Our Present Object: Dynamic and Powerful Eschatology Alongside Dynamic and Powerful Political Ideology in the Historical Work of Eusebius and His Continuators by Drew Kenley Maxwell A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of St. Michael’s College and the Historical Department of the Toronto School of Theology. In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College. © Copyright by Drew Kenley Maxwell 2015 Our Present Object: Dynamic and Powerful Eschatology Alongside Dynamic and Powerful Political Ideology in the Historical Work of Eusebius and His Continuators Drew Kenley Maxwell Doctor of Philosphy in Theology University of St. Michael’s College 2015 Abstract This study identifies and expounds upon two key constituent elements in the work of the historians of the Eusebian tradition; eschatology and political ideology. Using the ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen and Theodoret as its essential primary documents, the study demonstrates that in the content of each historical work there resides a dynamic and powerful eschatology which is also accompanied by a dynamic and powerful political ideology in every instance. Though it is impossible to objectively prove that such a coincidence is absolutely interrelated, the study suggests in a compelling way, and based on the research, that a causal relationship is very likely. In a secondary way, the study is also a witness to an emergent understanding that in Late Antiquity there was a revisioning of eschatology among the theologians of the Early Church which turned from a predominantly apocalyptic understanding of eschatology to one more grounded in history and, more importantly, the historiography of Early Christiainity. Such a discovery also lends credence to the notion that the historians of the Eusebian school were not only historians, but historical theologians seeking to shape the Church in the context of her new confidence. ii Acknowledgements This project is the completion of a curious quest of my own and the working out, personally, of what the Eusebian tradition has to say about the nexus of Christian thinking and politics. It is my sincere hope that this work is fruitful and establishes a path of further research, as well as piquing the curiosity, of others as well. I am especially grateful to my key advisors through the years of this project, the Rev. Dr. John McGuckin of Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University, the Rev. Dr. T. Allan Smith of the University of St. Michael’s College and Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies and the Rev. Dr. Alan Hayes, Director of the Toronto School of Theology and professor at Wycliffe College. They have given much encouragement and guidance along the way while also providing the space and freedom to complete my work appropriately. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter One: Foundations: Apocalyptic Literature, Classical Political Ideology, and Late Antique Rhetoric .......................................................................................................... 8 Chapter Two: Emerging Patristic Eschatology .............................................................................. 38 Chapter Three: Eusebius of Caesarea: Historical Eschatology and Dynamic Political Ideology Formation ............................................................................... 50 Chapter Four: Socrates Scholasticus: Eschatology in the Service of Classical Politics? ..............89 Chapter Five: Hermias Salaminius Sozomen of Constantinople: Folkloric Eschatology and the Subjugation of Political Power ................................................................................... 107 Chapter Six: St. Theodoret of Cyrus: Eschatological Crasis: Politics in the Frame of Biblical Cosmic Struggle .................................................................................................... 127 Chapter Seven: Conclusions: ....................................................................................................... 148 Chapter Eight: Implications: ........................................................................................................ 155 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 165 iv Introduction Our Present Object In the twenty-fifth chapter of the second book of his Ecclesiastical History , Eusebius of Caesarea, the originator of a new and Christian kind of historiography, wrote the following in reference to the persecuting Roman emperor Nero: “Nero, now having the government firmly established under him and henceforth plunging into nefarious projects, began to take up arms against that very religion which acknowledges the one Supreme God. To describe, indeed, the greatness of this man’s wickedness is not compatible with our present object...” 1 For most young students of Christianity, Eusebius is presented as the first historian of Christianity: a fact-finder extraordinaire: a first-rate delver into archives. And yet, here in the heart of his monumental historical work he reveals that the basic description of historical facts relating to the emperor Nero, no small character in the early persecution of Christianity, is not related to “our present object.” This, of course, begs the following question: What is Eusebius’ present object after all? The answer to that question, with regard to both Eusebius and his continuators, is the purpose of the research that follows. The Eusebian tradition of historiography can be found in the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, Socrates of Constantinople, Hermias Salaminius Sozomen, and St. Theodoret of Cyrus. All four of these historians sought to accomplish something new, originally led by the work of Eusebius. Guided by the sources of history, Eusebius set out to create a narrative of the earliest ——————————— 1. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History , 2.25. (Here using the English translation of Cruse, which is generally not relied upon in the ensuing research but suits our purposes well in this instance.) See Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History , trans. C.F. Cruse, reprint, 1998 (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006), 62. 1 2 Christians highlighted by their eventual success and acceptance under the first Christian emperor Constantine. Following in his footsteps, his continuators largely adopted his form and established mold to catalogue their own eras through their own historiographic narratives. When one investigates them even to the point of simply scratching the surface of their ideas, however, one discovers immediately their preoccupation with two intertwined ideas: eschatology and political ideology. All four of the historians of the Eusebian tradition are deeply invested in the Christian notion of eschatology, that is, God’s ultimate intentions and desires for His creation. Over and over again in their works, one finds an attention to eschatology that is both noteworthy and ever-present. Additionally, and not surprisingly for historians interested in the rise of Christianity in Late Antiquity, they are also focused not only on the political actors of their age, but betray in their portrayals a deep interest in the political ideology of their eras. All four historians not only reflect upon their own observations of politics, but also seek to define political ideology in subtle but observable ways. From the stories of the rise of Constantine and his sons, the persecutions of heretical emperors, and the struggles of bishops against persecuting and even pious emperors, these historians are deeply invested in the political stories of their age. Interestingly, it is in both the eschatology and political ideologies of these historians, that we find the most diversity. Though they share a mutual interest in both topics, they also demonstrate a diversity of interests and opinions in both the intentions of God for humanity and the politics of their days. Could there be a connection between these two themes and the variety of opinions expressed by our historians regarding them? That is the question that leads to the thesis of the following research. Through an examination of the key work of each of these four historians, the project seeks to prove the following thesis: the stronger and more dynamic the relative eschatological outlook of an historian of the Eusebian tradition was, the more dynamic and powerful was his comparative opinion of Roman imperialism. Put another way, in every instance where a dynamic and powerful eschatology is found in Eusebius and his continuators, there exists in concert with such an eschatology a flexible and strong political ideology. Such a relationship will be proved through an historical, form and textual analysis of four 3 key texts: the ecclesiastical histories of all four of these historians. Most importantly, we will employ a comparative textual analysis of the texts in order to establish key controls with which to evaluate the relative dynamism and power of the eschatology and political ideology of each of our successive historians. In the end, we will find that in every instance, the historians of