andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan

Yes you're quite right. (except it was the middle of WWII not the end)

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

You see, there's just good and then there's better. I am 'just good' and Andrew is better.

stephan huller

Off the topic complete this distinction between 'good' and 'better' or 'perfect' is at the heart of the Marcionite depreciation of the Law. They weren't antinomian just messianic. The idea existing in Samaritan, Jewish and Islamic exegesis (cf the Muslim emphasis that Islam is the 'perfect religion.'

"This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” [Quran 5:3]

It doesn't mean the Marcionites 'hated' Judaism, they were just saying it wasn't perfect. Try using the same logic on your wife or girlfriend tonight and see why the Marcionite interpretation was exaggerated into something it wasn't originally ...

mountainman

Hi PhilosopherJay,

I like your description of Eusebius as a master forger, however I think it needs to be extended to include vast editorial administrative duties, libraries of material, the editorship of Josephus, handwritten Jesus letters, the fabricated accounts about christian X and christian Y. All this we know culminated in the direction of scriptoria of highly professional scribes all of whom we may (perhaps safely) say, were on Constantine's payroll. The highlight of Eusebius's career of course was the editorship of the new testament canonical literature. His claim is that he received alot of data from Origen.

Have you ever read about the "Historia Augusta"? It has been called a "mockumentary". In some deep sense might the "Historia Ecclesiastica" be also called a "mockumentary"?


Make sure you read that bit about the Historia Augusta ...

The Novel Invention of (a) Fake Sources and (b) other Fake Sources which disagree with them

Among the many games that are played in the Historia Augusta is the invention of no less than 130 fake documents, most charmingly introduced in the introduction of the Life of Aurelian. Fake sources were not a new practice (cf. the invented letters in Plutarch's Life of Alexander). What is new, however, is that the author the Historia Augusta invents sources to disagree with them.

Eusebius by no means should be trusted.

Heresies and heretics before orthodoxy is a nice way to downplay the Heresies and heretics about 324 CE. I have been looking for nameless evidence on inscriptions and papyri, sarcophagi and other archaeological relics. I have not found anything. Momogliano appears to question whether "Tertullian" was a real person. Clement has so many forgeries associated with his name that an entire branch of literature studies had to be invented.

I just dont buy the whole story.

Precisely how sure we can be that we are not reading Eusebius's authorship in the writings published under his name but given other names is something that has been pondered for quite some time.

"not until the mass of inventions
labelled 'Eusebius' shall be exposed,
can the pretended references to Christians
in Pagan writers of the first three centuries
be recognized for the forgeries they are."

--- Edwin Johnson, "Antiqua Mater:
A Study of Christian Origins

One of the greatest of these Very Important People in the Eusebian saga of "Early Christianity" must of course be the name of Origen. As far as I am aware the Greek LXX published by Eusebius under Constantine was the translation Eusebius claimed to be from "the Christian Origen". This same Origen Eusebius reports to have wrote voluminous commentary not just on the LXX (Hexapla, etc) but also on the books of the Greek New Testament, containing the Tetrarchy of Gospels, Paul and Pseudo-Paul etc plus "The Shepherd".

Origen missed seeing the TF in Josephus.
Now he has missed seeing Mark 6.3 in Mark

Knowing the background to the manuscript the "Historia Augusta" I recommend as most essential reading in these Eusebian matters of BC&H. What precisely is a "mockumentary"?

stephan huller

Hey mountainman

I will be gone from here for about a week while I go visit family in Toronto (there's no way for an eldest Jewish boy to escape his mother hovering around him even while on the computer). But the bottom line is for you and aa is that EVEN THOUGH the reality is that MOST scholars develop arguments which are led by their prejudices and presuppositions (one notable exception Tjitze Baarda who I was corresponding with this morning; prince among scholars who is incidentally assembling ALL the manuscripts of the Martyrium Marci which should be exciting for ANYONE because he is like the Wagner of scholars), the secret to having respect in the industry is to make it SEEM like your being led by the evidence. When you start talking about 'dismissing Origen' or 'all of Christianity being invented by Constantine' you're never going to be taken seriously.

Even though - the real truth is that most scholars do the same thing with the evidence from the heretics (i.e. dismiss it as inferior to or 'uncertain' when compared to the 'certainty' of authorities like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen et al) or new evidence which shatters our inherited assumptions about those Fathers (the Mar Saba document a good example) they do it in such a way that you can't see their childishness (at least initially). In other words, they act like adults even though they are retaining the silliness, selfishness and subjectiveness of children.

My advice is to start to learn to play the game. Find scholars who have published articles to support at least part of your assertions. At least then you look learned and you signal to people that despite your putting forward a radical hypothesis you spent the time to become familiar with the literature. Journal articles are better than simply referencing 'books' (unless of course the author has published some of his ideas in a peer reviewed journal).

I am not saying this to admonish you. I just think that engaging people in this forum only goes so far. You should be developing these ideas alongside other notable studies. Even if - for instance - you base your work on the so-called Dutch radical scholars, perhaps drawing analogies from their work on the Ignatian canon you are again signaling to the reader that you have spend the time to consider other people's points of view.

Continue citing works like Edwin Johnson, "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins.' You're on the right track with that approach although the material is on its own still dated (show that you read what is current TODAY). There were a lot of crazy books written by British noblemen associated with the Theosophic Society)

There are a lot of silly ideas floating around on the internet. The way you distinguish yourself from those 'kooks' is by demonstrating that you will - at least theoretically - accommodate your original position to new evidence, that you are objective and are being led by evidence rather than conviction.

Of course as I have noted the 'professional scholars' are typically no less subjective than you. They mostly fall into 'camps' based mostly on their inherited presuppositions. But they play the game and so should you.

Bon Voyage ...

aa5874

Your advice is quite contradictory and of very little use. You want people to play games. I thought you were playing games but you have implicated yourself with your "game player's advice".