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.
I have found Eusebius to be interesting, but it does not hold my attention quite as well as any given book of the Bible. When it comes to the Bible, I cannot help but be fascinated as it is the true words of God. I should say that maybe Leviticus and Numbers could be equivalent in their ability to keep me captivated as Eusebius.
ReplyDeleteBut, there are certainly things that I have found really interesting. The passage in Book I where Eusebius explains Pilate's rule and the timing of all of that, with Jesus' timeline and his passion was quite fascinating. Connecting that historical timeline helped me "picture" how that would have worked with who was in charge when and where. Any time Eusebius makes these types of connections and lays out the timeline, it has reminded me that these were all the more real events, real people, and those people having real responsibilities and difficulties.
I also enjoyed how both Eusebius and Josephus (in a portion where he was quoted) explain how they believe Jesus is the Messiah. I've noticed that in modernity, to be scholarly is to be smarter than to take religion's word on something. So, to see incredibly bright scholars of antiquity believing in the same Bible I do, is very encouraging. Wisdom of the world only gets a scholar so far.
Eusebius is as interesting as a historical book could possibly be for me. I'm not a history major so I never find myself reading anything along these lines, but Eusebius' account of something that's always been important to me is genuinely engaging. His humility at the beginning when he states he is a "traveler on a lonely and untrodden path" makes his efforts feel more sincere and personal. He understands the gravity of what he's trying to preserve. I find the roles and deaths of influential figures to be really fascinating, since the "blood of the martyrs becomes the seed of the church" seems to ring particularly true. The description of how James dies towards the end of Book 2 was something that stood out to me. There were points where Eusebius lost my attention, like when he transitions to a very long quote or other lists without much explanation. Still, though, those sections show his strength as a historian by being thorough and careful.
ReplyDeleteI think the two books are interesting but not consistently entertaining. The first book connects Jesus to antiquity by tracing his ancestry back to the beginning. This is an interesting avenue and contains a lot of theological significance if you are reading at his time. Western Civ discussed how the longer you can "trace" back your religion, the closer it feels to the truth. So, this is a smart move on Esebius's part. However, this is not necessarily entertaining. He tends to drone on, sort of. In the eyes of an average reader, this would be SUPER boring. You have two types of historians: those who tell a complex story in a way that can be understood and tangible to ordinary people, and those who write and track for historians of the other type to share. Eusebius's audience is Christians, but he's lost me in some parts, and I am interested in this kind of history. To me, the real entertaining part is the second book recounting martyrs and their persecution. These are stories of heroes and are described as such. This type of content makes for an interesting and entertaining read. For the most part, Eubius is interesting, but sometimes he lacks entertainment. This is probably because of his thoroughness, which I can't really fault him for: that is his job.
ReplyDeleteEusebius of Caesarea’s Church History has some clear strengths and weaknesses. One big strength is that it preserves a lot of early Christian history, especially about Jesus Christ and the apostles, and it uses sources we don’t have anymore. That makes it really valuable.
ReplyDeleteSome parts are interesting—like when he talks about important people or events—but other parts can get pretty boring. He sometimes goes into long lists or detailed explanations that are hard to stay focused on.
He’s also pretty biased since he’s trying to support Christianity, so his version of events isn’t always completely balanced. Overall, it’s important and sometimes interesting, but not always the easiest read.
I felt like Eusebius' Church History was pretty standard. It kept me interested purely because I have an interest in history, otherwise I felt like there was nothing inherently interesting about Eusebius' style. He likes to use quotes often, which breaks up the flow of the reading. However, since my attention span has been ruined by the modern internet, I don't think I'm giving Eusebius a fair shake. If one were to find history enjoyable, like me, they will find themselves enjoying Eusebius. If one is neutral on history, I feel like they won't enjoy Eusebius at all. I like that he covers Jesus' history in both the Old and New Testaments, because in the history of a religion, you should have to know the important information about the central figure of said religion.
ReplyDelete