Eusebius did not represent all heretics in the Ecclesiastical History as equally pernicious. This... more Eusebius did not represent all heretics in the Ecclesiastical History as equally pernicious. This paper presents close readings of Eusebius' chapters about three relatively benign heretics, namely Tatian (Historia ecclesiastica 4,29), Bardaisan (4,30), and Symmachus (6,17), and I also explore Rhodon (Historia ecclesiastica 5,13), a student of Tatian whom Eusebius never labels a heretic. Three inferences emerge from these readings. First, rather than condemning all heretics as equally demonic, deceitful, morally depraved, and worthless, Eusebius considered some heresies less dangerous than others. Second, Eusebius commended some heretics' useful writings, which in each case Eusebius quotes in his own oeuvre; he thus retained some of Clement's and Origen's openness to heretics' ideas. Third, the case of Rhodon shows that Eusebius assumed no obligation to classify all Christian thinkers as orthodox or heretical: as with Rhodon, Eusebius elides the ecclesiastical status of Tertullian and Ammonius (Historia ecclesiastica 2,2,4; 6,19,9-10), two other Christians of questionable orthodoxy. For Eusebius, in sum, the usefulness of an author's texts sometimes superseded the harm of that author's questionable orthodoxy, especially when that author hailed from a less-harmful heresy or was not clearly a heretic.
Eusebius has been recognized as the most innovative Greek historian of the later Roman Empire, la... more Eusebius has been recognized as the most innovative Greek historian of the later Roman Empire, largely on the grounds that his Chronicle, Ecclesiastical History, and Life of Constantine diverge from, and creatively combine, previous historical models. The Caesarean scholar's awareness of his innovations, however, has been disputed: was he consciously generating new paradigms for writing about past events, institutions, and individuals, or obliviously applying Christian forms alien to the Greek historical tradition? This paper addresses this question with a test case: Eusebius' knowl
In Book 9.8 of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius of Caesarea describes a horrific famine and p... more In Book 9.8 of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius of Caesarea describes a horrific famine and plague that ravaged the eastern Roman empire. Hitherto, scholars have generally treated this as an exaggerated but truthful account of these catastrophes. In this paper, we question the veracity of this account. We first demonstrate how Eusebius masterfully models his account on Thucydides's plague and Josephus's account of famine during the siege of Jerusalem in order to dismantle Maximinus Daia's regime and affirm the superiority of Christian philanthropy. While Eusebius's knowledge of Thucydides has often been disputed, this paper shows that he used not only Thucydides but also the Thucydidean commentary from the rhetorical tradition for his polemicizing against pagans. Having shown how Eusebius used his models, this paper then questions the veracity of Eusebius's famine and plague, suggesting that it was probably a fairly unimportant localized event, which Eusebius catastrophized to serve the Ecclesiastical History's polemical aims against Christian persecutors.
Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, a seminal late-antique historical narrative, features three pe... more Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, a seminal late-antique historical narrative, features three periodizations of the church’s past. First, a soteriological periodization divides God’s relationship with humanity at Christ’s Incarnation, an event that Eusebius marks in Book 1 with detailed commentary on the gospels rather than narrative. Second, an ecclesiastical periodization divides pristine, heroic apostolic times from post-apostolic times. The divide between apostolic times and the post-apostolic periods is illustrated through a comparison of History 2.13–17, about Simon Magus, Peter, and Mark, and 6.12, on Serapion of Antioch. And third, an epistemological periodization distinguished earlier times from Eusebius’s lifetime, the latter marked by frequent references to “our time.” Eusebius changed numerous narrative features with his changes of period, including alternating between commentary, diachronic, and synchronic format for different time periods; changing protagonists’ fallibility, individuality, composition of texts, and citation of scripture; and providing notices of episcopal successions and quotation of sources. Moreover, Eusebius’s History changed periods not with the sharp breaks of many modern histories but with gradual transitions. He also underscored key continuities, including God’s intervention in human events and alternation between persecuting and protecting rulers—a continuity within which, contrary to scholarly assumptions, the History never inaugurates a new era with the emergence of Constantine. The case study of Eusebius’s periodization suggests an important limitation of the analytic usefulness of periodizations such as “Late Antiquity” for organizing intellectual history.
On p. 610 n. 98, this paper includes a correction to DeVore, "The Only Event Mightier than Everyone's Hope': Classical Historiography and Eusebius' Plague Narrative" (Histos 14, 2020).
Classicists have downplayed ecclesiastical historians' participation in classical historiography.... more Classicists have downplayed ecclesiastical historians' participation in classical historiography. This study provides a test case for Christian engagement with classical historiography through a close reading of Eusebius' account of the Plague of Cyprian in the Ecclesiastical History. Deploying carefully-selected quotations from Dionysius, the bishop of Alexandria in the 250s AD, Eusebius referenced Thucydides' plague and invited comparison to further plague narratives in Diodorus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Josephus. Whereas pagans in plague narratives undergo violence and communal breakdown, Eusebius' Christians celebrate Easter harmoniously and care courageously for plague victims. Eusebius' plague also highlights divine vengeance on pagan Alexandrians, displays Christian virtue and knowledge, represents Christians as honourable sufferers, and underscores a Christian rejection of cosmic contingency.
–P. 10 n. 47 includes an addendum to my article "Character and Convention in the Letters of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History," JLA 7 (2014).
–A correction to this paper appears in DeVore, "Time in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History: Periodization, Narration, Transitions" (Studies in Late Antiquity 5, 2021) on 610 n. 98.
–This paper's research into Eusebius and plagues is continued in Scott Kennedy and David J. DeVore, "The Famine and Plague of Maxentius (311 to 312)," JLA 16.1 (2023), 27-53.
