Eusebius
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
[edit] Biography
The exact dates of Eusebius' birth and death are unknown: he flourished in the reigns of the Emperor Constantine the Great. He was a student of the scholar Pamphilus of Caesaria; after Pamphilus' martyrdom in the persecutions of the Emperor Diocletian he took the surname Pamphili as a mark of his admiration.
Some time around 313 he was made bishop of Caesaria. As bishop, he became engaged in one of those typical religious controversies in which both sides insist that they're completely orthodox and no-one can figure out quite what they're arguing about:
- Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius Pamphilus of perverting the Nicene Creed; Eusebius again denies that he violates that exposition of the faith, and recriminates, saying that Eustathius was a defender of the opinion of Sabellius. In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote as if contending against adversaries: and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that there is one God in three Persons, yet from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore could in no way endure to be at peace. (Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History book 1 ch. 23 [1])
His modern significance, however, is as a writer of history. Having obtained the patronage of Constantine the Great, the first Christian Emperor (whom he repaid with flattering eulogies) Eusebius had unprecedented access to historical documents:
- [N]ot anything of the more ancient writings escaped his knowledge; for, taking advantage of the imperial co-operation, he was enabled easily to collect for his use material from whatever quarter ... (St. Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, First Letter Against Eusebius [2])
He also had access to earlier works of Church history which are only preserved in quotations in Eusebius.
[edit] Works
St Jerome lists some of Eusebius' works: "Demonstratio Evangelica, twenty books; of the Præparatio Evangelica, fifteen books; of the Theophania, five books; of the Ecclesiastical History, ten books; a General History in Chronological Tables, and an Epitome of them; also, On the Discrepancies of the Gospels; On Isaiah, ten books; and Against Porphyry (who at the same time was writing in Sicily, as some think), thirty books, of which only twenty have come to my notice; of his Topica, one book; of the Apologia, in defense of Origen, six books; On the Life of Pamphilus, three books; Concerning the Martyrs, other small works; also very learned commentaries on the hundred and fifty Psalms, and many other writings." [3] Photius also mentions a Praeparatio Ecclesiastica and a Demonstratio Ecclestastica. [4]
Many of these works are lost, but the Praeparatio Evangelica,, Ecclesistical History, Constantine, half of the Demonstratio Evangelica, and some of his martyrologies have survived.
His works were written in Greek; many of them had the distinction of being translated into Latin by St Jerome[5], the translator of the Vulgate.
[edit] Early Criticisms of Eusebius
Eusebius was a controversial figure in his own day, because of his association with Arianism. He was denounced by his contemporaries for his beliefs, his character, and his private life[6]. Of these attacks, we have found two on Eusebius' accuracy as a historian, accusing him of glossing over the Arian controversy and his own role in it:
- But he mentions that a "dispute" (as he calls the heresy, to conceal its real nature) arose between Arius and Alexander, and that the pious emperor was very grieved at the "dispute," and strove, by letters and through Hosius, bishop of Cordova, to induce the disputants to abandon mutual strife and such questions, and to restore friendship and harmony amongst them; that, being unable to persuade them, he called together a synod from all parts, and so put an end to the strife that had broken out, and made peace. His account, however, is neither accurate nor clear. Wherefore, as if ashamed and unwilling to make public the facts concerning Arius and the decree of the synod against him or the just punishment of his companions in impiety who were cast out with him, he says nothing about this. He does not even mention the just punishment of Arius inflicted by heaven and seen by every eye. He brings none of these things to the light, and says little about the synod and its proceedings. (Photius, Bibleotheca ch. 127 [7])
- Eusebius Pamphilus says that immediately after the Synod Egypt became agitated by intestine divisions; but as he does not assign the reason for this, some have accused him of disingenuousness, and have even attributed his failure to specify the causes of these dissensions to a determination on his part not to give his sanction to the proceedings at Nice. (Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History book 1 ch. 23 [8])
Other critics were kinder to him as a scholar:
