Audio Series: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History

 

From X post:

Back in 2019-2020 I did a 126-part audio series of unabridged readings through all 10 books of Eusebius' *Ecclesiastical History* and offering a brief commentary and notes on each section read.

I was reminded of the series when I got this encouraging email from a listener yesterday:

Hello Pastor Riddle,

I am sending this note to thank you for recording Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History.  I recently completed the series and it was so nice to be able to listen when I had time, usually in the car.  Your notes and commentary at the end were extra helpful to pull everything together at the end of each episode and made the material much more meaningful and memorable.

If interested you can find the series here.

JTR

WM 284: Eusebian Canons, Mark's Ending, Mark 15:28, & Luke 23:34a

 

Notes for this episode:

The Eusebian Canons:

In this episode I want to make a few brief comments drawn from my recent reading through Francis Watson’s The Fourfold Gospel: A Theological Reading of the New Testament Portraits of Jesus (Baker Academic, 2016).

As the subtitle indicates, this volume offers a series of theological reflections on the four Gospels and their relationship to one another. The author is a mainstream NT scholar at Durham University with whom I certainly do not agree on everything, but the book still provides many helpful insights.

One aspect of the book that is rather unique is the fact that in the second half, Watson gives emphasis to how the Eusebian canons give insight into ancient understandings and interpretations of the fourfold Gospel.

The Eusebian canons were composed by Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-c. 340), the “father of church history,” best known for his Ecclesiastical History, and it was among the earliest attempts to provide a cross-referencing system and a harmony among the four Gospels, long before the development of modern printed Bibles with their chapter and verse divisions and in-text cross-references.

Eusebius had adapted his canons from an even earlier one composed by Ammonius of Alexandria.

These canons appeared in mss. (Greek and versions) for about a thousand years.

The canons are included in the front matter of the NA 28, along with Eusebius’s Epistle to Carpianus (in Greek) which introduces the layout of the canons.

There are 10 separate canons which group various passages in the Gospels along with their parallels. Canon I has passages that appear in all four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John); Canon II has passages that appear in the first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke); etc. The final Canon X consists of four sub-canons which list passages that are unique to each individual Gospel.

Then, in the text of the NA 28, references to these canons are listed on the inside margin of each page with two numbers (top and bottom). The top number provides a sequential reference for the passage and the bottom number provides the reference to the canon where the passage is located.

It seems there has been a revival of interest in these canons and in examination even of how they influenced early Christian reception and interpretation of the Fourfold Gospel. Some are even giving credit to Eusebius and his canons for solidifying the canonical consensus on the fourfold Gospel.

For a very recent work on this subject, see Jeremiah Coogan’s Eusebius the Evangelist; Rewriting the Fourfold Gospel in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2023).

The Eusebian Canons and the Ending of Mark:

If you have ever done any research or study relating to the traditional ending of Mark, you have probably heard as one of the arguments against its authenticity is that it is not included in the Eusebian canons.

We know that Eusebius was well aware of controversy over the ending of Mark. One key evidence of this is his Letter to Marinus in which he discusses the fact that the ending is disputed by some. Interestingly enough, he says that the source of the controversy had to do with harmonizing Matthew and Mark with respect to the timing of the resurrection (Matt 28:1 “at the end of the Sabbath” and Mark 16:2 “And when the sabbath was past” and Mark 16:9 “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week”).

This letter is the first hint of controversy over the TE that lasts till c. 500. Clearly the TE was known from earliest times (see its citation in Irenaeus’s Against Heresies).

So, the absence of the TE in Eusebius’ canons is given as an argument against its authenticity, though it is ironic that these canons appear in various Greek and versional mss. which nonetheless include the TE.

The Eusebian Canons and other disputed passages:

The thing that struck me in reading Watson is the fact that he points out that the Eusebian canons make reference to several passages whose authenticity is challenged by modern critics.

Here are two examples:

The first is Mark 15:28 “And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors” and its citation of Isaiah 53:12.

This verse is removed from the modern critical text on the assumption that it is harmonization with Luke 22:37 “For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.”

Watson points out, however, that Mark 15:28 is listed in Canon VIII which shows parallels between Mark and Luke. So Mark 15:28 is listed as 216/VIII and Luke 22:37 as 277/VIII.

