Customer Reviews

The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine (Penguin Classics)

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Eusebius lived in the late third and early fourth centuries in Caesarea Palestine. His History of the Church chronicles the time from Christ to the victory of Constantine over Licinius. He wrote in Greek, but this translation Latinizes the names. Eusebius covers the period of Jewish persecution in the early first millennium a.d.; goes through the succession of the bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc.; gives the account of heretical movements; and gives numerous examples of Christian martyrs in times of persecution. In the back of this edition is an extensive "Who's Who in Eusebius" spanning some 88 pages. It is a very useful tool in the reading of The History of the Church. It may also prove a valuable quick reference in further studies on early Christianity. Eusebius's style allows him to extensively quote several authors and historians in the early first millennium. His ten books of The History of the Church are riddled with passages from Josephus, Origen, Philo, Hegesippus, and the like. Also, behind the Who's Who in Eusebius, are a few appendices. I would highly recommend reading the appendices B, C, and D before undertaking the body of the book. A brief knowledge of the Roman empire at the time and Christianity will greatly benefit the reader.

This book is one of the foundational works of Christian history. It was the first extensive, systematic attempt to present Christian history up till the author's time (4th century). In the centuries following the work of Eusebius, many other authors attempted Histories, including Sulpitius Severus, Hermias Sozomen, Socrates Scholasticus, Theodoret, Evagrius Scholasticus, John of Ephesus, Gennadius of Marseilles, Isidore of Seville, Bede the Venerable, and others (just to list the major attempts through the 7th century). But none of these authors--and some would argue that none since--achieved what Eusebius did in his Ecclesiastical History. In fact, many didn't even try, and simply picked up the history of the Christian Church at the point where Eusebius had left off.

Eusebius is sometimes accused of being biased, but then everyone is biased. It is true that he might not have followed the strict standards followed by many modern historians (to expect that he would as some objectors do is totally anachonistic), but one thing is for sure, Eusebius was not simply a cheerleader for his own personal beliefs, nor someone who would gloss over differences or arguments within the Church. If someone wants a specific example (and one that isn't a small issue), one could read over his overview of how the Scriptural Canon was compiled and debated.

When it came to the Epistle of James from the New Testamnet, for instance, Eusebius at one point calls it "the so-called epistle of James" and says that it is "Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3, 25). In another place Eusebius is speaking of James of Jerusalem, who was the first bishop of the Christian Church there; Eusebius says that James "is said to be the author of the first of the so-called catholic epistles. But it is to be observed that it is disputed; at least, not many of the ancients have mentioned it... Nevertheless we know that [The Epistle of James] also, with the rest, have been read publicly in very many churches."(Eusebius, History, 2, 23)

This is a very good book for anyone interested in Christian History, especially if you are interested in how the actual figures in that history saw their predecessors, and not just in reading the summaries and compilations (and unfortunately, many times, wild speculations) of 19th and 20th century historians. One could also argue that his History, while perhaps a bit more biased in that it was written by a Christian for Christians, was also in some ways closer to the truth than histories today which might technically be more factual.

I know this sounds contradictory, but here is what I mean. Descartes said (rightly) that "history" as we perceive it was for the most part distorted, since history left out most of the minor, mundane thoughts and events of life and focused on the important or sensational aspects of life. History is therefore distorted in that it doesn't tell us about the lives and cultures of people, but only about what their leaders or generals or other great and important men did. Eusebius is someone who included some of everyday stuff in his History. It might not wow people, but it serves a much more important purpose: to put the great events into perspective. Great events and people are only great when compared to others, after all. And in that way, we can also say that Eusebius is indeed great.

This book was first assigned to me as a student of late Roman history and it was one that had a great impact on me. More than a mere ecclesiastical history, it is a defense of Christianity written by a Bishop of the 4th century. Having lived through the persecution of Diocletian and been a confidant of the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine, Eusebius recounts the tumultuous history of the Church in all its tragedy and triumph.

