Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 20 .

Greek οἰκονομία . Suicer ( Thesaurus Eccles. ) points out four uses of this word among ecclesiastical writers: (1) Ministerium Evangelii. (2) Providentia et numen (i.e. of God). (3) Naturæ humanæ assumtio. (4) Totius redemptionis mysterium et passionis Christi sacramentum. Valesius says, “The ancient Greeks use the word to denote whatever Christ did in the world to proclaim salvation for the human race, and thus the first οἰκονομία τοῦ χριστοῦ is the incarnation, as the last οἰκονομία is the passion.” The word in the present case is used in its wide sense to denote not simply the act of incarnation, but the whole economy or dispensation of Christ upon earth. See the notes of Heinichen upon this passage, Vol. III. p. 4 sq., and of Valesius, Vol. I. p. 2.

Five mss., followed by nearly all the editors of the Greek text and by the translators Stigloher and Crusè, read τοῦ θεοῦ after χριστόν . The words, however, are omitted by the majority of the best mss. and by Rufinus, followed by Heinichen and Closs. (See the note of Heinichen, Vol. I. p. 4).

All the mss. followed by the majority of the editors read εὐγνωμονῶν , which must agree with λόγος . Heinichen, however, followed by Burton, Schwegler, Closs, and Stigloher, read εὐγνωμόνων , which I have also accepted. Closs translates die Nachsicht der Kenner; Stigloher, wohlwollende Nachsicht. Crusè avoids the difficulty by omitting the word; an omission which is quite unwarranted.

Eusebius is rightly called the “Father of Church History.” He had no predecessors who wrote, as he did, with a comprehensive historical plan in view; and yet, as he tells us, much had been written of which he made good use in his History. The one who approached nearest to the idea of a Church historian was Hegesippus (see Bk. IV. chap. 22, note 1), but his writings were little more than fragmentary memoirs, or collections of disconnected reminiscences. For instance, Eusebius, in Bk. II. chap 23, quotes from his fifth and last book the account of the martyrdom of James the Just, which shows that his work lacked at least all chronological arrangement. Julius Africanus (see Bk. VI. chap. 31, note 1) also furnished Eusebius with much material in the line of chronology, and in his Chronicle Eusebius made free use of him. These are the only two who can in any sense be said to have preceded Eusebius in his province, and neither one can rob him of his right to be called the “Father of Church History.”

One of the greatest values of Eusebius’ History lies in the quotations which it contains from earlier ecclesiastical writers. The works of many of them are lost, and are known to us only through the extracts made by Eusebius. This fact alone is enough to make his History of inestimable worth.

On Eusebius’ Chronicle, see the Prolegomena, p. 31, above.

οἰκονομία . See above, note 2.

θεολογία . Suicer gives four meanings for this word: (1) Doctrina de Deo. (2) Doctrina de SS. Trinitate. (3) Divina Christi natura, seu doctrina de ea. (4) Scriptura sacra utriusque Testamenti. The word is used here in its third signification (cf. also chap. 2, §3, and Bk. V. chap. 28, §5). It occurs very frequently in the works of the Fathers with this meaning, especially in connection with οἰκονομία , which is then quite commonly used to denote the “human nature” of Christ. In the present chapter οἰκονομία keeps throughout its more general signification of “the Dispensation of Christ,” and is not confined to the mere act of incarnation, nor to his “human nature.”

νέαν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐκτετοπισμένην

This was one of the principal objections raised against Christianity. Antiquity was considered a prime requisite in a religion which claimed to be true, and no reproach was greater than the reproach of novelty. Hence the apologists laid great stress upon the antiquity of Christianity, and this was one reason why they appropriated the Old Testament as a Christian book. Compare, for instance, the apologies of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian and Minucius Felix, and the works of Clement of Alexandria. See Engelhardt’s article on Eusebius, in the Zeitschrift für die hist. Theologie , 1852, p. 652 sq.; Schaff’s Church History , Vol. II. p. 110; and Tzschirner’s Geschichte der Apologetik , p. 99 sq.

Isa. liii. 8 .

Cf. Matt. xi. 27

John i. 1 .

John i. 3 .

Gen. i. 26 .

Ps. xxxiii. 9 . There is really nothing in this passage to imply that the Psalmist thinks, as Eusebius supposes, of the Son as the Father’s agent in creation, who is here addressed by the Father. As Stroth remarks, “According to Eusebius, ‘He spake’ is equivalent to ‘He said to the Son, Create’; and ‘They were created’ means, according to him, not ‘They arose immediately upon this command of God,’ but ‘The Son was immediately obedient to the command of the Father and produced them.’ For Eusebius connects this verse with the sixth, ‘By the word of the Lord were the heavens made,’ where he understands Christ to be referred to. Perhaps this verse has been omitted in the Greek through an oversight, for it is found in Rufinus.”

See Gen. xviii. 1 sq.

Gen. xviii. 25 .

Eusebius accepts the common view of the early Church, that the theophanies of the Old Testament were Christophanies; that is, appearances of the second person of the Trinity. Augustine seems to have been the first of the Fathers to take a different view, maintaining that such Christophanies were not consistent with the identity of essence between Father and Son, and that the Scriptures themselves teach that it was not the Logos, but an angel, that appeared to the Old Testament worthies on various occasions (cf. De Trin. III. 11). Augustine’s opinion was widely adopted, but in modern times the earlier view, which Eusebius represents, has been the prevailing one (see Hodge, Systematic Theology , I. p. 490, and Lange’s article Theophany in Herzog).

Ps. cvii. 20 .

Gen. xix. 24 .

Gen. xxxii. 28 .

εἶδος θεοῦ .

Gen. xxxii. 30 .

The mss. differ greatly at this point. A number of them followed by Valesius, Closs, and Crusè, read, ὡσανεὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑπ€ρχοντα δύναμιν καὶ σοφίαν . Schwegler, Laemmer, Burton, and Heinichen adopt another reading which has some ms. support, and which we have followed in our translation: ὡσανεὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὕπαρχον . See Heinichen’s edition, Vol. 1. p. 10, note 41.

ἐν ῾Ιεριχὼ .

Josh. v. 13–15

Eusebius agrees with other earlier Fathers (e.g. Justin Martyr, Origen, and Cyprian) in identifying the one that appeared to Joshua with him that had appeared to Moses, on the ground that the same words were used in both cases (cf. especially Justin’s Dial. c. Trypho , chap. 62). Many later Fathers (e.g. Theodoret) regard the person that appeared to Joshua as the archangel Michael, who is described by Daniel (x. 21 and xii. 1 ) as fighting for the people of God. See Keil’s Commentary on Joshua, chap. 5, vv. 13–15.

Ex. iii. 4–6 . Cf. Justin’s Dial ., chap. 63.

οὐσία τις προκόσμιος ζῶσα καὶ ὑφεστῶσα .

Prov. viii. 12, 15, 16 .

τῆς ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν , with all the mss. and the LXX., followed by Schwegler, Burton, Heinichen, and others. Some editors, in agreement with the version of Rufinus ( fontes sub cœlo ), read τὰς ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν . Closs, Stigloher, and Crusè translate in the same way.

Prov. viii. 22–25 , 27, 28, 30, 31

Eusebius pursues much the same line of argument in his Dem. Evang ., Prœm. Bk. VIII.; and compare also Gregory of Nyssa’s Third Oration on the birth of the Lord (at the beginning). The objection which Eusebius undertakes to answer here was an old one, and had been considered by Justin Martyr, by Origen in his work against Celsus, and by others (see Tzschirner’s Geschichte der Apologetik, p. 25 ff.).

The reference here seems to be to the building of the tower of Babel ( Gen. xi. 1–9 ), although Valesius thinks otherwise. The fact that Eusebius refers to the battles of the giants, which were celebrated in heathen song, does not militate against a reference in this passage to the narrative recounted in Genesis. He illustrates the presumption of the human race by instances familiar to his readers whether drawn from Christian or from Pagan sources. Compare the Præp. Evang . ix. 14.

