persecutions. In this part, Corke-Webster illustrates Eusebius’s preconceived exaggeration of the early institutional buildup of the church and its importance for the Empire. The book closes with Eusebius’s treatment of Christians in government, ending (like the History) with Constantine, a Christian emperor, Eusebius’s final proof to rest his case. And, Corke-Webster can now claim that Eusebius, in fact, argued that Christianity was simultaneously Rome’s creator and its true heir (84). Moreover, “the Caesarean scholar was thus not just writing history. He was world-making” (85). The originality of Corke-Webster’s work lies mainly in his examination of Eusebius’s view of traditional virtues and its implications for his socio-religious and political vision in Part 2, as well as in his overall novel thesis regarding the History as an integral part of Eusebius’s apologetic project. Eusebius’s historical edifice consequently appears as a sophisticated Christian masterpiece. The book certainly makes a strong case for the apologetic dimension of the History, exploring previously overlooked apologetic aspects of the work. This thesis indeed offers a helpful prism through which to view important issues in Eusebius’s writings, especially ethics and social-political theory. Yet, making Eusebius’s postulated historical vision the organizing principle of the book entails its own risks. Thus, while the discussions on intellectuals (Chapter 3), the church (Chapter 7), and Rome (Chapter 8) suit this framework quite well, those on asceticism (Chapter 4), Christian families (Chapter 5), and martyrdom (Chapter 6) seem to force the issue. As such, the general apologetic thesis, though significantly enhanced, remains inconclusive and somewhat exaggerated, creating a reductionist picture of Eusebius’s nuanced stances on various issues, which the author himself often points out. Corke-Webster’s enthusiastic motivation to correct what seems an unwarranted assessment of Eusebius by various past scholars as primarily a marvelous bibliographer may further be regarded as an apologetic of sorts. Overall, this study sheds new light on the role of historiography and apologetics in Eusebius’s thought and writings. Corke-Webster is well-versed in the relevant sources and scholarship and presents his arguments in a clear, convincing and articulate manner. Though a bit sweeping in its reevaluation of Eusebius’s magnum opus, this book is of significant value for understanding the most erudite Christian writer of his time.

中文翻译：

---

早期教父思想中的创造与偶然性：约瑟夫·托尔奇亚（Joseph Torchia）的万物之始

迫害。在这一部分，科克-韦伯斯特阐述了尤西比乌斯对教会早期制度建设及其对帝国重要性的先入为主的夸大。这本书以优西比乌斯在政府中对待基督徒的方式结束，以基督教皇帝君士坦丁作为结尾（就像历史一样），优西比乌斯为他的案子平息的最后证据。而且，科克-韦伯斯特现在可以声称优西比乌斯实际上认为基督教既是罗马的创造者，也是罗马真正的继承人（84）。此外，“因此，剖腹产学者不仅仅是在书写历史。他正在创造世界”（85）。科克-韦伯斯特作品的独创性主要在于他在第 2 部分对优西比乌斯对传统美德的看法及其对他的社会宗教和政治愿景的影响的考察，以及在他关于历史作为尤西比乌斯道歉计划的一个组成部分的整体小说论文中。尤西比乌斯的历史建筑因此看起来像是一部精致的基督教杰作。这本书无疑为历史的道歉维度提供了有力的案例，探索了以前被忽视的作品的道歉方面。这篇论文确实提供了一个有用的棱镜，通过它可以查看尤西比乌斯著作中的重要问题，尤其是伦理学和社会政治理论。然而，将尤西比乌斯假设的历史愿景作为本书的组织原则也有其自身的风险。因此，虽然关于知识分子（第 3 章）、教会（第 7 章）和罗马（第 8 章）的讨论非常适合这个框架，但关于禁欲主义（第 4 章）、基督徒家庭（第 5 章）、和殉难（第 6 章）似乎迫使这个问题。因此，一般的道歉论点虽然得到了显着增强，但仍然没有定论，而且有些夸大其词，为尤西比乌斯在各种问题上的微妙立场创造了一幅还原论的图景，作者本人经常指出这一点。 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 科克-韦伯斯特的热情动机纠正了过去各种学者对优西比乌斯似乎是一个了不起的书目编纂者的毫无根据的评价，这可能进一步被视为某种意义上的歉意。 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 总的来说，这项研究揭示了史学和护教学在尤西比乌斯的思想和著作中的作用。科克-韦伯斯特 (Corke-Webster) 精通相关资料来源和学术研究，并以清晰、令人信服和清晰的方式提出他的论点。虽然在重新评估尤西比乌斯的代表作时有点笼统，