The History of the Church: A New Translation (World Literature in Translation)

Eusebius was a fourth century historian, scholar, and Bishop in Caesarea, which is in present day Israel. He wrote The History of the Church (aka Ecclesiastical History) as a history of Christianity up until his time. It is split up into 10 books (chapters), which are chronological from the time of Jesus to the time of Constantine when Eusebius lived.The History covers three hundred years of alternating repression and persecution of the Christian church mixed with periods of tolerance from Rome. As the book ends, Constantine has consolidated his power, reversed the Diocletian persecution of the very early fourth century, and ordered the confiscated property of churches to be restored. After recounting hundreds of years of frequently vicious persecution, the book understandably ends on a hopeful note.The depth and depravity of the persecution could be unimaginable at times. It is described in detail in Book 8, and takes up most of the book. Some who professed Christ were tortured to death, with all manner of cruelty including pouring vinegar and salt into compound fractures, cooking body parts while people were still alive, pouring molten lead into body parts, and having them torn apart by wild animals to name a few. Having your eyes gouged out and your leg broken and cauterized, then being sent to work in the copper mines was considered a compassionate sentence. The truly fortunate were simply beheaded which could be quick and relatively painless.When describing this persecution, Eusebius’ language frequently echoes that of the Apostle Paul. Those who refuse to deny Christ and sacrifice to the Roman gods, and persevere through persecution and torture to death are described as holy athletes who have stayed the course and completed the race victoriously. As Christ was perfected through suffering, so too were they.The world Eusebius lived in was foreign to us. Islam did not exist. The Bible as we know it did not exist. While all the contents had been written and was familiar to Eusebius, it had not been collected in the form we know it. Christianity flourished all around the Mediterranean Sea, in areas such as north Africa, Jerusalem, Syria, and Turkey, which are now predominantly Muslim. The main competing theology to Christianity was not Islam, but the Roman state religion which honored multiple gods. Rome was not the center of the church, and the Bishop of Rome was just one of a number of influential Bishops (along with Alexandria, Jerusalem, Carthage, and Caesarea among others), and not yet called “Pope”.Not only was the world different, books and histories were also written differently. It takes a while to get the structure of The History, but once you do it starts to flow and make sense. The primary framing device is to trace the history of the church by tracking the successive Bishops of the most influential churches, from the time of the Apostles to his present day. Rather than starting with one church and working through the entire roster of Bishops, Eusebius simultaneously tracks the rosters of three churches through most of the ten chapters which can make it a little hard to follow.This is also interwoven with a fair amount of reporting on the political machinations of the Caesars over the same three hundred year period. This makes sense since whether the church was being persecuted, protected, or ignored was almost totally dependent on which Caesar happened to be in power.It can also be difficult to follow because there are multiple authorial voices, and it can be hard to keep track of them sometimes. The translator opens each chapter with an overview, as well as interjecting commentary in the footnotes. Then, you have Eusebius himself who provides much of the narrative, which can be punctuated by translator footnotes. Beyond that, Eusebius frequently quotes primary sources (e.g. from letters of Pamphilus, or Irenaeus) at considerable length – sometimes pages - which can also be punctuated by translator footnotes, which makes it easy to lose track of who is saying what. It’s hard to tell how much of this is a feature of the original book, or whether this could have been improved by the translator.While Eusebius has been criticized for being an unreliable historian, some of those attacks are clearly driven by anti-Christian ideology. He is generally quoting primary sources, who were there when what is being described was happening. In those cases, he gives attribution. When he needs to convey information that can’t be directly attributed, he makes that clear by using a construction such as, “it is said”.It’s easy to think we are smarter and know more than they did back then, but the level of scholarship exhibited by Eusebius, his peers, and the church fathers he uses as primary sources in unparalleled. They didn’t have the internet, instantaneous communication, Google and Wikipedia, but they knew how to collect and distribute manuscripts, they knew how to write, and most importantly, they knew how to make and refute logical arguments, which is more than can be said of those who engage in political or theological debates today.As for the translation, it was very readable, although I haven’t read other translations so have nothing to compare it to. Like most books today, it probably could have used tighter editing. The footnotes can be a little random at times, and not consistent throughout the book. They waver between a scholarly approach, and one designed to improve readability for the general reader. In my mind there was not enough of the latter, but that is personal preference.If you have any interest in the church, its history, and how it got to where it is today, you need to read this book.

Eusebius' work is widely acknowledged as the most important and earliest account of Church history. The translator in this case chose to use C.E. rather than A.D., presumably to avoid any religious connotations or to appear unbiased or academic. He is attempting to translate the work of a Christian Bishop and should be respectful of the religious significance of Eusebius' work. I would laugh if I did not find it so offensive.

Great translation of this fundamental text

Good quality, delivered promptly