Toto

Constantine and Eusebius (or via: amazon.co.uk) can be previewed in Google books

mountainman

I think it is left ambiguous as an implication which was followed for many hundreds of years of scholarship. Only recently AFAIK were the two Ammonii disambiguated. The Platonists were renown amongst other things for their logic and thoroughness in analysis, qualities which might be used in the preparation of these "harmony tables".

The great fame of Ammonius was highly published by Plotinus who himself was sponsored by the Roman Emperor Galenius. You and other may not, but I find it far more likely that Eusebius was looking to retrospectively glorify his 3rd century Christian lineage with famous "converts".




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Precisely. How do we know what Porphyry wrote other than what Eusebius says he wrote?

Are you aware of the Christian forgeries in the name of Porphyry?





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto

May I suggest that Pete put this on hold until he completes the exercise that David Hindley gave him - to explain in detail the purpose of this alleged mass forgery, with its sources, its motivations, etc.?

aa5874

There were massive forgeries or falsely attributed writings without any reasonable doubt.

The NT Canon itself is a perfect example of the massive forgeries or falsely attributed writings.

Virtually 100% of the authors named in the Canon either did not exist or did not write what was attributed to them.

Scholars have already deduced that none of the Gospels were composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that most of the Epistles were NOT composed by the named author.

Even when we examine Non Canonised writings we see more forgeries or falsely attributed writings like the Memoirs of the Apostles, Gospels of Judas, Thomas, Jesus and many others.

The question is when did the massive forgeries or false attribution start?

It would appear that forgeries and falsely attributed writings were carried out before the 4th century.

NT manuscripts have been discovered and dated to the 2nd-3rd century before the writings attributed to Eusebius.

By the way, there are no known dated manuscripts of 'Church History' in the 4th century.

Church History may have been a forgery or falsely attributed to Eusebius.

mountainman

As I mentioned in Dave's thread about Pseudo-Eusebius Pseudo-Isidore, AFAIK (and this is according to Roger Pearce) the earliest "Church History" of Eusebius is a Syriac manuscript dated to c.400 CE. Can we confirm that this is the case or is not the case?

I have no doubt in my mind that the regime which preserved this "Church History" (or indeed interpolated or even created slabs of it, or all of it) found it exceedingly valuable for their pseudo-historical propaganda. THEREFORE the $64,000 question is what is the earliest "Historia Ecclesiastica" manuscript? At the moment Roger Pearce has suggested a Syriac source dated (how is it dated) to c.400 CE.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

AFAIK the Eusebian "Harmony Tables" presented in Sinaticus do not incorporate the inclusion of "Long Mark" (thanks for pointing this out aa5874) Obviously when the "harmony tables" are adjusted to include "Long Mark" there is a great deal more "harmony" and a lot less "contradictions".

Any comments?




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia