Please read Book III of Eusebius' History of the Church. What do you see in this book that would be particularly worth adding to an essay on the strengths/weaknesses of Eusebius as a historian? Was there anything you found particularly interesting here?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Eusebius comments on the birth of christ. Herod's gaurds saw the star that directed them to Bethlehem. When Herod heard the news that there was a birth of a child that was going to be king of the Jews, he thought this was a threat to his power. He ordered that all infants in Bethlehem two years or younger to be massacred. An angel warned Mary and Joseph, so they left to Egypt. Herod would later pay the price through death.
Eusebius tells this story, similiar to the bible version. The difference that I see is, the bible tells the nativity story, in a strong religious and theological context. Eusebius tells the story in a more historical context and form. Alex Mason
A strong point in the writings of Eusebius is that he points out the methods the writers of the Gospels focused on, especially John. The first three Gospels were written and John saw them himself. He liked them but saw that none of them wrote about the early ministry of Christ. That is why John concentrated his Gospel on the early part of Christ's ministry.
What's interesting is what Eusebius wrote on the canonical and noncanonical writings. Calling the Gospels "the holy quartet" shows that he holds the four gospels as the most important part. Some of the rest are undisputed while some like James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John are disputed in his times. Others like the other Gospels of the Apostles and writings that were "published by heretics," Eusebius stated that these books should be "discarded as impious and absurd." (p.115)
Overall Eusebius states his case for Christianity quite well. His references to evidents in the Bible backed up by primary sources sure helps his cause.
I agree with Warren that the segment on the canonical and noncanonical writings is a strength. Referring to Matthew, Luke, Mark and John as the "holy quartet" is definitely an interesting aspect of Book III. I find the fact that he puts emphasis on writings published by heretics and deems them as impious and absurd very interesting too. This seems like another warning to be aware of false teachings from Eusebius.
--Kellie Heier
One of things that I find very interesting is the portion on canonical and canonical writtings. I have always found a facination in this idea of "What if it was different than what we acctually know?" Eusebious presents the idea that the writtings that didn't make it into the bible are heretical and cannot be believed. Allthough many of them are this way many books were simply written to late to be considered for canonization or focused on other important historical figures that dealt with Jesus. Sometimes this writting can bea great source and very complimentary to the norms and beliefs of Christianity today.
Another interesting thing I found was the section on the apostles that married. It talks about Peter and Paul having a wife and family that is normaly not known or talked about by people today. The majority of people think that thr apostles left everything behind including their families to follow Christ. Allthough some did Jesus had many more folowers than just the twelve. Many family members and others traveled with them to preach the Gospel message.
Previous post is by Matthew Scott
One of Eusebius strengths that are pointed out is his attention to detail and defense of his sources as to why he uses them. The story of the siege of Jerusalem to me was very interesting. Maybe I like the gory parts of history. He gives us a picture of what it was really like to be alive and trying to survive with nothing left and then people would come and destroy your home, kill you, and eat what little food you were hiding.
Other places he describes the bands of rebels who would kill people but leave them ones who were begging for death alive. He tells of the slavery, and how the separation of the people.. 90,000 were the under 17 who were left to live whereas other survivors went to the areas to be killed by beasts.
We also learn that Jesus had family members of the flesh. Once again we are confronted with the issue that Judas (Which one I don't know) from the blood line of David. He defends his sources, which I like, but this is a stretch for most Catholics to believe today
Like a few of the above writers, I to believe that a strength of Eusebius is his belief that the 4 Gospels, "holy quartet" are the most important works about Christ. However, it may be a weakness that he so readily disputes writings such as James and 2 Peter.
What I found very interesting is when Eusebius talks about some of the apostles having wives, especially Peter and Paul. I had no idea this was the case.
one thing that i find weak about it is that he puts what i kind of consider information that is just filler in his history. He talks about the apostles that are married it is interesting but to tell the history of the church i don't see how that is necessary.
One thing i found that was a strong point is how Eusebius points how what point in time each of the gospel writers are writing about when i came to jesus minister. John does before the imprisonment of John the batist where as the other three do it after the imprisonment.