This is not to say that Watson accepts the authenticity of Mark 15:28. He thinks it is “transplanted” from Luke (154). Still, it is striking that the Eusebian canons are a witness in favor of inclusion.

The second is Christ’s intercessory prayer in Luke 23:34a, “Father, forgiven them; for they know not what they do.” I did a talk on this passage last year for the TBS in London.

Watson points out that this passage is present in the Eusebian canons listed as 320/X. He observes, “Although the passage is missing from some early manuscripts and may be a later insertion, it was present in Eusebius’ text and is identified in his analysis as a passage unique to Luke” (156). Watson further notes that this prayer fits thematically with earlier teaching of Jesus in Luke, including love of enemy (156).

Concluding Thoughts:

I was really intrigued by Watson’s insights on what the Eusebian canons reveal to us about ancient understandings of the Gospels.

I am no expert on the canons, but I think it would be interesting do further study see what other “disputed” passages appear in the canons.

Given the information in the Letter to Marinus it is unsurprising that Mark 16:9-20 is not labelled in the canons.

It seems, however, that the evidence from the canons has not always been consistently used by some scholars and apologists. Though I have heard many cite the absence of Mark 16:9-20 from the canons to justify a verdict of that passage’s secondary nature, I have not heard those same scholars make reference to the presence of passages like Mark 15:28 and Luke 23:34a in the canons to justify the conclusion that those passages are original and authentic (though, as noted, Watson seems to lean that way with regard to Luke 23:34a).

JTR

WM 280: Debunking the anecdote that Sinaiticus & Vaticanus were "de luxe" copies ordered by Constantine

 

Notes:

First: The legend articulated:

Background to the legend: Eusebius, The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, 4.36-37.

The legend promoted: See Fragments of Truth video (42:29).

Second: Three Reasons the legend is NOT true.

First: There is no explicit evidence that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were among the “de luxe” copies mentioned by Eusebius. There are certainly no indications of this in the mss. themselves.

Second: According to Eusebius, the copies ordered by Constantine were for the church in and around Constantinople.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, however, are both generally associated with Egypt.

To use now outdated text-type language. Copies made in Constantinople would most likely have reflected the “Byzantine” text and not the “Alexandrian” text.

Third: There are numerous differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which would be unlikely if they had been among these works that were made to order.

Dean John Burgon in The Revision Revised (1881) noted thousands of differences between the two manuscripts in the Gospels alone (see this article).

There is even a significant difference in the ordering of the books. Sinaiticus places Acts after the Pauline letters and before the General epistles, while Vaticanus places Acts after the Gospels and before the Pauline epistles.

Three: This legend has long-been discounted even by mainstream scholars.

See:

Bruce Metzger, The Text of the NT: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (1964): 7-8.

D. C. Parker, Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible (2010): 19-22.

Conclusion:

Clearly, this scholarly legend has been fabricated by some to promote a level of prestige and acceptance of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as premiere authorities.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.10.6-7: Constantine's Largess to Christians of Africa

 

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 10, chapter 6-7.

Notes and Commentary:

These chapters present two more imperial letters (one each respectively) relating to privileges being granted to Christians following the end of persecution against them.

Chapter 6 provides a copy of a letter from Constantine to Caecilian bishop of Carthage, in which he informs the bishop that he has ordered three thousand folles be given to the churches. Oulton notes: “The follis was originally a small bag of coins, but afterwards came to denote a coin itself, the double denarius” (461, n. 2). He also tells Caecilian that if he has any trouble from any in his government who oppose the Christians he should go to Anulinus, the proconsul, and Patricius, the “Vicar of the Prefects,” to report this.

Chapter 7 is a letter from the emperor to Anulinus, proconsul of Africa, in which he orders Anulinus, that the “presidents of the church” (“clerics”) “be kept absolutely free from public offices” so that they can devote their time to performing the worship services of God, in which “they confer incalculable benefit on the affairs of the State.”

