avi

Thank you Huon, well done. I agree, Eusebius' own description clarifies his intent to emphasize a particular perspective, rather than to present a dispassionate, objective summary. Unless this excerpt, quoted above, represented a kind of self-deprecating modesty, he portrays himself as ideologue, rather than historian. I appreciate your effort to elaborate this point.

aa5874

The passage introduced by Huon of Church History 8.2 says nothing of idealogy, but rather of not mentioning certain "sad" events.

The author, Eusebius, did claim he was writing history.

DCHindley

Huon,

I also wondered what you felt was so obvious about that quote from Eusebius that it didn't require any comment.

One thing I can tell you right now is that when it comes to history NOTHING is obvious. Otherwise, we'd have notyhing to argue about here.

The reasoning that goes into most arguments here are so bizzare and convoluted, compounded by the sheer number of them, plus all the posts that seem to come out of the clear blue sky, even a little explanation or context for your post is enormously helpful.

DCH

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

I think Arnaldo Momigliano's observations here are acute:

(from http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...ano%20post.htm)

Imagine someone writing a history of the latest U.S. presidential election. The writer believes that John McCain was the candidate of God and Barack Obama was the candidate of the devil. The writer selects his sources and quotes with the idea of proving this. Most of his quotes come from conservative religious institutions, AM talkradio, and Fox News. He includes "facts" like Obama is a radical Muslim Terrorist and John McCain is a war hero and maverick who loves his country. His conclusion is that the devil tricked people into voting for Obama and God lost because he was too good for the dirty and corrupt politics of Washington.

While we could consider this a history of the election, we would also consider it a distortion of the history of the election. In the same way, while we may consider Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History a history, it is at the same time a serious distortion of that history.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

Well, you will have to decide whether Eusebius did deliberately distort history, but I draw your attention to "Church History" by Eusebius, where he described events surrounding the death of Agrippa.

This is what Eusebius claimed was written by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews. But this is found in Antiquities of the Jews 19.8.2 Eusebius distorted Josephus, and it appears to be deliberate, since Josephus in an earlier book of Antiquities 18.6.7 did make reference to Agrippa and another sighting of an OWL in a tree. It would appear Agrippa thought the OWL was a bad omen.

And there are more examples of these apparent deliberate distortions from Eusebius with respect to Josephus and Philo.

avi

Thank you aa5874, for providing this illustration of the apparent distortion of Josephus' writing by Eusebius. Here is my concern, writing not as one who knows, but contrarily, as one harboring pathological suspicion about most questions. How do we know, with confidence, that Josephus' extant manuscripts, for example the one which furnished your excellent illustration above, have not been altered in the intervening two millennia, since their origin? Specifically, do we have a version of Josephus' writing, predating Eusebius--a version which Eusebius, or other religious figures, could not have altered? In other words, how do we know with confidence, precisely what Josephus wrote--i.e. how do we know whether Josephus himself wrote "OWL" or "ANGEL", or something else, referring to Agrippa's vision on his deathbed? If we wish to identify a deliberate distortion, by Eusebius, don't we require a copy of the original text?

aa5874

And how do we know if Eusebius wrote "Angel or Owl", perhaps we need the original of "Church History"?

An analysis can only be done with the information avaialable, the written texts as presented. If any other texts surfaces then the previous analysis will have to be discarded.

The statement that Eusebius deliberately distorted the writings of Josephus is reasonable based on the information we have today.

Roger Pearse

You certainly don't have to state your point, if you don't think that it would survive inspection.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Huon

I take part in this forum to learn something about the history of the christian religion during, say, the first 5 centuries. I have been raised by my parents as an atheist, and I have nothing against religious people, since I was never a deconvert.

I agree with you, when it comes to history NOTHING is obvious.

I have an interest in history in general, and what I know of the general history of Europe taught me very early that I should be very suspicious, especially when the author is very affirmative. The Catholic Encyclopedia (~1910) is a good example. However, I am compelled, like everybody, to use what exists, and compare the various opinions of various authors. The antidote to the catholic truth can sometimes be the opinion of some french-speaking calvinists. They are a small minority in France, usually well educated.

The Catho Encyclo teaches you that Arius was the pupil of Lucian of Antioch (c. 240–January 7, 312), a martyr. Nothing about this martyr Lucian, why ? Arius was excommunicated at Alexandria in 321 by Alexander of Alexandria, a well-known taleb (sng. taleb, pl. taliban). In 322, Arius fled to Palestine. Where ? Here, I follow the Calvinist University of Geneva. Arius fled to Caesarea of Palestine, to his friend Eusebius of Caesarea. Later, he fled to Nicomedia, the diocese of Eusebius of Nicomedia. All three were pupils of Lucian.

About Eusebius of Caesarea, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not very clear. They accept him as a major author, so, at first sight, he would be a good catholic. With two arian mates, and a martyr teacher whose creed was probably suspect.

The quotes of my post #26 are mentioned in the Catho Encyclo !

andrewcriddle

FWIW the Catholic Encyclopedia does have an (unreliable) account of Lucian of Antioch (The article does not discuss the possibility of confusion between different late 3rd century Christians called Lucian.)

Andrew Criddle