text:
Talk:Eusebius

Eusebians
I think we should clarify that the "Eusebians" mentioned here the Arian-leaning followers of Eusebius of Nicomedia, not the followers of the titular Eusebius of Caesarea. --Peter

 * "but with the beginning of the Arian controversies he becomes prominent. Arius appealed to him as his protector, and from a letter of Eusebius to Alexander it is evident that he aided the exiled presbyter" said Wikipedia. Bbut Socrates Scholasticus the historian says: "Eusebius in particular was a zealous defender of it [Arianism]: not he of Cæsarea, but the one who had before been bishop of the church at Berytus, and was then somehow in possession of the bishopric of Nicomedia in Bithynia." Thank you peter. So I've removed the italicized bit. Wetman 20:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Misinformation

 * Removed:  He is also supposed to have found in the records of Edessa the letters purporting to be written back and forth by its king Abgar and Jesus. He merely mentions the tradition: see Abgarus of Edessa. My many small tweaks are pretty minor. --Wetman 16:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reader beware
No mention of the fact that Eusebius is widely discredited as a historian, except among Christian apologists, is permissable at Wikipedia. The following sourced text quoting a respected historian has been suppressed as "too partisan to stand ":
 * " As Professor Michael J. Hollerich writes in Church History, Vol. 59, 1990, "Ever since Jacob Burckhardt dismissed him as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity," Eusebius has been an inviting target for students of the Constantinian era. At one time or another they have characterized him as a political propagandist, a good courtier, the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine, the great publicist of the first Christian emperor, the first in a long succession of ecclesiastical politicians, the herald of Byzantinism, a political theologian, a political metaphysician, and a caesaropapist. It is obvious that these are not, in the main, neutral descriptions. Much traditional scholarship, sometimes with barely suppressed disdain, has regarded Eusebius as one who risked his orthodoxy and perhaps his character because of his zeal for the Constantinian establishment."

In its place we are now invited to read the unsourced "ever since Jacob Burckhardt brutally dismissed him as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity", a statement that has been partly subscribed by others, but by no means by all: others, while not pretending to extol his merits, have mentioned the irreplaceable value of his works"

Note how the editor affectingg such "NPOV" has not been able to resist inserting "brutally" to characterize Burckhardt—by which one may assess the authenticity of his neutrality. --Wetman 17:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Wetman: I respect both you, and the editor you are referring to here, quite a lot. I have no opinion (yet) on the relative merits of the two versions above. But knowing the editor, and knowing that he is not a native speaker of English, my first thought is that the the word "brutally" may simply be a poor choice of words, meant to describe the strength of Burckhardt's dismissal, rather than intended to be a negative judgment of his dismissal (as it would read to a native speaker). Paul August ☎ 21:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Wetman, I think that quote, if it is representative of the historiographical consensus about Eusebius, could fairly be paraphrased. But, looking up the cited article on JSTOR, you seem to have taken Hollerich's remarks completely out of context.  The quote you give is part of the introductory remarks to an article whose argument is "that the standard assessment has exaggerated the importance of political themes and political motives in Eusebius's life and writings and has failed to do justice to him as a churchman and a scholar."  That is to say, Hollerich was, in 1990, providing a revisionist viewpoint more sympathetic to Eusebius than the previous scholarly consensus.  It seems deeply unfair to use a quote from his article as a club to further beat up on Eusebius, without even mentioning that said article is a partial defense of Eusebius. john k 08:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Just to add to it - we can't necessarily take for granted that Hollerich's summary of the consensus is accurate. At the very least, it seems likely that he is rhetorically exaggerating the extent of the anti-Eusebius consensus in order to make his own arguments seem more novel. john k 08:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. My name is Giovanni and I am the editor that originally enhanced this article, which I noted was originally copied in whole from a religious based textbook, and thus contained the expected bias in favor of Eusebius. In it there was no mention of important criticisms, including well-known facts concerning his practices as a historian. Indeed, in the section originally titled "His excellence and limitations" it only further spoke about his excellence, in a repetitive fashion. I was surprised at the one sided nature of the article.

In order to make it more balanced, I removed at least one clearly NPOV sentence which was simply true (found in another section--not the above "mis-information" that someone else found earlier and removed), and made this “excellence and limitations” into only "His Limitation," with the referenced quotation cited above, and some additional external links including the encyclopedia Britannica (which, btw, states as a fact that he was not a great historian and that his historical work are really apologetics. This, ofcourse, does not mention other notorious facets that implicate Eusabius in fraud. Still, I left this issue for people to read by including it in the "other links" section. After my edits, I felt it was balanced and worthy of what I expected to find in an encyclopedia, and which we do find in most other encyclopedias.

It appears there will now be some contention over which version is better? I'm new to Wikipedia, but love the idea and find it very useful. Forgive me if I'm still learning the proper protocol for resolving disputes in content. I see may have erred by simply reverting back to my version instead of seeking to find consensus here. I do think its much better as it stands now from an informative and balanced perspective. I’ll abide by what the community thinks is best as I’m sure we have all the same common goal here.

I think there will always be inherent bias in any subject and the best way to ensure a type of neutrality is to provide full disclosure of the relevant and supported issues surrounding a subject in keeping with widely accepted standards and practices among professional organizations that are experts in the respective fields. Otherwise, it is really POV, like the article I originally found that had no mention of of the fact that Eusebius is a widely discredited as a historian. Only among Christian apologists is this not mentioned, which as a group are by defintion carrying on the same axe-grinding tradition that Eusebius himself did in his time. This ofcourse is not NPOV, and Wiki is a secular Encylopeadia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.121.40.153 (talk • contribs). on 07:59, January 5, 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Giovanni. I'm the evil POV-pusher ;-) I don't think that anybody reasonable can accuse you of wanting to edit a so partisan text: a big problem of Wikipedia is that many (maybe most) Christianity-related articles have been built with the Catholic Encyclopaedia, the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge and the Dictionary of Christian Biography, all written by good Christians about a century ago. To this must be added that legions of Christian and anti-Christian apologist are roaming around these articles, a good reason to explain why I generally try to keep at large from this period. Going to Eusebius, nobody really doubts he was a quite mediocre historian, and I think I kept that clear when I edited your contribution: but one count is to say that is scholarship was no great thing and his works have a mainly apologetic intent, one that to accuse him of being a liar, as is easy to make him appear with the use of highly selective citations. In particular, I must confess I found hard to stomach: "Much traditional scholarship, sometimes with barely suppressed disdain, has regarded Eusebius as one who risked his orthodoxy and perhaps his character because of his zeal for the Constantinian establishment". It all to easy to awnser that Eusebius was a Semi-Arian because he believed in it, and is being attacked for this. And by the way, what is "traditional scholarship"? Modern scholars may criticise him for his scholarship, but certainly not having risked his "orthodoxy".
 * Obviously Giovanni,I can't pretend to be neutral, because as you rightly said, nobody can pretend to be, and NPOV is only utopia. To conclude, why don't you log-in and take a username: it will make you able to partecipate to all wiki activities. With this I'm finished. Bye :-) Aldux 12:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Having read john k objection above, if what he says is correct, then it does seem to me that the Hollerich quote is being used out of context, I wonder if the following might be a more balanced version of the "Limitations" section:

 * His limitations

 * The limitations of Eusebius could be said to flow from his position as the first court appointed Christian theologian in the service of the Constantine Roman Empire. Although Church historians were able to copy him, Eusebius is generally not considered a great historian. His treatment of heresy, for example, is inadequate, and he knew very little about the Western church. His historical works are really apologetics.  Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2, reminds us, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

 * In his Praeparatio evangelica (xii, 31), Eusebius has a section on the use of fictions (pseudos) as a "medicine", which may be "lawful and fitting" to use . With that in mind, it is still difficult to assess Eusebius' conclusions and veracity by confronting him with his predecessors and contemporaries, for texts of previous chroniclers, notably Papias, whom he denigrated, and Hegesippus, on whom he relied, have disappeared; they survive largely in the form of the quotes of their work that Eusebius selected and thus they are to be seen only through the lens of Eusebius.

 * These and other issues have invited controversy. For example, Jacob Burckhardt has dismissed Eusebus as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity". Burckhardt is not alone in holding such a view. However, Professor Michael J. Hollerich thinks such criticisms go to far. Writing in "Church History" (Vol. 59, 1990), he says that ever since Burckhardt, "Eusebius has been an inviting target for students of the Constantinian era. At one time or another they have characterized him as a political propagandist, a good courtier, the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine, the great publicist of the first Christian emperor, the first in a long succession of ecclesiastical politicians, the herald of Byzantinism, a political theologian, a political metaphysician, and a caesaropapist. It is obvious that these are not, in the main, neutral descriptions. Much traditional scholarship, sometimes with barely suppressed disdain, has regarded Eusebius as one who risked his orthodoxy and perhaps his character because of his zeal for the Constantinian establishment." He concludes that "the standard assessment has exaggerated the importance of political themes and political motives in Eusebius's life and writings and has failed to do justice to him as a churchman and a scholar".

