Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archaeologist · 03-12-2010, 06:25 PM

Quote:

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.

You ignore the words in bold print. He may have been the first, he believed he was, which doesn't make it a lie, I am just saying there were fragments available he may have been wrong and didn't know it.

Quote:

Eusebius was the first christian "historian" -- he admits as much

He probably was but we cannot be 100% certain.

Quote:

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.

Here is where you make your mistake. He may have been an editor in chief of A BIBLE, but NOT the Biblical books themselves. They were already treated as authoritative, they were already though of as scripture, long before Eusebius came on to the scene.

He did not decide which ones were canonical and which ones were not, as a christian he would be able to tell which were scriptures and which were not. Constantine did no such thing:

Quote:

It was, then, by the slow consensus of the church that the NT was assembled and accorded recognition as especially inspired. It was not merely supposed actual apolstolic authorship which ensured for a book inclusion in the NT...It was also by the test of experience through long use that the Church community came to recognize in the writings which were admitted to the accepted canon a quality which distinguished them from those books which were rejected...

{Latourette:2003: vol. 1:135}

Constantine had no say in the matter nor did Eusebius. (That quote is also echoed by Dr. Blomberg in another source as well)

Toto · 03-12-2010, 08:26 PM

archeologist - please expand your citations of authority. I could probably track down what this refers to

{Latourette:2003: vol. 1:135}

but why not just give the full name of the author and the title of the book or article?

It looks like you are copying items from an article with a bibliography, but we don't have that bibliography.

Thanks for your consideration.

archaeologist · 03-13-2010, 12:20 AM

Quote:

please expand your citations of authority. I could probably track down what this refers to

{Latourette:2003: vol. 1:135}

but why not just give the full name of the author and the title of the book or article?

because it is the scholarly way to cite references and it is a lot easier. That particular reference refers to the 2003 reprint of Latourette's History of Christianity Vol.1 page 135.

Quote:

It looks like you are copying items from an article with a bibliography, but we don't have that bibliography

not copying but QUOTING big difference.

Toto · 03-13-2010, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

...
because it is the scholarly way to cite references and it is a lot easier. ...

It is only scholarly if you include a bibliography with the full reference. And it is not easier for your readers.

vipertaja · 03-13-2010, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

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.

You are also on this board. Does this apply to you too?

archaeologist · 03-13-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

You are also on this board. Does this apply to you too?

Of course not and it doesn't apply to everyone but that is the problem with generalizations and I hope you stop doing it with the Bible.

Quote:

It is only scholarly if you include a bibliography with the full reference. And it is not easier for your readers.

I am only including the reference to let you know the words are not mine and indicating the source so you do not charge me with plagerism or whatever. If you want to look things up , let me know and I will give you the volume title.

Toto · 03-13-2010, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

..
I am only including the reference to let you know the words are not mine and indicating the source so you do not charge me with plagerism or whatever. If you want to look things up , let me know and I will give you the volume title.

The source must include the title of the work to be a source. Always include the full name of the author, title, and page number, or link to an online source.

"Quote mining" is all too common.

You can start by supplying all of the references you have used so far.

Toto · 03-13-2010, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

...

Quote:

It was, then, by the slow consensus of the church that the NT was assembled and accorded recognition as especially inspired. It was not merely supposed actual apolstolic authorship which ensured for a book inclusion in the NT...It was also by the test of experience through long use that the Church community came to recognize in the writings which were admitted to the accepted canon a quality which distinguished them from those books which were rejected...

{Latourette:2003: vol. 1:135}

Constantine had no say in the matter nor did Eusebius. (That quote is also echoed by Dr. Blomberg in another source as well)

An Amazon review of Latourette's work (or via: amazon.co.uk) notes:

Quote:

Readers should be aware that this study was first published in 1953, and despite light revision reflects the state of scholarship half a century ago. We've learned a LOT about the history of Christianity since then, and many of the sweeping assumptions of this book (e.g., in the ghastly section entitled "The Darkest Hours: The Great Recession, A.D. 500-950") have been thoroughly discredited. The bibliographies for each section don't include works published in the past half century (despite the so-called revision). Even the very language is dated, with its grandiose, sweeping style, capitalization of popes, etc. This book perpetuates a great many old myths, making the job of historians of religion just that much harder. There are now much better books on the market.

vipertaja · 03-13-2010, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Of course not and it doesn't apply to everyone but that is the problem with generalizations and I hope you stop doing it with the Bible.

Maybe you could entertain me as to when I last did such a thing?

mountainman · 03-13-2010, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Quote:

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.

You ignore the words in bold print. He may have been the first, he believed he was, which doesn't make it a lie, I am just saying there were fragments available he may have been wrong and didn't know it.

I agree with Carrier's assement that Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous.

Quote:

Eusebius was the first christian "historian" -- he admits as much

He probably was but we cannot be 100% certain.

So you believe what he says when its suits your argument and disregard what he says when it doesnt?

Quote:

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.

Here is where you make your mistake. He may have been an editor in chief of A BIBLE, but NOT the Biblical books themselves. They were already treated as authoritative, they were already though of as scripture, long before Eusebius came on to the scene.

According to Eusebius ----- alone.

Quote:

He did not decide which ones were canonical and which ones were not, as a christian he would be able to tell which were scriptures and which were not. Constantine did no such thing:

Eusebius decided which books to publish in the Constantine Bible.
Effectively, he decided on the Constantine Canon.
The COnstantine Canon was overturned later in the 4th century.
Some books were added, some were withdrawn.
But the basic set was accepted.

Quote:

It was, then, by the slow consensus of the church that the NT was assembled and accorded recognition as especially inspired. It was not merely supposed actual apolstolic authorship which ensured for a book inclusion in the NT...It was also by the test of experience through long use that the Church community came to recognize in the writings which were admitted to the accepted canon a quality which distinguished them from those books which were rejected...

{Latourette:2003: vol. 1:135}

Constantine had no say in the matter nor did Eusebius. (That quote is also echoed by Dr. Blomberg in another source as well)

The publisher and editor of the Constantine Bible obviously decided on what books of the new testament and the LXX to include in their wonderful technological good news to the nation of Greeks. They obviously made a mistake with some of the books like "The Shepherd of Hermas", etc and these gross oversights were "corrected" by the continuators who had inherited the all-powerful new Christian regime, and who passed the canon on to us poor souls for posterity.

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

03-12-2010, 08:26 PM	#22
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	archeologist - please expand your citations of authority. I could probably track down what this refers to {Latourette:2003: vol. 1:135} but why not just give the full name of the author and the title of the book or article? It looks like you are copying items from an article with a bibliography, but we don't have that bibliography. Thanks for your consideration.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.