Dave Potts
The strongest thing that Eusebius has going for him is his ability to give source material in such a way that it doesn't seem to overexaggerate his points. He uses it to support without just quoting source after source, and although he does use alot of sources and uses them often he does tell you how he is useing the source.
John Schirado
I would have to agree with Dave Potts about the wives of the apostles. Although it is interesting and well cited, I do not see how it is relavent to the church. Maybe it was because he was able to cite information about this that he included. I don't konw but it just seems like trivial knowledge about the church.
It is rather fursturating that the information about the wives is well cited, yet the information about the Canonical and Noncanonical Writings is not cited at all. What books would eventually be included in the Bible I feel is an important part of church history. Yet the information he gives us is not cited at all.
Eric Saathoff
As far as the strengths/weaknesses of Eusebius as a historian after reading the third book, I think that his history would make a good source. Eusebius does a good job at documenting his version of the history of the early church. He also shows his own feelings towards sources and their documentation. Something that I found particularly interesting in the third book was Eusebius’ paragraphs on the canonical and noncanonical writings. Eusebius considers several noncanonical writings to be written by heretics, in part due to their lack of being cited by any early church writers. It is my view that Eusebius trusts the early church writers as a guide in discriminating between heretical writings and those of the disciples. This makes sense to me, since the early church writers should have based their writings on the writings of the church, rather than on others.
I liked the fact that not only did he name his sources so we could follow that and judge his use on that but he also told us about the source. This at times makes it a much more credible source that what we would have thought otherwise. I also like how he tells the stories about what happened to the people of the bible, not just Jesus's followers but also those who persecuted like Herod and also what happened to the Jews. One would think that after killing God's son there would be some type of punishment or something and he plays to this feeling and points out that this was the case.
He is at times more interesting than a modern day historian because he doesn't judge the happenings with such a sceptic eye. He sees no reason why this is not true and perhaps we get a better understanding or telling of the happenings because of this.
One thing I find intresting is that of the Evengelist missionaries. These people left their homes giving up everything that they owned, in order to preach the gospel. Going even into foreign land building churches and then going off onto another land.
Eusebius comments on the spirit working through these missionaries giving them great faith.
I believe that them selling every thing that they had was importanted to spread the message. But the thing that was most important was the spirit who worked in them.
For if it had not been for the spirit moving through them. They most likly would have stopped preaching when the were persacuted. However when they were persucuted they just preached the gospel more.
Margaret Schiley
I found the histories on the persecution of the Jews and Christians interesting. Eusebius's depth on each emperor from Nero to Trajan is a strength. By giving the context of what is happening around the Apostles at the time, he clears up a lot of things that I feel I wouldn't get just by reading the passages in the New Testament.
I thought chapter three was really interesting. I learned a lot of things about the famine that took place in Jerusalem that I had no idea about because the seriousness of this famine is not mentioned in the NT. One thing that realllllly caught my eye was when the High Priest was going to sacrifice a bull (I think?) it suddenly gave birth to a lamb! This is almost hard to believe but considering the things that have been written about the unusual acts of God in the past I wouldn't completely dismiss it. It would have helped if he had given several sources that verified this occurance.
I also have a question about the famine that took place in Jerusalem being the judgment of God on the Jews for rejecting Jesus as their Messiah. There are so many people,you could place the blame on for the death of Jesus, for example, the Jews, Judas, Pilate, the mob, etc. Who is really responsible? The Bible says in Isaiah that "It pleased God to bruise him, it pleased God to put him to grief, and by his sacrifice he will justify many." (paraphrase) Who really killed Jesus? Jesus may have died by the hands of many people, but the true source of his death lies in the hands of God himself. God sacrificed Jesus, the spotless lamb, for the transgressions of the whole world. God, as High Priest, dealt the death blow. How can God judge anyone as responsible for what he himself preordained and carried out?
I do believe in sowing and reaping. When we sow to the wind we will reap the whirlwind. God uses natural laws to punish offenses, I do believe. The Jews sowed, and they reaped. This is also the justice of God, but not direct retribution for a crime. It is his law of the universe.
Just a thought! I suppose it may be a contraverisal one!
Donna Baskins
Eusebius tells this story, similiar to the bible version. The
the book tells the story just like in the bible. but in more of a historical fact way, and the bible focuses more on a religoius way
kanova williams
Post a Comment