Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-13-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is not a coincidence to me that Eusebius got somethings right and everything about Jesus seemingly wrong. Eusebius, according to a poster, got the 28th year after the death of Cleopatra and Anthony right with respect to the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus, but Eusebius seems not to get the taxation of Cyrenius right.

You know where Eusebius probably got the taxation of Cyrenius. It's straight out of Luke. Take it up with his sources. He couldn't know. He's not a relevant source, unless you can show him to be one. Please try to show him to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It appears to me to be deliberate, Eusebius apparently could not account for Jesus in history and probably fabricated the birth of Jesus.

You may eventually convince yourself.

spin

It is not known for sure when gLuke was written or where the author got his information from. It cannot be stated as fact that Eusebius got his information from gLuke, unless you can ascertain there were no other writer at that time with similar information, bearing in mind that, in 'Church History', Eusebius made mention of multiple writers, some of which writings are non-extant.

All that is known, today, is that the dates for the birth of Jesus given by Eusebius do not reconcile.

aa5874 · 09-13-2007, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The point is that Eusebius had lots of documents but little precise dating.

HIs statements as to when something happened (eg the martyrdom of Ignatius) are less reliable than his claim that it did happen.

Yes, that was what I was trying to point to. Eusebius was extremely well-informed, and had all these wonderful resources. But he lived in a society which had no proper framework of reference to determine when things happened. The writers whom he could consult did not either. Being the man he was, and writing the works he did, he proceeded to create such a framework.

The risk is that we practise an anachronism. We're accustomed to presuming that dates come first; that we know the rough sequence of events, we have all these numerals, and then we fit the events to the table of years. So there could be a presumption that if Eusebius wrongly dates an event that somehow says that the event did not happen, or whatever. But in reality, and unlike everyone after him, he had no table of years, and the events were what he started with.

All the best,

I find it extra-ordinarily difficult for Eusebius, although presumed to be well informed, to able to come up with a date for this most unusual event, the birth of a being believed to be conceived through the Holy Ghost and a woman, Jesus.

Eusebius tried, but history cannot account for such a figure.

spin · 09-13-2007, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You know where Eusebius probably got the taxation of Cyrenius. It's straight out of Luke. Take it up with his sources. He couldn't know. He's not a relevant source, unless you can show him to be one. Please try to show him to be.

You may eventually convince yourself.

spin

It is not known for sure when gLuke was written or where the author got his information from. It cannot be stated as fact that Eusebius got his information from gLuke, unless you can ascertain there were no other writer at that time with similar information, bearing in mind that, in 'Church History', Eusebius made mention of multiple writers, some of which writings are non-extant.

Luke certainly existed before the time of Eusebius. Justin Martyr for example acknowledges the content of Luke on the matter of Cyrenius in his two apologies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

All that is known, today, is that the dates for the birth of Jesus given by Eusebius do not reconcile.

Hey, wow. That's a revelation.

spin

andrewcriddle · 09-14-2007, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I hope you listen to Eusebius more about the fourth century than you do about anything before then, just like you should listen to Josephus more when he deals with the first century.
...............................................
I know who Eusebius was from his vast amount of writings and where he was coming from, and thus I know somewhat how to deal with what he says about his own times, but how can you evaluate his sources for earlier times?

You seem to think that an Ignatius got martyred. How did you come to that conclusion? Hopefully, Eusebius was not your principal source on the issue, but other independent materials would surely provide you with historical information and in so doing confirm Eusebius's source. What might those sources be?

There certainly was an Ignatius industry in the church: spurious materials were churned out, letters considered authentic somehow have been expanded or contracted. How do you separate the fat from the friction? And how does Eusebius fit into this Ignatius industry?

I am not picking on Eusebius here. It is a matter of good methodology. How can someone extract history from, for example, the Historia Augusta? We need quality control and I can't see any when using Eusebius as so many would.

spin

The Ignatius industry seems to date from after Eusebius (though only a little after).

My main point is that the 'middle recension' version of the letters of Ignatius was available to Eusebius, was the only version of the writings of Ignatius known to him, and (whether or not entirely authentic) was already ancient before he was born.

The chronology of the bishops of Antioch (on which the dating of Ignatius' death depends) was less solidly based.

Andrew Criddle

spin · 09-15-2007, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The Ignatius industry seems to date from after Eusebius (though only a little after).

How do you date it, Andrew?

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

My main point is that the 'middle recension' version of the letters of Ignatius was available to Eusebius, was the only version of the writings of Ignatius known to him, and (whether or not entirely authentic) was already ancient before he was born.

That's not too hard: Eusebius lived in the 4th century. Now, while Eusebius knew of texts belonging to what you call the 'middle recension', what recensions did people further west know of the works of Ignatius?

spin

andrewcriddle · 09-17-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The Ignatius industry seems to date from after Eusebius (though only a little after).

How do you date it, Andrew?

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

My main point is that the 'middle recension' version of the letters of Ignatius was available to Eusebius, was the only version of the writings of Ignatius known to him, and (whether or not entirely authentic) was already ancient before he was born.

That's not too hard: Eusebius lived in the 4th century. Now, while Eusebius knew of texts belonging to what you call the 'middle recension', what recensions did people further west know of the works of Ignatius?

spin

The long recension appears to be related to the radical Arianism (neo-Arianism) of Eunomius and Aetius of the mid to late 4th century CE.

The dating of the short recension is less clear but since it probably only existed in Syriac (ie is secondary to the translation of Ignatius' letters into Syriac) and b/ IIUC agrees at some points with the long recension against the middle recension it is maybe the latest of the three recensions.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse · 09-18-2007, 12:03 AM

The short recension then being an epitome. Syriac literature is generally later than this period anyway. I had read that the long recension was interpolated by Apollinarian heretics, who seem to have been forgery inclined as if I recall correctly this was not their only venture in this direction.

andrewcriddle · 09-18-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The dating of the short recension is less clear but since it probably only existed in Syriac (ie is secondary to the translation of Ignatius' letters into Syriac) and b/ IIUC agrees at some points with the long recension against the middle recension it is maybe the latest of the three recensions.

Andrew Criddle

In point b/ I was misremembering. There are a few minor agreements between the text of the short and long recensions but they are not enough to show that the short recension was influenced by the long form.

The point I was trying to remember from Lightfoot's book is that the Syriac version from which the short recension was epitomised was based on a Syriac translation which survives in a few Syriac fragments and in Armenian. This version has the seven genuine letters in what is basically the middle form but combines them with the spurious letters to the Tarsians Antiochians etc. These spurious letters seem to have been written as part of the same process that produced the long interpolated version. ie in the late 4th century. Since the Syriac version from which the short epitome was produced apparently included these spurious letters the epitome must be still later.

Lightfoot's book is online at
http://www.archive.org/details/apost...hers01unknuoft

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse · 09-18-2007, 02:22 PM

The epitome is of three letters. But I was reading Aphram Barsoum The scattered pearls and he refers to further letters in Syriac mss.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-18-2007, 12:03 AM	#47
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	The short recension then being an epitome. Syriac literature is generally later than this period anyway. I had read that the long recension was interpolated by Apollinarian heretics, who seem to have been forgery inclined as if I recall correctly this was not their only venture in this direction.

09-18-2007, 02:22 PM	#49
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	The epitome is of three letters. But I was reading Aphram Barsoum The scattered pearls and he refers to further letters in Syriac mss.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.