Dimensions and Developments of Early Christian Historiography*
1. Introduction
Human beings have an awareness of sooner and later, of yesterday and today, of past and present, of temporal continuities, of chronology. This is the third Ebeltoft conference, it is the one after the second, and it will be followed by the fourth. Writing history means to construct and connect events that individuals or groups relate to themselves and claim as part of their identity. Historiography means written remembrance. Remembering particular events from the past within an ongoing and continuous scheme of time means to “produce” history. Each piece of the past becomes part of the present as soon as somebody remembers it and recounts it, and, as Reinhard Koselleck has pointed out on various occasions,1 then also moves towards anticipating the future.
The Early Church soon developed an awareness of these continuities, too, with particular emphasis on church matters. In other words: The Early Church has developed an awareness of history and of church history. The eschatological belief that the contemporary world would end did not conflict with this awareness. Luke’s Acts of the Apostles refer to the time between the Ascension of Christ and the Parousia, and this period is worth being mentioned, remembered, recounted, interpreted and written up. Church History has been part of the churches’ self-conception from the very beginning. However, in the beginning, the thematic reflection of this history was dominated by “internal history”;2 “internal history” comprises local perspectives, for example in the Acts of the Martyrs, immanent reconstructions in the form of bishops’ lists,3 the creation of the concept of tradition, as in Irenaeus and in Tertullian. On the other hand, these ←247 | 248→more or less restricted early historiographical efforts of a rather marginal religious group were never entirely sufficient for the development of Christian self-understanding. They did not fully represent the church’s exclusive claim of representing the full knowledge of God and securing eternal salvation. This is why the concept of “internal history” needed to be broadened. Early Christian historiographers soon began to outgrow the field of “internal history” and relate to more universal matters such as Jewish history and of course the history of the Roman Empire (Luke 2). They set up Chronicles to relate their own history to that of others. And finally, starting with Eusebius, they wrote a Historia ecclesiastica, recounting the history of church matters in relation to the history of the emperors and to events in the Empire.
When I talk about developments in early Christian historiography now, I will not analyse the different genres such as Acts, Gospels, Vitae, Lists, Chronicles, the Catalogues of heretics as well as of viris illustribus, or indeed, Church histories. I will rather focus on the different dimensions of Christian historiography, and different intentions as well. I will concentrate on the Church histories, mainly on Eusebius and some of his successors, and look at the other genres only along the way. After presenting my material for six dimensions of early Christian historiography (2.1.–2.6.) I will pose the question of how they relate to each other (3.), and then compare the dimensions of Christian historiographical efforts to those of Jewish and Roman historiography (4.), and in conclusion (5.) I will say a few words about what all this might have to do with the theme of this conference, what all this might have to do with invention, rewriting, and usurpation.
2. Dimensions of early Christian historiography
I extract the dimensions of Christian historiography from the methodological remarks in the texts of the Church Histories themselves. However, it must be noted that the following six dimensions are in part on different epistemological levels, and also that they never occur in pure form, but often intermingle with each other. Nevertheless, I propose that they may help us obtain a better understanding of developments in early Christian historiography.
2.1. The theological dimension
Of course there are many different theological aspects in early Christian historiography, but the major one is the one that Ekkehart Stöwe has called “external history”. “External history” means the history of the Salvation (or Damnation) of men. The German scholarly tradition of the 19th century ←248 | 249→produced the word “Heilsgeschichte” for this.4 “Heilsgeschichte” occurs within historical processes and events, but is not identical to it. It establishes a specific theological view of the “internal” history. “Heilsgeschichte” adds a particular dimension to history, a cosmic one, and a universal one.5 History is not only the history of particular people, of groups, religious communities, nations etc., but is the history of God’s work throughout history. “Heilsgeschichte” is the history of God’s eternal plan for mankind – beginning with creation, peaking in the incarnation and in the history of the church, and ending with the parousia of Christ. Eusebius of Caesarea starts the body of his Church History (after the introduction) by stating the pre-existence of the Logos (Eus., h.e. 1.2,14–16).
