Ted Hoffman

Mountainman, regarding Protrepticus, Paedagogus, Stromata, you are supposed to tell us:
1. By what method of composition Eusebius wrote them.
2. If it was "simply a rehash and summary of the material he had already gathered in other works", why was he repeating them here? What value would it add?
3. What is the approximate number of scribes/authors who were employed in this "conspiracy"?
4. Is Origen to be included in that list or not? Are you aware that there are certain issues about which Origen and Tertullian irreconciliably disagree about? If you do, state them. Now.
5. Through what mechanism or signature do you detect Eusebius' hand? Are you familiar with Ken Olson's argument about why Eusebius fabricated the TF? Do you have any stylistic arguments for your thesis?
6. Why wasn't the Gospel of the Egyptians included amongst the Canonical gospels?
7. How do you explain the theological conflict between Marcion's Docetic Jesus and Ignatius' HJ if the same mind was behind their authorship?
8. How do you explain the conflict between Galatians 4:4 , Epistle to Diognetus, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Marcion - which hold that knowledge about Christ is obtained through revelation, from those that assert that Jesus had a ministry on earth?

mountainman

In the fourth century under the rise of Constantine Eusebius
would have had access to perhaps every ancient text available
in the Roman empire, and this would have certainly been the
case after the year 324 CE when Constantine became supreme.

Texts written by greek speaking philosophers relating to Platonic
or to Pythagorean themes, might have easily been interspersed
with references to new and strange Roman god. For example,
here is what Arnaldo Momigliano writes concerning the appropriation
of a Jewish text:

Christian initiative was such that it did not
hesitate to appropriate Jewish goods also.
Pseudo-Philo’s Liber antiquitatum Biblicarum
was originally a Jewish handbook of Biblical history.
It seems to have been written its Hebrew
for Jews in the first century A.D.,
it was later done into Greek, and, to all appearances,
in, the fourth century, it was changed into a Christian handbook
and translated into Latin (21).

--- Arnaldo Momigliano
Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century A.D.
* This essay first appeared in A. Momigliano, ed.,
The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century,
The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, pp. 79—99 (1)

Eusebius is better described as a theological romancer.
He generated fictional accounts by order of Constantine.


He was repeating the material, but it was being presented as if it were
the novel idea of an author (whom Eusebius calls Clement of Alexandria)
writing at the close of the second, and the opening of the third century.

He is incrementally marshalling together a mass of writings which he will
then purport to have been written in the prenicene epoch. An army of
testimony from a large series of authors, whom Eusebius in his theological
romance, paints as "christian" by their common use of standard christian
themes, and mentions.


Listen Ted. Let's forgo the use of the "conspiracy card".
Absolute military supremacy and power, such as that possessed
by any one of a number of despots or dictators known to students
of history is all that is required to get such a publication
as "Constantine's Bible" off the ground.

If you want a better word than "conspiracy" I suggest you use
the term coined by emperor Julian, namely fabrication.

It is, I think, expedient
to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced
that the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

--- Julian c.362 CE

The number of scribes is immaterial under the power structure
that Constantine would have possessed. They were immaterial
because they were totally expendable. Only the editor, Eusebius,
directly responsible to Constantine himself (YES! Constantine is
today recognised as possessing one of the "emminent minds of
a christi8an theologician" in his times.).

The number of authors whose works were appropriated however may
be quite large. It is possible that Eusebius largely polluted
existing treatises, by the process described above by Momigliano.

The principle issue here is the chronology.


Origen may indeed have been a real author of antiquity, whose
works were then appropriated by Eusebius. If this is the case,
then Origen wrote exclusively about the Hebrew Bible, for the
new testament was yet to be invented in the foruth century.

This explains a great deal of the "Origenist controversies" that
were explicated by Rufinius, and where it was necessary for the
works of Origen to be "harmonised" to the new testament, and the
requirement that there must have been heretics at work, even in
the time of Origen, who were altering Origen's work. I have
elsewhere posted on this issue, but noone wanted to take it further.

However, Origen in writing about the new testament, I postulate to
be Eusebius, writing from the fourth century.

The question as to whether Pamphilus, Eusebius' namesake, was part
of the team operative under Constantine, is interesting. His
martyrdom takes on an unusual aspect.

Inconsistencies between Origen and Tertullian are part of the plot.
There are inconsistencies all throughout the fabrication of the
Galilaeans, totally thoughout the gospels, and the rest of the new
testament. It is the modus operandi to provide a bit of truth
and a bit of fiction, so as not to stray too far from the major
theme, but to provide inconsistent details, to encourage a certain
amount of erudite controversy.

Eusebius is also Celsus, writing from the second century. Certainly
Eusebius does not worry about irreconcilable disagreements, and in
fact, he plays upon the greater schemes of calumny and of various
tribes of heretics, and herecies. I am aware of some of the issues
about which Origen and Tertullian appear to disagree, but there is
a limit to my listing these. My argument Ted, however, is that this
implicate lack of integrity is purposeful, and evident throughout the
entire fabrication of the Galilaeans.



