FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-27-2004, 07:18 AM   #91
Ted Hoffman
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Quote:
The fact that it is obviously fanciful does not mean it was forged. His account of James' death is utter bullshit, and his claim that the headstone is still there by the Temple is probably bullshit as well.
Well, the bullshit is challenging your idea that "E's presentation of H is internally consistent", you can't just bullshit away what you don't like. I see no reason why H is not bullshit if we can see so much bullshit in H .
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 08:09 AM   #92
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Aliet
You can't just bullshit away what you don't like.
Isn't this exactly what you were doing when you claimed E dropped some balls. Admittedly, there is always something a bit ad hoc about explaining a 'mistake', but at least we know that we have other cases of Christian writers embellishing their sources, but very few of them inventing them outright.

B
 
Old 08-27-2004, 08:42 AM   #93
Ted Hoffman
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
Isn't this exactly what you were doing when you claimed E dropped some balls.<snip>
B
I was answering your question which was more like - if Jacob is such a genius, how come he fails some exams? I was merely stating in response that Eusebius was a limited, fallible human being trying to shape a young church and trying to please a fiery, powerful Emperor. I don't see how that is ad hoc.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 09:06 AM   #94
yummyfur
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan
But doesn't Eusebius go out of his way to establish that H is not a heretic? In his last remarks on H, he lists him with a bunch of writers and says

"In every case writings which show their orthodoxy and unshakeable devotion to the apostolic tradition have come into my hands."

He then goes on to reinforce this, describing how H went to Rome, mixed with the bishops, and found the same doctrine among them all (this reads like fantasy). He then lists some remarks of H about Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, which show, once again, that the Roman Church was united and the succession historically established (another powerful motive for making up H). Then he has H sketching the origins of the heresies of his day, claiming that there was no doctrinal problems and the Church was virgin. Then comes a fantasy history about the origins of the heretics.

In the next section E again establishes H's bona fides, showing that "he was a believer of Hebrew descent" and further mentions "other matters coming from Jewish oral tradition." H also says that the heretical books were fabricated by heretics in his own time. (pages 180-2 in my penguin edition of E).

The history here reeks of invention, but whether H's or E's I can't tell. But it is clear that E puts up data to show H was a reliable non-heretic.

I dont' think Eusebius does anything different for H than any of the authors he uses, he either wants to paint them as true and faithfull to orthodox beliefs, or as heretics. and he tries to make his case for each author.

That said, I don't think merely making this case, which he does for every author, would have been good enough for an unkown early author. He would have had to provide the whole work at the very least. It's not like all the christians at the time are blank slates with no memory or passed down history, or all in agreement with Eusebius' brand of christianity. I certainly think Eusebius could get away with selectivly qouting, misconstrueing, making slight additions, I just don't think he could get away with wholesale forgery of that scale.
yummyfur is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 10:24 AM   #95
yummyfur
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay
Your point "Clement, in the seventh book of his Outlines, relates a story which is worthy of mention; telling it as he received it from those who had lived before him" does suggest a later than Apostles writer, but we should remember that the incident related involves the very early death of James, brother of John, which happens even before the imprisonment of Peter, which Acts seems to place in the 30's. It does not discount at all Clement, Third Bishop of Rome from being the author even if we consider that he was a young companion of Paul a decade later. He would still need to get the story from someone "who lived before" in order for it to be accurate.
I don't think Eusebius was concerned with being accurate in any modern sense of the word. Clement of Alexandria had sources Eusebius felt were early enough. Despite the fact that Clement of Rome lived at the right time, would he actually have been a witnes to James death, being that he was in Rome? If Clement of Alexandria used a source who Eusebius believed was there, that would be more accurate to him than a non-eyewitnes.

As far as the possibility of there being any confusion on who Eusebius is qouting, I can't really see any. In Book III he covers all the works by Clement of Rome and says, that only the First Epistle is his work, and that he possibly translated into Greek the Epistle to the Hebrews. He then goes on to disparage other works attributed too him, certainly not what you would want to do if you you were going to try to pass of Outlines as his.

When I read Eusebius two years go I had no confusion, and I'm a 21st century athiest, I really doubt any of Eusebius' readers at the time would be confused at all. Jerome writes only a few decades later and certainly knows exactly who wrote the Outlines. It's true that Eusebius could have done better at distinguishing, but this is a common problem with authors, who know their subjects too well, that they fail to see they aren't distinguishing as clearly as they could. Certainly Josephus can be 10 times more confusing, with his use of names, than anything Eusebius does.

In book I and II Eusebius just uses his standard citation method, the authors name and the book. He has discussed no other Clements yet, so he has no need to distinguish. He then brings up Clement of Rome in Book III, and realizes he needs to distinguish, and so calls him Clement of Rome. Then he starts calling Clement of Alexandria by this more specific name. This seems to me a natural progression of writing to me. He could have gone back and edited his earlier citations to include the city, but it probably didn't dawn on him.
yummyfur is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 05:01 PM   #96
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Aliet
Well, the bullshit is challenging your idea that "E's presentation of H is internally consistent", you can't just bullshit away what you don't like. I see no reason why H is not bullshit if we can see so much bullshit in H .
JA, how can you tell whether E is copying nonsense, or making it up? Where is the direct, commonsense, prima facie contradiction in E's presentation of H? So far no one has pointed it out.

