J-D

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...44#post4811244

mountainman

When you say 'the bible' what precisely
are you talking about?

The Hebrew Bible had been extant in
the greek language in the Roman empire
and elsewhere since 250 BCE as a separate
literary work.

The New Testament was added to this text
by "christians" at a much later date, the
precise chronology of which has intrigued
many people.

Sequoia

Could you explain us what do you think about the Gospels? Who wrote them? When were they written? In which language were they written?

mountainman

IMO the gospels were sponsored to be written by Constantine
in or near Rome during the period of his rise to supremacy
312-324 CE. They were written in Greek originally, and
they were written to "correspond" to the Greek version
of the Hebrew Bible (ie: what many people call the Old
Testament) which had been available in the Greek at that
time for over 500 years.

The translations used for the Hebrew Bible in th Greek were
descendant from an authot called Origen, who wrote
voluminously about the Hebrew texts. However, IMO, all
the commentary of Origen on the "New Testament" is
a fourth century forgery by Eusebius under the sponsorship
and direct coersion of Constantine.

The package was developed during this period and then
forcefully implemented by methods of intolerance and
persecution of all other religious orders and traditions
in the eastern empire at that time, since Constantine,
with effect from 324-337 CE, commanded and held an
absolute military power in the empire.

The "good messages" in the new testament were simply
plaguerised from a number of extant writings available
at that time. The "Christianisation" of literature was a
transformational and key process in the rise to supremacy
of the new and strange Christian religion under Constantine,
and then his son Constantius (337-359 CE).

In essence, it was a literature racket aimed at robbing the
old traditions of their power and influence, and substitution
of ancient-held values and world-views with the new and
strange fabrication created and promulgated as a top-down
emperor cult by the emperor, as was his right to favour and
sponsor religious cults in his role as "Pontifex Maximus".

IMO.


Pete Brown

mountainman

Here is a summary review of a large number of citations
to both the papyri and the epigraphy in contemporary
Christian Publications and/or websites in support of
various academic and scholarly discussions of Pre-Nicene
christianity.

I reject all of these as unambiguously christian.
Am I being overly skeptical or inconsistent?
I am interested in opinion on the following research:


THE PAPYRI

We will now review this evidence [1] in a critical manner. With respect to the papyri one commentator [2] writes: "It is hard to be sure what phrases establish a Christian author or Christian presence in the papyri, but on a tight definition there is next to nothing before 300 which is not related to the problem of persecution."

P.Oxy. 43 is a list authored by Oxyrhynchite watchmen on the verso of an account dated 295 C.E., recording streets and public buildings, including a north church (col. 1, line 10) and a south church (col. 3, line 19), with streets named after each. We may have had two churches 295 CE: but were they Christian?

Another, an amulet (P.Oxy. 407, 3rd/4th c.), quotes a phrase from LXX Ps 145:6, followed by a prayer for mercy and salvation “through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Fourth century Christian amulets were often written text, folded and carried about for protection. On the use of the Lord’s Prayer in magic, with additional examples, see Leiv Amundsen, “Christian Papyri from the Oslo Collection.
Similar, more popular use of Ps 91 (90 LXX), have thirty papyri examples.

P.Oxy. 1786 - A hymn to the Trinity with musical notation was found on the verso of a corn account dated in the first half of the third century, placing the hymn later in that century. Portions of the last five lines survive, written on a narrow strip of papyrus about two by twelve inches, with corresponding vocal notes above each line. What remains of the text calls upon “the light-giving stars to be silent and the rushing rivers to sing praises with all power to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen, Amen, and for dominion and praise to the giver of all good things, Amen, Amen”. However, reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not unambiguously Christian, for example, in the works of Philo.

P.Oxy 2070 from the late third century shows frequent alterations which have been made in the text, apparently by the original hand. That it is a Christian document is presumed from the name “Jesus” (line 10), written in the usual abbreviated fashion (I—h—). Portions of eighty-eight lines survive of this seriously deteriorated papyrus roll, though only some fifty lines contain one or more complete words, permitting almost nothing beyond its general character to be discerned. Even that is possible only because citations from two Psalms and Isaiah can be restored. However the presence of a reference to the abbreviated form of the name Jesus does not necessarily make the author of the papyri "Christian".

P.Oxy. 2276 dated from the end of the 3rd century is presumed Christian because it contains the phrase “in the lord god”, at lines 29–30. However the phrase “in the lord god” is not unambiguously Christian.

P.Oxy. 3035 is an order from February 256 to arrest a certain “Petosorapis, son of Horus, Chresian”. The citation “chrestian” (meaning ‘good’) is not the same as "Christian". The original Greek of the former uses an "eta" after the rho, whereas the latter uses an "iota" after the rho. P.Oxy. 3035 also looks to have omitted the 'tau' in “Christian” and as such this citation does not pertain to anything "Christian”. This confusion also extends into the Latin as “chrestos” and “christos”.

PSI XIV.1412 - An athlete, presumably a professional, sent money to his mother “via Sotas the Christian” (PSI XIV.1412, line 10, 2nd/3rd c.) See above.

P.Oxy 4365 is described as an early fourth century private letter at Oxyrynchus and was written in twenty-one words, in six lines, on the back of a piece of papyrus cut from a roll that contained a petition written in the late-third century. It reads simply as follows: "To my dearest lady sister, greetings in the Lord. Lend the Ezra, since I lent you the little Genisis. Farewell in God from us." For some commentators, P.Oxy 4365 must be taken as Christian because the expression "in the Lord" and "in God" exhibit nomina sacra thus conforming to a pattern established elsewhere. The phrases: "in the Lord" and "in God" clearly, need not have been articulated by a Christian mind.

P.Oxy 1493 dated from the 3rd or 4th century is also considered (by some) to be Christian based on the nomina sacra formula. But nomina sacra need not have been articulated by a Christian mind.


The negative point emergent in the papyri for is supported by Bagnall, B.A.S.P (1985), 105 who writes there are “very few examples before c.300 of the personal names which Christians in Egypt later preferred to adopt. From c.340 onwards, references to Christians, churches and Christian authorities multiply as do the numbers of favoured Christian names”


THE EPIGRAPHIC HABIT

Giovanni Battista de Rossi (1822-1894) was considered the greatest of the 19th century Roman archaeologists. As a loyal member of the Catholic Church, he was asked by Pope Pius IX to publish his works under the Vatican imprint. In 1857 the Vatican press printed his Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae. The work contained 1126 inscriptions dating from the year AD 71 to 589. His most famous discovery was made in 1849. In a shed belonging to a vineyard, he found a stone with the partial inscription “~~~NELIUS MARTYR”. This was conjectured to belong to one purported Martyr Pope Cornelius (251-253) who supposedly died in exile. A later edition of de Rossi’s Inscriptiones contained a total of 1374 inscriptions. The first four were scrapped as forgeries. At that time, the oldest known Christian inscription in Rome was cited a memorial to Emperor Caracalla's chamberlain Prosenes, who died in 217.

The grave of Marcus Aurelius Prosenes was established by several of his own freed persons (liberti) and reveals an imperial service including several influential positions under Commodus. Nothing in the original Prosenes inscription suggests Christian identity. However, one freedman named Ampelius later inscribed on the stone the fact that Prosenes was "welcomed before God" (receptus ad deum) on March 3, 217. The phrase: "welcomed before God", and clearly the mind attached to that later hand, need not have been Christian.

An inscription from about 240-50 CE presumed to provide information about two Christians as members of the imperial household (CIL VI 8987 ' ICUR X 27126 ' Clarke 1971), has been interpreted as Christian because of the phrase "I beg of you, kind brothers, by the one God". (fratres boni, per unum deum). See Clarke (1971: 121-22) and other experts in Christian epigraphy (cf. Mazzoleni 1999:153-54). However, the phrase: "I beg of you, kind brothers, by the one God", clearly, need not have been articulated by a Christian mind.

An inscription from Ostia often described as "probably Christian” is the grave of Basilides, who was an imperial slave serving as assistant to Sabinus, the imperial paymaster for the port, probably around 250 CE. (CIL XIV 1876) The inscription is categorised as Christian based on the phrase "he sleeps". The phrase: "he sleeps" clearly, need not have been articulated by a Christian mind.

A third century grave-inscription to an Aurelius Aristeas at Akmoneia is often cited. The inscription is categorized as Christian based on the warning against violation
which says that if anyone violates the grave, "they will have to reckon with the righteousness of God." This is a variation on the so-called "Eumeneian formula". The phrase: "they will have to reckon with the righteousness of God." clearly, need not have been articulated by a Christian mind, and neither is there anything unambiguously Christian in the Eumeneian formula.

Sometimes, the Erastus Inscription, from the mid first century is cited (Clarke 1993: 46-57). The inscription actually says something like "...Erastus in return for his aedileship laid (the pavement) at his own expense". The basis by which it is cited as Christian is because Paul mentions that an Erastus is a civic functionary of some type, an "oikonomos of the city" (Rom 16.23). This argument is a subterfuge for wishful thinking.

The Marcus Demetrianos inscription is often cited from Claudiopolis in Bithynia and the late 2nd-mid 3rd century. Marcus was an important civic magistrate and benefactor of the city and is presented as certainly Christian based on the phrase
"To the most holy ones who also had faith in God”. However, quite clearly the phrase: "To the most holy ones who also had faith in God" need not have been articulated by a Christian mind.

The queen of “Christian epigraphy”, the inscription of Abercius dated 216 CE is not unambiguously Christian. The allegorical text of the inscription speaks of "The Shepherd" and not "The Christian". In 1894 G. Ficker, supported by O. Hirschfeld, strove to prove that Abercius was a priest of Cybele. In 1895 A. Harnack offered an explanation based upon religious syncretism. In 1896, Dieterich made Abercius a priest of Attis. It is considered moreover that "The Shepherd" associates with the "The Shepherd" and the "Teacher" referred to in the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. The figure of Thrice-great Hermes mentioned on a number of Nag Hammadi texts has often been associated with Apollonius of Tyana. For example “Hermes Trismegistus & Apollonius of Tyana in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh” by Keven Brown (1997). Additionally, the abbreviated form of Apollonius is Pol and the Greek name Apollonius is written in the Codex Bezae.

Similarly the inscription of Pectorius cannot be considered as evidence of Pre-Nicene Christianity. The date of the Inscription of Pectorius is less certain than that of Abercius. Cardinal Pitra and De Rossi date it to the beginning of the second century; others, not later than the fourth. The text of the inscription mentions the importance of eating fish (perhaps as distinct from meat), but not the importance of Christianity.

Many commentators defer to Elsa Gibson’s "The Christians for Christians Epitaphs of Phrygia". The author presents and discusses a list of 45 inscriptions. The first fifteen reveal common workmanship and the author admitted "more than half of the
‘Christians for Christians’ inscriptions look like they came from the same workshop". Many of these first 15 are described by the author as having the inscription “Christians for Christians”, but none of them are dated. They all refer to the sixteenth inscription for their dating. The sixteenth inscription, at the Kutahya museum, is presented with the dating given as 304, but nothing about the inscription is Christian. Of the remaining 29 inscriptions, a further 17 are not dated, while a group of 8 inscriptions are dated by the author to the fourth century. This leaves four stones (22, 32, 36, 42) standing.

Stone 22 did not have a photograph, but is described as an altar fragment located in Altintas Town, in a mosque. It is described as the sole dated “Christians for Christians” inscription. The date is described as very faint and fragmentary. In fact, the date was so faint and fragmentary; it was not even noticed by its first cataloguer, Perrot. This leaves a trinity of Phrygian headstones to contend with as follows.

