W. Wright and N. McLean (eds.), The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac, with a Collation of the Ancient Armenian Version by Adalbert Merx (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898) p. XIII.

W. Wright and N. McLean (eds.), The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac, with a Collation of the Ancient Armenian Version by Adalbert Merx (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898) p. XIII.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

S. Toda, ‘The Syriac Version of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History Revisited’, in J. Baun, A. Cameron, M. Edwards and M. Vinzent (eds.), Tertullian to Tyconius, Egypt before Nicaea, Athanasius and His Opponents (Studia Patristica, 46, Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2010) pp. 333–338.

S. Toda, ‘The Syriac Version of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History Revisited’, in J. Baun, A. Cameron, M. Edwards and M. Vinzent (eds.), Tertullian to Tyconius, Egypt before Nicaea, Athanasius and His Opponents (Studia Patristica, 46, Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2010) pp. 333–338.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Oulton, Rufinus’s Translation, p. 153.

Oulton, Rufinus’s Translation, p. 153.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Jon M. Robertson, Christ as Mediator. A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra and Athanasius of Alexandria (Oxford Theological Monographs, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) pp. 69–96, rightly refuses any approach which anachronistically applies the orthodox definition of a later age (‘Arian’) to the study of Eusebius’ theology. Eusebius, who was a defender of Arius and was excommunicated by the council of Antioch in 325 C.E. as a member of the Arian party, then signed the Nicene Creed, which he interpreted in an idiosyncratic manner. It is noteworthy that Rufinus, in his continuatio, made no mention of Eusebius’ previous attitude towards Arius.

Jon M. Robertson, Christ as Mediator. A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra and Athanasius of Alexandria (Oxford Theological Monographs, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) pp. 69–96, rightly refuses any approach which anachronistically applies the orthodox definition of a later age (‘Arian’) to the study of Eusebius’ theology. Eusebius, who was a defender of Arius and was excommunicated by the council of Antioch in 325 C.E. as a member of the Arian party, then signed the Nicene Creed, which he interpreted in an idiosyncratic manner. It is noteworthy that Rufinus, in his continuatio, made no mention of Eusebius’ previous attitude towards Arius.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Oulton, Rufinus’s Translation, p. 153.

Oulton, Rufinus’s Translation, p. 153.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Transl. Deferrari, p. 39.

Transl. Oulton, Rufinus’s Translation, p. 154.

Transl. Oulton, Rufinus’s Translation, p. 154.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Transl. Deferrari, p. 42.

Transl. Oulton, Rufinus’s Translation, p. 154.

Transl. Oulton, Rufinus’s Translation, p. 154.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Simonetti, La crisi ariana, p. 66.

Simonetti, La crisi ariana, p. 66.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Transl. Deferrari, p. 42.

Oulton, Rufinus’s Translation, p. 154.

Oulton, Rufinus’s Translation, p. 154.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Humphries, Rufinus’s Eusebius, p. 163.

Humphries, Rufinus’s Eusebius, p. 163.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, v. 1. From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) (London: John Knox Press, 2nd edition, 1975) pp. 179–180.

A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, v. 1. From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) (London: John Knox Press, 2nd edition, 1975) pp. 179–180.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Transl. Deferrari, pp. 37–38.

See Brock, Christology, pp. 165–166.

See Brock, Christology, pp. 165–166.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Han J.W. Drijvers, ‘Facts and Problems in Early Syriac speaking Christianity’, Second Century (2) (1982), pp. 157–175 [160].

Han J.W. Drijvers, ‘Facts and Problems in Early Syriac speaking Christianity’, Second Century (2) (1982), pp. 157–175 [160].)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Brock, Eusebius and Syriac Christianity, p. 231, n. 18.

Brock, Eusebius and Syriac Christianity, p. 231, n. 18.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Jones, Evaluating, pp. 247–249, insists on the distinction between the ornate mode of translation and the simple one, the first used by Rufinus e.g. in his rendering of Origen’s De Principiis and—I add—of Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica, the second in the translation of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions.

Jones, Evaluating, pp. 247–249, insists on the distinction between the ornate mode of translation and the simple one, the first used by Rufinus e.g. in his rendering of Origen’s De Principiis and—I add—of Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica, the second in the translation of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Humphries, Rufinus’s Eusebius, p. 163.

Humphries, Rufinus’s Eusebius, p. 163.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Fernández, ‘Gli interventi dottrinali’, p. 42.

See Fernández, ‘Gli interventi dottrinali’, p. 42.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

E. Fiano, ‘The Trinitarian Controversies in Fourth Century Edessa’, Le Muséon 128(1.2) (2015), pp. 85–125.

E. Fiano, ‘The Trinitarian Controversies in Fourth Century Edessa’, Le Muséon 128(1.2) (2015), pp. 85–125.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation