Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgreen44 · 08-16-2010, 10:50 AM

I read a lot of allusions to Eusebius' dishonesty on this forum. I think it may be the only point upon which everyone here agrees.

Could someone direct me to a book which itemizes these lies and explains how it is we know Eusebius was lying in such instances? (something more substantive than, "His pen was moving", please

) Or a website? Better yet could someone provide a David Letterman style top-ten list of Eusebian whoppers?

GakuseiDon · 08-16-2010, 03:12 PM

Roger Pearse has a good article on this called "Eusebius the Liar?" here: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eu...s_the_liar.htm

He also links to an extract from Lightfoot (written in the 19th C) that looks at Eusebius of Caesarea's worth as a historian:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eu.../lightfoot.htm

From the latter link:

It will have appeared from this account that Eusebius had a truly noble conception of the work which he was taking in hand. It was nothing less than the history of a society which stood in an intimate relation to the Divine Logos Himself, a society whose roots struck down into the remotest past and whose destinies soared into the eternal future. He felt moreover that he himself lived at the great crisis in its history...

It must be confessed however that the execution of his work falls far short of the conception. The faults indeed are patent and tend to obscure the merits, so that an unjust depreciation of the work has too commonly been the consequence. Yet, with all allowance made for these, it is a noble monument of literary labour. He himself, as we have seen, pleads for indulgence, as one who is setting foot upon new ground, “nullius ante trita solo.”... It is only necessary to reflect for a moment what a blank would be left in our knowledge of this most important chapter in all human history, if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out, and we shall appreciate the enormous debt of gratitude which we owe to him...

The two points which require consideration are (1) the range and adequacy of his materials (2) the use made of these materials.

1. The range of materials is astonishing when we consider that Eusebius was a pioneer breaking new ground. Some hundred works, in several cases very lengthy works, are either directly cited or referred to as read. When we remember that in many instances he would read an entire treatise through for the sake of one or two historical notices, while in many others he must have done the same without finding any thing which would serve his purpose, we are able to form some conception of the enormous labour involved in the work. This then is his strongest point. Yet even here deficiencies may be noted. He very rarely quotes the works of heresiarchs themselves, being content to give their opinions through the medium of their opponents’ refutations. A still greater defect is his ignorance of Latin literature and of Latin Christendom generally. Thus he knows nothing of Tertullian’s works, except the Apologeticum...

2. Under the second head the most vital question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with his materials or not ? The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known... The passages to which he refers (H. E. viii. 2; Mart. Pal. 12) do not bear out this imputation. There is no indirectness about them, but on the contrary they deplore, in the most emphatic terms, the evils which disgraced the church, and they represent the persecution under Diocletian as a just retribution for these wrongdoings....

The general sincerity and good faith of the historian seem therefore to be assured. But his intellectual qualifications for his task were in many respects defective. His credulity indeed has frequently been much exaggerated...

A far more serious drawback to his value as a historian is the loose and uncritical spirit in which he sometimes deals with his materials. This shews itself in diverse ways. (a) He is not always to be trusted in his discrimination of genuine and spurious documents. ...

mountainman · 08-16-2010, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

I read a lot of allusions to Eusebius' dishonesty on this forum. I think it may be the only point upon which everyone here agrees.

Could someone direct me to a book which itemizes these lies and explains how it is we know Eusebius was lying in such instances? (something more substantive than, "His pen was moving", please

) Or a website?

The Historical Integrity of Eusebius of Caesarea

Quote:

Originally Posted by CARRIER

Eusebius, the First History of the Church,
and the Earliest Complete Bibles

The first Christian scholar to engage in researching and writing a complete history of the Christian church, Eusebius of Caesarea, reveals the embarrassing complexity of the development of the Christian canon, despite his concerted attempt to cover this with a pro-orthodox account.

Two things must be known:

first, Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous
(see note. 6), and either way not a very good historian;

second, Eusebius rewrote his History of the Church at least five times
(cf. M 202, n. 29), in order to accommodate changing events, including
the ever-important Council of Nicea ...