Stone 32 is described as a white marble funerary altar with projecting moulding. All visible parts complete; the bottom is set in cement. Dated to 296/7, it is located at Kizilcasogut; in a courtyard, supporting a wooden column. A poor quality photo was provided.

Stone 36 is described as a white marble door stone; bottom third broken away; large crack through center of stone from top of hole to top of stone. First seen at Usak, now in Izmir archaeological museum, it is dated to 278/9. Another poor quality photo was provided.

The stone 42 is described as "nine fragments of a white marble grave altar; some of these fragments join, so that five pieces can be said to be extant”. Its location is described by the author as follows: “At Uckuyu, "Three Wells", in a place called Bahceler Mevkii, "Region of Gardens", about 500 meters south of the village, on the road to Bekilli; in a wall of a garden belonging to Hasan Gurden, opposite the well called Galaklar Kuyusu”. Said to have been found at this spot before the second World War and to have been broken into pieces by the owner of the garden. It is dated to 242/3. There are eight plates of photographs of the fragments of this altar.

In addition to this information the author informs us of the following. Firstly, the "Christians for Christians" formula is subject to change throughout the distribution of citations presented. There are two main variants, of the original Greek, identified in the spelling of the word "christian" (XPIC- and XPHC-). The variant may to be related to “the good” (“chrestus” in the Latin). Thus there is no single and unambiguous Greek wording, but multiple. It is also admitted that in some of the inscriptions (#2), the "Christians for Christians" is identified as ungrammatical.

Secondly, in the sample collection there are inscriptions which even superficially cannot be associated with “Christians”, and do not have the “Christians for Christians formula” (#15,16,25,26,31,39), and yet there is an appearance of one workshop. The author described as non-christian (#25). One (#27) mentions “the lover of the good”.

Thirdly, a far more serious issue is emergent from a number of these inscriptions, many possibly from the same workshop, because it is freely admitted that certain (#2 and #30) of the "Christians for Christians" phrases look to be ungrammatical, but that they have been added by a later hand. Is the case of Oded Golan relevant? For many centuries, especially since the Crusades, there have been Christian pilgrimages back to "The Holy Lands" in search of archaeological relics. Historically the first Christian pilgrim was Constantine's mother-in-law Eutropia, and the second was Helena, his mother, who found the one true cross, and the nails of the purported crucifixion event.

To conclude this review of Phrygian inscriptions it is worthwhile to recall that Eusebius reported that "In 324/5 the Phrygian settlement of Orcistus petitioned Constantine, referring to its totally christian population.” Gregory of Nazianzus reported how his father, a great landowner, was converted to Christianity by an opportune dream in the year 325: he had a christian wife already and ended his days
as the powerful bishop of the family's home town.

That a rich landholder was prompted in a dream to become Christian c.325 indicates that Constantine was making an impact on the publicity stakes. His military supremacy was well regarded. Town councils and rich "pagans" were trying to get in on the ground floor. There were stampeding supporters in that year, especially in Phrygia.


REVISION and ASSESSMENT

At this stage in the review of evidence we need to step back from everything that we are accustomed to. The evidence seems to be saying that Christianity did not unambiguously exist before the fourth century, and that the ambiguous puzzles and conundrums faced by scholars, academics and lay-people in search of the historical records of Pre-Nicene Christianity, are in fact the ambiguous puzzles and conundrums of a Constantinian inspired ecclesiastical pseudo-history.

To articulate the argument in another manner: we have two options. The first is that Constantine was converted to an extremely small and insignificant but extant religious cult, and sponsored existent members of that cult, to write a history of its beginnings during the period 312 to 324. This first option appears to be supported by palaeographic, or handwriting analyses, but by no other forms of evidence independent of its own literary tradition.

The second option is that Constantine invented his own religious cult, and patronised it heavily. Perhaps he thought the ancient religions were too soft and tolerant. He knew that the Persian army had marched to one monotheistic song for the last century since Ardashir created Zoroastrianism out of a few old hymns, and burnt the rest of the ancient Parthian writings. The implication to this option is that we are not likely to find any evidence at all whatsoever for the existence of Pre-Nicene Christianity for the simple reason that it did not exist before Nicaea.

The thesis explores this option.




Pete Brown

NOTE: Some sources include:
[*] The Journal of Biblical Literature 123/1 (2004), p.5-55, The Oxyrhynchus New Testament Papyri “Not without honour except in their Hometown?” E.J. Epp; also Philip A. Harland’s “Connections with Elites in the World of the Early Christians,” York University, Toronto.
[*] Robin Lane Fox: Pagans and Christians, in the Mediterranean World from the second century AD to the conversion of Constantine", 1998

J-D

No you aren't. I've given you my opinion several times, and you have either ignored it or made logically irrelevant responses.Let us suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that you are right and that the first option 'appears to be supported by palaeographic, or handwriting analyses, but by no other forms of evidence independent of its own literary tradition'.

What evidence, on the other hand, supports the second option? Apparently, none whatsoever.

Surely even the most exiguous of evidence carries more weight than nothing.

mountainman

The evidence supporting the 4th century forgery are:

1) The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius the interpolator, an assessment
reached independently by a number of scholars.

2) The reputation of Eusebius as a competent chronographer,
and as a responsible and accurate "ancient historian".

3) The statements made by Constantine in his "Oration
to the Saints" at Antioch, 325 CE, prior to Nicaea. These
statements are charged with fraudulent misrepresentation
of the patristic literature. The Sybil and two Roman poets
are to have predicted the coming of Jesus in the first century
BCE according to the testimony of Constantine. He also
mentions the phrase "christian fraud" himself. I have posted
all this before.

4) The words of Arius 325 CE.
The Arian Controversy is an unknown
mess of conflicting theology and noone to date has come up
with anything like a satisfactory answer for the phenomenom.
My position claims the words of Arius to be straightforward
comment on the ahistory (authenticity) of Constantine's
new god ....

There was time when He was not.
[Ed: He did not exist before Constantine.]

Before He was born He was not.
[Ed: He is a fabrication.]

He was made out of nothing existing.
[Ed: He is a fiction.]

He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
[Ed: He is fictitious.]

He is subject to alteration or change.
[Ed: He is fictitious, as are his gospels.]


5) The words and written conviction of the
emperor Julian c.361 CE. Julian's invectives
have eluded satisfactory explanation until now.

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

6) Other citations which are listed in my thesis
paper (have you actually read this JD?) and in
addition, citations from ancient historians, such
as Arnaldo Momigliano, in support of the position.


7) Finally, understand that the Historia Augusta
is considered to be the foremost of historiographic
mysteries, and is within bounds of being written
in the times of Constantine. This text is a known
massive forgery in its own right, equipped with forged
source documents, and forged letters, etc, and
related to the political history of the empire in
the pre-nicene epoch.

That is seven items of evidence that I present
in support of the forgery hypothesis.



In the case of the paleographic assessment, not
in this instance for the simple fact that my thesis
is about forgery. I believe that the paleographers
are correct, and that they can see the NT in the
Hadrian script, on the rubbish dump at Oxyrynchus.

However my argument here is that these papyri may
have been written in the Hadrian script (for example),
but they were written purposefully in an ancient
script in the fourth century. The lavish display of
the new testament at Nicaea would have included
lavish forgeries, not just of previous extant authors,
such as Origen and Porphyry, but of ancient scripts.
They looked authentically old in the fourth century
in order to perpetrate the scam on the academic
community of Porphyry and Arius, et al.

J-D

Neither Arius nor Julian alleges forgery by or at the direction of Constantine.

The indisputable fact that some documents have been forged is not evidence that other documents are forgeries.

