Eusebius Of Caesarea Research Articles

Պատկերամարտական շարժման սկզբնավորումն ու վարդապետական արձագանքը․ Վրթանես Քերթող և Հովհան Մայրագոմեցի

The iconoclastic movement in Armenia is an interesting phenomenon, which precedes the Byzantine controversies in the 8th century. Two important testimonies have been preserved in the Armenian ecclesiastical literature about the iconoclastic groups and movements in Armenia and Aghvank’ in the 6th–7th centuries: Vrt῾anes K῾ert῾oł’s treatise “Against the Iconoclasts” and the letter written by Hovhan Mayragomec῾i to Bishop David, which is included in the “History of Aghvank” by Movses Dasxowranc῾i, 10th century historian. These two complementary documents outline the origins of the iconoclastic movements in Armenia and Aghvank’, the reasons for its emergence, the geographical span and name of the movement’s authors showing the religious and theological attitude of the Armenian Church regarding the issue. The treatise of Vrt῾anes is the earliest datable defense of images in any language. The author proves necessity and importance of the icons in the churches on the basis of biblical and patristic sources, provides insightful information about the iconography and frescos of the Armenian churches in general. He cites St. John Chrysostom, Bishop Severian of Gabala, Eusebius of Caesarea and St. Gregory the Illuminator, the patron saint of the Armenian nation. Vrt῾anes is the first author to use the story of Abgar’s icon of Christ in Edessa in defense of icon use. Analyzing and studying the Armenian sources of the first stage of the iconographic movement, we come to the following conclusion: the presence of images in the church doesn’t contradict to the Holy Scriptures and the teaching of Church Fathers. We have to remember that the worship of images in Christianity has nothing to do with the idolatry described in the Old Testament, because icons were also in the Holy of Holies and in the Temple of Solomon.

God’s Unity and Unity with God: Polemical Interpretations of John 17:20–23 in the Fourth Century

Abstract There are no previous studies of Christ’s prayer in John 17:20–23 as a key text which was debated from multiple theological perspectives in the fourth-century controversies. This article provides a close study of the polemical interpretation of John 17:20–23 in Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Hilary of Poitiers. The article considers each interpreter’s exegetical techniques, the views of his opponent(s), and his own positive theological claims. In the conclusion, a taxonomy of these interpretations is provided according to the following criteria: (1) Father–Son unity; (2) καθὼς clauses; (3) God–creature unity. The primary question for each interpreter is: to what extent is the Son’s own unity with the Father paradigmatic for the saints’ unity with the Father? Both Eusebius and Hilary argued that the Son’s own unity with the Father is (with qualifications) actually bestowed upon the saints. They each understood the objective of Christ’s prayer as the realization of a God–creature unity in which the saints are united to the Father ‘just as’ the Son. Athanasius, by contrast, argued that Christ’s prayer exhorts the saints to become one among themselves by learning from the example of the Son’s unity with the Father. Insofar as the saints become one with God, Athanasius insists that such a God–creature unity is radically distinct from the Son’s unity of nature with the Father. Yet for Hilary, this natural unity with the Father is also granted to creatures: to the Son’s own humanity, and to all who are united with it.

Mythological Aspects of Supreme Power Concept by Eusebius Pamphilus

The article deals with one of the earliest Christian interpretations of the supreme secular power created by Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea, during the life of the first Christian emperor Constantine the Great. It is proved that the concept by Eusebius contains mythological ideas transformed in a Christian context. In particular, the main focus of the interpretation of the Lord is the recognition of Him as Pantocrator [Παντοκράτωρ – the Lord of all] endowed with infinite power and authority over the Universe. Such an interpretation reconstructs archaic ideas about the deity as the centre of power and says nothing about his mercy and justice. This concept became the basis for the argumentation of the absolute nature of the Christian emperor’s supreme power – Basileus. The Lord, communicating with Basileus through His Son, Christ the Logos, gives him the sacred right to reign and thus makes him godlike [Friend of God – Θεóς, divinely favoured] – an icon of the Lord of all. Another mythological feature of Eusebius’ interpretation of supreme power is the solution to the problematic relationship between the reign and the priesthood. Eusebius believed that the Lord’s endowment of Basileus with the right to reign obliges him to perform priestly functions at the same time. The purpose of Basileus’ priesthood was to enlighten his flock about the essence of the Word of God, and not to observe religious rituals. In this way, the role of the basileus-priest differed from the Patriarch. Thus, the mythological nature of the concept by Eusebius of Caesarea is the fact that he unconsciously replaced various semantic connections. This happened because he could not explain the essence of supreme power and its value to society in a different way. The foundation of Eusebius’ mythological thinking is the beginning of the synthesized rationality (historical understanding of the real past) and myth (substitution of history by religious tradition) of the history of the Byzantine Empire.

Plutarch’s Parallel Lives and the Greek Christian Fathers of the 2nd Century, with special attention to Clement of Alexandria

It is well known the Plutarch’s influence on the Christian thought of the imperial era, especially in authors such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, the three Capadocian Fathers, John Chrysosthomos, Theodoretus, Cyrillus of Alexandria, or Synesius of Cyrene, who not only cite (with the exception of Clement) him, but even, without explicit citing, are directly inspired by some Plutarch’s theological and ethical treatises. In this sense, the use of the Moralia by Greek Christian Apologists and other Fathers of the Church has received sufficient attention from modern bibliography, especially in the last decades of the 20th Century and so far in the 21st Century. Less researched has been, however, the imprint left by the Parallel Lives on the Greek Christian authors of the first five centuries of our Age. My article will focus on this aspect of Plutarch’s reception, although restricted to the 2nd century AD. The first Section will provide an overview (based on modern literature about this topic and on the reading of Christian texts) of the importance of references in Ancient Christian Literature to the characters of Plutarch’s Lives or to specific passages in them. In the first and second Sections I will focus on the possible references to this Plutarch’s work in the 2nd Century apologists, Tatian, Athenagoras and Theophilus (first Section), and in Clement of Alexandria (second Section).

The first indexes? Eusebius’s canon tables

The early origins of the index owe much to the development of the codex and the history of early Christian biblical texts. This article explores the Christian and book context of the canon tables created by Eusebius of Caesarea, suggesting that what looks at first like a list of numbers was in fact an early form of index and used as such by its readers.

The Shadow of the Giant: Readers of Eusebius (on M. Hollerich, Making Christian History: Eusebius of Caesarea and His Readers)

The Shadow of the Giant: Readers of Eusebius (on M. Hollerich, Making Christian History: Eusebius of Caesarea and His Readers)

«Жизнь Константина» Евсевия Кесарийского как «священная история»: типология Моисея-Константина

In the article, the conceptual model of the holy emperor in one of the first monuments of Christian hagiographic literature, “Life Constantine” by Eusebius of Caesarea, is investigated. The analysis is based on the typological comparison of Emperor Constantine with the biblical figure of Moses, conducted by Eusebius. As part of this comparison, the development of a “sacred image” in history is traced, which forms a kind of “sacred history” beyond the biblical framework. Philo of Alexandria’s view of the unity of the laws of nature and the written legislation of Moses as having a single source - the Logos of God, Eusebius extends to the conformity of the biblical character and the contemporary historical figure of the emperor. Following the Logos, Constantine performs the same pattern Moses fulfilled in his life. In the development of the typological line of Moses-Constantine, three moments of the formation of the figure of Constantine in sacred history are traced: receiving the kingdom, accepting the ministry of the priesthood, and gaining the gift of prophecy. The descriptive convergence of the biblical story and modern (to the author) history means not so much the dependence of one narrative on the other but their general dependence on the Logos acting in history as the Law of nature, which guides the course of history and shapes its events. Eusebius reflects in the biography of the emperor the Principle, which equally acts both in the sacred events of the history of Moses and in the relatively recent events for Eusebius Constantine. In this single Beginning, the biblical story, perceived “by ear” and therefore having the “look of a myth”, acquires visible features, and current reality is endowed with the meaning of the sacred biblical story. The “Life of Constantine” thus demonstrates the mechanism of fixation in the memory of sacred events that make up a particular, sacred line of history.

The Hymnography in Honour of Saints Constantine and Helena and its Connection with Imperial Ideology

This article presents an overview of published and unpublished Byzantine and post-Byzantine hymnographic texts dedicated to Saint Constantine, founder of Constantinople and first Byzantine emperor, and his mother Saint Helena. Specifically, we cite and comment upon some indicative passages primarily found in canons of the Matins, which refer to historical events from the lives of the saints and attribute to them, especially to Saint Constantine, virtues such as justice, piety, wisdom, and the defense of the true faith. These qualities are directly associated with the imperial political ideology as this was shaped principally by Eusebius of Caesarea in his works Life of Constantine and Tricennial Oration.

The Representation of False Prophets in Polemical Discourses

In this article, I analyse some “transversal” polemical motifs (adopted by both “pagans” and Christians) in the representation of Alexander of Abonouteichos, offered in the homonymous work by Lucian of Samosata, and in the description of the Montanists in heresiological sources, focusing in particular on the polemists who are quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea. This analysis attempts to highlight how, despite the differences between the mentioned authors, it is possible to find some common points in the representation of the “false prophets” that is often due to the same literary references. In particular, I analyse the way of presenting the life and behaviour of these characters and their way of delivering prophetic messages.

