Assessing the reliability of Eusebius's ecclesiastical history

Eusebius

Church History is a riveting topic that has been debated for centuries. There has been a great deal of discussion concerning the accuracy of certain accounts and there validity. Amongst the most controversial accounts of church history is that of Eusebius. The purpose of this discussion is to analyze whether Eusebius's account of the history of the church is reliable or not.

Eusebius and Church History

The time of Eusebius birth is unknown but it is evident that he lived during the time of Constantine. According to the authors Schaff and Wace, Eusebius was referred to as Eusebius of Caesarea or Eusebius Pamphili by his contemporaries. The designation Eusebius of Caesarea came about because he was the Bishop of the church in Caesarea. He was also a presbyter. The time of his ordination is also unknown, however it is commonly assumed that he became presbyter while Agapius was bishop of Caesarea, and this is not unlikely, though we possess no proof of it (upon Agapius see below, H.E. VII. 32, note 39). In his Vita Constantini,. I. 19, Eusebius reports that he saw Constantine for the first time in Caesarea in the train of the Emperor Diocletian. In his Chron. Eusebius reports that Diocletian made an expedition against Egypt, which had risen in rebellion in the year 296 a.D., and Theophanes, in his Chron., says that Constantine accompanied him. It is probable therefore that it was at this time that Eusebius first saw Constantine in Caesarea, when he was either on his way to Egypt, or on his way back (Schaff and Wace)."

The other designation was derived from the fact that Eusebius was a friend of Pamphilus, who was a martyr and a presbyter of Caesarea (Schaff and Wace). Most historians believe that Eusebius was well educated in the areas of biblical science, theological science, and secular philosophy (Schaff and Wace). Historians also believe that his methods of study were greatly influenced by his instructors. One such instructor was Pamphilus who in all probability encouraged a young Eusebius to read the works of many great philosophers (Schaff and Wace).

Issues that lead some to believe that his accounts were inaccurate

One of the main issues that many historians and scholars take issue with concerning Eusebius was the manner in which he wrote. Many have described his writings as unorganized and lacking direction. Critiques argue that he took very little care in editing his work and that he was often incoherent with his thoughts. There is a belief that he actually though as he wrote. The disjointed manner in which he wrote lead some to question the accuracy of his words.

Others argue that his loyalty to the Constantinian government influenced his writings to the point of making them inaccurate. According to an article entitled "Court Theologian" Eusebius has been referred to as a good courtier, political propagandist, the great publicist of the first Christian emperor, the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine, and an ecclesiastical politician. Research asserts that Eusebius was so devoted to the Constantine Empire that he risked his orthodoxy and his character. In addition, the article explains that the conventional image of Eusebius has overestimated the priority of politics in his life and writings. One obvious reason for this is his central importance as a chronicler of the Constantinian era....Eusebius's scholarly training and employment in Pamphilus's research institute in Caesarea and his later emergence as a leading churchman in the East qualified him to record this drastic transition, which he did especially in Books 8 through 10 of the Church History and in the eulogistic and biographical works on Constantine. These are the works which have traditionally drawn scholars' attention, to the relative neglect of his apologetic treatises and of his biblical exegesis. Not surprisingly, the consequence has been to think of him as permanently absorbed with the subject of the church's relation to the empire (Hollerich, 1990)."

The author also concedes that traditional disdain for church-state relations have fashioned a certain view if Eusebius and his account of Church History evident in the writings of H. Berkhof.

Berkhof wrote the only monograph on the theology of Eusebius. Others such as H.-G. Opitz believed Eusebius to be a "precocious rationalist who, rather in the fashion of the cultural Protestantism of nineteenth-century Germany, sought to ally the church with the civilizing institutions of the Roman Empire (Hollerich, 1990)." The idea that Eusebius's commitment to the Constantine Empire imposed upon his ability to present an unbiased account of church history is the main argument given concerning the accuracy of his writings (Hollerich, 1990). This notion was presented first by some of his contemporaries and later by scholars that examined his writings (Hollerich, 1990).

In more recent times scholars have come to the conclusion that Eusebius's writings a merely one man's account of church history. For instance, in his analysis of Eusebius's writing Robert M. Grant asserts that Eusebius should be viewed as "as a human being, neither a saint nor intentionally a scoundrel. Grant's analysis of the composition and themes of the Church History paid careful attention to the themes that Eusebius actually chose to write about, showing how he changed his mind on several subjects during the course of the book's composition (Hollerich, 1990)."

Esebius's account of Church history was also defended by T.D. Barnes in his book Constantine and Eusebius. Barnes analysis of the works included many of Eusebius works that had traditionally been excluded from study in times past. Barnes solidified the integrity of Eusebius's scholarship arguing that "Eusebius was perhaps fifty years old when the Battle of the Mulvian Bridge was fought, already solidly established as a scholar and an apologist, and soon to become a bishop. Scholarship and the church were the governing preoccupations of his life. Eusebius's positive attitude toward the empire and human history thus took shape long before Constantine entered the scene and reflected a widespread optimism in the Greek East in the half century before the Great Persecution (Hollerich, 1990)."

In addition, Barnes and other modern scholars argue that Eusebius probably had very little contact with Constantine. They further argue that Constantine may have never had any ecclesiastical advisors. Scholars such as Gerhard Ruhbach argue that Eusebius was not even a political theologian as some have argued. Instead they assert that "Eusebius had no interest in politics for its own sake; his orientation to political developments was exclusively theological and ecclesiastical. Ruhbach found that Eusebius's attitude toward God's involvement in history was fundamentally shaped by the Bible, in particular, the Old Testament (Hollerich, 1990)."

Conclusion

This discussion has carefully discussed the accuracy of Eusebius's account of Church history. This review has revealed that Eusebius was a scholar who had a deep affection for the church. We found that although his writings are often believed to be disjointed and incoherent, his account can be received as accurate. We can also conclude that Eusebius was merely a man sharing his view of church history based on the Old Testament and his experiences. The accuracy of his account is no more problematic than the dissimilarities that exist between the first four books of the New Testament. His writing are no more than account that can be viewed as accurate.