mountainman

First it is noted that the integrity of Eusebius (Pamphilis of Caesarea) is questioned by a number of writers in the last few hundred years, not only in regard to the testimonium flavium, but also in regard to other elements of the vast work entitled "Ecclesiastical History".

An earlier thread, initiated by Ted Hoffman in 2002 is entitled:"Would Eusebius have fabricated an organised church history to please Constantine?" discusses some of this.

However, we perceive that it is quite possible to take this issue further by consideration of the simple question: "What if the history is fiction?"

The answer to this question is explored by means of making a simple postulate, namely suppose the history is in fact fiction. Logically, if the Eusebian history is false, there are at least five very specific implications. These are the following:

First Implication of Historical Fiction = Alternative
The first implication of the postulate is that there must exist another theory of history with a far greater integrity for the period, and perhaps quite different than the theory of history presented by Eusebius. For the exercise, this is to be called "reality".

Second Implication of Historical Fiction = Conjoins
The second implication is that there must exist a point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality". That is, the fictitious theory of history must have been physically inserted into "reality" at some stage, or point in time.

Third Implication of Historical Fiction = Precedent date
The third implication is that this point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality" must necessarily be - at the earliest - either during, or after, the life of the author of the fiction. Eusebius the author completes his work at some time prior to the Council of Nicea, in 325 CE.

Fourth Implication of Historical Fiction = Turbulent controversy
The fourth implication of the postulate is that this point in "reality" at which the fiction was implemented, would necessarily be associated with possibly massive social turbulence. People would be bound to notice the change in their history books, and possibly overnight. The Arian controversy and heresy is here cited and analysed with a new perspective.

Fifth Implication of Historical Fiction = party with power
The fifth implication of the postulate is that because of the possibly massive social turbulence associated with the actual implementation of the fiction, a great degree of power would be needed to be brought to bear, by the party responsible for the implementation of the fiction. The supreme imperial commander of the Roman Empire, Constantine I, is cited and his involvement in the establishment of the Nicean Council, for the express purpose of containing the Arian controversy (heresy) is cited and detailed.


The above implications, if able to be perceived as being actual historical events (as described above) suggest the possibility that the original postulate is not false.

Further details relating to this postulate and its implications are sketched out at the following web address:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes

I would be grateful for any constructive feedback and criticism.



Pete Brown
Falls Creek, rural Australia
www.mountainman.com.au

Phlox Pyros

Eusebius the Liar?

Check this interesting piece of work out by Roger Pearse.

Phlox Pyros

I think you may be mistaken when you mention the "testimonium flavianum", it was written by Flavius Josephus. Welcome, by the way.

Toto

Check out this long thread, which takes issue with that: Eusebius the Liar?

Roger Pearse

Just before he started posting this story all over usenet, the original poster wrote this, which people may find illuminating:

--start--
From: "mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: Re: Do we have non Eusebian evidence that there were Christian Churches prior to 312?
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 05:08:39 GMT

Next time you'll leave me alone in alt.surfing and
cease and desist with your evangelical

> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>in message
>news:1131133978.910974.278680@z14g2000cwz.googleg roups.com...
> It seems that you haven't tried to find out
> whether any of this is true: instead you
> claim that the rest of us must prove you wrong,
> whatever you choose to assert.

If you had not descended on the alt.surfing newsgroup
where I was obliviously minding my own business, and
made some scathing evangelical diatribe, I would not
indeed have followed all this though to the above conclusion.
--end--

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

Gentlemen,

Please address the logic of the post, which was not encountered in any other discussion thread (I have read all these references), which is nowhere dealt with by Pearce's comments on his website, or by discussion, and which I will now summarise for you:

1) Observe that opinion on the integrity of Eusebius (as an historian) is varied, from one extreme to another. Lightfoot takes one polarity, and Edwin Johnson the other. For some quotes from all sides see:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...y_Eusebius.htm

However, here is the quote from Johnson:
======================


2) Such extremes deem it reasonable to invoke the consideration that Eusebian literature is perhaps fictional -- as an exercise in objective logic.

3) The postulate that the Eusebian (theory of) history is fictional is therefore formally raised for consideration. Note that the postulate that the Eusebian (theory of) history is "true and factual" is simply another postulate, which may be held by others. In fact, this postulate is - for many - a "given".