Conclusion:

These chapters continue to show the benefits and privileges that came to Christians during the rule of Constantine. We might paraphrase a line from song in the musical Hamilton, “It must be nice to have Constantine on your side.” In the long run, this will prove to be something of a mixed blessing for Christians. They were freed from persecution, but we see their affairs becoming entangled with the state.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.10.5: The Edict of Milan

 

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 10, chapter 5.

Notes and Commentary:

This chapter contains four important ordinances and letters, translated from the original Latin into Greek, from the emperors Constantine and Licinius relating to the Christians.

The first is known as “The Edict of Milan” (313). It grants freedom of worship not only to Christians but to all Romans. It explicitly states, “we have granted to these same Christians free and unrestricted authority to observe their own form of worship.”

It also stipulates that any property (like churches) taken from the Christians without compensation should be freely restored to them.

The second is an ordinance addressed to Anulinus, proconsul of Africa. It stipulates that property taken from the churches be restored to them, “whether gardens or building or whatsoever belonged to these churches by right.”

The third is an imperial letter from Constantine to Miltiades, bishop of Rome, and to one named Mark. It calls for a synod or meeting of bishops in Rome to address controversy relating to Caecilian, bishop of Carthage, and to assure that there is no schism in the church. Oulton explains that this referred to the so-called Donatist controversy that was arising in Africa: “The Donatists (so called from a bishop of theirs, Donatus) alleged that Caecilian had been consecrated by a bishop (Felix) who in the Diocletian persecution had proved himself a traditor, i.e., had surrendered up Scriptures to the pagan authorities. Hence they held that Caecilian’s consecration was invalid; and by appointing a bishop of their own in his stead began what is known as the Donatist schism” (454-455, n. 1).

The fourth is an imperial letter from Constantine to Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse, relating to the Council of Arles (314). It calls for a synod of bishops to meet in Arles by the Kalends of August (the first day of August). The purpose of the meeting was to continue to address problems relating to the Donatus schism.

Conclusion:

This chapter provides an important historical record of the religious freedom that came to the Christians (and pagans also) under Constantine with the Edict of Milan. It also gives insight into the rise of the Donatist controversy and of imperial intervention into the life of the church to address schism. The Council of Arles (314) will be a forerunner to the Council of Nicea (325).

JTR

Eusebius, EH.10.4 (part three): The Panegyric of Eusebius (part three)

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 10, chapter 4 (part three).

Notes and Commentary:

This section continues and completes the lengthy chapter 4 which records the Panegyric of Eusebius dedicated to Paulinus of Tyre at the end of persecution under the tyrants and the rise of Emperors sympathetic to the Christians.

The occasion of the Panegyric is the dedication of a magnificently restored and expanded church building.

This final part begins by continuing a comparison between the physical restoration of the building and the spiritual restoration of the people.

Eusebius notes, with thanksgiving, how God first raised up the Emperors (Constantine and Licinius), “dearly beloved of God” in order to cleanse “the whole world of all the wicked and baneful persons and of the cruel God-hating tyrants themselves.” Next, he raised up his disciples, including the church leaders, whom he had secretly concealed from the storm of persecution.

Eusebius takes up a spiritual allegory using the idea of locations of various persons in the church building to describe how God had “duly divided the whole people according to their several abilities.” Some were at the entrances. Others were at the pillars becoming acquainted with “the letter of the four Gospels.” Still others were on the inside taking in “the innermost mystic teachings of the Scriptures.” The whole temple was adorned with “a single, mighty gateway”, the praise of God.

He also describes Christ as being the “unique altar” and as standing by it as “the great High Priest of the universe.” The Word has created not only this temple but the whole universe.

He closes the panegyric with a call to worship “the Author of the present assembly … even the Ruler of the Assembly Himself.”

Conclusion:

This final part concludes this lengthy speech that comprises EH 10.4. Eusebius continues to celebrate and give thanks to God for the removal of the tyrants and their replacement by the sympathetic emperors. We also see his use of spiritual allegory in taking the dedication of the restored building to describe the restoration of the Christian community with Christ, as their altar, in the center.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.10.4 (part two): The Panegyric of Eusebius (part two)

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 10, chapter 4 (part two).

Notes and Commentary:

This section continues the lengthy chapter 4 which records the Panegyric of Eusebius dedicated to Paulinus of Tyre at the end of persecution under the tyrants and the rise of Emperors sympathetic to the Christians.

