Talk:Church History (Eusebius)

Bad citation

Who is Drake, and what work is being referenced? The first citation should be a full citation. At present, it's just a (relatively common) last name, a year, and a page number - this is impossible to find. (And Drake is hyperlinked nowhere on the page, so it is unlikely he even has a Wikipedia page). --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:6C39:8AA0:B118:C73C (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am adding a statement that historians generally regard his works as unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.35.193 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I found Drake: Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance

H. A. Drake JHU Press, Aug 19, 2002 - History - 632 pages 1 Review

Historians who viewed imperial Rome in terms of a conflict between pagans and Christians have often regarded the emperor Constantine's conversion as the triumph of Christianity over paganism. But in Constantine and the Bishops, historian H. A. Drake offers a fresh and more nuanced understanding of Constantine's rule and, especially, of his relations with Christians. Constantine, Drake suggests, was looking not only for a god in whom to believe but also a policy he could adopt. Uncovering the political motivations behind Constantine's policies, Drake shows how those policies were constructed to ensure the stability of the empire and fulfill Constantine's imperial duty in securing the favor of heaven. Despite the emperor's conversion to Christianity, Drake concludes, Rome remained a world filled with gods and with men seeking to depose rivals from power. A book for students and scholars of ancient history and religion, Constantine and the Bishops shows how Christian belief motivated and gave shape to imperial rule. More

A reference for that statement is Bart Ehrmans "Lost Christianities". Someone with better wiki-skills can add it if they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.35.193 (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The reception section only contains criticisms of the Eusebius' work. It should include those who defends its accuracy as well.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The link from earlychristianwritings which tends to be a fairly skeptical site has a summary of quotes about eusebius which seem much more positive

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/eusebius.html

Weaving Criticisms Targeted as Specific Topics

I think the issue with this section is that it is trying to measure history as done in antiquity against how history was done in 18th - 19th century, all the while assuming all of this can be measured against the standards of history done today. The criticisms seem to be levied against Eusebius' rhetoric. That's a perennial problem of history and I scarcely believe any historian will be able to overcome his or her personal bias on how or which events should be represented. Having this work gives us a window into one side of the story.

Secondly, in general this section of reception does not seem to be relevant. If a note needs to be made about the nuances of Constantine's conversion and relationship with Christianity, maybe that's what the section should be about. There was a second point that it does not accurately reflect the development of Christianity, presumably because Eusebius' History looks too Catholic/Orthodox/High Church - perhaps there should also be a section on that as well.

I agree with NPOV above, there should be statements or quotes that also judge the reliability of aspects of the work. [User:Cenozar|Cenozar]] (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)