mountainman

No. You have kept an even keel.

Well, there are four strands here:

1) An Assessment of his Integrity as an Ancient Historian.

2) Other authors of antiquity citing that Eusebius wrote fiction.

3) Analysis of Eusebius' claims showing evidence of fraud.

4) Signed confessions by Eusebius.

Leaving the last aside, which of the first three do you think
are relevant, and are there any other strands?

Time, further facts and analyses pending.
At least the hypothesis sails with a keel of sorts.

Thanks for your comments.

Doug Shaver

That is not a postulate. That is an inference from the evidence.

The lack of evidence is not manifest. There is plenty of evidence. You are alleging that it is forged evidence.

Of course, if you postulate that Eusebius and Constantine collaborated to invent Christianity, then it follows that the documents evidencing the pre-Nicene existence of Christianity must have been forged. But to use that inference as evidence for your postulate is blatantly circular reasoning.

Doug Shaver

1) I am aware of the scholarly consensus that he was not reliable, and I don't know any reason to dispute it. There is a pretty significant difference, though, between unreliable and fraudulent.

2) First I need to know who they were, but from any author, I need something way more specific than "Eusebius wrote fiction" to infer wholesale forgery of every apparently pre-Nicene document that mentions Christianity.

And then, assuming I see something more specific, I'll want to know what evidence the author had for his allegation, and how we know that he actually had that evidence.

3) Let's see just one of those claims of his, and I'll tell you what I think of it.

The second and third might get you started somewhere, if you can substantiate them.

mountainman

Multiple inferences can be drawn from the available evidence.
Every HJ and MJ theory (shall we say of ancient history) with
the exception of a few in the class of FJ theories, appear to
almost without exception share the "truth" of this inference
in some manner or other, simply because Eusebius has tendered
the entire package, with an associated chronological association
of prenicene authors.

Therefore, I prefer to see the "truth of said inference"
(ie: that the "information" delivered via Eusebius is true;
perhaps another way to say it is: Eusebian integrity )
as a postulate, in the field of ancient history, upon which
a theory may be constructed.

It may not appear as a postulate to those inside the
field of "Biblical History", but in the greater scope of
ancient history, I'd argue that it is, for the reasons
provided above.


Fabricated; forged --- at an imperial level;
what do you call that? what do you name it?

I understand this. Thanks.

Doug Shaver

Until I see proof that it was forged, I'm calling it evidence of pre-Nicene Christianity.

mountainman

It's simply a matter of degree: they exist on the same
spectrum of assessment. The further time progresses,
the more the shift moves in this consensus, from the
"unreliable" to the "fraudulent" part of the spectrum.



These are the authors of antiquity:

I have managed to gather together the following authors
who wrote around the time of Eusebius, and whose words
may be interpretted to mean that we are dealing with fiction
which implicates Eusebius.

a) Arius of Alexandria (after whom the Arian controversy is named)
b) Emperor Julian ("the wretched Eusebius", and fiction/fabrication)
c) Philostorgius (makes a comment about Eusebius' religious 'knowledge')
d) In a recent article, we have:

Footnote [33]: Eusebius' low posthumous reputation, see F.Winkelm-, "Die Beurteilung
des Eusebius von Ciisarea und seiner Vita cons tan ti^ im griechischen Osten: ein Beitrag
zur Untersuchung der griechischen hagiographischen Vitae cons tan ti^" in J. h c h e r ,
ed., Byzantinische Beitrrige (Berlin 1964) 91-119.

This comment must have its sources in the 4th century literature, but
I neither have the reference, or understand German.

Admittedly, this sample is small, and not unambiguous, and by itself,
I'd agree from your perspective, could not be entertained as being
(alone) conclusive evidence of 4th century Eusebian forgery. However
we are examining a number of related threads here.

I will not detail my arguments (previously posted) for the inclusion
of these authors on this list here.

This section examines contemporary authors' comments and claims
that, from their perspective, they are arguing that Eusebius is,
for one or more reasons which they provide, is writing fraudulently:

These are just samples:

a) Ken Olson argues Eusebius to be the interpolator of the TF.
b) Jay Raskin argues Eusebius to be the interpolator of Suetonius, and Tacitus.
c) Jay Raskin, in threads here, argues Eusebius forged the Lyon Martrys Letter.
d) TG Elliot in Eusebian Frauds in the "Vita Constantini" argues quite
strongly. For example:

In an earlier discussion of that story (see "Conversion") I did not express
a view on whether Eusebius produced it because he misunderstood
what Constantine told him or because he wished to mislead. I believe that
Eusebius' story must be fraudulent. (p2)

The conclusion to the article reads:

The present argument deals with several issues which have been basic to
the discussion of the problem of the authenticity of the Vita Constantini,
notably the conversion story and the Arian question. In the past scholars
have pointed to them as evidence that Eusebius did not write the work. I
regard them as indicators of his purposes-of exalting Constantine to the
status of one sent by God, and of implying very clearly that his religious
policies were in accord with Eusebius' theological views.

e) There are most likely a larger number of articles, which I am not yet
aware of, in which the authors for some reason or another, have felt that
events are best explained by considering Eusebian fraud.

As you can appreciate, all these arguments are not mine, have been
made by others, and represent another aspect of the situation.



The item (2) - the ancient sources, is understandably contentious.
Thousands of years almost have elapsed, and the ground might be
expected to be swept clean. Why hasn't this option been presented
before, if it has any merit might be one argument. This argument
is met by the one word "authoritarian tradition", by which the new
religion may have been established, and self-perpetuated.

The item (3) - the contemporary sources upon Eusebian Fraud are more
frequent in the recent decades, than in the past centuries, and are
an interesting study group.

It occurs to me, finally, that there is another item by which the
potential fraudulence of the Eusebian prenicene "christian history"
may be identified. This may be archieved in the future, under the
occurrence of following two separate conditions:

Item (4): Statistical distribution of future (NT-related) C14 datings

i) that the number of NT-related C14 citations increases from 2 to n.
ii) all the dating citations from 3 to n prove to be post-nicaean.

I would expect that the more C14 citations are published, if indeed
there were any NT fragments in the prenicene epoch, then we should
get some prenicene dates (which would then of course destroy the
Eusebian forgery hypothesis). However, on the other hand, if we
do not get prenicene dates, then the more post nicene dates that
accumulate paint a bell curve. And the distribution of this bell
curve will tell the story that everything relating to the NT and
the C14 dating citations point to post nicaean texts only. This
conditional argument requires further favorable C14 citations,
and is based on the statistical distributions of the citations.

Out of all these sets of arguments, perhaps the item (3) - the
opinions and arguments, and analyses of contemporary authors,
concerning the literature of Eusebius, is the strongest.

Doug Shaver

Not in my lexical universe. Fraud implies deceitful intention. Unreliability per se, regardless of degree, does not. And there are situations in which the information contained in a fraudulent document could be quite reliable.

May be interpreted won't cut it. That is how inerrantists "prove" that there are no contradictions in the Bible.

One black swan is sufficient to prove the existence of black swans. A white swan with a few black feathers does not. Even just one quotation, if it had been unambiguous, would have demonstrated the existence of some evidence for your hypothesis.

You said "Eusebius' claims." That means something Eusebius himself said. You are not giving me anything Eusebius said. You are giving me other peoples' interpretations of things he said.

I don't much care who first presented the arguments. I was asking about the evidence on which the arguments are based. More specifically: What uncontested facts would lead a reasonable person to think that Eusebius forged every document from which historians customarily infer the pre-Nicene existence of Christianity?

I am aware that some scholars suspect it was Eusebius who forged the TF. I have no defensible opinion yet either way, but even if they're right, that does not begin to imply that he invented the entire story of Christian origins out of whole cloth.

mountainman

I agree with your last sentence but have a question.
Are you saying fraudulent misrepresentation cannot
be associated with the invention of christianity for
some reason or other?

I was simply allowing different interpretations (by others).
I am not trying to be authoritarian.

What's wrong with Emperor Julian's conviction?

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.

-- Julian, c.362, via the hostile censor Cyril

Maybe I was unclear.
1) An Assessment of his Integrity as an Ancient Historian.
2) Other authors of antiquity citing that Eusebius wrote fiction.
3) Analysis of Eusebius' claims showing evidence of fraud.
4) Signed confessions by Eusebius.

By Item (3) I meant analysis by any contemporary author
and distinct from (2) ancient authors of antiquity.

1) Despite tradition to the contrary, there is no unambigous evidence
(outside of the literature tendered by Eusebius) for the existence
of pre-Nicene christianity. I have gathered together all the major
tradition citations, and they all have problems. Here is an index

Based on the above, it should become apparent that, no matter
what tradition says or does not say, there is lack of any evidence
for anything "christian" during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries.

