In Early Christian Thinkers: The Lives and Legacies of Twelve Key Figures edited by Paul Foster the chapter on Eusebius of Caesarea is written by Timothy David Barnes.
This is the final chapter of this book. There have been some good chapters and some less than good. This chapter on Eusebius is a good one. I found it informative. Barnes critiques that idea that Eusebius was that close to Constantine arguing that he may have met him no more than four times (pp. 173-175). He became a Bishop of Caesarea in 313 (p. 175). Because of his association with the teachings of Origen (regarding Jesus as a “Second Lord” and “Second God”) he had to get a provisional excommunication lifted to participate at the Coucil of Nicaea (p. 176). For the most part he remained sympathetic to Arianism for the rest of his life (even participating in the Council of Tyre “which deposed Athanasius as bishop of Alexandria in 335, p. 177), but he watched his language to avoid being excommunicated.
Barnes discusses some of Eusebius’ works (pp. 178-184) and provides a bibliography (pp. 184-189).
Then he returns to Eusebius’ “theology.” He explains his connection to the teachings of Origen. He explained how the starting point of his Christology was that the Father and Son do not share a single “ousia or hypostasis“ which is contrary to Nicene Christology (p. 190). It was through this paradigm of a “subordinate Logos” that he explained everything from the creation of humanity through to the final judgment.
I admit, I knew Eusebius waffled a bit, but I didn’t know he was essentially Arian.
Anyways, it was a good chapter and very helpful as an introduction.
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian, I went back to the early posts in this series but could find nothing; did the editor (Paul Foster?) specify criteria by which they selected the twelve thinkers they included?
The only criteria is that the person be from the second or third century with a lasting thought contribution.
Brian: Now that you’re finished, I would love to know what you thought of the book overall. Was it a helpful introduction for a popular readership, or for those with previous theological training? Did it introduce ideas outside of the typical evangelical fold (e.g. liturgy, regenerational baptism, mystery of faith/works, Christus Victor theory, etc)? Finally, did it create any desire within you to research any of these figures more? Thanks in advance for any thoughts you can give. I research in the area and am always on the lookout for works that I could eventually use in introductory courses.
Bryce
Most chapters were helpful. Some where so-so. Some where very unhelpful. I give it a solid “B” for a grade
Sadly, I don’t feel like it did a great job introducing major theological motifs. Some essays were better than others (e.g., good job with Irenaeus, poor job with some others). Other than Origen, Tatian, Irenaeus, and Perpetua I didn’t feel like doing further reading. That means about 1/3 of the essays peaked my interest that way.,
Thanks for your series on this book.
I admit, being passionate about Christ Jesus and good history, Eusebius is a wolf and a scoundrel. How hard was the author of this piece on him? At leas he reveals his political deftness in hiding his Arianism. He was also was a promoter of natural theology to the extent that instead of the gods being mere demons, vis. Justin Martyr, they now took on proto attempts at the truth. This attitude essentially nullified any understanding of the “Jewishness” of the Tanakh, in the same vain as Origen had done.
Did it mention his propagandist nature? How he made Constantine and Licinius almost Davidic kings against their rivals and then turns on Licinius, with the masterful skill of a Goebbels, as an “enemy of the gospel” because of his affections for Constantine, as both his man and more importantly as the winner. The dubious episode on the Milvian bridge was reinterpreted by Eusebius when there is evidence Constantine had thought it was a sign from Sol Invictus. Even when he was a quasi-christian, Constantine printed images of Sol on his coins. Eusebius refuses to allow any of this in his “history”. Constantine was the one willing to pour wordly wealth and power on the Church. Essentially poison for the poisoned.
Eusebius was a man of the courtly life, not the Christian life, and resculpted Christian history into the triumphal march towards Constantine and a christinized Rome which ended in a paganized Christianity. Constantine was his real lord and messiah, not Jesus. If there is one man who claimed “Lord, Lord” and was not known to our Lord, it would be him.
Whew! /endrant
Peace,
Cal
Cal
I think Barnes was less “interpretive” that your comment. He tried to remain objectively academic. I couldn’t tell if he liked or disliked Eusebius. He was straightforward about Eusebius’ love for Constantine and his affiliation with Arianism though.
Thanks for the analysis. Very helpful.
You’re welcome.