Roundtable on Michael J. Hollerich, Making Christian History: Eusebius of Caesarea and His Readers (Oakland: University of California Press, 2021)

Few topics are more germane to this journal than the writing of ecclesiastical history, and no figure has had greater influence on the development of this genre than the bishop and scholar, Eusebius of Caesarea. In his masterful study of Eusebius and his readers from the late ancient to the modern era, Michael Hollerich has done a great service to all historians of Christianity. A work of reception history, the book begins with a chapter on Eusebius's life and work, focusing on his Ecclesiastical History and its relation to his Chronicle as well as other historical and non-historical genres with which he engaged. Subsequent chapters examine the reception of his work in the Christian Roman Empire of late antiquity, the non-Greek East, the medieval Latin West, and Byzantium, before turning to the rediscovery of Eusebius in diverse early modern contexts and his reception in modern scholarship including the implications of his historiographical work for future historians. The essays that comprise this roundtable, followed by the author's response, continue this important conversation about Eusebius and his legacy.

Eusebius's Four Tempora: A Brief Survey of Christian Chronological Traditions through Their Reception in Byzantine Supputationes

Abstract: No one would deny that Eusebius of Caesarea's chronicle exerted an enormous influence on later Greek chronicle writing, but there is still much to be said about the concrete characteristics of this influence and its extent, which is difficult to assess due to the loss of many sources and the precarious state of preservation of others. This article examines several supputationes —a basic element of chronological writing that can be defined as chronological summaries in the form of lists of temporal intervals between relevant events—embedded in works of different historiographical or chronological genre or transmitted independently, composed in Greek between the fourth and tenth centuries. It analyses these chronological lists as evidence of the reception of Eusebius's chronicle in Byzantine chronological literature or in the chronological sources of Byzantine historiography, and, in particular, of its influence on the construction of the periodization of history. The result of this analysis shows considerable uniformity with regard to the elements ( epochai and intervals) concerning the biblical period of history—between the creation and the incarnation—regardless of their origin or context, which points to a tradition that has as its basis the revision of Eusebius's chronicle.

Making Christian History: Eusebius of Caesarea and His Readers by Michael J. Hollerich

Reviewed by: Making Christian History: Eusebius of Caesarea and His Readers by Michael J. Hollerich Carson Bay Michael J. Hollerich Making Christian History: Eusebius of Caesarea and His Readers Berkeley: University of California Press, 2021 Pp. xi + 316. HB/E-Book $95.00. This book is a pleasure to read. A prominent Eusebius scholar details an expansive account of Eusebius’s foundational place in the history of Christian-history writing. While selective and diffuse in subject matter, the information distilled herein encapsulates the most important aspects of Eusebius’s Historia Ecclesiastica (HE) and its legacy. Chapter One proffers an expert, up-to-date, expeditious introduction to Eusebiana: a survey of Eusebius’s life and works and his literary predecessors: Hegesippus, Julius Africanus, and Flavius Josephus. Most important here are 1) Hollerich’s four-part framework for defining Eusebius’s “theo-political vision,” the intellectual lifeblood of Eusebian literature, and 2) in-depth introductions to the HE and Chronicle. One problem: Hollerich tacitly affirms Momigliano’s statement (“Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.” in Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography [Middltown, CN: Wesleyan University Press, 1975]) that Christians invented new historiographies in the fourth century (ecclesiastical history, saint biography) and completely failed to reproduce “ordinary military, political, or diplomatic history in Christian terms” (32). At least one history from the generation after Eusebius directly contradicts this: Pseudo-Hegesippus’s On the Destruction of Jerusalem—a minor issue for a book on Eusebius, however. Chapter Two approaches HE’s Greek reception, first reading its manuscript history as reception, following approaches by Aaron Butts (for Syriac) and Rosamind McKitterick (for Latin). This survey is based on Matthieu Cassin’s recent work. Next Hollerich summarizes Rufinus’s translation-continuation of HE and the fifth-century Greek church historians that followed in Eusebius’s footsteps: Philostorgius, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius Scholasticus. Hollerich’s treatment of this Eusebian historiographical “canon” is excellent, lightly reflecting on the reception of Eusebius’s “theo-political vision” and relying much on Peter Van Nuffelen, then Annick Martin, then Michael Whitby. This chapter clarifies this book as that of a historian: historical contents and contexts—as opposed to literature, philology, or theory—remain the clear object of inquiry. Hollerich dedicates Chapter Three to the HE’s reception in the “Non-Greek East”—a sign of the times, in which the study of Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian traditions is trending upwards. Hollerich provides a readable, thorough, illuminating romp exploring Eusebius’s influence on these three regional/linguistic Christian historiographical traditions. Relying again upon various experts, he shows how Eusebius’ Chronicle and HE supported a Syriac church history tradition that gave way around the sixth century to chronicling, and how West Syrian writers revived ecclesiastical history modeled on Eusebius’s HE. A special case is Eusebius’s Abgar legend (HE 1.13, 2.1.6–7), transformed into the Doctrina Addai, a purported correspondence between Jesus and the king of Edessa resulting in the [End Page 111] evangelization of that city by the apostle Thomas’s envoy Thaddeus (=Addai). Hollerich next summarizes how Armenian “church histories,” epitomized by the History of Armenia atttributed to Movsēs Xorenac’I, cribbed off the Chronicle and HE, along with Syriac traditions, in producing a more nationalistic Christian historiography (for example, an embellished Doctrina Addai connecting Armenia itself to Jesus via Thomas’s evangelist). Finally, Hollerich frames Eusebius’s work within the intricate Coptic church history tradition, working backwards from the Arabic History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria to the fragmentary “Coptic church history” embedded in the former, which is rendered in problematic Coptic Books 1–7 of Eusebius’s HE. The fourth- and fifth-century doctrinal disputes that alienated the Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic ecclesial traditions from Constantinople and the West left pockmarks on each of these traditions. Chapter Four deals with Eusebius’s afterlife within Latin Christendom. Rufinus translated and emended the HE, and Jerome translated and extended (part of) the Chronicle. Also in play are Bede and the regional, national, and/or contemporary Christian historiographies that sourced Eusebius. Hollerich mentions Cassiodorus’s importance in cementing Eusebius’s authority within his Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning. There Eusebius...

