mountainman

IRONY: God's way of Confusing Biblical Scholars?

An experiment in transposition of names
for the purpose exploring irony in BC&H.

Comments are welcome.

Here is the quote:

The <<< INSERT BOOK NAME >>>, more than any other book
of recent memory, has really done the trick. The story
itself is fast-paced, intricate, spellbinding. And the
historical moments in which the past - especially
Christian antiquity - is discussed are integrated so
well into the fiction that it seems to take almost no
effort at all to pick up information about Jesus, Mary
Magdalene, the emperor Constantine, the formation of
the Christian Bible, and the noncanonical gospels. \
What a terrific way to learn history - completely
painless!

The problem is that people who read a book like this
have no way of separating the historical fact from the
literary fiction. The author himself wont help you out
by telling you which historical claims are just as
fictional as the characters and the plot of the novel.
And in many places, he himself may not know. He is a
novelist, not a scholar of history.

The experiment is simply this.

BOOK NAME ONE: The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
BOOK NAME TWO: Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius.

Does anyone recognise the above quote and author?

Toto

I wasn't aware that Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History was either fast paced or spellbinding. But then I didn't think that of the Da Vinci Code.

Ben C Smith

:notworthy:

Ben.

mountainman

Truth and Fiction in 'The Da Vinci Code'

-- An Historian Reveals
What We Really Know
about Jesus, Mary Magdalene,
and Constantine

BART D. EHRMAN

INTRO xiii

Could not the same be said - and has been said - by
many ancient historians with respect to the literature
tendered by Eusebius? (eg: Historia Ecclesiastica)

This is the fundamental distinction between the field
of biblical history and the field of ancient history.
They overlap, but none bows to the other.

Does not prevent the hypothesis from being true
that in fact everything was published under the
malevolent despot Constantine. Everything!.

What was this package, described by Julian, as
the fabrication of the Galilaeans?

Why this admission from Bart?

Simply because there is no evidence for anything whatsoever
christian in the field of ancient history outside the documents
tendered in the field of "biblical history" -- all of which (ahem)
are gathered up and presented to us on a lavishly set plate,
costing megabucks at a time when land tax had tripled in
living memory.

There is no evidence in the field of art.
There is no evidence in the field of architecture
There is no evidence in the field of coins
There is no evidence in the field of inscriptions
There is no evidence in the field of sculpture
There is no evidence in the field of archeological relics
There is no evidence in the field of burial relics.
There is no evidence in the field of C14 citations.

But hang on a minute. Wait! Look at this!!!
F**k! We have evidence in the documents!
Let's concentrate on the documents!


Hello? Hello" ANyone got their ears on?

IRONY.

Can anyone tell me anything ironic about BC&H?
Is there something wrong with irony?
Has it indeed kept BC&H in utter confusion?

jgibson000

That's what we've been waiting for you to tell us. Are you going to?

JG

mountainman

Yes, I have attempted to provide a draft detailed specification
for this package described by Julian, and have responded in the
appropriately named thread listed as:

Package specifications: "the fabrication of the Galilaeans" .

I have been waiting for you to provide the name of a non
ecclesiastical historian who wrote during the reign of
Constantine the Great. My claim was that no political
history survives from his rule (say 306-337). You claimed
there was. Who was this non ecclesiastical historian?

That's what we've been waiting for you to tell us.
Are you going to?

Nazaroo

I think you are getting way ahead of yourself here.

Can you substantiate your claim that Bart Ehrman has any credibility as a 'historian' left?

Bart Ehrman's Objectivity in the Historical Sciences Examined <-- Click here to read about Ehrman's previous performances.

Toto

Ehrman still has a lot of credibility as a historian. One web page, that is not part of the scholarly exchange of ideas, that takes issue with one part of his book, is not going to make a dent in his reputation.

This is not to say that it is clear that he is right and you are wrong on the underlying issue. But Ehrman is the one who has put in the effort and the work to earn his reputation. You are the one spending time analysing speech patterns on a radio show as if this shows something.

mountainman

Nazaroo Nazaroo.

What is the very
first word of the
subject of this post?

And do you understand
what it means?

Amedeo

No, Bible rabbinical scholars confuse its Gods into one.