mountainman

In his article The Formation of the New Testament Canon the author writes the following:I would like to explore, in a sensible fashion using sensible
dialogue, the first thing mentioned about Eusebius by Richard
Carrier, that is:

Eusebius was a liar

If Eusebius was a liar, then every single reference to the existence
of christianity in the period before Eusebius, might be fraudulent.
Eusebius was essentially the midwife of the canonical scriptures,
the gospels, everything. How big a liar do people here think this
Eusebius could have been? Could he have invented the lot?

Could Eusebius have invented Jesus?

The Evil One

Never put down to malevolence what can be explained by incompetence. Why go for "liar" when "hopelessly credulous" is sufficient to explain the observations?

mountainman

Incompetence is not something that I would attribute to Eusebius,
of Caesarea, or to the regime of Constantine, whereas the alternate
"malevolence" seems more historically justified.

Toto

I think that what is meant is incompetance as a historian, not incompetance in running an empire.

Gamera

Needless to say this is useless and incompetent historical analysis. I assume every historian is a "liar" since every person on earth has lied in their lifetime. So there goes the neighborhood. You must have some special definition of "liar" you aren't sharing with us, which I suspect is circular.

In any case, this is argument by labelling, and is amateurish.

mountainman

The term incompetance was introduced by another.
Richard Carrier uses the term hopelessly credulous as
the alternative option other than the term liar.

These terms are mentioned by the author as separate from
the assessment of Eusebius' historical integrity, because
after both options (liar/twit) are presented, the author
continues ... "and either way not a very good historian.

Obviously, both terms should be studied as to their applicability
to the history of the situation, but seeing as though I had to
start somewhere, I chose the first (ie: liar) first.

What has anyone to say upon the implications of Eusebius
being a liar? Not the lies, but the implication of the lies to
the thing we call history.

As an aside, the Persians, according to Terry Jones' "Barbarians"
referred to the Roman empire as "The Land of the Lie", but as
this term appears to have been applied earlier than
the time of Constantine, it does not here support the first option
provided by Carrier. (I will digout the corresponding references.)

mountainman

And the reasons for this assertion are?
It is an exercise in exploration of implications.

On the contrary, this discussion and dialogue is fundamental.
As an historian I am not compelled to believe all things, only
to select a consistent set of things. The operative word is
consistent, in that the selection of things should be as
broad as possible, yet at the same time aiming for the highest
possible consistency, or if you prefer, historical integrity, or
indeed "historicity".

I think this is a reasonable position to hold, in the exploration
of historical possibilities. This thread is reserved for the
exploration of the possibility that Eusebius in actual fact
was a liar, OR "hopelessly credulous".

It is an exploration of Richard Carrier's assessments
which IMO are far from being amateurish. There are
no arguments at this stage, only questions. Please
steady up Gamera.

mountainman

the theory space within which HJ and MJ are defined:

The term "theory space" has a special significant in various
fields of mathematics and physics, and was made prominent
in the rise of understanding of the behaviour of non-linear
systems.

It may be adequately and appropriately used to described
the relationship between various classes of theories, such
as those which perceive themselves to be HJ or MJ.