- Since now, this man was very learned, having searched out and traced back all the books and writings of the more ancient writers, and having set forth the opinions of almost all of them, and having left behind very many writings, some of which are worthy of all acceptation, making use of such an estimation as this of the man, they attempt to lead away some, saying, that Eusebius would not have chosen to take this view, unless he had accurately ascertained that all the opinions of the ancients required it. I, indeed, agree and admit that the man was very learned, and that not anything of the more ancient writings escaped his knowledge; for, taking advantage of the imperial co-operation, he was enabled easily to collect for his use material from whatever quarter ... I deny that the man has yet arrived at an accurate knowledge of the doctrines; wherefore he ought to be given place to so far as regards his great learning, but as regards his knowledge of doctrine he ought not.(St. Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, First Letter Against Eusebius [9][10])
[edit] "I Have Suppressed All That Could Tend To The Disgrace Of Our Religion"
In hostile discussions of Eusebius, you will often see statements of which the following is typical:
- Josephus lived in the period (AD 37-101). However, the Testimonium Flavianum was first quoted much later, specifically by Eusebius in the fourth century. Eusibeus was man known to lie to defend his beliefs, e.g. he said, "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion" (Chp. 31, Book 12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica). [11]
Ironically, this contains several factual mistakes.
[edit] Eusebius Didn't Say That
The words "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion" do not appear in Praeparatio Evangelica Book XII Ch. 31 at all. It is interesting to notice that many of the people who think they do also think that the book is called Prae Paratio Evangelica and that "Chapter 31 Book 12" is a sensible way of giving references.
Before we take a look at what Eusebius does say in Book XII ch. 31, we need a little context. Eusebius, following the lead of Clement, is arguing that the ideas of the ancient Greeks were not original: in Book XII in particular he is trying to argue that ideas found in Plato are prefigured in the Bible.
First, he quotes Plato's Laws, Book II. The Laws is a dialogue; the directions as to who is saying what do not appear in Eusebius and have been added for the sake of clarity.
- Athenian Stranger: But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?
- Cleinias: Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it. (Plato, Laws, Book II [12])
Plato, you will notice, is referring to a proposition (that the just life is pleasanter than the unjust life) which he thinks that "our argument has now proved". In the excerpt quoted, he is not arguing for the telling of known falsehoods, but rather that if his proof fails, the moral effect of believing his conclusion will be harmless.
Eusebius, grinding his axe about the ideas of the Greeks being prefigured by those of the Hebrews, adds the comment:
- Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction. [13]
This is the whole of the chapter.
The parallel Eusebius draws between Plato's apologia and the Bible's using anthropomorphic language for God is fairly flimsy. What is quite clear, however, is that he is not in any way setting out a manifesto for historians to distort and supress facts, and that in particular, the phrase "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion." appears nowhere in the text.
[edit] Edward Gibbon
The phrase in question actually appears in Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:
- The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgement will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries. (Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Vol. II Ch. XVI part 7 [14])
At some point someone has turned this "indirect confession" into a direct quote; the passage on Plato in the Preaparatio has been used as evidence that Eusebius approved of falsehood; and a third person has conflated the two accusations as a quotation with a reference. Subsequent people have then repeated the "quotation" and the "reference" without either checking the text of the Praeparatio or wondering why someone writing with deliberate bias would spoil the effect by informing the reader of this fact.
[edit] Gibbon versus Eusebius
Gibbon, in a footnote, explains which passages he thinks amount to this "indirect confession" on the part of Eusebius:
- Such is the fair deduction from two remarkable passages in Eusebius, l. viii. c. 2, and de Martyr. Palestin. c. 12.
The first passage reads like this (at least, we suppose this is the particular passage of book VIII ch. 2 which Gibbon found "remarkable"):
- All these things were fulfilled in us, when we saw with our own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down to the very foundations, and the Divine and Sacred Scriptures committed to the flames in the midst of the market-places, and the shepherds of the churches basely hidden here and there, and some of them captured ignominiously, and mocked by their enemies. When also, according to another prophetic word, “Contempt was poured out upon rulers, and he caused them to wander in an untrodden and pathless way.”
- But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment.
- Hence we shall not mention those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity. (Eusebius, Church History, book VIII ch. 2 [15])
The second is from Eusebius' Martyrs of Palestine, an appendix to the Church History:
- I think it best to pass by all the other events which occurred in the meantime: such as those which happened to the bishops of the churches, when instead of shepherds of the rational flocks of Christ, over which they presided in an unlawful manner, the divine judgment, considering them worthy of such a charge, made them keepers of camels, an irrational beast and very crooked in the structure of its body, or condemned them to have the care of the imperial horses;—and I pass by also the insults and disgraces and tortures they endured from the imperial overseers and rulers on account of the sacred vessels and treasures of the Church; and besides these the lust of power on the part of many, the disorderly and unlawful ordinations, and the schisms among the confessors themselves; also the novelties which were zealously devised against the remnants of the Church by the new and factious members, who added innovation after innovation and forced them in unsparingly among the calamities of the persecution, heaping misfortune upon misfortune. I judge it more suitable to shun and avoid the account of these things, as I said at the beginning. But such things as are sober and praiseworthy, according to the sacred word,—“and if there be any virtue and praise,” —I consider it most proper to tell and to record, and to present to believing hearers in the history of the admirable martyrs. (Eusebius, Martyrs of Palestine, ch. 12 [16])
You will notice that in both these paragraphs Eusebius tells us in some detail what he is "suppressing". We leave it to the judgement of the reader to decide whether it is Eusebius or Gibbon who is lacking in honesty.
[edit] The Credibility of the Testimonium Flavianum
Attacks on the credibility of Eusebius are often linked to attacks on the credibility of the Testimonium Flavianum, as in the quotation which heads this section.
This too is a misconception: we do not know the Testimonium from the works of Eusebius, but from surviving copies of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.
[edit] The Value of Eusebius
We believe that we have disposed of the canard that Eusebius had a declared and deliberate policy of lying or of bias. This does not, of course, dispose of the question of whether Eusebius was in fact lying or biased, but decided not to tell his readership about it.
On the question of whether Eusebius was biased, we believe that we can answer yes, on at least three grounds. First, he was human. Second, we have quoted the accusations of Photius and Socrates Scholasticus; and it does indeed appear as though they were right, and Eusebius glossed over the both Arian controversy and the role he played in it.
Third, we refer again to Eusebius' support, in the Praepartario, for Clement's claim that:
- Life would fail me, should I attempt to go over in particular detail the proof of the selfish plagiarism of the Greeks, and how they claim as their own the discovery of the noblest doctrines current among them, which they have taken from us.
- But now they are convicted not only of stealing their doctrines from the Barbarians, but also of copying our records of deeds so wonderfully wrought of old by the divine power through men of holy lives for our study, and exhibiting them in the marvellous stories of Greek mythology. (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica book X [17]
We may use this as a test case because we have the same access to Plato and to the Bible as Eusebius did. It is not merely that Clement was wrong, but that Eusebius supports Clement's thesis by cherry-picking, quote-mining, shoehorning, and other devices used by those who are enamored of an incorrect hypothesis. On this basis, we should suggest that his judgement as a critical historian cannot be trusted.
On the other hand, it is not for Eusebius' judgement that later historians value him, but chiefly for the large quantity of lengthy quotations from earlier writers contained in his work, many of which are known from no other source. We can check Eusebius' veracity as far as these quotations go by seeing how accurately he quotes writers whose work has come down to us in another form, such as Josephus. While by no means a model for historians, Eusebius seems to be reasonably reliable as a secondary source.
[edit] Links
- Church History and Life of Constantine
- Praeparatio Evangelica ("Preparation for the Gospels"
- Demonstratio Evangelica ("Proof of the Gospels")
