Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 08-29-2005, 09:31 PM

Lol

Minnesota Joe · 08-29-2005, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Eusebius would have to have not only written the gospels, but also faked a number of earlier commentators who wrote about those gospels, from Justin Martyr to Iraeneus to Tertullian, writing in different languages and different styles and in various locations from North Africa to France to Syria. He would also have had to have created a credible forgery of a scrap of the Gospel of John which is sometimes dated to 125, anticipating the way that later analysts would date papyrii. It's possible (remotely), but that that would have made him a busy scribe indeed.

O.K., thanks for the low down.

Minnesota Joe · 08-29-2005, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

I submit that one who reads Eusebius, and really reads him at the tedious length that is necessary to feel his villenage to all things tradition and to witness his incurable apoplexy at anything that is novel and to hear the staccatto pitch of his cite cite cite, will see at once that it is utterly impossible to attribute to him the amaranthine symbolism of the fourth evangelist, the spirited portrayal of Luke and Acts, or the dialectical polemic and smoldering mysticism of the Apostle Paul. One reads therein the antiquarian's insipid compendium, that place where once-vibrant mythology goes after it has crystallized into theology and then fractured into the trifling shards of amber postulates, to be collected and catalogued in a somber, soporiferous chronology.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Oh dear. I feel like I have read either too little Eusebius, or too much, depending on what one counts as amusement.

darstec · 08-30-2005, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Eusebius would have to have not only written the gospels, but also faked a number of earlier commentators who wrote about those gospels, from Justin Martyr to Iraeneus to Tertullian, writing in different languages and different styles and in various locations from North Africa to France to Syria. He would also have had to have created a credible forgery of a scrap of the Gospel of John which is sometimes dated to 125, anticipating the way that later analysts would date papyrii. It's possible (remotely), but that that would have made him a busy scribe indeed.

Is that fragment the one with the only clear word "kai" meaning 'and' in it? Surely that must be the only manuscript of the second century that used that word to come from such a conclusion. Besides even if there were more, it is not as if John wrote every word from his own mind without there being the same phrase or two from another work of literature. I think it is reasonable to suspect that Mark was written after 134 CE with the other gospels following after that.

sorompio · 08-30-2005, 02:37 AM

Quote:

From the machine translation, it appears that this professor does not think that Eusebius invented the gospels out of whole cloth in the fourth century, just that he edited some preexisting stories. That may not be such a radical theory after all.

What can be really interesting is not the theory, which has been suggested many times, but the claimed proofs, which deserve at least a good glance. I browsed the blog and the idea is that Eusebius left a sort of recurrent signature in the form of anagrams or acrostics that cannot be coincidence.

Chris Weimer · 08-31-2005, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

"hidden signatures and acrostics" - sounds like the Bible Code sort of nonsense.

I tried to parody this in the Juvenal thread, but no one picked up on it.

boneyard bill · 09-01-2005, 11:22 PM

It really doesn't make much sense that the same author would have written both John and the Synoptics. Nor does it make much sense that the same writer would have written all three synoptics when one, without any discrepancies, would have sufficed.

And how is it that Eusebuis managed to master both the low-class Greek of Mark and the elegant Greek of Luke? The evidence for this thesis would have to be overwhelming to be convincing.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-29-2005, 09:31 PM	#31
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Lol

09-01-2005, 11:22 PM	#37
boneyard bill Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 15,796	It really doesn't make much sense that the same author would have written both John and the Synoptics. Nor does it make much sense that the same writer would have written all three synoptics when one, without any discrepancies, would have sufficed. And how is it that Eusebuis managed to master both the low-class Greek of Mark and the elegant Greek of Luke? The evidence for this thesis would have to be overwhelming to be convincing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.