Scholarship on early Christian martyrdom has long relied on a canon of narratives published in co... more Scholarship on early Christian martyrdom has long relied on a canon of narratives published in collections of texts. This article probes the shortcomings of this canon through the test case of the “apocryphal” martyr narratives of Hegesippus, a later second-century writer known through Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. As seen in collections of martyr narratives published from 1901 to 2017, as well as Adolf von Harnack’s programmatic surveys of the genre, texts were canonized based on historical reliability (especially through claims to eyewitness testimony), on being stand-alone texts, and on describing persecution by Roman imperial agents. Since most scholars now reject older paradigms of historical reliability and genre, and investigate discourses rather than events, Hegesippus’s narratives—which were not eyewitness accounts, were embedded in a longer text, and involve Jewish persecutors—should enter the canon. The article concludes with two suggestions about how Hegesippus can enrich current scholarship. First, Hegesippus shows that the term martys did not unambiguously mean “martyr” until at least the third century. And second, Hegesippus’s famous martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus features distinctively Pythagorean traits, constituting a different kind of philosophical martyr than the Stoic or Socratic martyrs of canonical narratives.
Letters inserted into Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History can be interpreted fruitfully within the c... more Letters inserted into Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History can be interpreted fruitfully within the context of the usage of embedded letters in imperial Greek literature. Elite Greek narrative texts regularly attributed letters to famous Greeks of the past in order to model elite convention and to reveal heroic character. Similarly, Eusebius’ subtle and manipulative reproduction of letters by past Christians foregrounds these Christians as exemplars of proper ecclesiastical conduct. Eusebius’ letters represent wide communication, harmonious resolution of dif erences, and conformity to past Christians’ conduct as essential to Christian identity, particularly in his narratives of the paschal and rebaptism controversies. Eusebius presented epistolary conventions so as to render Christian character acceptable to elite Greek-speaking audiences.
-An addendum to this article now appears in my "'The Only Event Mightier than Everyone's Hope,"" Histos 13 (2020), p. 10 n. 47.
-I missed 4.26.13 among the letters quoted by Eusebius.
The textual Vorbild most commonly posited for Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica [Hist. eccl.] is F... more The textual Vorbild most commonly posited for Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica [Hist. eccl.] is Flavius Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae [AJ]. This paper probes the limits of Eusebius’ use of Josephus through a case study, a comparison of how each historian represented Philo of Alexandria.
Josephus mentions Philo just once in the AJ, when the philosopher defended the Judeans of Alexandria before Caligula (18.259f.). Such sparse coverage of Philo is striking because description of the great Judean’s philosophical activity would have enhanced the Judean glories exhibited in the AJ. Far richer is Eusebius’ portrayal of Philo: not only does Philo’s political service come up in the Hist. eccl. (2.6), but Eusebius also praises Philo’s erudition (2.4), notes purported encounters with Peter and Mark (2.16), reproduces the philosopher’s description of a purportedly Christian ascetic community (2.17), and catalogues his writings (2.18): in short, Eusebius foregrounds Philo’s philosophical achievements alongside the political, deploying many un-Josephan literary topoi along the way.
That Eusebius stressed Philo’s literary and philosophical activities, as well as the political service narrated by Josephus, illustrates how the models for the pioneer of church history included philosophical biography along with national historiography along Josephan lines. The paper concludes by showing that the topoi whereby Eusebius represented Philo are paralleled in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives and Opinions of the Famous Philosophers, the best surviving example of philosophical historiography. Eusebius’ display of Philo’s intellectual accomplishments through biographical topoi both reinforced the Jewish philosopher’s credibility as an admirer of Christianity and encouraged comparison between Philo and the Christian intellectuals portrayed throughout the Hist. eccl.
Eusebius did not represent all heretics in the Ecclesiastical History as equally pernicious. This... more Eusebius did not represent all heretics in the Ecclesiastical History as equally pernicious. This paper presents close readings of Eusebius' chapters about three relatively benign heretics, namely Tatian (Historia ecclesiastica 4,29), Bardaisan (4,30), and Symmachus (6,17), and I also explore Rhodon (Historia ecclesiastica 5,13), a student of Tatian whom Eusebius never labels a heretic. Three inferences emerge from these readings. First, rather than condemning all heretics as equally demonic, deceitful, morally depraved, and worthless, Eusebius considered some heresies less dangerous than others. Second, Eusebius commended some heretics' useful writings, which in each case Eusebius quotes in his own oeuvre; he thus retained some of Clement's and Origen's openness to heretics' ideas. Third, the case of Rhodon shows that Eusebius assumed no obligation to classify all Christian thinkers as orthodox or heretical: as with Rhodon, Eusebius elides the ecclesiastical status of Tertullian and Ammonius (Historia ecclesiastica 2,2,4; 6,19,9-10), two other Christians of questionable orthodoxy. For Eusebius, in sum, the usefulness of an author's texts sometimes superseded the harm of that author's questionable orthodoxy, especially when that author hailed from a less-harmful heresy or was not clearly a heretic.
Eusebius has been recognized as the most innovative Greek historian of the later Roman Empire, la... more Eusebius has been recognized as the most innovative Greek historian of the later Roman Empire, largely on the grounds that his Chronicle, Ecclesiastical History, and Life of Constantine diverge from, and creatively combine, previous historical models. The Caesarean scholar's awareness of his innovations, however, has been disputed: was he consciously generating new paradigms for writing about past events, institutions, and individuals, or obliviously applying Christian forms alien to the Greek historical tradition? This paper addresses this question with a test case: Eusebius' knowl
In Book 9.8 of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius of Caesarea describes a horrific famine and p... more In Book 9.8 of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius of Caesarea describes a horrific famine and plague that ravaged the eastern Roman empire. Hitherto, scholars have generally treated this as an exaggerated but truthful account of these catastrophes. In this paper, we question the veracity of this account. We first demonstrate how Eusebius masterfully models his account on Thucydides's plague and Josephus's account of famine during the siege of Jerusalem in order to dismantle Maximinus Daia's regime and affirm the superiority of Christian philanthropy. While Eusebius's knowledge of Thucydides has often been disputed, this paper shows that he used not only Thucydides but also the Thucydidean commentary from the rhetorical tradition for his polemicizing against pagans. Having shown how Eusebius used his models, this paper then questions the veracity of Eusebius's famine and plague, suggesting that it was probably a fairly unimportant localized event, which Eusebius catastrophized to serve the Ecclesiastical History's polemical aims against Christian persecutors.
Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, a seminal late-antique historical narrative, features three pe... more Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, a seminal late-antique historical narrative, features three periodizations of the church’s past. First, a soteriological periodization divides God’s relationship with humanity at Christ’s Incarnation, an event that Eusebius marks in Book 1 with detailed commentary on the gospels rather than narrative. Second, an ecclesiastical periodization divides pristine, heroic apostolic times from post-apostolic times. The divide between apostolic times and the post-apostolic periods is illustrated through a comparison of History 2.13–17, about Simon Magus, Peter, and Mark, and 6.12, on Serapion of Antioch. And third, an epistemological periodization distinguished earlier times from Eusebius’s lifetime, the latter marked by frequent references to “our time.” Eusebius changed numerous narrative features with his changes of period, including alternating between commentary, diachronic, and synchronic format for different time periods; changing protagonists’ fallibility, individuality, composition of texts, and citation of scripture; and providing notices of episcopal successions and quotation of sources. Moreover, Eusebius’s History changed periods not with the sharp breaks of many modern histories but with gradual transitions. He also underscored key continuities, including God’s intervention in human events and alternation between persecuting and protecting rulers—a continuity within which, contrary to scholarly assumptions, the History never inaugurates a new era with the emergence of Constantine. The case study of Eusebius’s periodization suggests an important limitation of the analytic usefulness of periodizations such as “Late Antiquity” for organizing intellectual history.
On p. 610 n. 98, this paper includes a correction to DeVore, "The Only Event Mightier than Everyone's Hope': Classical Historiography and Eusebius' Plague Narrative" (Histos 14, 2020).
Classicists have downplayed ecclesiastical historians' participation in classical historiography.... more Classicists have downplayed ecclesiastical historians' participation in classical historiography. This study provides a test case for Christian engagement with classical historiography through a close reading of Eusebius' account of the Plague of Cyprian in the Ecclesiastical History. Deploying carefully-selected quotations from Dionysius, the bishop of Alexandria in the 250s AD, Eusebius referenced Thucydides' plague and invited comparison to further plague narratives in Diodorus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Josephus. Whereas pagans in plague narratives undergo violence and communal breakdown, Eusebius' Christians celebrate Easter harmoniously and care courageously for plague victims. Eusebius' plague also highlights divine vengeance on pagan Alexandrians, displays Christian virtue and knowledge, represents Christians as honourable sufferers, and underscores a Christian rejection of cosmic contingency.
–P. 10 n. 47 includes an addendum to my article "Character and Convention in the Letters of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History," JLA 7 (2014).
–A correction to this paper appears in DeVore, "Time in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History: Periodization, Narration, Transitions" (Studies in Late Antiquity 5, 2021) on 610 n. 98.
–This paper's research into Eusebius and plagues is continued in Scott Kennedy and David J. DeVore, "The Famine and Plague of Maxentius (311 to 312)," JLA 16.1 (2023), 27-53.
Scholarship on early Christian martyrdom has long relied on a canon of narratives published in co... more Scholarship on early Christian martyrdom has long relied on a canon of narratives published in collections of texts. This article probes the shortcomings of this canon through the test case of the “apocryphal” martyr narratives of Hegesippus, a later second-century writer known through Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. As seen in collections of martyr narratives published from 1901 to 2017, as well as Adolf von Harnack’s programmatic surveys of the genre, texts were canonized based on historical reliability (especially through claims to eyewitness testimony), on being stand-alone texts, and on describing persecution by Roman imperial agents. Since most scholars now reject older paradigms of historical reliability and genre, and investigate discourses rather than events, Hegesippus’s narratives—which were not eyewitness accounts, were embedded in a longer text, and involve Jewish persecutors—should enter the canon. The article concludes with two suggestions about how Hegesippus can enrich current scholarship. First, Hegesippus shows that the term martys did not unambiguously mean “martyr” until at least the third century. And second, Hegesippus’s famous martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus features distinctively Pythagorean traits, constituting a different kind of philosophical martyr than the Stoic or Socratic martyrs of canonical narratives.
Letters inserted into Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History can be interpreted fruitfully within the c... more Letters inserted into Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History can be interpreted fruitfully within the context of the usage of embedded letters in imperial Greek literature. Elite Greek narrative texts regularly attributed letters to famous Greeks of the past in order to model elite convention and to reveal heroic character. Similarly, Eusebius’ subtle and manipulative reproduction of letters by past Christians foregrounds these Christians as exemplars of proper ecclesiastical conduct. Eusebius’ letters represent wide communication, harmonious resolution of dif erences, and conformity to past Christians’ conduct as essential to Christian identity, particularly in his narratives of the paschal and rebaptism controversies. Eusebius presented epistolary conventions so as to render Christian character acceptable to elite Greek-speaking audiences.
-An addendum to this article now appears in my "'The Only Event Mightier than Everyone's Hope,"" Histos 13 (2020), p. 10 n. 47.
