For a defence of Eusebius from The Tertullian Project, see Eusebius the Liar?
This page contains some notes and explorations on the fourth century church father Eusebius of Cćsarea (c. 260-341 CE), a doctrinal successor to Origen, and a central character in the First Council of Nicea, which condemned the heresy of Arianism with which he was formerly associated [ce].
As will be seen, there is good reason to doubt his reliability as a chronicler of the first three centuries of Christian thought.
He was the first to quote the Testimonium Flavianum of the first century Jewish chronicler Josephus. (This controversially contains a reference to Jesus Christ and to the resurrection, and is held in whole or in part to be a fourth century forgery) [e1].
He was a leading figure at the Council of Nicea (325 CE), which was the foundation of "orthodoxy" in Christian belief [de p206].
The early dating of writers such as Aristides depends on the veracity of Eusebius.
His "church history" and other works formed the accepted history of Christianity and Christian thought for centuries after his death [e1]
.
In short, the "accepted" history of Christianity depends a great deal on the reliability of Eusebius.
In his website Tertullian.org, Roger Pearse discusses the reliability of Eusebius, and in particular allegations made by the eighteenth century writer Edward Gibbon:
"In his Vindication, in order to justify an attack on the honesty of Eusebius of Caesarea, Gibbon alleged:"
"I shall only observe, that the Bishop of Caesarea seems to have claimed a privilege of a still more dangerous and extensive nature. In one of the most learned and elaborate works that antiquity has left us, the Thirty-second Chapter of the Twelfth Book of his Evangelical Preparation bears for its title this scandalous Proposition, "How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived." "**Ancient Greek**" (P 356, Edit. Graec. Rob. Stephani, Paris 1544.) In this chapter he alleges a passage of Plato, which approves the occasional practice of pious and salutary frauds; nor is Eusebius ashamed to justify the sentiments of the Athenian philosopher by the example of the sacred writers of the Old Testament."
"The problem seems to be that pseudos can mean 'lie, deceive, falsehood' (see Liddell & Scott, for instance) but also has the meaning of 'fiction'. (The French mensonge seems also to have both meanings and is used in the Sources Chrétiennes translation). The former words imply ill-intent; the latter is more neutral, and is employed by the translator of The Laws. I would suggest that it is in fact the word we want." [t2]
Pearse considers that Eusebius is a reliable source, within the
limitations of ancient historiography. He notes that the case against Eusebius is often overstated, and rightly warns of the dangers of imposing too modern a view on Eusebius as a historian [t1].
"We were present ourselves when these things occurred, and have put on record the divine power of our martyred Saviour Jesus Christ, which was present and manifested itself mightily in the martyrs. For a long time the man-devouring beasts did not dare to touch or draw near the bodies of those dear to God, but rushed upon the others who from the outside irritated and urged them on. And they would not in the least touch the holy athletes, as they stood alone and naked and shook their hands at them to draw them toward themselves, - for they were commanded to do this. But whenever they rushed at them, they were restrained as if by some divine power and retreated again." [e1]
He also passes on various dubious accounts as true, including this:
"The citizens of that parish [in Alexandria] mention many other miracles of Narcissus ...among which they relate the following wonder as performed by him. . . . [T]he oil once failed while the deacons were watching through the night at the great Paschal Vigil. Thereupon, the whole multitude being dismayed, Narcissus directed those who attended to the lights to draw water and bring it to him. This being immediately done he prayed over the water and with firm faith in the Lord commanded them to pour it into the lamps. And when they had done so, contrary to all expectation, by a wonderful and divine power the nature of the water was changed into that of oil. A small portion of it has been preserved even to our day by many of the brethren there as a memento of the wonder" (Church History 6:9:1-3 [A.D. 312]).
Later (Volume 1, Chapter 13), he tells the story of a contemporary (Abgarus, otherwise known as King Abgar) writing a letter to Jesus the Christ and then receiving an answer [e1] (a story which some Fundamentalists still claim might have some merit! [ab])
In Volume 2 (chapter 17), Eusebius goes on to wrongly claim that the early first century writer Philo and Therapeutae sect were Christians, which they were not [bt].
Of course, it would be unfair to say that Eusebius was any less reliable than other ancient chroniclers. Herodotus (c. 484-420 CE) reported all sorts of nonsense in his Histories [hl]. The important point is, however, that any ancient account should reasonably be read with discretion.
(An ealier version of this page wrongly claimed that Eusebius wrote of seeing martyred Christians reassembled miraculously after being eaten by lions. This claim is unsupported and I am happy to remove it. Thanks to Tom Kelly for pointing out my mistake).
J.B. Lightfoot, Eusebius of Caesarea, (article. pp.308-348), Dictionary of Christian Biography: Literature, Sects and Doctrines, ed. by William Smith and Henry Wace, Volume II (EABA-HERMOCRATES). This excerpt pp.324-5 (quoted by Roger Pearse, Tertullian.Org). [t3]
Thanks to Roger Pearse of The Tertullian Project for his helpful comments on this page.
The opinions expressed here are of course mine and not his.
