Eusebius Pamphili (“the son of Pamphilus”) (d. 339 C.E.), who was the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine and one of the most prolific writers of the early church,[1] wrote one of our main sources for the religious policy and reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (sole rule as an Emperor, 324-337 C.E.), the Life of Constantine (or Vita Constantini, cited as VC).[2] Eusebius, as a young man in Caesarea, studied with Pamphilus, who was a well-known Christian teacher and admirer of Origen, a church father who was a well-known major proponent of an allegorical approach to the Biblical texts.[3] Despite this initial training under Pamphilus in allegorical exegesis however, Eusebius appeared to usually prefer a literal interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures and perhaps this preference is tied to Eusebius’ apologetic interests in many of his writings.[4] More centrally though, it has to do with Eusebius’ whole method of history as Michael J. Hollerich, a Professor of Church History at the University of St.Thomas remarks, “Eusebius was convinced that the events of history were the best demonstration of the truth of Christianity, if it could be shown, to the satisfaction of both Jews and Gentiles…that the Hebrew scriptures accurately foresaw the origin and spread of Christianity.”[5] Eusebius’ attachment to interpreting history as showing the triumph of the Christian Church is what lead him to write his most famous work, the Historia Ecclesiastica, in which he intended “…to show in fullest detail the dispensation and divinity of Christ through the story of Christians, who had, cast out error, endured persecution, fulfilled Hebrew prophecy, and seen their enemies punished by divine providence.”[6] Eusebius by writing history intended not only to ‘give the facts’, but to show God’s work through history itself. Eusebius later came to include the Diocletian persecution (303 C.E.) and the tolerance of Christianity given under Constantine’s reign (313 C.E.) as part of this work[7] because Constantine’s Edict of Milan, which ended formal persecution against Christians, was in no doubt seen by Eusebius as a cause for great rejoicing. As Frederick W. Norris, part of the faculty of the Emmanuel School of Religion notes,

“…he [Eusebius] is fawning in his praise of Constantine. Descriptively, politically, and theologically he can hardly contain his joy. Doubtless Eusebius was influenced by the imperial persecution personally known to him, particularly that of Diocletian after years of peace. His whole apologetic corpus arises from those years of terror. The great opportunity which Constantine’s reign presented was not merely a return to the calm that Eusebius had known in his youth, but the creation of new support and privilege.”[8]

           Eusebius then, as must be pointed out, while clearly being excited about “the creation of new support and privilege” and about seeing the possible realization of the ‘Kingdom of God’ which Christians had been yearning for for centuries, should not be thought of primarily as a political theologian or a court historian for Constantine, rather we should regard Eusebius as what he claims to be, a churchman deeply interested in ecclesiastical matters. As for the claim that Eusebius was a court historian, T.D. Barnes, a professor of classics at the University of Toronto points, “Eusebius was no habitue of Constantine’s court, which he visited only four times…He was a provincial bishop who resided as Caesarea in Palestine, far from the centre of political events…”[9] Eusebius’ central importance as a chronicler of history during the Constantinian era has unfortunately overestimated his interest in politics, as Hollerich points out in agreement with the German scholar Gerhard Ruhbach, “…Eusebius had no interest in politics for its own sake; his orientations to political developments was exclusively theological and ecclesiastical…Eusebius’s attitude toward God’s involvement in history was fundamentally shaped by the Bible…”[10] Eusebius in fact wrote two large commentaries on the biblical books of the Psalms and Isaiah.[11] It is then in this spirit, in this line of thought of Eusebius as primarily an exegete and theologian who looks for God’s working in history, that we shall examine the Life of Constantine.

