mountainman

This is not my theory here -- I am trying to follow Philosopher Jay's theory. The idea that Eusebius may have also invented both Marcion and the Apellan faction may not be foreign to Philosopher Jay's ideas. Let him answer for himself.

Toto

Jay has said that Eusebius rewrote gnostic texts. Why would he write heretical works and then edit them to be orthodox?

mountainman

It was a little more substantial than just some "gnostic texts" . See for example
Eusebius Forged the Vienne/Lyon Martyrs' Letter

I am not sure how Philosopher Jay would answer this.

But my response would be that Eusebius's chief purpose was to establish and to authenticate a false and retrojected history.

Having said this, the issue of "Eusebius" is complexified because I think that the author Eusebius himself was "added to" and "censored" by the 4th and 5th century regimes of the christian state orthodox in the same manner that the Law Codes of Justinian exhibit common forgeries.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto and Pete,

I think the idea that Eusebius first wrote heretical/gnostic works and then developed orthodox works is an interesting one. I had to think about how we could disprove it.

I think one disproof is the style of Eusebius as evidenced by demonstratio evangelica, preparatio evangelica and historia ecclesiastica. In demonstratio and preparatio, he is simply taking over people's work and using their writings to show that Christianity fits neatly into both Greco-Roman Philosophy and mythology and that the Jewish scriptures were predicting precisely the story of Jesus. The manipulation of the texts and suppression of counter-interpretations and the probably real intentions of the authors are ignored. These works reveal a quite sophisticated Church propagandist. He proves his hypotheses by using the works of previous authors dialogically (to create a sort of dialogue). However, he is not making up the dialogues. Those he finds ready made in history. He just needs to be quite selective and give a little tweak to a few words for them to serve his purposes

In Church History he is taking pieces of historical works and using them to create the impression of a unified Church starting with Jesus. Having gained some mastery in manipulating other peoples text, Eusebius just adds the trick of adding words to other peoples texts to make them read something quite different from what they may have intended. In this way he is able to create a history of an orthodox Church that never existed.

Eusebius shows no evidence of being a genius who can invent complex mythologies and counter mythologies at a single bound.

In this view of Eusebius, it is wrong to say that Eusebius invents Orthodox Christianity. Rather he is living at the beginning of the time of a certain Orthodox Christianity and he simply invents a history that matches that orthodoxy, projecting his contemporary Christian problems (For example, mass Christian martyrdom, Empire wide repression, and celebration of Easter vs. Passover, ) into the past. The creation of a tendency towards an Orthodox Christianity probably had to do with the attempt to exterminate Christianity from the Eastern half of the Roman Empire around 303. In the same way, the Jewish Holocaust from 1941-1945 created a kind of Jewish unity and orthodoxy that had not existed before.

We have to give Eusebius credit for inventing a reasonably plausible but quite fictitious history of an orthodox Christian Church, but not credit for inventing orthodoxy, Christianity or the Church. By deconstructing Eusebius' work, I think we can discover a much more interesting and complex history of orthodoxy, the Church and Christianity.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Clivedurdle

? 303

PhilosopherJay

Hi Clivedurdle,

Got it. Thanks for the correction.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Clivedurdle

Maybe Diocletian was trying to control his Taliban....

I tend to agree with Freke and Gandy on these issues - literalists versus gnostics - Wahhabis versus Sufis is a modern example.

Cromwell.

mountainman

Thanks for the clarification Philosopher Jay,

I am happy to agree with practically all that you say above, but have trimmed your post to focus on a small section regarding Diocletian.

I think that we need to be careful with Eusebius's literary assertions regarding any "persecution and extermination" of the christians, especially under Diocletian. We have no evidence of any "christian persecution" under Diocletian other than Eusebius, who acted for the new Good Emperor who was far better than the Old Bad Emperor. Lucinius for example is "The Bad Snake".

At any rate I think it might be successfully argued that it is far more certain that the Emperor Diocletian persecuted the Manichaeans, than he persecuted the Christians. And if it is reasonably secure that Diocletian persecuted this Persian Religious heretical sect (they were overthrown in Persia and exiled and persecuted) called Manichaeans, then Eusebius could simply be trying to bend the truth a little, concerning the public memory of the savage persecution of a small exotic religious group by the previous Roman Emperor Diocletian. That is, what was a savage persecution of the Manichaeans became under Eusebius a savage persecution of "the great nation of Christians".

Eusebius goes so far as to get out his easel, pallete and canvases and paint a picture of the Persian sage Mani as a Christian, with the stablishment of "Christian Bishops" in the Sassanid Persian capital city. Augustine creates a few more Manichaean related fictions. And the Christian Emperors and their orthodox minions confiscate and burn the writings of the Mani and the Manichaeans down through the 4th and 5th centuries.

The Persian sage Mani apparently trecked to India to converse with the Brahmins. It is seems within the realms of possibility that he had read the newly commissioned Greek work by Philostratus "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana", which described Apollonius treck to India in the 1st century. To my mind it is does not seem to be within the realms of possibility that Mani was a "Christian". It is more likely that this is just another Eusebian fabrication.

This may sound discordant, but I see the Christians of the 4th century under Constantine and the Christian Emperors as "the Oppressors", and not the party who was historically subject to persecution. I think it is reasonable that any and all "Pre-Nicaean Christian persecutions" are simply Eusebius's literary assertions that have no basis in history.