And that there is a certain substance which lived and subsisted before the world, and which ministered unto the Father and God of the universe for the formation of all created things, and which is called the Word of God and Wisdom, we may learn, to quote other proofs in addition to those already cited, from the mouth of Wisdom herself, who reveals most clearly through Solomon the following mysteries concerning herself: ‘I, Wisdom, have dwelt with prudence and knowledge, and I have invoked understanding. Through me kings reign, and princes ordain righteousness. Through me the great are magnified, and through me sovereigns rule the earth.’ (Prov 8:12.15f.). […] That the divine Word, therefore, pre-existed and appeared to some, if not to all, has thus been briefly shown by us.6
This concept of the interpretation of history implies that for Eusebius it is the Logos who is the true actor in history. It does not exclude the free will or the responsibility of man, but it does insist that there is a kind of pedagogical element to the work of God or the Logos that reacts to people’s decisions and actions (by either punishing or rewarding). The siege of Jerusalem is God’s punishment of the Jews.7 The persecution under Diocletian is God’s punishment for the half-hearted faith of the Christians.8 Constantine’s military triumph is the well-deserved reward for his piety.9 Whether or not we agree ←249 | 250→with this kind of theological interpretation of history, for Eusebius, there is a history behind history, the history of God’s work within mankind. Eusebius’ Church History (and other of his historical texts) aim at making this “history of salvation” visible. And although this theological dimension of history is particularly clear in Eusebius, he is not the only historiographical author from the Early Church who employs this kind of theoretical model. The same is true for Justin Martyr10 and similarly in texts belonging to such different genres as Luke’s Acts of the Apostles or Lanctantius’ De mortibus persecutorum. In Luke, the theological interpretation of history aims at the visible spreading of the Word of God. In Lactantius, we find the clear, black and white theological scheme of evil deeds and divine punishment. The general idea of a theological dimension of history is typical of the texts of the early Christian authors. In the Church Histories of later centuries, particularly in Eusebius’ successors Socrates, Sozomenos and Theodoretus, there are fewer obvious examples of interpretations of history using the theological model of “Heilsgeschichte”; this may be due to the fact that it became more and more difficult to adhere to it after the political and military disasters at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century. These events precipitated entirely new approaches as we can see in Augustine’s De civitate Dei, which also implies a model of “Heilsgeschichte”, though a completely different one compared to Eusebius.
2.2. The apologetic dimension
The apologetic dimension can be found in nearly all of the historiographic efforts of early Christian authors. This is because arguments from history played some role in the discursive disagreement between the early Christians and their pagan and Jewish critics. One of the best known example is the “Altersbeweis”. Peter Pilhofer’s excellent study “presbyteron – kreitton”11 proves how much the accusation of being a historically young people troubled the early Christians and how intensively they tried to prove that in fact they predated Platon and even Moses. Since “presbyteron – kreitton” was an axiomatic and well-established criterion in the intellectual debates of the ←250 | 251→second century, the apologists needed to prove that the historic tradition of their own religion was older and more valuable than those of their religious “competitors”.
Let us turn again to Eusebius’ Church History12 to see how he deals with the problem. In general, he admits that Christianity is a “new nation” – there was no way to deny the fact that Christianity had hitherto only existed for less than three centuries. But then Eusebius goes on to insist that Christianity is new only in name. And he claims that, from a historical perspective, things are completely different:
But although it is clear that we are new, […] nevertheless our life and our conduct, with our doctrines of religion, have not been lately invented by us, but from the first creation of man, so to speak, have been established by the natural understanding of divinely favoured men of old. That this is so we shall show in the following way. That the Hebrew nation is not new, but is universally honoured on account of its antiquity, is known to all. The books and writings of this people contain accounts of ancient men, rare indeed and few in number, but nevertheless distinguished for piety and righteousness […]. Of these, some excellent men lived before the flood, others of the sons and descendants of Noah lived after it, among them Abraham, whom the Hebrews celebrate as their own founder and forefather. If any one should assert that all those who have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the truth. […] So that it is clearly necessary to consider that religion, which has lately been preached to all nations through the teaching of Christ, the first and most ancient of all religions, and the one discovered by those divinely favoured men in the age of Abraham.13
Eusebius, for apologetic reasons, continues collecting evidence for this historical theory, applying God’s promises to Abraham, as well as the words of the prophets, directly to Christianity. An apologetic effort like this was groundbreaking in the history of Christian historiography. Arthur Droge summarizes this sentiment as such:
Eusebius’ achievement as a historian was revolutionary, for it marked the beginning of a new understanding of history within the thinking of the early church and, ultimately, western antiquity as a whole. In addition to recording the history of the church, Eusebius invested Christianity with a past history in an attempt to legitimize it in the eyes of its detractors.14
←251 | 252→Considering other literary genres of Christian historiography, we should focus on the Chronicles, which serve the same apologetic purpose: Eusebius’ Chronicle, for example, has the clear intention of serving the “classical” proof “presbyteron – kreitton”; the Chronicle was a key foundation text for the Church History.15 Eusebius based his writing on older Christian ideas here, in particular on Julius Africanus and his Chronographai. In this text, Julius Africanus presents the history of the Bible as well as the history of secular events synchronistically. He classifies them using the scheme of six millenia. The reason for Julius Africanus’ approach is that he did not want to leave any gap (and doubt) in his argument as to the old age of Christianity, as Martin Wallraff has recently shown.16
The “Altersbeweis” is not the only trace of the apologetic dimension in early Christian historiography. The proof provided by prophecy, with its theological scheme of prophecy and evident fulfilment, deserves to be mentioned here, too. The attempt at establishing a historical coincidence between Christianity and the Roman Empire has a clear apologetic connotation – we can observe this from the very beginning, in the second chapter of the Gospel of Luke, up to Eusebius’ theory that the Roman Empire was the essential historical requirement for Christ’s incarnation.17 And finally, I should point towards the fact that there is also an apologetic dimension to the historiography describing conflicts within the church: If we look at the three “successors” of Eusebius, we find that Theodoret of Cyrus is the most apologetic author of these three:18 not in the sense that his Historia ecclesiastica defends Christianity by providing proof for it and by falsifying paganism (we see that instead in Theodoretus’ apologetic work Curatio affectionum graecorum), but in the sense that he writes an apologetic history of anti-arian orthodoxy; however, this leads us to the next dimension of early Christian historiography, the haeresiographical (and orthodoxographical) one.
←252 | 253→2.3. The hereseographical / orthodoxographical dimension
Let us again turn to Eusebius to shed light on the hereseographical dimension of Christian historiography. In the famous prooemium of his Church History, Eusebius mentions a number of issues he wishes to address in the course of his account:
“It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called, have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.”19
Meike Willing has recently produced a fine book that closely follows the traces of this Eusebian intention throughout the Historia ecclesiastica.20 She has discovered altogether twelve blocks of reports on heresies in Eusebius’ Church History. It is not the aim of Eusebius’ account to theologically falsify the heresies theologically, rather he aims at showing that the heresies were caused by demonic or Satanic initiatives and (and this is the important point) that they vanished from history. They never had any chance of surviving, because they objected to the work of the Logos in history. Just as pagan enemies of Christianity cannot keep a place in history on the long run, so too heresy is condemned to failure and decline, because it dares to defy the irresistible power of the Logos and the truth. Eusebius integrates the phenomenon of heresy into his conception of the triumphant rise of the truth, where anything that goes against it is doomed to perish sooner or later.
Speaking of developments, the hereseographical aspect in early Christian historiography seems to become more and more important over the centuries. In the fifth century, hereseography becomes a central aspect, sometimes the most important one, in Christian historiography. Some Christian historians write their Church History mainly in order to differentiate heresy from orthodoxy. They use exactly the same historiographical methods irrespective of their particular theological position. Theodoret and Socrates report on the Arian controversy as orthodox Nicenoconstantinopolitans, whereas Philostorgius reports on the same material from the perspective of an anhomoean theologian who was rather dissatisfied with the outcome of the controversy. A homoean historian from the second half of the fourth century, whose work has not survived but can be reconstructed from later Byzantine historical works,21 wrote his account of the Arian controversy from the view ←253 | 254→of the “losing side”, the Homoeans. Gelasius of Cyzicus took the position of the opposite side. Gelasius’ work has not survived either, but can nonetheless be partly reconstructed. It may have served as a guideline for the books 10 and 11 of Rufinus’ translation (and continuation) of Eusebius’ Church History.22 Of course the hereseographical intention of early Christian historiography can be observed in many earlier texts as well. Irenaeus’ and Tertullian’s conception of tradition claim and establish the idea of an historic continuity of orthodoxy.23 But, as previously mentioned, the hereseographical dimension in Christian historiography becomes more and more important over the decades, or to put it another way: Historiography increasingly becomes theological warfare in the battle between orthodoxy and heresy in the post-Constantine era.
2.4. The edifying dimension
What I call the edifying dimension could also be named the hagiographical component of early Christian historiography. Of course we could refer to the Acts of the Martyrs here and to early Christian Vitae and to a most influential work, such as Athanasius’ Vita Antonii. These texts aim at telling the stories of model Christians whose deeds are worth remembering as well as imitating. They want to give examples of Christian faithfulness, of Christian piety in word and deed, and of a visible Christian holiness. The edifying dimension of early Christian historiography has an impact on the accounts of Church histories as well, though the intensity depends upon each particular historian, with different intensity. Therese Fuhrer has recently drawn attention to the edifying dimensions in the Church History of Rufinus:24 She analyses the relationship of history to stories (“Geschichte” und Geschichten) in the Historia ecclesiastica and insists that there are so many stories in Rufinus’ that the two books he added to his translation of Eusebius’ Church History can only be called “history” (“Geschichte”) in inverted commas. Therese Fuhrer claims:
Die beiden Bücher enthalten […] eine Sammlung von gesta mirabilia, die durchaus im Umkreis der Kirchen-, Dogmen- und politischen Geschichte anzusiedeln sind, die jedoch weniger die Tradition der Euseb’schen Kirchengeschichtsschreibung ←254 | 255→weiterführen, als sich vielmehr in den zeitgenössischen hagiographischen Diskurs einschreiben.25
This is of course completely different from Eusebius’ ideas.
Greek, that the attention of those who hear it may be occupied and they may for a while come to forget present evils while their interest is directed to the affairs of the past.26
This is a straightforward definition of the aim of church history, which is namely to console. Rufinus has a therapeutic and edifying intention.27 The stories that he tells in his Church History are intended to prove that the pious can count on God’s help, if not in terms of material goods, then in the victory of faith over heresy, and in countless everyday miracles. In the case of Rufinus, church history is a part of hagiography or, as Marc van Uytfanghe has put it, of the Rufinus is more interested in the common people than in bishops or emperors, his central theme is the difference between fides and perfidia, between religiosi and impii. Above all, the intention of his ecclesiastical history is different from Eusbius’. Rufinus says:
It is the business of skilful physicians, they say, to provide some sort of medicine or potion when they see that cities or regions are threatened by epidemics, so that the people may be protected by it from the death that threatens them. This is the sort of medical art which you have practiced, my reverend father Chromatius, at this time when the Goths have burst through the barriers into Italy with Alaric at their head, and a lethal plague is spreading far and wide, to the ruins of fields, herds, and men: you have sought some remedy to protect from cruel death the people God has entrusted to you, a remedy by which ailing spirits may be diverted from the thought of impending evil and give their attention to something better. Thus you have charged me to translate into Latin the Church History which the most learned man Eusebius of Caesarea composed in hagiographical discourse.28
But the edifying dimension of historiography must not necessarily be driven by the impulse to console, as in Rufinus. It can also recommend certain ideals of pious Christian life, as can be seen in the many accounts written by monastic communities or individuals. The historia monachorum or Jerome’s Vitae of the monks or Athanasius’ Vita Antonii belongs to this hagiographical historiography, among others. However, there must have been an awareness of the difference between historiography and hagiography. Socrates of Constantinople makes this point in the beginning of his Church History (he ←255 | 256→explicitly claims to be writing history rather than hagiography).29 Theodoret of Cyrus goes so far as to split his historiographical work into two different parts, the more historiographical and apologetic Church History and the more hagiographical Historia religiosa. If we compare the three successors of Eusebius from the fifth century, it is fair to say that it is Sozomenus who has the strongest hagiographical interest in his Church History, and that it is far more anecdotic and far more reminiscent of the stuff of legends than the others.30
2.5. The political dimension
There is a political dimension in many of the historiographical works of the early Christians, and we can clarify that with a brief look at a passage from Eusebius’ Church History:
Thus Licinius lay prostrate. But Constantine, the mightiest victor, adorned with every virtue of piety, together with his son Crispus, a most God-beloved prince, and in all respects like his father, recovered the East which belonged to them; Constantine’s sole right to the East was the right of conquest and they formed one united Roman Empire as of old, bringing under their peaceful sway the whole world from the rising of the sun to the opposite quarter, both north and south, even to the extremities of the declining day. All fear therefore of those who had formerly afflicted them was taken away from men, and they celebrated splendid and festive days. Everything was filled with light.31
This is a not particularly understated comment on the emperor Constantine and his politics. For Eusebius, the history of the church had reached its zenith with Constantine’s coming into power. Early Christian historiographers stand in a tradition of pagan Roman historiography that saw one of its tasks as that of evaluating the political achievement of an emperor, which can be seen in Sueton’s Biographies of the Emperors. We also might remind ourselves of the apologetic tendency to condemn only those emperors as persecutors who had fallen out of favour with the pagan Roman historiography and had fallen prey to damnatio memoriae. This apologetic technique of course included the contemporary political message that a good emperor would never persecute the Christians.32
←256 | 257→Looking at the successors of Eusebius, we can find that they stand in the same tradition as their common predecessor here. Hartmut Leppin has carefully investigated the political messages in the church histories of the fifth century,33 and it transpires that the three “synoptic historians” display similarities here to Eusebius and to each other. All three of them build their accounts around the reigns of the Roman emperors; their judgements on the individual emperors are all very similar.34 But in contrast to in Eusebius, the criteria for their judgements are no longer the emperors’ attitudes towards Christianity, but each emperor’s confessional affiliation. Hartmut Leppin writes: “Nicene (or seemingly Nicene) emperors are ‘good’ the other ones ‘bad’. The ‘good’ emperors support the Church and individual Nicenes in every regard […], the ‘bad’ ones fight against the adherents of true religion.”35
There is however also a little room for differentiation. Constantine is “good” but not very good, because he sent Athanasius into exile. Constantius II is “bad”, but less bad than his homoean colleague Valens. In general, the three synoptic Church historians agree with each other in their judgements, because they were all more or less orthodox Nicenes. However, as soon as we alter our perspective, we find that the judgements change whereas the methods remain the same. Philostorgius’ Church History, written from the Eunomian or Anhomoean position, reaches to completely different results in his judgments of the emperors.
The Church historians know that most of the things that happen in the Church do affect State affairs and the other way round, many State affairs are directly interwoven with ecclesiastical matters. That is why they report on political developments as well as on military occurrences. It is Socrates who methodologically reflects on this phenomenon:
Before we begin the fifth book of our history, we must beg those who may peruse this treatise, not to censure us too hastily because having set out to write a Church History we still intermingle with ecclesiastical matters, such an account of the wars which took place during the period under consideration, as could be duly authenticated. For this we have done for several reasons: […] especially that it might be made apparent, that whenever the affairs of the state were disturbed, those of the church, as if by some vital sympathy, became disordered also.36
←257 | 258→2.6. The documentary dimension
It may seem a little superfluous to mention the documentary dimension at all. But the value of this dimension must not be underestimated. I am not only talking about the simple fact that a great deal of information about the first centuries of Christianity would not have come down to us at all if Eusebius had not written his Church History. I am rather interested in the fact that the Christian historiographers had some vital interest in restricting themselves to the “facts” and in quoting passages from relevant texts. Eusebius claims that he gives the most precise account of what happened and he proves this by quoting at length from other documents. This was rather unusual in the historiographical climate of his and of former times. In the Church History Eusebius introduces many of his quotations with formulations such as: “He literally writes: […]” and then quotes. In the prooemium of the second book of the Church History he writes:
We have discussed in the preceding book those subjects in ecclesiastical history which it was necessary to treat by way of introduction, and have accompanied them with brief proofs. Such were the divinity of the saving Word, and the antiquity of the doctrines which we teach, as well as of that evangelical life which is led by Christians, together with the events which have taken place in connection with Christ’s recent appearance, and in connection with his passion and with the choice of the apostles. In the present book let us examine the events which took place after his ascension, confirming some of them from the divine Scriptures, and others from such writings as we shall refer to from time to time.
There has been much academic dispute as to the accuracy of Eusebius quotes. I cannot go into detail here. There are more optimistic scholars such as Schwartz, Winkelmann, Carriker, Inowlocki, Willing and also myself and some less credulous scholars including Burckhardt, Moreau, Barnes and sometimes Harnack.37 But no matter how strictly you may judge Eusebius in this question, it remains a simple fact that he is the one who introduces the literal quotation of sources to Christian historiography. He does this because he wants to claim full authenticity. Arnoldo Momigliano writes: “Since he [scil. Eusebius] chose to give plenty of documents and refrained from inventing speeches, he must have intended to produce something different from ordinary history.”38
Eusebius produces history as “documentation”. This influenced his successors in the fifth century quite strongly. Here I must mention the Church ←258 | 259→History of Socrates, who quotes acts of synodal negotiations, creeds, and so on, in order to give an authentic account or rather a documentation of the events themselves. Socrates shows a particular critical handling of his sources, and he is well aware of the difference between an authentic document and a composed speech or orally reported information. As Hanns Christof Brennecke has pointed out, Socrates carefully reflects on the difference between ecclesiastical historiography and hagiography. He explicitly dissociates himself from hagiography and claims to produce proper historiography instead, basing himself on the authority of Eusebius whose work he intends to continue.39 Speaking of developments, it is certainly Socrates who carries forward the documentary dimension of Christian historiography clearest after Eusebius.
3. Interrelations and Developments
As already pointed out in the introduction, these dimensions of early Christian Historiography do appear alongside each other and in many different combinations. Eusebius’ Church History bears traces of all six dimensions. The same may be true for his three “synoptic” successors in the fifth century, although they differ in their conception: Theodoret is more apologetic and orthodoxographical, Socrates is more documentary and orthodoxographical as well, Sozomen is more hagiographical or edifying. In all the other genres of early historiography, the dimensions clash with each other, too. Athanasius’ Vita Antonii may have an edifying focus, but there is a clear hereseographical dimension in the passages describing Antonius’ fight against the Arians and a political one in those about his relations to the emperor Constantine. In the earliest Christian chronicles, there is a major apologetic interest, but also a theological one. There are no texts that follow only one intention or cover only one dimension. Moreover, the dimensions themselves are not to be considered separately, but as overlapping with each other. A hereseographical intention always implies a theological decision, and an apologetic argument may well have political aspects, and so on.
