Ted Hoffman

This is a continuation of the Did Eusebius forge Hegesippus? thread.

The purpose of this thread is to investigate/discuss on whether Eusebius (c.263 - 339) had enough motive, was wily enough and if he was in a position to fabricate a 'harmonized' picture of the early Church, and whether evidence supports such an idea.

Eusebius wrote Church History at a time when the Roman Emperor, Constantine, a newly converted Christian whose conversion was a turning point for the Church, was surrounded by other Roman Emperors who were still persecuting Christians (Constantine's conversion is believed to have taken place c.313 at the Battle of Milvian Bridge).
There was need to promulgate Christianity, Christian beliefs and values throughout the Roman Empire in concert with Constantine's ambitions for the young Church which was, at the time, outside of the higher echelons of the Roman government, most of whom were adherents of pagan cults like Sol Invictus and who persecuted Christians at every opportunity.

On Eusebius' Scruples

As far as Eusebius' scruples are concerned, its important to remember that Eusebius claimed, in Ecclesiastical History, that Abgar wrote a letter to Jesus and received a reply from Jesus to that letter.

Eusebius is known to have stated that telling lies was acceptable. In the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation, Eusebius wrote: "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

Indeed, Eusebius openly advocated for fabrication of history itself. In Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2, he wrote: 'We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.' He also wrote "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion"

Is it possible that Eusebius, as he claims, introduced certain events and characters in the Church History and in other tomes to serve the Church? Was he comissioned by Constantine, not to be a historian of the church, but to be an architect of a beautiful church?

It has been argued by Ken Oslon and others that Eusebius was the one that interpolated the Testimonium Flavianum (which is universally accepted to have been interpolated) to insert references to Jesus, and his greatness, in Josephus' writings.

We hope to establish whether or not, faced with other Roman Emperors persecuting Christians, Constantine needed to appeal to Christianity as an organized church working in concert with and under the will of the supreme God, with Bishops and church leaders meeting and sharing the love of God without infighting - thus present it as a stable and respectable religion.

Did Constantine Want a Harmonious Church History?

That Constantine wanted a harmonious Church is demonstrated by the fact that he personally presided over the Council of Nicaea which had 300 bishops in attendance and through it stampled out Aryanism (and Eusebius was in attendance in that Council). He introduced 'missing elements' to Christianity like Dec 25th as Jesus' birthday and Sunday as a worship day and the symbolic use of the cross by Bishops, army commanders and so on as a form of 'protection' every adverse and hostile power.

It has been argued that the author of Acts failed to mention Paul's letters because he wanted to present Christianity as a unified 'movement'. Could Eusebius have been motivated by such tendencies whilst bolstered by Constantine's wherewithal and marked preference for order and harmony?

Was all this an effort to package Christianity so that it could be sold throughout the Roman Empire as a religion founded by Martyrs and a son of God, without rancour in its ranks and guided by the will of God?

On Eusebius' Vague Usage of Clement

Jay Raskin argues in the thread linked to above regarding the vague references to Clement made by Eusebius:
On Eusebius Portrayal of Hegessipus as a Non-Heretic

Vorkosigan notes regarding Eusebius' efforts on showing that Hegessipus, a shadowy source he relied on, was not a heretic (note that H stands for Hegessipus and E for Eusebius):
Would you agree that there is a prima facie case that Eusebius employed unscrupulous means like interpolating documents and forging unknown sources while allegedly 'writing' (not creating) a history of the Church so as to present a pleasant, harmonious and organized history of the Church?

If you disagree, why? If you do agree, why?

What do you think lends strong support to the idea that Eusebius edited history, made insertions from unavailable sources and generally resorted to underhand tactics to achieve this agenda that he shared with his 'lord' Constantine?

Vorkosigan

Without an outside vector, it is impossible to tell. Strong motive is not enough., and in any case, judgments about motive are subjective. What evidence do you have that suggests that Eusebius actually fabricated large quantities of history?

