Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-24-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I recommend Jay Raskin's The Evolution of Christs and Christianities (or via: amazon.co.uk) for a different perspective. Eusebius is the source for most of our information on church history (other church fathers wrote more about theology and doctrine.) Raskin thinks that Eusebius was a master forger, but with the emphasis on master rather than forger.

Thanks Toto.

In an earlier post on a thread entitled "Another Eusebian Tell? Did he leave his fingerprints in 1 Cor 15?", Jay Raskin kindly summarised his defence of Eusebius, upon the charge of interpolation ....

Quote:

I do go into Eusebius' motives in my book. Here's a small paraphrase of some of it.

When Eusebius wrote Church History, the Roman Empire was emerging from a long period of quite bloody Civil Wars. Constantine was commited to the Christians because they had fought for him, bringing him to power. However, a sharp turn was always possible. It was hard so say how strong Constantine's commitment to the Christians actually was. Eusebius and other powerful Christians had to tread carefully and play their cards right. Else they could find themselves at the wrong end of another bloody persecution. Constantine had double-crossed more than one friend on the road to absolute power.

One major problem was that Christianity was looked upon as a recent phenomenon, and the power of the Church even more recent still. It really couldn't compete with the Roman religions which traced their histories back to before the beginnings of Rome over 1,000 years. However, if Eusebius could show that Christianity was really the religion of the Emperors, at least the "good" emperors, and at least it had a history of 300 years, he could keep it on Constantine's sunny side. For Eusebius, writing the Church History was no mere exercise in scholarship or pedantric showmanship, it was an important opportunity to "seal the deal" so to speak with the Emperior Constantine. (Remember Constantine didn't become a Christian until he was on his death bed -- if then.)

Now, Eusebius had a real problem. The Roman Church probably didn't begin until around 150 and it probably didn't even acknowledge a human Christ until 200. Eusebius had to show that the Church's current doctrines, many of which probably had been adopted within Eusebius' lifetime somehow stretched back to the times of Christ and his apostles. He really had no choice but to interpolate into documents, as well as destroying others. Getting rid of rival Christian cults as quickly as possible was also a political necessity.

He seems to have been pretty successive in convincing Constantine that he had the real documents and it was others who had adultered the church's true teachings.

It is possible that when he did his interpolations, he prayed for the guidance of Jesus to tell him what to write. So in his mind, perhaps, rather than committing a crime, he was doing sacred work and fixing history, or at least showing how it probably was. If the heretics had twisted the story, was he not right to staighten it?

Eusebius tells us over and over again that the promise of Jesus was coming true at last, in his own lifetime, before his own eyes. Christianity had gone from the verge of extinction to the dominant power in just a few years. For him this was a miracle: the fulfillment of the promise of Jesus Christ. For him, what he wrote had the blessings of God and that was more important than telling a story based on the actual evidence. A story based on the actual evidence was one that only the heretics and faithless would have enjoyed. Eusebius simply had no desire to tell that one.

So that's the general and simple explanation of why Eusebius changed texts, as far as I see it. If he commited crimes, it was because he was a saint not a sinner.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

I did not at that time respond to the above summary by Jay, in order
to first read as much as possible of his book (See above reference).

However, this post has reminded me to go back to Jay's words quoted
above, and reread and reassess how Jay views this Eusebian forgery,
or perhaps the lesser-evil term "interpolator" should be used.

It appears that Jay sees Eusebius as a "champion saint of christianity"
who did what he did for the good of the cause, at a time when this very
"tribe of christians" were poised to be selected (presumeably out of a
pantheon of religions in the 4th century Roman empire) as the chosen
religion of the emperor Constantine.

Clearly Jay portrays Eusebius as an independent power (a literature-sage)
alongside this highly intelligent supreme imperial mafia thug. However, that
clearly is not the only possibility.

However, my stance is that it is not unreasonable to consider that Eusebius
was in no way independent of Constantine - that he was Constantine's specialised
propagandist, working (312-324) under an imperial sponsorship to prepare the texts,
doctrines, eccesliastical history, and background materials for a new ROMAN religious
order, with a predefined implementation date to coincide with Constantine's
(planned future) supremacy (ie: Nicaea, 325).

Pete Brown

Clivedurdle · 10-24-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Thanks to the (quite relevant) reference to Mani CLivedurdle,
and to the barbarian references of the author.

