The volume currently under review is the second collection of essays published in recent years on the most important Christian polymath of the early fourth century a.d. Reconsidering Eusebius, edited by Sabrina Inowlocki and Claudio Zamagni and published by Brill in 2011, was the fruit of a 2008 colloquium held in Brussels. Following the Brussels workshop, a series of sessions were held over the course of three years at the annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature, which resulted in the present collection. Although there is some overlap in authorship between the two edited volumes, taken together they provide a useful summation of the various lines of research currently underway on Eusebius, his world, and his influence.

For Eusebius of Caesarea, Aaron Johnson and Jeremy Schott have assembled a strong line-up of sixteen contributions, though some of the essays are noticeably weaker than others. Literary studies begin the volume, with David J. DeVore exploiting contemporary genre theory to address the perennial question of the genre of the Ecclesiastical History. James Corke-Webster provides a detailed analysis of Eusebius’ treatment of the Maccabean martyrs and demonstrates that his emphasis on familial unity differs from Origen's exhortation to familial renunciation. Elizabeth C. Penland argues for the no doubt true — but rather obvious — conclusion that Eusebius’ narration of Origen's biography in the Ecclesiastical History is meant to connect his current work in Caesarea with the legacy of the past Alexandrian. Ken Olson proposes that Eusebius himself was responsible for composing the famous Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus’ Antiquities, which would require that he both created the passage for the purpose of quoting it in his own works and then so successfully inserted it into the Josephan manuscript tradition that no trace of its original absence survived. Eusebius’ presentation of Constantine as a kind of new Moses has long been recognized as a part of his imperial propaganda, but Finn Damgaard seeks to present a more complicated picture according to which Constantine himself originally created the comparison as a tool to rein in unruly bishops, while Eusebius modified the typology so that it became in his hands a lesson in proper leadership for Constantine's sons. Peter Van Nuffelen picks up on a suggestion by Averil Cameron and investigates the prevalence of images in the Vita Constantini, insightfully highlighting Eusebius’ presentation of his work as an ‘image in words’ of the emperor who in turn is an image of divine rule, part of a ‘cascade of images’ (135–7) descending from heaven to earth.

The volume next turns to biblical exegesis. Eusebius’ once massive Commentary on the Psalms now only survives scattered and fragmented in the catena tradition. Michael J. Hollerich offers a useful introduction to the work and the problems of authenticity that always surround catena fragments. Ilaria Ramelli could usefully have learned from Hollerich's essay, since in her contribution at the end of the volume she ignores these difficulties. In his chapter, Jeremy M. Schott applies post-colonial theory to Eusebius’ method of writing. According to this rendering, the historian invaded, destroyed, provincialized and colonized existing texts to produce an ‘imperial textuality’ (175). Viewing the matter in this way is creative, but does not deliver more than one might have learned without all the theory and metaphor. For his part Aaron P. Johnson argues that Eusebius once composed a full commentary on the Gospel of Luke, fragments of which survive in Nicetas’ catena. Johnson gives a translation and insightful analysis of a lengthy passage from the catena dealing with Jesus’ transfiguration, though he does not tell the reader whether the supposedly Eusebian fragments are treated in the seminal edition of Joseph Reuss, Lukas-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften (1984) which is omitted from the works cited. Carrying forward the theme of Eusebian exegesis, Sébastien Morlet suggests that Eusebius’ Eclogae propheticae is an important witness to Origen's lost psalter exegesis. To demonstrate this thesis he offers three case studies, only two of which, as he admits, support his contention. Nevertheless he concludes that it ‘must’ be the case that Eusebius used Origen throughout the entirety of the work, a conclusion that seems unwarranted on so thin a basis. Claudio Zamagni offers a survey of his research on the invaluable but exceedingly difficult work of compiling manuscripts of Eusebius’ Questions and Answers on the Gospels.

Moving into the area of historical theology, Mark DelCogliano provides a detailed analysis of Eusebius’ attitude towards the views of Asterius, concluding that his anti-Marcellan writings are also pro-Asterian. Volker Henning Drecoll addresses a question that has been discussed in German Dogmengeschichte but largely ignored in Anglo-American scholarship, namely Eusebius’ pneumatology. Drecoll proposes that it was Marcellus who prompted Eusebius to become a properly Trinitarian theologian by explicitly commenting on the Spirit's status. In her contribution Ilaria Ramelli contends that Eusebius held to Origen's doctrine of apokatastasis. There are several problems with this chapter so I will content myself with noting one recurring issue. By my count, over half of the references in her footnotes, and certainly more than half of the sources in the works cited list, are to Ramelli's own works. This excess of self-referentiality, combined with other factors, makes it difficult to assess the success of her argument. The volume concludes with an essay by Kristina A. Meinking which is an interesting study of Lactantius’ rhetoric but seems oddly placed in this volume because it has nothing to do with Eusebius.