aa5874

Your reasoning is warped.

jgibson000

Ah yes, your famous mantra, given when you see that your own logic undermines the case you are trying to make, but cannot admit it.

How about actually documentation this time of your claim?

Where and specifically how is my reasoning is warped?

How is my syllogism not an accurate representation of the argument you used to support your claim that Eusebius knew of Tertullian's "heresy"? Where in its representation of the premises of your argument and the conclusion you draw from it is it faulty?

JG

mountainman

M makes the distinct claim that E is the inventor of a new
form of historiography, and I will post a citation when I return to
my library in a few days.

I will answer your question if and only if you can answer my question.
How does the Swiss historian, Jakob Burckhardt know that "Eusebius
was the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity."

The classical historiography was based on the political experiences
of the historians mentioned, all of which state their intention to
faithfully transmit the truth of history, and the lineage of kings,
and rulers of the (appropriate) empire.

The new (Eusebian) ecclesiastical historiogrpahy was based more
upon theological romancing, and Eusebius dissembles, and admits
the use of falsehood in education. To the lineage of kings and rulers,
he simply invents a lineage of "holy bishops" which establish both
canon and apostlic succession.

To my knowledge none of the authors in the classical forms of ancient
historiagraphy have ever been assessed as "dishonest", whereas the
newly invented ecclesiastical historiography of Eusebius has attracted
such assessment, and worse.


Have a greater respect for his own integrity as a "classical historian".
Simply stated, Eusebius is not to be considered as a classical
historian. He invented his own form of historiography. (Momigliano).

Momigliano singles out Josephus as the historian that Eusebius most
closely followed in style and form. Again, as I do not have my notes
with me I will refrain now from substanting this comment, with the
relevant quote from M. However I will follow this up within a few days.

mountainman

Such an act cannot be considered "inconceivable"
since we clearly have the fourth century historia augusta.

This document is essentially a spurious history of unknown integrity
supported by stacks of forged documents, written possibly in the age
of Constantine, by a collegiate team of at least 4 scholars. At the
moment noone knows who wrote it.

With the exception of a very small number of later references in a few
lines of the work, the bulk of it could well have been sponsored by
Constantine.




We know Constantine edicted the destruction by fire of the
writings of Porphyry (philosophy, mathematics [Euclid], etc).
So while it is very very clear to everyone that Eusebius was
ecstatic, we can be sure that others were not so sponsored.

mountainman

In a few days I will post a some further data on this
which at present I do not have with me.

This is a very interesting bit of research IMO, and I for one
will be certainly looking forward to your notes, comments
and analyses.

One item that might be examined is whether Constantine ever
had the cause to write in Greek, for some reason perhaps related
to civil or military custom. I do not know if this was ever required
(for example, external to the preparation of the Greek of the 330 CE
Constantine Bible. AFAIK, Constantine only personally wrote in Latin.
The question is whether this Latin ever needed to be written in Greek
and if so, who performed the task. I do not know the answers to
these questions.

Best wishes.

mountainman

This is of course quite correct. The mechanism by which this state
of affairs was brought about was very simple. Roman imperial conquest
of the "barbarians", reduced many very intelligent and literate "barbarians"
to the state of slavery, by right of that military conquest.

jgibson000

You are still confusing "subject" or sub-genre ("ecclesiastical" as opposed to "city" and "political", and "ethnographic" history) with the rules and methods ancient (including ecclesiastical) historians thought or knew or expected that historians should/would follow when writing history.

But I will be eager to see the citation.

How nice of you.

The answer is he doesn't "know". He certainly claimed that this was so, based upon his assessment of the authenticity of the letters of Constantine that Eusebius reproduces. But "knows"? Please! Especially since his assessment -- in 1852 fer chrissakes -- has been shown to be less than objective and since at least one of the letters he claimed were forgeries has been discovered since he wrote.

Besides that, Burckhardt wrote what he wrote about Eusebius in pursuit of an a larger agenda, which, as Cameron and Hall have noted in their translation of the Life of Constantine (or via: amazon.co.uk), and others have demonstrated in reviews of Burckhardt's life and works, was that B.'s attack on Eusebius was not objective, but grew out of a to undermine the ideological legitimacy of the Hapsburg empire, which based itself on the idea of Christian empire derived from Constantine.

They do? May I have some citations please?

Can you please cite where Momligiano says this?

Depends what you mean as "dishonest". And have you ever seen the scholarly assessment of the author/authors of _The Augustan History_?

He does? That's not quite what he says on p. 140 of The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography (or via: amazon.co.uk), is it?

Have you actually read the whole of Momligiano's last chapter in The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography? Heck, have you ready any of its preceding chapters in their entirety? If so, can you tell me what M. says on p. 137 about documentation and on p. 140 about Euesbius and the methods of Diogenes Laertius?

And as to you comments about the aims and intentions and background experiences of the "classical" historians, I take it you haven't read his article on "Greek Historiography" in History and Theory 17, (Feb., 1978), pp. 1-28?

Jeffrey Gibson

Roger Pearse

Arguing that because people write forgeries therefore any work can be treated as a forgery if convenient is a curious idea, but not one on which I propose to spend time. Likewise the idea that because someone in antiquity created the SHA, this shows that it is conceivable that Eusebius inserted irrelevant and useless forgeries into his texts is a non-sequitur.

Curious. I thought that it was purely the libel against the Christians. Works like the Isagogue were regarded with great interest by the church, and translated into many languages and commentaries written on them.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

PhilosopherJay

Hi Roger,

I think both you and Mountain Man are right. You are right in this sense:

On the one hand, because Eusebius wrote in a time when fraud, deception and forgery was the norm, it is conceivable that much of the Church History may be made up of such content.

On the other hand, because of the exceptional status and influence of the work, as a cornerstone and foundation of our knowledge of the history of early Christianity, it is inconceivable that much of it could be a deliberate forgery. It appears that only extreme skepticism or ignorance can lead to that conclusion.

But I think you are both wrong in not seeing things from Eusebius' point of view.

The necessity to see Eusebius as fundamentally truthful or dishonest reminds me of what Jacques Derrida writes about supplements in "On Grammatology." He talks about how termporary supplements grow into necessary replacements. Although I recall he had in mind writing and speech, and certain drugs, I think the concept can be applied to Eusebius' 'Church History.' Although, Eusebius wrote it as a supplement for faith, it has become for many educated people a necessary replacement for faith. For the rational Christian historian, belief in the goodness and truthfulness of Eusebius may replace belief in the goodness and truthfulness of Jesus Christ, although she/he might imagine that it is still only a supplement.For the skeptic, the idea that Eusebius is a liar substitutes for calling all Christian doctrine a lie.

In my book, "Evolution of Christs and Christianities," I noted that Eusebius felt guilty about his forgeries and therefore added a "tell" to all of them, a subconscious marker that tells us that he is the author. His "tell" is his comparison of two time periods and his single sentence pronouncement that a miracle has placed something from one time period into another. In the book I list a dozen examples, the most famous being "those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Now, in thinking about this, I recall Jean Paul Sartre's talking about how Jean Genet was proud to claim his crimes. In considering this, I now think that I underestimated Eusebius' desire to claim his crimes. The confessor really feels proud of his/her sins and telling someone about them allows that pride to come out. That is why confession is so successful a practice and allows the confessor to feel better.

I now think that Eusebius was proud of his actions. He was proud to be contributing to his Church through his writings, if only through his creative fictions. Eusebius felt that he was contributing to his church by moving one document through time to another time period where it should not be. He was creating a miracle. For Eusebius, what we may consider his crimes of forgery are actually his gifts to his church and God, his holy acts. When we think Eusebius was merely a dupe or merely a forger we really miss how holy and pious he was.

Rather than being "irrelevent and useless," his actions were "reverent and useful."

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

jgibson000

Umm... says who? What is your evidence for this claim? And the "norm" for/of what?

JG