scholarly journals Emperors, bishops, art and jurisprudence: the transformation of law in Eusebius of Caesarea

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-34
Author(s):  
James Corke-Webster
Keyword(s):  
Eusebius Of Caesarea

Eusebius of Caesarean Commentary on Psalm 37 in the Old Georgian Version

2019 ◽  
pp. 15-38
Author(s):  
Сергий Ким
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Critical Edition ◽  
Russian Translation ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Eusebius Of Caesarea

Толкование Евсевия Кесарийского на 37-й псалом в греческом оригинале было исследовано автором настоящей статьи в рамках проекта по Александрийской и Антиохийской экзегезе при Берлинско-Бранденбургской академии наук1 в 2017-2018 гг. По итогам исследования греческих рукописей было подготовлено новое критическое издание (в печати). Данная статья является продолжением работы над этим памятником и представляет читателю первую часть древнегрузинской версии Толкования на 37-й псалом и её русского перевода. The Greek original of the Commentary on Psalm 37 by Eusebius of Caesarea was studied by the author of the present contribution in the frame of the project «Die alexandrinische und antiochenische Bibelexegese in der Spätantike» at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences in 2017-2018. The investigation of the Greek manuscripts led to a new critical edition of Eusebius’ text (forthcoming). We conceive the present article as a continuation of our study on this text and offer the reader a first part of the critical edition of the hitherto inedited Old Georgian version of Eusebius’ Commentary on Psalm 37 alongside its Russian translation.

Harmonizing the Truth: Eusebius and the Problem of the Four Gospels

Traditio ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 65 ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas O'Loughlin
Keyword(s):  
Late Antiquity ◽  
History Of Ideas ◽  
Third Century ◽  
Perceived Utility ◽  
Latin West ◽  
Book Of Kells ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of ◽  
Eusebius Of Caesarea ◽  
The Church

In the late third century Eusebius of Caesarea, better remembered now for his work as a historian of the church, produced an apparatus for the reconciliation of the disagreements found in the four Christian gospels. It was a remarkable work in its own right for it preserved, as the tradition demanded, the plurality of the gospels, while allowing them to be presented and studied as a single entity, “the gospel,” and so succeeding in Tatian's aim in hisDiatessaron— as exegesis and apologetics demanded. Moreover, though now largely forgotten, it remained an important element within theology for centuries. This paper's aim is to locate the significance of Eusebius's work in its original setting in the world of late antiquity and the Christian defense of pagan challenges to the gospels' integrity, and then to follow the influence of his work within just one strand of the tradition: that which forms the background of western, Latin theology. So it will note how that work was adopted and adapted by Jerome, how it then passed on to the late-patristic Latin schoolmasters who sought to transform all learning into convenient modules of defined value, and then was taken up by others in just one region of the Latin West, the insular world, such as the anonymous scribes of the Book of Kells, the Stowe Missal, and the Book of Deer, for whom Eusebius's work was a mystery that they could not simply abandon, even when they could not understand it. Throughout this period, the Eusebian Apparatus roused the intellect of scholars, teachers, and scribes, but in each milieu the significance and perceived utility of the Apparatus was different. The history of ideas is about changes within intellectual and textual continuities, and with the Apparatus we have a clearly identifiable scholarly tool that does not in itself change over the period, but whose reception and exploitation vary greatly.

scholarly journals A SUPPOSED HOMILY OF EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

1906 ◽  
Vol os-VIII (29) ◽  
pp. 114-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. MERCATI
Keyword(s):  
Eusebius Of Caesarea

Basil of Caesarea’s Authorship of Epistle 361 and His Relationship with the Homoiousians Reconsidered

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-70
Author(s):  
Dragoş Andrei Giulea
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Third Century ◽  
Individual Substance ◽  
The Third ◽  
Mature Period ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Eusebius Of Caesarea

Abstract A comparative analysis of Ep. 361 and Eun. 1.19 in terms of language and ideas will offer a renewed confirmation (on internal grounds) of Basil of Caesarea’s authorship of Ep. 361 and a new perspective on Basil’s relationship with the Homoiousians. In addition, the article will also retrace the steps and revisit the purpose of Basil’s argument. Thus we discover in the early Basil an author simultaneously receptive to both Homoiousian and pro-Nicene visions, but leaning towards an improved Homoiousian solution. The article further investigates Basil’s vision of ousia in Ep. 361 and finds that—unlike in his later, mature, period—the early Basil shares with the Homoiousians and Eusebius of Caesarea two doctrinal elements, namely the understanding of ousia as individual substance and an associated theology of “likeness”. He inherits this view from a tradition originating in the third century, which received its official confirmation at the council of Antioch in 268. This vision is also present in the first part of Basil’s Contra Eunomium. Instead of considering Basil as a Homoiousian, one may see him, together with Eusebius and the Homoiousians, as a representative of the Antiochene legacy.

scholarly journals Eusebius of Caesarea, the Roman Empire, and the Fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy: Reassessing Byzantine Imperial Eschatology in the Age of Constantine

2021 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 509-536
Author(s):  
Christopher Bonura
Keyword(s):  
Roman Empire ◽  
Kingdom Of Heaven ◽  
The Future ◽  
Book Of Daniel ◽  
Eusebius Of Caesarea ◽  
Realized Eschatology ◽  
Second Coming

AbstractModern scholarship often attributes to Eusebius of Caesarea (d. circa 340 AD) the view that God's heavenly kingdom had become manifest in the Roman Empire of Constantine the Great. Consequently, Eusebius is deemed significant in the development of Christian eschatological thought as the supposed formulator of a new “realized eschatology” for the Christian Roman Empire. Similarly, he is considered the originator of so-called “Byzantine imperial eschatology”—that is, eschatology designed to justify the existing imperial order under the emperors in Constantinople. Scholars advancing these claims most frequently cite a line from Eusebius's Tricennial Oration in which he identified the accession of the sons of Constantine with the prophesied kingdom of the saints in the Book of Daniel. Further supposed evidence has been adduced in his other writings, especially his Life of Constantine. This article argues that this common interpretation of Eusebius's eschatology is mistaken and has resulted from treating a few passages in isolation while overlooking their rhetorical context. It demonstrates instead that Eusebius adhered to a conventional Christian eschatology centered on the future kingdom of heaven that would accompany the second coming of Christ and further suggests that the concept of “Byzantine imperial eschatology” should be reconsidered.

Polykoiranie II (Philo Judaeus, Early Christian Apologists, Pseudo-Dionysius)

2021 ◽  
pp. 70-99
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Bennington
Keyword(s):  
Second Century ◽  
Early Christian ◽  
Clement Of Alexandria ◽  
Islamic Thought ◽  
The One ◽  
Eusebius Of Caesarea ◽  
Pseudo Dionysius

The chapter pursues invocations and quotations of the same line from Homer in Philo Judaeus’s On the Confusion of Tongues, and subsequently among the second-century CE Christian apologists Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, pseudo-Justin, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the pseudo-Dionysius, and their various attempts to Christianize pagan and Judaic sources. The complexity of the “One” in the concept of “one God” is analysed in Christianity, Judaism, and Islamic thought, and shown to have a significant stylistic presence in Derrida.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document