If Eusebius has a reputation as being competent, reasonable, and accurate, I don't see how that's evidence that he was responsible for forgery on a massive scale: rather the reverse, I would have thought.

mountainman

It puts the writing on the wall.



Eusebius does not have a reputation as being competent, reasonable,
and accurate with respect to ancient historians, quite the contrary.

From here:



"How far it may be proper to use falsehood
as a medium for the benefit of those
who require to be deceived;"

--- Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, (circa 324)
PE: Praeparatio Evangelica, Preparation for the Gospel,
The title of Chapter 31 of Book 12.


--------------------------------------

[note: In the following quotation, which is the text of the above headed chapter, Eusebius is quoting Plato, and the response to Plato. The text in italics represents the writings of Eusebius]

PLATO ‘BUT even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be,
if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use,
could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good,
is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this,
and better able to make them all do everything that is just,
not by compulsion but willingly?
‘Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing;
it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.’


[Eusebius] Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures
also thousands of such passages concerning God
as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry,
or subject to any other human passions,
which passages are adopted for the benefit
of those who need this mode of instruction.

--- Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea,
PE: Praeparatio Evangelica, Preparation for the Gospel
Text of Chapter 31, Book 12
(See Heading of Chapter above)


----------------------------------------------

"The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself,
indirectly confesses that he has related what might rebound to the glory,
and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion.
Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion
that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history
has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other;
and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius,
which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts,
than that of almost any of his contemporaries".
--- Gibbon

----------------------------------

"Perhaps, on some future occasion, I may examine
the historical character of Eusebius;
perhaps I may enquire, how far it appears
from his words and actions,
that the learned Bishop of Caesarea
was averse to the use of fraud,
when it was employed in the service of Religion."
--- Gibbon


---------------------------------------------

"None ventured to go over the same ground again,
but left him sole possessor of the field
which he held by right of discovery and of conquest.
The most bitter of his theological adversaries
were forced to confess their obligations to him,
and to speak of his work with respect.

It is only necessary to reflect for a moment
what a blank would be left in our knowledge
of this most important chapter in all human history,
if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out,
and we shall appreciate the enormous debt
of gratitude which we owe to him.

The little light which glimmered over the earliest
history of Christianity in medieval times
came ultimately from Eusebius alone,
coloured and distorted in its passage
through various media.


-- J.B. Lightfoot, Eusebius of Caesarea, (article. pp. 324-5),
Dictionary of Christian Biography: Literature, Sects and Doctrines,
ed. by William Smith and Henry Wace, Vol II.


-------------------------------------------

"Eusebius studied Josephus diligently, and could thus masquerade as he, except when he used the word 'tribe' to describe the Christians. All the literature from the Ante-Nicene Fathers show they never used the word 'tribe' or 'race' with reference to the Christians, was [sic] either by the Fathers or when they quoted non-Christian writers. Tertullian, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, Rufinus--none use 'tribe' to refer to Christians. Eusebius is the first to start the practice."

--- Kerry Shirts, "Did Josephus Mention Jesus?"

--------------------------------------------

"[Eusebius was] the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity."

--- Jakob Burckhardt,
Swiss historian (1818-1897) [via Drews]

----------------------------------------------

"The famous passage which we find in Josephus, about Jesus Christ, was never mentioned nor alluded to in any way whatever by any of the fathers of the first, second, or third centuries; nor until the time of Eusebius, ‘when it was first quoted by himself.’ The truth is, none of these fathers could quote or allude to a passage which did not exist in their times; but was to all points short of absolute certainty, forged and interpolated by Eusebius."

—-- Mitchell Logan,
Christian Mythology Unveiled (1842)


--------------------------------------------------

"[the fourth century was] the great age of literary forgery,
the extent of which has yet to be exposed"
...[and]...

"not until the mass of inventions
labelled 'Eusebius' shall be exposed,
can the pretended references to Christians
in Pagan writers of the first three centuries
be recognized for the forgeries they are."


--- Edwin Johnson, "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins"

-------------------------------------------------

"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced
that the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.
Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth."

...[and, a little later ..]...

"The wretched Eusebius will have it
that poems in hexameters are to be found even among them,
and sets up a claim that the study of logic exists among the Hebrews,
since he has heard among the Hellenes the word they use for logic."



--- Emperor (360-363 CE) Flavius Claudius Julianus (the Apostate)
"Against the Galileans" remains of the 3 books,
excerpted from Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum (1923)"


---------------------------------------------

Ever since Jacob Burckhardt dismissed him as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity," Eusebius has been an inviting target for students of the Constantinian era. At one time or another they have characterized him as:

a political propagandist [1],
a good courtier [2],
the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine [3],
the great publicist of the first Christian emperor,[4]
the first in a long succession of ecclesiastical politicians, [5]
the herald of Byzantinism, [6]
a political theologian, [7]
a political metaphysician [8], and
a caesaropapist. [9]
[1] Erik Peterson, Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem (Munich, 1951 ), p. 91;
[2] Henri Grégoire, "L'authenticité et l'historicité de la Vita Constantini attribuée ê Eusèbe de Césarée," Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, 39 ( 1953 ): 462-479, quoted in T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981 ), p. 401;
[3] Arnaldo Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century," in The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. A. Momigliano (Oxford, 1963 ), p. 85;
[4] Robert Markus, "The Roman Empire in Early Christian Historiography," The Downside Review 81 ( 1963 ): 343;
[5] Charles N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (1940; reprint, Oxford, 1966 ), p. 183;
[6] Hendrik Berkhof, Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Amsterdam, 1939 ), pp. 21-22;
[7] Hans Eger, "Kaiser und Kirche in der Geschichtstheologie Eusebs von Cäsarea", Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 38 ( 1939 ): 115;
[8] Per Beskow, Rex Gloriae. The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church (Uppsala, 1962 ), p. 318;
[9] J. M. Sansterre, "Eusèbe de Césarée et la naissance de la théorie 'césaropapiste,'" Byzantion 42 ( 1972 ): 593


It is obvious that these are not, in the main, neutral descriptions. Much traditional scholarship, sometimes with barely suppressed disdain, has regarded Eusebius as one who risked his orthodoxy and perhaps his character because of his zeal for the Constantinian establishment. Scholars have often observed, for example, that his literary works in defense of the new order depict Constantine and his reign in eschatological terms that rival and even supplant the Incarnation and Parousia in salvation history.

To be sure, this assessment relies on abundant documentation: in the Life of Constantine and in the Tricennial Oration, delivered on the thirtieth anniversary of Constantine's reign, as well as in other books, Eusebius gave an enthusiastic Christian endorsement

. Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius:
Reassessing the First "Court Theologian"

--- MICHAEL J. HOLLERICH
Assistant professor of religious studies
in Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California.

-----------------------------------------------

Eusebius, the First History of the Church,
and the Earliest Complete Bibles

The first Christian scholar to engage in researching and writing a complete history of the Christian church, Eusebius of Caesarea, reveals the embarrassing complexity of the development of the Christian canon, despite his concerted attempt to cover this with a pro-orthodox account.

Two things must be known:

first, Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous
(see note. 6), and either way not a very good historian;

second, Eusebius rewrote his History of the Church at least five times
(cf. M 202, n. 29), in order to accommodate changing events, including
the ever-important Council of Nicea ...

Richard Carrier:
The Formation of the New Testament Canon


------------------------------------------



"There is nothing new in the world
except the history you do not know".

--- Harry S. Truman
33rd US President (1945-1953).

J-D

I didn't realise your reference to Eusebius's reputation was ironic. But now that you've clarified that, the essential point is the same: even if Eusebius is dishonest, that is not evidence that any given document is one of his forgeries.

Just as it remains the case that the fact that some documents have been forged is not evidence that other document are also forgeries. What you mean by saying 'it puts the writing on the wall' I have no idea: it looks like clutching at straws to me.