Talk:Ecclesiastical 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
 * Eh, WP:NPOV but also WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It's perfectly possible the guy is generally disliked, especially in the current academic climate. Dude was unabashedly a propagandist and that will show up in historians waving giant DO NOT TRUST CONTENT FROM ~ banners once they start aiming for... NPOVs.


 * The article does have NPOV issues, but at present they're universally in the other direction. I took out some of the needless ing ("pathbreaking..." "certainly...") but more remains. Paul Maier does turn out to have a Wikipage but why is a West Michigan U prof being cited as the primary authority about a Father of the Church? Surely, there are other more influential voices to be using there. "Thus did God punish teh (((J00z))) for the crimes they dared commit against Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is not antisemitism, however..." Etc. etc. — Llywelyn II   18:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * Yeah, nah. We should include his work's historical and current reception, even if it is now nearly universally negative. Those criticisms are more methodological than rhetorical and they're fair game even if everyone was doing it. One imagines the historical reception was more positive and that should be noted, though. — Llywelyn II   18:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Mooooooooooooove
No idea who thought "Church History" was the  for this work but, y'know, like the giant image immediately to the right of the lead section says, no, not even remotely. Punt this thing back to Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius) asap. — Llywelyn II   18:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I dunno about this move. The most recent major translation to my knowledge calls it "The History of the Church" (Schott's 2019 translation).  I've certainly seen "Church History" around.  Classicists who like their short abbreviations will use "Hist. Eccl.", sure.  But Ngrams can be weird at times - I'm not really certain how much deference to give htem.  At the very least, the change to the lede you made saying "less often" is unmerited - that's only used for notably minority names, otherwise just say "also known as".  SnowFire (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, re "no idea who thought Church History [should be the title]" - it's in the article history and very easy to check, the user who created the article is still active.  Any opinions on the above?  I think either title is fine myself; "Church History" certainly is the stable name, but the Ngrams do seem to show a lead for "Ecclesiastical History".  SnowFire (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Either title should be fine, "Church History" is snappier. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)