Sheshbazzar

Eusebius's writings are what they are, and it is a little late to try to correct any "errors" that he may have made, and no one holds any authority to "correct" any of these ancient mss.
At best, footnotes and commentaries that point out such apparent discrepancies are the only only forms of "correction" acceptable.
To do otherwise is to violate the integrity of those mss. that we have, and if these documents are "incorrect" or "wrong", that condition must remain and be preserved as evidence, not omitted, altered or edited out.
Skeptics who need evidence against Eusebius, also need his writings intact and unaltered, he may have been wrong, but it accomplishes nothing positive to attempt correction of his alleged errors.
Also when dealing with such ancient testimony, one must keep an open mind, acknowledging that we do not have access to every mss. and piece of contemporary information that may have been available to the original writer(s). In this instance, that we do not possess any certain writing from Josephus or Philo that specifically supplies disputed quotations, or backs up every statement made, cannot be automatically assumed to be positive evidence that no such writings ever existed.

No, I do not believe Eusebius provides an accurate account of "Church History".

Amaleq13

I should give your answer to my question?

I see no reason to consider it anything other than a paraphrase of what he had read. But, then again, I have no agenda to be served or mantra that must be reinforced.

aa5874

I asked why were these errors not corrected hundreds of years ago, that is, in the 4th century, before "CHurch History" was circulated. Wasn't there anyone in the Church, any Christian who read the writings of Josephus or Philo who could have pointed out these blantant errors to Eusebius?

Even Tertullian in "Against Marcion" claimed he made errors and had to correct these errors, and Tertullian, based on his writing probably did these corrections around the 2nd century.



Well, why do you believe Eusebius did not provide an accurate account of "Church History" when YOU do not have access to every mss and piece of contemporary information that may have been available to the original writer(s)?

aa5874

You have no agenda? Really?????

Amaleq13

That is correct. I don't care where the evidence leads in that I am perfectly willing to accept whatever conclusion appears to be best supported.

Gamera

The answer is references to house churches by Paul, which is roughly from Philo's time.

The point is, whether Paul is right or wrong, or we are right or wrong about Paul, the church in Eusebius' time was not like the church of Philo's time, a mistake Eusebius is making, and you seem intent on building upon.

Again, you seem to be implying that if the church of Philo's time know about Philo, Philo would know about the church. On what basis are you reaching that conclusion?

aa5874

You claimed that there were churches in Philo's time, I assume you mean Christian Churches, whether they were large cathedrals or tiny little churches in tiny little houses, you have failed once more to tell from what source you derived your information about Christian Churches in houses during Philo's time.

Sheshbazzar

When you wrote "corrected, hundreds of years ago" my thought was that you were referring to at some time within the last thousand years, had you clearly stated that you were intending it to be "in the fourth century", my response would have been worded somewhat differently.

Perhaps there were some who attempted to point out "these blatant errors in Eusebius's version of "Church History"", and perhaps that is the very reason why no "corrections" were made in the fourth century, (and in all the following centuries.)
"Church History" was a touchy subject, and the orthodox were on the defensive, well known for dealing violently with any perceived opposition, and likely the same with anyone that would even think to question their version of the "true" "Christian History".
Would you like to have been one to deliver such a complaint to the Constantinian Church authorities? Or to the Church of The Holy Roman Empire? I tend to believe that anyone who was so inclined, would have never been heard from again.

Exactly, at a time before Christianity was hijacked by Constantine and Co.


Just like you, I recognize that there are portions of what he wrote do not jibe with what what can be gleaned from other ancient sources, we do not need every piece of ancient literature to determine that fact.
Which is a entirely different consideration from whether he may have possibly made quotations from some unknown mss. of Josephus or Philo that have not survived.
Yet the very fact that Eusebius composed a "doctored up" version of Christian History is what needs preserved to provide the evidence that such a version of history is fraudulent. As it stands it proves to be a witness against itself.

Ben C Smith

Ben.

aa5874

Eusebius mentioned MARK'S churches in Alexandria during the time of Philo, not "Paul's.

And I don't even know which "Paul" Gamera is talking about, is it the one who called himself "Paul" in 1 Timothy, or the one who wrote to the Thessalonians? I don't know if the churches knew the difference or anyone of them at all.

Philo's time, it is claimed, is the 1st century, "Paul's time can be anytime, maybe the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or fourth century and without any Church.