Toto

OK, this thread is dedicated to the Historia Augusta.

Please explain what this has to do with Christian origins.

Is the fact that the HA is an elaborate hoax proof that every other collection of documents from the Roman Empire is an elaborate hoax?

mountainman

This thread should be of little interest to those who suspect that Christian Origins does not involve forgery. However for those who have any suspicions whatsoever that Christian Origins contains as least some forgeries, the study of the known forgery of the HA may prove to be more than an enlightening experience.

To classical scholars, the HA is an extremely distinctive forgery in the "Political History" of the Roman Empire from 117 to 285 CE. Any researcher of Christian origins who is amenable to a suspicion that the Eusebian "Church History" may contain some, or a considerably many instances of forgery are recommended to consider the modus operandi of the forgery of the HA as analysed by a few hundred years of scholarship.

The authorship and fabrication date of the HA is as yet undecided, but the period containing the epoch of Constantine's supremacy cannot be ruled out.


No of course not. The point is simply that if anyone were to suspect Eusebius of forging "documents here" and "documents there" in support of his "historical narrative of the Universal Church History", then they should take a cursory look at the modus operandi of the forgery of the HA.

Of particular interest in the modus operandi of the forgery of the HA is the extremely distinctive novelty in which the forger not only creates fake sources (there are no less that 130 fake documents in the HA), but also invents sources to disagree (ie: heretical opinions vs orthodox opinions) with them.

Doug Shaver

Hmm. Lemme see if I'm following your reasoning here.HA is known to be a forgery.

1. We have reason to think it possible that Eusebius could have forged, or been responsible for the forgery of, the entire Christian documentary record ostensibly prior to Constantine.
2. We don't know when the HA was forged, but it could have been during Constantine's reign.

Therefore,

4. The entire Christian documentary record ostensibly prior to Constantine is a forgery.

I don't think that's a QED.

mountainman

Sure thing.


So far so good.

No, no. Your logic skipped the qualifying "IF" at the beginning. Read the OP very carefully. It is addressed to those "who are amenable to a suspicion that we are dealing with forgery within the "Christian Church History" of Eusebius.


Correct. The possibility is quite strong.

This thread is about the HA, the nature and modus operandi of its openly acknowledged forgery, and the theories by which a chronology of authorship might be associated with the forgery. Please also see my response to toto, who asked me the same strawman type of question above, and to which I have already responded "No of course not.". The OP concerns the known forgery called the "HA".



We agree, since it was never intended to be.
Please reread my opening comments:


I further specified this "enlightening experience" as follows. Perhaps you or others here might like to respond to this ....

Shadowy figures in "Church History" like "Hegessipus" spring instantly to mind as possibly suspicious "fake sources". Documents? The correspondence between Senecca and Paul, the letter exchange between King Agbar and Jesus, etc, are also easily suspected to be commonly faked documents.

But of particular interest are the documents by which in "Church History" we have advanced arguments and disagreements between "the orthodox" and "the gnostic heretics" before there was any form of acknowledged orthodoxy. To those who hold any suspicions that the "Church History" contains forged documents and evidence, the question may become this:

Is the author of the "HE" (Historia Ecclesiastica - ie: Church History, ie: Eusebius) using the same modus operandi of forgery as is evidently on display in the evidence concerning the analysis of the forgery of the author of the "HA" (Historia Augusta).

Doug Shaver

Oh. Well, I may be amendable to such a suspicion or I may not, but I don't have such a suspicion, so I guess the OP doesn't really concern me.

Pardon the intrusion.

DCHindley

I don't know that it is an elaborate hoax so much as literature created to advance the interests of the newly demoted senators who continued to hold traditional pagan beliefs after the emperors began to profess Christianity. So what if you have to make some of the supporting documentation so it sounds even better.

Another well known collection of ducuments, the so called "false decretals" were created, I believe, in the 9th century as the western Roman empire crumbled and Charles the Great tried to weaken the power of the church bishops. These documents, of which most are genuine, fabricates about 110 to bolster the power of bishops.

DCH

mountainman

Yes perhaps the HA is best described as an elaborate and collegiately fabricated pseudo-history, designed to populate the bookshelves of the senators. From the referenced site ...

The existence and political purpose of this fabrication suggests strong editorship skills in a professionally staffed 4th century imperial scriptorium, and raises the question as to whether the "Historia Ecclesiastica" might represent the same form of genre as the "HA", that is, an elaborate and collegiately fabricated pseudo-history.

A second question might be whether these two works were produced in the same scriptorium.

A third question is whether we might suppose that Eusebius's "Historia Ecclesiastica" and the fifty Constantine Bibles were assembled in the same scriptorium. IMO at least the third question can be answered with a yes.