Eusebius the Liar? - Pious Fraud Endorsed to Advance Christianity

First of all, who is Eusebius? Eusebius is actually one of the only reasons we have ANY church history from the founding of the orthodoxy. There are some issues though. Many critical scholars have no qualms calling out Eusebius as a blatant liar. By some he is called the father of "Pious Fraud" although it is demonstrable that he wasn't the first to actually practice it. There are varying lines of evidence for this, many disputed by conservative scholars, but I would like to discuss one popular one in particular to kick off this discussion.Starting with this quote from Eusebius from Ecclesiastical History Chapter 12. (Adding EvC style quotes, and styling)Early Church Fathers - Additional Works in English Translation unavailable elsewhere online The main theme of what Eusebius is trying to do here is convince pagans that Plato's ideas are actually derived from ancient Hebrew religion. Legacy of a belief was very important to the Greek and Roman population and Eusebius is trying to appeal to that sentiment.Plato is talking about how it is useful to use lies to convince some people of things who would be unable to be pursuaded otherwise. For good reasons of course but lies none the less.Eusebius is therfore not only endorsing this idea, he is making the claim to pagans that the Hebrews thought of it first!Moreover, he is pointing out examples from the OT where scripture is using this method to communicate, "for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction."So even more brief he is saying:
1. Plato said that lying is okay sometimes.
2. This is a great idea and we thought of it first!
3. Here are some examples of us lying in our scriptures for this reason.Some defend Eusebius by pointing out that rather than "falsehood" the greek word used here COULD be translated as "fiction". So therefore Eusebius is endorsing the use of parables. Not only is this a stretch, I can't quite see how this helps the issue much. Eusebius would still at best be relegating the God of the OT to the same status as a fairy tale.Why this is important is that Eusebus is often used as a source to resolve a variety of controversies. He is considered authoratative on a number of issues not the least of which is the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) which is one of the only references to a historical Jesus that exists outside the Gospels. The TF has many hallmarks of a forgery and the earliest reference we have to it is from Eusebus. In fact, Eusebus was probably responsible for maintaining copies of ancient manuscripts such as the works of Josephus so he has motive, access, capability, and authority to do something like make a pious Jew refer to Jesus as the Messiah (one of the more obvious reasons the TV is likely a fraud).I have read some defense of Eusebius that can be found online but I thought I would see if anyone here wanted to perhaps defend him in a different way. As I get closer and closer to considering myself a former Christian, the more I examine about the history of the church, scripture, and Judiasm the more I cannot ignore these kinds of blatant stains upon the legacy of the religion.Put this in whatever religion forum you feel is appropriate please.Thanks!

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

I wanted to leave the opposition voice in this thread untainted by those but basically if you google 'eusebius liar' and read the conservative opinions in the first page of results, those defenses.I would love to read yours if you could link it. Must believe? I have encountered a wide range of beliefs regarding the accuracy and/or literalism of the OT. I don't know that that would describe many of the believers on this particular forum. Perhaps jar back in the heyday? Perhaps Phat? Again, I am not sure how wide this belief actually is even if it is highly regarded. Certainly none of the Christian experiences I have had personally have been anything close to this. An anecdote for what it is worth. By itself perhaps not but I think it is at least arguable. If there is interest in diving a bit deeper, Eusebius makes a number of claims that are pretty outlandish which provides some support for this notion that he at best is an "imaginative" writer of fiction.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

It is somewhat hard to say because the best reference we have to the TF is Eusebius himself. So beliefs range from1. It is fully authoritative (quite unlikely)
2. It is a modified version of an actual quote from Josephus to strengthen a real reference to Jesus (most cautious opinion)
3. It is a full forgery, insertion by a pious scribe. (most critical opinion)But if Eusebius is shown to be a liar, perhaps it throws some doubt onto the TF as well, since he is the only resource we have for that particular quote.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

I would also add suspicion to "as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him".Presumes that Jesus was foretold in the scripture. 10,00 wonderful things is being quite charitable to someone who perhaps was considered heretical to the Jews.There are also some linguistic clues concerning the use of "tribe" and the context of the Antiquities surrounding this particular quote. It sort of sticks out like a sore thumb. A lot of times the only thing you can draw from an ancient source like this is educated speculation. It is unfortunate.

