Theology vs. genre? The universalism of Christian

historiography in Late Antiquity.

Peter Van Nuffelen, University of Exeter

Universality is commonly advanced as a defining feature

of Christian historiography, on the argument that the

Christian view of the world gives a universal outlook to

its understanding of history.1 Two elements in particular

are singled out in this respect: the universal intention

of God’s plan of salvation and the linear development of

Christian time from Creation via Incarnation to Second

Coming.2 God’s message, and history as the record of it,

is meant for all people of all times. All history written

by Christians is thus at least potentially universal,

especially chronicles and church history, the two

specifically Christian forms of historiography.3

1 See, e.g., Allan (2003) 17: ‘The practice of universal history from A.D. 300 to 1000 reflects basic tenets and wider concerns of Christian belief.’2 Dawson (1977) 30-7; Latourelle (1977) 75-7; Luiselli (1980) and (1991) 22-3; Goetz (1991) 247; Wallraff (2004) and (2005) 4.3 den Boer (1961); Goffart (1987) 3-4; Luiselli (1991) 29; Timpe (2001) 108; Wallraff (2004) 153; Ilski (2007).

This assessment of early Christian views of history is

widely accepted and is seen as shaping modern

philosophies of history such as Marxism, as has been most

famously argued by K. Löwith.4 Such an understanding of

the Christian view on history presupposes that

theological considerations determine how a Christian

writes history. As a consequence, it is often suggested

that there is little difference between a Christian work

of history and a Christian theology of history. Indeed,

scholars occasionally tend to disregard specificities of

genre and to conflate Christian historiography, biblical

exegesis and theology. For example, Augustine’s De Civitate

Dei has been assimilated to church history and biblical

exegesis seen as not fundamentally different from the

writing of history.5 The ground for this identification is

that all these works, although they belong to different

literary genres, are understood as having the same aim:

defending the Christian theology of history. Even

heresiology has recently been diagnosed as universal

4 Löwith (1953). See also Niebuhr (1949).5 Luiselli (1980) 518; Press (1982) 123-6; Zakai and Mali (1992-1993); Allan (2003) 24-5; Alonso-Nuñez (2005).

history.6 Such a list could be expanded ad libidum given the

reasoning behind it. Because the Christian world view is

assumed to be universal and to underpin everything a

Christian says about the past, present and future, there

does not seem to be a difference between the writing of

history and a theology of history. And if the latter is

universal by essence, the former must be so as well, at

least potentially if not in act. Everything a Christian

says about the present and past is thus universal.

It is not my aim here to argue against the idea that the

Christian theology of history is universal in theory,

although I am convinced this is too one-sided an

assessment. Indeed, it is important to realise that the

category of ‘universal’ history originated in modern

European thought7 and that the bland characterisation of

ancient Christian thought as ‘universalist’ may miss

numerous nuances.8 For example, it is important to realise

that for much of its early history, Christianity

understood itself as a community of the elect. If there

6 Schott (2007).7 Koselleck (1979) 687; Desideri (2001).8 See the brief remark by Inglebert (2001) 464.

was a focus of God’s dealings with history, it was that

limited community, not the rest of mankind. It is not by

accident that an important strand of early Christianity

saw itself as a ‘third people’, besides the Jews and

‘pagans’.9 Thus, rather than harbouring a simple

universalism, Christianity was characterised by a tension

between, on the one hand, the idea of a universal spread

of Christ’s message and, on the other, that of a

salvation restricted to the adherents of the faith.

Although much more could be said about the limits of

Christian theological universalism, this is not the

avenue that I shall pursue here. Rather, I wish to draw

attention to the distance between the universalism of

Christian historiography as it is assumed on a

theological plane and its very limited expression in

actual histories. This is a gap one needs to reflect upon

before identifying universalism as an essential

characteristic of Christian historiography in general.

Thus, this paper argues for the importance of genre for

the understanding of Christian historiography, against

9 For the example of Eusebius of Caesarea, see now Johnson (2006). Anemphasis on the universal aspects of Christianity can be found in Schott (2008).

the tendency to define the latter only by its supposed

theological presuppositions.

Exegesis and history

For considerations about genre to be helpful, one has to

establish first that Christian authors were indeed able

to distinguish between history and other forms of

writing. This is in itself obvious, but in the light of a

tendency to amalgamate theological exegesis and

historiography it may be useful to dwell briefly on this.

A good example to start with is Sulpicius Severus’

Chronica, a work that covers human history from Adam to the

present (ca. 403). Three times, early in his work,

Sulpicius makes clear that he is not dealing with the

spiritual sense of Scripture but only with its historical

meaning.10 Such a distinction between a primary historical

meaning of the Bible and a more spiritual one was common

in biblical exegesis and the distinction between

‘history’ and ‘exegesis’ was often clearly affirmed.11

10 Sulp. Sev. Chron. 1.1.1, 1.5.1, 1.19.1.11 Asterius Hom. 13; Greg. Naz. Or. 4.18-20; Jer. In Ier. 1.4.11; Const. Apost. 1.6.1-7; Aug. Doctr. Chr. 2.105-9; Junilius De part. div. legis PL

Unsurprisingly, theologians could use the distinction to

depreciate history for remaining at a distance from the

true spiritual meaning.12 Sulpicius is thus explicitly

making clear to his audience that they should not expect

a spiritual reading of the Bible, but that he is setting

out the historical facts contained in it.13

This difference in perspective was observed by church

historians as well. Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260-339)

conceived his task in parallel to that of classical

historians and defined church history through a series of

topics that his work would address, such as episcopal

succession, Judaism, and persecution.14 Later church

historians adopted an equally ‘formal’ definition of

church history and did not use their histories to set out

a theology of history. Indeed, explicit utterances on the

meaning of history and typological interpretations are

68.16d.12 Hil. Pict. Adv.Val. Urs. 1.6; Evagr. Schol. Gnost. 4.13 One notices the impact of an essentialistic, theological definitionof Christian historiography in Luiselli’s claim ((1980) 519) that Sulpicius wrote history in a way ‘in cui uno storico cristiano non può e non deve scrivere storia.’ It seems the contrary is actually the case.14 Eus. Hist. Eccl. 1.1 and 5.pr. The evidence on which this paragraph relies, is discussed at length in Van Nuffelen (2004a) 162-217.

very few and far between in the extant church histories.15

Christian historians fully appropriated the classical

demands for exactitude and precision as hallmarks of

history, and they explicitly defended that the main task

of the historian is to get the facts right. Theology of

history is left to other works. A further indication of

this is that in the oeuvre of Eusebius and Theodoretus of

Cyrrhus (ca. 390-460), bishops who wrote biblical

commentaries and church histories, one does not notice a

tendency to amalgamate both: they clearly knew what was

expected in what kind of work. I obviously do not wish to

deny that Christian historians had views about how

history developed and how God intervened in it, but a

church history was not the place for explicit reflection

on this nor for probing the deeper meanings of history.16

In this respect it is important to note the peculiar

nature of the world history of Orosius in the context of

15 There is one possible example of a typological reading of a historical event in Socr. Hist. Eccl. 7.43. However, Socrates is reporting a sermon by Proclus of Constantinople: see Van Nuffelen (2004b) 194-8.16 One can note that no historian figures in Luneau’s standard discussion of patristic views on the history of salvation (1964). On Theodoretus’ exegesis and its relation with history, see Guinot (1995).

Late Antique historiography. Extremely influential in the

Middle Ages, his work may resemble, in hindsight, the

paradigmatic Christian history. It is explicitly written

to provide further historical proof for one of the theses

put forward by Augustine in the City of God, namely that

Christianity was not the cause of the calamities of the

Roman Empire. In his zeal, Orosius turned his work into a

proof that more catastrophes befell mankind before the

birth of Christ. Orosius’ work is thus more strongly

impregnated by an explicit apologetical and theological

aim than most other Christian histories. And even in this

case Orosius acknowledges that the argument for his

reading of history had already been made by Augustine and

that he is providing proof for it as a historian.17 As one

of the most theological of Christian historians, Orosius

is less the paradigm of Christian historiography in Late

Antiquity than an important exception.18

Church history as universal history?

17 Orosius, 1.pr. and 1.1.1. The standard work on Orosius’ Geschichtstheologie is Goetz (1980).18 Orosius is usually seen as the only really universal history of Late Antiquity (see Alonso-Núñez (2005) 26 and Fear in this volume) besides the world chronicles (on which see below).

The writing of history can thus not be simply reduced to

the expression of a theology of history. This has

important consequences for our understanding of the

universal nature of Christian historiography. A first one

regards the interpretation of church history, a typically

Christian addition to the writing of history and of which

the first practitioner was Eusebius of Caesarea. As noted

above, universal intentions are often ascribed to the

genre. As put by D. Timpe in an elegant and thoughtful

study:

‘Die eusebianische Kirchengeschichte folgt in ihren

Intentionen und mit ihren Grundgedanken der

christlichen Chronistik; wie diese fordert und

fördert sie kein Interesse an realer Geschichte, aber

will den Gesamtraum der Weltgeschichte als

heilsgeschichtlichen Weg der Erfülling des

Verheissenen erklären und als sinnvollen

Realzusammenhang, in dem der einzelne seinen Platz

und Aufgabe hat, verständlich machen.

Kirchengeschichte is kein konkreter und spezieller

historischer Gegenstand neben anderen möglichen und

erst recht kein Gegensatz zu profaner Geschichte,

sondern potentiell Weltgeschichte unter

heilsgeschichtlichem Aspekt; sie zeichnet die

geoffenbarten Wege der göttlichen Vorsehung mit den

Menschen nach.’19

This assessment of Eusebius is usually extended to later

Church historians, who are seen as following and

imitating Eusebius.

In line with general assessments of Christian

historiography, Timpe’s argument attributes a primacy to

the theological understanding of history implicit in

church history and not to genre, i.e. literary

19 Timpe (2001) 108: ‘Eusebius’ church history follows in its intentions and principles the Christian tradition of chronicle-writing. Just as the latter, it does not foster any interest in real history, but intends to explain the full span of world history as a history of salvation and a fulfilment of God’s promise, and to make history intelligible as a meaningful whole, in which each individual element has its place and function. Church history is not a defined and specific historical topic besides other possible themes, and definitely not the counterpart of profane history: it is potential world history seen from the perspective of salvation. It traces the path of divine providence for mankind, as it has been revealed to man.’ See also, e.g., Giordano (1973) 70; Winkelmann (1992).

characteristics and its tradition. It is significant that

he does not think church historians had an interest in

‘real history’ (whatever that may be), but interpreted

history in the light of theological premisses. Therefore

church history is at least potentially universal because

it sets out God’s plan of salvation for mankind. The term

‘potentially’ is crucial here, as it admits that no

church history is actually universal. That of Eusebius

may seem to lay most claim to that title in that it

pretends to cover the history of the church since the

Apostles to his own day and thus narrates the history of

the entire church from its origins. In fact, however, we

notice a clear focus on the Eastern Roman Empire in

Eusebius. A local geographical focus is even more evident

in later church histories. Except for Rufinus (ca. 400),

the genre is Greek and Eastern. Socrates and Sozomen, who

both wrote ca. 440-450, focus on Constantinople, their

place of residence, whereas Theodoretus’ history centres

on Antioch. Zacharias Scholasticus (ca. 465-536) focuses

on Alexandria, whereas Theodorus Lector (after 518)

prefers Constantinople. As the secretary of the bishop of

Antioch, Evagrius Scholasticus (ca. 536-594) is most

interested in that region.20 Information about the West or

regions beyond the Roman empire is scarce in all these

histories.

Temporal universality could be alleged for Church history

because many of them continue each other’s work so as to

form a continuous history from the origins of the church.

But this is largely an optical illusion created by the

preferences of later readers. Many church historians did

indeed write in continuation of each other (Rufinus,

Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoretus continuing Eusebius, being

in turn continued by Theodorus Lector and Evagrius

Scholasticus). But fragments preserved of other church

histories show that they could also focus on a single

council or a single region.21 The fact that the series

from Eusebius to Evagrius survives is because they were

read as offering a continuous history, not because church

historians wrote by definition in continuation of one

another. There is no intrinsic, theological reason why a

20 For the geographical focus of these histories, see Blaudeau (2006).21 Van Nuffelen (2004a) 210-2.

church history must be part of a chain: if there is a

reason, it is that writing in continuation of a

predecessor was a well-established practice in

classisicing history, to which church history

progressively oriented itself. The actual practice of

church historians is thus not universal in any sense of

the word: they do not aim at temporal or spatial

universalism.

The limits that the genre imposed on church historians

become clear from the polemic waged by Socrates against

the ‘Christian history’ of Philip of Side. The massive

work, which was published between 426 and 439 covered the

history from Creation to the present day, supposedly in

36 books that each contained 24 tomoi. Socrates, who

disliked Philip for being a supporter of John Chrysostom,

criticised the work as an indigestible hodge-podge of

digressions. Yet, he admitted that the title was well-

chosen, because an ecclesiastical history should start

with the Incarnation and not with Creation.22 Here

22 Socr. Hist. Eccl. 7.27. On Philip of Side, see Van Nuffelen (2004a) 209-10; Heyden (2006).

Socrates shows a clear awareness of the genre he

practised: in temporal terms, he was not supposed to go

back to Creation. It is clear that Philip’s history would

stake a much better claim to the label ‘universal’ than a

church history. Socrates informs us also about another

limitation set to church historians: they were to narrate

events relating to the church, and secular and imperial

matters can only be included to the extent that they are

relevant for church history.23 Thus, as shown by Socrates’

explicit reflections on the genre, church history had a

clearly defined scope and was not universal.

The world chronicle

One of the traditional proofs for the universalism of

Christian historiography is the spread of chronicles in

Late Antiquity, often called ‘world chronicles’ because

they give a summary of history from earliest times (often

creation) to the present.24 Moreover, many chroniclers

23 Socr. Hist. Eccl. 5.pr. Van Nuffelen (2004a) 166-70 shows that this position is shared by the other church historians as well.24 The term ‘world chronicle’ is especially used among medieval scholars: see Goetz (1991) 247 with further references.

continue the work of their predecessors, and thus create

an impression of the unity of time. Indeed, their

universalism can be argued to be not just temporal: for

the earlier part of the history, they include, for

example, the history of Chaldaeans, Egyptians, Greeks and

Romans, besides Hebrew history drawn from the Bible.

Chronicles thus appear to have a genuinely universal

spatial and temporal dimension.25 Yet, the argument should

be nuanced.

Christian chronicle writing started with Julius

Africanus, who published a work entitled chronographiai,

covering history from creation to 221 A.D. Preserved in

fragments, it had a major influence on the real father of

Christian chronicle writing, Eusebius of Caesarea.

Eusebius’ chronicle indeed included king lists for

various peoples of the Mediterranean, which were set in

parallel, as well as historical entries in chronological

order. This tendency for setting various peoples in

parallel must be situated against its proper apologetic

background. From early on, Christianity was locked in an 25 Alonso-Nuñez (2005); cf. Allan (2003) 36.

argument with Greco-Roman culture about the antiquity of

its traditions. The age of a culture was not simply the

degree of respect it commanded: Platonist and Stoic

philosophers in this period widely adhered to the idea

that earliest mankind had discovered philosophical

knowledge about cosmos and had hidden this in the

symbolism of religion. The older a tradition was, the

closer it therefore was to that primitive wisdom.

Christianity tried to establish that it was older than

its surrounding cultures, by arguing that it was the true

heir of Judaism – drawing in this on Jewish polemic

against Greco-Roman culture one already notices in Philo

of Alexandria.26 Julius Africanus and Eusebius inherited

this polemical context and their chronographical work

must be seen as supplying the proof that Hebrew culture

is indeed older than the others in the Mediterranean.

Even though Julius Africanus and Eusebius used earlier,

classical universal historians, such as Diodorus of

Sicily and Castor of Rhodes,27 their ‘universal’ interest

was primarily apologetical.28 In this context it must be

26 Pilhofer (1990); Boys-Stones (2001). See also Schott (2008).27 See Roberto (2006) regarding the sources of Julius Africanus.28 Burgess (2006).

noted that Eusebius’ chronicle only started with Abraham,

and not with Adam. Absolute temporal universality was not

his foremost aim, as it sufficed to settle which

tradition was the oldest.29

Eusebius’ chronicle became the mother of all chronicles,

supplying the basis for much of the later Byzantine

tradition, and, through the translation into Latin and

continuation of Jerome, for much of Western chronicle

writing as well. Such later chronicles invariably assume

the shape of an ‘inverted pyramid’ in respect to the

geographical scope of their material. Either by

continuing a version of Eusebius/Jerome or by reworking

the material found there, chroniclers seem to have a

‘universal’ interest as far as early history is

concerned, where they discuss Chaldaean and Egyptian

history besides that of the Greeks. But that interest

soon peters out. Already Eusebius focuses solely on the

Roman Empire from the first century A.D. onwards, and

when each of his continuators adds his bit, they narrowly

focus on their own region. The focus on the West, and in 29 See Inglebert (2001) 508.

particular Spain, for example, of Hydatius and John of

Biclar is well-known (resp. late fifth and sixth century

A.D.). John Malalas (sixth century A.D.) has, in turn, a

clear focus on the East, and in particular Antioch,

although he is also well-informed on Constantinople where

he resided. One does not notice any universal interest

for their contemporary world.

The apparent universalism of the chronicle is thus

largely determined by literary tradition. Inserting

themselves in the tradition of Eusebius, chroniclers are

obliged either to continue him or to rehearse his

material, and they therefore incorporate the earlier

material relating to non-Greek people as well – even in a

time when the argument about antiquity had long been won

by the Christians. But the scope of their actual

contribution is very limited and hardly universal in any

sense of the word.30 The genre of the chronicle thus

incorporates some universal elements, not because

Christian chroniclers are universal historians, but

30 For a similar argument regarding medieval chronicles, see Goetz (1991).

because these universal elements were a fossilised part

of the genre ‘chronicle.’

The genre ‘history’ as universal history

The foregoing pages have shown that there was little

actual universal historiography in Late Antiquity. Church

historians are not universal historians in any sense of

the word, whereas the universal dimension often noticed

in chronicles is actually a relic of the apologetic

origins of the genre, and does not betray a real

universal interest on the part of each individual

chronicler. When considered from the view point of actual

historiographical practice, universalism is not the

essential characteristic of Christian historiography that

it is made out to be in a theological perspective.

It would be facile, however, to play out genre against

theology without having an eye for nuances. Even when

focussing on historiographical practice, universal

elements can be detected. We have seen that there exist a

few histories, such as those by Orosius and Philip of

Side, that could be labelled universal. Moreover, even as

a relic, chronicles did incorporate some universal

elements. In this last section, I wish to draw attention

to another area in which one can detect a universal

dimension in Christian historiography. I have argued

above that church historians usually focus on a limited

geographical and temporal part of ecclesiastical history,

and that their practice is not universal at all. If they

did not conceptualise their own particular history as

universal, however, there exists a fascinating passage in

the late sixth-century church historian Evagrius, who

seems to have considered the entire historiographical

tradition as mapping the entire world and the entire span

of time. In this way, the genre ‘history’ in its entirety

becomes universal, even if individual works are not.

Living in Antioch, Evagrius continued Theodoretus’ church

history from 428 up to 592 in six books. He concludes his

fifth book by summing up the fore-going historiographical

tradition (5.24). The chapter breaks up in three parts.

First, Evagrius situates himself in the tradition of

church history by enumerating his predecessors Eusebius,

Theodoretus, Socrates, Sozomen. Theodoretus wrote as the

last of the three successors of Eusebius,31 but Evagrius

list him as the first because both were Antiocheans and

because Evagrius picks up where Theodoretus left off. By

this time church history had clearly established an

identity as a genre with canonical names that one needed

to continue and imitate.32

Then Evagrius distinguishes between archaia and thurathen

history. The former is what we would call sacred history:

the books of the Old Testament written by Moses and

Flavius Josephus. Evagrius indicates that Moses paved the

way for Christianity and that Josephus’ work is also

extremely useful for this period. This may be his reason

for designating it with the term ‘ancient history’: it is

the history that precedes and prepares Christianity.

31 Martin (2006) 29-37 has argued that Theodoretus wrote before Sozomen, but I have expressed my reservations regarding such a changeof the traditional order: Van Nuffelen (2007) 410-2.32 On the formation of the genre ‘church history’, see Van Nuffelen (2004a) 163-217.

Thurathen history is profane, classical history, opposed

to both ‘ancient history’ and church history. In the

third section, Evagrius offers us a long list of various

classical historians. It is noteworthy that they are

arranged so as to cover the entire history of the world

from its origin. In the previous section, Evagrius had

noted that Moses had started with the creation of the

world and he now starts with earliest profane history:

‘All that occured, whether in legend or fact, between

Greeks and the ancient barbarians in their struggles

between themselves or against the other, and anything

else which has been achieved from the time when they

record that mankind existed, has been recorded by

Charax and Ephorus and Theopompus and innumerable

others.’33

Evagrius thus starts with the first generation of

‘universal historians’, which discussed the various

peoples from their earliest memory onwards, including

Ephorus. But it is doubtful that Evagrius or his source 33 Tr. Whitby (2000) 286.

went back to Ephorus himself: the central figure seems to

have been Charax, a second century A.D. universal

historian who probably included their material into his

own work up to his own age. Evagrius’ interest then

quickly shifts to Roman history. He constructs a chain,

including Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Polybius, Appian,

Diodorus, Dio Cassius, Herodian, Dexippus and some minor

historians, up to his own age with Procopius and

Agathias. This chain is obviously spurious: not all of

these historians, especially the earlier ones, are

writing in continuation of one another. But the list of

Evagrius arranges them in such an order to give the

impression that they cover the entire history of Rome

without any gap. This distortion has the remarkable

consequence that Evagrius does not appreciate the

universal dimension of authors such as Diodorus of

Sicily, who is reduced to a Roman historian.

The way Evagrius has constructed this list strongly

reminds one of the universal dimension found in

chronicles: just as these had a traditional interest in

other peoples besides the Greeks, such as Chaldaeans and

Egyptians, before the rise of Rome, their attention

shifted primarily to Rome after that. And indeed, it is

highly likely that Evagrius has lifted the entire passage

from the world chronicle (chronike epitome) of Eustathius of

Epiphania (early sixth century).34

Evagrius’ overview of the historiographical tradition is

fascinating because it constructs the genre ‘history’,

with its subgenres ecclesiastical, sacred, and profane

history, as covering all time and space. The universal

temporal dimension becomes clear in the fact that he

construes his predecessors as a chain of historians who

wrote in continuation of one another: for Evagrius the

line of time has to be covered by an unbroken chain of

history.35 This becomes explicit in what Evagrius says

about his own work in his preface:

‘Since subsequent events (i.e. after Theodoretus),

which are not far inferior to these, have not

34 Whitby (2000) 286-7; Allen (1981) 237-9.35 See the use of the expression ‘in continuation’ (kath’heirmon) (5.24 p. 218 l. 3).

obtained any sort of sequential account, I decided

(…) to undertake the labour for their sake and to

make these into an account (…)’.36

The idea clearly is that time needs to be filled out with

works of history. Evagrius thus construes the

historiographical tradition not as a selection of great

individual examples to follow (Herodotus and Thucydides

are conspicuously absent), but as a continuous stretch of

historians who cover the entire span of time one after

the other.