 * While many have shared Burckhartdt's assessment, others, while not pretending to extol his merits, have acknowledged the irreplaceable value of his works.

What does everyone think? Paul August ☎ 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I think it's almost perfect. I only have some doubts with Although Church historians were able to copy him. This is quite an understatement: Eusebius' historical works (Church history and Chronicon) were not only used, but had an immense influence, making him possibly the most influential historian for the Middle Ages. The following church historians (Sozomenus, Socrates, Theodoretus) all had Eusebius as their model; and Jerome translated his Chronicon, proposing the model for the medieval world chronicles. But maybe his influence for posterity should be treated in a separate section that could be titled "His influence" or "His legacy". For now we could change where is Although Church historians were able to copy him to Notwithstanding the great influence of his works. What do the other think about this? Aldux 22:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I owe Aldux a public apology: my fuse is simply too short, and my insinuation of disingenuous language was unjustified. Once individuals have been canonized, a machinery comes into play that tends to suppress all criticism: thus I'm over-sensitized in this area. Aldux's point about the three old-fashioned sources used in Wikipedia articles is well-taken: I constantly use them myself, trying to limit my use to what is factual. You all have really improved this passage. Perhaps John Kenney can give us a better-rounded picture of Hollerich's assessment of Eusebius' reputation. Of only a handful of historians is their subsequent reputation as important as it is with Eusebius. --Wetman 04:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * No problem, Wetman :-) Aldux 10:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this passage sounds close to perfect. The only part that I suggest is to keep the original "Eusebius was not himself a great historian." I think this fact is not in dispute among historians, and is more honest and direct than the language, "generally considred..." Nonetheless, it still says everything I thought was originally missing, and yet is now presented in a much better way overall. Thank you Paul, Wetman, Aldux, and John for making this happen. This yet another fine example of wikipedia in action: many minds being better than one as we place checks and balances on our own biases, forcing a far better product in the end. Giovanni33 13:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the main article page to reflect the above proposals, and removed the POV tag on the section. Giovanni33 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wetman that the entire article on Eusebius is heavily biased in favour of the "orthodox" point of view. Around the time of Eusebius, there was a raging battle between the Gnostic Christians and the Literalist Christians. Of course, as in all battles, the victor gets to write the history. So, in this case, Eusebius took on the task of writing a history of the early Church that made it appear that the Literalists were there first, and that the Gnostics later perverted the message, but were overcome by the "orthodox" believers i.e. those who followed the teachings of the bishops. Eusebius himself admitted that he included only the material that supported his point of view and excluded anything contrary except where it was unavoidable. Thus, we have the foundation of Church History that has prevailed ever since. Never mind that Eusebius was a noted forger. Never mind that the interpolations in Josephus were quite likely by the hand of Eusebius himself. Eusebius had a task - to prove that the Literalist Church was the original one, and he certainly wasn't bothered by any evidence to the contrary. I have no doubt that the received version of Church History, built on the foundation laid by Eusebius, merely continues the fraud and deception. --Williambanting 08:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Link policy
Hi Adux. I did not know about that policy about my Britanical link. Can you point me to where it says that a link, such as to Britanica, can not be used unless it's a free link, even though its available free as a cached on a google search? Thanks. I left this message on your talk page, also. Giovanni33 01:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Limitations
The limitations section seems to be mainly about the accusations of dishonesty, which is a pity. I've augmented this, and qualified the somewhat out-of-context quotes. I hope that this doesn't upset anyone? (those quotes in the context that we had are very misleading, if you read the context around them). I've added a bit on allegations about forged quotations in the Vita, but I don't have a reference. Anyone? Roger Pearse 20:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Relationship of Jerome to Eusebius
Jerome attacks Eusebius as "prince of Arians" in a letter to a friend. (Could I get a better explanation on this). In Jerome's De Viris Illustribus of Chapter 135 where Jerome gives a short autobiography, he says he is the son of Eusebius; however this article does not seem to represent this. Are we talking about two different "Eusebius" or is the meaning of the word "son" here something different (perhaps 'student' instead)? --Doug talk 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Eusebius of Caesarea is covered in chapter 81 of DVI. Jerome is talking about himself in ch. 135, and of course his father was not the same person!  (There are hundreds of people called Eusebius listed in the handbooks).  As for "prince of Arians", this comes from Jerome's "Second Apology Against Rufinus".  But it's a polemical phrase designed to undermine Rufinus, not representing Jerome's settled views. Roger Pearse 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Aldux, what "destoryed compromise"?
Before I revert, I'd like to see where this compromise is--I don't see anything new on talk. From what I can see above, the version I restored was the long standing compromise that was worked out (with me, yourself (Aldux), and other editors, Wetman, Kennedy.)--and this is what was what was changed unilaterally by one editor. The compromise we reached at that time is preserved in my edits, and I incorporated/kept most of the changes that were made to it, restoring the essential parts which I see no consenses or discussion to remove. Where is this new discussion about any new compromise reached? The material I restored is information that was removed by the editor as not being accurate, but I have now attached a source, Britanica, that supports the fact, upon restoring it. Unless there are some very good reaons, I will most certainly be restoring my edits later today. If there was really a new compromise worked out, and you are not mistaken, then we need to review this because it can not entail the removal of valid, referenced facts. The organization that was changed has some problems, as well, which is what I have fixed in my latest edit on reorganization. I now flows logically. I am happy to open up any disputes you have for discussion, again. Giovanni33 16:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been a bit rash in the revert, I must admit, even if I have some reservations that the way the pseudos are presented is not fully npov in my view, as there is more than one interpretation possible; anyways, I will not revert your edit if you go back to the previous version. Ciao,--Aldux 21:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Aldux, and no harm done. I'd be happy to have any changes you suggest to make the presentation of pseudos fully NPOV, even this means making clear that there are other interpretations. We only need to find a source that says so. Ciao.Giovanni33 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What is this "estimate" section and what is it for?
I can't figure that out, but it looks like it will accumulate various commentaries and present various POV issues. Jacob Haller 18:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Questionable intro phrase
The intro described him as "forging unity among orthodox advocates". But this sounds very odd; he had no interest in this, as his "Adversus Marcellum" makes plain, but in ensuring that the semi-Arian position was upheld against what he saw as the Sabellianism of people like Marcellus of Anycra. It's worth remembering that he was a marginal figure in his own day. He had no interest in this sort of thing. His importance has always been as a writer. Roger Pearse 10:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Onomasticon
Is this Eusebius the same as the author of the Onomasticon mentioned in this link? If it is, should it be included in the article? (I'm well out of my depth here, so apologies for my ignorance). Manning (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

 * He is the same Eusebius. The work was mentioned under Exegetical and miscellaneous works, but the title Onomasticon wasn't used there, so I've added it. EALacey (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Splitting out the "Church History"
It seems clear to me that the Church History is worth an article of its own. Advantages: can then expand, without concerns about the balance of this article; can also be linked to easily (and robustly). Would there be any objections to a split? Charles Matthews (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

 * The first step is to leave a concise version of the section here, with a Main aricle hatnote. Only cannibalizing articles creates problems. --Wetman (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Seems like a reasonable proposal, if more detail is to be added (although perhaps the thing to do is add more detail, then reformat?). But won't this mean duplicating some of the pro-/anti-Eusebius stuff? Roger Pearse 08:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

 * I've split out Church History (Eusebius) now. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement "This is a very strange way to begin a historical narrative proving that Eusebius was attempting to push his own ideas regarding the church into a text." is a value judgement. There is history behind why Eusebius would emphasis the issue of the "divinity and pre-existence of Jesus Christ." The issue of whether Jesus was begotten or not was a huge debate at the time.

The Letter from Jesus
This is the complete translated text from Church History (Eusebius) on the letter from Jesus:

Chapter 13. Narrative concerning the Prince of the Edessenes. 1. The divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ being noised abroad among all men on account of his wonder-working power, he attracted countless numbers from foreign countries lying far away from Judea, who had the hope of being cured of their diseases and of all kinds of sufferings.

2. For instance the King Abgarus, who ruled with great glory the nations beyond the Euphrates, being afflicted with a terrible disease which it was beyond the power of human skill to cure, when he heard of the name of Jesus, and of his miracles, which were attested by all with one accord sent a message to him by a courier and begged him to heal his disease.

3. But he did not at that time comply with his request; yet he deemed him worthy of a personal letter in which he said that he would send one of his disciples to cure his disease, and at the same time promised salvation to himself and all his house.

4. Not long afterward his promise was fulfilled. For after his resurrection from the dead and his ascent into heaven, Thomas, one of the twelve apostles, under divine impulse sent Thaddeus, who was also numbered among the seventy disciples of Christ, to Edessa, as a preacher and evangelist of the teaching of Christ.