Quoting from the early Church fathers, Josephus, and sacred scripture, Eusebius proceeds through the reigns of the various Roman emperors from the time of Christ down to his own time--a period of over 300 years. Among the most fascinating information included is the curious correspondence between Jesus himself and Abgar the Toparch of Edessa a city in western Asia Minor in which Jesus promises to send one of His disciples to cure Abgar after His ascension. Though of uncertain authenticity, the tale has been used in recent years to link the Holy Shroud of Turin to the Mandylion of Edessa.

Also of interest are the numerous persecution, miracle, heresy, and martyrdom narratives that are packed into this book. The recounting of the marytrdoms of St. Polycarp and St. Justin Martyr are particularly compelling.

In short, this book is a treasure house of information on the early Church and no serious student of Church history can neglect it. Note, however, that this book does not contain the famous story of Constantine's miraculous conversion--seeing a cross in the sky with the words, "Conquer by this." If I remember correctly, this incident is recounted separately in the "Vita Constantini" also written by Eusebius.

As for the Penguin translation, I am not qualified to comment. If you are in need of the original Greek, I recommend the edition from the Loeb Classical Library (vol. 265) also available here on Amazon.

To read the subsequent early Church historians who built upon Eusebius through the end of the 6th century, check out:

The Ecclesiastical History Of Socrates, Surnamed Scholasticus, Or The Advocate: Comprising A History Of The Church In Seven Books;

Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen;

The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret;

and The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius (Christian Roman Empire Series).

Like many other reviewers here, I ended up reading Eusebius' History of the Church after getting tired of seeing it cited in all the other books I was reading about the Early Church.

This particular translation benefits (if they're still printing them) from the Introduction and footnotes of G.A. Williamson who observes that in spite of the cumbersome Greek employed by the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, that Eusebius was well-aware of his own limitations, yet gathered, assembled and compiled a work which has endured beyond much of its source material. As a student of Pamphilus (who was killed in the last great persecution), Eusebius also possessed a great passion for his work. This was no namby-pamby intellectual here. Eusebius himself was imprisoned for his Lord a couple of times. At the same time, he was a big-time player in the new Catholic Church, sitting in and piping up at the Nicean Council.

Whether you get it to read it through (as I did), or get it as a reference (which I also did), this is one work (much like Josephus' Antiquities) you need to have. He is the master Christian historian.

There is little for me to add to the fine reviews previously written here about Eusebius' "The History of the Church." By all means, take the time to read these reviews as they provide excellent tips on how to approach this genuine Christian classic.

Although I have been a Church history buff for over 30 years, I had never read Eusebius until recently. Now I would suggest that this volume (whichever translation you prefer) should be required reading for all thinking Christians. However, it would help to have read some other books on early Church history before approaching this one. One of my favorites is "Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy," by Alexander Schmemann.

I read Eusebius over a period of several months which caused me to ask various questions of the early Church along the way. Here are some things worth looking for:

1. What did the early Church look like? What did they believe and practice and how did they worship?
2. What role did heresy (or should I say "fighting heresy?") play in determining what was orthodox belief and what was not?
3. Would I be willing to suffer the same kind of persecution as did these early confessors and martyrs? How can I not be filled with lifelong gratitude for what they endured so that the Christian faith could survive and thrive?
4. What was the Church's relationship with the governing authorities? How did this change when Constantine came to power and issued the Edict of Milan (the full text is included in this book) which freed Christians from persecution?
5. Does the Church I attend, and the faith I believe, at all resemble what is represented on these pages?

By all means, read this book! Perhaps you'll agree that it should be required reading.

As I was reading "When Jesus Became God", the name of Eusebius, and his work on Church history, appeared repeatedly. I told myself that I would have to read this work, to get further insight into the early history of the Church. I'm very happy that I did, for this book, even though it is 1700 years old, is extremely interesting and informative on very early Church history. Many, many names were unfamiliar to me, but the helpful "Who's Who" in the back was a life saver. Constantly consulting it extended my reading time to double what it would have been otherwise, but I couldn't have understood the work as well without the assistance. If you're at all interested in this period of Church history, you must read this book!