-I missed 4.26.13 among the letters quoted by Eusebius.
The textual Vorbild most commonly posited for Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica [Hist. eccl.] is F... more The textual Vorbild most commonly posited for Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica [Hist. eccl.] is Flavius Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae [AJ]. This paper probes the limits of Eusebius’ use of Josephus through a case study, a comparison of how each historian represented Philo of Alexandria.
Josephus mentions Philo just once in the AJ, when the philosopher defended the Judeans of Alexandria before Caligula (18.259f.). Such sparse coverage of Philo is striking because description of the great Judean’s philosophical activity would have enhanced the Judean glories exhibited in the AJ. Far richer is Eusebius’ portrayal of Philo: not only does Philo’s political service come up in the Hist. eccl. (2.6), but Eusebius also praises Philo’s erudition (2.4), notes purported encounters with Peter and Mark (2.16), reproduces the philosopher’s description of a purportedly Christian ascetic community (2.17), and catalogues his writings (2.18): in short, Eusebius foregrounds Philo’s philosophical achievements alongside the political, deploying many un-Josephan literary topoi along the way.
That Eusebius stressed Philo’s literary and philosophical activities, as well as the political service narrated by Josephus, illustrates how the models for the pioneer of church history included philosophical biography along with national historiography along Josephan lines. The paper concludes by showing that the topoi whereby Eusebius represented Philo are paralleled in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives and Opinions of the Famous Philosophers, the best surviving example of philosophical historiography. Eusebius’ display of Philo’s intellectual accomplishments through biographical topoi both reinforced the Jewish philosopher’s credibility as an admirer of Christianity and encouraged comparison between Philo and the Christian intellectuals portrayed throughout the Hist. eccl.
Slides for a talk given at the online colloquium "Diocletian, Maxentius and the legal status of C... more Slides for a talk given at the online colloquium "Diocletian, Maxentius and the legal status of Christianity: An interdisciplinary dialogue on rediscovered Tetrarchic and Maxentian legislation."
Michael Hollerich, Eusebius and His Readers, does a fine job of tracing the reception of Eusebius... more Michael Hollerich, Eusebius and His Readers, does a fine job of tracing the reception of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History from the first post-Eusebian church historians to the twenty-first century. This paper aims to begin tracing the dark reception of Eusebius' History in a cloudy moment, before Rufinus wrote the first surviving post-Eusebian Church History in 402 or 403. My preliminary references to the History suggest that Eusebius was not much-read until the 370s even by his own student Eusebius of Emesa. Only in the 390s did Eusebius become an authority or model for ecclesiastical historiography, when Jerome drew heavily on Eusebius' History. Moreover, the most-read historical work of Eusebius in the fourth century turns out not to be the Church History, but Eusebius' apologetic and educational diptych, the Gospel Preparation and Gospel Demonstration.
Historiography & Life Writing Conference, London, 2022
The assumption has long prevailed that Eusebius represented Origen as an exceptional Christian in... more The assumption has long prevailed that Eusebius represented Origen as an exceptional Christian intellectual. Eusebius is described as embedding a “Life of Origen” into the Ecclesiastical History, using a biographical mode rather than historical narration (e.g. Cox Miller 1983, Ferguson 2005, Monaci Castagno 2004, Urbano 2013; cf. Gärtner and Gärtner 2003). More recent scholarship has shown that the History teems with biographical topoi and paints numerous Christian elites as philosophers (DeVore 2013, Corke-Webster 2019). This paper applies the recent findings on Eusebius’ biographical narration to the “Life of Origen.” I argue that Eusebius’ Origen was more exemplary of Christian intellectuals than the exceptional ascetic and scholar scholars have presumed.
Certainly, with Origen Eusebius sometimes deviates from his usual biographical narration. Origen is one of the few Eusebian Christians whose family is represented (Ecc.Hist. 6.2; cf. Corke-Webster 2019); Eusebius bemoans Origen’s notorious self-castration (6.8); Eusebius must acknowledge Bishop Demetrius’ spat with Origen (6.8, 19, 23); and the History quotes few texts about Origen (cf. DeVore 2021). However, study of the whole of Origen’s portrait, within Book 6 of the History, paints a strikingly ordinary picture of Origen within the History. Eusebius places Origen into genealogies with teachers, students, and clerics (Ecc.Hist. 6.5, 6.19, 6.23, 6.30, 6.35), catalogues Origen’s writings and scriptural knowledge (6.16, 6.24-25, 6.32, 6.36), highlights Origen’s resistance to heresy and solidarity with other Christian thinkers (6.2-3, 6.18, 6.30-31, 6.37-38), and lauds Origen’s endurance of torture (6.39). Taken as a whole, Origen conforms far more to Eusebius’ composite Christian character than he deviates--though the deviations are meaningful.
Further indication of Origen’s exemplarity comes in Eusebius’ juxtaposition of the “Life of Origen” with several embedded biographies of comparable Christian intellectuals. As Eusebius interweaves Origen with portraits of Clement (5.11, 6.5, 6.13-14), Narcissus of Jerusalem (6.9-11), Julius Africanus (6.31), and Dionysius of Alexandria (6.35, 6.40-42. 6.44-46), whose habits, ideals, agenda, and accomplishments dovetail with Origen’s. Eusebius’ Origen comes off as the most prominent figure in a network of uniformly and predictably productive, virtuous, and renowned intellectuals, yet an intellectual who had to grow into this character through his textual education thanks to his mentors.
