Ted Hoffman

So this time, we are to believe that if there is a lie in the OT, it ceases to be a lie because its in the OT.

It don't get funnier than that.

Bede

If you are fourth century Christian, yes. It doesn't get more obvious than that.

B

Ted Hoffman

So everytime they write the word "truth", we should assume that they don't know the very definition of the word.

And that the philosophies of the philosophers and thinkers that lived before and during their time never taught them about the meaning or objectivity of truth.

Peter Kirby

So your points are:

1. The eventual conversion of Constantine and his support for Eusebius means that Eusebius would "smooth out the rough edges" in the earlier books of his work by, for example, inventing fictitious sources.

Since the argument is yours, it is upon you to demonstrate that the relevant books [what we might call chapters or volumes, i.e., the largest subdivisinos of the Hist. Eccl.] were written after the proposed cause [i.e., the events involved with Constantine's conversion] or that these books were revised in response to those events. If you can't even place the "cause" and "effect" in chronological sequence with evidence, how can you hope to show causation!

2. writing such a history without being 'comissioned' by a higher power may have resulted in accusations of heresy and the like

Doesn't help us date when Eusebius started to write the Eccl. Hist. If the commissions were done by religious authorities, then there were such before Constantine. If the reference here is to secular powers, it's a contention that needs to be established that the early church, an outlawed superstition in the late third century, cared about whether a work was commissioned by a prince of this world in determining orthodoxy. Finally, this argument, applied consistently, would mean that any given patristic writing was commissioned by higher powers, because accusations of heresy flew if not. But this sounds wrong; my gut says there must have been works written without commissioning and without a therefore greater fear of heresy smears. At the least, we would find the refrain "who commissioned you?" in ante-nicene discussions of heresy. This argument is a dud concocted to defend an already-assumed position.

3. Even Josephus wrote under the patronage of the Flavian family and it is known that, like Eusebius who flattered Constantine, Josephus too flattered his patrons.

Totally useless.

4. If we assume that he was born c.265, then by 213 (at the age of around 40) is when he could have acquired enough respect, knowledge, standing in the Church and recognition to merit taking the monumental task of writing the Church History.

Check your math: 313-265=48. Respect and standing could be given to a man of twenty. Studying in order to discover all the quotations that Eusebius makes would require perhaps a decade more than that; consider that 20-somethings produce huge works of scholarship all the time. In any case, this certainly doesn't establish a starting date of later than 313. It doesn't even establish a starting date in the fourth century. More like a bound of >25 years after birth or >290 CE at the low end. If you have a worse estimate of how quickly Eusebius read, you could say >35 years old and >400 CE. But nothing more than that can be eked out of this argument.

So we have: an avoidance of demonstrating relative chronology (which is requisite to causation), an ad hoc concoction of an argument, a totally useless throwaway, and some "fuzzy math" saying that Eusebius couldn't have gotten started until he was 48 years old.

The term "devil's advocate" is usually reserved to those who argue for positions uncongenial to them, as a bit of sport or to keep the discussion rigorous and balanced.

best,
Peter Kirby

GakuseiDon

Some fair points. Also the letter to and from Jesus that Eusebius cites. It's an interesting subject in itself.

Magdlyn

I am trying to follow along here. My previous post was ignored (I don't mind, but I am still confused).

Can someone tell me, what definition of "conversion" are you folks using? Constantine's "vision" at Midian? Or something else, later?

I was going by "baptism," as that is when one repents and is cleared of sin and becomes fully Xtian. I sense here we are going by some other kind of marker.

How could Constantie be 'converted" if he was declaring Sunday a day of rest to honor the Sun, not Jesus the Christ?

Thank you.

Mosor

Many people in those times chose not to be baptised until they were near death so they could enter heaven with a clean slate. Constantine was no different. As emperor he had to do many things which ordinary christians would find sinful, like executing people who threatened his rule or the state.

What evidence do you have that Constantine declared sunday to be the day of worship for christians? I'm no expert but I think I've read that christians have been worshipping on sunday since at least the second century, maybe earlier, long before Constantine. Anything else just sounds like seventh day adventist nonsense to me.

Magdlyn

But that doesn't answer my question. I do know that some folks back then would chose not to be baptised until the deathbed to avoid constant sinning and repentance requirements.

So how do we define conversion then? In Constantine's case, or in anyone else's? Did, say, actual bishops of the faith also follow this policy of postponement of baptism, while considering themselves Xtians and qualified to evangelise? Seems a risky (not to mention lazy, not to mention going against Jesus' teachings) policy. Why would it be so popular? What about the risk of accidental death (or assassination) before baptism (esp for a Roman emperor)?

I just do not see who anyone could consider themselves "converted" (or that we could consider Constantine converted), without baptism. It seems sloppy to constantly refer to the "conversion" of Constantine as his impetus to organize the church's dogma (including the commission of Eusebius' "history"). He was not a Xtian! It seems he was organizing the dogma to organize the Empire, not because he was particularly pious. His motivation seems purely and cynically political.

See post #14 on this thread: "The venerable day of the sun." Not the venerable day of the resurrection of Christ.

So we call it Sunday intead of Lordsday.

Mosor

Once Constantine started favouring christianity then naturally many others started converting to win favour with the new administration. I think you are looking at conversion from a particularly evangelical view that once baptised then "presto" you are now a christian. So how do we define Constantine's "conversion"? I would say when he started looking into the faith seriously, that is in the traditional view, after the milvan bridge.

As for the risk of death before baptism, I guess that was a risk people were willing to take.

I wouldn't say it was cynical but it was very politically astute. The majority of the empire were NOT christians, they were pagan. As emperor Constantine could not afford to completely alienate them and cause civil unrest. He took the politically smart route by bestowing land and money on the christians and moving the capital away from pagan rome and creating a new christian capital in byzantium. He did the same thing for christianity what previous emperors did for sol invictus. Political astuteness should not be confused with impiety. I see no evidence of Constantine organizing dogma, rather he wanted christians to work out their differences and be united in faith as the empire was united. One faith, one empire.



Like I said, most people were pagans not christians. He was just playing to the crowd. I would say he was manipulating the pagans to move closer to christian worship rather than the other way around.

Didache circa 110 A.D.

"Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure."

Ignatius of Antioch to the Magnesians circ 110 A.D.

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master

Epistle of Barnabas 80-120 A.D.

Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which
also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended
into the heavens.

Justin Martyr 150 A.D.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.



Whether you agree with the practice or not, I think its clear that the christians have been observing sunday sabbath long before Constantine came along.

Amaleq13

He pretty clearly does say that the OT contains false statements and he offers specific examples of things in the Hebrew Bible he considers to qualify as a "falsehood":

"You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach." (Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31)

According to Eusebius, the Hebrew Bible describes God being jealous, falling asleep, getting angry, and being subject to other human passions but all such descriptions are false and offered only to benefit the understanding of certain readers.

The specific words in the translation are "falsehood" and "lie". What are the words used in the original language and what are their definitions?

None of these proposed alternates appear to change the fact that Eusebius is stating that HB claims about God being angry, etc. are not true. Whether the statement is made in the context of a fable, parable or figurative speech the statements are clearly identified as untrue. In addition, he claims that they are deliberately untrue for the specific reason of benefitting the understanding of certain readers.

Whatever word you want to use in place of "falsehood" or "lie" the context is quite clear that the literal truth of claims is less important than the understanding they are meant to convey. The only ambiguity is in what he means by "understanding". There is no actual ambiguity about whether he thinks the Hebrew Bible contains false statements and there is no actual ambiguity about whether he considers making false statements a problem if they are made for what he considers to be the right reason.