However, in an objective forum one should be prepared to discuss both postulates. Noone really knows whether one is true and the other is not true, but one may surmise only. Correct me if I am mistaken on that last point.

4) The Eusebian Fiction postulate however has several logical implications which have been outlined in my original post, and I will not repeat them here. These implications resolve into the existence or non existence of historical events.

5) If the postulate is false, the logically implied historical events of the postulate should prove non-sensical and (historically) false. On the other hand, if the postulate is true, the logically implied historical events of the postulate should prove sensible and (historically) true.

6) Our research indicates that the logical implications of a Eusebian Fiction Postulate are clearly evidenced as events in the history of antiquity. This provides substantial weight to the possibility that the postulate is correct.

Such is the argument, gentlemen, so please confine your responses to the logic outlined in the summary above. Thankyou.



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes

PhilosopherJay

Hi Mountainman,

Coincidentally, the first chapter of my new book the Evolution of Christs and Christianities (EVOCC.COM) is entitled Eusebius the Master Forger. The second chapter is entitled Non-Eusebean history.

A few years ago, I half-joked/predicted that the field of Early Christian studies would divide between Eusebean and Non-Eusebean scholars. I see it shaping up that way.

Basically Eusebeus created the paradigm for Christian History. Nearly every single "known" fact about early Christianity found in all the major objective and unbiased Encyclopedias and non-controversial textbooks can be traced to statements from Eusebius. He dominates Christian history today as much as he did 1650 years ago.

I generally agree with your main postulates.

I am not sure if we can reconstruct objective histories, but I am sure that we can reconstruct pre-Eusebean Histories. We can say that many events that Eusebius has ignored or falsified did take place (e.g.,Jewish-Christian leadership of the revolt against Rome) and that many events he claims took place could not have happened (e.g., letters of abgarus, Founding of Church of Rome by Peter and Paul, ten persecutions by Emperors).

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

If Eusebius wrote fiction (postulate), and the first 300 years of antiquity were absent any tribe of christians, then christianity is a Constantinian phenomenom (implication of postulate).

This is a rather surprising conclusion, but can of course be immediately refuted if in fact there exists any historical evidence (obviously outside of Eusebius) that conclusively demonstrates christianity was extant prior to Constantine?

Note that the dating of various papyrii fragments (eg: Rylands) and manuscripts purported to be of the new testament is via the process of paleography (handwriting analysis) and AFAIK has not been subject to carbon-dating.

Given the above, can anyone provide historical evidence (outside of the reach of Eusebius) that christianity existed before say 312 CE?



Thanks for the responses.


Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

I think the mulititude of contradictions in the many early texts that we have allow us to be certain that Christianities existed way before Eusebius.

A typical example of the contradictions is in this passage in the Gospel of John (chapter 7).

40: When they heard these words, some of the people said, "This is really the prophet."

41: Others said, "This is the Christ." But some said, "Is the Christ to come from Galilee?

42: Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?"

43: So there was a division among the people over him.

44: Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him.


There is a contradictory reaction to Jesus. Some people think he's a prophet, some people think he's the Christ (King), some people think he can't be the Christ because of nationality (Galilean) and some people want him arrested.
This indicates that Jesus was not a very convincing, clear or effective speaker, not something Euebius or any Christian would be likely to make up.

There is also the contradiction that he comes from Galilee and the Christ is supposed to come from Bethlehem and be a descendent of David. The contradiction gets resolved in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. In Matthew he is born in Bethlehem and his parents move to Galilee to avoid the ruler Archelaus. In Luke, his parents live in Galilee but he gets born in Bethlehem due to a tax enrollment ordered by Augustus Caesar. It is obvious that these contradictorary answers are a response to the fact that the writers of John have no answer for the question of how Jesus could be the Christ and be from Galilee rather than Bethlehem.

Such flagrant contradictions regarding a basic biographical question (where was Jesus born?) as well as such acknowledgements of definite character flaws (poor public speaker) strongly indicate that the texts are not being produced from one source, but from different sources over a long period of time.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Julian

The Inscription of Abercius springs to mind. Besides, paleographic dating is fairly accurate, almost as accurate as C14 dating. Also, some carbon dating has been done, such as on the Gospel of Judas which, by that test, may be from just before 312, or later. No better than paleographical dating. *shrug*

Julian