Corke-Webster, J. 2019. Eusebius and Empire: Constructing Church and Rome in the Ecclesiastical History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cox, P. 1983. Biography in Late Antiquity: a Quest for the Holy Man. Berkeley: California. DeVore, D. 2013. “Genre and Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History.” In Eusebius of Caesarea: Traditions and Innovations, ed. A. Johnson and J. Schott. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. DeVore, D. 2021. “Time in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History: Periodization, Narration, Transitions.” Studies in Late Antiquity 5. Ferguson, T. 2005. The Past is Prologue. The Revolution of Nicene Historiography. Leiden: Brill. Gärtner, H. and H.A. Gärtner. 2003. “Eusebios als Erzähler.” In Der Freund des Menschen, ed. A. Meinholdt and A. Berlejung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Monaci Castagno, A. 2004. La biografia di Origene fra storia e agiografia. Villa Verucchio: Pazzini. Urbano, A. 2013. The Philosophical Life: Biography and the Crafting of Intellectual Identity in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC: Catholic University Press.
Recent work on Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History has emphasized Eusebius’ deployment of classical ... more Recent work on Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History has emphasized Eusebius’ deployment of classical topoi. This paper shows that what is often considered the most distinctive innovation of Eusebius’ historical writing, his frequent verbatim quotation, in fact deploys traditional Greek quotational practices.
1) Previous historians writing about the distant past, from Thucydides to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, quoted sources that confirmed the historicity of events from centuries earlier. Similarly, Eusebius quotes sources when describing the nascent church (in books 1 through 3 of the History), to substantiate his own assertions of events involving the most distant representatives of the church, Christ and the Apostles.
2) Many earlier historians, from Thucydides to Appian, quoted verbatim state documents that catalyzed events within their histories’ narrative, such as treaties, royal letters, laws, and decrees. Similarly, Eusebius quotes numerous state documents in the History that embody the vicissitudes of the church’s relationship with the Roman Empire.
3) Earlier biographers, such as Suetonius, Diogenes Laertius, and Porphyry, quoted texts either by their biographical subjects or by contemporaries that reflected their subjects’ character vividly. Many of Eusebius’ quoted texts, such as martyr acts and letters, likewise reveal the character of individual Christian heroes, and, cumulatively, of the church as a whole.
Eusebius’ achievement was thus to bring together quotational habits exhibited in separate Greek historiographical genres, narrative history and biography. The accumulation of Christian voices constituted an anthology, a genre that Eusebius invoked in his prefatory metaphor of “culling flowers from the meadows of discourse” (History 1.1.4). Through a creative combination of traditional Greek genres Eusebius incorporated a series of voices—mostly Christian but complemented with Roman emperors and a few other elites—to construct an elite church that spoke with a trans-generational litany of cultured voices.
Tracing Christians in Global Late Antiquity Conference, 2021, 2021
PDF version of my handout for my TCGLA paper, "The Limits of Collective 'Orthodox' Authorship in ... more PDF version of my handout for my TCGLA paper, "The Limits of Collective 'Orthodox' Authorship in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History".
Unlike with the Word version, the format isn't jumbled. But this version isn't accessible; the Word version is.
Please email me if you have any questions or comments!
Original Abstract: Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History already decentered authorship in ancient Christian discourse. The History all but claims collective ecclesiastical authorship due to Eusebius’ famous use of extensive quotation of Christian documents (HE 1.1.3-4). Other indices of this collective ecclesiastical authorship include his reluctance to display autobiographical information that might differentiate him (cf. Johnson 2014: 18), Eusebius’ slippery use of “we” to denote referends from himself to his scholarly circle and up to the entire church (Verdoner 2011: 89-107), and his representation of the church as an intellectual community (Corke-Webster 2019: passim). Accordingly, the voices that Eusebius anthologized constituted the canon of “orthodox”, harmonious, and interconnected Christian authorities received in subsequent antiquity.
This paper probes the numerous cracks in Eusebius’ wall of “orthodox” authors, spaces where non-“orthodox” voices intrude. Eusebius quotes two Jews (Philo and Josephus, HE 1.5-3.8 passim), three pagans (Porphyry, 6.19; Thucydides, 7.22; and the Hippocratic corpus, 10.4), and two apparent “heretics” (Tatian, 4.16, and Rhodon, 5.13) and cites the works of two more “heretics” (Bardaisan, 4.30, and Symmachus, 6.16-17; cf. Basilides in 4.7). He also quotes works of unknown authorship (e.g. 1.13, 5.16, 5.28; cf. 6.12) as authoritative. This study shows that “orthodox” authorship was not a decisive criterion for Eusebius to write a voice into the church’s past. Instead, works without authoritative authors could provide “useful” (1.13, 4.29), “capable” (4.30), “accurate” (5.13), and “well-known” (6.16) voices.
I argue that Eusebius left these openings intentionally. Contrary to the usual representation of Eusebius’ History as a triumphalist “orthodox” anthology, I follow Johnson (2014: 169) and Johannessen (2016: 42, 202) in finding a cautious Eusebius who constructed “orthodoxy” tentatively, not triumphantly. Having watched his own model of “orthodox” practice, Origen, become controversial in his own lifetime, Eusebius not only subsumed his own, potentially divisive voice among others’, but exhibited a permeable canon of authors, in case subsequent controversies might demand discursive flexibility from the church.
Corke-Webster, James. 2019. Eusebius and Empire. Cambridge. Johannessen, Hazel. 2016. The Demonic in the Policital Thought of Eusebius of Caesarea. Oxford. Johnson, Aaron. 2014. Eusebius. I.B. Tauris. Verdoner, Marie. 2010. Narrated Reality: the Historia ecclesiastica of Eusebius of Caesarea. Peter Lang.
Tracing Christians in Global Late Antiquity Conference, 2021
Handout for my TCGLA paper, "The Limits of Collective 'Orthodox' Authorship in Eusebius’ Ecclesia... more Handout for my TCGLA paper, "The Limits of Collective 'Orthodox' Authorship in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History".
I tried my best to make the handout accessible. The format seems to have turned out a bit jumbled on Academia.edu, but hopefully if you download it and open it in Word the format will work again.
Please email me if you have any questions or comments!
Original Abstract: Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History already decentered authorship in ancient Christian discourse. The History all but claims collective ecclesiastical authorship due to Eusebius’ famous use of extensive quotation of Christian documents (HE 1.1.3-4). Other indices of this collective ecclesiastical authorship include his reluctance to display autobiographical information that might differentiate him (cf. Johnson 2014: 18), Eusebius’ slippery use of “we” to denote referends from himself to his scholarly circle and up to the entire church (Verdoner 2011: 89-107), and his representation of the church as an intellectual community (Corke-Webster 2019: passim). Accordingly, the voices that Eusebius anthologized constituted the canon of “orthodox”, harmonious, and interconnected Christian authorities received in subsequent antiquity.
This paper probes the numerous cracks in Eusebius’ wall of “orthodox” authors, spaces where non-“orthodox” voices intrude. Eusebius quotes two Jews (Philo and Josephus, HE 1.5-3.8 passim), three pagans (Porphyry, 6.19; Thucydides, 7.22; and the Hippocratic corpus, 10.4), and two apparent “heretics” (Tatian, 4.16, and Rhodon, 5.13) and cites the works of two more “heretics” (Bardaisan, 4.30, and Symmachus, 6.16-17; cf. Basilides in 4.7). He also quotes works of unknown authorship (e.g. 1.13, 5.16, 5.28; cf. 6.12) as authoritative. This study shows that “orthodox” authorship was not a decisive criterion for Eusebius to write a voice into the church’s past. Instead, works without authoritative authors could provide “useful” (1.13, 4.29), “capable” (4.30), “accurate” (5.13), and “well-known” (6.16) voices.
I argue that Eusebius left these openings intentionally. Contrary to the usual representation of Eusebius’ History as a triumphalist “orthodox” anthology, I follow Johnson (2014: 169) and Johannessen (2016: 42, 202) in finding a cautious Eusebius who constructed “orthodoxy” tentatively, not triumphantly. Having watched his own model of “orthodox” practice, Origen, become controversial in his own lifetime, Eusebius not only subsumed his own, potentially divisive voice among others’, but exhibited a permeable canon of authors, in case subsequent controversies might demand discursive flexibility from the church.
Corke-Webster, James. 2019. Eusebius and Empire. Cambridge. Johannessen, Hazel. 2016. The Demonic in the Policital Thought of Eusebius of Caesarea. Oxford. Johnson, Aaron. 2014. Eusebius. I.B. Tauris. Verdoner, Marie. 2010. Narrated Reality: the Historia ecclesiastica of Eusebius of Caesarea. Peter Lang.
Uploads
Book Manuscript
Papers
On p. 610 n. 98, this paper includes a correction to DeVore, "The Only Event Mightier than Everyone's Hope': Classical Historiography and Eusebius' Plague Narrative" (Histos 14, 2020).
–P. 10 n. 47 includes an addendum to my article "Character and Convention in the Letters of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History," JLA 7 (2014).
–A correction to this paper appears in DeVore, "Time in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History: Periodization, Narration, Transitions" (Studies in Late Antiquity 5, 2021) on 610 n. 98.
–This paper's research into Eusebius and plagues is continued in Scott Kennedy and David J. DeVore, "The Famine and Plague of Maxentius (311 to 312)," JLA 16.1 (2023), 27-53.
-An addendum to this article now appears in my "'The Only Event Mightier than Everyone's Hope,"" Histos 13 (2020), p. 10 n. 47.
-I missed 4.26.13 among the letters quoted by Eusebius.
Josephus mentions Philo just once in the AJ, when the philosopher defended the Judeans of Alexandria before Caligula (18.259f.). Such sparse coverage of Philo is striking because description of the great Judean’s philosophical activity would have enhanced the Judean glories exhibited in the AJ. Far richer is Eusebius’ portrayal of Philo: not only does Philo’s political service come up in the Hist. eccl. (2.6), but Eusebius also praises Philo’s erudition (2.4), notes purported encounters with Peter and Mark (2.16), reproduces the philosopher’s description of a purportedly Christian ascetic community (2.17), and catalogues his writings (2.18): in short, Eusebius foregrounds Philo’s philosophical achievements alongside the political, deploying many un-Josephan literary topoi along the way.
That Eusebius stressed Philo’s literary and philosophical activities, as well as the political service narrated by Josephus, illustrates how the models for the pioneer of church history included philosophical biography along with national historiography along Josephan lines. The paper concludes by showing that the topoi whereby Eusebius represented Philo are paralleled in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives and Opinions of the Famous Philosophers, the best surviving example of philosophical historiography. Eusebius’ display of Philo’s intellectual accomplishments through biographical topoi both reinforced the Jewish philosopher’s credibility as an admirer of Christianity and encouraged comparison between Philo and the Christian intellectuals portrayed throughout the Hist. eccl.
Reviews
On p. 610 n. 98, this paper includes a correction to DeVore, "The Only Event Mightier than Everyone's Hope': Classical Historiography and Eusebius' Plague Narrative" (Histos 14, 2020).
–P. 10 n. 47 includes an addendum to my article "Character and Convention in the Letters of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History," JLA 7 (2014).
–A correction to this paper appears in DeVore, "Time in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History: Periodization, Narration, Transitions" (Studies in Late Antiquity 5, 2021) on 610 n. 98.