5. And all that our Saviour had promised received through him its fulfillment. You have written evidence of these things taken from the archives of Edessa, which was at that time a royal city. For in the public registers there, which contain accounts of ancient times and the acts of Abgarus, these things have been found preserved down to the present time. But there is no better way than to hear the epistles themselves which we have taken from the archives and have literally translated from the Syriac language in the following manner.

Copy of an epistle written by Abgarus the ruler to Jesus, and sent to him at Jerusalem by Ananiasthe swift courier. 6. "Abgarus, ruler of Edessa, to Jesus the excellent Saviour who has appeared in the country of Jerusalem, greeting. I have heard the reports of you and of your cures as performed by you without medicines or herbs. For it is said that you make the blind to see and the lame to walk, that you cleanse lepers and cast out impure spirits and demons, and that you heal those afflicted with lingering disease, and raise the dead.

7. And having heard all these things concerning you, I have concluded that one of two things must be true: either you are God, and having come down from heaven you do these things, or else you, who does these things, are the Son of God.

8. I have therefore written to you to ask you if you would take the trouble to come to me and heal the disease which I have. For I have heard that the Jews are murmuring against you and are plotting to injure you. But I have a very small yet noble city which is great enough for us both."

The answer of Jesus to the ruler Abgarus by the courier Ananias. 9. "Blessed are you who hast believed in me without having seen me. For it is written concerning me, that they who have seen me will not believe in me, and that they who have not seen me will believe and be saved. But in regard to what you have written me, that I should come to you, it is necessary for me to fulfill all things here for which I have been sent, and after I have fulfilled them thus to be taken up again to him that sent me. But after I have been taken up I will send to you one of my disciples, that he may heal your disease and give life to you and yours."

Further accounts 10. To these epistles there was added the following account in the Syriac language. "After the ascension of Jesus, Judas, who was also called Thomas, sent to him Thaddeus, an apostle, one of the Seventy. When he was come he lodged with Tobias, the son of Tobias. When the report of him got abroad, it was told Abgarus that an apostle of Jesus was come, as he had written him.

11. Thaddeus began then in the power of God to heal every disease and infirmity, insomuch that all wondered. And when Abgarus heard of the great and wonderful things which he did and of the cures which he performed, he began to suspect that he was the one of whom Jesus had written him, saying, 'After I have been taken up I will send to you one of my disciples who will heal you.'

12. Therefore, summoning Tobias, with whom Thaddeus lodged, he said, I have heard that a certain man of power has come and is lodging in your house. Bring him to me. And Tobias coming to Thaddeus said to him, The ruler Abgarus summoned me and told me to bring you to him that you might heal him. And Thaddeus said, I will go, for I have been sent to him with power.

13. Tobias therefore arose early on the following day, and taking Thaddeus came to Abgarus. And when he came, the nobles were present and stood about Abgarus. And immediately upon his entrance a great vision appeared to Abgarus in the countenance of the apostle Thaddeus. When Abgarus saw it he prostrated himself before Thaddeus, while all those who stood about were astonished; for they did not see the vision, which appeared to Abgarus alone.

14. He then asked Thaddeus if he were in truth a disciple of Jesus the Son of God, who had said to him, 'I will send you one of my disciples, who shall heal you and give you life.' And Thaddeus said, Because you have mightily believed in him that sent me, therefore have I been sent unto you. And still further, if you believe in him, the petitions of your heart shall be granted you as you believe.

15. And Abgarus said to him, So much have I believed in him that I wished to take an army and destroy those Jews who crucified him, had I not been deterred from it by reason of the dominion of the Romans. And Thaddeus said, Our Lord has fulfilled the will of his Father, and having fulfilled it has been taken up to his Father. And Abgarus said to him, I too have believed in him and in his Father.

16. And Thaddeus said to him, Therefore I place my hand upon you in his name. And when he had done it, immediately Abgarus was cured of the disease and of the suffering which he had.

17. And Abgarus marvelled, that as he had heard concerning Jesus, so he had received in very deed through his disciple Thaddeus, who healed him without medicines and herbs, and not only him, but also Abdus the son of Abdus, who was afflicted with the gout; for he too came to him and fell at his feet, and having received a benediction by the imposition of his hands, he was healed. The same Thaddeus cured also many other inhabitants of the city, and did wonders and marvelous works, and preached the word of God.

18. And afterward Abgarus said, You, O Thaddeus, do these things with the power of God, and we marvel. But, in addition to these things, I pray you to inform me in regard to the coming of Jesus, how he was born; and in regard to his power, by what power he performed those deeds of which I have heard.

19. And Thaddeus said, Now indeed will I keep silence, since I have been sent to proclaim the word publicly. But tomorrow assemble for me all your citizens, and I will preach in their presence and sow among them the word of God, concerning the coming of Jesus, how he was born; and concerning his mission, for what purpose he was sent by the Father; and concerning the power of his works, and the mysteries which he proclaimed in the world, and by what power he did these things; and concerning his new preaching, and his abasement and humiliation, and how he humbled himself, and died and debased his divinity and was crucified, and descended into Hades, and burst the bars which from eternity had not been broken, and raised the dead; for he descended alone, but rose with many, and thus ascended to his Father.

20. Abgarus therefore commanded the citizens to assemble early in the morning to hear the preaching of Thaddeus, and afterward he ordered gold and silver to be given him. But he refused to take it, saying, If we have forsaken that which was our own, how shall we take that which is another's? These things were done in the three hundred and fortieth year."

I have inserted them here in their proper place, translated from the Syriac literally, and I hope to good purpose.

A reference to this was deleted from the Wikipedia article. Reopening the discussion for inclusion in this article. Transcript1 (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * As a clarification, this is the reply from Jesus, taken from the above. The answer of Jesus to the ruler Abgarus by the courier Ananias.:

9. "Blessed are you who hast believed in me without having seen me. For it is written concerning me, that they who have seen me will not believe in me, and that they who have not seen me will believe and be saved. But in regard to what you have written me, that I should come to you, it is necessary for me to fulfill all things here for which I have been sent, and after I have fulfilled them thus to be taken up again to him that sent me. But after I have been taken up I will send to you one of my disciples, that he may heal your disease and give life to you and yours." 72.235.14.67 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I deliberatly quoted it in context, for purposes of discussion here. Transcript1 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Please look at the reason user Wetman gave near the top of this Talk page under the heading "Misinformation". He removed the following statement from the article

"He is also supposed to have found in the records of Edessa the letters purporting to be written back and forth by its king Abgar and Jesus."

and then wrote "Misinformation" "He merely mentions the tradition...".

The original statement in the article was accurate and there was insufficient justification for removing it. This entry by Eusebius is well documented, and there have been many scholarly evaluations of it over centuries.

The opinion given that Eusebius "merely mentions the tradition" is contradicted by the opening sentences of the narrative, and is not sufficient reason to delete any mention of this controversial portion of Church History. Claire Perrier (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes! What was the "Misinformation"? Transcript1 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want a reply, contact him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wetman  Otherwise, you will just work yourselves into a frenzy. Repentance 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I've already said "Once individuals have been canonized, a machinery comes into play that tends to suppress all criticism." The spurious "correspondence" is well-known and needn't be characterised as fraudulent by me. --Wetman Wetman (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Well-known? But still unknown to many people.  It is not my place to characterize it here as fraudulent either, but it will be documented here that he included it in his Church History. Claire Perrier (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Added to the article. Transcript1 (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Court-appointed theologian"
I've removed the following statement from the limitations section:

 * Eusebius is often regarded as the first court-appointed Christian theologian in the service of the Constantine Roman Empire, seeing the Empire and the Imperial Church as closely bonded. (Dead ref: http://www.britannica.com/shakespeare/article-67584)

I've taken it out since there is no passage in Britannica that contains this statement or anything like it, and I don't believe that it is true: he wasn't appointed as anything by the court, but remained a provincial bishop all his life. The caesaro-papist idea in the above seems anachronistic for the reign of Constantine.

There ought to be something about his view of Constantine, but this isn't it; and I'm not sure that his views amount to a limitation anyway. Whatever we say, it should be referenced, particularly if derogatory. Roger Pearse 20:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fake Britannica reference
The following text, itself somewhat POV, turns out to have a fake reference in it:

 * Notwithstanding the great influence of his works on others, the accuracy of Eusebius' accounts remains in doubt [ref] by virtue of various admissions in his texts.