If this is the case, can we then say anything about developments of Early Christian Historiography? My answer to this question is yes and no. It is “no”, inasmuch as all the dimensions apply in any form of historiography – there is no Christian historiography without theological, apologetic, hereseographical, edifying, political and documentary aspects. But my other answer is “yes”, there are developments, inasmuch as every historiographical endeavour mirrors the time in which it was produced and every historiographical effort has some primary intentions for that particular time. In that ←259 | 260→sense it is indeed possible, yet also necessary, to speak about developments between the second and the fifth century. Apologetic efforts towards the Roman Empire become less important by the end of the persecutions, hereseographical concepts become more and more crucial in the fourth and in the fifth centuries. Political dimensions apply at all times, but the texts differ very much in their political purpose. Whereas the earlier texts intend to prove that Christianity deserves to gain the status of a religio licita, the later church histories merely look back on the times of persecution, whilst dealing with completely different political matters such as striving for the emperor’s support for what their authors consider to be orthodox. In the reign of Theodosius II, we find that there is a cluster of church histories, and that seems to be due to the fact that consolidation of Christianity in the Roman state and society had been successful.40 When the synoptic Church historians all deal with the question of heresy and orthodoxy this simply shows that in their time the defending of the orthodox interpretation of church history against heretical concepts was a task yet to be completed. When they no longer indentify paganism as their major target this shows that at this time the victory over the pagans had been taken for granted. When the historians from the fifth century, other than Eusebius, are almost entirely silent on the subject of the Jews,41 we can conclude that the relationship and rivalry with the Jews played no important role any more in their time.
4. Similarities and differences between the Christian and the classical and contemporary pagan historiography
If we turn again to Eusebius’ Church History, we can see from the prooemium that he had the impression that his work was quite innovative. In the first book he writes:
But at the outset I must crave for my work the indulgence of the wise, for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path. I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have travelled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived.42
←260 | 261→This may of course refer to the simple fact that no one before had ever written a “history regarding church matters”.43 The person who came closest to the idea of a Church historian was Hegesippus44 but his writings were little more than fragmentary collections of disconnected reminiscences. Apart from the Christian authors, there were no historiographic traces at all of what Eusebius wanted to document. Ecclesiastical issues and theological or apologetic purposes did not figure in pagan historiographical tradition. On the other hand, Eusebius’ major interest, the history of the Christians, theologically interpreted as the history of a fight between God and the Devil, made him indifferent to anything that was not directly relevant to the Christians. In contrast to secular historians, he does not report on military details, he is not interested in internal politics (other than Ammianus Marcellinus for example), he gives no account of regional studies or applied geography (whereas Herodot, for example, does).
However, the difference in subject matter is not the only one that ought to be mentioned here. I have already pointed out the technique of documentation in Eusebius which is completely unusual in traditional pagan historiography. Thukydides’ classical idea of a maximum of motion is given up here in favour of a rather static model of documentation.45
Carefully researched studies become more important than eyewitness accounts. This technique of documentation may have been influenced by earlier Christian texts, for example by Origen’s Contra Celsum and by Clement’s Stromateis.46 In Eusebius’ Church History, this technique of documentation becomes even more static because Eusebius integrates every event and document strictly into the chronological schemes of bishops lists and emperor’s reigns. What Eusebius achieves is the impression of high authenticity. What he gives up is the dynamic tension and literary attractiveness of classical historiography. All these observations bring us to the conclusion that Eusebius is clearly distinct from the classical pagan historians.
However, there are similarities as well that should not be underestimated: It was Dieter Timpe who first insisted that Eusebius actually resets the classical historiographical demand to present history as a whole,47 as ←261 | 262→a “Gesamtkunstwerk”; in Eus., h.e. 1.1,4 Eusebius talks about “somatopoiesai”, to “embody the whole (in an historical narrative).” Timpe refers to Lukian of Samosata’s work How To Write History; Lukian polemises against contemporary panegyrical works of history and then gives clear instructions for writing history: Firstly, the historian ought to analyse the events “objectively”, secondly, he should strive for an inner coherence in amongst the many different episodes he has collected. Eusebius, as well as Lukian, moves forward from the singular event to the broader historical context, whereas earlier historians would go from the general historical idea to the particular incident.48 We could of course rightly object that Eusebius has indeed a superordinate theory of history, namely its theological dimension, and that he loads this theory with a great deal of historical material.49 This is true, but as opposed to all of his pagan predecessors, he meets the challenge of proving the truth of this theory in any single one of the events he reports. His construction of events steps up to the superordinate idea of a continuous rise of the church that is due to the help of God. It may well be that Eusebius’ historiography was in part influenced by the ideas of Lukian. On the other hand, we must not ignore the fact that in some respects Eusebius had been anticipated in Jewish historiography; for example, we find the theological interpretation of history and also the quotation of documents in the books of the Maccabaeans as well as in Josephus. The Christian Church Histories seem to be rooted more in the traditions of Jewish historiography than in the pagan tradition.
5. Conclusion
I do not want to present a summary here. Instead I want to ask: What do these considerations have to do with the theme of this conference? What do they have to do with Invention, Rewriting, and Usurpation? Did the early Christian historians invent anything? Did they rewrite texts or did they usurp traditions?