Yes I am familiar with Ken Olson's argument on the fabrication of the TF,
and also the following similar argument from Kerry Shirts:

"Eusebius studied Josephus diligently, and could thus masquerade as he, except when he used the word 'tribe' to describe the Christians. All the literature from the Ante-Nicene Fathers show they never used the word 'tribe' or 'race' with reference to the Christians, was [sic] either by the Fathers or when they quoted non-Christian writers. Tertullian, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, Rufinus--none use 'tribe' to refer to Christians. Eusebius is the first to start the practice."

--- Kerry Shirts, "Did Josephus Mention Jesus?"

My thesis differs in scope from all others because I am considering
the global implications of Eusebius writing fiction; namely that the
entire package and mass of writings tendered by Eusebius (known as
the preNicene authors) including the new testament, was actually
written by order of Constantine i9n the fourth century.

So far I have not been cited evidence to refute this hypothesis.
It's been a year, and I believe I have not behaved unreasonably.


Constantine vetoed it.

The same modus operandi of using a pseudo-history of herecies.
The theological conflict was not of paramount importance at the time.
The social and political implications of the appearance of a new religion
would dominate any "theological considerations".

I am considering a non-standard evolution of "christian tradition".

The entire package, including Marcion's texts and Ignatian texts were dumped
in the empire in the fourth century at the Council of Nicaea. There need
be zero reason for the exact details of the "theology" is the theology is
simply a stack of theological romance and fiction, written by order.

The major controversy, social and political, to be understood at this time
is the Arian controversy, and this cannot be understood without examining
the very words of Arius. These words have always been presumed to be
theological. But they may also be seen to be historical comments about Jesus.

From my perspective, the conflicts exist in an extensive theological romance
and fiction story, itself a module of the fabrication of the galilaeans. It
is likely we are not seeking an explanation from a historical exposition, but
a fiction, written at a specific time in history.

In fact, the Historia Augusta was written in the same century, and it
is not outside the limits of possibility that this fictious political history
publication was sponsored by Constantine, as part of the fabrication of the G.

Cyril of Alexandria tells us that Julian wrote that he was convinced that the
fabrication of the Galilaeans was a fiction composed by wicked men. But it is
also not outside the bounds of possibility, that one of the things that Cyril
could not bring himself to refute, was one of the "matters" which he censored
from the writings of Julian. Namely that Julian actually named these
wicked men, and revealed them to be Constantine and "the wretched' Eusebius.

Ted Hoffman

Mountainman,
You are saying that the "implicate lack of integrity is purposeful" and at the same time arguing that the "theological conflict was not of paramount importance at the time".
If the lack of integrity was purposeful, then how exactly would things be if these texts were indeed written by different authors who did not agree with each other on theological issues? How different would things be then compared to a situation whereby a single author is planting bogus conficts in texts he is authoring himself? What about the schisms in the church and the sects? How do you account for them?
Why do you believe that theological conflict was not important? Why were the several we know about councils assembled? Aryanism saw people get killed and heretics were burnt at the stake - how can you say that theological conflicts were not important?

mountainman

The only difference would be in the details (eg: in the case of
Clement of Alexandria) of the "Ecclesiastical History", leaving
the essential "message" of the gospels largely unaffected.
Conversely, should the gospels be changed at various places
in their details, their essential import --- "God of the Observable
Universe has been subjected to Roman Imperial discipline" ---
at the basis of a new Roman religion would not have been
unduly perturbed.

The "exactly how would things be" needs to be understood from this perspective. In the fourth century perhaps 5% of the population
were literate. Whatever was written down and published was subject
for discussion up until the time of Constantine. Whatever at all it
was that Constantine desired to have at that time in the year of
331 CE published in this new "BIBLE", he so ordered it.

My argument is that what we see today as the prenicene history of the evolution of christs and christianities (to use Jay's terminology) may
not in fact have occurred in ancient history, but may have been invented,
and implemented by Constantine. Its history may be fictitious.
Thus we are dealing with the implementation of a new and strange
Roman religion by a dictator: the empire was given an imperially
sponsored story of a new (ONE AND TRUE) god.

Constantine appeared to support the new god.
WTF was the empire to do?

In this situation, the beginnings of christianity was by an imperial decree.
And everyone was expected to believe the stories. The emperor did.
Dont you?

I consider the possibility that there were no churches or sects before
the Council of Nicaea, at which time Constantine summoned attendees from
his recently subjugated and wealthy eastern empire c.325 CE.

At that time he gave them the choice of either embracing his new and
strange christian religion, or alternatively joing Arius in the outer
darkness. All attendees with few exceptions signed on the dotted line.
Immediately they became Constantine's new "Bishops", and the new religion
was thus born out of mili]tary supremacism.

After the council, and after Constantine's death, power struggles arose
with those who then controlled the new imperial "arm of power".


Because basically christainity did not evolve over hundreds of years.
Rather it evolved out of a military supremacist council at which time
the despot in power coerced the eastern empire to embrace a brand new
religion, that had miraculously been vouch-safed to the boss.

The ones before Nicaea were in the west with Constantine who was
beta-testing the new literature and presentation. Nicaea was the
official implementation date of the new religion.

Subsequent councils became interested in the details of the texts.
Under Constantine, and then Constantius II, the state religion had
alot to discuss. The men in power liked to discuss things. Ammianus
tells us that the highways were covered with galloping bishops.

Arianism and Aryanism should not be confused. The Arian controversy
is still just that Ted --- noone knows what it was really about, but
we are told it was about theology. But at the basis of the Arian
controversy, should any party sincerely wish to seek it out, is not
a philosophy or an ism of any form. At the basis of the Arian
controversy is one man, Arius, and his words.

What were his words? They are preserved in the Nicaean "Oath".
Do they relate to the theology of a 300 year memory of Jesus?
Or do they relate to the history of a recently coined fiction?


Arius was probably killed, and his writings destroyed.
Why? Because he voiced an objection to Constantine's agenda.

After the generations past, the words of Arius became to represent
other things. The victors write their history in their own terms.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Peter and Mountainman,

This is just a note to say that I'm quite enjoying this debate between two honest and brilliant historical investigators with quite different methodologies, presuppositions, and approaches. If we compare the dates of material on earlychristianwritings and Mountainman's website (312 was a busy year) we can clearly see the quite different results.

Peter Kirby's methodology reminds me of Robert Price, very precise, ground up, skeptical of everything and building bit by bit. Mountainman reminds me of Earl Doherty, in the way he intuits a striking revolutionary hypothesis that has a significant amount of evidence both in its favor and against it, and defends it vigorously against sharp attacks from all directions. Both approaches can be of great scientific value and very helpful in understanding history.

Lately, I have been thinking that the Constantine-Euseeian Christian Conspiracy may have a lot more to it than I previously supposed. My main modification and objection to Mountainman's hypothesis at the moment is that I see gnostic and heretical Christian texts and groups as having a real history. The multitude of different doctrines and practices surrounding the worship of the mystery Gods Jesus and/or Christ are exactly what we would expect to find of a religion spreading wildly through different ancient cities with a variety of customs and ideologies. There was no need or reason for Constantine and Eusebius to make up any of these groups.

In fact, I suggest that Constantine and Eusebius' objective was to dissolve the dozens of competing and quite different Christians groups and replace them with one largely new-type Christianity scattered to the ends of the earth that was made in the image of Constantine. (It is not actually much unlike the way that George Bush's policies has radically refashioned the United States over the last seven years.)

Just as Eusebius made up a fictitious history for his church, he also made up a phony past history of conflict between his brand new church and various older gnostic and heretical Christian groups. There were lots of texts of Christian heretics and gnostic groups attacking each other for him to revise and label them as orthodox.

So, I guess, at the moment, if I were to date most of the works of Early Christianity I would have to bracket them thusly: 150*edited 312, 175*edited 315, 205*edited 317, etc.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Toto

Jay - the problem that most of us have with mountainman's theory is that he persists in claiming that Eusebius invented Christianity out of whole cloth under Eusebius' direction, and that he forged not only all of the gospels, but all of the gnostics, and all of the heretics and pre-Nicene church fathers.

It is quite conceiveable that Eusebius took an existing Christian movement and shaped its documentary history (as many historians do) or that he forged a few key documents (as some historians have done). But the massive amount of forgery to create a history of a non-existant movement, including dissenters and variant stories, seems improbable at best.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Yes, I agree that the hypothesis does go too far in its complete attribution of all texts including the gospels to the Constantine conspiracy. But it does draw attention to the need to seriously examine every pre-Nicene document and not accept either the date or authorship because it fits neatly into a Eusebean historical schema. As someone once said, to straighten a stick, you need to bend it in the opposite direction a bit.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

Toto, your assessment appears to ignore the precedent set
by the very existence and nature of the Historia Augusta.

A pseudo political history is tendered along with a pseudo
ecclesiastical history to the empire of the fourth century.

I am wondering whether anyone has done stylometric analyses
on either of these two histories, despite their being written in
two different source languages.

The WIKI article states re: Historia Augusta:

Bogus documents and authorities

A peculiarity of the work is its inclusion of a large number of purportedly authentic documents such as extracts from Senate proceedings and letters written by imperial personages. Records like these are quite distinct from the rhetorical speeches often inserted by ancient historians – it was accepted practice for the writer to invent these himself – and on the few occasions when historians (such as Sallust in his work on Catiline or Suetonius in his Twelve Caesars) include such documents, they have generally been regarded as genuine; but almost all those found in the Historia Augusta have been rejected as fabrications, partly on stylistic grounds, partly because they refer to military titles or points of administrative organisation which are otherwise unrecorded until long after the purported date, or for other suspicious content. The History moreover cites dozens of otherwise unrecorded historians, biographers, letter-writers, knowledgeable friends of the writers, and so on, most of whom must be regarded as figments of the author's fertile and fraudulent imagination.