I know when he wrote. Why would you assume I don't?
He is basically the arch myth-maker who defined orthodox view on early Christianity. Much of the subject of series study of the topic is overturning myths made popular by Eusebius. Of course the conservatives would say he is an 'excellent source' because he is 'the' source.
To claim he is considered an 'excellent source' by all secular christian historians isn't really accurate, particularly about early christian history.
He has also been called forger, a dishonest historians, a polemicist, a propagandist and many things. And there are good arguments and example for many of these claims.
To just outright claim he is this perfect historian isn't accurate. Specifically when it comes to christian history, as he clearly has a very, very strong bias. So Eusebius in 30 claiming 'Christians' did X, 100s years earlier isn't credibly unless he actually can substantiate this.
There is very significant criticism of Eusebius work. Both from a Christian and a non-christian perspective.
He is basically the arch myth-maker who defined orthodox view on early Christianity. Much of the subject of series study of the topic is overturning myths made popular by Eusebius. Of course the conservatives would say he is an 'excellent source' because he is 'the' source.
To claim he is considered an 'excellent source' by all secular christian historians isn't really accurate, particularly about early christian history.
He has also been called forger, a dishonest historians, a polemicist, a propagandist and many things. And there are good arguments and example for many of these claims.
To just outright claim he is this perfect historian isn't accurate. Specifically when it comes to christian history, as he clearly has a very, very strong bias. So Eusebius in 30 claiming 'Christians' did X, 100s years earlier isn't credibly unless he actually can substantiate this.
There is very significant criticism of Eusebius work. Both from a Christian and a non-christian perspective.