The reference given for the statement "the accuracy of Eusebius' accounts remains in doubt" was this:

 * cite web|url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9033282|title=Eusebius Of Caesarea|publisher=Britannica Online Encyclopedia|accessdate=2008-02-01

No such statement is to be found in the Britannica article, which instead emphasises the importance of his work, albeit that clarity isn't one of his virtues. I have therefore moved the paragraph here and replaced the positive statement that his accuracy is in doubt (which if true would probably be the opinion of someone, and should appear in the body of the discussion with a statement of who says so) by a bland and neutral phrase leading into the discussion of his limitations. Roger Pearse 15:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The "remains in doubt" statement may have been based on the following text from the Britannica article: "Eusebius, however, was not a great historian. His treatment of heresy, for example, is inadequate, and he knew next to nothing about the Western church." However, these are more specific criticisms than the general remark about accuracy that you altered, and don't correspond to the criticisms raised in the rest of the "Limitations" section. I think your edit is an improvement. EALacey (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 * You're probably right; thanks. Roger Pearse

which
Is this Eusebius well known for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buubuub (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of Sabellianism in conflict with Eustathius of Antioch
My reading, from other pages around this matter, seem to indicate that the text as it stands, is incorrect, probably based on the confusingly worded run-on sentence in the Eustatius article. AFAICS, the sequence was that, Eustathius, the anti-Arian, attacked both Origen and Eusebius for "Arianism" and Eusebius layed the counter-charge of Sabellianism against Eustathius, just as Arius had charged Alexander of Antioch. Needs a reference.Helvetius (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Limitations again
I see that the limitations section has been quietly worked over from a POV point of view. I'm going to restore it to something in the form that it used to have; lists of people for and against, and what the general view is. I also mistrust that reference to Burgess' book; I don't think Richard Burgess holds that view. Roger Pearse 13:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgeries?
Wasn't this the Eusebius who is generally accepted to have forged a mention of Jesus in the histories of Josephus, because Eusebius felt that more evidence of Jesus's life had to be manufactured? Why is neither 'Josephus' nor 'forgery' mentioned in this article? Or do I have the wrong Eusebius? - Brian Kendig (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, the same Eusebius. But the question about his part in the writing of the Testimonium Flavianum (as the passage in question is known) is contentious. Many impartial commentators would say these passages are not forgeries at all. Of those who think they are it is mere hypothesis that they are to be ascribed to Eusebius. He is blamed largely because his is the first historical record of the TF.

 * Consequently, any entry on the subject in the article would need to be well researched and supported by reliable sources which put both sides of the argument.

 * For more: see this blog entry and Jeff Lowder's piece at "infidels.org" (scroll down to (b) to see Lowder's discussion of the TF). see also Josephus on Jesus

 * Disclaimer: I take no side in this debate, merely wanted to illuminate the scope of the problem.

 * Muzhogg (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Works
"Eusebius is also reported to have written later that at times it is a "necessary medicine" that historians fabricate history." What is the source for this? The only reference I can find is from a respondant to a blog of Richard Carrier's who never replied to the statement. http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2008/12/jesus-project.html Kroy Ellis, 5 May 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.221.10 (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 * That citation is from the title of Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica Book 12:23. I emphasise title because the words may well be the work of a later editor/copyist rather than those of Eusebius himself.

 * The more important question is, "what does Eusebius himself actually say in the text Prae. Ev. 12:23?"

 * First thing is the obvious: Eusebius was writing in Greek, not English. He used the Greek "pseudos" which is more neutral than the English "falsehood". It can be translated "fiction" - see under "Autenrieth" at the Perseus lexicon entry for pseudos.

 * Turning to Prae. Ev. 12:23 we find that Eusebius is continuing his commentary on Plato in order to show that the practices of Christians are morally acceptable according to Plato's standards. He notes that Plato advocated the use of "falsehoods" (pseudoi) by lawgivers in order to keep the young on the straight and narrow. Eusebius argues, therefore, the ancient Hebrew use of "falsehoods" (pseudoi) to teach about God is justified.

 * Point one: Eusebius is not advocating the use of dishonesty in historical reportage, he is defending the use of "falsehoods" (pseudoi) by the ancient Hebrew scriptures.

 * What is interesting is the sort of "falsehoods" that Eusebius has in mind: "Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction."

 * Point Two: Eusebius is attempting to justify what Christian theologians refer to as "accomodation" - the practice of speaking about God using "accomodated" (or "human") language.

 * So, really, Eusebius is arguing that the use of fiction (pseudos) in the form of accomodated language by the Hebrews was justified according to the standards of Platonic philosophy. Any attempt to extend this to imply that Eusebius himself felt free to make up material in order to justify his argument in the Church History is, in my opinion, a monumental overreach. The slight on Eusebius' honesty is unjustified and should be put to bed.

 * See Eusebius the Liar? for a fuller treatement.

 * Muzhogg (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Wow. Great research on the source of this statement.

 * My understanding of what you found, to sum it up -- It appears that:
 * 1. There is no evidence that Eusebius ever stated "that at times it is a "necessary medicine" that historians fabricate history." or believed/practiced this himself (based on this unproven quotation anyway), but rather was reporting on what Plato believed. The statement never appears in the text of the referenced book, but is referring to Plato's views in a chapter title.  Looking at the entire chapter list, it's obvious that he is writing about Plato, as you pointed out.  Excerpts translated by Gifford as follows:

 * I. That the Hebrews, according to Plato, were right in imparting to beginners the belief in their instructions in a simple form because of their incapacity 	 p. 573 b

 * II. That faith, according even to Plato, is the greatest of virtues

 * XXXI. That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment 	 p. 607 d

 * XXXIV. How Plato changed the oracles in Proverbs into a more Hellenic form.

 * 2. (Your conclusion) "Eusebius is arguing that the use of fiction (pseudos) in the form of accomodated language by the Hebrews was justified according to the standards of Platonic philosophy."

 * "Any attempt to extend this to imply that Eusebius himself felt free to make up material in order to justify his argument in the Church History is, in my opinion, a monumental overreach. The slight on Eusebius' honesty is unjustified and should be put to bed."

 * The statement, supposedly written by Eusebius, makes it look like he has used fables/falsehoods whenever it suited his purposes. It most likely was never written by him, thus unjustly disparaging all of his historical works.  It doesn't belong in the article and should be removed imo.  Kroy Ellis --65.12.221.10 (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue actually comes up twice in the article. There's a treatment under Limitations as well as the statement under the lead for the section works. My sense is that the second comment can be deleted because it's redundant, it's un-referenced, and as worded it's misleading for this reason: the title isn't a specific claim about acceptable practices in writing history, but a general claim about use of pseudos in any context - that is, it states "it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment" NOT "at times it is a "necessary medicine" that historians fabricate history". Given that Eusebius is dealing with Plato's remarks on the use of pseudos by lawgivers, clearly the scope is broader than just writing history.

This would leave the second treatment under "Limitations" where it probably belongs. Although, even there I'd want to expand the material to indicate the significance of the fact that the "necessary medicine" remark occurs in the header, to point out that the Prae. Ev. is (roughly speaking) a commentary on Plato, and to elucidate the point Eusebius was actually making in the body of the text.

Actually, given all of this, you might (stress "might"!) have an argument for deleting any reference to "necessary medicine" as potentially an out of context misrepresentation (see here) - but personally I think that sort of approach borders on gaming the system. In any case, the allegation is just going to keep coming back, so better would be to cite WP:RS that show that the criticisms of Eusebius here are really quite tendentious. That, I think, would put the matter to rest once and for all.

Thanks for the kind words about the research, by the way. Unfortunately, it's mainly WP:OR or I'd have put it in the article already! -- Muzhogg (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Well said. As far as this statement: "at times it is a "necessary medicine" that historians fabricate history", it comes from the above referenced blogger's comment -- No one ever wrote it but the blogger.  --65.12.221.10 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for being contrary, but "Eusebius is also reported to have written later that at times it is a "necessary medicine" that historians fabricate history" is a citation from the article! I even referenced the offending section: works (see the last line). But I take it you mean that the comment derived from the blog and somehow worked its way into the article without somebody doing their due diligence. -- Muzhogg (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Right. This statement has obviously taken from the previously mentioned/referenced blog.  I don't think it should be in the article. Kroy Ellis --65.12.221.10 (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Saint?
I noticed he was listed as Top-Importance under the Wikiproject: Saints. I could not find him being listed as a saint anywhere in the article, so I was wondering if he is considered a saint in Christianity such as Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Thanks75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation Style
I went to add a citation to a more recent scholarly work, and realized that the citation style here is overly complex and could use a clean up. Anyone have any major problems if I do a little wikifying and organizing to the citations here? If I hear nothing by Thursday, I'm going to convert all the citations to Harvard citation style. It looks as though the article is already using it, but not via the Wikipedia functionality. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew

 * In this article, in the fifth paragraph under Early Life:

"The library's biblical and theological contents were more impressive: Origen's Hexapla and Tetrapla, a copy of the original Hebrew Version of the Gospel of Matthew, ..."

 * In the Wikipedia article on the |Gospel of Matthew, at the end of the first paragraph under Composition:

"it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew."

It seems highly likely that the latter article will have received more expert attention on this issue. I would suggest that this article should be edited accordingly.