Emperor Constantine I, presenting a model of the city to Virgin Pary. Detail of the southwestern entrance mosaic in Hagia Sophia (Istanbul, Turkey)

Emperor Constantine I, presenting a model of the city to Virgin Pary.
Detail of the southwestern entrance mosaic in Hagia Sophia (Istanbul, Turkey)

The Life of Constantine, is an enigmatic work not only because of its sometimes surprising content but because of its mixture of genres and various purposes. The Life of Constantine appears to be a mix between history, panegyric and hagiography. It has been clear to most scholars that the Life of Constantine is not a finished literary product but rather shows signs that Eusebius himself inserted things later into it[12] in order to perhaps change its purpose from being a panegyric of the dead emperor into more of a polemical tract against his enemy Athanasius.[13] Aside from issues concerning its composition however is the much more troubling question as to its genre, for one would think that a work called the ‘Life’ of Constantine would conform to the standard Greco-Roman format and structure genre of ‘lives’ and yet it does not appear to do so in a strict sense, nor is it a reflection upon the life of Constantine.[14] In fact, from what we know about Eusebius’ other writings, he does not appear to have a great deal of knowledge of classical Greek historiography or imperial biographies.[15] Commenting upon the accuracy and portrayal Eusebius offers of the Roman Emperor Constantine Raoul Mortley, a researcher at the University of Newcastle says,

“Whether some of the stories about this moral hero of Eusebius are true, is a matter over which there must be much conjecture, though there is nothing overtly incredible. The picture is simply too complete and too self-consistent to be convincing. There is no doubt, however, that there must be some factual basis for this method to work: even though Eusebius presents an idealised portrait, it would be no portrait at all if he failed to ground it in fact. Facts are necessary for the idea to carry conviction. Yet we are not dealing with a genre in which the empirical mission is paramount. Facts are subordinated to the moral value of the model put forward….”[16]

          Mortley is in no doubt right when he argues that Eusebius is trying to put forward a model for future emperors to act upon. As Averil Cameron, a professor at the University of Oxford, argues, Eusebius in the later composition of the Life of Constantine was trying to urge on Constantine’s three sons and successors for the continuation of Constantine’s policies (as Eusebius portrayed them)  after the months of bloodshed that had taken place after Constantine’s death in 337 C.E.[17] In addition to this purpose of advising Constantine’s successors to ‘follow in his footsteps’, Eusebius appears to portray Constantine the Great as a saint of sorts. While much of the Life of Constantine appears to be in praise of the emperor it subtly leaves out many aspects of Constantine’s reign that were perhaps thought by Eusebius not worthy to be imitated such as Constantine murdering his own family members and Constantine’s proposal that the emperor should serve as the bishop for those outside the church.[18] Eusebius himself states clearly that his purpose in writing the Life of Constantine was “…to put into words and write down what relates to the life which is dear to God” and in addition to this he even admits that he intended to omit most of the things that normally pertain to being an emperor such as battles! (VC 1.11.1.)[19] The fact that Eusebius clearly intended to portray Constantine as a model of piety leads many scholars to conclude that the Life of Constantine is an “experiment in hagiography”, for the fourth century saw the production of many accounts of the lives of saints and of martyrs that were intended to edified Christians.[20] As we can see then the Life of Constantine appears to be a mix between panegyric[21] and hagiography whose various purposes involve instructing future emperors, edifying Christians and (as we cannot forget) to see God’s work in history.

           It will be argued here that the usage of texts from both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament in Eusebius’ portrayal of Constantine in the Life of Constantine suggests that Eusebius intended to portray Constantine as a Christ-like figure in order to show God’s working through history, in conformity with the rest of his Biblical exegesis elsewhere. First we will look at the importance of Moses in Eusebius’ exegesis, then we will look at three particular examples from the Life of Constantine to demonstrate how Eusebius uses the texts for the purpose of portraying Constantine as a Christ-like figure, then we will look at a few more minor clues and references that may be seen to support this thesis, and then finally we will conclude with how later Christianity deemed Eusebius’ portrayal and two modern Christian theological takes on the importance of Eusebius’ portrayal of Constantine.

           Eusebius’ biblical exegesis cannot be divorced from one of his major theological stances during this period, that of Arianism. Eusebius’ defense of Arius’ theology (that the Son was, while being the first created being nevertheless, subordinate to the Father), not only got him formally condemned at the Antiochene synod[22] but was in no doubt crucial to the way he interpreted history. Mortley, commenting upon the seriousness and importance of the Arian controversy in the 4th century says rightly,

“Arianism…tends to validate and promote humankind and human experience, since though Christ is seen as less than God, he is also a genuine archetype of the human race… The way is therefore open for the Arian to produce a positively valued account of humanity… Human history is not discarded as of no account, or as a tortured vigil, which waits for the end of things in the second coming, but as having value in itself. Human history is thought to be composed of a series of triumphs, and to be itself a kind of saga of grace, since humanity is in itself divine.”[23]

          Mortley goes on to argue that because the human race is itself seen as divine and the specificity of Christ is lost that therefore there could be a number of other such divine heroes throughout the course of history who have contributed in Eusebius’ view to the triumph of Christianity such as Moses[24] and that within the wake of the Edict of Milan and the end of persecution, Eusebius could very well have seen Constantine himself as comparable to Moses or even the Christ.[25] Therefore, it is only within an Arian theological framework that Eusebius’ could have even considered and desired to portray Constantine as a Christ-like figure.[26]  Hollerich, in continuity with the recognition of Eusebius’ interpretation of history as a way to see God’s work in history, points to the fact that throughout much of Eusebius’ exegesis in his various writings there is not only a typological comparison made between Moses, who is a central figure for Eusebius, and Jesus, but between Constantine and Moses.[27] Eusebius’ draws sixteen distinct parallels in his comparison between Moses and Jesus, but, while showing that Jesus is obviously superior nevertheless, tries to show the resemblance even more so and for Hollerich this represents a unique theological innovation for it stresses the parallelism between the two figures instead of trying to show either a dynamic of ‘prophecy and fulfillment’ or of the superiority of the later.[28] As for the significance of the soon-to-be shown comparison of Constantine to Moses in the Life of Constantine, it could not be anymore clear. Eusebius’ by portraying Constantine as a Moses-like figure is in fact also portraying Constantine as a Christ-like figure.

           Eusebius makes one such comparison explicitly in relating how Constantine came to join in his father’s reign over the empire after his immense intelligence and moral qualities were shown while he was growing up (VC 1.19.1-2; in a manner similar to Jesus’ education, Luke 2:46-52[29]),

“As a result of this those then in power observed with envy and fear…They reckoned that his stay with them was not safe for them, and devised secret plots against him…The young man [Constantine] was aware of this, and when once and again the plottings were with God-given insight detected by him, he sought safety in flight, in this also preserving his likeness to the great prophet Moses.”(VC 1.20.1-2)

When Eusebius says ‘preserving his likeness to the great prophet Moses’, he is referring to the story in the Hebrew Bible that speaks of Pharaoh’s plot to kill the young Hebrew boys for the fear of a national uprising and war against the Egyptians, from which Moses, through the wisdom of his mother, was saved (Exodus 1:8-16; 2:1-10).[30] What is even more interesting about this story is that one of the New Testament writers portrays Jesus also in a similar manner while obviously alluding to the same story about Moses from the Hebrew Bible (Matt. 2:13-20). So Eusebius, by portraying Constantine’s childhood and youth in this manner, was trying to show a strong parallelism and resemblance to both Moses and Jesus.

           Eusebius also makes connections between Moses and Constantine by his use of titles, which allude to the titles that are used of Moses in the Hebrew Bible. For instance in Numbers 12:7-8, which is quoted in the New Testament work of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 3:5), Moses is described by God as ‘my Servant’ and in turn Eusebius uses this same title for Constantine (VC 1.39.1) Another image also used of Constantine by Eusebius that is used both of Moses in the Hebrew bible (Deut. 18:15-18) and of Jesus in the New Testament (Acts 3:22; 7:37), is that of a prophet (VC 2.12.1-2.)[31] In this passage in particular Constantine is depicted as setting up a tent outside of the camp from which to receive revelation from God as how to conduct his battles.However the most explicit and important connection that Eusebius draws between Constantine and Moses, is between the event of the Exodus and the defeat of Pharaoh, and Constantine’s defeat of Maxentius at the Mulvian bridge.[32] As Eusebius relates it,

“Accordingly, just as once in the time of Moses and the devout Hebrew tribe ‘Pharaoh’s chariots and his force he cast into the sea, and picked rider-captains he overwhelmed in the Rea Sea’ (Exodus 15:4), in the very same way Maxentius and the armed men and guards about him ‘sank to the bottom like a stone’ (Exodus 15:5), when, fleeing before the force which came from God with Constantine, he went to cross the river lying in his path.” (VC 1.38.2)

