Vinnie

LOL

even the sober scholars fall victim to hyperbole and sensationalism constantly in this field.

its terrible.

back to the lower fora for me.

andrewcriddle

The earliest references would IIUC be in the works attacking Christianity by Celsus around 180 CE and Porphyry around 300 CE.

The problem is that these works survive only in fragments preserved by Christians refuting them.

Andrew Criddle

Minnesota Joe

For the non-professionals in the field of Biblical criticism (like me), what is the general impression of this assertion? Is it just sensationalism like some have contested or does it have teeth?

spin

Minnesota Joe, which assertion? (You gotta help your reading audience.)


spin

Minnesota Joe

Of the OP, but I apologize. Is there anything to this Professor's assertion that the NT is fabricated or is this just a guy trying to stir up a little controversy to sell a book (not that those are the only options)?

Thanks,

Joe

Toto

The NT is clearly "fabricated." Christians claim that it was fabricated under the inspiration of god, but most of us here doubt that. It is an open question as to exactly who fabricated it when, and for what purposes, since this all happened 1700-1900 years ago, more or less.

It is hard for most of us to evaluate this particular theory, since the book has not been translated into English. From the machine translation, it appears that this professor does not think that Eusebius invented the gospels out of whole cloth in the fourth century, just that he edited some preexisting stories. That may not be such a radical theory after all.

In general, when you hear of some grand theory that explains Christian origins as a simple forgery or conspiracy, whether human or divine, it is best to be skeptical. There just isn't enough surviving evidence to say much with that degree of certainty.

Limit

As much as i would like this to be legit im going to have to call this one-from the way you say it it sounds like this stuff is no more real than bible code.

Minnesota Joe

Thanks Toto. Of course, the NT is certainly man-inspired, but, as you say, it is good to be skeptical of the more surprising claims. I am really in no position to judge the more outlandish sounding ones, which is why I asked here. But I'm curious...why would it not be radical to find that a 4th century scribe did a little creative writing?

Toto

Eusebius would have to have not only written the gospels, but also faked a number of earlier commentators who wrote about those gospels, from Justin Martyr to Iraeneus to Tertullian, writing in different languages and different styles and in various locations from North Africa to France to Syria. He would also have had to have created a credible forgery of a scrap of the Gospel of John which is sometimes dated to 125, anticipating the way that later analysts would date papyrii. It's possible (remotely), but that that would have made him a busy scribe indeed.

Peter Kirby

I submit that one who reads Eusebius, and really reads him at the tedious length that is necessary to feel his villenage to all things tradition and to witness his incurable apoplexy at anything that is novel and to hear the staccatto pitch of his cite cite cite, will see at once that it is utterly impossible to attribute to him the amaranthine symbolism of the fourth evangelist, the spirited portrayal of Luke and Acts, or the dialectical polemic and smoldering mysticism of the Apostle Paul. One reads therein the antiquarian's insipid compendium, that place where once-vibrant mythology goes after it has crystallized into theology and then fractured into the trifling shards of amber postulates, to be collected and catalogued in a somber, soporiferous chronology.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby