2 thoughts on “History Repeats Itself

  1. Good news, Mike. The review makes me like it all the more. ;) Maier’s approach is to let the readers decide for themselves if Eusebius is a trustworthy historian or if he presents the material “through the lens of Christian Imperialism”. Much more reasonable than the postmodernist “hermeneutics of suspicion”, in my humble opinion.

  2. I wonder what it’s like. I’ve long got used to G.A.Williamson’s version. But… hasn’t Maier redited Eusebius to make it easier to read, by chopping out some of the verbiage?

Comments are closed.