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)
18 comments:
Again I like what Eusebius writes though I agree with the summary at the end that he sometimes includes citations that are too long.
The accounts of Josephus about the suffering of Jerusalem are good to read; "Famine is truly the worst form of suffering and decency its greatest victim," but we may as well read his full boooks because of how Eusebius gives them such space.
The accounts of the persecutions and the heretics like the Ebionites are probably his best writing of book three along with the martyrdoms of so many people of the Church.
The story of the death of Symeon is the best one told here, I find it hard to believe how his torturers found a 120 year old man threatening, but one can feel the strength of his faith in accepting his fate.
What I found the worst is the story about the woman who ate her own baby, they should have thrown her off the ramparts, but the rest made up for it.
Annie Merkel
I think a strength of Eusebius is that he is a true historian. He tells story after story of history. All the information that he provides is so heplful in understanding the background of what is contained in the Bible.
Something that I found interesting in this book is the part about Jesus' relatives. I guess I was caught up in confusion, because I did not know that Jude was the brother of Jesus also. So that whole section talking about the relatives of Christ and what happened to them from Hegesippus is interesting.
While I enjoy the historical writings of Eusebius, there are things that detract from his writings. He seems to have thrown in the succession of "bishops" in a inappropriate part of the chapter. Truthfully I could have done without it all together. I also question his reliance on certain pieces of historical "legend." "They say that Paul was actually in the habit of referring to Luke's Gospel whenever he used the phrase "According to my gospel." This seems completely out of character for Paul. Would someone who emphasized agape over sarx make sure that he recieved credit for Luke's Gospel. Who are the ones who were saying this about Paul? While I do enjoy the way it is written it has also caused me to question the accuracy of his resources. A cow giving birth to a lamb. I could not find any biblical reference to this.
Joe Adam
Something that i found very interesting was in the very first part of book three. It is where it says that after the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, the first to be appointed Bishop of Rome or otherwise known as pope was Linus. I found this werid because i beleive that the first pope that was appointed was Peter himself wich is a little strange.
One of the things that as stated in class that you can see as a weakness is Esusebius's bias towards the Jews. You can see some of this in the Roman Siege of Jerusalem. Now I did find this section of his book also very interesting when he talks about how people were fighting over any little bit of food they could find. He really paints a picture of how bad things were when he talks of friends fighting friends for just a bite of food.
Also though in this section you have his bias where he talks of even if the Romans would have delayed their attack that something else would have destroyed the city. With this you can see how he disliked the Jews since he considered them a wicked group of people. He even goes on to say that this generation is worse then that of Sodom which as we all know was destroyed by God.
Eric Bengs
Brian Johnson
I think in the third book Eusebius demonstrates one of his weaknesses: he has a bias against Jews.
When he says things like "the judgements of God might finally fall on them for their crimes against Christ and his apostles..." it is a little too much too accept as far as impartiality is concerned.
I think that is interesting because it gives a specific example of the type of people that Paul was preaching to when he stressed the need for Christians to change their attitudes towards the Jews.
It is understandable why Eusebius would dislike the Jews but it is still interesting to see the things we learned about earlier being played out with specific people.
I found the part about the apostles who married to be rather interesting. I especially found the part about Peter rejoicing when his wife was led away to death interesting. It remind us that we aren't living for this life, but the life after death.
Amanda Imberi
What I find particularity interesting is how they have all of the burial locations for the important people (the apostle Paul and the apostle John).
One thing that could be a weakness in the work is how the information is scattered. Common things that would fit very well together are sometimes miles apart in the text. For instance it would make more sense to put the predictions of Jesus before the writings of Josephus. This would make it so people can first read what Jesus predicted and then read about what happened (during the life of Josephus). It would also fit chronology better since Jesus first predicted what would happen and the Josephus wrote about it.
Jon Adam
Zach Anderson
I think Eusebius does a great job when talking about his sources, and particularly citing them. As a historian this speaks to his credibility, but also gives us an idea about works that may be lost to the modern world. The voice that he gives to other works is very useful to people trying to understand what he is saying and the citations allow if the original document that he is using is known that gives us better insight into his thoughts. Also, this provides a context for those that we do not have and again provides us a better understanding of the development of Christianity.
