Eusebius of Emesa: Church & Theology in the Mid-Fourth Century by Robert E.Winn (review)

Scholars of early Christianity have not known what to make of Eusebius of Emesa (c. 300–59). His writings did not survive in their original Greek, but in Latin and Armenian translations. Furthermore, he does not fit many preconceived notions of the fourth century. Robert Winn’s new book is a remarkable accomplishment, which presents Eusebius’s thought on its own terms and sheds light on this previously obscure figure. After surveying the biographical data for Eusebius in chapter 1, the remainder of the book consists of Winn’s close reading of Eusebius’s surviving corpus. Since this requires mastery of Latin and Armenian, it is no small task. Winn is able to convey clearly the flow of Eusebius’s thought in his various homilies while also conveying the details of Eusebius’s rhetorical performance and his exegetical and argumentative strategies (such strategies are the focus of chapter 2). In connection with both exegesis and Christology, for instance, Winn helpfully undermines the notion that Eusebius should be thought of as representative of an “Antiochene” theological school. Winn offers a more convincing context, situating Eusebius’s thought in relationship with his mentor, Eusebius of Caesarea, and his friend, George of Laodicea, while also noting affinities with conciliar documents of the 340s and 350s.

Winn shows that affiliaticon with a doctrinal party was not determinative for Eusebius, who in fact used his sermons “to chastise his audience and the larger church for the very debate concerning the nature of God” (p. 125). Instead of partisanship, “what was primary in Eusebius’s mind was ecclesiastical identity” (p. 13). Eusebius sought to show his audience the superiority of the church over its rivals: Jews, pagans, and heretics (especially Marcionites and Manichees). By “identity,” Winn signals the Christian community’s defining beliefs and practices. He narrates Eusebius’s difficulties in convincing his audience; when urging them to renunciation, the bishop had to remind his audience, “We are not your enemies” (p. 226). Chapters 3 and 4 demonstrate that, for Eusebius, the affirmation of God’s incorporeality—and a corresponding cosmology—were central to Christian identity. In chapter 6, Winn shows that asceticism, understood as conversatio angelorum, was at the heart of Christian practice for Eusebius. Indeed, salvation was practically equated with becoming “an asexual angel” (p. 240). Fittingly so, since, as chapter 5 shows, the union of divinity and humanity in Christ was for the purpose of transforming human nature, elevating it to the level of angels rather than of men.

Some questions remain. Winn helpfully undermines the attempt to interpret Eusebius through a party allegiance. Perhaps this insight should be pursued further. Winn claims that in rejecting Marcellus of Ancyra, Eusebius was opposing “those associated with the theology of the creed of Nicea” (p. 124). Likewise, since Eusebius proclaimed that the Son of God is “God with God,” he must also have “condemned the theology of Arius” (p. 125). But this presupposes that he was concerned with Nicaea and Arius, which is not clear; perhaps those ciphers played little role in his thinking at all. Following in Winn’s wake, the major points of comparison for Eusebius should be Eusebius of Caesarea and George of Laodicea—figures for whom neither Nicaea nor Arius were particularly interesting. Still, Winn shows that Eusebius was unique and, late in his life, surprisingly Trinitarian: Eusebius explicitly called the Spirit God in the 350s, a move that even a number of pro-Nicenes in subsequent decades did not make. This is noteworthy and raises questions as to why Eusebius would have done so (was he reacting against anyone?) and whether his doing so influenced later thinkers.

All scholars of Greek Christian thought and practice in the fourth century should read this book. With his philological skill and his sensitivity to the nuances of patristic theology, Winn has placed us in his debt. This...