FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-27-2004, 08:07 AM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Aliet
The Catholic Encyclopaedia states that ERBES, Das Syrische Martyrologium contended, in Zeitschrift f. Kirchengesch., XXVI, 1905, 20-31, that the feast (Christmas) was brought in by Constantine as early as 330-35.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm
Actually, what it states is: "More important, but scarcely better accredited, is Erbes' contention (Zeitschrift f. Kirchengesch., XXVI, 1905, 20-31) that the feast was brought in by Constantine as early as 330-35."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Aliet
This (Constantine being behind the introduction of Christs' mass) is an idea that Franz Cumont also put forth.
I would be interested to see how he substantiates this. However, even if true, that is not the same as saying that Constantine "introduced 'missing elements' to Christianity like ... Sunday as a worship day", particularly if "the Lord's Day" had long been counterposed to Shabbat in an ongoing effort to 'dejudaize' an increasingly gentile church.
Jayhawker Soule is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 08:35 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Quote:
More important, but scarcely better accredited, is Erbes' contention
That is the Church's position. Attitude and fact cannot be bifurcated easily in the absence of clear evidence.

Quote:
However, even if true, that is not the same as saying that Constantine "introduced 'missing elements' to Christianity like ... Sunday as a worship day", particularly if "the Lord's Day" had long been counterposed to Shabbat in an ongoing effort to 'dejudaize' an increasingly gentile church.
How about we substitute "introduced 'missing elements' to Christianity" with some other phrase then? like, say "codified Sunday as a day of worship" or "codified the symbolism of the cross"
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 10:07 AM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Aliet
Most people use Gifford's 1903 translation.
Kirby's site, which also uses the same translation, has it (Chapter 31, book 12, Preparation Evangelica thusly:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co..._12_book12.htm

In the passage above, borrowed from Plato, Eusebius is arguing that it is ok to tell falsehood so long as you are doing it for the good of the person you are lying to. He argues that its difficult to persuade men of the truth (and by implication, that it is ok to lie if that is what it takes to impart the truth).
Let's be clear on this: He is quoting Plato - those weren't his words. It follows passages relating to how to teach about the nature of God. Earlier in the letter Eusebius had written:
Quote:
PLATO 'Do you not understand, said I, that what we first tell children is a fable? And this, I suppose, is, generally speaking, fiction, though there is also some truth in it. And we use fables with children earlier than gymnastics.

'That is true.'


So Plato writes. And among the Hebrews also it is the custom to teach the histories of the inspired Scriptures to those of infantine souls in a very simple way just like any fables, but to teach those of a trained mental habit the more profound and doctrinal views of the histories by means of the so-called Deuterosis and explanation of the thoughts that are unknown to the multitude.
This goes well with the passage that Eusebius himself writes:
Quote:
Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.
So Eusebius is using Plato to make a comment about the contents of the OT, and that's about all. As Pearse says:
History, as such, is not under discussion in the work at all. In this passage, a piece of Plato is discussed, and the way in which the Hebrew scriptures acknowledge the inability of most men to reason (and how, unlike the philosophers, they don't exclude that class of men) and embody it as part of their message is outlined.

Of course, Eusebius may have been a lying so-and-so anyway, but you need to keep in mind that he quoted Plato: "Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.". You may as well say that this is evidence that he went out of his way to be truthful in his histories.

Quote:
"This mode of instruction" being lieadagogy (teaching through lies).
Of course Pearse disagrees. And he tells a tall story to persuade us otherwise. If you find his arguments persuasive, fine.
What is his tall story?
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 10:32 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Aliet
How about we substitute "introduced 'missing elements' to Christianity" with some other phrase then? like, say "codified Sunday as a day of worship" or "codified the symbolism of the cross"
You are better aquainted with this stuff, but it certainly sounds preferable to me, particularly if it's understood that this ruling apparently was consonant with earlier rulings and with earlier Christian practices. So, for example,
Quote:
In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire:
On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.
The Church Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath. They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day."

- see The Sabbath
My concern is that the 'Constantine conspiracy' may be more a case of seeing what one wants to see. You already seem to be embellishing Constantine's role.
Jayhawker Soule is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 10:40 AM   #15
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon
Roger Pearse has looked at some of these quotes, and finds that Eusebius didn't say some of them while others don't represent fair comment.
Pearse has tried to rehabilitate Eusebius, but he made the initial mistake of assuming that the section headings were not part of Eusebius' original writing. You can read more about this controvery by looking up a thread titled "Eusebius the liar."

Basically, Eusebius endorses Plato's royal lie. A royal lie is still a lie.
Toto is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 05:09 PM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
Pearse has tried to rehabilitate Eusebius, but he made the initial mistake of assuming that the section headings were not part of Eusebius' original writing. You can read more about this controvery by looking up a thread titled "Eusebius the liar."
Pearse's comments also allow for the section heading to have been written by Eusebius.

Quote:
Basically, Eusebius endorses Plato's royal lie. A royal lie is still a lie.
Sure - just as a doctor may lie to his patient in order to calm him, and that is still a lie also. But we don't usually then say that things he says away from patients is a lie without good reason.

Is there any evidence that Eusebius carried out wholesale lying in producing his histories? Is there a list somewhere?
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 07:25 PM   #17
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon
Pearse's comments also allow for the section heading to have been written by Eusebius.
They probably do now, after Richard Carrier corrected him.

Quote:
Sure - just as a doctor may lie to his patient in order to calm him, and that is still a lie also. But we don't usually then say that things he says away from patients is a lie without good reason.
But it's still a lie.

Quote:
Is there any evidence that Eusebius carried out wholesale lying in producing his histories? Is there a list somewhere?
How would we prove it? For the most part, there is no standard against which to measure his history, and we don't have his secret notes about how he fabricated X, Y, or Z. We do know that some of the things he reported are impossible or improbable. In another thread on Hegesippus, Jay Raskin is trying to show that Eusebius invented Hegesippus.
Toto is offline  
Old 08-27-2004, 07:40 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

Why assume that Eusebius started writing his Ecclesiastica Historica after the conversion of Constantine?

best,
Peter Kirby
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 08-28-2004, 02:01 AM   #19
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The whole Eusebius the liar business is now old hat. The passage makes clear that he is not talking about lies because he refers to the Old Testament doing the same thing. There is simply no way that Eusebius or anything other Christian would say the OT contains lies. Therefore 'lie' is a mistranslation being used with mischevous intent. The correct term, as is blindlingly obvious from the context, should be fable or parable or figurative speech.

We also have no firm evidence Eusebius ever forged anything else. The whole idea is an atheist myth that they should now drop.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason
 
Old 08-28-2004, 02:22 AM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kirby
Why assume that Eusebius started writing his Ecclesiastica Historica after the conversion of Constantine?
best,
Peter Kirby
I do not think its a necessary assumption (because even if he had written it earlier, Constantine would have wanted the rough edges to be smoothened out) although writing Church History would have been a monumental undertaking and in such a polarised society, writing such a history without being 'comissioned' by a higher power may have resulted is suspicions and would probably have been rejected as illegitimate. Eusebius either needed to be in a position commanding respect in the Church, or needed the backing of someone higher up. Even Josephus wrote under the patronage of the Flavian family and it is known that, like Eusebius who flattered Constantine, Josephus too flattered his patrons.

More importantly, Eusebius' exact date and place of birth are unknown [this leaves your question difficult to answer - indeed, the exact date of Constantine's conversion is unknown]. I have seen sources that indicate that in 296 he was in Palestine and saw Constantine who visited the country with Diocletian. If we assume that he was born c.265, then by 213 (at the age of around 40) is when he could have acquired enough respect, knowledge, standing in the Church and recognition to merit taking the monumental task of writing the Chrurch History. And by that time, Constantine was converted.

GDon,
Quote:
What is his tall story?
His tall story is in his website. First, he latches on Gobbon. Then he follows Gibbon's references. Then he claims that Gibbon's 'quotation' seems to be a fraud. Then he states: "How did the statement get manufactured? We cannot know all the steps, but we can guess easily enough."

I find his approach mealymouthed, long-winded and apologetic.
I have provided you with the translation and given you a clear interpretation of the passages. If I rob the poor and claim that the bible says that those who have little will have the little taken away from them and those who have more will be added more, will you claim that I am only quoting the Bible?

If you buy Pierce's interpretation, like I said, cool with me. Carrier disagreed, and he builds the argument down from Plato here . No one, in early Christian history (besides Papias) is as suspect as him - he is the first to quote the TF - the TF turns out to be an interpolation. He is the first to mention and use Hegessipus - we find no copies of Hegessipus elsewhere. He uses Clement ambiguously and makes incredulous miraculous claims for a man of his stature and things that contradict his claims - like Josephus' lost reference that was cited by Origen - which made James the Just a 'powerhouse' on his own - have gone missing.

What gives?

Look, this thread is meant to discuss this issue. Don't take my role of playing devil's advocate to imply that conclusions have been made.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:54 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.