arguments for/against eusebius' reliability

[gmx]

Eusebius' reliability was brought up in a different thread (or countless different threads)

What are the most convincing reasons for doubting the veracity of the "church history" recorded by Eusebius? I guess at the same time, what are the weaknesses in the argumentation around doubting that veracity?

[andrewcriddle]

Eusebius' reliability was brought up in a different thread (or countless different threads)

What are the most convincing reasons for doubting the veracity of the "church history" recorded by Eusebius? I guess at the same time, what are the weaknesses in the argumentation around doubting that veracity?

I think you may have to distinguish reliability and veracity.

IMO most of the evidence about Eusebius being deliberately misleading comes in his account of the history of his own times e.g. the relations between Constantine and Licinius in which Constantine ended up killing his fellow emperor.

Again IMO Eusebius when dealing with events before his lifetime is trying to give an honest account but often has a lack of reliable sources. I.E. he is usually honest in intention but may not be reliable.

Andrew Criddle

[Charles Wilson]

Please see Jay Raskin's Evolution of Christs and Christianities, ISBN-13: 978-1413497915.
Our Poster Jay traces a "Tell" of Eusebius of the Form "Down to this day..." and finds examples of his work and appearances of the trope in others. His conclusion is that Eusebius is a Master Forger. Jay believes that Eusebius has not only rewritten Acts in his History, he believes that Eusebius rewrote Acts itself. Hegisippus in Eusebius is a complete creation of Eusebius, a "Just So" set of quotes.
The purpose of Eusebius is to show that the Catholic Church of Eusebius has an unbroken Chain of Godly Rule from the Apostles "down to this day" of Eusebius.

Jay's masterful work is required reading for understanding Eusebius.

CW

[DCHindley]

Eusebius' reliability was brought up in a different thread (or countless different threads)

What are the most convincing reasons for doubting the veracity of the "church history" recorded by Eusebius? I guess at the same time, what are the weaknesses in the argumentation around doubting that veracity?

As all post-modern historians would be quick to say, all "history" is past "facts" (i.e., what the author thinks s/he knows about it) interpreted to be understandable in the history writer's own time. This will involve a certain amount of re-interpretation (we know it as "historical revisionism"). I think poor Eusebius had to make sense of a whole lot of things commonly "known" about Jesus, the players in his life story, and early Christian history in general, to put it in relation to the triumph of Constantine, a professed Christian, as sole Emperor.

DCH

[MrMacSon]

I think there are more-than-a-few instances that Eusebius both re-writes history or creates history; especially around some people and what they are said to have written, said, or done [I'll endeavour to add some examples to this post]