Review

Reviewed Work(s): Eusebius as Church Historian by Robert M. Grant

Review by: Thomas A. Kopecek
Source: The Journal of Religion, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Jan., 1984), pp. 115-116
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1203157
Accessed: 17-01-2018 10:07 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Journal of Religion

This content downloaded from 139.18.244.200 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:07:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Book Reviews

GRANT, ROBERT M. Eusebius as Church Historian. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1980. viii + 179 pp. $29.95.

The last twenty years or so have witnessed increasing interest in Eusebius of

Caesarea. Not only have there been major studies by D. S. Wallace-Hadrill,
J. Sirinelli, and G. F. Chesnut, but Baker Book House has recently reprinte
in paperback the standard English translations of the Demonstratio evangelica and
Praeparatio evangelica. Prominent in this revival of interest has been Chicago's
R. M. Grant. After publishing a detailed reconstruction of church history
within its Greco-Roman context, Augustus to Constantine (New York, 1970),
Grant turned to historiography and devoted a string of perceptive essays to
facets of Eusebius's Historia ecclesiastica. The present volume both draws
together the essays' arguments and adds a spate of new suggestions.
Whereas recent studies of Eusebius as historian have sought to clarify his
overarching theology of history, Grant focuses specifically on the composition
of the Historia ecclesiastica. It has long been maintained (1) that Eusebius
history went through as many as three editions between A.D. 311 and 325 and
(2) that Eusebius's assessment of the period and personalities covered by the
Historia's last three books changed between the successive editions. Accepting
Harnack's and R. Laqueur's argument that the Historia's first edition consisted
only of seven books and originally appeared circa 303, Grant declares that his
"purpose" is to show that "modifications" in Eusebius's views can be detected in
the first seven books as well as in the last three (pp. 1, 10, 164). Apparent ten
sions or contradictions between passages lead Grant to argue that the firs
seven books also went through more than one edition. But because Grant i
unconcerned about developing a theory concerning the way the two editions o
books 1-7 were related to the Historia's various other versions, his overal
discussion of its editions (pp. 10-14) lacks coherence. His main thesis
however, is clear: Eusebius changed his mind about some important issues
between the first and second editions. Four of the six "changes" relate to what
Grant terms "Jewish Christianity," particularly its eschatological outlook:
Eusebius revised his account of James the Just's death, abandoned the canon-
icity and orthodoxy of the Revelation of John, and reversed his positive evalu-
ation of the apocalyptic eschatologist Papias (while adding noneschatologica
data about Jerusalem Christianity derived from Hegesippus). He also revised
the date of the Gallican martyrdoms and the circumstances of Origen's death.
Grant's strongest argument for two editions of books 1-7 concerns the
preface in book 1: "In later books there are promises that imply the non-
existence of this preface, as well as a reference back to a promise not found in
the present preface" (p. 35). But even this argument is not decisive, as Grant
himself admits when he writes, "It is possible that Eusebius's memory failed
him" (p. 35). The same can be said about much of Grant's evidence for
Eusebius's "change of mind." Unlike the situation for books 8-10, Grant's evi-
dence is internal: virtually no manuscript evidence is adduced. Yet if
Eusebius's mind really changed, would he have preserved in his second edition
more or less clear statements of abandoned or modified positions? Moreover,
Grant does not himself always view inconsistencies as pointing to different edi-
tions: sometimes they are attributed to Eusebius's sources (e.g., p. 91). And
historians do fail to make up their minds about difficult issues-for instance,
on page 65 Grant states that Eusebius "knew nothing" of Tertullian's becoming
a Montanist, yet on page 91 he writes, "Eusebius is aware that Tertullian

115

This content downloaded from 139.18.244.200 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:07:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Religion

becamea aMontanist."
became Montanist." I am
I am not not contending
contending that Grant
that Grant is demonstrably
is demonstrably wrong wrong
in his
in histwo-edition
two-edition theory,
theory, onlyonly
that that onehave
one can can (should
have (should have?) justifiable
have?) justifiable
reservations.
The real value of this volume, however, has little to do with its advertised
purpose. Well over 140 of its pages are far more broadly historiographical.
Grant provides valuable observations on Eusebius's compositional methods as
well as perceptive analyses of his preface and, especially, of the six themes he
promises will be treated (plus the theme of the "canon of Scripture"). No
Eusebius scholar has ever set out with such critical care the Historia's treatment
of its themes: apostolic succession, the outstanding events and persons of the
pre-Constantinian church, Christianity's "heretics," the fate of the Jews, the
persecutions and martyrdoms of Christians before A.D. 313, the canon of
Scripture, and the church's final deliverance in the Constantinian era. Nor has
anyone ever used so astutely pagan historians to illuminate the details of
Eusebius's historiography. (Grant's volume therefore is an excellent compan-
ion to Glen F. Chesnut's discussion of Eusebius's general theory of history [The
First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Evagrius (Paris,
1977), pp. 30-166], for Chesnut also sets Eusebius against the backdrop of
Greco-Roman historiography.) Grant characteristically operates as a source
and redaction critic, isolating the historical sources Eusebius employed and
showing the way he understood and misunderstood, used and misused, them.
Students of early Christianity who use Eusebius's Historia ecclesiastica would be
ill-advised to ignore Grant's analyses.
THOMAS A. KOPECEK, Central College.

CLARK, ELIZABETH A., and HATCH, DIANE F. The Golden Bough, the Oaken
Cross. The Virgilian Cento of Faltonia Betitia Proba. Edited by JAMES A.
MASSEY. American Academy of Religion Texts and Translation Series 5.
Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981. 249 pp. $16.00.

In the last ten years, the study of women in early Christianity has progressed
from concern over the attitudes toward and images of women in the early
churches to an interest in what we know about actual Christian women in
antiquity. While we possess very few works known to have been authored by
women, recent research has shown that we have paid insignificant attention to
those texts we do have. Elizabeth Clark and Diane Hatch have attempted to
remedy that neglect somewhat with their new edition, translation, notes, and
discussion of a work believed to be the earliest Christian document known
with certainty to have been written by a woman.
Faltonia Betitia Proba's Cento has, as early as Jerome, traditionally been
regarded as a minor work, both in form and content. Clark and Hatch main-
tain that the poetic deficiencies of Proba's Cento lie in the form itself (in which
phrases from classical epic are used, out of context, to form new works) and
not specifically in Proba's execution of the genre. The authors also view
Proba's task as reflecting a serious concern of fourth-century Roman Chris-
tians, namely, "merging the value systems of two different worlds: that which
upheld the classical Roman virtues of filial devotion, domestic harmony and
family reputation, and that of her newly adopted religion, which counseled

116

This content downloaded from 139.18.244.200 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:07:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms