lydiag's review against another edition
3.0
(technically as i’m writing this review i have about 10% left, but i’m finishing it tonight so it fine lol)
quite frankly, i didn’t read this book. i skimmed it and read the summaries at the end of each book (there are 10 books within the book). but it was for our schools summer reading, and i’ve read 16 books this summer, which is more than plenty in my eyes. so honestly i can’t really tell you what i thought of this book. if it was interesting and great, i’d give it 5 stars, but i can for sure tell it wasn’t so 3 stars it is. 3/5 stars
quite frankly, i didn’t read this book. i skimmed it and read the summaries at the end of each book (there are 10 books within the book). but it was for our schools summer reading, and i’ve read 16 books this summer, which is more than plenty in my eyes. so honestly i can’t really tell you what i thought of this book. if it was interesting and great, i’d give it 5 stars, but i can for sure tell it wasn’t so 3 stars it is. 3/5 stars
book_of_kell's review against another edition
4.0
Difficult to read, rather dry in places, but an important work.
kahawa's review against another edition
4.0
This was quite well written and presented. On the audio version it was hard to distinguish the text from the footnotes. Otherwise, the author's commentary was quite useful in a translation that was very approachable. The author provides some good skeptical criticism of some of Eusebius' writings, but seems to forget that when he describes Eusebius overall as being very accurate and a good historian. Eusebius was far from a good historian but I'm thankful that what he wrote was at least preserved.
vabonnett's review against another edition
5.0
I bought this book to continue learning about the beginnings of the Church. Eusebius was alive during the third to fourth centuries of the Church. He started his history with Jesus and his disciples and ended it with his own current time--the era of Constantine.
Eusebius was very thorough in his writing and quoted many other Church writings and Roman writings of the times. It took me quite a while to read this book (it very detailed and quite dense). The writing is in depth and so full of information. I enjoyed reading it and learned so much from Eusebius. A great book for anyone wanting to learn more about the early Church.
Eusebius was very thorough in his writing and quoted many other Church writings and Roman writings of the times. It took me quite a while to read this book (it very detailed and quite dense). The writing is in depth and so full of information. I enjoyed reading it and learned so much from Eusebius. A great book for anyone wanting to learn more about the early Church.
jbalmet's review against another edition
5.0
I enjoyed this book as a look at the earliest history of the church. It also includes commentary that helps explain Eusebius’ view on some things, which I found interesting and helpful.
evygirl's review against another edition
2.0
Only good part was when he describes a Roman emperor getting horrible stomach problems
kathryninthelibrary's review against another edition
3.0
I started Eusebius' History of the Church right after finishing Act in my daily Bible reading. While I liked the continuity this provided, I quickly became bogged down in second-century history that simply doesn't interest me as much as the lore surrounding the apostles in the first-century. I say "lore" because I would caution anyone to treat this work as pure truth. While this history is interesting on a speculative level, at the end of the day it is not the inspired Word and should be taken with a grain of salt. There are other issues, but I will say it is a relevant read, even for modern Christians and the issues we face today, because since the beginning of the church (and really the beginning of creation) there is nothing new under the sun.
notwellread's review against another edition
4.0
[Disclaimer: this review was written some time after my completion of the book. Please judge accordingly.]
Eusebius gives us the only historical account of the origins of the Christian Church. In doing so, he created an entire new genre in the form of church history. The emphasis on factual data is one not otherwise found in texts of this period, and many documents and details he includes would otherwise be lost. Like many of his historical subjects, he was imprisoned and tortured during the Roman persecutions, and saw many of his friends and contemporaries suffer martyrdom.
Although Eusebius provides for us a vital source, he is by no means an objective historian: not only was he writing with the perpetual persecution of his people in mind, as well as experiencing it himself, but also writes to elevate and exemplify the figures he admires (especially Polycarp, Origen, and Constantine). It is worth noting that this is entirely in keeping with Classical tradition: Eusebius is sometimes called ‘the Christian Herodotus’, and just like the latter he is writing “so that things done by man not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvellous deeds…not lose their glory” (Histories 1.1). Since no historian (or human being in general) can ever be entirely objective, in a way this is a more honest approach than what is portrayed by some historians today.