Regarding the theme of invention, we must say that the Christian historiographers didn’t invent anything – what they achieved was to establish and to maintain Christian tradition. There are some new aspects of Christian historiography compared to the earlier pagan output, and we saw that Eusebius was well aware of that. What the Christian historiographers “invented” ←262 | 263→was the writing of histories in the sense of a history of church matters, the underlining of the truth claim and authenticity of their accounts, by means of what I have called the documentary dimension.
Regarding the theme of re-writing, we can point to the fact that many of the ancient texts are re-submitted in the works of the early Christian historians. Eusebius is the most impressive example of this, not only in his Church History, but also in the Praeparatio evangelica. The early Christian historiography does in fact re-write texts, but of course it re-writes texts in order to claim them as integral part of its own argumentation. Re-writing texts in this sense comes close to what might deserve to be called usurpation. We have many examples of that, especially in those parts of early Christian historiography where the apologetic and the theological dimensions play the most important role. Plato and Socrates, Abraham and Moses, Josephus and Philo, they all become part of the Christian tradition, whether they like it or not. Historiography seems to be one of the most successful weapons of early Christianity to carry out what the organizers of this conference have called “usurpation”.
Historiography has played a considerable role in the discursive fights over religious and also non-religious traditions in antiquity. It is not coincidence that the Constantine era is the time in which the first “Church History” was produced, constructed as a self-contained work on the basis of earlier historiographical endeavours. And it is not coincidence either that in the late fourth and early fifth century we find ourselves in a “golden age” of Christian historiography. Christianity had taken over religious and political power in the empire; and Christian historiographers had taken over the sovereignty of interpreting the past and of giving account on the traditions they regarded as relevant.
←263 | 264→* First published in: J. Ulrich / A.-C. Jacobsen / D. Brakke (eds.), Invention, Rewriting, Usurpation. Discursive Fights over Religious Traditions in Antiquity, ECCA 11, Frankfurt 2012, 161–177.
1 R. Koselleck, Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten, Frankfurt 1984, particularly 176–207.
2 E. Stöwe, Kirchengeschichtsschreibung, in: 4TRE 18 (1989), 535–560 (536f.).
3 For the bishops’ lists as historiographical documents see W. Wischmeyer, Wahrnehmungen von Geschichte in der christlichen Literatur zwischen Lukas und Eusebius. Die chronographische Form der Bischofslisten, in: E.–M. Becker (ed.), Die antike Historiographie und die Anfänge der christlichen Geschichtsschreibung, in: BZNW 129, Berlin 2005, 263–276.
4 See F. Mildenberger, Heilsgeschichte, in: 4RGG 3 (2000), 1584–1586 (1584); and the monography by G. Weth, Die Heilsgeschichte, ihr universeller und ihr individueller Sinn in der offenbarungsgeschichtlichen Theologie des 19. Jahrhunderts, Munich 1931.
5 See Stöwe, 1989, 536.
6 Eus., h.e. 1.2,14–16. – Translation of Eusebius’ church history by Philip Schaff from The Post-Nicene Fathers, NPNF 2/1, Grand Rapids 1890 (= 21999).
7 Eus., h.e. 2.6,8; 3.5,3; 3.5,6; Eus., d.e. 9.11,13. See J. Ulrich, Euseb von Caesarea und die Juden, PTS 49, Berlin 1999, 134–146.
8 Eus., h.e. 8.1,7.
9 Eus., h.e. 10.9,1: To him, therefore, God granted, from heaven above, the deserved fruit of piety, the trophies of victory over the impious, and he cast the guilty one with all his counselors and friends prostrate at the feet of Constantine.
10 B. Seeberg, Die Geschichtstheologie Justins des Märtyrers, in: ZKG 58 (1939), 1–81 (1); similary A.J. Droge, Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture, HUTh 26, Tübingen 1989, 68. Both scholars have accused Justin of establishing an “imperialistic” understanding of history; a careful criticism of this rather severe verdict can be found in P. Pilhofer, Presbyteron kreitton. Der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte, WUNT 2/39, Tübingen 1990, 250 (note 61).
11 P. Pilhofer, Presbyteron kreitton. Der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte, WUNT 2/39, Tübingen 1990.
12 For the apologetic dimensions of Eusebius’ Church History see A.J. Droge, The Apologetic Dimensions of the Ecclesiastical History, in: H.W. Attridge / G. Hata (eds.), Eusebius Christianity, and Judaism, StPB 42, Leiden 1992, 492–509.
13 Eus., h.e. 1,4.4–10.
14 Droge, 1992, 499. – See also J. Ulrich, Wie verteidigte Euseb das Christentum? Eine Übersicht über die apologetischen Schriften und die apologetische Methode Eusebs von Caesarea, in: A.-C. Jacobsen / J. Ulrich (eds.), Three Greek Apologists. Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius. Drei griechische Apologeten. Origenes, Eusebius und Athanasius, ECCA 3, Frankfurt 2007, 49–74.
15 Eus, h.e. 1.1,6
16 M. Wallraff (ed.), Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronik, TU 157, Berlin 2006; see also id., Die Kestoi des Julius Africanus und ihre Überlieferung, TU 165, Berlin 2009.
17 Eus., h.e. 1.2,23: “Then, finally, at the time of the origin of the Roman Empire, there appeared again to all men and nations throughout the world, who had been, as it were, previously assisted, and were now fitted to receive the knowledge of the Father, that same teacher of virtue, the minister of the Father in all good things, the divine and heavenly Word of God, in a human body not at all differing in substance from our own.”
18 H.C. Brennecke, Kirchengeschichte / Kirchengeschichtsschreibung II. Entwicklung 2. Alte Kirche, in: 4RGG 4 (2001), 1181–1183 (1182).
19 Eus., h.e. 1.1,1.
20 M. Willing, Euseb von Cäsarea als Häreseograph, PTS 63, Berlin 2009.
21 F. Winkelmann, Zur nacheusebianischen christlichen Historiographie des 4. Jahrhunderts, in: C. Schulz / G. Makris (eds.), Polypleuros Nous. Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, ByA 19, Leipzig 2000, 404–414 (406–408).
22 Winkelmann, 2000, 408f.
23 Iren., haer.; Tert., praescr. haer.
24 T. Fuhrer, Rufins Historia Ecclesiastica. „Geschichte“ und Geschichten von Kämpfen und Siegen der Orthodoxie, in: B. Bäbler / H.-G. Nesselrath (eds.), Die Welt des Sokrates von Konstantinopel. Studien zu Politik, Religion und Kultur im späten 4. und frühen 5. Jahrhundert zu Ehren von Christoph Schäublin, Leipzig 2001, 60–70.
25 Fuhrer, 2001, 61f.
26 P.R. Amidon, The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia. Books 10 and 11, New York 1997, 3.
27 Fuhrer, 2001, 62.
28 M. van Uytfanghe, Heiligenverehrung II. Hagiographie, in: RAC 14 (1988), 150–183.
29 Socr., h.e. 1.1; 5 (prooem.).
30 J. Ulrich, Sozomenus, in: 3LACL (2002), 648f. (649).
31 Eus., h.e. 10.9,6f.
32 I have tried to prove this for the case of Domitian. See J. Ulrich, Euseb, HistEccl III 14–20 und die Frage nach der Christenverfolgung unter Domitian, in: ZNW 89 (1996), 269–289. See A. Wlosok, Die christliche Apologetik griechischer und lateinischer Sprache bis zur Konstantinischen Epoche. Fragen, Probleme, Kontroversen, in: A. Wlosok (ed.), L'apologétique chrétienne gréco-latine à l'époque prénicénienne, EnAC 51, Genf 2005, 1–28 (6).
33 H. Leppin, The Church Historians (I). Socrates, Sozomenos, and Theodoretus, in: G. Marasco (ed.), Greek and Roman Historiography in the Later Roman Empire. Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., Leiden 2003, 219–254. Also see id., Von Constantin dem Großen zu Theodosius II. Das christliche Kaisertum bei den Kirchenhistorikern Socrates, Sozomenus und Theodoret, Hyp. 10, Göttingen 1996.
34 Leppin, 2003, 219.
35 Leppin, 2003, 239.
36 Socr., h.e. 5 (prooem.).
37 See M. Willing, Euseb von Cäsarea als Häreseograph, PTS 63, Berlin 2009, 421–425.
38 See A. Momigliano, Pagan and Christian Historiography, in: id. (ed.), The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, Oxford 1963, 79–99.
39 See Brennecke, 2001, 1181.
40 Leppin, 2003, 220.
41 An interesting exception, however, is the passage in Socr., h.e. 7.4; 7.16f.; 7.38.
42 Eus., h.e. 1.1,3.
43 Hartmut Leppin has proposed this term as an appropriate rendering of the Greek ekklesiastike historia. See Leppin, 2000, 249.
44 Eus., h.e. 4.22.
45 See Willing, 2008, 494.
46 See Willing, 2008, 491.
47 D. Timpe, Was ist Kirchengeschichte? Zum Gattungscharakter der Historia ecclesiastica des Eusebius, in: W. Dahlheim / W. Schuller (eds.), Festschrift Robert Werner zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, Xenia 22, Konstanz 1989, 171–204 (190).
48 See Willing, 2008, 494f.
49 See J. Ulrich, Eusebius als Kirchengeschichtsschreiber, in: E.-M. Becker (ed.), Die antike Historiographie und die Anfänge der christlichen Geschichtsschreibung, BZNW 129, Berlin 2005, 277–287 (286); F. Winkelmann, Euseb von Kaisareia. Der Vater der Kirchengeschichte, Berlin 1991, 109.