In order to maintain a consistency in the hypothesis our view of Mani
is reasonably simple. He existed, much like Apollonius of Tyana, and
was a philosopher-sage who journeyed between large geographical
regions, and who enjoyed some form of communion with the people
in power through many regions.

However, with effect from the rule of Constantine's propaganda, he
like many other figures of history (and fiction also) were made to
appear as if they either were themselves, or had some knowledge
of, or some comment about, this new and strange Roman religion
called "christianity".

My thesis is that archeological, carbon-dating and other scientific
evidence will increasingly support the hypothesis that there was
indeed absolutely nothing "christian" in the pre-Nicaean epoch,
but rather a continuity of a richness of diverse culture (Graeco-
Egyptian, Persian, Indian - see the Buddhist influence thread).

The appearance of the phenomenom of christianity in the archeological
record will be found to have a sharp, violent, dictatorial boundary
clearly demarked by the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, at which time
it first appeared in antiquity.

This is really an argument about when is a xian not a xian, I would agree a version 8B model was rolled out after Constantine, but I think there are more than enough identifiable marks before then to define earlier versions of this particular Ford Escort!

mountainman · 10-24-2006, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

This is really an argument about when is a xian not a xian, I would agree a version 8B model was rolled out after Constantine, but I think there are more than enough identifiable marks before then to define earlier versions of this particular Ford Escort!

Yes, this is the mainstream BC&H view. That Constantine essentially
commandeered a small and insignificant (Galilaean) religious order
that was not new and strange. This is indeed the inference
which is presented by Eusebian literature defining chronology.

But it is not the only inference that an historian is entitled to make,
and explore, and test for integrity. Another inference is that Constantine
had the necessary resources to fabricate (out of the whole cloth) an entire
package of imperially supported fiction, and wanted to make it look old and
respectable. Hence the reference to "the tribe of christians" appears
in the TF.

If Eusebius and/or Constantine could have drawn upon all these
earlier versions of the Ford Escort legally, and openly, so to speak,
for what reason do you suppose Eusebius interpolated the TF.
Why is fraud so commonly associated with early references to this
"tribe of christians" in the pre-Nicaean epoch?

Or, if you prefer, we agree that Constantine rolled out the 8B.

But at the same time I claim that we need to be sure he did not
provide fraudulent registration papers, design drawings, various
litigation issues, and both good and bad road-testing affadavits
for the Ford Escord model, which he claims preceded the 8B.

The point raised by this thread basically highlights the situation
wherein "Eusebius is indeed at least a very large percentage of
all we know about "the Ford Escort Model", as is openly admitted
by the scholarly apologists, such as Lightfoot, above.

Pete Brown

Clivedurdle · 10-25-2006, 11:16 AM

Eusebius did not have control via Constantine of the Persian Empire. How do you explain the following report of a Ford Escort in the reign of Shapur 1?

Quote:

A Christian bishop, Papa bar Aggai, at the capital, Ctesiphon, claimed patriarchal rights - as had the Bishop of Rome - and the bishop of Ctesiphon remained in rivalry for influence with the Christian leadership in Nisibis.

gstafleu · 10-25-2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The point raised by this thread basically highlights the situation
wherein "Eusebius is indeed at least a very large percentage of
all we know about "the Ford Escort Model", as is openly admitted
by the scholarly apologists, such as Lightfoot, above.

Dixit Roger Pearse:

Quote:

The 9 volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection, some 5,000 pages, are all pre-Eusebian.

Are these then not about the Ford Escort?

And:

Quote:

The Panarion of Epiphanius (mid-late 4th century) is extant.

I suppose if this talks about the Escort, it could have been influence by Eusebius?

Gerard

gstafleu · 10-25-2006, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I recommend Jay Raskin's The Evolution of Christs and Christianities (or via: amazon.co.uk) for a different perspective. Eusebius is the source for most of our information on church history (other church fathers wrote more about theology and doctrine.) Raskin thinks that Eusebius was a master forger, but with the emphasis on master rather than forger.

Thanks for the reference. I've ordered the book, it certainly (from the Amazon reviews) sounds interesting.

Gerard

mountainman · 10-25-2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Eusebius did not have control via Constantine of the Persian Empire. How do you explain the following report of a Ford Escort in the reign of Shapur 1?

A Christian bishop, Papa bar Aggai, at the capital, Ctesiphon, claimed patriarchal rights - as had the Bishop of Rome - and the bishop of Ctesiphon remained in rivalry for influence with the Christian leadership in Nisibis.

From here:

The First Catholicos of the Syrian Church

It was around the year 300, an attempt was made for the first time to establish the Church in the Persian Empire in an organised form. The initiative for this was taken by Bishop Papa (Baba, AD.267-329) of the Persian royal capital at Seleucia-Ctesiphon with the consent of the Patriarch of Antioch. In AD 315, the Bishop convened a Synod of the Persian prelates at Seleucia in which he tried to organize the local churches, with himself as a head.

By 315 CE, Constantine had taken Rome. The legend is too late IMO,
and according to the above, it was not under Shapur 1 (241- 272) but
Shapur II (310- 379). The appearance of Mani the Prophet was under
Shapur 1, but I believe Mani was certainly not a christian, but was made
a christian (by fabricated writings) in the fourth century.

Pete Brown

mountainman · 10-25-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Dixit Roger Pearse:

Quote:

The 9 volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection, some 5,000 pages, are all pre-Eusebian.

Are these then not about the Ford Escort?

We are introduced to the Ante-Nicene fathers by Eusebius.
Eusebius, AFAIK, quotes all of them, and claims to have all
their writings on his desk as he prepares "Historia Ecclesiastica",
and "In Preparation of the Gospels".

Did he have the "Testimonium Flavianum" sitting in the ante-nicene
Josephus, or did he add it? Many people believe he added it.

I believe it is possible that he created the ante-Nicene literature
and then quoted from it, in the same manner as he created the "TF"
in Josephus, and then quoted from it.

And:

Quote:

The Panarion of Epiphanius (mid-late 4th century) is extant

I suppose if this talks about the Escort, it could have been influence by Eusebius?

Gerard[/QUOTE]

Yes, and more importantly, influenced by whatever was "decided"
at the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), which I claim to be the event
by which christianity was thrust upon the Roman empire.

Pete Brown

Johnny Skeptic · 10-25-2006, 11:38 PM

How was Eusebius any better qualified to verify what supposedly happened centuries before he lived than anyone else? If a person has to be a scholar in order to discover God, something is wrong. Were Moses and Abraham scholars? It is incredible that scholarly Christians presume that a person can discover God in copies of copies of ancient texts and completely disregard the lack of credible evidence today that God is active in tangible ways that indicate that he is loving and compassionate. I am not interested in accepting a God who only wishes to reveal himself in copies of copies of ancient texts that were written by human proxies. The use of human proxies in all religious books contributes to doubt, hatred, and wars. In addition, it also contributes to doubt, hatred, and wars within religions. Many Christians have hated and killed other Christians.

gstafleu · 10-26-2006, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I believe it is possible that he [Eusebius] created the ante-Nicene literature
and then quoted from it, in the same manner as he created the "TF"
in Josephus, and then quoted from it.

That argument is not as strong as some of your others. Inserting a sentence or two into Josephus is one thing, we know that kind of thing happened all the time (Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus e.g.). But creating 5000 pages from scratch is quite another. The first is reasonable assumption, the second enters the realm of conspiracy theory. Not that it couldn't have happened, but you'll need some solid evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

Again, this must be checkable via word frequencies, hapax (or oligo) legomena etc. For example, are there words in the 5000 pages that occur significantly more frequently then in the rest of contemporary literature. Are there words that occur in contemporary literature but not in the 5000 pages? I'm not a philologist, but something like that must be doable, even if the faking was done by a team rather than a single author.

Roger, Anybody: Any chance of such a fake?

10-25-2006, 11:38 PM	#19
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Eusebius: the be all and end all? How was Eusebius any better qualified to verify what supposedly happened centuries before he lived than anyone else? If a person has to be a scholar in order to discover God, something is wrong. Were Moses and Abraham scholars? It is incredible that scholarly Christians presume that a person can discover God in copies of copies of ancient texts and completely disregard the lack of credible evidence today that God is active in tangible ways that indicate that he is loving and compassionate. I am not interested in accepting a God who only wishes to reveal himself in copies of copies of ancient texts that were written by human proxies. The use of human proxies in all religious books contributes to doubt, hatred, and wars. In addition, it also contributes to doubt, hatred, and wars within religions. Many Christians have hated and killed other Christians.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.