But history is not just universal in a temporal sense.

The clear distinction between ecclesiastical and profane

history can already be found in earlier church

historians, who see classisicing and ecclesiastical

history as covering two distinct realms of society: that

of the church and that of the empire. Taken together,

they cover the whole of society.37 By including both in

his overview, as well as ‘sacred’ ancient history that

preceded the history of the church, Evagrius has

36 Evagrius Hist. Eccl. pr. Tr. Whitby (2000) 5.37 Van Nuffelen (2004a) 117-23, 153-6.

structured historiography so that it covers all parts of

society.

In this way, time and space is entirely carved up amongst

historians, who as a collective entity offer a general

history of the world, being universal in both time and

space – with the important caveat that the perspective

remains restricted to the Roman Empire. Historiography,

in its various guises and with its various traditions

(classical and ecclesiastical), is made to map the full

span of time and to cover the two main parts of society

(church and state). Each historian occupies his specific

position and role in that grand scheme. Evagrius, or any

other historian on his own, is not a universal historian,

but he clearly has the awareness that he is part of a

historiographical tradition that can provide complete

coverage of the history of mankind.

Conclusion

This paper has argued against the tendency to project a

universal intention on every Christian work of history,

on the assumption that Christian theology is by

definition universal and that Christian history is by

default theological. Not only does such an interpretation

overemphasise the theological nature of Christian

historiography at the expense of the actual practice of

historians, I also doubt that such an ‘a priori’

universal dimension is very helpful in understanding

Christian historiography in Late Antiquity. As I have

shown, when one focuses on genre (i.e. when one asks what

the literary constraints of a particular work are and

what the tradition is in which historians situate

themselves), it becomes clear that that there is little

actual universalism in Christian writing of history.

There are very few histories that are truly universal:

even chronicles have a very limited scope, except for the

parts regarding the earliest times that they have copied

from their predecessors. Scholarship has a subliminal

awareness of this difficulty, illustrated by the

recurring distinction between ‘potential’ and ‘real’

universality regarding Christian historiography.38 The

former is supposedly shared by all Christian historians,

whereas the latter would rarely be actualised.

The gap between modern assessment and ancient practice

should not be glossed over, as if it is accidental that

no church history realised its universal potential.

Besides the fact that the gap illustrates that the

vocabulary and concept of ‘universal history’ is largely

a modern one which must be applied with care to

Antiquity,39 the gap also shows that scholars tend to

define Christian historiography not by genre, but by its

theological underpinnings: a Christian work of history is

one that harbours a Christian theology of history. An

important paper by C. Meier, for example, distinguishes

Christian historiography from classicising histories on

the basis of the mode of explanation of the events

(divine intervention vs. chance and rational causality).40

Such an approach may make sense to distinguish Eusebius

from Ammianus in the fourth century, but when Christians

38 Besides the references above, see Inglebert (2001) 478.39 Desideri (2001) suggests to do away with the term when discussing ancient works of history.40 Meier (2004).

start to write classicising history this distinction

becomes hard to maintain: although Procopius uses a

classicising vocabulary, it is hard to see a clear-cut

difference with how an ecclesiastical historian would

explain events.41 More importantly, such a definition

disregards the fact that Christian historians had a clear

awareness of genre: ecclesiastical historians, for

example, had an explicit understanding of what it meant

to write church history: using the tools of classical

historiography to cover the history of the church, in

contrast with secular matters which were left to

‘profane’ historians. They thought of ecclesiastical

history as a subgenre of history,42 and did not define

their task as ‘tracing God’s plan of salvation in

history’. We should therefore see Christian

historiography in the first place as history, obviously

written from a Christian perspective, and not as a

transposition of theology in history. This means that for

Christians in Late Antiquity, just as for their non-

Christian contemporaries, history is in the first place a

41 See Van Nuffelen (2004a) 292-309; Brodka (2004); Whitby (2007). 42 Van Nuffelen (2004a) 214-5.

discipline in its own right, not a subcontractor for

theology. When we wish to understand Christian forms of

historiography, we must situate them in the context of

ancient historiography, not set them apart as theology in

disguise.

Awareness of the gap between theological universalism and

actual historiographical practice is important in another

respect. By labelling Christian historiography

‘universal’ in its entirety, one runs the risk of

creating a false continuity with earlier forms of

universal history. Indeed, a continuity between

Hellenistic universal historians and Christian

chroniclers has been claimed.43 It is clear that Christian

historians were aware of the works of previous universal

historians (as they were of Herodotus and Thucydides) and

that they incorporated facts drawn from these sources.

But one cannot argue for a continuity of the tradition of

Hellenistic ‘universal history’ into Late Antiquity.

43 For arguments in this sense, see Roberto (2006) 15, who suggests that Julius Africanus adapted the viewpoint and method of Hellenisticuniversal historians when composing his chronicle. See also Mortley (1996); Schott (2008).

Rather, both ‘universalist’ traditions fit into different

contexts. Whereas Hellenistic universal history is the

result of the incorporation of various peoples in the

Roman Empire and is for that reason largely limited to

the Late Republic and the Early Empire,44 the universal

dimension of Christian historiography, as found in

chronicles and Orosius, is determined by its apologetic

background. Whereas one can claim that there were always

universalist tendencies in ancient historiography, I

doubt one can construct a direct continuity between the

various tendencies.

Due care must thus be taken when claiming universal

universalism for Christian historiography. But this does

not mean that all universal elements are absent. Some

historians, such as Orosius and Philip of Side, can be

labelled as such, and universalist elements became

fossilised in the chronicle tradition. More important,

probably, was the conception that history as a genre

covered time and space entirely: in Evagrius’ summary of

44 Clarke (1999); Yarrow (2006). See also Hartog, Sheridan, and Engelsin this volume.

the historiographical tradition, that tradition is

construed as universal. No individual historical work

really was universal, but as a genre, history could be.

Bibliography

Allan, M. I. (2003), ‘Universal History 300-1000: Origins

and Western Developments’, in D.M. Deliyannis (ed.),

Historiography in the Middle Ages (Leiden), 17-42.

Allen, P. (1981), Evagrius Scholasticus, the Church Historian

(Leuven).

Alonso-Núñez, J.M. (2005), ‘Die

Universalgeschichtsschreibung in der Spätantike und die

westgotische Historiographie’, in J. Dummer and M.

Vielberg (eds.), Zwischen Historiographie und Hagiographie

(Stuttgart), 9-25.

Blaudeau, P. (2006), Alexandrie et Constantinople (451 - 491): de

l’histoire à la géo-ecclésiologie (Paris).

Boys-Stones, G.R. (2001), Post-Hellenistic Philosophy. A Study of its

Development from the Stoics to Origen (Oxford).

Brodka, D. (2004), Die Geschichtsphilosophie in der spätantiken

Historiographie (Frankfurt am Main).

Burgess, R.W. (2006), ‘Apologetic and Chronography. The

Antecedents of Julius Africanus,’ in M. Wallraff (ed.),

Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik (Berlin and New

York), 17-42.

Clarke, K. (1999), Between Geography and History. Hellenistic

Constructions of the Roman World (Oxford).

Dawson, C. (1977), ‘The Christian View of History’, in

C.T. McIntire (ed.), God, History, and Historians. An Anthology of

Modern Christian Views of History (New York), 28-45.

den Boer, W. (1961), ‘Some remarks on the beginnings of

christian historiography’, Studia Patristica 4: 348-62.

Desideri, P. (2001), ‘Nascita e rinascite della storia

universale antica’, in Storiografia locale e storiografia universale:

forme di acquisizione del sapere storico nella cultura antica (Como), 199-

209.

Goffart, W. (1987), The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 550-

800): Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede and Paul the Deacon (Princeton).

Giordano, O. (1973), Jordanes e la storiografia nel VI secolo (Bari).

Goetz, H.-W. (1980), Die Geschichtstheologie des Orosius

(Darmstadt).

Goetz, H.-W. (1991), ‘On the Universality of Universal

History,’ in L’historiographie médiévale en Europe (Paris), 247-

61.

Guinot, J.-N. (1995), L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr (Paris).

Heyden, K. (2006), ‘Die Christliche Geschichte des

Philippos von Side,’ in M. Wallraff (ed.), Julius Africanus und

die christliche Weltchronistik (Berlin and New York), 209-36.

Ilski, K. (2007), ‘Kirchengeschichte als Weltgeschichte’,

in D. Brodka and M. Stachura (eds.), Continuity and Change:

Studies in Late Antique Historiography (Cracow), 121-9.

Inglebert, H. (2001), Interpretatio christiana. Les mutations des

savoirs (cosmographie, géographie, ethnographie, histoire) dans l’Antiquité

chrétienne (30-630 après J.-C.) (Paris).

