Shop now Shop now Shop now Up to 70% off Fashion Shop All Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Amazon Fire TV Amazon Pantry Food & Drink Beauty Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen in Prime Shop now Shop now

Customer Reviews

3.9 out of 5 stars21
3.9 out of 5 stars
Format: PaperbackChange
Price:£10.99+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 14 March 2003
Eusebius of Caesarea is not the easiest classical author, but G. A. Williamson's translation has done an excellent job of placing the text in a format, both readable accessible to the modern reader.
Eusebius is an essential source for anyone studying classical Roman history, or early Christianiy, because he is one the few writers who is preserved to us, almost in his entirety. The actual history that he gives us is invaluable - some accounts of events attested no where else, as well alternative accounts of events that are well known from history.
It should be said, Eusebius is problematic - he is tendentious is his style of writing, and occasionally distorts what actually happened. If you read Eusebius, read it with a good commentary.
As far as this particular edition goes, its very good but not perfect. The style chosen in the text works well, with quotations used by Eusebius in smaller font (and there are a lot of these!), and his own text larger, which allows the reader to distinguish between his sources.
Additionally, A. Louth has included in his revisions a useful Who's Who for the reader, so if you are searching Eusebius for a particular passage on one personality, you should be able to find it relatively easily. Some brief appendices explain some awkward points of history too, e.g. the ancient calendar.
Unfortunately, there is no index which is quite disappointing. Eusebius contains information on so many places, events and people, that an index would have been very useful indeed. The Who's who eases this situation somewhat, but having to search through his accounts for specific mentions of events can be time consuming.
As with any Penguin classical text the translation is somewhat freer than would be ideal, but it is aimed at readability over accuracy, and where it does go beyond the text, it is never too extreme.
Overall, this is an excellent translation, and a thoughtful and useful edition that should be advantageous to anyone studying Eusebius without Greek or Latin.
0Comment73 of 73 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 26 April 2013
Lack of notes and background obviously mean that this cannot be a full reference for students/enthusiasts - but it is a most useful
general guide , readable and such a bargain ! Text in English only. Will be worth five stars for those not needing more detail and precision as in an academic book.

Basil (no Saint !)
11 comment5 of 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 7 May 2012
For the student of ecclesial history this book is an ideal starting point. Though modern theology has shown some different understandings of how the Church developed after Christ's death, this book gives us a ground on which to begin our investigations.
0Comment3 of 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 22 July 2015
Anyone who is interested in the history of christianity and has taken a cursory look into the subject will have heard various tidbits of information and will have seen then repeated in many a modern take on the first few centuries of the church. Some of these get trotted out in the occasional sermon, such as the idea that Peter was crucified upside down. Yet I’ve often wondered where they came from. It seems that the answer is Eusebius.

It is worth noting, since it has come in many versions over the years, that this is a review of the Penguin Classics version, translated by G.A. Williamson with a very helpful introduction by Andrew Louth. According to this introduction, one cannot help but question Eusebius’ credibility as an historian. Famously, the Victorian historian of the ancient world, Edward Gibbon, had little regard for Eusebius. He is not the only one to cast doubt on the reliability of Eusebius’ work. Certainly, by the standards of modern historiography, Eusebius leaves a lot to be desired. While it is impossible to be neutral in writing history, Eusebius’ agenda and bias should be clear for all to see. But such a critical view should not be interpreted as meaning he is useless. Far from it; he is a source of great wealth, not least due to his habit of extensively quoting from earlier sources.

In some ways this is indicative of the maxim ‘history is written by the winners’ particularly here when it comes to questions of christian orthodoxy. He displays open contempt for those who were regarded as heretics and is also indicative of the rise of catholicism.

At the start of the work, Eusebius lays out his objectives. These are quite telling in themselves.

1. line of succession of the apostles
2. names and dates of various heretics
3. the history of Judaism, post-Jesus
4. the persecutions faced by the early church
5. the martyrdoms that happened in those persecutions

The work is split into 10 books. An interesting point made in the introduction is that the work may initially have consisted of 8 books with the last two books being added some time later.

His opening book lays out his christology, which is demonstrative of a seemingly very high view. This is interesting in itself, seeing as Eusebius sided with Arius at the first council of Nicaea, an event which is never mentioned anywhere in this work. We get a sort of recapitulation of gospels, but viewed with the hindsight and interpretation of the very early church. For clarity, when some use the phrase “early church” they have in mind a period of the first few centuries of christian history. I use the phrase to mean the first few decades, with the most obvious event marking the transition between ages being the sacking of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, by which time the books that comprise our New Testament had been written and were in circulation.

From this opening, which is more of a background than anything else, we begin to get into the heart of the narrative. Here, the main sources seem to be Acts and Josephus, which makes for an interesting pairing. Our timeline seems to skip back and forth a little bit, so when we think we’ve moved into a distinctly post New Testament period, we come back to the odd reference from Luke’s latter work. Or was Luke the author? Well, even though the gospels were all anonymous, and it is reasonable to think that the author of Luke and Acts are the same person, it is from Eusebius that we get the names, particularly as he quotes Papias of Hierapolis, where we get the intriguing possibility that Matthew’s gospel was first composed in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

There are lots of little vignettes throughout the book that are useful and interesting to get an understanding of certain aspects of the history of the later church. But when it comes to the early church, there is scant all reliable detail. The aims are also indicative of quite a late mindset that is quite different from that as evidenced in the gospels and book of Acts. For example, point 1) above shows that there has become an obsession with the notion of apostolic succession, yet the only evidence Eusebius has for the first few links is “tradition” which is no evidence at all. Even the idea that Peter was ever a bishop of Rome is highly questionable.

The heresiological aspects of Eusebius are quite interesting, particularly to help see the kinds of ideas that were being bandied about. We never quite get to Nicaea here (recall that Eusebius sided with Arius at the council in 425) which is a shame, but we walk part of the path towards it.

Most of the books, though, are taken up with the rather gory tales of martyrdom. Be in no doubt, it does make for some highly graphic and deeply disturbing reading. One might almost consider, if you’ll indulge the anachronism, that Eusebius is aiming to gross-out his readers by being as visceral as possible. All this, though, does make for some quite turgid reading. It goes on and on and on. The only relief comes as the book ends with the rise of Constantine and his favourable treatment of the christians.

One of the sourest elements, though, comes with the exploration of point 3). Eusebius comes across as what we would now describe as anti-Semitic. There is clear ethnic and religious prejudice against the Jewish people. So what the modern historian can infer is that in just a few centuries the church went from being a predominantly Jewish phenomenon, albeit with a reformed twist to its messianic eschatology, to being a gentile religion that had forgotten its roots and bore a grudge against the Jews.

Overall, I can’t say it was the greatest book to read. It is one of the great tragedies of christianity that there are no contemporary histories written of the early church other than the book of Acts. By the time we’ve come to Eusebius, we have a very different beast with a different set of priorities. There is plenty of value in here, though. It’s just that one might need to read *through* Eusebius a bit to get to it.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 13 January 2015
Been sitting on my shelf daring me to read it for years....looking threateningly old, worthly, holy but most worryingly small font sized....i final wrestled it into submission and you know what it is great....and actually a pleasure to read.

Some magnificently uplifting passages and content which is as relevant today as it was 1800 years ago....truly "nothing new under the sun"
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 28 October 2015
Some fascinating insights into the early and volatile development of christian life and the complex,diverse theologies that muddied the theological waters.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 3 January 2016
I have read the book and it is a difficult read but worth it. It shows just how much the Christians suffered for their faith for 300 years. Worth reading.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 3 May 2014
Practical and factual information given not influenced by any one religion which is very good when you need to be historical in your studies.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 23 May 2014
Old book, full of history facts but readable. Being one of the first books written on this subject, it may seem difficult at times.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 4 February 2016
Only for those who study scripture and are interested in the history of the church though (obviously!)
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)
  -  
Where is the Church Jesus Founded? Have the Church Teachings Changed?