(I apologise if I've written this badly or disobeyed the talk page rules. I do not normally edit Wikipedia, and I have done my best.) 90.213.215.88 (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)ASilver

Contradictory claims
The "Sources" paragraph says...

"Eusebius' own surviving works probably only represent a small portion of his total output."

The "Works" paragraph says...

"Of the extensive literary activity of Eusebius, a relatively large portion has been preserved." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The section "Onomosticon"
Since the section "Onomasticon" was getting long, and there was obviously much more to say about this important work, it has been moved as a "copy-edit" and placed in an article of its own by the name "Onomasticon (Eusebius)". --Davidbena (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Saint infobox
The saint infobox does not summarize any information found in the article and possibly contains original research. According to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE infoboxes should contain information already present in the body of the article.

The given references in the box don't directly support the information. The information in the "Influences" section is contradicted by the Wallace-Hadrill source used in the article. See Keeping the infobox could be misleading to casual viewers about his status as a saint. Perhaps the topic should be covered in a separate section before placing a box. If there is no objection, I will remove it for these reasons.

ThinkHat (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Could name be a form of Yosefus?
Could his name actually be Joseph pronounced in Hebrew Yossef, and in Jewish-Greek Yussivius or Yussiffus? (and written Josephus) פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Veneration
I can not find any information about Eusebius being venerated as a saint by the Syriac Orthodox Church, or any of the oriental orthodox churches.I believe this is misinformation on the editors part for not fact-,checking the Syriac calendar and the patriarchate’s position on Eusebius as a non-venerated but important church historian. 142.181.49.206 (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Eusebius "Deposed"
In the Article page of Eusebius there is a part that states he was "deposed" at a synod (because of his Arian views). Would not it be more accurate to state that he was (also) excommunicated from the Catholic Church by Pope Gregory XIII? Danjf (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eusebius


text:
CDT

CDT or CdT may refer to:

Medicine

 * Carbohydrate deficient transferrin, a transporter protein isoform typically increased in alcoholism
 * Compulsory drug test
 * Current Dental Terminology, a coding system of the American Dental Association
 * Cytolethal distending toxin, a bacterial genotoxin produced by Gram-negative bacteria
 * Clock drawing test
 * Clostridioides Difficile Toxin test that detects Clostridium difficile toxin A and Clostridium difficile toxin B

Chemistry

 * Cyclododecatriene, a cycloalkene used in the production of polyamides

Organisations

 * Canadian Deaf Theatre
 * CD Tenerife (Club Deportivo Tenerife), a Spanish football club
 * C.D. Tondela (Clube Desportivo de Tondela), a Portuguese football club
 * Center for Democracy and Technology
 * Centre for Doctoral Training or Doctoral Training Centre, an organisation of PhD programmes at UK universities
 * Children's Dance Theatre, University of Utah
 * China Datang Corporation, a power generation business in the People's Republic of China
 * China Digital Times, a bilingual news website covering Chinese politics
 * Confédération Démocratique du Travail:
 * Democratic Confederation of Labour (DRC), a trade union in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
 * Democratic Confederation of Labour (Morocco), a trade union
 * Crimson Dance Team, of Harvard College
 * Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (Centre de Traduction des Organes de l'Union Européenne)

Other

 * Cañon Diablo troilite (pyrrhotite), a standard for comparing sulfur isotopes
 * Causal dynamical triangulation, an approach to quantum gravity
 * Causal decision theory, a school of thought within decision theory
 * Central Daylight Time
 * Australia Central Daylight Time, a time zone in Australia
 * Central Daylight Time, observed in the North American Central Time Zone
 * CDT (TV station), a TV station in remote eastern and central Australia
 * Centre Daily Times, a newspaper for Centre County, Pennsylvania
 * Conceptual dependency theory
 * Constrained Delaunay triangulation
 * Continental Divide Trail
 * Craft, Design and Technology, a subject in schools in the United Kingdom
 * Eclipse C/C++ Development Tooling, see Eclipse (software)
 * IATA code of Castellón–Costa Azahar Airport
 * MRT station abbreviation of Caldecott MRT station
 * Colorado Department of Transportation
 * Colorado Department of Transportation

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: CDT


text:
Fanne Foxe

Annabel Battistella (February 14, 1936 – February 10, 2021), known professionally as Fanne Foxe, was an Argentine-American stripper best known for being involved in a 1974 sex scandal surrounding Arkansas Congressman Wilbur Mills. At the time, Mills was the chair of the United States House Committee on Ways and Means and a powerful Democratic politician. The scandal was one of the most reported political sex scandals of the 1970s. In 2009, Foxe was on the Time list of top 10 mistresses, and her affair with Mills was on the Bloomberg list of top 10 U.S. sex scandals.

Early life
Annabel Edith Villagra was born on February 14, 1936, in Nueve de Julio, a town southwest of Buenos Aires, Argentina. One of three children, her father was Nueve de Julio's medical officer and her mother was a nurse. She grew up enjoying basketball, hunting, and folk dancing. She was a pre-medical student at the University of Buenos Aires, then left at age 20 in 1956 after marrying Eduardo Battistella, a pianist who played in clubs. She then began dancing to accompany his piano playing act. By the early 1960s, their act took them to Miami, where she began stripping, and Baltimore. At this time, she began using the stage name Fanne Foxe at the behest of her agent.

Foxe emigrated to the United States in 1963 and became a legal resident in 1965. By the late 1960s, she was working in Washington, D.C. Although their marriage had collapsed, she allowed her husband to live with her in the Crystal Towers complex in Arlington County, Virginia, because, as she told The Washington Post, "I don't like him to spend money, and he is the father of my children."

Mills scandal
In summer 1973, Foxe was introduced to Wilbur Mills at the Silver Slipper club through a common friend and fellow performer. As chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mills was considered one of the most powerful members of the United States House of Representatives, and had been a minor contender for the Democratic nomination for president in 1972. By July 1973, Foxe and Mills were regular companions at the Silver Slipper. At the time, Foxe was the featured performer and was billed as the "Argentine Firecracker". Shortly after growing close to Mills, she stopped performing at the Silver Slipper. In August, Mills moved with his wife into the Crystal Towers complex, where they frequently played contract bridge with Foxe and her husband.

According to Foxe's memoir, Mills had promised to marry her if he could get a divorce. He had also taken her on a three-week vacation to Antigua. Foxe also said that she had been pregnant with Mills's child, but got an abortion to protect his reputation. Shortly before the affair became public, Foxe divorced Eduardo.

On the night of October 6–7, 1974, Mills and Foxe were at the Silver Slipper and got into a loud argument. While being driven back by a friend, the car they were in was observed speeding, swerving, and driving without headlights by the Washington, D.C. waterfront near the Jefferson Memorial at around 2:00 a.m. The United States Park Police pulled the vehicle over, and Foxe panicked, got out of the car screaming in a mix of English and Spanish, and attempted to flee the scene by jumping into the Tidal Basin, which had an average depth of 10 feet. The police pulled her out and handcuffed her. She had two black eyes, and police thought she was suicidal, so she was taken to St. Elizabeths Hospital for treatment. In later interviews, Foxe said she jumped because she wanted to protect Mills's reputation and was worried that the incident would affect her recently acquired American citizenship.

The incident attracted much publicity, but Mills was re-elected to his congressional seat in November 1974. Shortly after the election, Mills attended one of Foxe's burlesque performances at the Pilgrim Theater in Boston. Apparently drunk, Mills showed up and unsteadily walked onstage, prompting Foxe to say "Ladies and gentlemen, I have a visitor for you, and he wants to say hello. Mr. Mills, where are you?" Mills then gave a rambling speech onstage and then a backstage news conference in which he angrily announced that Foxe would no longer be performing. On December 10, 1974, Mills stepped down from his position as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and did not run for re-election in 1976, ending a 38-year congressional career.

The Foxe-Mills scandal was listed as number three in the top 10 U.S. sex scandals by Bloomberg in 2009, and Foxe was listed third on a list of Time magazine's top 10 mistresses.

Post-scandal
After the Mills incidents, Foxe continued working as a stripper, changing her stage title from "The Argentine Firecracker" to "The Tidal Basin Bombshell". A month after the October 1974 scandal, Bill O'Reilly interviewed her. He recounts that she told him of an interest to attend medical school after two more years of dancing. In summarizing her appearance at the Pilgrim Theater in Boston, he wrote that the crowd loved her performance.

Capitalizing on her notoriety, she was able to increase her appearance fees for performances at clubs. When hired by Michael Pinter Jr. for a December 1974 show at Club Juana in Orlando, Florida, she increased her fee for a two-week stint from $3,500 to $15,000 per week. On December 12, 1974, during the first week of her Orlando engagement, she was arrested for indecent exposure, allegedly after going completely nude during her act. Club owner Pinter was arrested for letting it happen. When arraigned on December 21, both Foxe and Pinter entered innocent pleas to the charges. The charges against both were dismissed on January 28, 1975, when the judge ruled that prosecutors failed to prove their case. After the Florida incident, Foxe announced her retirement from the stage. With the attention from the Mills scandal, she was able to land multiple media appearances and film offers.

In 1975, Battistella published the memoir The Stripper and the Congressman with the help of ghostwriter Yvonne Dunleavy. She also starred as herself in Posse from Heaven. With the proceeds from her fame, Battistella moved to an eight-bedroom house in Westport, Connecticut, with her three children from her marriage to Eduardo before 1976. In January and February 1976, she performed, but not as a stripper, at the Riverboat at the Empire State Building. In September 1976, she was featured in Playboy, and again in February 1977. In April 1977, she was interviewed in depth by Cheri magazine. Also in 1977, she starred in the documentary This Is America.

She also appeared in an off-Broadway production titled Women Behind Bars.

Later life and death
In 1980, Battistella married her manager, businessman Daniel Montgomery, and had a daughter before their 1985 divorce. In 1981, she gave an interview to The Washington Post in which she spoke about being upset that Mills claimed not to remember what he was doing during his affair, and was particularly hurt by his saying that he had "learned not to drink with foreigners".

Under the name Annabel Montgomery, she moved to the St. Petersburg, Florida, in the late 1980s. She earned a bachelor's degree in communications from the University of Tampa in 1995 and master's degree in marine science and business administration—both magna cum laude—from the University of South Florida in 2001 and 2004, respectively. She worked as a divemaster for the University of South Florida and participated in underwater filming in Cozumel, Mexico.

Foxe died on February 10, 2021, in Clearwater, Florida, four days before her 85th birthday.

Filmography

 * Posse from Heaven (1975)
 * This Is America (1977)
 * Hay que parar la delantera (1977)

title: Fanne Foxe


text: Category:Kansai region

title: Category:Kansai region


text: Category:Irish people

title: Category:Irish people


text:
King (magazine)

King is a website geared toward African-American and urban male audiences. It features articles about hip-hop and R&B as well as sports and fashion. The magazine is published by Townsquare Media and was a spinoff from XXL. The magazine was started in 2002. It ceased publication on March 31, 2009, citing failing ad sales as a result of the poor economy and plans to release monthly installments soon. It resumed publication, this time as a quarterly magazine, in late 2009. It was later suspended again, and the website was sold by Harris Publications to Townsquare Media in 2014.

King magazine is mainly characterized by its lavish photoshoots, which usually feature scantily clad women, often complete with an interview from the featured model. The subjects of these shoots range from professional models such as Melyssa Ford and Toccara Jones to well-known musicians and actresses, including Trina, Keyshia Cole and Elise Neal. It also features interviews with rappers. The magazine almost exclusively uses pictures from its photoshoots as the cover of the magazine. The Lycos 50 Daily Report noted the magazine received more online searches than Newsweek or Reader's Digest.

title: King (magazine)


text:
The Vanishing (1993 film)

The Vanishing is a 1993 American psychological thriller film directed by George Sluizer and starring Jeff Bridges, Kiefer Sutherland, Nancy Travis, and Sandra Bullock. It is a remake of Sluizer's 1988 French-Dutch film of the same name.

Plot
The film begins with chemistry professor Barney Cousins at his cabin, seemingly perfecting methods in which to conduct a successful kidnapping. He is so dedicated to his work that his wife Helene and his daughter Denise suspect he is having an affair.

Jeff Harriman goes on vacation with his girlfriend Diane Shaver, who vanishes without a trace at a gas station. Three years later, Jeff has become obsessed with finding out what happened, posting fliers and following leads relentlessly. Exhausted, he stops at a diner and meets a waitress named Rita who sympathizes with his plight and looks after him. A year later, the two are a couple and have settled in an apartment in Seattle. Jeff, who is attempting to write a novel, meets with a publisher who suggest that he write a book about the disappearance. Knowing this will upset Rita, he hides his project, buys a used military uniform at a surplus store and uses army reserve drills as a cover to continue his search. One weekend, Rita accesses Jeff's computerized rough draft of a book. After reading it, she discovers it's actually about Diane's disappearance. Rita tracks Jeff to his motel room and angrily confronts him. Jeff finally tells the truth about how Diane disappeared. Following Rita's ultimatum, Jeff abandons his search for Diane.

Some months later, Barney is on campus and discovers Diane's missing posters covered with other fliers. He surmises that Jeff has given up his quest for the truth. He decides to bait Jeff by sending him a letter to meet him at a country club to learn the truth about Diane, which Jeff does. While Barney secretly watches, Rita confronts Jeff again and tells him they are done. Rita records an outgoing answering machine message at their home, indicating that she has broken up with Jeff. When Jeff returns, he changes the message without Rita knowing. Barney arrives at Jeff's door and admits that he was responsible for Diane's disappearance. Jeff attacks him and demands answers. Barney promises to show Jeff what happened to Diane, but only if he agrees to go through exactly the same thing she did. Barney explains about his past: he broke his arm after jumping off a roof when he was little, and when he became a husband and father years later, he saved a girl from drowning. He states that this experience led him to an epiphany: With capability of great good also, could there come capability of great evil? The kidnapping of Diane was an attempt to answer that hypothesis.

In a short series of flashbacks, the build-up to the crime is shown: when Diane was in the gas station purchasing drinks for herself and Jeff, she asks Barney for a favor. She then compliments a bracelet that Barney is wearing, which was given to him by his daughter. Barney lies to Diane and claims to sell them, and then invites her to his car so she can buy one herself. In his car, Barney uses chloroform to subdue and kidnap her. Then Jeff is taken to the gas station where Diane went missing, and is told that if he drinks a cup of coffee which has been drugged, he will discover her fate by experiencing it. He does, and wakes up to find he has been buried alive in a coffin.

Rita calls home and listens to the changed outgoing message on the answering machine, which had incidentally recorded Barney's voice when he first confronted Jeff. Realizing that Jeff is in danger, she talks with the next door neighbor who witnessed the attack. She learns of Barney's identity and goes to his home and meets his daughter Denise. Not knowing the circumstances and on her way to meet a boy, Denise rides with Rita and gives her directions to her father's cabin. When Rita arrives, a violent fight ensues with Barney eventually gaining the upper hand. Barney offers Rita the same deal that he offers Jeff, but Rita outsmarts him. She lies to Barney and tells him that she has kidnapped Denise. She gets Barney to drink drugged coffee, but does not realize the drug takes 15 minutes to take effect. She goes in search of Jeff and finds a fresh mound of dirt. Believing that he has been buried alive, she digs him out, but is thwarted at the last minute by Barney. Jeff climbs out of the grave, kills Barney with the shovel, and embraces Rita. He sees another grave and finally accepts Diane's death. Jeff and Rita reunite as a couple and sell the story as a novel to a publishing company.

Cast

 * Jeff Bridges as Barney Cousins
 * Kiefer Sutherland as Jeff Harriman
 * Nancy Travis as Rita Baker
 * Sandra Bullock as Diane Shaver
 * Park Overall as Lynn
 * Maggie Linderman as Denise Cousins
 * Lisa Eichhorn as Helene Cousins
 * George Hearn as Arthur Bernard
 * Lynn Hamilton as Miss Carmichael

Production
Principal photography began on April 6, 1992. Filming took place in and around Washington State, including Seattle, Washington, where most of the film takes place. Locations in town includes the Seattle Yacht Club, the Pioneer Square Station, the Sur La Table at the Pike Place Market & the Aloha Street Apartments. The cabin by the lake at the beginning and for the final climax sequences at the end were filmed at Camp Omache near Monroe, Washington. The setting for the gas station where Diane goes missing, where Jeff waits by the car and where Jeff and Barney talk about Diane's fate was filmed at the Mountainside Shell Station at North Bend, Washington. The scene where Barney takes his family to the falls was filmed at Snoqualmie Falls at Snoqualmie, Washington. The second unit then went to Mount St. Helens to film the areas where Jeff and Diane go on their road trip. When filming was completed in Washington, the crew traveled to Cody, Wyoming, to film the sequence of Jeff's car breaking down in the tunnel. They filmed it at the Cody Tunnel. Finally, they went to Los Angeles, California, to film the scene where Rita is at the pool hall and where Jeff first meets Rita at the restaurant. Filming wrapped on June 21, 1992.

Release
The Vanishing was released in theatres on February 5, 1993, in 1,656 theatres. For its opening weekend, it landed at #4 at the box office grossing $5.0 million. It grossed $6.2 million in its first week. For the second weekend, it dropped to #7 grossing $3.5 million. Finally in its third weekend, it dropped out of the top-ten charts to #14, grossing $1.4 million. After three weeks in theatres, the film eventually made $12.3 million, giving a total of $14.5 million. It was considered to be a box office bomb, and failed to earn back its $20 million budget.

