aa5874

So, it was the ROMAN CHURCH under the authority of the Roman Emperor, not just "Eusebius", who INVENTED the HISTORY of the CHURCH.

The CONVERSION from worshiping Greek/Roman Gods and DEIFYING EMPERORS to worshiping Jesus as a God MUST have been a MASSIVE undertaking.

It could NOT just be "Eusebius" alone.

So far I have IDENTIFIED some aliases.

This is a PARTIAL LIST.

IGNATIUS

LUKE

PAUL

PETER

JAMES

JOHN

JUDE

POLYCARP

CLEMENT OF ROME

IRENAEUS

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

TERTULLIAN

ORIGEN

EUSEBIUS.

Now, Julian the Emperor in "Against the Galileans" made a statement that make me NOW think that "Church History" by "Eusebius" may have also been INTERPOLATED.
"Against the Galileans" Julian challenged his readers to find a well-known writer who wrote about Jesus or Paul.

Julian has SUGGESTED that he was NOT AWARE that Josephus wrote the "TF" or anything about JESUS or PAUL.

How is it Julian the Emperor did NOT know about Antiquities 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 where supposedly Josephus WROTE about Jesus during the time of Tiberius?

Julian wrote "Against the Galileans" c. 363 CE or about 40 years AFTER "Church History" was written but seem NOT to know about the forgeries in Antiquities of the Jews.

Julian must have known the writings of Josephus and Tacitus and he was NOT aware that they wrote anything about Jesus or Paul.

mountainman

They sought immediate gratification and secured it. In Constantine's case it seems to have been based on gold and power. The gold was required to secure the army - practically all roman emperors saw it this way - or if they failed to do so, they were permanently removed from office.

It needs to be plainly identified that Constantine and Eusebius both moved under the inspiration of a newly established freedom.

But I also think its important to keep in mind that the "Official Complete Account" of Constantine and Eusebius was authored and preserved by the Nicaean State Church Structure which perpetuated itself, filling in the void left by the prohibitions placed on the tradional worship of the "Pagan divinities", as the basilicas gradually replace the temples and shrines. This later historical reporting was conducted by orthodox people whom Momigliano calls "the continuators of Eusebius", in the later 4th and 5th centuries.

Did they add anything, or remove anything, from what we now read as "Eusebius"?
Perhaps time and careful collective analysis can tell.

Song of Erra

Hello again, Pete.

I'm very thankful for this conversation, which has got me thinking in interesting ways. I regret if this reply doesn't quite do justice—my mind is so fogged-out at the moment. I had some colourful metaphors half typed, but in the end I couldn't see how to make them work. No doubt I'll muse over this subject for a while, and come back to it when my mind is more willing. For now, I hope this doesn't seem like short change.

“Covert machinations” pose a serious problem for the historical method. To establish that a conspiracy took place, one needs to establish via the record a thing that was deliberately concealed from the record and by the record. The conspiracy theory needs to justify a shift of trust from the majority of data (which won't reflect a conspiracy), onto the small amount of data that support the theory. The latter, I think, need to speak very loudly if they are to overcome the innate unlikelihood of a conspiracy. When I mentioned about “correcting the record”, I meant what I think you mean—that the data are “weighted” according to how truthful we believe them to be. But I was also thinking of “extrapolation”, when the picture is fleshed-out to make more complete sense. Just looking at what I know, your theory requires more extrapolation from a small amount of data than what I'm comfortable with—if that makes sense?

It was only a brief back-and-forth, but read this post (and quotes) and then the one that follows.

I think we're in agreement here. I do feel it's okay for anomalies to exist—they just need to be balanced against the usefulness of the paradigm.

I respect that you've looked for, and found, parallels; but we're still dealing with something that is much less common than the alternatives, and requires more speculation about what went on behind the scenes. As I've said, I think this stacks the cards against you from the get-go. I haven't decided how much I want to blame this on the historical method, but there's definitely some owing.

It may be mere cynicism on my part, but I distrust anything that sounds like “wait and see”. The future is a bridge I like to cross when I come to it, because so often it is just a mirage.

I'm not questioning your intellectual honesty, and I hope nothing I've said can be construed that way. I know others question it, but that is for them to justify, and not for you to defend until they make an adequate case.

Again, thank you for your thoughts, Pete. I intend to read your posts again when I get the chance.

avi

Thank you for this clarification. Well written. I agree with your assessment, completely.

avi

mountainman

My position on the paleographic data is not a denial of historical facts,
but is rather based upon skepticism. I am skeptical of the validity of
these "due attestations" and "qualified opinions" regarding the date of
handwriting to determine the date of the NT related papyri fragments.

Certain historical facts support the skepticism position and suggest that
in this instance the papyri fragments are derived from a later period,
and a period after the Council of Nicaea. These other mitigating facts
are as summaried as follows:

That the NT related papyri fragments are Post Nicaean

(1) The population demographics for the Egyptian city of Oxyrhynchus
exhibit a massive over-population in the mid fourth century. We have
to presume that the most of the rubbish on the 12 -14 rubbish dumps of
Oxyrhynchus was therefor deposited during this mid 4th century explosion
in the cities population. Surely this is a standard archaeological
principle? What are the odds of getting rubbish from before the population
explosition? Nobody has ever bothered to ask this question before.

(2) The papyri fragments are largely/predominantly from codices and not scrolls.
This fact mitigates the fragments toward the 4th century, when codex production
became the new technology for the preservation of literature.

(3) Both NT Canonical fragments and NT Non Canonical fragments are being found
together. And in fact, there are more non canonical papyri fragments that
canonical. Were the orthodox canon preservers and the heretical gnostic non
canonical preservers through out their codex fragments on the same rubbish tip?
Isn't this somewhat unlikely in any century? A better explanation would be that
the city of Oxyrhynchus was a haven for one or the other party alone. Seeing that
the canon was being official preserved in imperial scriptoria from Nicaea in 325 CE,
it is more reasonable to assume that the city of Oxyrhynchus was a haven for those
who were preserving the non canonical books --- again, after Nicaea.

(4) Other arguments


Summary

I am skeptical of the early paleographic opinions on the basis
of the above three mitigating historical facts each of which suggest
that the fragments are instead from the mid fourth century.

mountainman

Bullneck conspires with Eusebius between 312 and 324 CE to fabricate the new testament and the history of the nation of the christians in GREEK. He instructs Eusebius to order fifty copies of the Christian Bible from the professional teams of scribes in the imperially sponsored scriptoria, soon after Nicaea. Constantine attempted to have his codex canonized, but this bid failed. It was rejected. Nevertheless, from Nicaea, all languages translated the Greek codices manufacted under COnstantine. Later more
Greek codices were produced under Constantius II.

The conspiracy then later became not copying and preserving the Greek codices produced under Constantine, but the suppression of the fact that Constantine had simply commissioned them "out of nothing existing". Of course, there was a great controversy over this lack of authenticity, and I see this great controversy played out as the "Arian Controversy".

But those who inherited the power structure of the church and its christian basilicas would not relinquish it, and they expanded their empire by destroying pagan temple by pagan temple throughout the 4th century.

But, the source documents of the New Testament are ONE LANGUAGE and that is GREEK. And I do not think we are going to find any earlier copies of the new testament before the greek copies ordered by Constantine were manufactured in preparation for his military supremacy over the eastern ROman empire. It was a revolution! (See Momigliano).

Transient

Seems strange to me that we do not have any copies of any of the NT books dated in the first 2 centuries. It is not as if they would not have been looked after - they would have been in the RCC vaults at least because Eusebius would have had copies to work from.
What is the earliest dated copy of any of the books or letters included in the NT?

Toto

Do you seriously think that the third century residents did not throw out garbage? Or that the fourth century did not throw out old stuff?

I think the odds are close to 100% of finding earlier rubbish. That's why no one has bothered to ask this question before.

We've been through this before. The codex was in use in the first century.

CodexNo, it's not.

(4) Other arguments

??

This is pseudoskepticism. You merely find some objection of dubious validity to reject a conclusion that you do not like.

Then you repeat your objections, without answering any replies.

mountainman

It is an historical fact that Constantine pronounced "damnatio memoriae" on the historical figure of Arius of Alexandria. This imperial censorship was aimed at the books authored by Arius, and his name, and his political
memory. The process of "damnatio memoriae" is quite fairly and reasonably exemplified in recent times under Stalin.

People were literally "Rubbed Out" of History

....

It was alot harder for Stalin to rub out the "vanishing commissar Nikolai Yezhov"
than it was for Constantine to rub out the "vanishing Arius of Alexandria".


Arius of Alexandria was "Rubbed Out of History" by Imperial Decree

Therefore it is imperative that my detrators, who suggest that I am redefining
the role of the historical Arius of Alexandria must be immediately stood on notice
that Arius was the subject of Constantine's "damnatio memoriae".

Not only were his books burnt and prohibited, but his name was not to be mentioned and he was to be removed from history. Anyone apprehended in possession of any of his books was to be immediately beheaded.


The Sources we have on anything written by Arius of Alexandria

Who was Arius of Alexandria -- An examination of the sources.

Spin cites one of a very small collection of documents related to Arius and treated as sources.
These documents have been summarised below.

The Documents of Arius

(##) YEAR Description of Document .
(01) 0318 Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia
(02) 0320 Arius and other Alexandrian clergy to Alexander of Alexandria pleading his cause
0321 Summary of letter of a council in Palestine reinstating Arius
0322 Priest George to the Arians in Alexandria defending Alexander
0324 Emperor Constantine to Alexander of Alexandria and Arius
(03) 0327 Emperor Constantine to Arius (Dear Arius, grab the first chariot to Constantinople)
(04) 0327 Arius and Euzoius to the Emperor Constantine
(05) 0333 Imperial edict against Arius and his followers (The "Porphyrian")
(06) 0333 Emperor Constantine to Arius and his followers ("Dear Arius Where Are You"?)
(07) 03?? Thalia - The "Long Lost Songs of Arius"?

Examining the Letter of Constantine to Arius of c.333 CE

The evidence for my position of redefining Arius away from what the orthodox
christian hersiologists assert (ie: Arius was a christian presbyter) is to be
found in one of the above list of sources.

Constantine's Letter to Dear Arius c.333 CE

If anyone wants to understand what COnstantine really thought of Arius, then I suggest that you read the following letter which Constantine composed. It is a very revealing letter in a political and a religious sense. Arius is obviously the most notorious "anti-Christian heretic" in the whole Empire, and Constantine expresses his dissatisfaction over the books which Arius has been busy writing.


ANALYSIS of this nasty letter of c.333 CE

If any readers are interested in an analysis of what Constantine discloses about the
person of Arius of Alexandria in this letter, in regard to a range of issues, then
I can suggest this analysis will prove interesting. The following descriptions of Arius
and/or his writings and books should serve as an example.

Constantine describes Arius as an Author of Books
that "grieved and pained" the Christian Church and "Demoted" Jesus.

He brought state orthodoxy into the light;
He hurled his wretched self into darkness.
He ended his labors with this

He wrote that he did not wish God to appear to be the subject of suffering of outrage
He wrote that (on the above account) he suggested and fabricated wondrous things indeed in respect to faith.
He wrote books that collected and gathered terrible and lawless impieties
He wrote books that agitated tongues [Editor: Very popular books]
He wrote books which deceived and destroyed

He introduced a belief of unbelief.
He introduced a belief of unbelief that is completely new.
He accepted Jesus as a figment
He called Jesus foreign
He did not adapt, he did not adapt (it was said twice) to God [Editor: the "new" orthodox God]
He was twice wretched

He reproached the church
He grieved the church
He wounded he church
He pained the church
He demoted Jesus
He dared to circumscribe Jesus
He undermined the (orthodox) truth
He undermined the (othodox) truth by various discourses
He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable
He questioned the presence of Jesus
He questioned the activity of Jesus
He questioned the all-pervading law of Jesus
He thought that there was a place outside of Jesus
He thought that there something else outside of Jesus
He denied the infiniteness of Jesus
He did not conclude that God is present in Christ
He had no faith in Christ
He did not follow the law that God's law is Christ
He had little piety toward Christ
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of Jesus
He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of the Church
He was barred publicly from God’s church

Arius as a Non Christian Resistance Leader


My position is that Constantine tried to convert the pagans in the eastern empire to Christianity but met with a great deal of resistance, far more than is recorded by the victors (centuries later). My position is that the Alexandrian Greeks mercilessly satired the new testament story in their theatres when it was first introdiced to them. Here is what Eusebius says:

“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

[Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]

The following notes from a reading of the following
book support the case for identifying Arius not with
the lineage of the christian apostles, but with the
lineage of the apostles of Plotinus, the teacher of
Porphyry.

Constantine flatly calls Arius a "Porphyrian".


The above points should serve as a basis of dialogue,
but many people here have already made up their minds
that we already know everything that here is to know
about this Arius of Alexandria.

Some people cannot think outside the church quadrangle.
But there was a time when the church was not, and temples were.
This time is very specific. It is immediately before Nicaea.


Addendum NOTES

Notes from ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition
Rowan Williams
Revised Edition (2002)

mountainman

My position is that there can be no authority on what Julian wrote
or did not write until we have the original writings of Julian before us.
We do not have the original writings of Julian, but copies of the
refutation and censorship of Julian authored by the orthodox heresiologist
Cyril of Alexandria in the early 5th century.

Anyone who thinks that they state what Julian "clearly believes" by
reading a polemical refutation written by a class of authors, renown
for their unhistorical fictions and lies, these heresiologists, ought
to get his or her head read.

The Lies of Julian

Cyril writes that he is compelled to refute "the lies of Julian"
and goes about the business in many books.

but none as went far as Julian,
who damaged the prestige of the Empire
by refusing to recognize Christ,
dispenser of royalty and power.

he composed three books against the holy gospels
and against the very pure Christian religion,
he used them to shake many spirits
and to cause them uncommon wrongs.

Julian's original works were burnt and his private letters
were mutilated after his death. The question is whether they
dared to censor the opening address of his Three books against
the Christians. In an age where many people memorised literature
for feats of oratory, the opening paragraphs of famous books
may have been far more topical than is today imagined.

note the presence of a question mark in the following ...

Julian's Opening Words ???? in "Against the Christians"

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians (*)
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 decreed that the Christians
were henceforth to be known as "Galilaeans",
and never used the former term.


See also

Julian's Greek satire against Constantine and Jesus.

SUMMARY on Julian

The material preserved by Cyril in his refutation "Against Julian" has been reconstructed
in an effort to present what Julian may have originally written. I am not nieve enough,
and have sufficient sketicism and suspicion of the activities and modus operandi of the whole
lineage of orthodox christian "heresiologists" to think Julian's opinion was fairly
represented by Cyril - who later earned the award of "The Seal of the [Heresiological] Fathers" for his efforts in the stamping out of heresies and any conflicting "opinions".

Cyril does not mention whether Julian named the "wicked men who composed the fiction - the fabrication of the christians", although he does mention Julian thought Eusebius was "wretched".

Without further evidence this issue appears stalemated.
I certainly do not acknowledge that via the censor Cyril we must believe
that Julian believed in Jesus and Paul. Julian in Kronia, introduced many of the Roman emperors in chronological sequence. Jesus is first mentioned at the end with the appearance of Constantine, who finds Jesus while searching for pleasure, who was living with incontinence.