In this section Eusebius recalls the pagan attacks on the Christians, and especially how the “books [no doubt, including Bibles] they destroyed and set on fire the sanctuary of God” adding “they profaned the dwelling place of His name to the ground.”

He also notes that this trial served as divine chastisement for the church, as discipline from “a careful father.” The end result was that the church emerged even stronger.

Paulinus is also highly praised as “our new and goodly Zerubbabel.” Taking Christ as his “Ally and Fellow-worker”, who alone can quicken the dead, Eusebius says that Paulinus “raised up her who had fallen.”

Eusebius next gives a detailed description of the church building that had been restored by Paulinus. It was built on the foundations of the previous building and expanded. Oulton calls this “the earliest account that we possess of the structure and furniture of a Christian church” (421, n. 2).

He begins by describing an outer porch, “great and raised aloft,” so that “even strangers to the faith” could gaze inside. The building thus served as an “evangelistic” tool to encourage pagans to enter. Between the entrance and the temple were “four traverse colonnades, fending the place into a kind of quadrangular figure.” An open space let in the sun and fresh air and fountains supplied “copious streams of flowing water.”

Within the temple were the “innermost porches,” adorned with “rich materials” including “costly cedars.” One entered through three gates, the central one of which was larger and ornately decorated.

The building was ordered with “perfect wisdom and art” leaving those who saw it in awe of “the surpassing beauty of every part.”

The temple was also fitted with thrones, “very lofty, to do honour unto the presidents”, and with benches.

In the midst was the “holy of holies,” an altar, protected “with a fence of wooden lattice-work.”

The pavement was of “fair marble.” Various chambers and buildings were also erected outside the temple.

After the description of the church building, Eusebius says its beauty is fitting since Christ had taken the church (both people and building) and changed its “foul body” into “His splendid and glorious body.” This also anticipated what will happen at the resurrection, when believers receive their glorious resurrection bodies.

Conclusion:

This panegyric is essentially a building dedication speech or sermon. As Oulton points out it serves as the earliest written description of an early Christian church building. Whereas, according to the book of Acts and the letters of Paul, the church of the first century met in the homes of believers or in rented school buildings (cf., e.g., Acts 18:7-8; 19:9; Rom 16:5) the Christian movement of the early fourth century meets in spacious and prominent public buildings. The church building is described in terms taken from the OT temple. There is a strong emphasis on the pleasing aesthetics of the architecture of the building. The early Christians are concerned that their churches be places of beauty and order. They are taking a new place in the Roman public square.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.10.4 (part one): The Panegyric of Eusebius (part one)

 

Eusebius, EH.10.1-3: The Triumph of Christianity

  

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 10, chapters 1-3.

Notes and Commentary:

Chapter 1 of book 10 begins with an expression of thanksgiving to God for bringing an end to the persecution against the church and the restoration of peace.

Eusebius dedicates the entire Ecclesiastical History to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre. Oulton notes that he also dedicated his work Onamasticon to Paulinus, whom he admired greatly.

He expresses his intention to lift up a panegyric (discourse of praise) to God in this closing book, in light of the removal of enemies of the churches of Christ.

Chapter 2 notes that whereas all men had reason to rejoice at the fall of the tyrants, the Christians had even more cause for rejoicing. They were revived after a time of destruction and were able to build temples to boundless heights.

The emperors issued enactments on behalf of the Christians and the bishops received personal letters and gifts (including money).

Chapter 3 begins by noting in particular the dedications of new houses of prayer and the free assemblages of bishops coming together from many lands that were now able to take place. The Christians enjoyed great unity as they came together in worship and the leaders offered “panegyrical orations.”

Conclusion:

The tone of these opening chapters of book 10 is indeed celebratory as Eusebius notes the fall of the tyrants Maxentius and Maximin at the hands of Constantine and Licinius. These chapters anticipate Eusebius’s own extended panegyric, dedicated to Paulinus, which will follow in the next chapter.

JTR

Eusebius of Caesarea, EH.9.10-11: The Fall of Maximin the Tyrant

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 9, Chapters 10-11.

Notes and Commentary:

These final chapters describe the fall of Maximin the Tyrant of the East and enemy of the Christians.