           As Hollerich remarks about this passage, “…here too we see a typological construction in which the present is a virtual repetition of the past.”[33] Of course this defeat of a ‘tyrant’ was both preceded by the special ‘sign’ of the cross in the sky (VC 1.28.1-2), which was reminiscent of the burning bush sign that God gave to Moses in the desert (Exodus 3:1-6) and then followed by singing and praising (VC 1.38.5), which was reminiscent of the song of Miriam sung after the Exodus (Exodus 15:1-21.) Now of course, this parallelism is very important for it specifies exactly why Eusebius might not have compared Constantine to Jesus in a direct manner, as Hollerich remarks,

“For his Christian readers Eusebius chose Moses because the new dispensation under Constantine did not match well with New Testament notions of history and the state. The political liberation which Constantine brought to a persecuted Christian church could be interpreted more easily in terms of the intramundane eschatology of Exodus than within the apocalyptic horizon of the New Testament.”[34]

Therefore, the reason Eusebius did not directly compare Constantine to the Christ was simply because the parallels between Constantine and Moses would have been much more obvious to his Christian readers, than between Constantine and the Christ. It must also not be ignored that Moses, because of Hellenistic Judaism, would have been a much more well known figure to Hellenistic audiences for his reputation as a wise law-giver.[35]

           In addition to these three instances of Eusebius’ portrayal of Constantine as a parallel to Moses, there appear to be some other additional minor suggestions in the Life of Constantine that Eusebius intended to portray Constantine as a Christ-like figure. One important place is Eusebius’ citation of Acts 2:9-11, which tells of the story of Pentecost and the birth of the Christian church by the receiving of the holy spirit, while recounting the Easter controversy at the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. (VC 3.7-9) What is most peculiar about it is that it appears to suggest a supersession, not merely a resemblance of the episode in Acts when Eusebius says in reference to the groups gather in the Acts story that “…they were inferior in that not all consisted of the ministers of God.” (VC 2.8) While it is subtle, it perhaps suggests that Eusebius saw the Council of Nicea as in some way superseding the episode in Acts. Another interesting subtle passage is when  Eusebius describes the excavation of the Holy Sepulchre and in so doing says that the site “…took on the appearance of a representation of the Saviour’s return to life.” (VC 3.28.) Robert L. Wilken, a professor of religion and history at the University of Virginia, in reference to this passage makes the suggestion that,

“Eusebius’ term for “sign” is gnorisma, which means evidence, proof, mark, that by which something is known. It recalls the work “sign” in the Gospel of John, a term used in connection with Jesus’ miracles…In the midst of his Life of Constantine Eusebius has inserted a book of “signs”, but unlike the “signs” in the Gospel of John, which were miracles, the “signs” in Eusebius’ book are places.”[36]

Wilken essentially suggests that Eusebius intends to portray Constantine’s various site buildings as miracle-like events. This can also perhaps be seen in Eusebius’ description of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the “New Jerusalem” (VC 3.33.1), which is the name of the city in the Book of Revelation that comes down from Heaven itself (Rev. 21:10).

           As we can see then Eusebius in the Life of Constantine intended to portray Constantine as a Christ-like figure by his usage of texts from both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, in order to show how God continued to work in history for the cause of the Christian church. We saw how it was only possible within an Arian theological framework to do so, we saw that Eusebius’ main biblical paradigm for comparison with Constantine was Moses for Moses was not only a useful paradigm for Hellenistic  audiences but also would have been more obvious to most Christians, and finally we saw how there were several subtle hints given in Eusebius’ portrayal that suggest Eusebius saw Constantine as a supersession, as the next stage in the divine drama. As for how Eusebius’ portrayal of Constantine and Constantine himself were received by later Christians and later Christian theology, there appear to be two primary views. On the one hand there is the traditional Christian view that Constantine’s reign was an extremely positive thing for Christianity. After all, persecution had seemingly ended and Christianity had appeared to inherit the ‘Kingdom of God’ that it had been waiting for for centuries. Furthermore, Constantine himself had been seen as personally called by God for this very purpose. However, in the twentieth century with the advent of liberation theology, many theologians, scholars and church goers have taken a different view of both Eusebius’ portrayal and what impact, Constantine’s reign had upon Christianity.