Richard Carrier: The Formation of the New Testament Canon

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOLLERICH

Ever since Jacob Burckhardt dismissed him as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity," Eusebius has been an inviting target for students of the Constantinian era. At one time or another they have characterized him as:

a political propagandist [1],
a good courtier [2],
the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine [3],
the great publicist of the first Christian emperor,[4]
the first in a long succession of ecclesiastical politicians, [5]
the herald of Byzantinism, [6]
a political theologian, [7]
a political metaphysician [8], and
a caesaropapist. [9]

[1] Erik Peterson, Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem (Munich, 1951 ), p. 91;
[2] Henri Grégoire, "L'authenticité et l'historicité de la Vita Constantini attribuée ê Eusèbe de Césarée," Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, 39 ( 1953 ): 462-479, quoted in T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981 ), p. 401;
[3] Arnaldo Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century," in The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. A. Momigliano (Oxford, 1963 ), p. 85;
[4] Robert Markus, "The Roman Empire in Early Christian Historiography," The Downside Review 81 ( 1963 ): 343;
[5] Charles N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (1940; reprint, Oxford, 1966 ), p. 183;
[6] Hendrik Berkhof, Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Amsterdam, 1939 ), pp. 21-22;
[7] Hans Eger, "Kaiser und Kirche in der Geschichtstheologie Eusebs von Cäsarea", Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 38 ( 1939 ): 115;
[8] Per Beskow, Rex Gloriae. The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church (Uppsala, 1962 ), p. 318;
[9] J. M. Sansterre, "Eusèbe de Césarée et la naissance de la théorie 'césaropapiste,'" Byzantion 42 ( 1972 ): 593

It is obvious that these are not, in the main, neutral descriptions. Much traditional scholarship, sometimes with barely sup- pressed disdain, has regarded Eusebius as one who risked his orthodoxy and perhaps his character because of his zeal for the Constantinian establishment. Scholars have often observed, for example, that his literary works in defense of the new order depict Constantine and his reign in eschatological terms that rival and even supplant the Incarnation and Parousia in salvation history.

To be sure, this assessment relies on abundant documentation: in the Life of Constantine and in the Tricennial Oration, delivered on the thirtieth anniversary of Constantine's reign, as well as in other books, Eusebius gave an enthusiastic Christian endorsement

Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius:
Reassessing the First "Court Theologian"

--- MICHAEL J. HOLLERICH
Assistant professor of religious studies
in Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California.

Quote:

Better yet could someone provide a David Letterman style top-ten list of Eusebian whoppers?

(1) The Testimonium Flavianum - a history of its censure as a Eusebian fraud.

"A rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too",

--- Bishop Warburton of Gloucester, 1762.

(2) The Letter of King Agbar to Jesus and the Letter of JC to King Agbar which Eusebius serendipitously "SUDDENLY FINDS" in the "archives" while researching the long and untrodden road of the Nation of Christians.

(3) "Vita Constantini" - Life of the THRICE BLESSED Constantine

Eusebius gets confused between thrice blessed Hermes and his new boss "Thrice Blessed Constantine". Eusebius' literature on the Boss moves on nauseously through the admiration phase. Constantine is depicted as a saviour just like Moses and the "Prophets of ancient Times". Written after the Boss death c.337 CE the literature is a dead give-away as the relationship Eusebius enjoyed with the Roman Emperor.

These three "whoppers" will probably head the list.

Others may include .....

(4) The Apology of Pamphilus (co-authored by Eusebius).

(5) Matthew wrote first, not Mark.

(6) Eusebius's invectives against the Gnostic heretics.

Toto · 08-16-2010, 07:21 PM

Some previous threads from the archives, in which Roger Pearse and GDon valiantly try to uphold the virtue of Eusebius in the face of infidel scorn:

Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected

Eusebius the liar?

Josephus passage

stephan huller · 08-16-2010, 07:32 PM

Here's my attempt to give Eusebius some sympathy.

Imagine it like this. The Empire accepts Christianity as some sort of favored religion and then Eusebius has to go through all these texts which have been preserved badly (admittedly though under conditions that were less than favorable for accurate record keeping - persecutions, tribunals etc.). The Emperor wants to make Christianity look respectable. What do you do? Tell your boss that no originals exist. You boss's mother is in the business of selling pieces of the cross for God's sake. You end up doing what you or I or anyone else would do when they go into work - you find a way to make your boss happy.

And you know why? Because you know that if you don't do it some other asshole will. And you tell yourself that you are in a unique position 'within the system' to preserve some little bit of what you think is 'the truth' from its enemies - like saving the reputation of Origen ...

Chili · 08-16-2010, 07:40 PM

. . . and besides, isn't ok to lie for a good cause if 'all is well that ends well?'

stephan huller · 08-16-2010, 07:58 PM

But I wonder if Eusebius really thought that he was 'lying' per se. I don't mean to reference my own thread about Josephus but if,for instance, you have this shitty copy of Jewish War and you think you know what the truth is - i.e. how it should look - and you have the political muscle to 'fix it' he probably carried out his 'reconstruction' of what he 'knew' the truth was in the same way as textual critics do today.

The only difference is that what he was establishing became 'TRUTH.' But what would happen if Ben Witherington or Bart Ehrman or Larry Hurtado or Robert Price had the political means to establish whatever they believed truth to be as 'absolute truth.'