Chapter 10 notes how Maximin came into conflict with Constantine and Licinius, which resulted in war between his forces and those of Licinius.

In the opening battle Maximin was defeated and in an act of unmanly cowardice divested himself of the imperial insignia and escaped to safety by slipping into the crowd.

Attempting to regroup, Maximin issued a decree giving full liberty to the Christians. Eusebius cites a Greek translation of the Latin original of this decree. In it, the tyrant claimed that he had instructed his governors to be lenient with the Christians, but some had misinterpreted and misapplied his instructions. He further ordered that Christians should be free to observe their religion and to build “the Lord’s houses.” He also decreed that any confiscated land be returned to them.

Eusebius notes that this order came less than a year after Maximin’s ordinances against Christians which were set up on tablets.

Not long after this, Maximin was smitten by a stroke of God. His body was consumed by “an invisible, divinely-sent fire,” till he was reduced to little more than a skeleton. His eyes fell out of his sockets, blinding him. With his last breath he acknowledged that this punishment had come upon him justly for this maltreatment of the Christians.

Chapter 11 describes the aftermath of Maximin’s death. Statues of the tyrant were smashed and portraits defaced. His high government officials, men who had led the persecution of Christians, were executed, including Peucetius and Culcianus. When Licinius came to Antioch he tortured and put to death Theotecnus and his associates. Finally, Maximin’s sons were also put to death.

Conclusion:

Book 9 ends with the fall of Maximin the tyrant of the East, the persecutor and enemy of the Christians. His horrific death and the death of those associated with him shows the justice of God. It assures the reader that those who oppress believers will be given retribution according to the justice of God.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.9.9: Constantine Defeats the Tyrant Maxentius

  

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 9, chapter 9.

Notes and Commentary:

This chapter describes the beginning of the dissolution of the Roman Tetrarchy with the rise of Constantine and Licinius against the tyrants, Maxentius (in the West) and Maximin (in the East), a process which would eventually result in Constantine’s consolidation of power as sole emperor and his tolerance and favor extended to Christians.

Eusebius suggests that Constantine and Licinius, “both honored for their understanding and piety”, were driven by divine providence to oppose the tyrants, noting that Licanius would also eventually “become mad.”

He describes how Constantine came with full force through Italy to liberate the city of Rome from tyranny. Maxentius and his forces met Constantine at a bridge made by the joining of boats (The Battle of Milvian Bridge, October 28, 312). The bridge collapsed and Maxentius and his men were drowned and defeated. Eusebius is quick to draw a parallel to Moses’s victory over the Egyptians at the Red Sea: “the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea” (Exod 15:1).

Constantine then entered Rome in triumph. He ordered a statue be set up with him holding a cross (“a memorial of the Savior’s passion”) in his right hand, bearing, in part, the inscription, “By this salutary sign, the true proof of bravery, I saved and delivered your city from the yoke of the tyrant….”

Note: Though not mentioned here, in his Life of Constantine, Eusebius says that before the battle Constantine had a vision of the cross in heaven with the inscription, “In this sign conquer” (Vita Constantini, 1.28).

After this victory, Constantine and Licinius issued “a most perfect law in the fullest terms on behalf of the Christians.”

Maximin, the tyrant of the East, still standing and seeing the shifting of circumstances, issued an epistle, quoted by Eusebius, attempting to spin himself as having been tolerant of the Christians, despite his previous edicts against them.

According to Eusebius, reading this epistle, no one saw Maximin as truthful or trustworthy. The Christians did not yet dare to assemble in public, sensing that Maximin, a “monster of iniquity,” was resolved not to offer them toleration.

Conclusion:

Eusebius presents the rise of Constantine as the beginning of the end of persecution against the Christians. One tyrant (Maxentius) was disposed and one more remained to be disposed (Maximin). Hope is on the horizon.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.9.8: Famine, Pestilence, and War

 

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 9, chapter 8.

Notes and Commentary:

This chapter describes a time of famine, plague, and war that came after the renewal of persecution of the Christians under the tyrant Maximin.