           One such theologian was Alistair Kee (1937-2011), who was a Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at the University of Edinburgh. Kee, in his work Constantine versus Christ argued firstly that the portrayal of Constantine that we get in the Life of Constantine is surprisingly unchristian. What he meant by this was that while Eusebius’ interpretation of Constantine was obviously Christian, Constantine himself was surprisingly almost nowhere explicitly Christian.[37] Kee points to such evidence as the fact that nowhere does Constantine ever use the terms ‘Christ’, ‘Son’, ‘Lord’ or ‘Saviour’ to express his own faith, rather when they do appear in the Life of Constantine, they are expressions of Eusebius’ faith.[38] Kee also points to the fact that in Constantine’s death bed baptism episode near the end of the Life of Constantine, he appears to explicitly acknowledge that he never actually joined the church in its services or worship, for he says that if he had happened to live longer than he expected then “…it is once and for all decided that I am hereafter numbered among the people of God, and that I meet and join in the prayers with them all together” (VC 4.62.3).[39] In other words, before his baptism he never considered himself part of the ‘people of God.’ Finally, what was for many Christians Christianity’s ultimate triumph, the ‘conversion’ of Constantine and the Roman Empire, was to Kee ultimately the betrayal of Christ,

“‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ So commanded Jesus, at a time when Caesar claimed to be God. For almost three hundred years the church withstood the absolute claims of the Emperor. With what relief did they now attend Constantine, the ‘friend of God’, to grant him his heart’s desire. He did not claim to be God. All he asked was that the church should legitimize everything he stood for and call it the will of God. In this guise the imperial ideology conquered the church. It is for political theology to expose this ideology and the betrayal of Christ.”[40]

Works Cited List

Attridge, Harold W, and Gōhei Hata, Eds. Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992.

Barnes, T.D., “Panegyric, history and hagiography in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine” in The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick. Ed. Rowan Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Eusebius, Pamphilius. Life of Constantine. Trans. Averil Cameron & Stuart G. Hall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.

Hollerich, Michael J. “Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First ‘Court Theologian”. Church History 59.3 (1990): 309-325

Kee, Alistair. Constantine Versus Christ: The Triumph of Ideology. London: SCM Press, 1982.

Lyman, Rebecca, “Eusebius of Caesarea.” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. Second Edition. Eds. Ferguson, Everett and Michael P. McHugh, Frederick W. Norris. Garland Publishing, Inc., 1998. Routledge Religion Online. 11 February 2012

Mortley, Raoul. The Idea of Universal History from Hellinistic Philosophy to Early Christian Historiography. UK: Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd., 1996.


[1] Lyman, Rebecca, “Eusebius of Caesarea.” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. Second Edition. Eds. Ferguson, Everett and Michael P. McHugh, Frederick W. Norris. Garland Publishing, Inc., 1998. Routledge Religion Online

[2] Eusebius, Pamphilius. Life of Constantine. Trans. Averil Cameron & Stuart G. Hall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Pg.1

[3] Lyman, Rebecca, “Eusebius of Caesarea.”

[4] Hollerich, Michael J. “Eusebius as a Polemical Interpreter of Scripture” in Attridge, Harold W, and Gōhei Hata, Eds. Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992. Pg.590

[5] Hollerich, Michael J. “Eusebius as a Polemical Interpreter of Scripture”, Pg.589

[6] Lyman, Rebecca, “Eusebius of Caesarea.”

[7] Lyman, Rebecca, “Eusebius of Caesarea.”

[8] Norris, Frederick W., “Eusebius on Jesus as Deceiver and Sorcerer” in Attridge, Harold W, and Gōhei Hata, Eds. Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992. Pg.524

[9] Barnes, T.D., “Panegyric, history and hagiography in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine” in The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick. Ed. Rowan Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Pg.114

[10] Hollerich, Michael J. “Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First ‘Court Theologian”. Church History 59.3 (1990): 309-325. Pg.313

[11] Lyman, Rebecca, “Eusebius of Caesarea.”

[12] Barnes, T.D., “Panegyric, history and hagiography in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine”, Pg.97-98

[13] Barnes, T.D., “Panegyric, history and hagiography in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine”, Pg.98

[14] Barnes, T.D., “Panegyric, history and hagiography in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine”, Pg.103

[15] Barnes, T.D., “Panegyric, history and hagiography in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine”, Pg.109-110

[16] Mortley, Raoul. The Idea of Universal History from Hellinistic Philosophy to Early Christian Historiography. UK: Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd., 1996. Pg.182

[17] Eusebius, Pamphilius. Life of Constantine. Trans. Averil Cameron & Stuart G. Hall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Pg.3

[18] Norris, Frederick W., “Eusebius on Jesus as Deceiver and Sorcerer” in Attridge, Harold W, and Gōhei Hata, Eds. Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992. Pg.524

[19] All subsequent citations of the Life of Constantine shall be taken from: Eusebius, Pamphilius. Life of Constantine. Trans. Averil Cameron & Stuart G. Hall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.

[20] Barnes, T.D., “Panegyric, history and hagiography in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine”, Pg.110

[21] Although the historical accuracy of the Life of Constantine is not our concern here T.D. Barnes comments must be noted here with regard to it: “…it is still argued that the Life of Constantine must be unreliable because it is ‘a self-confessed panegyric’. Recent research, however, has done much to rehabilitate the good faith of Eusebius. On issue after issue, Eusebius’ testimony, so often dismissed or disregarded, either receives positive confirmation from other evidence or else deserves to be regarded as inherently plausible.”; Barnes, T.D., “Panegyric, history and hagiography in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine”, Pg.114-115

[22] Eusebius, Pamphilius. Life of Constantine. Trans. Averil Cameron & Stuart G. Hall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Pg.3

[23] Mortley, Pg.188-189

[24] Mortley, Pg.183-184

[25] Mortley, Pg.186-187

[26] Mortley, also commenting upon Eusebius’ historiography says: “The starting point of the History is of course Christ himself, but even with those first words one becomes aware of the theme to be pursued: Anyone who is about to commit to writings the Church’s history must go right back to Christ himself, whose name we are thought worthy to share (HE I.2) The term prosonumia carries the suggestion that the Christians belong in an eponymous order, headed by Christ himself. An innocent enough remark apparently, since Christians do bear the name of Christ, but in fact Eusebius is announcing the underlying premise of the work in a way only possible to an Arian: there are many Christs, and all contribute to the history of the church. The close focus on Jesus Christ dissipates as the figures comparable to him are all lined up for examination.” (Pg.184-185); it could also be commented that a Trinitarian view of God would equally well lend itself to a positive view of  human history, for in the incarnation humanity had been joined with God on equally footing, in the sense that Humanity and Divinity were incarnate in one person, “Fully God, fully man”, though it would not allow for figures comparable to Christ in the Arian sense.

[27] Hollerich, “Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First ‘Court Theologian”, Pg.317

[28] Hollerich, “Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First ‘Court Theologian”, Pg.319

[29] All citations of New Testament texts shall be taken from: The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version Containing the Old and New Testaments, with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books. New York: Collins, 1973.

[30] All citations of texts from the Hebrew Bible will be taken from: Berlin, Adele, Marc Z. Brettler, and Michael A. Fishbane. The Jewish Study Bible: Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

[31] As noted by Cameron: Eusebius, Pamphilius. Life of Constantine. Trans. Averil Cameron & Stuart G. Hall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Pg.35

[32] Hollerich, “Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First ‘Court Theologian”, Pg.320

[33] Hollerich, “Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First ‘Court Theologian”, Pg.320

[34] Hollerich, “Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First ‘Court Theologian” Pg.322

[35] Eusebius, Pamphilius. Life of Constantine. Trans. Averil Cameron & Stuart G. Hall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Pg.37

[36] Wilken, Robert L. “Eusebius and the Christian Holy Land” in Attridge, Harold W, and Gōhei Hata, Eds. Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992. Pg.744-745

[37] Kee, Alistair. Constantine Versus Christ: The Triumph of Ideology. London: SCM Press, 1982. Pg.52

[38] Kee, Pg.53

[39] Kee, Pg.58

[40] Kee, Pg.174-175

Advertisements