A lot of Christians don’t realise the instability of the early church: it’s implied a little in Ignatius’ letters, but laid out much more explicitly here. Things were not plain sailing from Christ’s death to the full establishment of the church; there was a great deal of controversy, argument, and conflict between travelling prophets and established churches, not to mention different schools of thought. We have a little evidence of the disputes between scholars, communicated through letters with arguments taking them to surprising theological heights, though most of this is lost today. Even after the Council of Nicaea, many of these issues (and at that time, particularly the status of Arianism) could hardly be considered settled.
One of the most important aspects of the History is the Christian perspective on their persecution, where otherwise Roman sources (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger) predominate with little to balance them. Christians today are sometimes prone to a ‘persecution complex’ with little to justify it, and even here Eusebius sometimes elicits the response that he takes too much pride or righteous indignation in the way his brothers in the church suffered so horrifically. Since it is so often cited that Christ himself predicted the further persecution of his followers, there may be an element of vindication, or of ‘fulfilling one’s destiny’, in this. On the other hand, the level of gruesome detail Eusebius offers may simply be intended to make the event more ‘real’ to the reader; much like graphic medieval artworks, we’re meant to feel the suffering ourselves as we look upon it, and to share in their religious experience. Either way, there is a concerted effort to relive the experiences of Jesus, and to attempt to mirror his suffering.
It remains strange that such an obscure little group would become the most popular religion ever. I have always thought that the Romans didn’t help matters if they wished to suppress them, since the Christians were so effective in turning their own tactics around on them. They could never kill them all, and the impression they left on bystanders in their willingness to die did more damage than they ever could have done themselves. I think this process, and Eusebius’ industrious chronicling of it all, has more to do with their success than the political manoeuvre embodied in the conversion of Constantine.
Eusebius gives us the only historical account of the origins of the Christian Church. In doing so, he created an entire new genre in the form of church history. The emphasis on factual data is one not otherwise found in texts of this period, and many documents and details he includes would otherwise be lost. Like many of his historical subjects, he was imprisoned and tortured during the Roman persecutions, and saw many of his friends and contemporaries suffer martyrdom.
Although Eusebius provides for us a vital source, he is by no means an objective historian: not only was he writing with the perpetual persecution of his people in mind, as well as experiencing it himself, but also writes to elevate and exemplify the figures he admires (especially Polycarp, Origen, and Constantine). It is worth noting that this is entirely in keeping with Classical tradition: Eusebius is sometimes called ‘the Christian Herodotus’, and just like the latter he is writing “so that things done by man not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvellous deeds…not lose their glory” (Histories 1.1). Since no historian (or human being in general) can ever be entirely objective, in a way this is a more honest approach than what is portrayed by some historians today.
A lot of Christians don’t realise the instability of the early church: it’s implied a little in Ignatius’ letters, but laid out much more explicitly here. Things were not plain sailing from Christ’s death to the full establishment of the church; there was a great deal of controversy, argument, and conflict between travelling prophets and established churches, not to mention different schools of thought. We have a little evidence of the disputes between scholars, communicated through letters with arguments taking them to surprising theological heights, though most of this is lost today. Even after the Council of Nicaea, many of these issues (and at that time, particularly the status of Arianism) could hardly be considered settled.
One of the most important aspects of the History is the Christian perspective on their persecution, where otherwise Roman sources (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger) predominate with little to balance them. Christians today are sometimes prone to a ‘persecution complex’ with little to justify it, and even here Eusebius sometimes elicits the response that he takes too much pride or righteous indignation in the way his brothers in the church suffered so horrifically. Since it is so often cited that Christ himself predicted the further persecution of his followers, there may be an element of vindication, or of ‘fulfilling one’s destiny’, in this. On the other hand, the level of gruesome detail Eusebius offers may simply be intended to make the event more ‘real’ to the reader; much like graphic medieval artworks, we’re meant to feel the suffering ourselves as we look upon it, and to share in their religious experience. Either way, there is a concerted effort to relive the experiences of Jesus, and to attempt to mirror his suffering.
It remains strange that such an obscure little group would become the most popular religion ever. I have always thought that the Romans didn’t help matters if they wished to suppress them, since the Christians were so effective in turning their own tactics around on them. They could never kill them all, and the impression they left on bystanders in their willingness to die did more damage than they ever could have done themselves. I think this process, and Eusebius’ industrious chronicling of it all, has more to do with their success than the political manoeuvre embodied in the conversion of Constantine.