Eusebius the liar?

[hisgrace26]

Eusebius was an early church historian in the early church who lied about passing on false history, or make up their own history skeptic says. For example, in his book Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2, he qoute:


"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

Based on this quote it seems like Eusebius introduce his own history (whatever that is) and passing them on to future generations. Skeptics claim that the early church father such as Eusebius made up their own history and passing on false information. Can somebody clarify that to me maybe I am missing the details. What exactly happen and what was his intention? Thanks.

 

[hisgrace26]

If he was a liar how can you trust Christianity? Lots of forgery my man.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Indulging in hyperbole, exaggeration or bias is hardly abnormal for an ancient historian; if Eusebius engaged in such then that's hardly surprising as just about every other historian from antiquity did the same.

That said, I don't see any reason to begin with an a priori assertion that Eusebius lied; that he may have indulged in exaggeration, especially in regard to Constantine (Eusebius was a personal friend and strong supporter of the emperor) would hardly be shocking given his personal relationship with Constantine and the like.

That doesn't make Eusebius' histories utterly unreliable, and last I checked Christianity wasn't dependent upon the histories written by Eusebius of Caesarea.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hisgrace26]

Indulging in hyperbole, exaggeration or bias is hardly abnormal for an ancient historian; if Eusebius engaged in such then that's hardly surprising as just about every other historian from antiquity did the same.

That said, I don't see any reason to begin with an a priori assertion that Eusebius lied; that he may have indulged in exaggeration, especially in regard to Constantine (Eusebius was a personal friend and strong supporter of the emperor) would hardly be shocking given his personal relationship with Constantine and the like.

That doesn't make Eusebius' histories utterly unreliable, and last I checked Christianity wasn't dependent upon the histories written by Eusebius of Caesarea.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't either. Here is the quote in context:

"But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate 3 the Divine judgment. Hence weshall not mention those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be use-fill first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity. (2) Let us therefore proceed to describe briefly the sacred conflicts of the witnesses of the Devine Word."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xiii.iii.html

Notice I bold that sentence. What was his intention? At first sight it seems like he is lying about history. Can you clarify?

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Dude, it ain't east trying to understand what someone was thinking all those years ago. Anyone can come to a conclusion but it must be coupled with evidence and note mere heresay.

 

[hisgrace26]

Dude, it ain't east trying to understand what someone was thinking all those years ago. Anyone can come to a conclusion but it must be coupled with evidence and note mere heresay.

Eusebius introduced the events for the first time in history that would benefit the church and then pass on to it's posterity. A history book is view differently from the Bible with skepticism. The Bible is taught as truth.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Says who? The Church was flourishing in the middle east, the history of the Church is not European my friend, it never was and never will be.

Plus I don't think his words say what you think they are saying.

 

[revanneosl]

Eusebius wrote the best history that he could, given the sources he had access to and the fact that the scientific discipline of historiography hadn't been invented yet.

But you must also remember that Eusebius was also a bishop of the Church. His main concern was shepherding souls into heaven. There is no such thing as complete objectivity. All histories are written to make a point. Eusebius' point was that people should believe in Jesus, be baptized, live righteous lives, and go to heaven when they die.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Eusebius introduced the events for the first time in history that would benefit the church and then pass on to it's posterity. A history book is view differently from the Bible with skepticism. The Bible is taught as truth.

I think you're skewing what he means by "introduce". After doing some digging I was able to find the Greek text of the History (link here is to a pdf), and the relevant line is found at 8.2.3; after trying to amateurishly figure out (and guesswork) I think the word in question is προσθήσομεν (prosthesomen), which (according to here) means something like "to place toward". Could be wrong, but from my complete lack of education in the area could tell it's the only word in the text that would have made sense to translate as "introduce".

In any event, the notion isn't that Eusebius is boldly declaring that he is fabricating something so much as a declaration that he is only dealing with what is relevant for his purposes. In an extensive historical discourse of the Church there would likely be little reason to discuss matters of historical import that are not directly or indirectly important for that discourse and thus he intends to only bring into the conversation that which is relevant for his purpose.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Excellent post crypto.

 

[Yarddog]

I don't either. Here is the quote in context:

"But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate 3 the Divine judgment. Hence weshall not mention those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be use-fill first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity. (2) Let us therefore proceed to describe briefly the sacred conflicts of the witnesses of the Devine Word."

NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Notice I bold that sentence. What was his intention? At first sight it seems like he is lying about history. Can you clarify?

His intention was not to talk about those who had fallen away because of the extreme persecution that so many early Christians faced because of their faith.

Have you even read what he wrote in Book VIII? Why does he have to write about all those who turned back to paganism?

 

[Chesterton]

I don't either. Here is the quote in context:

"But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate 3 the Divine judgment. Hence weshall not mention those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be use-fill first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity. (2) Let us therefore proceed to describe briefly the sacred conflicts of the witnesses of the Devine Word."

NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Notice I bold that sentence. What was his intention? At first sight it seems like he is lying about history. Can you clarify?

You're suggesting that he commenced his lying with a preface informing everyone that he was going to be lying? That would probably be unique in all history. Kinda defeats the purpose of lying.