First, there was a drought that led to an unexpected famine and after that a plague. Eusebius says the plague came in the form of a fiery ulcer, which he describes as an anthrax. It especially attacked the eyes and blinded many.

In addition to famine and plague there was also war, as the tyrant attacked the Armenians, formerly ancient allies of the Romans who had embraced Christianity.

Eusebius sees all these events as divine retribution against the boasting of the tyrant against God and the faith, since he had claimed that his worship of the gods would protect him from such calamities.

The population greatly suffered during this time with widespread starvation due to the famine. Dead bodies piled up in the marketplaces and alleys.

The plague came on top of this so that in every place was “full of lamentations.” Funerals were constantly held, with burials carried out for two or three at a time.

So through the “two weapons”, famine and pestilence, death was visited on many.

What is more, during this time, the Christians once again distinguished themselves from the pagans by their exercise of “sympathy and humanity.” They cared for the dead and dying and shared their bread with others, so that even the pagans took notice and “glorified the God of the Christians.”

Again, Eusebius sees all this as the providential hand of God. From a thick darkness, “the heavenly Champion of the Christians” caused “the light of peace” to shine upon them.

Conclusion:

Eusebius in this chapter not only describes the further sufferings that came in the wake of the renewal of persecution but interprets these events as divine judgment on the persecutors. It is noteworthy that Eusebius says the Christians were particularly praised for their ethics. Soon the suffering would end and Christianity would be embraced and triumph in the Roman world.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.9.5-7: Forged Memoirs and Martyrs

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 9, chapter 5-7.

Notes and Commentary:

These chapters describe the renewal of persecution against Christians under the tyrant Maximin.

Chapter 5 describes a forged memoir concerning Pilate that blasphemed Christ. The pagans widely distributed this false report and required teachers in schools to review it with their young students.

It is also relayed that a commander or dux compelled certain “infamous women” to claim to be former Christians and to spread false stories of lewd practices in the churches, which Maximin recorded in documents that were then widely published.

Chapter 6 begins by noting that this dux eventually paid for his sin by taking his own life.

Meanwhile, however, the persecution only increased.

Three were put to death in Emessa of Phoenicia, given to wild beasts, including Silvanus who had served as bishop for 40 years.

Peter of Alexandria was beheaded, alongside other Egyptian bishops.

Lucian, the presbyter of Antioch, stood before the emperor at Nicomedia, was imprisoned, and then put to death.

Maximin’s zeal made this persecution seem worse than the first.

Chapter 7 notes how Maximin set up brazen tablets in the cities describing petitions against the Christians and his ordinances in reply against them. All the while, children in the schools were still being taught from the forged memoirs regarding Pilate and Jesus.

Eusebius provides a translation of one of the ordinances posted at Tyre from Maximin, “the hater of God”, against Christians, in response to public petitions. In this tablet he commends the pagans for continuing to worship the immortal gods rather than be deceived by the Christians. He asserts that they will be protected and rewarded by Zeus for this. Those, like Christians, who fail to worship the gods put the city as risk for the failure of crops, defeat in war, and suffering under storms.

Such tablets were posted in every city and gloom came over the Christians. Just when the believers were about to despair, however, God, “the Champion of His own Church”, intervened.

Conclusion:

The respite from the Diocletian persecution was short-lived. The reputations of Christians were smeared by false reports and even through indoctrination of children in school. Pagans were blaming Christians for things like crop failures, wars, and storms, because they did not worship the gods. Though disheartening, the believers endured and relief was just around the corner.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.9.2-4: Paganism Strikes Back

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 9, chapter 2-4.

Notes and Commentary:

These chapters describe a renewal of persecution which took place at the instigation of Maximin, the tyrant of the East.

Chapter 2 reports that Maximin, hater of the good and plotter against virtuous men, attempted various devises to overturn the peace and tolerance extended to the Christians. He attempted to bar Christians from gathering in cemeteries, where they were apparently assembling to commemorate the martyrs. He also tried to stir up resistance to Christians in Antioch, along with the curator Theotecnus (whose name ironically means “child of God”). Eusebius describes him as “a clever cheat, and an evil man, quite unlike his name.”

