aa5874

Are you implying that all so-called historians would read the writings of Eusebius and make the very same conclusions?

It is patently evident that so-called historians have different opinions.

And it is not necessary to be a so-called historian to identify fiction, questionable and implausible events and entities.

There is no need to assume Eusebius believed what he wrote when he may have just simply wanted his readers to believe what he wrote was historical when he may have known that his "Church History" was fabricated.

There is no need to suppose that Eusebius had a any document when he may not have had any documents or as much documents as he claimed but fabricated documents to make his readers believed that his writings were of historical facts when they may not have been.

When one investigates nothing can be ruled in or out. One cannot assume the veracity of the writings under the name Eusebius when there is information in the very writings that are known fiction, implausble and questionable.

How can you know your probable findings about Eusebius in advance?

It is highly illogical to make a claim of probability about Eusebius without any factual support.

It may be that when you get the time to examine the writings under the name of Eusebius that you may come away thinking that at least, he was fundamentally giving bogus or inaccurate information about the "History of the Church".

Once it is admitted that there was no 1st century character called Jesus, the Son of God, born of a virgin without a human father, and that the TF was a forgery, it is very likely that Eusebius may have known he was not writing history.

mountainman

In the business of "ancient history" the hypothesis (not presumption) that Eusebius was paid handsomely to fabricate a history and that his history is entirely a fraudulent misrepresentation of the historical truth is arguably not only quite consistent with all the available evidence, but it makes perfect sense of the all the evidence (and its lack) in our possession. Namely, that there in fact was no "Christian Church History" prior to his fabrication.

avi

I guess, I am not sure, but I guess that it is precisely this sentiment, that Doug (and other forum members) take issue with.

How do we know that this idea, this assertion, represents a "fact", and not simply a (good!) working hypothesis?

How do we know, for example, that it was Eusebius, and not someone who preceded or followed him, who altered Josephus et al? To me, the process of "interpolation" seems to have been a rather large scale operation, lasting a century or more--or, at least, considerably longer than just one person's lifetime....

The history of Eusebius himself is perplexing, at least to me. Didn't he shield Arius for several months? Wasn't he one of the followers of Arius, originally? Why, given the long history of the Roman church's cleansing operations, should we assume that Eusebius' life is any more accurately known than many of the other characters from that era, including Arius?

:huh:

avi

mountainman

We objectively, critically and skeptically examine all the available evidence

The evidence suggests Eusebius' was the earliest "mention" of the TF.

Fabrication of history continued long after Eusebius. One need only examine the additional historical assertions of the orthodox "Christian Bishops" and other "Christian authors" of the 4th and 5th and subsequent centuries. The Popes fabricated evidence through archaeological digs of the 19th century --- what's new? Fabrication of history continues today because it is still big business --- just ask Oded Galan. Another classic fabrication is the entire genre of Christian Hagiography - the history of the "christian saints and martrys" which commences (according to Momiglianio) just after the mid 4th century with the "Life of Anthony" by Athanasius. After this there was an explosion of historical "christian saints" (eg: Cosmas and Damien) who have basilicas constructed in their name.


The hypothesis that Eusebius wrote a fabricated "Early Christian Church History" has drastic consequent implications --- if true --- to our current notions concerning the origins of the christian religion. Arius of Alexandria for example, is one of these consequences. Arius of Alexandria, on whom Constantine pronounced memoriae damnatio thus HYPOTHETICALLY BECOMES a non christian protestor concerning the implentation of an unknown imperial emperor cult at Nicaea.

To repeat the answer to your question ....

We objectively, critically and skeptically examine all the available evidence

This is all I have been doing for some years. Some people however appear to be uncomfortable in entertaining the HYPOTHESIS that Eusebius' "Christian Church History" was not entirely a fraudulent misrepresentation. I suggest that these uncomfortable reactions are to be associated with the belief system in which common people have been conditioned since the 4th century.

We still appear to have a valid and outstanding unanswered question ...

What did Eusebius get right? There are ten books full of Eusebius' History to draw upon and surely after all this it would be interesting to examine what Eusebius gets right about the historical truth he presents. You can see the Poll Results to understand immediately that I have purposefully put myself out on a very skeptical limb. I am most encouraged by all the responses to date, but I would still like to refuted on my extreme position by the evidence alone if this is possible in this discussion.

Toto

So far, you have not "objectively, critically and skeptically" examined all of the available evidence. You have, instead, set yourself up as devil's advocate and challenged all evidence. There is a place for this, but you have not been able to explain away all of the evidence or provide a more convincing theory.

Eusebius' Church History is online here.

Book I is based on Biblical and theological accounts, and is no more reliable than its sources. But Book II chapter 5 cites Philos as a source, and much of Book II seems to rely on Josephus, as well as NT sources. By the time he gets up to book VIII, Eusebius is relating nearly contemporaneous events.

You hypothesis can be disproven by showing that it is more likely that Eusebius did not invent any significant incident.

For example, Eusebius reports on the persecution of the churches under Diocletian, something that he would have seen directly. This persecution is confirmed by Lactantius and Constantine. While it is highly likely that Eusebius and other Christians added some creative detail, historians do accept the idea that there was a decree under Diocletian directed against the Christians, and that there were persecutions, although they were not uniform through the empire, and were ultimately ineffective.

The events Eusebius and Lacantius recount make sense in historical context, and do not contain the elements that you might expect if this were a Christian fantasy - such as supernatural aid, difficulties in killing the saints, or massive resistance to the decree. It seems that a lot of Christian householders did the sensible thing and performed a sacrifice, and then tried to get back in the good graces of the church when things had calmed down. Is this the sort of story that a Christian would invent?

From wikipedia The major source for this seems to be Constantine and Eusebius (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Timothy David Barnes

Do you claim that Eusebius also forged Lactantius' account? If you think that the entire Diocletian persecution was invented, what was the motive? How does this hypothesis help explain historical difficulties?

mountainman

The history of the corpus of "Early Christian literature" which was delivered by Eusebius may be conveniently divided into two separate sides - that related to the books of the new testament canon (NTC) and that related to the books of the new testament apocrypha (NTA). The second part is also referred to as the non canonical books or the gnostic gospels and acts, etc.

My explanation is that the books of the NTA were authored after Nicaea at which time the books of the NTC were proferred by Constantine as the Holy Writ of the Greek civilisation within the Roman Empire - particulalry the eastern Roman empire.

This explanation has thus sought to attempt an explanation of the entire corpus of evidence, since I have attached authors to the respective books of the NTC and the NTA. The mainstream theory of the NTC has the authors of the NTC as being either the apostles in the 1st century or unknown later 2nd century fabricators.

The mainstream theory of the NTA has the authors of the NTA as being unknown later 2nd century fabricators, and later 3rd century fabricators and later 4th and perhaps 5th century fabricators since the evidence clearly seems to indicate that authorship of the NTA continued during the 4th century.

Both Eusebius and Lactantius were employed by the Warlord.

I think that the historical truth may reveal that Diocletian was responsible for the persection of the Manichaeans in the eastern empire as a result of political changes inside of Persia, and that there were as a result Manichaeans martyrs and the abominable perseuction of innocents (eg: Manichaean households) as a result.

The invention of Eusebius may have twisted the historical truth of the persecution of the Manichaeans to his advantage in representing a highly new and highly strange religious minority cult to significance.

The persecution of the Manichaens continued under the Christian regime of Constantine and his sons and the subsequent "Christian Emperors" of the later 4th and 5th centuries. The abominable books of the abominable Manicaeans were burnt against the study doors of Christian basilicas for centuries following Nicaea. Why?

Heretics exploded after Nicaea. Why? Books were banned and activley sought out for destruction by fire by Constantine's agents after Nicaea. Why? Finally, the library of Alexandria was burnt by Christians at the end if the 4th century. Why? Destruction of contrary evidence against Eusebius' version of "Early Christian History".

Controversies raged and exploded across the empire after Nicaea. Why?

I have attempted to thus explain objectively, critically and skeptically an examination of all the available evidence. This is all I am interested in. I am not doing this out of any other agenda -- rather I seek to illuminate the historical truth of christian origins.

Toto

Christians continued the policies of the Roman Empire. I don't see a problem that needs to be explained.

If you read the controversies, none of them involved a challenge to the existence of Christians before Constantine. None of them actually involved history - the controversies were over esoteric theolgical points. See the thread on the Jesus Wars.

People like to argue.

That's not enough. You have to have an explanation that makes sense. Your explanation does not make sense. Christianity, with its textual difficulties and inconsistencies, does not look like a religion that was invented out of whole cloth in the fourth century.

Doug Shaver

Maybe. Just maybe. But so is my hypothesis, and it's a helluva lot more parsimonious than yours.

mountainman

Then we as equals must continue to examine all the available evidence which in the long run alone must be allowed to arbitrate the relative merits of all competing hypotheses and theories founded upon these hypotheses.

Parsimoniousness is not evidence but hegemon. And in the value of parsimoniousness my thinking is in alignment with Heraclitus who regarded the opinions of mankind - "to be children's playthings". They do not represent evidence but the blind hegemon of tradition.

The common ground is acceptance of various hypotheses as " Maybe. Just maybe." in an objective and critical and skeptical manner without any preconceptions derived from authoritative traditions. It would be great to confine ourselves to the common ground of the evidence itself.

mountainman

The epigraphic evidence tells us that Diocletian ordered for the destruction of the Manichaeans in the eastern empire. The Manichaeans were a Persian sect, and the Romans were always at war with Persia. The Diocletian persecution was as far as I am able to determine a novelty in the usually tolerant atmosphere that the Romans extended to religious privileges.

However one has only to examine the other classes of people who were added to the class of the Manichaeans by Christian heresiologists to see that the Christian Roman regime took this small isolated policy of Diocletian against the Manichaeans to the most extraordinary levels.

Sometime at least by the mid to late 4th century, the heresy of the Manichaeans appears to have been relegated a long way down the list of other religious heresies so classified by the tax-exempt christain heresiologists in the employ of the christian emperors:

The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis

Heresy 1 of 80 - Against Barbarism
Heresy 2 of 80 - Against Scythianism
Heresy 3 of 80 - Against Hellenism
Heresy 4 of 80 - Against Judaism
Heresy 5 of 80 - Against Stoics
Heresy 6 of 80 - Against Platonists
Heresy 7 of 80 - Against Pythagoreans

etc
etc
etc
etc

These accounts of the controversies were authored by imperially sponsored christian heresiolgists and ecclesiastical "historians" in the direct employ of the Christian emperors and should not be read at face value. Esoteric theological arguments my foot. That is the assertion of the bigotted, intolerant, persecutory and utterly victoriously supreme 4th and 5th century Christian regime. My point is that these accounts have been TWISTED in order to represent an harmonious acceptance of christianity in the Roman empire, and to bury any authenticity problems with Jesus.


Your author appears to bypass the heavy action of the 4th century, such as the battles in the streets of Rome between competing bishops (and their armies) to determine who would become the new victorious "POPE" and the leader of the "Christian Business Opportunities".


Far too nieve. Why were they arguing in the face of death and persecution? Let's see what some of these controversies were:

1) The Arian controversy
2) The Origenist controversy
3) The Nestorian controversy
4) The controversy over the books of Emperor Julian.
5) The Pachomonian burial of the Nag Hammadi Codices

I can explain each of these as related to the political controversies which errupted among the Greeks of the Eastern Roman empire after the year c.325 CE over the fiction of the new testament canon, of the "Early Christian Church History" of Eusebius and of the jesus character. And the essence of all these controversies was the utter repudiation by the academic Greek civilisation of the authenticity of "Plain and Simple Religion of Constantine's Christians". The Greek civilisation went down with its "Guardian Class" writing the books of Nag Hammadi. The Christian civilisation went up with each basilica and the networking of the imperial christian bishops - the new "Guardian Class of civilisation".

The Interpretation of Knowledge: NHC 11.1

Text commences ... (13 lines missing) ...

they came to believe by means of signs and wonders and fabrications.
The likeness that came to be through them followed him,
but through reproaches and humiliations before they received
the apprehension of a vision they fled without having heard
that the Christ had been crucified.
But our generation is fleeing since it does not
yet even believe that the Christ is alive. . ..

Further section is cited ...

And he was crucified and he died - not his own death,
for he did not at all deserve to die because of the church of mortals.
And he was nailed so that they might keep him in the Church.