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 08-28-2004, 02:56 AM   #97
Ted Hoffman
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan
JA, how can you tell whether E is copying nonsense, or making it up? Where is the direct, commonsense, prima facie contradiction in E's presentation of H? So far no one has pointed it out.

Vorkosigan
The temple was standing when H started writing his memoirs.
He wrote his memoirs for a century and more.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 08-28-2004, 06:21 AM   #98
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Aliet
The temple was standing when H started writing his memoirs. He wrote his memoirs for a century and more.
Raskin's case depends on reading the word "Temple" in an extremely restricted and non-commonsensical way. The text itself refutes Raskin's position with its comment that the monument may still be seen at the present. That is not something one says of a structure that was recently built, but only of a structure about which some period of time has passed, in which one might conclude that there is some chance it has disappeared. That is consistent with H's representation of himself as someone who was a contemporary of Hadrian's Antinous. It is Eusebius, not H, who uses the word flourit to describe this time relationship. H also says that he was in Rome c. 170, again there is no problem with aged men traveling (wasn't Philo about 60 when he went to Rome in 39-40?)

Further, nowhere in H's excerpt does he claim to be an eyewitness nor does E place him in that time period. If H were actually an eyewitness E would certainly have informed us of that fact; he'd have been delighted by it.

I don't see any strong piece of evidence here. Did any come out on the JM list?

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 08-28-2004, 07:17 AM   #99
PhilosopherJay
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yummyfur
I don't think Eusebius was concerned with being accurate in any modern sense of the word. Clement of Alexandria had sources Eusebius felt were early enough. Despite the fact that Clement of Rome lived at the right time, would he actually have been a witnes to James death, being that he was in Rome? If Clement of Alexandria used a source who Eusebius believed was there, that would be more accurate to him than a non-eyewitnes.

As far as the possibility of there being any confusion on who Eusebius is qouting, I can't really see any. In Book III he covers all the works by Clement of Rome and says, that only the First Epistle is his work, and that he possibly translated into Greek the Epistle to the Hebrews. He then goes on to disparage other works attributed too him, certainly not what you would want to do if you you were going to try to pass of Outlines as his.

When I read Eusebius two years go I had no confusion, and I'm a 21st century athiest, I really doubt any of Eusebius' readers at the time would be confused at all. Jerome writes only a few decades later and certainly knows exactly who wrote the Outlines. It's true that Eusebius could have done better at distinguishing, but this is a common problem with authors, who know their subjects too well, that they fail to see they aren't distinguishing as clearly as they could. Certainly Josephus can be 10 times more confusing, with his use of names, than anything Eusebius does.

In book I and II Eusebius just uses his standard citation method, the authors name and the book. He has discussed no other Clements yet, so he has no need to distinguish. He then brings up Clement of Rome in Book III, and realizes he needs to distinguish, and so calls him Clement of Rome. Then he starts calling Clement of Alexandria by this more specific name. This seems to me a natural progression of writing to me. He could have gone back and edited his earlier citations to include the city, but it probably didn't dawn on him.
The Litmus Test for whether Clement (of Alexandria) needed to be distinguished from Clement (Bishop of Rome) is not the readings of a 21st century Atheist with footnotes and encyclopedias at hand, but the ability of the early 4th Century reader to distinguish the two. There was some kind of need as Eusebius calls Clement, "Clement of Alexandria" when introducing all other written works of Clement of Alexandria, except for the "Outlines."

But I think you are right that it does appear that it was clear in his mind that Clement of Alexandria was the author of "Outlines" and not Clement, Bishop of Rome. I think we can discount my supposition, at least for the moment, that he was trying to deliberately create ambiguity or suggest Clement of Rome was the author.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 08-28-2004, 07:29 AM   #100
PhilosopherJay
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default

Hi Vorkosigan,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan
Raskin's case depends on reading the word "Temple" in an extremely restricted and non-commonsensical way. The text itself refutes Raskin's position with its comment that the monument may still be seen at the present. That is not something one says of a structure that was recently built, but only of a structure about which some period of time has passed, in which one might conclude that there is some chance it has disappeared. That is consistent with H's representation of himself as someone who was a contemporary of Hadrian's Antinous. It is Eusebius, not H, who uses the word flourit to describe this time relationship. H also says that he was in Rome c. 170, again there is no problem with aged men traveling (wasn't Philo about 60 when he went to Rome in 39-40?)

Further, nowhere in H's excerpt does he claim to be an eyewitness nor does E place him in that time period. If H were actually an eyewitness E would certainly have informed us of that fact; he'd have been delighted by it.

I don't see any strong piece of evidence here. Did any come out on the JM list?

Vorkosigan
First, note this:

Quote:
Chapter XXII. Hegesippus and the Events Which He Mentions.

1 Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

2 His words are as follows: "And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus153 was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine.

3 And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus,154 whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord."
Would you not agree that Eleutherus became Bishop of Rome in 175-177 on Eusebius' chronology and therefore we would have to place Hegesippus' writing of his Memoirs at least to this time?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
PhilosopherJay is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:12 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.