Review: Making Christian History: Eusebius of Caesarea and His Readers, by Michael J. Hollerich

Book Review| February 01 2023 Review: Making Christian History: Eusebius of Caesarea and His Readers, by Michael J. Hollerich Michael J. Hollerich, Making Christian History: Eusebius of Caesarea and His Readers. Oakland: University of California Press, 2021. 316 pp. ISBN: 9780520295360. $95. Philip Wood Philip Wood Aga Khan University Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Studies in Late Antiquity (2023) 7 (1): 166–169. https://doi.org/10.1525/sla.2023.7.1.166 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Philip Wood; Review: Making Christian History: Eusebius of Caesarea and His Readers, by Michael J. Hollerich. Studies in Late Antiquity 1 February 2023; 7 (1): 166–169. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/sla.2023.7.1.166 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentStudies in Late Antiquity Search Eusebius of Caesarea was a prolific polymath. Writing in the aftermath of Constantine’s accession, he was the author of biblical scholarship, apologetics, history, theological polemic, and celebrations of the new Constantinian order (such as the Vita Constantini). He worked at a major cusp of Christian history, when Christian thinkers tried to sort out their new relationship to a state that had persecuted them in the very recent past. Michael Hollerich’s Making Christian History focuses on the significance of Eusebius’s work as an ecclesiastical historian and on his enduring influence on the genre of ecclesiastical history. Chapter 1 examines Eusebius’s Historia Ecclesiae (HE) itself. The HE can be read, in part, as the emplotment of a Roman civil war onto the biblical narrative of divine deliverance. But it was also a continuation of Luke-Acts, which saw bishops (and exegetes) as the successors to the apostles and Nicaea as... You do not currently have access to this content.

Constantine and Eusebius in Antioch

In the 320s CE, the eastern metropolis of Antioch became the scene of violent conflict between pro- and anti-Nicene factions vying to put one of their own in the bishopric. Eusebius of Caesarea (himself one of the candidates) claims in his influential Vita Constantini that bloody conflict was avoided only by the calming influence of the emperor himself. This article focuses on three letters that Eusebius included in the Vita Constantini to illustrate the emperor’s involvement, looking for what they can tell us about the sequence of events, and also about the relationship between the first Christian emperor and his future biographer. Scholars have labeled Eusebius as everything from the power behind Constantine’s throne to a sycophant who needed Constantine to protect him from his ecclesiastical enemies. This study reveals an evolving relationship in which the emperor learned to respect Eusebius’s political as well as academic skills.

Metanarrative of Eternal World in Eusebius of Caesarea's “Ecclesiastical History”

Metanarrative of Eternal World in Eusebius of Caesarea's “Ecclesiastical History”

ЖИВОТНЫЙ МИР В КАРТИНЕ МИРА ФИЛОСТОРГИЯ

The article examines the place of the animal world in the picture of the world by Philostorgius. Being a prominent representative of the Alexandrian school and the heretical church historiography of the IV-V cent. AD, he approached this issue much more seriously, paying attention to the symbolism due to the appearance and relationship of a person with one or another biological species. All this correlates with the methods of biological descriptions in antiquity, some of which are also used by modern biologists. Careful handling of the biological terminology of Aristotle and Pliny is noticeable in the use of such a key concept of the Philostorgian worldview as φύσις.Regarding animals, he uses this word in the sense of gender, which successfully correlates with Aristotle's “History of Animals”. It is concluded that the descriptions of animals in the “Ecclesiastical History” is an imitation of “Natural History” by Pliny the Elder and “History of Animals” by Aristotle. Trying to follow, on the one hand, Polybius in covering the political events of the Roman Empire; on the other hand, Eusebius of Caesarea in a story about the religious struggle between currents in Christianity, Judaism and pagan cults; Aristotle and Pliny the Elder, in an effort to represent the entire cosmos from Paradise and heaven, to the depths of the earth and Hell, Philostorgius created a religious and political work with elements of scientific descriptions, intended for an educated reader and aiming to educate a citizen of Rome, a diversified Eunomian.

Жанровые особенности Vita Plotini: на кого равнялся Порфирий

The article presents the analysis of genre dominants of "The Life of Plotinus" by Porphyry and analyses the polemical sources of the text. Having established the lack of research on the genre of the text in the modern bibliography, the author places the Life of Plotinus into the range of the late antique biographies, and determines the main characteristics of the analyzed text. The title of the text indicates Porphyry's dual purpose: to introduce the reader to the personality of Plotinus, whom Porphyry deliberately presents as theios aner, and also to present Plotinus' 54 treatises within the coherent system of the Enneads. The dual task is also reflected in the structure of the Life. Reconstructing the image of Porphyry in the text, the author of the article highlights the techniques that create the image of the author of Plotinus' Life. Emphasizing his own place in the hierarchy of the school is caused by the polemic both within the Neoplatonic school (with the earlier edition of Plotinus' treatises by Amelius; this is shown through the analysis of the introduction of the Life of Plotinus) and outside it. The author establishes the pragmatics of the key episodes of the text and shows that the text is built around a constructed hierarchy of testimonies: from the fellow student, Amelius, to the Oracle of Apollo. By highlighting the essential attributes of the hero of the biography, the author illustrates the dynamism of Porphyry's conception: Vita Plotini is not only an introduction to the edition, but also a didactic text, depicting a contemporary who has achieved the goal of human life. In the final part of the article, the author analyses the approaches to the identification of the opponents of Porphyry in the literature and sets forth his own hypothesis: the text was created in opposition to the school of Origen and to the image of the scholarch, which was drawn by Gregory the Wonderworker and Eusebius of Caesarea. The hypothesis of Porphyry's response to the Christian texts is grounded by the new lexical similarities with Origen.

ASPECTS OF POLITICAL THEOLOGY OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI (CAESAREA)

Eusebius of Caesarea (Eusebius Pamphili) is an important landmark of Christian historiography. His writings (Historia Ecclesiastica, De vita Constantini and De laudibus Constantini) are invaluable for those studying the reign of Constantine. Moreover, De vita Constantini is the main source for understanding the religious policy of Constantine. The era of Constantine posed a challenge to the Church to redefine herself in association with Christianized emperor. Constantine for Eusebius embodied unity and universalism both in political and ecclesiastical spheres. For Eusebius, it was a historical necessity that the Roman Empire and the Church cooperate in concord for the sake of humankind. On the other hand, Eusebius Caesarea has always been an object of scholarly dispute. One question that often arises is - Did Eusebius propagate Constantine’s “political theology”? Aim of this paper is to analyze Eusebius of Ceasarea’s paradigm for relationships between the Church and Empire

Making Christian History: Eusebius of Caesarea and his Readers by Michael J.Hollerich (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2021), xi + 316 pp.

<i>Making Christian History: Eusebius of Caesarea and his Readers</i> by Michael J.Hollerich (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2021), xi + 316 pp.

Making Christian History: Eusebius of Caesarea and His Readers. By Michael J. Hollerich. Oakland: University of California Press, 2021. xi + 316 pp. $95.00 cloth.

Making Christian History: Eusebius of Caesarea and His Readers. By Michael J. Hollerich. Oakland: University of California Press, 2021. xi + 316 pp. $95.00 cloth.