–This paper's research into Eusebius and plagues is continued in Scott Kennedy and David J. DeVore, "The Famine and Plague of Maxentius (311 to 312)," JLA 16.1 (2023), 27-53.
-An addendum to this article now appears in my "'The Only Event Mightier than Everyone's Hope,"" Histos 13 (2020), p. 10 n. 47.
-I missed 4.26.13 among the letters quoted by Eusebius.
Josephus mentions Philo just once in the AJ, when the philosopher defended the Judeans of Alexandria before Caligula (18.259f.). Such sparse coverage of Philo is striking because description of the great Judean’s philosophical activity would have enhanced the Judean glories exhibited in the AJ. Far richer is Eusebius’ portrayal of Philo: not only does Philo’s political service come up in the Hist. eccl. (2.6), but Eusebius also praises Philo’s erudition (2.4), notes purported encounters with Peter and Mark (2.16), reproduces the philosopher’s description of a purportedly Christian ascetic community (2.17), and catalogues his writings (2.18): in short, Eusebius foregrounds Philo’s philosophical achievements alongside the political, deploying many un-Josephan literary topoi along the way.
That Eusebius stressed Philo’s literary and philosophical activities, as well as the political service narrated by Josephus, illustrates how the models for the pioneer of church history included philosophical biography along with national historiography along Josephan lines. The paper concludes by showing that the topoi whereby Eusebius represented Philo are paralleled in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives and Opinions of the Famous Philosophers, the best surviving example of philosophical historiography. Eusebius’ display of Philo’s intellectual accomplishments through biographical topoi both reinforced the Jewish philosopher’s credibility as an admirer of Christianity and encouraged comparison between Philo and the Christian intellectuals portrayed throughout the Hist. eccl.
Certainly, with Origen Eusebius sometimes deviates from his usual biographical narration. Origen is one of the few Eusebian Christians whose family is represented (Ecc.Hist. 6.2; cf. Corke-Webster 2019); Eusebius bemoans Origen’s notorious self-castration (6.8); Eusebius must acknowledge Bishop Demetrius’ spat with Origen (6.8, 19, 23); and the History quotes few texts about Origen (cf. DeVore 2021). However, study of the whole of Origen’s portrait, within Book 6 of the History, paints a strikingly ordinary picture of Origen within the History. Eusebius places Origen into genealogies with teachers, students, and clerics (Ecc.Hist. 6.5, 6.19, 6.23, 6.30, 6.35), catalogues Origen’s writings and scriptural knowledge (6.16, 6.24-25, 6.32, 6.36), highlights Origen’s resistance to heresy and solidarity with other Christian thinkers (6.2-3, 6.18, 6.30-31, 6.37-38), and lauds Origen’s endurance of torture (6.39). Taken as a whole, Origen conforms far more to Eusebius’ composite Christian character than he deviates--though the deviations are meaningful.
Further indication of Origen’s exemplarity comes in Eusebius’ juxtaposition of the “Life of Origen” with several embedded biographies of comparable Christian intellectuals. As Eusebius interweaves Origen with portraits of Clement (5.11, 6.5, 6.13-14), Narcissus of Jerusalem (6.9-11), Julius Africanus (6.31), and Dionysius of Alexandria (6.35, 6.40-42. 6.44-46), whose habits, ideals, agenda, and accomplishments dovetail with Origen’s. Eusebius’ Origen comes off as the most prominent figure in a network of uniformly and predictably productive, virtuous, and renowned intellectuals, yet an intellectual who had to grow into this character through his textual education thanks to his mentors.
Corke-Webster, J. 2019. Eusebius and Empire: Constructing Church and Rome in the Ecclesiastical History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, P. 1983. Biography in Late Antiquity: a Quest for the Holy Man. Berkeley: California.
DeVore, D. 2013. “Genre and Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History.” In Eusebius of Caesarea: Traditions and Innovations, ed. A. Johnson and J. Schott. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.
DeVore, D. 2021. “Time in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History: Periodization, Narration, Transitions.” Studies in Late Antiquity 5.
Ferguson, T. 2005. The Past is Prologue. The Revolution of Nicene Historiography. Leiden: Brill.
Gärtner, H. and H.A. Gärtner. 2003. “Eusebios als Erzähler.” In Der Freund des Menschen, ed. A. Meinholdt and A. Berlejung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
Monaci Castagno, A. 2004. La biografia di Origene fra storia e agiografia. Villa Verucchio: Pazzini.
Urbano, A. 2013. The Philosophical Life: Biography and the Crafting of Intellectual Identity in Late Antiquity. Washington, DC: Catholic University Press.
1) Previous historians writing about the distant past, from Thucydides to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, quoted sources that confirmed the historicity of events from centuries earlier. Similarly, Eusebius quotes sources when describing the nascent church (in books 1 through 3 of the History), to substantiate his own assertions of events involving the most distant representatives of the church, Christ and the Apostles.
2) Many earlier historians, from Thucydides to Appian, quoted verbatim state documents that catalyzed events within their histories’ narrative, such as treaties, royal letters, laws, and decrees. Similarly, Eusebius quotes numerous state documents in the History that embody the vicissitudes of the church’s relationship with the Roman Empire.
3) Earlier biographers, such as Suetonius, Diogenes Laertius, and Porphyry, quoted texts either by their biographical subjects or by contemporaries that reflected their subjects’ character vividly. Many of Eusebius’ quoted texts, such as martyr acts and letters, likewise reveal the character of individual Christian heroes, and, cumulatively, of the church as a whole.
Eusebius’ achievement was thus to bring together quotational habits exhibited in separate Greek historiographical genres, narrative history and biography. The accumulation of Christian voices constituted an anthology, a genre that Eusebius invoked in his prefatory metaphor of “culling flowers from the meadows of discourse” (History 1.1.4). Through a creative combination of traditional Greek genres Eusebius incorporated a series of voices—mostly Christian but complemented with Roman emperors and a few other elites—to construct an elite church that spoke with a trans-generational litany of cultured voices.
Unlike with the Word version, the format isn't jumbled. But this version isn't accessible; the Word version is.
Please email me if you have any questions or comments!
Original Abstract: Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History already decentered authorship in ancient Christian discourse. The History all but claims collective ecclesiastical authorship due to Eusebius’ famous use of extensive quotation of Christian documents (HE 1.1.3-4). Other indices of this collective ecclesiastical authorship include his reluctance to display autobiographical information that might differentiate him (cf. Johnson 2014: 18), Eusebius’ slippery use of “we” to denote referends from himself to his scholarly circle and up to the entire church (Verdoner 2011: 89-107), and his representation of the church as an intellectual community (Corke-Webster 2019: passim). Accordingly, the voices that Eusebius anthologized constituted the canon of “orthodox”, harmonious, and interconnected Christian authorities received in subsequent antiquity.
This paper probes the numerous cracks in Eusebius’ wall of “orthodox” authors, spaces where non-“orthodox” voices intrude. Eusebius quotes two Jews (Philo and Josephus, HE 1.5-3.8 passim), three pagans (Porphyry, 6.19; Thucydides, 7.22; and the Hippocratic corpus, 10.4), and two apparent “heretics” (Tatian, 4.16, and Rhodon, 5.13) and cites the works of two more “heretics” (Bardaisan, 4.30, and Symmachus, 6.16-17; cf. Basilides in 4.7). He also quotes works of unknown authorship (e.g. 1.13, 5.16, 5.28; cf. 6.12) as authoritative. This study shows that “orthodox” authorship was not a decisive criterion for Eusebius to write a voice into the church’s past. Instead, works without authoritative authors could provide “useful” (1.13, 4.29), “capable” (4.30), “accurate” (5.13), and “well-known” (6.16) voices.
I argue that Eusebius left these openings intentionally. Contrary to the usual representation of Eusebius’ History as a triumphalist “orthodox” anthology, I follow Johnson (2014: 169) and Johannessen (2016: 42, 202) in finding a cautious Eusebius who constructed “orthodoxy” tentatively, not triumphantly. Having watched his own model of “orthodox” practice, Origen, become controversial in his own lifetime, Eusebius not only subsumed his own, potentially divisive voice among others’, but exhibited a permeable canon of authors, in case subsequent controversies might demand discursive flexibility from the church.
Corke-Webster, James. 2019. Eusebius and Empire. Cambridge.
Johannessen, Hazel. 2016. The Demonic in the Policital Thought of Eusebius of Caesarea. Oxford.
Johnson, Aaron. 2014. Eusebius. I.B. Tauris.
Verdoner, Marie. 2010. Narrated Reality: the Historia ecclesiastica of Eusebius of Caesarea. Peter Lang.
I tried my best to make the handout accessible. The format seems to have turned out a bit jumbled on Academia.edu, but hopefully if you download it and open it in Word the format will work again.
Please email me if you have any questions or comments!
Original Abstract: Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History already decentered authorship in ancient Christian discourse. The History all but claims collective ecclesiastical authorship due to Eusebius’ famous use of extensive quotation of Christian documents (HE 1.1.3-4). Other indices of this collective ecclesiastical authorship include his reluctance to display autobiographical information that might differentiate him (cf. Johnson 2014: 18), Eusebius’ slippery use of “we” to denote referends from himself to his scholarly circle and up to the entire church (Verdoner 2011: 89-107), and his representation of the church as an intellectual community (Corke-Webster 2019: passim). Accordingly, the voices that Eusebius anthologized constituted the canon of “orthodox”, harmonious, and interconnected Christian authorities received in subsequent antiquity.
This paper probes the numerous cracks in Eusebius’ wall of “orthodox” authors, spaces where non-“orthodox” voices intrude. Eusebius quotes two Jews (Philo and Josephus, HE 1.5-3.8 passim), three pagans (Porphyry, 6.19; Thucydides, 7.22; and the Hippocratic corpus, 10.4), and two apparent “heretics” (Tatian, 4.16, and Rhodon, 5.13) and cites the works of two more “heretics” (Bardaisan, 4.30, and Symmachus, 6.16-17; cf. Basilides in 4.7). He also quotes works of unknown authorship (e.g. 1.13, 5.16, 5.28; cf. 6.12) as authoritative. This study shows that “orthodox” authorship was not a decisive criterion for Eusebius to write a voice into the church’s past. Instead, works without authoritative authors could provide “useful” (1.13, 4.29), “capable” (4.30), “accurate” (5.13), and “well-known” (6.16) voices.
I argue that Eusebius left these openings intentionally. Contrary to the usual representation of Eusebius’ History as a triumphalist “orthodox” anthology, I follow Johnson (2014: 169) and Johannessen (2016: 42, 202) in finding a cautious Eusebius who constructed “orthodoxy” tentatively, not triumphantly. Having watched his own model of “orthodox” practice, Origen, become controversial in his own lifetime, Eusebius not only subsumed his own, potentially divisive voice among others’, but exhibited a permeable canon of authors, in case subsequent controversies might demand discursive flexibility from the church.
Corke-Webster, James. 2019. Eusebius and Empire. Cambridge.
Johannessen, Hazel. 2016. The Demonic in the Policital Thought of Eusebius of Caesarea. Oxford.
Johnson, Aaron. 2014. Eusebius. I.B. Tauris.
Verdoner, Marie. 2010. Narrated Reality: the Historia ecclesiastica of Eusebius of Caesarea. Peter Lang.