Chapter 3 describes Theoctenus’s anti-Christian efforts in Antioch. He erected there a statue to Zeus, “the Befriender”, in an apparent effort to defend or restore paganism, as well as to court the favor of Maximin, and made use of various occult means to declare that this god had ordered the removal of Christians from the city and its borders.

Chapter 4 adds that when other governors saw that this was pleasing to the tyrant, they followed suit, and persecution was rekindled. Maximin appointed priests to and high priests to serve with great zeal the images erected in each city.

Conclusion:

These chapters tell us how resistance to the Christian movement continued under the tyrant Maximin and under local rulers, like Theotecnus of Antioch, even after the official end of the Diocletian persecution.  These descriptions are particularly interesting in that they seem to reflect an effort by the devotees of the pagan religions to reassert their dominance and win back the populace from the appeal of the Christian sect.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.9.1: Christian Joy at the End of the Diocletian Persecution

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 9, chapter 1.

Notes and Commentary:

This opening chapter of book 9 describes the initial joy among Christians that met the announcement of the ending of the Diocletian persecution.

Eusebius begins by noting that Maximin “the tyrant of the East” and “monster of impiety” was not pleased with the order but only begrudgingly complied with it. In fact, he did not publish the imperial edict but only orally communicated to those under him.

An epistle, translated from its original Latin, from the prefect Sabinusis is cited. This noted announced the imperial decision to the provincial governors, stating that Christians were to be “free from molestation” and “from danger.”

Christians were then released from prisons and from the mines. The churches were thronged in every city with large assemblies, at which the pagans marveled, and many extolled their God to be true.

Those who has remained faithful continued in confidence. Those who had wavered “eagerly strove for their own healing.”

It is especially noted that the “noble champions of godliness” returned to their homes from the mines where they had been enslaved “proudly and joyously.” Crowds of men passed through the streets and marketplaces praising God with songs and psalms. Even those who had persecuted the believers rejoiced with them.

Conclusion:

Eusebius provides an effusive description of the joy with which the Christians celebrated the end of the Diocletian persecution. The remaining antipathy of the tryant Maximin toward Christians, however, indicates the fact that there were still those who were hostile against them and foreshadows opposition that was still to come.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.8.16-17 & Appendix: The End of the Diocletian Persecution

 

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 8, chapter 16-17 & Appendix to book 8.

Notes and Commentary:

Chapter 16 describes how the great Diocletian persecution began to lessen by the eighth year and came to an end in the tenth year.

This change did not come about due to “human agency” or “pity” or from the “humanity of the rulers.” Instead it came about by divine providence.

One sign of this was that Galerius, the cruel emperor and “chief author” of the persecution, was stricken by an illness which began an an ulcer and wasted his inward parts, bringing forth worms and a terrible stench. The suffering described here is reminiscent of Herod’s illness in Acts 12:23.

Chapter 17 describes how Galerius became conscience-stricken for his cruel deeds and decided to command the persecution against Christians to cease. It includes a copy of this decree, translated from Latin to Greek allowing, “that the Christians may exist again and build the houses in which they assemble, always provided they do nothing contrary to order.”

In the Appendix found in the AER manuscript tradition, more information is added as to the fate of the four men who served as the Tetrarchy and under whom the persecution had begun.

It is noted that Galerius, who held last place among the four tetrarchs, died from his illness and that he had been the chief villain in the persecutions.

Diocletian had held the chief honor in the tetrarchy [thus we call it the Diocletian persecution] but retired from public life and eventually fell under painful bodily infirmity.

The one who held second place was Maximian whose life ended by strangling.

The tetrarch in third place had been Constantius [father of Constantine] and he is praised as the only who lived a noble life and who did not persecute Christians or tear down their churches.

One begins to see this as a bit of Constantinian propaganda.

Conclusion:

These chapter describes the welcomed end of the Diocletian persecution and stresses the divine providential care for the church in ending the suffering.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.8.13: Church Leaders Martyred During the Diocletian Persecution

Image: Martyrdom of Anthimus of Nicomedia and others, Miniature from the Menologion of Basil II, c. AD 1,000.

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 8, chapter 13.

Notes and Commentary:

This chapter begins by listing the various rulers of the churches who became martyrs during the Diocletian persecution.

First in the list is Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia, who was beheaded.

Others include the presbyter Lucian of Antioch;

Tyrannion, bishop of Tyre;

Zenobius, presbyter of Sidon;

Silvanus, bishop of Emesa;

Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, beheaded at the copper mines at Phaeno, one of 39 martyrs there;

Peleus and Nilus, bishops of Egypt;

Pamphylius, presbyter of Caesarea, whom Eusebius describes as “the most marvelous man of our day”;

Peter, bishop of Alexandria;

Phileas, Hesychius, Pachymius, and Theodore, bishops of Egypt.

To these could be added “countless other famous persons as well.” Eusebius promises to write more in another work.

The chapter then turns to discuss the Roman government. This is typical of Eusebius, to parallel descriptions of church and imperial leaders.

He notes that before the time of persecution, the Christians had enjoyed peace and prosperity.

Reference is made to the so-called Tetrarchy, set up by Diocletian, in which power was shared between Diocletian and Maximin, as emperors, and Galerius and Constantius Chlorus, as Caesars.

It was under the Tetrarchy that the persecution had begun in 303, and which would last a decade till 313.

Eusebius notes that Diocletian fell under a “fateful disease” and became “deranged”, and this resulted in him resuming life as a private citizen in 306.

According to Eusebius, of the Tetrarchs, only Constantius (father of Constantine) lived “in a manner worthy of his high office” and did not persecute the Christians or tear down their churches, but even protected them.

His son Constantine was made emperor (one of the Tetrarch) after his death “by God Himself, the King Supreme.”

The chapter closes with reference to the later struggle for power between Constantine, Licinius, and Maximin, which resulted in the deposition and death of Maximin and the removal of his public monuments and memorials.

Conclusion:

In this chapter Eusebius honors the church leaders who died as martyrs during the Diocletian persecution (303-313). He also describes the rise of Constantine to imperial power, providing a perhaps overly positive portrayal of Constantine’s father Constantius, and noting the rise of Constantine as divinely orchestrated.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.8.11-12: Universal and Brutal Suffering in the Diocletian Persecution

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 8, chapter 11-12.

Notes and Commentary:

These chapters continue to report on the godly martyrs who laid down their lives during the Diocletian persecution.

Chapter 11 begins by describing an unnamed small town in Phyrgia, where, Eusebius, says all the inhabitants were Christians, including the city officials. The Roman soldiers set fire to the town and burned the inhabitants alive, including young children and women.

It next notes the martyrdom of a certain Audactus, “a man of illustrious Italian birth,” who at the time he was put to death was serving as a magistrate and minister of finance in some unnamed locality.

Chapter 12 traces the gruesome sufferings of other Christians throughout the Roman world.

In Arabia they were slain with the axe.

In Cappadocia, their legs were broken.

In Mesopotamia, they were hung over smoking fires.

In Alexandria, they were mutilated.

In Antioch, they were roasted on the gridiron.

Eusebius notes that some in Antioch took their own lives by jumping off lofty houses before they could be seized.

As another example of this he describes a noble woman of Antioch and her two unmarried daughters who were captured in a foreign country and were being transported back to Antioch. At risk of being violated by the soldiers, in the midst of their journey, they threw themselves into a river and drowned thus becoming “their own executioners.”

He also notes another pair of maidens at Antioch who were also thrown into the sea.

In Pontus, Christians suffered various cruel tortures, like having reeds driven under their finger nails, having melted lead poured on their backs, and having their private parts abused. Eusebius says it was as if the tormenters tried to outdo one another in the novelty of their tortures.

Worn out with their bloodlust against the Christians, Eusebius says they rulers determined to promote more supposedly “humane” punishments, liking gouging out the right eye and crippling the left foot of believers before sending them slave labor in the copper mines.

These martyrs, he concludes, were “conspicuous throughout all the world.” To name each one would be impossible.

Conclusion:

This chapters note the universality and brutality of the Diocletian persecution. It took place across the Roman world and included a variety of unspeakable tortures. Eusebius even praises those who took their own lives in these situations, without seeming to pass judgement on the suicide as sinful. Many of those not to put to death were maimed and enslaved. He stresses that the sufferings of the Diocletian persecution were not only universal but incalculable.

JTR