Eusebius was highly influential regarding the formation of the canon and was chartered with the responsibility for creating authoritative copies of "sacred scripture" for the emperor.In fact, Eusebius was quite disappointed that his own arianism was rejected as heretical at the Council of Nicea.The only way he could affect a particular writing would be if he changed it and it would be very difficult to prove that. But to say he wasn't influential regarding the early formation of the church, or how the church viewed itself for the coming centuries would be naieve.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Eusebius mentions things specifically regarding God's mental characterization as if they were absurd. Specifically anger and jealousy.There are many churces today, I would go as far to make the claim that most, that consider the jealousy and anger of the God of the OT to be very real. There are entire lines apologetics designed to legitimize the contrast between the character of the God of the OT and Jesus in the NT.Once again I say that giving Eusebius the total benefit of the doubt only results in making him a story teller rather than a historian. I don't know how this paints the church's reliance upon him all that much better than if he was a confirmed liar.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

It is my understanding that Eusebius was actually responsible for preserving Antiquties amongst a large number of other non-canonical writings that the church was interested in maintaining.I'll try to find my reference for that but if it is true, it would mean that the copies we have of Antiquities are straight from Eusebius. At the very least I am pretty sure that the oldest reference we have to Antiquities is either Eusebius, or partial quotes from an earlier church father.Certainly we have evidence that Antiquities existed prior to Eusebius but we have exactly zero copies of those.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Hence my Faux Newsesque use of a '?' in the OP.For my purposes it doesn't really matter if he was an outright liar or just chronically and severly credulous. I happen to think he was probably some both. He was perfectly willing to abandon his own faith in arianism and rewrite parts of PE accordingly. He spins tales of martyrdom that are totally rediculous as if he was an eye witness.If we can at BEST call him piously naieve, it only goes downhill from that point.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Considering that he is one of the primary voices used to establish the canon in the first place, yea I would say that a liar and story teller picking which books are holy could matter. We can't know the answer to that. We know manuscripts of the NT were edited in that era to change troublesome verses or add harmonizing verses. Who did it is lost to history. Considering that he edited it in light of the triumph of the mainline orthodoxy over arianism, I would say that it at very least invites suspicion. I am not just assuming something here. We have evidence that he was influential over the early church. He was the one appointed to produce/reproduce sacred scripture for the emperor. HIS history was accepted and preserved. Or he just read the winds of change and didn't have the integrity to stand up for his own beliefs and be labeled a heritic for it. Remember, this guy had a line straight to the emperor, he had a lot to loose being on the wrong side. But you will accept their canon?

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

And I agreed that this is the MOST generous interpretation. Mine in the OP can be argued to perhaps be the LEAST generous. If reality lies anywhere in the middle then it is not good for Eusebius wouldn't you agree?I also mentioned to Dr. A that this view of the false anthropomorphisms of God would probably rub a lot of modern Christians the wrong way. I know many people who take very seriously God's "anger" and "jealousy".Eusebius here is talking about "human passions" and how it is obviously silly for God to REALLY have them. I can think of no practicing Christian that I know which that WOULD NOT rub them the wrong way. It turns the OT into a fairy tale.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Well obviously some do or have in the past. Eusebius himself is an example of that. Of course I wasn't talking about early reformers. I specifically said "I can think of no practicing Christian." I was only giving personal anecdote. Of course I can imagine that there are some somewhere who have the belief that God doesn't really get angry and that the OT is mostly allegory. If you would like to be pedantic, then I guess you win. Well, I believe it speaks to the reliability of the scriptures. I will admit that that is an opinion but I believe it to be a sound opinion.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

I think this is a misunderstanding of what I said. Good for Calvin if he does not believe that the Bible mischaracterizing God doesn't speak to its reliability. I do think it speaks to its reliability, Calvin has his opinion and I have mine.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

I never said they were abandoned. You continue to mischaracterize my argument. I believe it is defensable to say that there is at least a large contingent, if not a majority, of Christians would have a problem with the anger and jealousy of God not being literal.I am not trying to be too nit-picky here but when you claim that I am incorrectly dismissing something based on an assumption I have not made, I am somewhat uncomfortable letting that just slide.To be even more clear, I am very specifically not making an argument from (un)popularity (that the belief of Eusebius is wrong because nobody believes that God doesn't experience anger). I am simply stating that this idea is incompatable with a variety of modern Christian theologies that are popular. These are the same Christians who may rush to Eusebius' defense with respect to the reliability of his early church history and the formation of the canon. That there is a potential conflict here is significant.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

I believe that if God wasn't actually angry when he went around smiting people after the Hebrews built the golden calf than that is theologically significant to that event. If the whole event is an allegory for how we should not worship idols than that is also significant for certain theologies.That you can construct a doctrine where these things remain inerrant could be relevant to the OP in that it relieves Eusebius of the accusation of lying. My followup argument remains that any such doctrine is one that recognizes its basis is that of a fairy tale. It would of course not call it that but I do. If the stories of the OT are only there for people who "need that treatment", then they are plainly just stories, no better than Santa Clause, the boy who cried wolf, the ant and the grasshopper, etc.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Which, I will say it yet again, I have not denied. Would you like to make a point?

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson