archaeologist

That is your problem i wasn't citing Strobel per se, that is just where the information is found. I was actually citing Metzger but I could have used F.F. Bruce as well as numerous others.

The information is the information no matter where you find it.

Sorry but I do not need Carrier's opinion.

mountainman

It is indeed an undisputed fact that Constantine first widely published and popularised the books of the new testament. Secondly it is indeed an undisputed fact that the editor-in-chief of this undertaking was Eusebius of Caesarea. Thirdly it indeed an undisputed fact that Eusebius was the very first and only "historian of the new testament" for the epoch prior to its widespread publication

Therefore it is entirely arguable that New Testament canon was settled for all practical purposes at that specific time c.325 CE when Constantine gave the instructions to Eusebius to order his professional scribes to create fifty bibles.

+or-1

Political expedience.

archaeologist

Yet Constantine may not have been the first and we know that the church distributed copies for hundreds of years prior to his reign. Eusebius may have been 'a' editor in chief but that does not mean he was the first and only such historian. Considering that we have so few copies of secular historians and those date to the middle ages, how can you say Eusebius was the first? You can't.

Since no records were kept or survived you cannot say how widespread the publication was prior to Constantine & Eusebius.

mountainman

The history of the "church" discloses that he was the first.

We know that Eusebius asserts this to have been the case. But was it?

Eusebius tells us he is the very first historian of the church.


Eusebius states as much.
Do you think he lied?

Or in fact, whether the new testament existed at all.

Minimalist

I've tangled with "Arch" so many times before that I'm just going to sit back and let the pros handle him for a while.

This should be good.

archaeologist

In my copy, those claims are in the introduction written by the translator and he does not cite Eusebius but in the first part of book one E. says:

In other words others wrote before him but for different times, just like historians do today. i.e. Catton, Foote, Macpherson for the Civil War then others for WWI , WWII and so on.

NO, I am saying that you are like the rest of the people on this board, you leave out information when it suits your point of view.

The books for the NT existed but were they compiled like out modern Bibles, we do not know but as quoted previously, the church knew which books were scripture and authoritative and which were not.

mountainman

In my copy of Eusebius' "Crutch History" this is what Eusebius himself writes:

Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius
Book I.
Chapter I. The Plan of the Work.

....

4 But at the outset I must crave for my work the indulgence of the wise,4 for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path.5 I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived.

So you see Eusebius himself states he was the first historian ...

I have left out nothing.
I am merely quoting Eusebius -- the primary source.

This is not the case. Eusebius himself represents himself as the authority of which of the books were written by vile and dispicable heretics and which of the books were written by most true and honorable canonical christians.

Do *you* think Eusebius had any integrity and honor?
Do you know what the term "heresiologist" means?

Eusebius was the first christian "historian" -- he admits as much.
Eusebius is certainly an "heresiologist".
It is he who says this book is canon man and this book is vile man.

THUS, it is quite reasonable to argue that it was indeed Eusebius, as editor-in-chief of the bibles which were widely published in the Roman empire under instruction of Constantine c.325 CE, who decided on the very first canon ---- ie: which of the books to include for publication to the Roman Empire and which of the books to hand over to the soldiers to be burnt and destroyed by fire.

Minimalist

Arch just hates it when someone resorts to using facts, Mountainman. He thinks that's unfair.

mountainman

I think that applies to most apologists. These people seem to find the "facts" as unquestionable landmarks hidden in the depths of their subconscious mind. Of course this is entirely natural, since they have been thrust down into that place as a result of centuries of conditioning by authority.

The most unrecognisable related and consequent fact is that people who consider themselves in no way, shape or form to be apologists, also find themselves arguing for the existence of an historical jesus. This state of affairs has arisen for the same reason. It is a deep conditioning of the people.

When people wake up and critically and skeptically examine their most primitive assumptions, they will (IMHO) find that there is no basis for them in the ancient historical evidence. The HJ was originally a politically inspired initiative and a big lie --- which was told with such force "from the top" for so long, and with so great an associated penalty for disbelief, that everyine thinks that it just has to be part of the historical truth.

One day, perhaps not while I am alive, people will begin to wake up.