ÿþ<table border="1" cellspacing="150" cellpadding="50" align="">
	<tr>
		<td>





<font size=3 face=arial><b>Early Church Fathers?</b>

<br><i><font face=times size=3>300 Year Span</i><font face=arial><br>

<font size=1>Occasionally updated and edited. 

Copyright &copy; 2009

<hr>



Kenn Gividen  | <a href="http://www.kenngividen.com">KennGividen.com</a>

</font size=1>

<br><br>



<font size=2>





<img src="http://kenngividen.com/pic/kenn" border="1" width="100" hspace="10" align="left">Eusebius is cited as a significant source of information regarding the ante-Nicene church. Not only are his writings extensive and generally available, they contain references to previous church writings that are no longer extant.

<br><br>

But should Eusebius be consider an early church father?

<br><br>



To place this in context, Eusebius (d. 335) was as far removed from the lives of the disciples as we are from the lives of John and Charles Wesley; about 250 to 300 years. Eusebius can be considered a father of the early church as the pastor of your local United Methodist congregation can be considered a father of early Methodism. 

<br><br>

Now, imagine if our knowledge of the Wesleys, Whitfield, et al was almost exclusively information that had been verbally transmitted over 250 to 300 years with each generation kneading the information with various aspersions. Some bits of truth would have filtered through the sieve of time, but our perception of the Wesley's lives would be substantially different from reality; particularly if the Wesley's had been "ignorant and unlearned men" as were most, if not all, of the disciples. What's more, we have the advantage of advanced technology whereas Eusebius depended largely on oral traditions and writings derived from oral traditions; those of Origen in particular.

<br><br>

That's not to unfairly discount the existence of writings available to Eusebius, but to question their reliability as objective, dependable history rather than chronicles of urban legend.

<br><br>

Our conclusions are:<br><br>



- The extent of time between Eusebius and first generation Christians is significant.<br><br>



- The methods of transmission of information was extremely inefficient relative to today's technology.<br><br>



- The reliability of the testimony of fourth-century clergymen is questionable. <br><br>



Referring to fourth generation clergy as early church fathers is tantamount to identifying Barack Obama as a founder of the United States of America.<br><br>





For an example of an Eusebian urban legend transmission, see <a href="http://a-apologetics.blogspot.com/2010/02/epistle-of-jesus-to-abgarus.html">Epistile of Jesus to Abgarus</a>.

<br><br>