jakejonesiv

There are more links in the sources below.

http://www.radikalkritik.de/index.htm

Journal of Higher Criticism/

I think gospels and the Pauline writings origintated from separate sources and blended after that. I don't think there is a linear development of "Paul", then the gospels. According to GJPJ Bolland, the gospels originated in an allegorical reading of the Septuagint in Alexandria. If true, this would be well before any Pauline influence came to bear. (Vorkosigan has an oppoing view at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=110108 ).

HDetering said he didn't know. That was on JM last January.

Jake Jones IV

rlogan

Thank you for those.


Not a Doherty thesis fan, then. No problem.

I am very interested in this matter and see it as a keystone in breaking the lock on early christian development. My skills are appalling in comparison to the likes of Vork, but I'm interested in continuing this discussion with anyone interested.

I'm pretty well satisfied that the Ignatia are later forgeries and the first Clement as well. Schemes at retroactively setting out a historical trail. Likewise the TF a complete forgery and the James passage an interpolated convolution of something other than flesh brother of sky-daddy junior.

The "persecution" of christians by Nero in Tacitus also a later interpolation commandeering a passage about another group.

I am trying to think through models of how the Paul legend might get started and the degree to which it rests upon a kernel of historicity, and from there how letters would be "discovered" to imbue smuggled principles therein with the authority of this "Paul".

It seems reasonable to me that among the itinerant preacher crowd, several would arise that claimed to have "visions" from the "Christ". One might gather up a considerable following.

This would predate the necessity of claiming linear descent from a historical Jesus. I see the latter as a means of decisively trumping other claimants, but a card that can only be played at a time much removed from the era in which "Christ" supposedly detonated with these fantastical mythic wonders.

In short, a historical "proto-Paul" before the gospels. More than one, even, but a legend develops subsequent to this.

I do not see a "linear" development to the gospels either. Instead, the (final) historical Jesus arises out of the necessity for defeating Gnostic-type thought. You rummage around the HB for his validating credentials, "poof" some disciples into existance, and fudge a apostolic descent from them. Peter is the vehicle there.


I'm too unclear on how to sort this out, and will read what you have cited here before rambling on.

Not taking on an 800 pound gorilla today. I'll have to read this later.

Thank you. i was hoping for a little more than that...

darstec

Be afraid of anything that Eusebius wrote or said he read. Be very afraid.

Entirely plausible. Multiple Pauline sources would help explain why his theology is all over the place, even gnostic/anti-gnostic in places.

I'm not sure Vorkosigan post has to be an opposing view. Mark could very well have used Pauline source material. Put both into the second century and that becomes even easier.

It is sad commentary that scholars had two wait 200 centuries to be able to examine this material openly and honestly without worrying about their heads or employment. With the advent of the Internet, Books on Demand, and CD burners they are free to challenge the status quo and even get recompensed for it. Unfortunately the same can be said for people like Holding or Jason Gastrich who are as scholarly as minah birds and only with the most inaccurate English translation available.

rlogan

Haw! Ain't that the truth.

The noble lie.

Agreed.

What we know to be true for the gospels, including those not in canon, ought also be true of "Paulish" writings. A plethora of sources, contradicting one another in places, that the final police state redactors patch togther.

It is a curious thing how these zealots look at the junkyard dumpster-diving collage of mismatched colors, contradictions, and etc. - claiming how "beautiful" it is. Maybe individual parts have beauty if understood in context, such as the chiastic structure of GMark.

But the whole collage is polka-dot clashing with plaid and stripes.


Yes, I see. Whenever looking at someone else's view that is so thorough as is Vork's, then you have to pull together all the various components of their model. It's a lot of work insomuch as you are not just evaluating one piece of evidence in isolation, but rather looking at it in the context of an entire scope of thought.


The fact any nose-in-the-air poseur quotes from them is evidence enough that they need to be on ignore.

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid this idea that Eusebius advocated dishonesty is itself a fraud that does the rounds endlessly in non-scholarly circles. I went into the subject a little while ago, and found that it was originally fabricated by Gibbon, by misrepresenting two obscure passages in two different works.

The first, from the Church History, book 8 chapter 2, he mistranslated so that it appeared as if Eusebius was saying he would only mention stuff if it was in the interest of the church. In fact he was (very bravely) writing about living and powerful people, and he said that he would only dish the dirt when it showed that the church deserved the persecution it had received. Most ancient writers would not write about the living, and those that did wrote panegyric and not say so. J.B.Lightfoot long ago remarked that the very fact he told us this showed that Eusebius was being straight.

The other passage Gibbon misrepresented was a chapter title from the Praeparatio Evangelica, Book 12, chapter 32, that lying could be useful. But the chapter is actually saying that some portions of the bible are written in the manner advocated by Plato, showing God as angry when it is not literally so. The unwary may choose to believe that Eusebius is saying the bible lies; what Plato is talking about is educational fiction, and Eusebius follows by saying that dim-witted people need to be taught in story form, and so the bible does this sometimes. Unfortunately scholars do not seem to be in agreement as to whether the chapter titles are by Eusebius anyway; but it does seem clear that they did not occupy their present places in the text when he wrote.

Details here.

The moral of the story is never believe anything negative about someone just because it is convenient and fits easily with what we know. Rather we should suspect it. "A morsel too soft and juicy, is a morsel that hides a hook."

There is a curious postscript to the story, which I learned from the recent translation of the Vita Constantini made by Averil Cameron and Stuart Hall for Oxford University Press. It seems that in the mid-1840's, activists attempted to undermine the rule of the Hapsburg emperor by disputing the ideological basis for it, which rested on the concept of Christian Empire founded by Constantine. The Hapsburgs were the heirs of the Holy Roman Emperors. To do this they chose to rubbish Constantine as a pagan. The testimony of Eusebius stood in their way, so they accused him of lying, and the Vita of being a collection of forged documents. I don't think overthrowing the Hapsburgs should be a priority of people here, however, and I understand that some of the most 'controversial' edicts recorded have since been found as papyri, and their genuineness vindicated.

Eusebius was a very great man, to whom everyone interested in antiquity owes more than most people seem to realise. His Chronicle took the mess that was Greek Chronography and reduced to a single universal set of tables of dates and events. All modern calculations ultimately derive from his efforts. His habit of verbatim citation (pretty much unknown before him) in all his works stuck, and is the root of all modern scholarly referencing. His access to the fabulous library of Origen and Pamphilus at Caesarea meant that he could quote all manner of now lost material, and so he did. Books 11-15 of the Praeparatio are pretty much a primer of Greek philosophy, and nearly all of it from lost sources. He even sought out documents in Syriac -- hardly a language he knew -- and had them translated and brought them into his history, such as the bogus correspondence of Jesus and Abgar from the Syriac Acts of Addai. He chose to include, rather than to assimilate, and for that reason everyone since has been dependent on his work.

Naturally his work has its defects. He was not always as accurate in citation as we today -- after 1500 years of scholarly progress starting from him -- would like. But his defects are those of his time. His virtues are forever. Indeed Gibbon's own work drew heavily on Eusebius, thereby destroying the integrity of his criticism. To abuse Eusebius crudely for religious or political reasons seems pretty pointless to me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

darstec

Roger, <edit> some of us here do not need to depend upon a translation by Gibbons for unlike you we can do our own translating.

We already know you have zero knowledge of the ancient languages. But even that is not needed because the English clearly shows that Eusebius advocated lying for Jesus as long as it was faith promoting.

Your assertion that goes around endlessly in non scholarly circles has no bearing on the fact that it also goes on endlessly in scholarly circles too, with apologetics always taking your stance. Besides, you are one of those non scholarly people so why did you enter the conversation?

"That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those
who need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the
Athenian:] 'And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is
not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held
it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie?
For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and
sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps
to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and
steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' 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."

By the way, did Eusebius change any of his theology later in life? (I'll bet you'll say no.)