It might be helpful to compile a list of E's sources and then see which works have come down to us independently of H. Fortunately my Penguin edition has an appendix that has a list of sources...now for some legwork!

Back in a flash

Vorkosigan

Here are the sources cited in Eusebius. The next step would be to run a stylistic analysis of the Greek text where possible and compare it to Eusebius' style. Alternatively, you can view how he uses the sources, but that will only be suggestive rather than decisive.

Philo

• Mission to Gaius -- Yes
  Contemplative Life -- Yes

Clement of Rome

• Corinthians -- Yes

Josephus

• War, Antiquities, Apion -- Yes

Ignatius

• Letters -- Yes

Papias

• Sayings of the Lord -- No (poss. fragments)

Pliny

• Letter to Trajan -- Yes

Polycarp

• Phil -- Yes

Quadratus

• Defence -- No. Quad, like H, dates from Hadrian's time

Hadrian

• Rescript -- No copy outside of Early Christianity (an early forgery)

Aristo

• Bar Cochba Revolt -- No but mentioned by Celsus and Origen

Agrippa Castor

• Refutation Basilidies -- No

Justin Martyr

• several -- Yes

Hegesippus

• Acts of the Church -- No

Dionysus of Corinth

• Letters -- No

Pinytus

• Letter to Dionysus -- No

Tatian

• Apology -- Yes
  Diatesseron -- No

Melito

• Petition
  Defence
  Easter Festival
  Extracts (I need to do research, some has come down to us independently of E)

Marcus Aurelius

• Decree -- No??? generally seen as a forgery

Polycrates

• Letter to Victor -- No

Irenaeus

• Several -- must check

Rhodo[list]Against Marcion -- No
Serapion

• Letter to Caricus and Pontus -- No
  Gospel of Peter comments -- No

Gallic Churches

• Martyrs of Gaul -- No
  Eleutherus -- No

Unknown "Learned Man"

• Against Miltiades -- No (according to E, this nameless text runs to eleven books)

Clement of Alexandria

• Several -- No

Jude

• unnamed treatise described not quoted -- No

Apollonius

• Against the Montanists -- Yes but no translation available

Bardaisan

• Dialogues (described but not quoted) -- No

Smyrna Church

• Martyrdom of Polycarp -- Yes (but this is obviously a pious forgery)

Unknown

• Martyrdom of Pionius -- No

Tertullian

• Defence -- Yes

Gaius

• Dialogue -- No

Palestinian Bishops

• Easter Festival -- No

Hippolytus

• Easter Festival -- No (but a writing discovered in 1858, Philosophumean, said to be his)

Alexander

• Letters -- No (clearly fanciful, containing a reference to 116 year old; these ages look like apologetic forgery)

Julius Africanus

• Chronicle -- Yes (fragments)
  letters -- Yes (entirety cited in Origen)

Origen

• several -- Yes

Dionysus of Alexandria

• several -- Yes (one letter preserved in Greek canon law and fragments)

Cornelius

• Letter to Fabius -- No

Gallenius

• decree -- No

Malchion

• Letter to Dionysus... No

Anatolius

• Canons -- No

Phileas

• Thmuites -- No

Porphyry

• Against Christianity -- Yes

Galerius

• Recantation -- ????

Sabinus

• Letter to Governors -- No

Maximin

• Rescript
  Letter to Sabinus
  Ordinance (I don't know)

Constantine

• Ordnances and Letters -- (I don't know)

Ted Hoffman

One step at a time Vork.

Would you agree that he had motive?
Would you agree that he would have no qualms with regard to adopting a deceptive approach to serve his agenda?

Whether the quantity was "large" or otherwise, is for another day.

The argument would be that he 'doctored' the history not that he "fabricated large quantities of history".

His statements indicate a troubled conscience trying to vindicate himself on the grounds that he did whatever he did for a just cause.

Ted Hoffman

Wow, thanks Vork, that places us on a better footing. We have enough "yes"es to make this discussion relevant.

His public statements sanctioning lying for the lord, use of sources nobody else knows of, conflicts with Josephus and presence of his hand in TF should be enough for us to obtain a conviction and put him behind bars.

GakuseiDon

Roger Pearse has looked at some of these quotes, and finds that Eusebius didn't say some of them while others don't represent fair comment.

Where did you get your quotes from? Did your source provide references to Eusebius's works?

Jayhawker Soule

Could you substantiate Constantine's role in introducing "Dec 25th as Jesus' birthday"? One site, for example, notes:Also, while Constantine codified Sunday as a day of worship, was this not an already well established practice of Christians and their "replacement theology"?

Finally, I would also be interested in your response to GakuseiDon. Thanks ...

PhilosopherJay

Hi Jacob,

I think it is a wonderful idea to create a new thread at this point and examine the issue of Eusebius' methodology more generally. However I think we should be careful about bringing in moral considerations and casting it in terms of a trial.

First, before donning the black robes of judges we should consider that we shall be quite embarrassed if served with a writ of Habeus Corpus. We are almost 1700 years too late.

Second, by what eternal moral principles are we to judge Eusebius? He lived in a time when displeasing the Emperor usually meant a choice between a quick, sure, tragic death and a long and painful one. If certain theoretical points were not decided in Eusebius' favor, it would mean destruction, not only for Eusebius personally, but very likely for his friends, family, and the thousands of men, women and children who depended upon him for their daily bread. Perhaps, it would also lead to the destruction of the ideology of Christianity, which he doubtlessly felt was the only hope and truth in his devilish and barbaric world. Under these conditions, can we really say that pasting a few lines in an antique history book, or pretending to possess an old book which never existed represents any kind of moral deficiency? O contraire, one may consider it the height of moral self sacrifice to squash petty scruples and use all tools available including the forger's knife to defend the people and things we love.

While I think we should be extremely careful about judging the morality of Eusebius, I have no such objections to understanding the exact procedures and methodologies he used to construct his text. That will simply help us to understand our history, something we have every right to do.

In this regard, Vorkosigan's list is extremely helpful.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Magdlyn

From what I understand, Constantine did not convert at the time of the winning of that battle. He left the "conversion" (such as it was, deathbed baptism) til much later. He was a devotee of the Sol Invictus cult. If he "worshiped" Jesus or the Hebrew god, it was in concert with a larger pantheon, which of course, would make his worship heretical.

C merely legalized Xtianity. Theodosius, years later, made it official and declared all other religions illegal.

Ted Hoffman

Most people use Gifford's 1903 translation.
Kirby's site, which also uses the same translation, has it (Chapter 31, book 12, Preparation Evangelica thusly:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co..._12_book12.htm

In the passage above, borrowed from Plato, Eusebius is arguing that it is ok to tell falsehood so long as you are doing it for the good of the person you are lying to. He argues that its difficult to persuade men of the truth (and by implication, that it is ok to lie if that is what it takes to impart the truth).
Eusebius argues, further, by way of example, in the same passage that Hebrew scriptures anthropomorphized god to teach the ignorant Hebrews because that (an angry, needy, jealous God) is what they could understand:

"This mode of instruction" being lieadagogy (teaching through lies).
Of course Pearse disagrees. And he tells a tall story to persuade us otherwise. If you find his arguments persuasive, fine.

Eusebius' miraculous claims, for a man of his intellect, were clearly fictitious thus he clearly was not comitted to telling the truth.

CA,
The Catholic Encyclopaedia states that ERBES, Das Syrische Martyrologium contended, in Zeitschrift f. Kirchengesch., XXVI, 1905, 20-31, that the feast (Christmas) was brought in by Constantine as early as 330-35.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm
This (Constantine being behind the introduction of Christs' mass) is an idea that Franz Cumont also put forth.