Johnson, A. (2006), Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius’ Praeparatio

Evangelica (Oxford).

Koselleck, R. (1979), ‘Geschichte’, in O. Brunner (ed.)

Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe (Stuttgart), 593-718.

Latourelle, K.S. (1977), ‘The Christian Understanding of

History,’ in C.T. McIntire (ed.), God, History, and Historians. An

Anthology of Modern Christian Views of History (New York), 46-67.

Löwith, K. (1953), Weltgeschichte und Heilsgeschehen: die

theologischen Voraussetzungen der Geschichtsphilosophie (Frankfurt).

Luiselli B. (1980), ‘Indirizzo universale e indirizzi

nazionali nella storiografia latino-cristiana dei secc.

V-VIII,’ in La storiografia ecclesiastica nella tarda antichità

(Messina), 508-33.

Luiselli, B. (intr.) and A. Zanella (tr.) (1991), Paolo

Diacono. Storia dei Langobardi (Milan).

Luneau, A. (1964), L’histoire du salut chez les Pères de l’Eglise: la

doctrine des âges du monde (Paris).

Martin, A. e.a. (2006), Théodoret de Cyr. Histoire ecclésiastique.

Tome 1 (Paris).

Martínez Pizzarro, J. (2003), ‘Ethnic and National

History ca. 500-1000’, in D.M. Deliyannis (ed.),

Historiography in the Middle Ages (Leiden), 43-84.

Meier, M. (2004), ‘Prokop, Agathias, die Pest und das

‘Ende’ der antiken Historiographie. Naturkatastrophen und

Geschichtsschreibung in der ausgehenden Spätantike,’ in

Historische Zeitschrift 278: 281-310.

Mortley, R. (1996), The Idea of Universal History from Hellenistic

Philosophy to Early Christian Historiography (Lewiston, N.Y.).

Niebuhr, R. (1949), Faith and History. A Comparison of Christian and

Modern Views of History (New York).

Pilhofer, P. (1990), Prebyteron kreitton: Der Altersbeweis der

jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte

(Tübingen).

Press, G.A. (1982), The Development of the Idea of History in Antiquity

(Kingston).

Roberto, U. (2006), ‘Julius Africanus und die Tradition

der hellenistischen Universalgeschichte,’ in M. Wallraff

(ed.), Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik (Berlin and

New York), 3-16.

Schott, J. (2007), ‘Heresiology as Universal History in

Epiphanius’ Panarion,’ in Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 10:

546-63.

Schott, J. (2008), Christianity, Empire, and the Making of Religion in

Late Antiquity (Philadelphia). 

Timpe, D. (2001), Römische Geschichte und Heilsgeschichte

(Berlin).

Van Nuffelen, P. (2004a), Un héritage de paix et de piété. Étude sur

les Histoires ecclésiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomène (Leuven).

Van Nuffelen, P. (2004b), ‘Socrates van Constantinopel en

de antieke christelijke geschiedenisfilosofie,’ in

Handelingen van de Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal-,

Letterkunde en Geschiedenis 57: 187-201.

Van Nuffelen, P. (2007), rev. A. Martin e.a., Théodoret

de Cyr. Histoire ecclésiastique. Tome 1 (2006), in Antiquité

tardive 15: 410-6.

Wallraff, M. (2004), ‘Protologie und Eschatologie als

Horizonte der Kirchengeschichte? Das Erbe christlicher

Universalgeschichte,’ in W. Kinzig e.a. (eds.),

Historiographie und Theologie (Leipzig), 153-67.

Wallraff, M. (2005), ‘Von der antiken Historie zur

mittelalterlichen Chronik’, in M. Wallraff (ed.), Welt-Zeit.

Christliche Weltchronistik aus zwei Jahrtausenden in Beständen der Thüringer

Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Jena (Berlin and New York), 1-

16.

Whitby, M. (2000), The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus

(Liverpool).

Whitby, M. (2007), ‘Religious Views of Procopius and

Agathias,’ in D. Brodka and M. Stachyra (eds.), Continuity

and Change. Studies in Late Antique Historiography (Cracow), 73-94.

Winkelmann, F. (1992), ‘Grundproblemen christlicher

Historiographie in ihrer Frühphase (Eusebios von

Kaisareia und Orosius),’ in Jahrbuch der Oesterreichischen

Byzantinistik 42: 13-28.

Yarrow, L. (2006), Historiography at the End of the Republic. Provincial

Perspectives on Roman Rule (Oxford).

Zakai, A. and A. Mali (1992-1993), ‘Time, History and

Eschatology. Ecclesiastical History from Eusebius to

Augustine,’ in Journal of Religious History 17: 393-417.