Amaleq13

Please try to stick to a rational discussion of the evidence and arguments. Personal comments are irrelevant, unnecessary, and subject to edit.

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

rlogan

Hi Roger.

I realize the line you take is that of "interpreting" Eusebius to be saying that "parables" or "fiction" can be "used in education".

Please refer interested readers to the shameless, explicit, agenda-driven object of Eusebius - to "prove" the gospel. Read here, for example:


http://www.preteristarchive.com/Book...f_book_01.html

You can't have Eusebius asserting his objective is to "prove" the gospel and at the same time to pass him off as an objective historian. He sounds no more objective than J.P. Holding.

Once you actually start reading the apologetic rubbish throughout "Proof of the Gospel" then you no longer have any doubts whatsoever about what Eusebius is up to.


The biggest problem indeed is that the hand of Eusebius is that which "discovered" the Testimonium Flavianum.

There can be no greater monstrous lie than to forge or pass off forgery of this magnitude. And it serves, I think, as the best kind of example of what Eusebius is talking about - and perpetrating.


And to what purpose? Why, Proving the gospel. I know you are well aware of the import of teh TF in Book 3, ch 5:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu...e_05_book3.htm


IIRC, Eusebius uses this in three of his most important works. So here we have for the first time the fabricated quote of the TF for the purpose of fraudulent "history", poured in copious quantity throughout Eusebius whereas it had mysteriously never appeared before.

I don't think you can argue credibly that a "great historian", the first to "discover" the TF, was ignorant of its forged character. It may be more difficlut to prove, a la Olson, that Esusebius is the author.

I think so, but at a minimum he had to know it was a forgery. Good gracious, how could any debate over the veracity of the Historical Jesus have taken place sans reference to historical documentation?! Rubbish.

Eusebius is the best example of the kind of lies he recommends.

Steven Avery

So you are floating two or more theories at the same time. I'll review one of them.

(1-a/b True)
a) There was no Testimonium of any kind extant.
b) Arabic Agapius manuscript is own separate historic forgery, or something
c) Despite propensity for accurate quoting, Eusebius simply fabricated
d) No real concern that nobody would notice it at the time.
e) Pseudo-Hegesippus/Ambrose, Jerome, Sozemen etc blithely simply followed suit from Eusebius, with their own twists
f) Josephus copies were methodcially altered post-Eusebius to add in the Testimonium, no copy survived without same, no mention anywhere of the non-Testimonium Josephus
g) Nobody thought to question any aspect of this for about 1300 years
h) Now we know the rest of the story

We will also leave aside the interesting question of possible literary dependence of Tacitus on Josephus.

Also for (1) there was some whole other scenario for the James,
brother of Jesus scenario ... hmmmm.. not involving Eusebius ?

=========
(2)
a) There was a Testimonium extant, one version or another..
b) Eusebius should have known it was a forgery (why?)
.. etc... fill in your various scenarios.

=========

Thanks Rlogan, another wonderful skeptic circularity presup game.

Start as fact with the skeptics preferred conclusions on Josephus, (which themselves are largely based on the antipathy to the NT's historicity), as an excuse to attempt to discredit all Eusebius scholarship, based on a hyper-conjectural forgery.

And comparitevely speaking, the conjectural stuff is not bad at all..

The real disaster, the real lack of integrity, is that upon all this conjectural folderol you base a nasty attack accusation of forgery and lying.

"discovered" the Testimonium Flavianum... monstrous lie than to forge or pass off forgery of this magnitude... fabricated quote ... fraudulent "history", "discover" the TF..ignorant of its forged character... know it was a forgery.

Integrity first.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Even worse, if it were possible, this fanciful, hyper-conjectural, and worthless integrity attack is then hyper-extrapolated to attack all of the writings of Eusebius, who, as Roger points out (whether you like his doctrines and spiritual beliefs or not) is the consummate careful and accurate scholar of his times, and a prototype for the later (sometimes) superior scholarship standards.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic