Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Eusebius
View through CrossRef
Abstract
This chapter focuses on Eusebius’ reception of Philo’s works. As is well known, his use of the philosopher was instrumental in helping him shape his grand Christian apologetic project and played a central role in his plan to comprehensively map Christian historical, theological and cultural territory. In particular, Philo’s citations contributed to the legitimation of Eusebius’ reconstruction of Christian origins as well as his version of “orthodox” Christian theological doctrines. While Eusebius played a major role in the transmission of Philo in the Christian tradition and thereby significantly contributed to the preservation of his texts, the theological and ideological consequences of this appropriation should not be ignored. If Philo is undeniably an exception in Eusebius’ negative treatment of “Jews” as an ethnic and theological category, he is nevertheless objectified to serve specific apologetic purposes. Eusebius thereby ushers in not only a long Christian tradition of including Philo, but also a tradition that dispossessed Philo of his own truth. Therefore, Eusebius’ abundant use of Philo of Alexandria as well as his occasionally positive (but apologetic) description of the Jewish way of life should not obfuscate his significant contribution to the history of Christian anti-Judaism.
Title: Eusebius
Description:
Abstract
This chapter focuses on Eusebius’ reception of Philo’s works.
As is well known, his use of the philosopher was instrumental in helping him shape his grand Christian apologetic project and played a central role in his plan to comprehensively map Christian historical, theological and cultural territory.
In particular, Philo’s citations contributed to the legitimation of Eusebius’ reconstruction of Christian origins as well as his version of “orthodox” Christian theological doctrines.
While Eusebius played a major role in the transmission of Philo in the Christian tradition and thereby significantly contributed to the preservation of his texts, the theological and ideological consequences of this appropriation should not be ignored.
If Philo is undeniably an exception in Eusebius’ negative treatment of “Jews” as an ethnic and theological category, he is nevertheless objectified to serve specific apologetic purposes.
Eusebius thereby ushers in not only a long Christian tradition of including Philo, but also a tradition that dispossessed Philo of his own truth.
Therefore, Eusebius’ abundant use of Philo of Alexandria as well as his occasionally positive (but apologetic) description of the Jewish way of life should not obfuscate his significant contribution to the history of Christian anti-Judaism.
Related Results
Eusebius the Evangelist
Eusebius the Evangelist
AbstractEusebius the Evangelist analyzes Eusebius of Caesarea’s fourth-century reconfiguration of the Gospels as a window into broader questions of technology and textuality in the...
Eusebius of Caesarea: Power and Progress
Eusebius of Caesarea: Power and Progress
Abstract
The most recurrent description of Eusebius' theology is ‘old-fashioned’; it is usually summarized as a mixture of biblical exegesis, simplified Origenism, a...
Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History
Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History
Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History about the year 324. He was the first person to try to summarize the history of Christianity up through his own day. Eusebius was the bisho...
Origen in the Likeness of Philo: Eusebius of Caesarea’s Portrait of the Model Scholar
Origen in the Likeness of Philo: Eusebius of Caesarea’s Portrait of the Model Scholar
This article discusses the similarities between the biographical presentations of Philo and Origen in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. The tension Eusebius feels between Philo Chr...
Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Luke: Its Origin and Early History
Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Luke: Its Origin and Early History
Migne, Patrologia Gracca 24, columns 529–605, prints a work of Eusebius which he entitles Eusebii Caesariensis Commentarii in Lucae Evangelium quantum superest in Codicibus Vatican...
Resolving Genealogical Ambiguity: Eusebius and (ps-)Ephrem on Luke 1.36
Resolving Genealogical Ambiguity: Eusebius and (ps-)Ephrem on Luke 1.36
The earliest formal New Testament commentary in Syriac is the so-called Commentary on the Diatessaron attributed to Ephrem. This commentary is thoroughly at home in the world of Sy...
Reading Eusebius’ Gospels
Reading Eusebius’ Gospels
AbstractThe technological and literary possibilities of the Eusebian apparatus continued to shape readers’ encounters with the Gospels across geography, language, and theological t...
Eusebius of Caesarea’s or Eusebius of Emesa’s Theophania? Evidence from the Lemmata in Vaticanus Graecus 1611
Eusebius of Caesarea’s or Eusebius of Emesa’s Theophania? Evidence from the Lemmata in Vaticanus Graecus 1611
Abstract
This paper is a response to Alice Whealey’s proposal concerning the authorship of certain fragments traditionally assigned to Eusebius of Caesarea, arguing that they are m...