People complain that Heidegger collaborated with Hitler but really when it comes down to it, who would refuse a deal where what "you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."

Maybe aa5784 but that's about it, I think ...

Solo · 08-16-2010, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

People complain that Heidegger collaborated with Hitler but really when it comes down to it, who would refuse a deal where what "you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."

Bonhoeffer

stephan huller · 08-16-2010, 08:51 PM

Good point but Bonhoeffer's was just perpetuating a system established through ancient thuggery. Hitler was just the latest incarnation of Caesar.

aa5874 · 08-16-2010, 10:13 PM

The writer called Eusebius to whom is attributed "Church History" does not appear to be credible.

This is Eusebius in "Church History" 1

Quote:

4. But at the outset I must crave for my work the indulgence of the wise, for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path[...

So, Eusebius is claiming that he was the first to produce a history of the Church. No other writer before Eusebius has any history of the Church.

It is EXTREMELY important to REMEMBER the words of Eusebius, "I am the FIRST to enter upon the subject."

And Eusebius continues.

Quote:

... I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, sinceI am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived....

Here Eusebius claims that he was UNABLE to find even the BARE FOOTSTEPS of those before him except for some FRAGMENTS.

And here lies the fundamental problem for Eusebius.

Eusebius MUST have been LYING about something.

Either he was ABLE to FIND the FOOTSTEPS of those before him BEFORE he even began to write or FABRICATED the FOOTSTEPS while he was writing.

These are some writings that should have been available to Eusebius or any 4th century Jesus believer with ACCESS to a LIBRARY or a CHURCH.

1. The Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

2. Acts of the Apostles.

3. ALL the Pauline writings including Hebrews and the Pastorals.

4. The Epistles from Peter, John, James and Jude.

5. Revelation of John.

6. The writings of Papias.

7. The writings of Ignatius.

8. The writings of Clement of Rome.

9. The writings of Philo

10. The writings of Josephus.

11. The writings of Tacitus.

12. The writings of Suetonius.

13. The Pliny letters

14. The writings of Justin Martyr.

15. The writings of Tatian.

16. The writings of Irenaeus.

17. The writings of Clement of Alexandria.

18. The writings of Tertullian.

19. The writings of Hippolytus.

20. The writings of Origen

Before Eusebius even attempted to write the history of the Church he must have known of writings in LIBRARIES or CHURCHES up to his own time.

This is the very Eusebius now ADMITTING or LYING that he HAD found Libraries with the HISTORY OF the FOOTSTEPS of those before him.

"Church History" 6

Quote:

1. There flourished many learned men in the Church at that time, whose letters to each other have been preserved and are easily accessible.

They have been kept until our time in the library at Ælia, which was established by Alexander, who at that time presided over that church.

We have been able to gather from that library material for our present work.

Again Eusebius ADMITS or LIES that there were books in Libraries with the writings of Origen and other writers.

"Church History" 6.32

Quote:

....After showing how great the diligence of Pamphilus was in divine things, we give in that a catalogue of the library which he collected of the works of Origen and of other ecclesiastical writers.

Whoever desires may learn readily from this which of Origen's works have reached us.....

Now, it MUST BE NOTED again that when Eusebius BEGAN to write his history of the Church he was UNABLE to find the bare footsteps of those BEFORE him except FRAGMENTS.

Eusebius was the FIRST to know about these LIBRARIES?.

Before Eusebius was finished HE had found LIBRARIES that were easily accessible with letters and books of writers of the Church.

How did Eusebius NOT know of these LIBRARIES BEFORE he started writing "Church History"?

How did Eusebius NOT know about the LETTERS from JESUS to Agbar BEFORE he started his history?

How did Eusebius NOT able to the find the BARE FOOTSTEPS of those BEFORE him?

The answer appears to be rather SIMPLE.

The "history of the Church" was FABRICATED for the FIRST TIME at the VERY TIME Eusebius was writing his history.

Eusebius was the FIRST to INVENT and FABRICATE the "history of the Church. But others would follow.

This is Eusebius. He was indeed the FIRST to trod this LONELY path.

Quote:

...I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path...

Eusebius was the FIRST to FIND the "history of the Church" in the "LIBRARIES". There was No history of the Church in the CHURCHES.

08-16-2010, 10:50 AM	#1
jgreen44 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: About 120 miles away from aa5874 Posts: 268	Eusebius: The Invention of Lying I read a lot of allusions to Eusebius' dishonesty on this forum. I think it may be the only point upon which everyone here agrees. Could someone direct me to a book which itemizes these lies and explains how it is we know Eusebius was lying in such instances? (something more substantive than, "His pen was moving", please ) Or a website? Better yet could someone provide a David Letterman style top-ten list of Eusebian whoppers?

08-16-2010, 03:12 PM	#2
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Roger Pearse has a good article on this called "Eusebius the Liar?" here: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eu...s_the_liar.htm He also links to an extract from Lightfoot (written in the 19th C) that looks at Eusebius of Caesarea's worth as a historian: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eu.../lightfoot.htm From the latter link: It will have appeared from this account that Eusebius had a truly noble conception of the work which he was taking in hand. It was nothing less than the history of a society which stood in an intimate relation to the Divine Logos Himself, a society whose roots struck down into the remotest past and whose destinies soared into the eternal future. He felt moreover that he himself lived at the great crisis in its history... It must be confessed however that the execution of his work falls far short of the conception. The faults indeed are patent and tend to obscure the merits, so that an unjust depreciation of the work has too commonly been the consequence. Yet, with all allowance made for these, it is a noble monument of literary labour. He himself, as we have seen, pleads for indulgence, as one who is setting foot upon new ground, “nullius ante trita solo.”... It is only necessary to reflect for a moment what a blank would be left in our knowledge of this most important chapter in all human history, if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out, and we shall appreciate the enormous debt of gratitude which we owe to him... The two points which require consideration are (1) the range and adequacy of his materials (2) the use made of these materials. 1. The range of materials is astonishing when we consider that Eusebius was a pioneer breaking new ground. Some hundred works, in several cases very lengthy works, are either directly cited or referred to as read. When we remember that in many instances he would read an entire treatise through for the sake of one or two historical notices, while in many others he must have done the same without finding any thing which would serve his purpose, we are able to form some conception of the enormous labour involved in the work. This then is his strongest point. Yet even here deficiencies may be noted. He very rarely quotes the works of heresiarchs themselves, being content to give their opinions through the medium of their opponents’ refutations. A still greater defect is his ignorance of Latin literature and of Latin Christendom generally. Thus he knows nothing of Tertullian’s works, except the Apologeticum... 2. Under the second head the most vital question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with his materials or not ? The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known... The passages to which he refers (H. E. viii. 2; Mart. Pal. 12) do not bear out this imputation. There is no indirectness about them, but on the contrary they deplore, in the most emphatic terms, the evils which disgraced the church, and they represent the persecution under Diocletian as a just retribution for these wrongdoings.... The general sincerity and good faith of the historian seem therefore to be assured. But his intellectual qualifications for his task were in many respects defective. His credulity indeed has frequently been much exaggerated... A far more serious drawback to his value as a historian is the loose and uncritical spirit in which he sometimes deals with his materials. This shews itself in diverse ways. (a) He is not always to be trusted in his discrimination of genuine and spurious documents. ...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-16-2010, 07:21 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Some previous threads from the archives, in which Roger Pearse and GDon valiantly try to uphold the virtue of Eusebius in the face of infidel scorn: Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected Eusebius the liar? Josephus passage

08-16-2010, 07:32 PM	#5
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here's my attempt to give Eusebius some sympathy. Imagine it like this. The Empire accepts Christianity as some sort of favored religion and then Eusebius has to go through all these texts which have been preserved badly (admittedly though under conditions that were less than favorable for accurate record keeping - persecutions, tribunals etc.). The Emperor wants to make Christianity look respectable. What do you do? Tell your boss that no originals exist. You boss's mother is in the business of selling pieces of the cross for God's sake. You end up doing what you or I or anyone else would do when they go into work - you find a way to make your boss happy. And you know why? Because you know that if you don't do it some other asshole will. And you tell yourself that you are in a unique position 'within the system' to preserve some little bit of what you think is 'the truth' from its enemies - like saving the reputation of Origen ...

08-16-2010, 07:40 PM	#6
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	. . . and besides, isn't ok to lie for a good cause if 'all is well that ends well?'

08-16-2010, 07:58 PM	#7
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But I wonder if Eusebius really thought that he was 'lying' per se. I don't mean to reference my own thread about Josephus but if,for instance, you have this shitty copy of Jewish War and you think you know what the truth is - i.e. how it should look - and you have the political muscle to 'fix it' he probably carried out his 'reconstruction' of what he 'knew' the truth was in the same way as textual critics do today. The only difference is that what he was establishing became 'TRUTH.' But what would happen if Ben Witherington or Bart Ehrman or Larry Hurtado or Robert Price had the political means to establish whatever they believed truth to be as 'absolute truth.' People complain that Heidegger collaborated with Hitler but really when it comes down to it, who would refuse a deal where what "you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." Maybe aa5784 but that's about it, I think ...

08-16-2010, 08:51 PM	#9
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Good point but Bonhoeffer's was just perpetuating a system established through ancient thuggery. Hitler was just the latest incarnation of Caesar.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.