In this work Peter Van Nuffelen argues a reevaluation of Orosius’ Historiae adversus paganos is in order. Van Nuffelen seeks to reverse the negative scholarship that has characterized Orosius's work. Past scholars have tended to view Orosius's work more as a theology of history rather than actual history. Often Orosius has been passed off as a simplistic Christian apologist/theologian and not been appreciated for the historian that he was. By utilizing a literary approach Van Nuffelen demonstrates that Orosius's work actually is a very nuanced form of historical rhetoric common in Late Antiquity.

Van Nuffelen begins his revision after cataloging the negative scholarship on Orosius. The author shows that instead of Orosius simply writing an apology for Christianity, he employs numerous literary and rhetorical devices common in Late Antiquity. To accomplish this Van Nuffelen borrows Gavin Kelly's approach in his analysis of the historian Ammianus Marcellinus. This approach analyzes three forms of intertextuality. First, Van Nuffelen demonstrates the allusions Orosius makes to other classical literature, particularly Vergil. Next, Van Nuffelen makes use of what he calls exempla from past histories. Thirdly, Orosius amplifies and rewrites ancient sources to develop his point. With this analysis Van Nuffelen demonstrates that Orosius was in fact writing a history much in the style of other Late Antique historians. Van Nuffelen concludes with Orosius's connection to Augustine, demonstrating that while the two authors differ in some aspects, they compliment each other with a unified message about the temporal nature of Rome.