2) The conviction of the emperor Julian above; that supports
the notion that Eusebius tendered fiction and a pseudo-history
under the sponsorship of the military supremacist Constantine.

The tradition that christianity was an invention of Constantine
may have been written by Julian, but was censored by Cyril.
This would quite easily explain why Cyril complained that the
books of Julian were particularly dangerous to the church,
and were turning many people away from it in the early fifth
century.


3) Perhaps No one isolated uncontested fact by itself remains.
We are dealing with the consistency of all the evidence, and
what hypothesis and theory of ancient history best explains
the events.




It suggests fraudulent misrepresentation.
Buyer beware.


Best wishes,



Pete

Doug Shaver

No, of course not. That would be illogical.

What I am saying is that each alleged instance of fraud must be proved using evidence that is clearly relevant to that instance, and it must then be demonstrated how those proved instances logically imply that Christianity probably did not exist before Constantine's time.

That's cool. But if you're trying to prove a certain proposition, then it becomes necessary to demonstrate that an interpretation supporting that proposition is very probably the right interpretation.

It is not unambiguous. He obviously thought there was something fraudulent about Christianity, but he is not claiming that its entire history up to the time of Constantine was a fiction.

Indeed, later in the document he seems to accept the historicity of two of Christianity's ostensible founders, Jesus of Nazareth and Paul.

This is assuredly not an affirmation that neither Jesus nor Paul ever really existed.

You have not clarified anything.

You said, in effect, that Eusebius convicts himself in his own words of writing fraudulent history. Let us see those words.

That is not an uncontested fact. We have documents paleographically dated at least to the third and possibly the second century. Your assertion that Eusebius forged all those documents is most vigorously contested.

Already addressed.

Yes, of one passage in one document.

Oh, I'm all in favor of skepticism.

mountainman

Well I have attempted to list such a register of fraud here:

I have posted it here before. Everything on this register
dated before 100 CE, are by general consensus, perceived
to be fraudulent:

1st - CENTURY
--------------------------------------------
1st - 032 - Letter of King Agbar & Jesus' Rescript - FRAUD
1st - 030 - Letter from Herod Antipas - FRAUD
1st - 030 - letter of Publius Lentulus - FRAUD
1st - 032 - Letters of Caiaphas - FRAUD
1st - 050 - Letters of Pilate - FRAUD
1st - 050 - Confession of Pilate - FRAUD
1st - 050 - Correspondence between Paul and Seneca - FRAUD
1st - 050 - Correspondence between Seneca and Paul - FRAUD
1st - 064 - Nero fire refs (Tacit.Annals XV) - INTERPOLATION
1st - 075 - Domitian (emp:069-079) "Persecution" - FRAUD
1st - 091 - Josephus Flavius (TF; AJ) - INTERPOLATION
1st - XXX - SUMMARY: All above citations recognised as FRAUD.


And so on into the 2nd and 3rd centuries.


According to the mainstream history of christianity the events
listed on this list actually happened. So we are left with some
form of data and/or information integrity issue.

When each of the atomic elements associated together to
form the backbone of the emergence of pre-Nicene christianity
into the open arean of the Roman EMpire are shown to be
either fraudulent, or very suspect, then what does that say
about the entire backbone, the entire chronological
framework (1st authores and espoused by Eusebius)?

I find that it is arguable that if the atomic constituents
have little integrity, it may be viewed as a pseudo-history,
implemented at the time of the rise of Constantine, and
logically implying that Christianity probably did not exist
before Constantine's time

I have split out your comments about Julian's writings
to a separate thread entitled:
Are political issues important to textual criticism
in the case of Julians Galilaeans

Again, I repeat, I attempted to clarify this.
What I meant to say was that I myself am
not personally making any textual criticisms
and convicting Eusebius. While I may have
an opinion on the TF, for example, others
have written why they think "Eusebius convicts
himself in his own words of writing fraudulent history".

Jay Raskin in this thread entitled:
Eusebius Forged the Vienne/Lyon Martyrs' Letter
makes these claims.

As far as I am concerned, these claims made by Jay
are the claims that I had in mind when I wrote.

I hope this clarifies the discussion.


And so we come back again to the avenue by which we
can physically test between these assertions; namely,
the process of radio-carbon-dating.

And the question as to why we only have two C14 citations
of NT fragmentary texts.


Well, at least we can agree in some things.


Best wishes,


Pete