Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Actium

Is not this the turning point of history?

mountainman

Many were the ancient libraries in the days of Eusebius.
They all stood. Need I list them? How many of these
ancient collectives of the authors of antiquity stood
at the end of the fourth century? Who destroyed them?

The perversion of literature by a cunning military mind
in absolute and despotic control of its preservation is
not a matter immediately resonant to the minds of
textual critics (until perhaps their own literature is
destroyed).

Rest assured, Eusebius and Constantine had plenty
of raw materials in plenty of libraries.

Best wishes,


Pete

spin

Yep, that's what I said all right, and that it seemed wasn't sufficient to get you out of your erroneous assumption that Augustus only ruled necessarily from the time he became sole ruler of the Roman world. Hence Suetonius.

How are these dating indications of Eusebius, who was writing three centuries after the reputed events, relevant??

As I have already said,

Ancient sources are useful mainly for their own times. Beyond that, what they preserve of earlier writers can at times be helpful, though it makes the information much more complicated to use. (Italics added.)

What's the value of a statement like the following?

The History of the Church with respect to the birth of Jesus appears to be completely flawed just from the writings of Eusebius alone.

Herodotus said some highly suspect things in parts of his history that didn't reflect what he was able to glean from his own time. The implication of your "completely flawed" comment is that you would tar the whole work from parts that you should logically discount, ie from areas outside the writer's competence.

I don't think there's any point holding your hand on this any more.


spin

aa5874

But, isn't Herodotus irrelevant to the birth of Jesus? As far as I understand, Herodotus lived sometime in 5th century BCE and I can find no reference to him by Eusebius in 'Church History' with respect to the birth of Jesus.

spin

:banghead:

aa5874

And Eusebius had plenty of influence, he wasn't irrelevant at all. It appears Eusebius 'made' history from the raw materials.

spin

As you have problems with information in Eusebius regarding periods outside his competence, so do people have problems with other writers, such as Herodotus, writing about periods outside their own competence. When you are unable to see such clear parallels (as I made between these writers), you probably should give up trying to analyse texts and take up something else more suited to your disposition.


spin

aa5874

But, I still maitain that Herodotus is irrelevant to the birth of Jesus as described in 'Church History' and that the statements made by Eusebius are relevant, since he claimed to have information of an historical nature with respect to the birth of Jesus.

spin

Give the boy a puppy.

Herodotus was never even vaguely related to "the birth of Jesus as described in 'Church History'". How can you shamefacedly repeat the fact that you totally miss the point so blatantly?

Use Eusebius as one would use Herodotus, ie for his own period. Mine him for what can be milked of other earlier writers who you can identify -- if you must -- but he is not a source in himself for any period outside his own.

Relevant to what?

As we have far superior sources to the claims you seem forced to need to use him for and you see how often historians seek recourse in his relevance here (ie never), you seem to be urinating into the wind with this preposterous continuation of your original bad idea.

I will at least give you a brownie point for having read a little Eusebius.


spin

Roger Pearse

Most of the contributors to this thread are on my ignore list, so I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. But perhaps someone might find a note useful.

Eusebius is the originator of all our modern chronography of antiquity. He was the first to sit down with a heap of sources and try to tie them all together and produce a universal list of years with what happened everywhere in all nations in that year. He ran into difficulties -- indeed in the continuation of Jacob of Edessa, preserved in Michael the Syrian, these are discussed before the continuation proper (I have the French translation of this volume of Michael online in PDF form if anyone wants a link). But nevertheless he got the idea right.

It would be a mistake to presume that Eusebius was working, as we do, from a framework of years and so could 'make a mistake' about the year. In reality he was working from a heap of vague documents, and was calculating the year as best they allowed him.

All the best,

Roger Pearse