view generally accepted, expounding on those of Greeks and non-Greeks alike (Bk. 6, ch. 15, pg. 14) and had translated many Canonical and non-Canonical Books into the Greek language. Eusebius wrote that Origen had instructed his students in theology and secular philosophy, as well as geometry and arithmetic (Bk.6, ch. 18, pp. 194-195 subjects once thought of as threatening to orthodoxy. By using these writers, the historian was able to show that Christianity could exist among foreign beliefs and practices and that those early writers were taking the initiative to make Christianity appear not so threatening to the world around them. He hoped that perhaps by opening the minds of the pagans to Christian belief they would be more sympathetic to orthodoxy and understand that Christians just wanted the same treatment as their pagan neighbors. And perhaps he would gain some converts along the way.
It is clear that Eusebius was a very strong proponent of Christian orthodoxy and felt a deep need to share his beliefs with his readers. He explained to his audience that the calamities that befell the human race down through the ages occurred because it rebelled against God or blasphemed Christ and His children. Blasphemy showed many forms-heresies, paganism, and the Jews treatment of Christ (the latter being Eusebius opinion, not my own). But they all held one thing in common: they did not possess the historians criteria for true, Christian orthodoxy, including the worship of and confession of belief in Christ (monotheism, the accepted Canon, apostolic succession, and martyrdom not one of the heretics or pagans were willing to die for their convictions. I believe Eusebius underlying purpose in writing The History of the Church was not unlike that of the apostles of the New Testament. His intention was to gain converts, just like Paul in his Gentile mission. Eusebius provided his readers with an exceptionally positive picture of Christianity; a picture painted with hope and joy in the midst of turmoil and uncertainty. There is something to be said about a belief such as this, for what else in the history of mankind has ever been as endearing to peoples hearts as Christianity?
“But the splendor of the [c]atholic* and only true Church, always remaining the same and unchanged, grew steadily in greatness and strength, shedding on every race of Greeks and non-Greeks alike the majesty, spotless, free, sober, pure light of her inspired citizenship and philosophy” (Bk. 4, ch. 7, pg. 110).
And it still does after two thousand years.
*lower-case c is my edit I am Lutheran and didnt feel comfortable using a capital C
REFERENCES
1. Eusebius: The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine. Translated by G.A. Williamson. Penguin Books, 1965.
