avi

So, this date of 311 is derived from Eusebius?

Toto

Eusebius was writing a few decades later, and would seem to have little reason to invent this particular story, so this date may be more reliable than other factoids from Eusebius.

mountainman

Dear avi,

Every date of the period is either derived directly from Eusebius or, in some instances where further details have been later added, by his continuators in the ecclesiastical historians and writers of the later fourth and then fifth centuries. Most emphatically I can find no record of any historian writing at the time while Constantine was in power (ie: 306 through to 336 CE) who was not a "christian". We do not appear therefore to have a balanced picture: it appears to be a christian whitewash - the original one; and the pagan side of history has not been preserved (or at least does not yet appear extant). Few people think this is a problem. Do you?

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Toto,

Are you serious? Eusebius invents the story of a letter from Jesus Effing Christ himself, and soberly dates it to Eddessa and the first century; translates it from the Syriac to Greek, and carefully places it proudly in his national history of the christians. Sometimes you worry me Toto.

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

Sometimes you worry me. I said that this is more likely to be reliable than some of Eusebius's more obvious inventions. Do you have a problem with that?

mountainman

Dear Toto,

Why would anyone (in power) waste significant time writing academic polemic on a religious cult when that religious cult is relatively insignificant? It is only when they rise to some form of power that they are openly opposed by those who hold or had held positions in the one common and openly competed-for power structure. Surely, once the cult becomes exposed to the the power of an offical state status, far more polemic would be generated by the people in power who had to compete against this upstart new official monotheistic religion.

To be specific did the greek academics take Constantine as a christian Preacher (I refer to Constantine's Oration via Robin Lane-Fox) seriously? Do you think the greek academic who preserved Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, Apollonius, Ammonias Saccas, Philostratus, Plotinus, Porphyry, Euclid, etc, etc took kindly to the ineptitudes of the new testament being thrust into the number one preservation place in the literature? Is the Emperor Julian a reliable guide in assessing this?

Doesn't Eusebius tell us that the pagans were slandering Jesus Mr. Christ via this "Acts of Pilate"? In school rooms? We are dealing with both writing and orations. A diatribe verging on criticism and slander? A diatribe verging on Libel? Defamation by writing and via oration. (Do the terms libel and/or slander in this context summarise what the pagans were doing? The Constantinian Laws then were what?) I think Eusebius prefers the term calumny, since such appears to be diffused throughout his literature.

Is Reverend Moon a valid example to demonstrate this principle, since the volume of polemic written against this cult has increased with its exposure to power structures.



Not quite, but I have faith that we are making progress.




Best wishes,


Pete

Ben C Smith

For those not committed to the Eusebian generation of all Christian texts and traditions, the odds that Eusebius invented this letter and its accompanying story himself are next to zero. It hails from Syriac tradition as preserved in the Doctrine of Addai, which uses a different textual tradition of Luke 10.1 than Eusebius used: Eusebius follows the tradition represented by Sinaiticus (70 disciples sent out), while the Doctrine of Addai follows the text tradition represented by Vaticanus and Bezae (72).

Ben.

Toto

It is not an exact analogy, but it might be instructive. The powers that be in the US did not invent the Unification Church, but the Republican Party has been happy to use the financial support of that Church. Nevertheless, the volume of "polemic" against it has been fairly continuous. And the Unification Church is not "in power." How does this help your case?

mountainman

Dear Toto,

Graph the output of "polemic" against the new church as a function of time over the decades starting from its inception. As the church rose in size and power, the amount of polemic addressed against it grew in proportion.

In the fourth century things were not anywhere near as democratic as they are today - they were barbaric. The prominence of the christians was raised almost overnight by Constantine, and it was associated with COnstantine's destruction and persecution of the extant Hellenic religious cults. It is much like a cult war in which Constantine out-gunned everything existing. I would expect massive amounts of greek academic "polemic" at such an epoch. Eusebius may be describing the very first pagan reaction - "The Acts of Pilate". This is what I have been attempting to argue -- that the genre of the non-canonic may be seen as pagan "polemic".


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Ben,

Your logic does not quite cut it here.

All theses codices (ie: Sinaiticus,Vaticanus and Bezae etc etc etc) are also thought to have descended from (one of) the Constantine Bibles of c.331 CE. As such we do not have any "independent" tradition, rather an original source for all reports. Eusebius first mentions the letter of Jesus. It is a serious integrity issue, similar to the TF.

The letter of Jesus produced by Eusuebius out of thin air is a clear case of Eusebian fraud. Constantine is not today still standing by with the army. I am not compelled to actually believe that this total bullshit might be true. We are dealing with a primitive mass movement emperor cult, which swaggered out of the Eusebian womb in 312 CE with a sword in its hand and the One True Monotheist State Song on replay in the One True Monotheistic State Basilicas. It was BIG BUSINESS for the bosses: one bible was worth a legion. The new state sanctioned canon of literature was bound lavishly in the high technology of the codex and this was truly impressive. But the NT canon as fiction, not history. (and then came the apochrypha).


Best wishes,


Pete