Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 04-23-2004, 11:34 PM

Eusebius of Caesarea, one of the earliest historians of the Christian church, has long had the reputation as being a proponent of "pious lies". But is his reputation deserved?

I found a couple of interesting articles on this. This first one looks at specific allegations against Eusebius (including the ones of "pious lies"), and finds that the evidence is weak, and certainly not enough to support the accusations against him: Eusebius the Liar?

This next article looks at general allegations against Eusebius. I've provided some quotes from it: Eusebius of Caesarea

Quote:

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 gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of religion. Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history, has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other.�? The passages to which he refers (H. E. viii. 2; Mart. Pal. 12) do not bear out this imputation...

This treatment may be regarded as too great a sacrifice to edification. It may discredit his conception of history; but it leaves no imputation on his honesty. Nor again can the special charges against his honour as a narrator be sustained...

The manner in which Eusebius deals with his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his honesty, is a sufficient vindication against this unjust charge.1

Moreover, Eusebius is generally careful not only to collect the best evidence accessible, but also to distinguish between different kinds of evidence...

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. “Undoubtedly he relates many incidents which may seemto us incredible, but, when he does so, he gives the evidence on which they are recommended to him. At one time it is the express testimony of some well-known writer, at another a general belief, at another an old tradition, at another his own observation (v. 7, vi. 9, vii. 17, 18)�? [W.]... Gibbon (c. xvi) describes the character of Eusebius as “less tinctured with credulity, and more practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries.�?

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. ...

So, there are questions about his value as a historian and analytical skills of the literature of the times (which would probably describe me as much as anyone), but nothing to say that he was a liar, or that he dishonestly made things up to advance Christianity.

Is there any hard evidence that Eusebius did that?

Toto · 04-24-2004, 12:25 AM

We had a long debate on Eusebius in a thread that included the author of the article that you cite, Roger Pearse.

The Josephus Passage [Eusebius the Liar]

As I posted there:

As for Eusebius, considered by most historians an unreliable source, see Richard Carrier's assessment here.

Quote:

Eusebius is also infamous for saying that it was necessary to lie for the cause of Christianity. In his Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31, listing the ideas Plato supposedly got from Moses, he includes the idea:

That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the Athenian:] 'And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach.

. . .

Regarding Eusebius' use of this and other passages in book 12, Edwin Hamilton Gifford says "In Books X-XII Eusebius argues that the Greeks had borrowed from the older theology and philosophy of the Hebrews, dwelling especially on the supposed dependence of Plato upon Moses." (Introduction, Preparation for the Gospel, 1903). So in a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing.

Read the rest of the thread, since I do not have the stamina to go through all the arguments again. The Alexis Comnenus posting there is Bede's sock puppet if I remember correctly.

04-24-2004, 01:01 AM

We established that Eusebius was not a liar and that to believe that he was you had to accept he thought there were lies in the Bible. Quite why Toto never accepted defeat on this, I have no idea.

Yours

Bede/Alexis

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto · 04-24-2004, 01:14 AM

We certainly did not establish that Eusebius was not a liar, something that is quite beyond historical proof. [excuse the double negative but I think you get what I mean.].

The question was whether Eusebius advocated outright lies. Bede and his friends had to interpret the word usually translated as "fables" to refer only to benign stories or parables, and their only reason for that translation was that they could not accept that a good Christian like Eusebius could ever advocate telling an untruth.

Read the thread for yourself.

GakuseiDon · 04-24-2004, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

We certainly did not establish that Eusebius was not a liar, something that is quite beyond historical proof. [excuse the double negative but I think you get what I mean.].

The question was whether Eusebius advocated outright lies. Bede and his friends had to interpret the word usually translated as "fables" to refer only to benign stories or parables, and their only reason for that translation was that they could not accept that a good Christian like Eusebius could ever advocate telling an untruth.

Read the thread for yourself.

Toto, Bede, thanks for that. I'll read through the link with interest. What I'm looking forward are actual examples of Eusebius lying, and about what kind of topics.

04-24-2004, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The question was whether Eusebius advocated outright lies. Bede and his friends had to interpret the word usually translated as "fables" to refer only to benign stories or parables, and their only reason for that translation was that they could not accept that a good Christian like Eusebius could ever advocate telling an untruth.

Stop lying yourself, Toto.

The reason we used the word fable was that he was talking about the Bible and we claimed, correctly, that no Christian would say the bible contained lies.

B

Vinnie · 04-24-2004, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

Stop lying yourself, Toto.

The reason we used the word fable was that he was talking about the Bible and we claimed, correctly, that no Christian would say the bible contained lies.

B

I didn't read the thread but I just read the reference and I noticed his appeal to scripture. The "lieing" of the Bible that he compares his statement too (jealousy of God) doesn't compoletely match up to what we are thinking of as "lieing".

I think ancients had strange ways of doing history compared to us modern folk. For example, from Sanders and Davies SSG at 37:

"Josephus, for example who was a very self-conscious historian, and who was also fairly accurate, claimed, in retelling biblical history, that he added nothing and omitted nothing (Antiq. 1.17; cf. Antiq. 4.196; 20.260-261). In fact he omitted a great deal and added numerous items. He attributed to Moses, for example, the commandment to gather each week to study the law (Against Apion 2.175). This represents first-century practice but cannot be found in the Bible; and Josephus, if pressed, would have granted that to be true. He knew the Bible extremely well, and further he knew that many of his readers were equally well versed in it. Then why ascribe to Moses new commandments? We cannot precisely recapture his mental processes, but perhaps they went like this: It is an established tradition in our religion that we gather in synagogues on the Sabbath to study the Scripture; this has been true as far back as anyone can remember; Moses himself must have intended it; I shall use a shortcut and say that he commanded it."

Did Josphus "lie" here? If Eusebius is on no worse grounds than Josephus I doubt anyone will complain against it. But fact remains that ancient "historians" did not entirely see "history" as we do.

To shed light on the issue:

Can we offer exactly who the lawmen are and how they might have lied? Does the thread in question touch upon that in any way?

Also, has anyone found Plato's reference? What is Plato's argument on lying?

That will shed further light on the situation and also, I would not too readily dismiss the possibility of the Bible "lieing". Ancients did have weird ways of "determining" historical truth (see Josephus above) and Eusebius may just be puppeting a form of progressive revelation. Though they certainly knew the difference between truth and falsehood, they often did history without making such historical distinctions.

He probably thought God in no true sense of the word could be "jealous". So the statement is false. Its given literally to warn Jews of the dangers of God's wrath (so the statement is also "true"!). This wouldn't make him Eusebius the liar or Eusebius the TF forger. Just Eusebius an ancient author.

I dunno. Trying to think his thoughts requires a very detailed study of his extant writings and discussion of them (all of them, not one passage).

Vinnie

GakuseiDon · 04-24-2004, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

I didn't read the thread but I just read the reference and I noticed his appeal to scripture. The "lieing" of the Bible that he compares his statement too (jealousy of God) doesn't compoletely match up to what we are thinking of as "lieing".

I agree. He could hardly mean that the OT writers were saying that God was actually awake when they said He was sleeping.

Quote:

Also, has anyone found Plato's reference? What is Plato's argument on lying?

That will shed further light on the situation and also, I would not too readily dismiss the possibility of the Bible "lieing".

Pearse has more examples of what Plato meant here by using "stories" for education. For me, it's pretty strong proof that Eusebius was using Plato's idea of using stories to promote the right thoughts, rather than outrightly saying that lying is okay.

Quote:

He probably thought God in no true sense of the word could be "jealous". So the statement is false. Its given literally to warn Jews of the dangers of God's wrath (so the statement is also "true"!). This wouldn't make him Eusebius the liar or Eusebius the TF forger. Just Eusebius an ancient author.

Still, it introduces the possibility at least that Eusebius may have been comfortable about using material he knows wasn't true.

But do we have any examples of that? That's what I'd like to find out.

Layman · 04-24-2004, 06:31 AM

I can't believe this one is still bouncing around. Until I saw only Toto is still defending it, that is.

The proper understanding of Eusebius' "incriminating statement" is not, as Toto tries to claim, dependent on an obscure interpretation of one word. It is obvious from the wording, the context of the passage, and the very examples of such "fables" that Eusebius offers us.

Eusebius is quoting Plato's Republic, not condoning making up stories. He is, in fact, talking about relating spiritual truths with imperfect human analogies. This is made clear from the examples Eusebius provides:

"Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction."

See? He is not talking about making up stories, he's talking about humanizing God. God does not really have human passions, but the OT ascribes human passions to him for lack of a better explanation. He sees such descriptions of God as allegories that are not literal truths. Obviously this is not making up history by any stretch of the imagination. Not even Toto's I hope.

Vinnie · 04-24-2004, 08:22 AM

Quote:

"Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction."

See? He is not talking about making up stories, he's talking about humanizing God. God does not really have human passions, but the OT ascribes human passions to him for lack of a better explanation. He sees such descriptions of God as allegories that are not literal truths. Obviously this is not making up history by any stretch of the imagination. Not even Toto's I hope.

That is why I said it doesn't look like it completely matches and that was on strictly a "prima facie" reading. I'm sure Eusebius thought the statements were "true" in one sense, possible "not literal" in another.

Whatever. He was an ancient writer. Josephus did the same with that Moses thing I quoted. They didn't exactly share our fact literal outlook. Could we call this lying? I suppose if we wanted to be "technical" yes but ancients saw this process differently.

Modern scholars just have to do their best to adjust to such things (the worldview, background knowledge, assumptions and ideology of ancient authors). That is why cross cultural anthropology and discussing the entire surrounding context (before and after Jesus) is a requirement for Christian origins research.

Vinnie

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

04-24-2004, 01:01 AM	#3
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	We established that Eusebius was not a liar and that to believe that he was you had to accept he thought there were lies in the Bible. Quite why Toto never accepted defeat on this, I have no idea. Yours Bede/Alexis Bede's Library - faith and reason

04-24-2004, 01:14 AM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	We certainly did not establish that Eusebius was not a liar, something that is quite beyond historical proof. [excuse the double negative but I think you get what I mean.]. The question was whether Eusebius advocated outright lies. Bede and his friends had to interpret the word usually translated as "fables" to refer only to benign stories or parables, and their only reason for that translation was that they could not accept that a good Christian like Eusebius could ever advocate telling an untruth. Read the thread for yourself.

04-24-2004, 06:31 AM	#9
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	I can't believe this one is still bouncing around. Until I saw only Toto is still defending it, that is. The proper understanding of Eusebius' "incriminating statement" is not, as Toto tries to claim, dependent on an obscure interpretation of one word. It is obvious from the wording, the context of the passage, and the very examples of such "fables" that Eusebius offers us. Eusebius is quoting Plato's Republic, not condoning making up stories. He is, in fact, talking about relating spiritual truths with imperfect human analogies. This is made clear from the examples Eusebius provides: "Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction." See? He is not talking about making up stories, he's talking about humanizing God. God does not really have human passions, but the OT ascribes human passions to him for lack of a better explanation. He sees such descriptions of God as allegories that are not literal truths. Obviously this is not making up history by any stretch of the imagination. Not even Toto's I hope.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.