Please read Book III of his History of the Church. What do you see in this book that would be particularly worth adding to an essay on the strengths/weaknesses of Eusebius as a historian? Was there anything you found particularly interesting in this book?
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Eusebius is becoming slightly easier to read, but I still feel he is long winded. I was particularly confused by his descriptions of the book of Acts. Does he not believe it should be a part of the new testament? Are there churches that feel that Acts shouldn't be in the bible? If I am reading it correctly this is what he is saying.
ReplyDeleteEven though I feel Eusebius is long winded I do appreciate his detail. I feel bad that I do not remember Josephus from the bible. Apparently he is a really important dude. Any maybe it is just me, but I have never heard of this Origen character. I would very much like to learn more about him. I hope that we can discuss him more at length in class on Thursday.
I don't think Josephus is mentioned in the Bible - he was a first century Jew who wrote down lots of history of the Jews and first century Christians. I remember my mom having a book of Josephus' writings - it was bigger than War and Peace.
DeleteIt was not easy to read. There was a lot of martyring happening. It was really wordy. I think it was about the same as the first two book. I could see closer to the end of the book that the reading was getting easier. I thought the Apostles Who Married part was interesting because Clement makes fun of them. It was an interesting side to see of the Apostles.
ReplyDeleteI find it super interesting that no one has talked about how Eusebius thinks it’s crazy for 2 Peter to be a book of the Bible - and yet today - it’s in our Bibles! I love how he words it as the “so-called second epistle” of Peter. One of his weaknesses as a historian would be how much personal bias he puts on this topic. Obviously Eusebius was wrong in this area because the Church ultimately decided that 2 Peter was a part of the Bible. Possibly humility would be another of Eusebius’ weaknesses.
ReplyDeleteKent Johnsen
ReplyDeleteBook 3 is not easy at all. Not only does his wordiness continue, but also the fact that hisnbias starts to appear now and then. However, he is getting stronger in the fact that he's no linger relying on his own, but he does have other sources. Without Josephus, most of his writing would still be taken with a grain of salt. I second India though, why does he question 2 Peter (or even 3 Peter) as "so-called"? Is he questioning authenticity as inspired or the authorship?
I too had trouble understanding book 3. I felt like everything I read just went over my head. The part I found interesting was the background on Josephus and his writings. I really didn't know much about him before reading this part of the book
ReplyDelete