mountainman

"To Eusebius, chronology was something
between an exact science and
an instrument of propaganda."


---- Arnaldo Momigliano
---- Pagan & Christian Historiography in the 4th C"

spin

Doesn't the notion of facts mean anything to you, mountainman? Would you stop this bs and get real? You can't live in la-la-land for the rest of your life. You can only shape the data so much. You've had plenty of time to cough up the goods and convince people on this forum, but 48 people out of 72 are simply not convinced, 6 more are out to lunch. Only two are certain and 7 think it's a good bet. Five give it a fair chance and four just don't know. You're doing something wrong, mountainman. You're not reaching an audience which is open to your message if it could be sold right.

The reason is of course that you have no evidence whatsoever. Julian plainly doesn't support you, as he indicates that he believed both Jesus and Paul were real. Your theory is more complicated and less likely to explain the developments in christianity we see. How long are we going to have to see your ad hoc treatment of awkward data like a "mini-proto-Nicaea" or your historicalization of Apollonius of Tyana?

The majority of Constantine's coins show that he was a pagan all his life. We have to accept the convenient deathbed baptism, which even concedes his paganism at least until then. The three versions of his dream show that much of it was apocryphal to Eusebius.

You often don't seem to understand your own quotations, such as this from Momigliano, just quoted. Most people who know anything about Eusebius understand that a lot of his textual manipulation was for propaganda purposes, but you don't acknowledge Momigliano's line about "exact science".

Without facts all you've got is speculation.


spin

mountainman

For the moment I am content that the hypothesis
of Eusebian fiction is at least entertained to some.

The statistics actually do me a service, seeing as though
this entire idea --- that the NT is a fourth century fiction
in which Eusbius is heavily and wretchedly implicated ---
is but a hypothesis which I decided to explore in an
objective and reasonable fashion.

It provides the basis to explore an alternative history
of the invention of the christian religion, other than
that the "pure" literary tradition.


Julian has left us alot more data than I have at present
made myself familiar. The Loeb Series on Julian is particularly
resourceful on the subject matter of Julian's literature.

Julian's treatment of Jesus and Constantine in his Caesares,
(btw, have you chanced to have read this -- its in VOL. II) and
my earlier refutation of your position on this stands. At the
head of Julian's assessment he clearly indicates his conviction,
reinforced by a legal disclaimer concerning all that is to follow,
that he was discussing characters in a fiction of men.

My hypothesis is that Eusebius wrote fiction for Constantine.
As such the theory easily explains the development of the
new and strange religion with effect from Rome 312 to its
implementation at Constantine's "Supremacy Party" 325 CE.

And as for Apollonius of Tyana, your point is?
Apollonius of Tyana according to the critiera
established by Richard Carrier appears to have
a far greater "index of historicity" than Jesus.
Do you wish to either deny, or argue this?

His Dafne Coin minted at Constantinople 326-330 shows
him to have forsaken the tradition of all Roman Emperors
to wear the laurel crown. Instead, he shows himself,
wearing the diadem of a King.

Perhaps you often don't seem to understand that although
I write that Constantine is best described as a highly
intelligent supreme imperial mafia thug, I also write that
Eusebius was best described as an extremely intelligent
ecclesiastical historiologist and theological romancer.

I have the integrity of the hypothesis, and its capacity
to explain the emergence of a persecuting ROman religious
order in the fourth century out of the whole imperial yard
of cloth --- the new technology emergent from the Second
Sophistic.

Additionally, we have the fact that hypothesis of Eusebian
fiction automatically provides for a number of quite specific
implications, as outlined here.

The big question asked here is: "What if the history is fiction?" The answer to this question is explored by means of making a simple postulate, namely suppose the history is in fact fiction. Logically, if the Eusebian history is false, there are at least five very specific implications. These are the following:

First Implication of Historical Fiction = Alternative

The first implication of the postulate is that there must exist another theory of history with a far greater integrity for the period, and perhaps quite different than the theory of history presented by Eusebius. For the exercise, this is to be called "reality".

Second Implication of Historical Fiction = Conjoins

The second implication is that there must exist a point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality". That is, the fictitious theory of history must have been physically inserted into "reality" at some stage, or point in time.

Third Implication of Historical Fiction = Precedent date

The third implication is that this point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality" must necessarily be - at the earliest - either during, or after, the life of the author of the fiction. Eusebius the author completes his work at some time prior to the Council of Nicea, in 325 CE.

Fourth Implication of Historical Fiction = Turbulent controversy

The fourth implication of the postulate is that this point in "reality" at which the fiction was implemented, would necessarily be associated with possibly massive social turbulence. People would be bound to notice the change in their history books, and possibly overnight. The Arian controversy and heresy is here cited and analysed with a new perspective.

Fifth Implication of Historical Fiction = party with power

The fifth implication of the postulate is that because of the possibly massive social turbulence associated with the actual implementation of the fiction, a great degree of power would be needed to be brought to bear, by the party responsible for the implementation of the fiction. The supreme imperial commander of the Roman Empire, Constantine I, is cited and his involvement in the establishment of the Nicean Council, for the express purpose of containing the Arian controversy (heresy) is cited and detailed.

If the hypothesis of Eusebian fiction is without merit, then
I believe that you should try and explain why all these five
implications of the fiction can be perceived to have existed
in the life and times of the author, Eusebius.


Best wishes,



Pete