First and most importantly, for example, Eusebius ordered the Early Church history using a chronologically-ordered account. This, by far, is the greatest strength to Eusebius and his Early Church history, especially considering he practically pioneered it. The time scheme correlated the history with the reigns of the Roman Emperors, and the scope was broad. For a historian, the concept of chronology and dates is the most important tool we, as historians have, however this is greatly overlooked today.
I think what makes Esusebius a reliable historian is that he quotes the New Testament a lot in his historical articles. He also uses the verses to support his findings and relates them to certain names of individuals within the early Christian church.
What is also unique is his usage of tradition. A lot of his paragraphs start with "Tradition has it."
In the early part of the First Century A.D., a lot of historical significance came from tradition and the telling of stories from generation to generation. Esusebius uses these as his "primary sources." That's what it looks like to me.
Eusebius has several strengths in his writing. First, he uses good and reliable sources to tell the history of the church. It would be hard to question the legitimacy of Josephus or the Gospels. Like Jade mentioned, everything organized chronologically is a terrific strength to this book, there is no going back and forth. I think Eusebius also includes the most important stories, such as the succession of bishops and rulers of the Roman empire.
Brett Newton
This History in book 3 of Eusebius is again a very good source for Christians or many different ways.
One of the first things one notices about the book that grabbed my attention was Jesus' predictions. In particular matt. 24:19-21. When he talks about the suffering that is going to begin in the world.
In validating this story he calls on (Josephus). A total number of 1.1 million are said to have died by famine or the sword fulfilling what was said to happen in Matt.
This kind of validation only strenghtens the bible as well as Eusebius works because it brings real life situations and actions that occured and gives us number and facts upon what really happened outside of our interpretation of the Bible. Its even more telling when a number of this size is confirmed (1.1 million).
I would have to agree with many other people that he does have a strong bias toward Jews. When he is talking about the Jewish War, and all of the famine and cruelty it is unbelievable. "Jews lost all hope of survival, and the famine became even worse, devouring house after house, family after family."
This is a terrible image, and I can't imagine what these people must have been going through.
Also like Brian said that he is basically saying that this is good for them for all of their crime against Christ and his apostles. This is out of hand, and I feel that it is quite bias.
Eusebius wrote about the Jewish War in Jerusalem. You can see some prejudice against the jewish population in his long description of the famine they were facing and the madness it was driving them into. He said that Christ was punishing the Jews, and didn't go into nuch other details about the war. This is deffinately a weakness of his. He could have given a much better account of this war without the bias.
Jon Hepola
Ruth Wilson
I have a copy of this text online and this translator makes the comment on the myrterdom of Paul "Origen is the first to record that Peter was crucified with his head downward, but the tradition afterward became quite common. It is of course not impossible, but the absence of any reference to it by earlier Fathers (even by Tertullian, who mentions the crucifixion), and its decidedly legendary character, render it exceedingly doubtful." I find this interesting. Could this perhapse be one of those scribing errors prof. Marmostien mentioned last class? I also like hearing about the Apostles is so cool! There is the next generation of the Church, right there.
Jesse Peck
The one strength i noticed was him explaining about Josephus. I think most modern authors would have had this discussion earlier in the work before citing him. Eusebius probably realized how much he had drawn on him and felt the need to defend using him as a source. It is a strength to let the reader know the nature of the sources being used. this is especially true if the reader will probably not be familiar with the source.
Sam Merkel
"Famine is truly the worst form of suffering and decency its greatest victim" I like how Eusebius describes the suffering of Jerusalem, not saying that it was good that Jerusalem suffered, just how Eusebius does a good job on describing it. When Eusebius talks about the death of Symeon, I thought this was really good. I thought it was funny how the guys he has torture people were frightened of a 120 year old man. But I guess when it comes to who has the stronger faith it is easy to pick up on whether or not the man across from you has stronger faith than you do. That he is willing to accept his fate and maybe you are not. The best story in his book I think would be the martyrdoms. When Eusebius puts the story in about the woman that eats her own baby, I was shocked and confused. I like what Eusebius writes but I agree with the summary when it says that his citations go on to long.
Post a Comment