Reception
This remake received a mixed reaction and was the frequently compared poorly to the original, particularly for its happy ending. Variety called it "schematic and unconvincing", and Time Out's Nigel Floyd called it "a misjudged, lobotomized Hollywood remake." Mark Kermode summarized: "the original was about the banality of evil, but the remake became about the evil of banality. It was a mess." The Washington Post called it "a case study in how Hollywood can make a complete mess out of what was previously a marvelous film." Roger Ebert wrote "the movie methodically rewrote all that was good in the earlier version, turning its cold logic into trashy commercialism. The first movie was existential in its merciless unfolding. This one turns into a slasher movie with a cheap joke at the end. Desson Howe called the film "an inept, quasi-formulaic rehash of everything."

Salon named the film as the worst remake of all time.

On Rotten Tomatoes the film holds a 49% rating based on 37 reviews, with an average rating of 5.20/10. The consensus summarizes: "The Vanishing copies the form of its pulse-pounding predecessor but loses much of its thrilling function along the way, leaving American audiences with one more rote remake." On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 49 out of 100 based on 17 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".

title: The Vanishing (1993 film)


text:
Greater Buenos Aires

Greater Buenos Aires (Gran Buenos Aires, GBA), also known as the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area (Área Metropolitana de Buenos Aires, AMBA), refers to the urban agglomeration comprising the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and the adjacent 24 partidos (districts) in the Province of Buenos Aires. Thus, it does not constitute a single administrative unit. The conurbation spreads south, west and north of Buenos Aires city. To the east, the River Plate serves as a natural boundary.

Urban sprawl, especially between 1945 and 1980, created a vast metropolitan area of over 3,800 km² (1,500 mi²) - or 19 times the area of Buenos Aires proper. The 24 suburban partidos (counties) grew more than six-fold in population between the 1947 and 2022 censuses - or nearly 2.5% annually, compared to 1.4% for the nation as a whole.

While annual growth for the suburban area slowed to 0.8% between 2010 and 2022, the 14 million inhabitants in the entire 30-county area plus the City of Buenos Aires account for a third of the total population of Argentina and generate nearly half (48%) of the country's GDP.

History
The term Gran Buenos Aires ("Greater Buenos Aires") was first officially used in 1948, when Governor of Buenos Aires Province Domingo Mercante signed a bill delineating as such an area covering 14 municipalities surrounding the City of Buenos Aires. The term is also related to other expressions that are not necessarily well-defined: the "Buenos Aires' conurbation" (Conurbano Bonaerense), the "Greater Buenos Aires Agglomeration" (Aglomerado Gran Buenos Aires), and the "Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires" (Área Metropolitana Buenos Aires, AMBA). In colloquial speech, people refer to the "Buenos Aires' conurbation" as the set of municipalities that surround the City of Buenos Aires, and which are mostly populated by working-class or middle-class communities.

Definition

The National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INDEC) has defined Greater Buenos Aires. There are three main groups within the Buenos Aires conurbation. The first two groups (24 partidos) comprise the traditional conurbation, or the "conurbation proper", while the third group of six partidos is in the process of becoming fully integrated with the rest.

 * Fourteen fully urbanized partidos

 * Avellaneda
 * General San Martín
 * Hurlingham
 * Ituzaingó
 * José C. Paz
 * Lanús
 * Lomas de Zamora
 * Malvinas Argentinas
 * Morón
 * Quilmes
 * San Isidro
 * San Miguel
 * Tres de Febrero
 * Vicente López

 * Ten partidos partially urbanized

 * Almirante Brown
 * Berazategui
 * Esteban Echeverría
 * Ezeiza
 * Florencio Varela
 * La Matanza
 * Merlo
 * Moreno
 * San Fernando
 * Tigre

As urbanization continues and the conurbation grows, six additional partially urbanized partidos (totaling 1,062,991 population of as the 2022 census) are now fully connected with the conurbation:
 * Six partidos not yet conurbated

 * Escobar (256,449)
 * General Rodríguez (143,211)
 * Marcos Paz (67,154)
 * Pilar (395,072)
 * Presidente Perón (102,128)
 * San Vicente (98,977)

title: Greater Buenos Aires


text:
User:Peer van Swigchem

was born in 1955, presently lives in Amsterdam (the Netherlands), and welcomes any comments on his contributions (on Samuel Erewhon Butler and his works), either by mail or on discussion pages.

title: User:Peer van Swigchem


text:
Edelaraudtee

Edelaraudtee (Southwestern railway) is an Estonian railway infrastructure owner and freight operator.

Founded in 1997, Edelaraudtee operates freight services on lines from Tallinn to Rapla, Pärnu & Viljandi owned by Edelaraudtee Infrastruktuuri AS. Prior to 2014, the company also operated the domestic inter-city passenger routes that are currently operated by Elron. Before the transfer of the passenger traffic to Elron, Edelaraudtee employed around 500 staff and carried approximately 1.8 million passengers per year.

History
In November 2000, the British private railway company GB Railways acquired an interest in Edelaraudtee through the Estonian subsidiary GB Railways Eesti AS in exchange for 10 million Kroon ($540,000) along with investment and stock increase deals over a five year period as part of the agreement. Accordingly, GB Railways owned 20% of the shares, with the majority owners being Edelaraudtee chairman Henn Ruubel and lawyer Marcel Vichmannile. In 2002, GB Railways' investment in the company was only valued at £70,000; the British business provided management to the company on a fee basis. Around this time, the State Audit Office publicly criticised the subsidy system in use upon Estonia's railways and called for reforms.

During 2008, Edelaraudtee announced that it would withdraw entirely from conducting freight operations on its own infrastructure and would instead focus on passenger transport. It was speculated that Estonian Railways would launch freight operations on Pärnu and Viljandi lines as a consequence. At the time of the announcement,Edelaraudtee was one of three passenger operators running services on the infrastructure of Estonian Railways. By January 2012, Edelaraudtee was Estonia’s largest passenger railway operator; that month, the company's trains transported 145,000 passengers, the greater number of travellers recorded in the five years prior. This improvement partially explained by the recent completion of renovation work on the Tallinn-Viljandi line.

During early 2009, a new e-ticket booking system was introduced by Edelaraudtee, allowing passengers to purchase tickets from anywhere in the world. On 16 March 2012, the company launched a new information display solution based on GPS, that provided passengers real-time information on the trains’ locations via the internet and physical displays. The developed information project, whose part is that solution, had an objective to provide passengers necessary opportunities to acquire trip information. Edelaraudtee had plans to equip all serviced train stations and stops with QR codes to link passengers with relevant station’s or train stop’s information display on the Internet.

On 1 January 2010, Edelaraudtee relaunched services on the Tartu to Valga line after the line had previously been closed in April 2008 for extensive repair work. Edelaraudtee operated two services per day between the two locations. During 2012, following completion of upgrade work on the line between Türi and Viljandi, 120kmph running was permitted, reducing the journey time to Viljandi by 20 minutes, for a total travel time of 2 hours and 22 minutes.

In May 2013, the Estonian government declared that Eesti Liinirongid, later rebranded as Elron, would be the sole domestic passenger operator in Estonia, compelling Edelaraudtee to reorientate its operations away from this sector. A legal dispute between Edelaraudtee and the Estonian government broke out over compensation for lost revenue from the operator's forced withdrawal from passenger services. The final day of Edeleraudtee's service was December 31, 2013, however the final Tallinn-Türi train called at Kolu station and Türi station after midnight, on January 1, 2014.

All of Edelaraudtee's station stops open on its final day of operation were taken over, except for Kolu stop.

During 2017, Edelaraudtee publicly stated its regret in response to the Estonian government's decision to discontinue train traffic on the Lelle-Parnu section of the railway network to avoid the need to expend approximately €17 million.

Throughout the 2010s, Edelaraudtee examined various opportunities to increase the operating speeds of certain lines, often in collaboration with Elron.

In 2021, Edelaraudtee opened a new control center in Türi; built at a cost of €3 million, this center will be fed all infrastructure data and remove the need for station managers to be present. Information is displayed digitally, and has been structured in a manner which permits control operations to be entirely automated.

Under the Rail Baltica programme, a new high-speed railway trunk line will be built between the three Baltic states; it is planned to intersect with Edelaraudtee's existing infrastructure along the Loone-Hagudi section.

Rolling stock
Freight operations are handled by Czech-built ChME3 diesel shunters, while passenger services were provided by around twenty DR1A/B diesel multiple units.

Delivery of 18 electric and 20 diesel Stadler FLIRT trains built by Stadler Rail started in 2012, and by June 2014 all trains had arrived in Estonia. Since 2014, all services are operated by Elron using the new trains.

title: Edelaraudtee


text:
Category:Film score composers

Film score composer is a general term referring to an individual who writes music for film.

title: Category:Film score composers


text:
Francisco Delicado

Francisco Delicado (or Delgado) (c. 1480 – c. 1535) was a Spanish writer and editor of the Renaissance. Little is known about his life. He was born in Cordoba, Spain and, for uncertain reasons, he moved to Rome, where he Italianized his surname to Delicado. After the sack of Rome, he went to Venice where he wrote his novel Portrait of Lozana: The Lusty Andalusian Woman (El retrato de la Loçana Andaluza, 1528), that continues on the lines of the novel in dialogue exemplified by Celestina. The book is a social and historical portrait of Rome and its dark side in the first years of the 16th century, and one of the first works of the picaresque novel. He was also a disciple of Antonio de Nebrija (who wrote Gramática de la lengua castellana, the first extensive work on Spanish language grammar) and editor of books such as Amadis de Gaula (1533), Celestina (1531–1534), Primaleon (1534) and some medical treatises like El modo de adoperare el legno de India (about the use of leño de Indias in the treatment of syphilis) and De consolatione infirmorum (a work that is only mentioned at the end of Portrait of Lozana but of which no copies are known). He himself suffered of syphilis. His favourable portrait of Jews has led some to suspect that he was a Converso.

title: Francisco Delicado


text:
Category:Classical music

This category deals with Western or European classical music (in contrast to folk or popular music).

There are also other classical music traditions in other parts of the world; for those genres, please see Category:Classical and art music traditions.

For the specific period of Western music 1730–1820, see Category:Classical period (music).

title: Category:Classical music


text:
Nancy Travis

Nancy Ann Travis (born September 21, 1961) is an American actress. She began her career on Off-Broadway theater, before her first leading screen role in the ABC television miniseries Harem opposite Omar Sharif. Her breakthrough came in 1987, playing Sylvia Bennington in the comedy film Three Men and a Baby. She later starred in its sequel, Three Men and a Little Lady (1990).

Travis has starred in many films, including Internal Affairs (1990), Air America (1990), Passed Away (1992), Chaplin (1992), So I Married an Axe Murderer (1993), Greedy (1994), and Fluke (1995). On television, Travis went on to star in the CBS sitcom Almost Perfect in 1995, which ran two seasons, and in the short-lived Work with Me (1999). In 2002, she played a leading role in the ABC miniseries Rose Red, and later joined the cast of the CBS sitcom Becker for its final two seasons.

From 2011 to 2021, Travis starred as Vanessa Baxter in the ABC/Fox sitcom Last Man Standing. From 2018 to 2019, she also starred opposite Michael Douglas in the Netflix comedy series The Kominsky Method. In 2023, Travis starred in the Hallmark Channel neo-Western drama series, Ride.

Early life
Travis was born in Queens, the daughter of Theresa, a social worker, and Gordon Travis, a sales executive. Travis was raised in Framingham, Massachusetts, and Baltimore, Maryland. She was raised Catholic. She graduated with a Bachelor of Arts from New York University.

Career
Travis's first job after graduating from high school was in a play, It's Hard to Be a Jew, at The American Jewish Theatre in NYC. She also acted in commercials, notable for Twinkies and Levi's Jeans. After that, Travis appeared in a stage version of Neil Simon's Brighton Beach Memoirs and was a founding member of the Off-Broadway theater company Naked Angels. She appeared in their Frank Pugliese play Aven U-Boys, as well as in King of Connecticut. She made her Broadway debut in I'm Not Rappaport in 1985. She starred in Athol Fugard's My Children, My Africa. In 1985, Travis made her screen debut playing supporting role in the made-for-television biographical film Malice in Wonderland starring Elizabeth Taylor. The following year she received star-billing role in the two-part ABC miniseries, Harem opposite Omar Sharif. She later made guest-starring appearances in television series Spenser: For Hire and Tales from the Darkside.

In 1987, Travis made her big screen debut playing Sylvia Bennington in the comedy film Three Men and a Baby starring Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg, and Ted Danson. The film was one of the biggest American box office hits of 1987 grossing $240 million worldwide. She reprised her role in its sequel, Three Men and a Little Lady in 1990. In 1988, Travis had supporting role in two films: crime comedy Married to the Mob, and the sports drama Eight Men Out. She starred opposite Hal Holbrook and Eva Marie Saint in the made-for-television Christmas drama film I'll Be Home for Christmas later in 1988. In 1990, Travis starred in four films: played the female lead as the wife of Andy García's character in the crime thriller Internal Affairs, was in the box-office bomb action comedy Loose Cannons, starred alongside Mel Gibson and Robert Downey Jr. in the action comedy Air America and Three Men and a Little Lady. In 1992 she starred opposite Bob Hoskins in the comedy film Passed Away and was featured in the biographical film Chaplin opposite Robert Downey Jr., portraying Joan Barry, the woman who filed a paternity suit against Chaplin. The following year, Travis starred alongside Jeff Bridges and Kiefer Sutherland in the psychological thriller The Vanishing, and starred in the romantic comedy-drama So I Married an Axe Murderer as the bride of Mike Myers' character. Travis also starred with Peter Gallagher and Isabella Rossellini in the Tom Cruise-directed episode of the Showtime neo-noir anthology series Fallen Angels in 1993. Travis starred alongside Michael J. Fox in the comedy film Greedy in 1994. The following year she went to star in the box office bomb fantasy drama film Fluke, the action-comedy Destiny Turns on the Radio with Dylan McDermott, and the HBO crime thriller Body Language opposite Tom Berenger. In 1996, Travis appeared in Whoopi Goldberg's comedy film, Bogus.

In 1995, Travis moved to television with the leading role as a female executive producer of a television cop show, in the CBS sitcom Almost Perfect. The show was canceled after two seasons. She did voice-over work in the animated series Duckman from 1994 to 1997. She starred in an episode of Robert Altman's anthology series, Gun in 1997, and went to star and produce Lifetime romantic drama film, My Last Love (1999). In 1999, Travis also produced and starred and in the short-lived CBS sitcom Work with Me. Due to low ratings, the show was cancelled after four episodes. The following year she returned to cinema playing supporting role in the drama film Auggie Rose. She also starred in the political comedy-drama film Running Mates with Three Men and a Baby co-star Tom Selleck.

In 2002, Travis had the leading role of psychology professor Dr. Joyce Reardon in four-hour television adaptation of Stephen King's Rose Red. In 2002, Travis joined the cast of the CBS sitcom Becker as Chris Connor. She starred in the show for its final two seasons, replacing the series' original female lead, Terry Farrell. She appeared in the 2005 comedy-drama film The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and the 2007 ensemble romantic drama The Jane Austen Book Club adapted from the 2004 novel of the same name by Karen Joy Fowler. She also appeared in the 2007 made-for-television film The Party Never Stops: Diary of a Binge Drinker. From 2007 to 2009, Travis starred in the TBS sitcom The Bill Engvall Show as Bill's wife Susan. In 2009 she starred in the Hallmark Channel film Safe Harbor, about a happily married couple, Doug (Treat Williams) and Robbie Smith (Travis) about to retire and spend their days cruising the world on their sailboat. In 2010, she starred in the television films The Pregnancy Pact, In My Shoes and was a guest star in two episodes of Desperate Housewives. In 2011, she guest starred in the television series Grey's Anatomy and How I Met Your Mother.

In 2011, Travis was cast in the ABC sitcom Last Man Standing opposite Tim Allen. Travis also was cast in the same time in The CW medical drama series Hart of Dixie as Emmeline "Mrs. H" Hattenbarger, but due to her commitments with the 20th Century Fox-produced Last Man Standing left the show after two episodes. Last Man Standing was canceled in 2017, after six seasons and 130 episodes, but was revived by Fox in the fall of 2018. The show debuted on September 28, 2018, and had its highest rating since season two. The series ended in 2021 after 194 episodes.

From 2017 to 2018, Travis played Brendan Gleeson's ex-wife in the crime thriller series Mr. Mercedes. In 2018, Travis was cast as a female lead opposite Michael Douglas and Alan Arkin in the Netflix comedy series The Kominsky Method, created by Chuck Lorre. In 2022, she returned to film, starring opposite Hilary Swank in the drama Ordinary Angels directed by Jon Gunn. She next was cast in the Hallmark Channel Neo-Western drama series Ride playing the role of Isabel McMurray, the family matriarch. The series was canceled after one season later that year.

Personal life
In 1994, Travis married Robert N. Fried, the former president and CEO of Savoy Pictures and Founder and former CEO of Hallmark Movies Now (formerly known as SpiritClips and FeeIn). They have two sons: Benjamin E., and Jeremy. She starred in the 2007 short film Sally, featuring Benjamin and written by her husband.

title: Nancy Travis


text: Category:Criminal law

title: Category:Criminal law


text:
Category:Popular music

Popular music contains a variety of genres intended for mass consumption of the general public, and propagated over the radio and similar media.

title: Category:Popular music


text: Category:Popular music artists

title: Category:Popular music artists


text: Category:Provinces of Ireland

title: Category:Provinces of Ireland