It was the opinion of Eusebius, in common with most of the Fathers, that the Greek philosophers, lawgivers, and poets had obtained their wisdom from the ancient Hebrews, and this point was pressed very strongly by many of the apologists in their effort to prove the antiquity of Christianity. The assertion was made especially in the case of Plato and Pythagoras, who were said to have become acquainted with the books of the Hebrews upon their journey to Egypt. Compare among other passages Justin’s Apol . I. 59 ff.; Clement of Alexandria’s Cohort. ad Gentes , chap. 6; and Tertullian’s Apol. chap. 47. Compare also Eusebius’ Præp. Evang., Bks. IX. and X.

The Greek has only ἐπὶ τέλει , which can refer, however, only to the end of time or to the end of the world.

Dan. vii. 9, 10 .

Dan. vii. 13, 14 .

Eusebius refers here probably to his Eclogæ propheticæ , or Prophetical Extracts, possibly to his Dem. Evang.; upon these works see the Prolegomena, p. 34 and. 37, above.

Compare the Dem. Evang. iv. 17.

Ex. xxv. 40 .

“Eusebius here has in mind the passages Lev. iv. 5, 16 , and Lev. vi. 22 , where the LXX. reads ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ χριστός : The priest, the anointed one ” (Closs). The Authorized Version reads, The priest that was anointed; the Revised Version, The anointed priest.

A few mss. , followed by Laemmer and Heinichen, read here Ναυῇ , but the best mss. followed by the majority of editors read ᾽ Αυσῇ , which is a corruption of the name Oshea, which means “Salvation,” and which Joshua bore before his name was changed, by the addition of a syllable, to Jehoshua=Joshua=Jesus, meaning “God’s salvation” ( Num. xiii. 16 ). Jerome ( de vir. ill. c. I.) speaks of this corruption as existing in Greek and Latin mss. of the Scriptures, and as having no sense, and contends that Osee is the proper form, Osee meaning “Salvator.” The same corruption (Auses) occurs also in Tertullian, Adv. Marc. iii. 16, and Adv. Jud. 9 (where the English translator, as Crusè also does in the present passage, in both cases departs from the original, and renders ‘Oshea,’ Ante-Nicene Fathers , Am. Ed. III. p. 334, 335, and 163), and in Lactantius, Institutes , iv. 17.

Lam. iv. 20 .

Ps. ii. 1, 2 .

Ps. ii. 7, 8 .

Isa. lxi. 1 . Eusebius as usual follows the LXX., which in this case differs somewhat from the Hebrew, and hence the translation differs from the English version. The LXX., however, contains an extra clause which Eusebius omits. See Heinichen’s edition, Vol. I. p. 21, note 49.

Ps. xlv. 6, 7 .

Ps. cx. 1 .

Ps. cx. 4 .

See Gen. xiv. 18; Heb. v. 6, 10; vi. 20; viii .

Eusebius, in this chapter and in the Dem. Evang. IV. 15, is the first of the Fathers to mention the three offices of Christ.

Cf. Tertullian, Apol. XXXVII. ( Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed. Vol. III. p. 45).

Isa. lxvi. 8 .

Isa. lxv. 15, 16 .

Compare Justin Martyr’s Apol. I. 46.

1 Chron. xvi. 22 , and Ps. cv. 15 .

Gen. xv. 6 .

Gen. xii. 3 .

Gen. xviii. 18 .

Eusebius here makes the reign of Augustus begin with the death of Julius Cæsar (as Josephus does in chap. 9, §1, below), and he puts the birth of Christ therefore into the year 752 U.C. (2 b.c. ), which agrees with Clement of Alexandria’s Strom. I. (who gives the twenty-eighth year after the conquest of Egypt as the birth-year of Christ), with Epiphanius, Hær. LI. 22, and Orosius, Hist. I. 1. Eusebius gives the same date also in his Chron. (ed. Schœne, II. p. 144). Irenæus, III. 25, and Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 8, on the other hand, give the forty-first year of Augustus,