mountainman

There exists one and one only account - historical or otherwise - which presents the history of the christian church and the activities of its members and supporters for the epoch prior to the 4th century. This account of course is the "History" assembled by Eusebius between the years of 312 and 325 CE during the rise to supremacy of the emperor Constantine, who used Eusebius as the Editor-In-Chief of the first Christian Bibles.

The question to be answered is just how authentic was Eusebius' "history".
The options are as follows:

(1) 100% authentic - absolute "historical truth"
(2) 75% authentic - 25% fabricated
(3) 50% authentic - 50% fabricated
(4) 25% authentic - 75% fabricated
(5) 0% authentic - 100% fabricated

How do people rate the very first AND ONLY "historical" account?

spamandham

My guess is it's less than 25% accurate, but not 0, so I voted (4). I view it as based on a combination of abject fabrication, legend, previous abject fabrications of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and a some real history.

aa5874

I voted "25% authentic" since there is no "less than 0.0001%" category.

But, Eusebius did write some history. At least he got the name Jesus right and that people used to believe in the God/man before he fabricated "CHURCH History."

And other "historical accounts" appear to have been fabricated exclusively for the " first one and only" Church History.

Back Again

I haven't voted. Is the question, how much did Eusebius make up or how much in Eusebius' account is true? I would say he made up between 25 and 50 percent. I would go with a VERY tiny percent on what is true.

Doug Shaver

None of the above. Your options assume, as many apologists tend to assume, that early Christians were incapable of making mistakes, and therefore whenever they failed to tell the truth, they must have been lying.

Doug Shaver

It may be the earliest account that was ostensibly intended to be a history. That does not make it the earliest source of information about the church's history. If there are extant documents written by Christians before Eusebius's time, then we have earlier sources. And, being earlier, they are likely to be better.

avi

First of all, I have not yet voted.
Secondly, I believe that I am disqualified from casting a vote. In my humble opinion, the only folks entitled to vote are those who have actually read Eusebius.

I have steadfastly refused to read the writings attributed to him, since I suppose that whatever egregious forgeries he may have committed, there is no reason to suppose that the forgery business ceased upon his demise....

I have no idea how much, if any, of Eusebius' writings ought to be regarded as valid, i.e. actually representing what he himself wrote.

I envision a considerable amount of book burning in those tumultuous times...

One thing really puzzles me. The Germanic tribes adopted, for a time, Arianism. I am not sure whether that was Constantine's influence, or the influence of his sons, at least two of whom were followers of Arius. Eusebius himself, as well as the other Eusebius, of Nicomedia, were all Arians, at one point in time. What caused them to change their perspective? Is this "history" found in Eusebius? If so, is Eusebius' history of Arianism viewed by non religious historians as legitimate, or a forgery?

avi

Clivedurdle

I cannot get access to the following, but are we not looking at a process of history creation?

aa5874

I think you are making a massive mistake by refusing to read the writings under the name of Eusebius.

When you refuse to read the writings under the name of Eusebius you run the risk of regarding non-historical writings from other assumed Church writers as historical.[

Well, if you read the writings under the name of Eusebius you may begin to realise that there are other assumed Church writers who may not have written the writings attributed to them.

If it is admitted that there are forgeries in the writings attributed to Eusebius, it must be NOTED that the writer called Eusebius used or RELIED ON the "history" found directly in the writings of Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Ireneaus, Tertullian, Origen, Papias, Hippolytus, and others who all supposedly wrote sometimes 200 years ealier.

For example, in "Church History", supposedly written in the 4th century, the writer called Eusebius used or RELIED ON the "history" found in "Against Heresies" under the name of Irenaeus assumed to be written in the 2nd century.

Now, the authorship, dating and chronology of the books in the canonical NT appear to be in ERROR in "Against Heresies" and Eusebius did RELY ON IRENAEUS for the very same erroneous information in "Church History".

The writings under the name of Eusebius are a MUST READ to understand the "history of the Church".


Perhaps if you read the writings under the name of Eusebius your puzzle will be solved.

The writer called Eusebius did name the aliases of his accomplices. This a partial list of the aliases.

1. Ignatius

2. Papias

3. Polycarp

4. Clement of Rome

5. Irenaeus

6. Tertullian

7. Origen

There are more aliases, please read "Church History" under the name of Eusebius.

Sometimes, when a person lies it is because they know the truth.

mountainman

Do you happen to have a citation for the assertion that "many apologists tend to assume that early Christians were incapable of making mistakes"? And for the secondary assertion that whenever Early christians failed to tell the truth, they must have been either lying or making a mistake?

Most Christian apologists in general have probably never heard of Eusebius, and of those who have only a very small percentage would have read Eusebius "Church History". Doctors of theology are of course introduced to Eusebius but at the same time they are introduced to the unspoken assumption that they are dealing with some form of "history".

Even fewer people have read the other works of Eusebius, such as the flaming "Martrys of Palestine" and "The Life of the Thrice Blessed Emperor Constantine" and the polemic scrawled against "Hierocles and Apollonius at al".