Whether you are Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant (or not even a believer at all) if you are at all interested in the history of the Early Church, this volume is a must-read.

The 20th century critical historian will quickly note that Eusebius' understanding of relating history differs greatly from what is considered the "correct" way of relating history today. Frankly, this does not matter, and the wise historian will accept Eusebius for his accomplishments, and place his great value as a historian in its proper context. The foolish pseudo-historian will make the mistake of trying to apply 20th century standards (such as there are) to this 4th century document.

As far as my own personal interests and research are concerned, I found his discussion of the Canon of the New Testament to be most informative. It provides a snapshot view of what was held in the beginning of the 4th century, which can then be compared to a similar snapshot view from the end of the 4th century (Athanasius, for example) or beginning of the 5th century (Augustine, for example).

Other scholars may well be interested in Eusebius' discussion of heresies and heretics; persecutions; martyrs, etc.

A wonderful resource which should be widely used by both religious and secular historians.

The G.A. Williamson translation of Eusebius' History of the Church has a few helpful features.

First, the lengthy introduction provides the 20th (21st?) century reader a framework for looking at these 4th century writings--it identifies his biases, omissions, strengths as well as his cultural context. I found that re-reading the introduction, once I finished *History of the Church,* helped greatly in clarifying the work.

Second, the "who's who in Eusebius" section aids in keeping track of the various names/saints/heretics that pop up in the pages. I got the most out of the book when looked up each new name in the "who's who" section and *slowly* read Williamsons comments. Such an approach made for slow going, but it helped me to sift through and synthesize the material. A couple of examples: I now know who Dionysius of Alexandria is and who's responsible for calculating the date of Easter.

One more note on the translation: it's supposedly much more modern and readable than others (or so says the introduction). Eusebius, supposedly, wrote in obtuse and windy Greek. As I have only read this translation, I can't compare it; but I did find this translation readable.

Interesting things along the way:
-Eusebius' has interesting comments on the development of the canon--i.e. the selection of the gospels and the epistles for that distribution known as the New Testament
-Reading Eusebius will give you an appreciation for the sufferings of the 2nd and 3rd century martyrs for simply refusing to give token acts of worship to Roman gods.
-This book does *not* contain much evidence of the "Eusebian Accomodation," the pro-government stance I'd heard about in church history class.

Overall, this book is *the* seminal church history book and worth reading, but will require some discipline to finish

Many translations are very dry reading. This one is very good. Easy to read and understand. Interestingly, many of the arguments going on in the church today were going on in the church then. Nothing changes.

This is definitely a first rate translation of Eusebius' work. The work itself is, as most may already know, the first and only surviving one of its kind. In other words, Eusebius' work, as translated here, is the only surviving manuscript of the Church (for the first 300 years).

This text works on several levels. What I mean by this is the fact that a lay person who has never studied Church history could pick this text up and understand it. This is, in large part, due to Williamson's translation and Louth's introduction. However, a seasoned Church historian would also benefit from this translation and work due to its clarity, and the fact that the sections are kept short and concise leaving the reader and researcher with nice 'bite' size chunks to digest.

This is a 'must read' text for anyone interested in the first 300 years of the Christian Church. Eusebius gives details of events, names, places, doctrine, issues, etc. that helped to shape the Christian Church. Events such as the persecutions of Christians under Nero to Marcus Aurelius are detailed. Genealogies of Bishops since Peter to Eusebius' day are detailed and listed, as well as certain heresies and councils. And many other extremely pertinent details (such as doctrinal disputes, etc) are included in this work.

If you are wanting a detailed account of the first three hundred years (the early Patristic Period) of the Christian Church, then you will not want to be without this text (esp. due to William's great translation and revision work). I highly recommend this book!