robto

Eusebius quotes from many sources that we have copies of independently of him (Irenaeus, Origen, etc). So people must have a pretty good idea of how accurate he is when he quotes, right? What's the verdict?

Also, I have occasionally seen posters here diss him for making stuff up. What is the basis for this claim?

Diogenes the Cynic

It's been a long time since I read Ecclesiastical History but from what I remember, Eusebius tells a lot of tall tales about miracles and fantastic events, some of which he claims to have witnessed himself, others which he claims to have heard first hand. He tells a story about Christians lighting lamps with water intead of oil, for instance. He also talks about a spurious exchange of letters between Jesus and the King of Edessa. He seems to have been extremely credulous and pretty much believed every fabulous tale he ever heard. He also wrote that he believed it was okay to lie and make up stories if it was in the service of Jesus. That alone makes him pretty suspect.

S.C.Carlson

To the extent that he can be checked, Eusebius's quotations are generally accurate insofar as they are quoted, although it is not uncommon for them to be taken out of context and occasionally it is not clear when the quotation stops and Eusebius turns to paraphrase.

Eusebius is less accurate when he summarizes an earlier author, however, and sometimes his later quotations of that author contradict what Eusebius claimed the source to say! Scholars are very thankful for Eusebius general lack of diligence in checking and/or redacting his sources to make them say what he thought they said. So his quoting of this is generally considered more reliable than his characterizing of them (leading some scholars to conjecture that he had his assistants look up the quotes and insert their text).

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Not this again.

hatsoff

Diogenes is exaggerating, I'd say. Eusebius repeats tales from a Christian perspective. When the records in Edessa, for example, included forged documents attributed to Christ, he accepted them as genuine. Even in that example, though, he tells us exactly why he believes them to be genuine--which is why we don't believe him today.

He repeats Gospel traditions, of course, because he is Christian. However, I don't recall him claiming to have personally witnessed any impossibility. Nor do I find any evidence of him being a continual dupe. On the contrary, his writings suggest careful consideration and objective suspicion.

But the fact is he did make some mistakes, so we must not take his accounts at face value. Neither, however, should we dismiss them outright.

Diogenes the Cynic

Yes, he does. He tells a story about seeing wild animals being unable to attack Christians in an arena because they were held back by an "invisible force."
:rolling:

Toto

I will not revisit this topic, but for those who want to read the past exchanges (did Eusebius say it was okay to make up lies for those who needed them, or just stories recognized as fiction?):

Eusebius the Liar

Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected {by Joe Wallack}

Diogenes the Cynic

Preparation for the Gospels, 12:31
ETA: I know what pseudos means and I know it can be argued that Eusebius meant "fiction" rather than "falsehood." I just don't buy that argument.

S.C.Carlson

Your quotation does not come from the text of chapter 31, but from its chapter heading. However, as in the case of most works from antiquity, chapter headings were written by scribes in the following centuries. It is precarious to assume that this one was actually written by Eusebius.

Furthermore, the falsehoods referred to in chapter 31 are the anthropomorphizing descriptions for God in the Hebrew scriptures, not Eusebius's own conduct. If anything, it is a frank admission that he was not an inerrantist, not that it was "okay to lie and make up stories if it was in the service of Jesus."

Don't get me wrong, Eusebius had many faults (overly political, poor critical judgment, misreads his sources, has a tendency to be evasive about unpleasant counter-evidence, etc.), which is why his history has be to taken critically, but let's also be critical about his critics.

Stephen

Toto

Roger Pearse had a go round with Richard Carrier at one point on the "chapter headings" argument, and had to concede that the chapter headings in this case were not added on, IIRC.