PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

Thanks.

This is an interesting point. In my book, EVOCC (Evoution of Christs and Christianities), in Chapter 1, Eusebius, the Master Forger, I do note an extensive amount of interpolations by Eusebius, some of which have been noticed before and some of which I found new and, I think, strong evidence for. I had assumed these were pretty haphazard, however, we should certainly consider the possibility that he took a more systematic approach, in which case, tabulated data would have certainly been a useful tool and apparently one available to him.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

I will be making enquiries about your book Philosopher Jay, because I think
you are making definite progress in the understanding of the nature of the
literature which has been hitherto presented as a genuine scholarly theory
(by Eusebius circa 324 CE) in respect of the history of antiquity.

IMHO the Eusebian haphazardness is systematic. Another "Eusebian Tell"
is (pointed out by others) the use of this "tribe of christians", for which
his theory (and its substantiations) needed a priority date "as if the new
and strange religion were not of recent origin".

At the far end of the tunnel of interpolation identifications rests the
"unutterable implication": if the Eusebian theory of history is a fiction
(as per the assessment on record provided by the emperor Julian c.362
CE) then christianity is a Constantinian phenomenom. How is this logic
to be avoided?




Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

What I draw from it is not necessarily the invention of Christianity by Constantine, but the invention of a particular brand of Christinaity which was substantially different from the brands that came before it.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Clivedurdle

But is the Chelsea I have known since the 1960's the same as the one that has just won the league twice?

judge

I would be extremely interetsed to any argument from the above people that argues for the OS beoing prior to the peshitta.

Metzger makes no such argument , does he?



But if it can't them there must be a reason it can't be.

Ok I will start a thread at some stage. Or if you start one I will respond.



All the best.

mountainman

Hey Jay,

The logic by which you draw your conclusion is paramount
to the nature of the conclusion. I can certainly appreciate
that in one theory of history there was indeed some small
and inconspicuous "tribe of christians" wandering the planet
for the 300 years immediately preceeding Nicaea.

However the integrity of such a history is utterly deplorable.
And on this issue of historical integrity I'd like to ask you
two questions:

Firstly:
How can the Eusebian historian be seen to both an interpolator
and an (objective) historian and yet retain integrity --- I do
not view interpolation as a characteristic of an historian.

Secondly:
Let me grant to you in discussion the theoretical existence of
this "tribe of christians" portrayed by this iniquitous historian of
antiquity as having descended from the "ancient Hebrew sages".
Having said this, you need to explain to me as best you can in
simple terms why did Eusebius interpolate the works of others.
Why the interpolation?

You may or may not have attempted to answer this question in
your book. Perhaps others have asked it: Why do you believe that
Eusebius interpolated in those instances that "tell"?

What reason could Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea possibly have had
in his mind when, if as you claimed, he more than once "penned at a
particularly shameful hour"?


Best wishes,



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: "The spirit in me honors the spirit in you"

PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

I do go into Eusebius' motives in my book. Here's a small paraphrase of some of it.

When Eusebius wrote Church History, the Roman Empire was emerging from a long period of quite bloody Civil Wars. Constantine was commited to the Christians because they had fought for him, bringing him to power. However, a sharp turn was always possible. It was hard so say how strong Constantine's commitment to the Christians actually was. Eusebius and other powerful Christians had to tread carefully and play their cards right. Else they could find themselves at the wrong end of another bloody persecution. Constantine had double-crossed more than one friend on the road to absolute power.

One major problem was that Christianity was looked upon as a recent phenomenon, and the power of the Church even more recent still. It really couldn't compete with the Roman religions which traced their histories back to before the beginnings of Rome over 1,000 years. However, if Eusebius could show that Christianity was really the religion of the Emperors, at least the "good" emperors, and at least it had a history of 300 years, he could keep it on Constantine's sunny side. For Eusebius, writing the Church History was no mere exercise in scholarship or pedantric showmanship, it was an important opportunity to "seal the deal" so to speak with the Emperior Constantine. (Remember Constantine didn't become a Christian until he was on his death bed -- if then.)

Now, Eusebius had a real problem. The Roman Church probably didn't begin until around 150 and it probably didn't even acknowledge a human Christ until 200. Eusebius had to show that the Church's current doctrines, many of which probably had been adopted within Eusebius' lifetime somehow stretched back to the times of Christ and his apostles. He really had no choice but to interpolate into documents, as well as destroying others. Getting rid of rival Christian cults as quickly as possible was also a political necessity.

He seems to have been pretty successive in convincing Constantine that he had the real documents and it was others who had adultered the church's true teachings.

It is possible that when he did his interpolations, he prayed for the guidance of Jesus to tell him what to write. So in his mind, perhaps, rather than committing a crime, he was doing sacred work and fixing history, or at least showing how it probably was. If the heretics had twisted the story, was he not right to staighten it?

Eusebius tells us over and over again that the promise of Jesus was coming true at last, in his own lifetime, before his own eyes. Christianity had gone from the verge of extinction to the dominant power in just a few years. For him this was a miracle: the fulfillment of the promise of Jesus Christ. For him, what he wrote had the blessings of God and that was more important than telling a story based on the actual evidence. A story based on the actual evidence was one that only the heretics and faithless would have enjoyed. Eusebius simply had no desire to tell that one.

So that's the general and simple explanation of why Eusebius changed texts, as far as I see it. If he commited crimes, it was because he was a saint not a sinner.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

rlogan

What a delightful thread.

So much evidence is vectoring in towards Eusebius as the fulcrum point for the simultaneous gelling of final canon and associated doctoring of Josephus and etc.

The composition of Ecclesiastical History as per canon dictates necessitated interpolations not already performed - whether this particular specimen of 1 Cor. 15 was previously reworked or not.

Motive, means, and opportunity coalesce behind the police power of the Imperial Roman state with Eusebius literally at the side of Constantine at Nicea.

Thanks to Toto for bringing this up and most warmly to Philosopher Jay for the material on E.T.

I missed this discussion if it had occurred here before.