Jayhawker Soule

Actually, what it states is: "More important, but scarcely better accredited, is Erbes' contention (Zeitschrift f. Kirchengesch., XXVI, 1905, 20-31) that the feast was brought in by Constantine as early as 330-35."

I would be interested to see how he substantiates this. However, even if true, that is not the same as saying that Constantine "introduced 'missing elements' to Christianity like ... Sunday as a worship day", particularly if "the Lord's Day" had long been counterposed to Shabbat in an ongoing effort to 'dejudaize' an increasingly gentile church.

Ted Hoffman

That is the Church's position. Attitude and fact cannot be bifurcated easily in the absence of clear evidence.

How about we substitute "introduced 'missing elements' to Christianity" with some other phrase then? like, say "codified Sunday as a day of worship" or "codified the symbolism of the cross"

GakuseiDon

Let's be clear on this: He is quoting Plato - those weren't his words. It follows passages relating to how to teach about the nature of God. Earlier in the letter Eusebius had written:
This goes well with the passage that Eusebius himself writes:
So Eusebius is using Plato to make a comment about the contents of the OT, and that's about all. As Pearse says:
History, as such, is not under discussion in the work at all. In this passage, a piece of Plato is discussed, and the way in which the Hebrew scriptures acknowledge the inability of most men to reason (and how, unlike the philosophers, they don't exclude that class of men) and embody it as part of their message is outlined.

Of course, Eusebius may have been a lying so-and-so anyway, but you need to keep in mind that he quoted Plato: "Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.". You may as well say that this is evidence that he went out of his way to be truthful in his histories.

What is his tall story?

Jayhawker Soule

You are better aquainted with this stuff, but it certainly sounds preferable to me, particularly if it's understood that this ruling apparently was consonant with earlier rulings and with earlier Christian practices. So, for example,My concern is that the 'Constantine conspiracy' may be more a case of seeing what one wants to see. You already seem to be embellishing Constantine's role.

Toto

Pearse has tried to rehabilitate Eusebius, but he made the initial mistake of assuming that the section headings were not part of Eusebius' original writing. You can read more about this controvery by looking up a thread titled "Eusebius the liar."

Basically, Eusebius endorses Plato's royal lie. A royal lie is still a lie.

GakuseiDon

Pearse's comments also allow for the section heading to have been written by Eusebius.

Sure - just as a doctor may lie to his patient in order to calm him, and that is still a lie also. But we don't usually then say that things he says away from patients is a lie without good reason.

Is there any evidence that Eusebius carried out wholesale lying in producing his histories? Is there a list somewhere?

Toto

They probably do now, after Richard Carrier corrected him.

But it's still a lie.

How would we prove it? For the most part, there is no standard against which to measure his history, and we don't have his secret notes about how he fabricated X, Y, or Z. We do know that some of the things he reported are impossible or improbable. In another thread on Hegesippus, Jay Raskin is trying to show that Eusebius invented Hegesippus.

Peter Kirby

Why assume that Eusebius started writing his Ecclesiastica Historica after the conversion of Constantine?

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

The whole Eusebius the liar business is now old hat. The passage makes clear that he is not talking about lies because he refers to the Old Testament doing the same thing. There is simply no way that Eusebius or anything other Christian would say the OT contains lies. Therefore 'lie' is a mistranslation being used with mischevous intent. The correct term, as is blindlingly obvious from the context, should be fable or parable or figurative speech.

We also have no firm evidence Eusebius ever forged anything else. The whole idea is an atheist myth that they should now drop.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Ted Hoffman

I do not think its a necessary assumption (because even if he had written it earlier, Constantine would have wanted the rough edges to be smoothened out) although writing Church History would have been a monumental undertaking and in such a polarised society, writing such a history without being 'comissioned' by a higher power may have resulted is suspicions and would probably have been rejected as illegitimate. Eusebius either needed to be in a position commanding respect in the Church, or needed the backing of someone higher up. Even Josephus wrote under the patronage of the Flavian family and it is known that, like Eusebius who flattered Constantine, Josephus too flattered his patrons.

More importantly, Eusebius' exact date and place of birth are unknown [this leaves your question difficult to answer - indeed, the exact date of Constantine's conversion is unknown]. I have seen sources that indicate that in 296 he was in Palestine and saw Constantine who visited the country with Diocletian. If we assume that he was born c.265, then by 213 (at the age of around 40) is when he could have acquired enough respect, knowledge, standing in the Church and recognition to merit taking the monumental task of writing the Chrurch History. And by that time, Constantine was converted.

GDon,
His tall story is in his website. First, he latches on Gobbon. Then he follows Gibbon's references. Then he claims that Gibbon's 'quotation' seems to be a fraud. Then he states: "How did the statement get manufactured? We cannot know all the steps, but we can guess easily enough."

I find his approach mealymouthed, long-winded and apologetic.
I have provided you with the translation and given you a clear interpretation of the passages. If I rob the poor and claim that the bible says that those who have little will have the little taken away from them and those who have more will be added more, will you claim that I am only quoting the Bible?

If you buy Pierce's interpretation, like I said, cool with me. Carrier disagreed, and he builds the argument down from Plato here . No one, in early Christian history (besides Papias) is as suspect as him - he is the first to quote the TF - the TF turns out to be an interpolation. He is the first to mention and use Hegessipus - we find no copies of Hegessipus elsewhere. He uses Clement ambiguously and makes incredulous miraculous claims for a man of his stature and things that contradict his claims - like Josephus' lost reference that was cited by Origen - which made James the Just a 'powerhouse' on his own - have gone missing.

What gives?

Look, this thread is meant to discuss this issue. Don't take my role of playing devil's advocate to imply that conclusions have been made.