Final Exam Study Question I asks you to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of Eusebius as a historian. We'll eventually be reading through much of his Church History, so, if you do the readings, you'll have a fairly easy time with the question.
I would appreciate it if you would skim the first two books (not chapters) of Eusebius of Caesarea's History of the Church for Thursday class (April 2). Read more carefully the first two pages and a few passages that particularly get your attention.
In my view, a good history should be interesting. Do Books I and II meet this standard? What do you find interesting in these books? Does Eusebius ever lose your attention? If so, why?
Please bring the Eusebius book to class with you for the next several sessions.
Books I and II in 'Eusebius of Caesarea's History of the Church' more than satisfies as being interesting. There are so many details that are supported by others texts describing more in depth details within the history of Christianity. One that particularly stood out was Clement describing the beheading of James in Book 7 of 'Outlines'. He describes the man that brings him into court as being someone who confesses his Christianity after being moved by James testimony. Because of this Clement writes, "So they were both taken away together, and on the way he asked James to forgive him. James looked at him for a moment and replied, "Peace be with you" and kissed him. So both were beheaded at the same time" (Maier 65-67).
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting because it is coming from a completely different perspective. After this, the book says, "as Scripture says, Herod [Agrippa], seeing that James's execution pleased the Jews, arrested Peter also". The alignment between the stories and situations is very interesting to read about. I'm pleased to call it interesting history!!
I do indeed find the start of Eusebius' History interesting. As a history and theology nerd, I love hearing the background of certain stories that growing up I didn't get. For example, when he goes into the birth of Jesus he starts to describe who Herod really was and what ultimately happened to him. Reading just the narrative growing up— you really only know he isn't a great guy that wants to kill Jesus. Yet to hear about his lineage a bit more and then what he undergo mentally after the fact is fascinating and brings more weight to the story. Also, the translation isn't too hard to read :).
ReplyDeleteI did find these first two chapters interesting. It never really lost my attention all though I had a hard time getting into it at first. I think this might not be the books fault as I had to read the beginning in a very noisy location, and it took me a while to tune that out. Once I really got into it, I enjoyed it. What especially caught my attention was when he first got into dating different events. The footnotes didn't always corroborate his facts, which is unfortunate because it would be simpler if it could all be taken at face value (though understandable why not). But the discrepancies actually helped to keep my interest because I had to read more carefully to make sure I spotted the errors instead of just trusting them.
ReplyDeleteI thought the extra information on Simon Magus was interesting as well as the continuing story of the other figures from Acts and the Gospels. Also the descriptions of the deaths of different political figures interested me, because I find medical evidence in history particularly intriguing. I don't know if there is much evidence about those particular cases, but it does catch my attention, just as Jesus sweating blood caught my attention, a medical phenomenon now called hematidrosis, or when Jesus' side wound pored out blood and water after his death which doctors confirm would have actually happened as a result of how he died and proved that he was really dead.