Please read the first two books of Euesebius of Caesarea's History of the Church. What do you find interesting in these chapters? What do you find not so interesting?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Ancient Art
- Aberdeen, South Dakota, United States
- Professor of History, NSU
16 comments:
Euesebius seems to know his history. He fills the holes that the Gospels left out. It details the events in the lives of the Roman authorities that starred in Biblical stories, such as Herod, Agrippia, and Pilate. It also shows the Roman response to Christianity, showing that it was neutral until Nero, then local persecution.
Some of the footnotes seem to be annoying pointing out certain discrepanies in Eusebius's text, but otherwise it was a fascinating read, especially about the fates of the Roman figures that were involved in the stories of the New Testament after their involvement.
Like Warren said Euesebius knows his history and fills in the blanks that the gospels left out.
i found how herod actually died to be very interesting and also how James the Just was killed.
One thing i found uninteresting and confusing to under stand was the genology of joseph
dave potts
Eusebius fills in the details that the gospel lacks. He tells you the details that people want to hear and understand. Without this insight, we are somewhat blind to understanding how our Christian faith survived the years of persecution. In addition, it shows that Rome really did not care about the Christian rise until Nero's time. If they did not cause a problem, no one in the state position cared because it was not beneficial to stop the movement if it was causing a problem or if you saw it as a threat as Nero did.
The genealogy of Joseph is complex, but in a way, it is meant to make people think and give a direct line back to fulfill what the prophets had said.
"Augustus (27 B.C.-A.D. 14) was Rome's first and probably greatest emperor."
Eusebius writes about some Roman history. He mentions the wars between Augustus and Mark Antony. The way he is interpreting this history is that Augustus was a powerful and glorious emperor.
According to Eusebius, Caesar Augustus was the Roman emperor during the birth of Jesus Christ.I like how this book combines the religious and gospel teachings with the historical time period.
Previous blog was by Alex Mason
I completely agree that Euesebius knows his history. And the ability to show what he does with the lives of people after they exit the Bible is something of great import.
The beginning of the first book I had to reread a few times to completely understand. It wasn't that it was hard information it was just written in an interesting fashion.
John Schirado
In a way, Eusebius reminds me of C.S. Lewis in the way both write. It is easy to read, but sometimes difficult to comprehend all that he is getting at in the phrase or paragraph. When you do understand the "Ah Hah!" syndorom comes over you in such a way as that you can't help but wonder if a tiny locked door has now been opened just for you.
Interesting: As others have noted, Eusebius knows his history. His writings tell his obvious religious viewpoint and his passion for the subject. At the very beginning he says, "This project requires kindness on the part of the reader, since I feel inadequate to do it justice as the first to venture on such an undertaking, a traveler on a lonely and untrodden path." This statement does make me think kindly of him and understand that he is undertaking a huge task in writing this. I also found interesting how he split up and talked specifically about certain people. the disciples, the priests, john the baptist and jesus, etc. It gives a strong view on what is going on and why people are doing what they do
Not so Interesting: I found the 2nd book to be less interesting than the first. It seemed to speak about people that were less familiar to me so I really couldn't relate the stories. I had to look at the bible verses where they take it out of, or some other way of understanding it. It was just more diffficult for me to comprehend.
One thing I found intresting in Eusebius, is that not all of the list of the seventy disiples had survived. And that there was also more than that seventy for over five hundred men seen Jesus after his resurrection.
Margaret Schiley
I agree that Eusebius fills in the gaps the Gospels left out. Not only does he do that, but he also makes them easier to understand in general, especially considering the genealogies of Christ, and the Old Testament. I found reading about the apostles to be very interesting. It was nice to have additional information and to read about them from a historical aspect. I found the genealogy part uninteresting to read.
Alyson Guthrie
I find this type of reading facinating. Euesebius points out important events that happened that expand and relate to the Gosple readings and Jesus's teachings. He goes in to much more detail and provides the facts that tie the story together. This is very important to the people that are reading the Gosple message because it helps them to understand it much better. It is also important not to get your information from just one source so that is why this book is such a good and important book for anyone to read.
-Matthew Scott
The things I don't find interesting are the overwheming details in which he puts into his works. I know that some people might like this and expecially in the past people would want and almost demand those types of details but for me it became a bit overwhelming.
I did like all the connections that he made to fulfilling the prophices and to the things that actually happened. I also like how he said that just because the geneology in matthew and one of the other gospels is not the same doesn't mean that it is wrong. They were just using differnt methods and they were both correct and then explians to you why. To me that was rather interesting.
I found it very interesting the references to the OT where Christ was referenced. Instances such as the High Priest taking the name of Christ, Joshua as Jesus, the successor of Moses, Kings being types of Christ, etc. Also the prophecies spoken by David about Christ when he referenced the nations raging against the Lord and His Christ. I thought that was very interesting.
What I found not so interesting were the geneology explanations. That was a little confusing.
Donna Baskins
I found it very interesting the references to the OT where Christ was referenced. Instances such as the High Priest taking the name of Christ, Joshua as Jesus, the successor of Moses, Kings being types of Christ, etc. Also the prophecies spoken by David about Christ when he referenced the nations raging against the Lord and His Christ. I thought that was very interesting.
What I found not so interesting were the geneology explanations. That was a little confusing.
Donna Baskins
i have to agree with alot of the comments being made about it filling in the blinks of the gospels. i think its gives us a better view of whats going on.
last comment by kanova...
One thing I found interesting about the first two chapters (especially chapter 1) is the correlation between the name of “Jesus” and “Christ” and their relation to the past. Eusebius says Moses and all the prophets before him named Jesus. Jesus was named as “Hoshea” (p. 27) and also Jashua. Another thing interesting was the letter Jesus wrote back to Abgar (p. 48) telling him he must perform the will of God first and die, only to be resurrected, and he would send an apostle to Abgar to heal him and those that follow.
One thing I find odd or not that interesting is Eusebius goes too in-depth with his writing and the life around him (not that it is a bad thing, it just isn’t captivating. Not much about the daily live of people throughout history is, but if you want to study anthropology of ancient races, that is the history you need).
Post a Comment