aa5874

The writer using the name Eusebius, just like many Jesus Christ believers, presented MYTHOLOGY as history. He probably, like many believers, did not understand or did want people to understand the difference.

As soon as the writer under the name Eusebius claimed Jesus had a two-fold nature, DIVINE and Human, he crossed the line.

Claims that GODS exist and were living on earth as human beings are about MYTHOLOGY or Theology not history.

But, the writer called Eusebius did not know that.

mountainman

Eusebius appears to write about MYTHOLOGY in his "Life of Constantine", but he reserves the word to describe the beliefs of the non Christians of his time. Eusebius appears to be making an attempt to be an historian in most of his other works, and most people are agreed that Eusebius himself was a proponent of the "Historical Jesus Theory". In his literature, including the following extract, he seems to be speak easily and confidently concerning the existence of an historial Jesus Christ, and we must not forget that he was the editor of the first Greek language large-scale publication of the "New Testament".

maryhelena

Love that, 'suffering from amnesia' - its all a bit like telling your neighbor about some new person you just met - 'he really is a great person - considering where he came from; he was mixed up in all sorts of shady deals at one time, deceived a lot of people over what he could do for them, even spent some time in jail at one point - but now he says he has had a spiritual rebirth and that's all behind him - Oh, but maybe just watch your silver while he is around - just in case...." That's basically what the historicists get from their amnesia approach to the gospel storyline - a new Jesus minus his objectionable baggage. However, historicists notwithstanding, questionable reputations are not so easily overcome in the real world. The new 'make-over' Jesus of the historicists is simply the gospel Jesus in sheep's clothes. Gentle Jesus without his disturbing wolf like wild streak - ie the scary mythology of days of yore...


(OK - we know some people who end up in prison don't go back - but I understand that the statistics do show that many do have a return visit - and of course, publicly clearing ones name is not an easy task.....)

Camio

Hmm, this sounds like all scholars would have a theological agenda in their head when they are doing history, twisting historical data to fit their weltanschauung. I wouldn't say it is impossible for some of them, especially in such a hot field as religious study, but that's a bit of a generalization that you are making here nonetheless IMHO.

And as GDon said in a previous post, let's have a broader look at ancient history: how do historians proceed to excavate other ancient figures? Is JC submitted to a specific treatment? This is a genuine question, I don't have preconceived answer on the matter.

maryhelena

Indeed, obviously, the same methods needs to be used for NT studies as for other ancient documents. Problem is that it does not look as though NT studies are given the same treatment - a least that is the charge mythicists are likely to make against NT historians...

Just as a matter of interest - below is part of an exchange between Neil Godfrey and James McGrath.

Camio

I remember that I read something along this line in Hector Avalos's The End of Biblical Studies (or via: amazon.co.uk), as well as in one of Richard Carrier's blog post: There is no consensus, even though standard references tend to give the impression there is. The field of New Testament studies needs to get its house in order.

The situation seems to have gotten worse and worse since the 50's, especially in France (there is a French PhD student writing on the subject in the blogosphere, but that's... in French).

maryhelena

Yes, interesting post there by Carrier. I've not read Avalos's book - maybe I should put in on my reading list...

And then to top it all, the historicists want the mythicists to come up with some generally accepted theory...

gurugeorge

In that case, what's your problem? Are you trying to say that up to that point, they've been in this dream-like space, then all of a sudden they're peeping down into what they suppose to be a real cavern on the earth?

Yes it is, there has been no indication of anything other than lateral movement, certainly no indication of going DOWN from the realm of stars in which the protagonist initially finds himself, to any earthly level where you might find a "real" chasm IN THE REAL EARTH. They are still in the same "place", in a kind of dream-like alternate reality:

Realm of stars -----> place with cavern/chasm.

There is up/down directionality IN each part of the "place" (souls flying up from below to the stars initially, things wafting up from the chasm) but there is no indication that we are supposed to take an ABSOLUTE measure of up/down or distance congruent with the real world.

Who the hell knows? Some people thought it was in a certain place in Italy

So, was it in the volcanic areas around Velia and the like, as some thought, or was it in a GENERALISED "underground"? The same ambiguity exists at that level, even if you were to take a purely physicalist view.

The point is, as Toto says, it seems, judging from this type of text (and from other famous visions involving Middle Platonic stuff, like the Dream of Scipio, or the Hermetic visions) that the ancients didn't have as sharp a distinction as you would like to make out between the kind of "Dreamtime" landscapes in visions and hard up/down directionalities, generalised physical locations (sky, earth) and specific places (e.g. volcanic areas around Velia).

All of which means, the investigation of this stuff is still in its infancy. Until non-psychopathological visionary/mystical experience is placed where it should be, as the prime mover of just about all religion (and much more so in ancient times, obviously - just as it is with "primitive" peoples nowadays), and until study of religion is linked with an understanding of the brain mechanisms behind the production of these visions, all this kind of speculation about literary texts alone is footling. It's like looking at a specialised text with jargon, or terms of art, or technical terms, and thinking those terms mean what they do in ordinary discourse.

But Doherty is nearer to the truth than you, because you are imposing a blunt physicalist interpretation on terms which (as here) are partly drawn from visionary experience, whereas he is accepting the vagueness and ambiguity of "philosophy" that's partly drawn from visionary experience.

mountainman

Perhaps the church-house is transcendental?

Hector Avalos: How Archaeology Killed Biblical History

Rick Sumner

It's one that's made a lot. As a general rule I inquire as to what, specifically, biblical historians are doing (or not doing) that other branches of history (particularly history restricted largely or wholly to texts) do not.

I just read the Blackwell Companion to the Roman Army. Really neat book. Covers the army as a sort of window into Roman culture spanning a period of over a millenium.

In the earliest period, while we have abundant archaeological evidence that Rome was inhabited, and that they seem to have been at war a lot, we can't tell much more than that. So we're restricted to textual analysis to a large degree.

The problem with texts is the same everywhere: Ancient sources lie. So we need criteria to tell what is true and what isn't. In the first paper in the book we find a rough analogue to almost every common criteria for authenticity applied to the NT. They aren't perfect analogues--every period has its own challenges and develops with those in mind (for example, the Roman historian of antiquity lied to maintain the campaign cycle, or just to fill in large gaps in the narrative, in addition to the more obvious ideological motivations). But they're fundamentally the same.

It even goes later than that. The Gallic Sack left no archaeological evidence whatsoever. None. Yet I'm aware of no historian of Rome (I'm sure there are some, just none I've heard of) who doubts the Gallic Sack happened.

Not only do they employ similar criteria, but--at least in this instance--they put more faith in their textual analysis than they do archaeology.

Now, maybe that's wrong. And maybe the biblical historian is likewise wrong. But they aren't doing "history" that's fundamentally different from any other branch. If it's wrong, then the exegete and the historian are wrong together, not in contrast.