Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-17-2007, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

The prevailing belief among NT scholars is that Matthew and Luke had Mark and another gospel known as Q, of which no copies currently exist. They also had their own traditions.

Eusebius tenders the tradition of the Eusebian canon tables.
Six-hundred odd events and sayings neatly cross-referenced.
ON DAY ONE of the "Constantine Bible". What a package!
Who needs a Q alongside these tables of the 600 odd
original sayings and events compiled by Eusebius et al?

Quote:

gMark is mentioned or quoted by various Church Fathers from the 2nd century IIRC, so there was a text known as the Gospel of Mark around at that time.

The postulate that gMark is mentioned or quoted by various
"Church Fathers from the 2nd century" relied on the fact
that Eusebius tells us this information.

We are free to postulate that Eusebius wrote historical truth.
We are free to postulate that Eusebius wrote historical fiction.

Evidence will then arbitrate on the best postulate.
Discussions about the "evidence" are rare in this forum.
Arnaldo Momigliano likens Eusebius to Herotodus.
He is famous for being both the father of history
and the father of lies.

Buyer ....... beware.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown
TAOPATTA

Yellum Notnef · 12-17-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

........................................
Attys, who was called the "Only-Begotten Son" and "Saviour" was worshiped by the Phygians (who were regarded as one of the oldest races of Asia Minor). He was represented by them as a man tied to a tree, at the foot of which was a lamb, and, without doubt also as a man nailed to the tree, or stake, for we find Lactantius making ... Apollo of Miletus ... say that "He was a mortal according to the flesh; wise in miraculous works; but, being arrested by an armed force by command of the Chaldean judges, he suffered a death made bitter with nails and stakes. - T.W. Doane, Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions, 1882, p190-191

I'm concentrating on this because it actually gives a reference in an ancient source.

The quote from Lactantius is online here http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...m#P1114_500295

Quote:

On which account the Milesian Apollo, being asked whether He was God or man, replied in this manner: "He was mortal as to His body, being wise with wondrous works; but being taken with arms under Chaldean judges, with nails and the cross He endured a bitter end."

I can see no evidence at all that this supposed prophecy has any reference to Attis.

Andrew Criddle

Forget about Attis for a minute.

Did Lactantius just say that Apollo was crucified?

Toto · 12-17-2007, 05:47 PM

Apollo was not crucified.

Follow the link to the quote, and you can see that the title of the paragraph is

Chapter XIII.-Of Jesus, God and Man; And the Testimonies of the Prophets Concerning Him.

In that quote, the Milesian Apollo is the oracle of Apollo Didymaeus, and the "he" to which Apollo refers is presumably the person mentioned in the first sentence,

Therefore the Most High God, and Parent of all, when He had purposed to transfer124 His religion, sent from heaven a teacher of righteousness, that in Him or through Him He might give a new law to new worshippers;

Roger may give a better answer, but I didn't want a new rumor to get started.

Yellum Notnef · 12-17-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Apollo was not crucified.

Follow the link to the quote, and you can see that the title of the paragraph is

Chapter XIII.-Of Jesus, God and Man; And the Testimonies of the Prophets Concerning Him.

In that quote, the Milesian Apollo is the oracle of Apollo Didymaeus, and the "he" to which Apollo refers is presumably the person mentioned in the first sentence,

I did follow the link and read the entire chapter, but I guess I got confused amidst all the cult speak and bullshit. Let me get this straight.
So according to Lactantius, the oracle actually met this man mentioned in the Moses Prophecy. And this man was supposably Jesus?

Quote:

Roger may give a better answer, but I didn't want a new rumor to get started.

A new rumor would keep Roger busy. :Cheeky:

Toto · 12-17-2007, 07:13 PM

I don't think Oracles actually meet the person that they prophesy about, so this oracle only met Jesus in the spirit world, or some such.

patcleaver · 12-17-2007, 09:17 PM

Nice to meet you makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

There is no evidence at all that the Gospels are not simply fiction. There is lots of evidence that they are fiction, such as:

they are full of fictional devices that are very rarely used in biography (e.g. tragedy, foreshadow, surprise, impossible to witness events/conversations, mystery, irony, amazing coincidence, miracles, destiny, super-heroism),

Ancient biographies often contained these things.

You see a few fictional devices in ancient biographies, and you see lots of them in ancient fiction, and then you see lots of fictional devices used in the gospels.

This alone is very good evidence that the gospels are fiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

The prevailing belief among NT scholars is that Matthew and Luke had Mark and another gospel known as Q, of which no copies currently exist. They also had their own traditions.

Q is proposed becasue there are sayings common to Matthew and Luke that are not in Mark. It seems simpler if we just assume that Luke copied from an early version of Matthew.

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

'Textual analysis' is different than 'orthographic analysis'. The former refers to an analysis of the language and content of the text, while the later refers only to the orthography, ie. the physical writing on the page.

I meant both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

The original dating was not a scholarly textual analysis. See here.

That site does not say what your suggesting at all. I have no reason to believe that the scholars who examined it were biased in any way to claim it was an early document except for being Christian of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

If there were revisions of Mark it could have originated hundreds of years BC or, as far as we know, it could have been written as late as the 10th century when we have the earliest carbon dated copies of the canonical gospels.

gMark is mentioned or quoted by various Church Fathers from the 2nd century IIRC, so there was a text known as the Gospel of Mark around at that time. Whether it was identical or similar to the modern text can't be known for certain.

Well of course I think 10th century seems far less likely than 4th century, but we really have no idea. If there are statements by church fathers or inscriptions on graves or inscriptions in churches that happen match statements in gMark, but are not attributed to gmark, then that does not indicate which is earlier. Clearly gMark incorporates lots of earlier sayings from the Old Testament and other places and is probably based on some traditional sayings of the first few centuries.

There may have been several different documents attributed to Mark. When a Church father says that there was a gospel attributed to Mark, that alone does not indicate that he was talking about the same document that we call the gospel according to Mark.

I think that there was someone who quoted a gospel according to Luke that is definitly different than the gospel according to Luke that we have.

We need some reliable source who unambiguously indicates that he is quoting from the document that we call gmark. There just does not seem to be any reliable evidence that the gospel according to Mark existed in such ancient times.

patcleaver · 12-17-2007, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think that this is usually cited as evidence of some confusion on the part of Hadrian.

It's a carefully edited extract from the Historia Augusta here. Here is the context.

For the Egyptians, as you know well enough, are puffed up, madmen,20 boastful, doers of injury, and, in fact, liars and without restraint, always craving something new, even in their popular songs, writers of verse, makers of epigrams, astrologers, soothsayers, quacksalvers. 5Â Among them, indeed, are Christians and Samaritans and those who are always ill-pleased by the present, though enjoying unbounded liberty. 6Â But, lest any Egyptian be angry with me, thinking that what IÂ have set forth in writing is solely my own, IÂ will cite one of Hadrian's letters, taken from the works of his freedman Phlegon,21 which fully reveals the character of the Egyptians.

8 From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. 2. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. 3. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. 4. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. 5. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle. 6. Some are blowers of glass, others makers of paper, all are at least weavers of linen or seem to belong to one craft or another; the lame have their occupations, the eunuchs have theirs, the blind have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled are idle. 7. Their only god is money, and this the Christians, the Jews, and, in fact, all nations adore. And would that this city had a better character, for indeed it is worthy by reason of its richness and by reason of its size to hold the chief place in the whole of Egypt. 8. I granted it every favour, I restored to it all its ancient rights and bestowed on it new ones besides, so that the people gave thanks to me while I was present among them. Then, no sooner had I departed thence than they said many things against my son Verus, and what they said about Antinous I believe you have learned. 9. I can only wish for them that they may live on their own chickens, which they breed in a fashion I am ashamed to describe. 10. I am sending you over some cups, changing colour and variegated, presented to me by the priest of a temple and now dedicated particularly to you and my sister. IÂ should like you to use them at banquets on feast-days. Take good care, however, that our dear Africanus does not use them too freely."

9 So then, holding such an opinion about the Egyptians Aurelian forbade Saturninus to visit Egypt, showing a wisdom that was truly divine.

The point is that the fickleness of the Egyptians in swaying cheaply between beliefs which are known to be opposed, if taken seriously.

I wonder if this really came from a work by Phlegon.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I think that Emperor Hadrian is saying that:

In Egypt, there are two sects of worshipers of Serapis. A first sect that calls themselves Christians and insist that Serapis be referred to as Serapis. A second sect calls themselves "Bishops of Christ" and insist that Serapis be referred to as Christ. When the Patriarch comes to Egypt, in order to satisfy both sects, he has to worship Serapis as Serapis in one church and also worship Serapis as Christ in another church. Emperor Hadrian, or course, thinks these sects are being silly.

There is no justification for interpreting something in a confusing manor when it can be interpreted more simply. Unless you arbitrarily assume that there were followers of Jesus of Nazareth at the time, and that one of these groups were actually followers of that Jesus of Nazareth, then there is no confusion of Hadrian.

patcleaver · 12-17-2007, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

I do not think anything special happened during Constantan's reign. He seems to be just another Emperor pope in a line stretching back to Caesar and forward into the 5th century.

The only evidence that Constantine or anyone else at that time even thought that the Jesus of Nazareth myth might be true are the fictions and outright forgeries of Eusebius the forger.

About the forgeries and the fiction
I do have some questions ...

What do you know about Arnaldo Momigliano?
What do you think was discussed at the Council of Nicaea?
Who first published this fiction book - the New Testament?
When was this NT first published?
Where was this NT first published?
Who paid for - or "sponsored" - the fabrication?
Who was contracted to, or wrote, the text?

Finally, what do you make of the chronology and place
in the whole scheme of things of the three major NT
codices - the Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus?

Pete, I owe you answers, but I can not spend much time on this until January. It is likely that Esuebius was also heavely revised. They were still drafting the longer ending of Mark in the 10th century. There are lots of opinions and few facts about this stuff.

militant agnostic · 12-17-2007, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Evidence?

There is no evidence outside of Eusebius before the fourth
century which can be used to literally check Eusebius in a
fully critical and unambiguous sense.

Anyone who approaches this question with a certain degree
of objectivity will admit as much. The problem of course is
that the objectivity required to pursue this question is not
usually to be found in people who have been "brought up"
to assume the belief of the universal church of Jesus C.

The hypothesis that he literally invented materials for his
ecclesiastical history is commensurate with a political theory
of ancient history in which the rise of christianity in the fourth
century is simply explained by the intolerant politics of the
emperor Constantine, and the absolute power that he held,
over all lives in the empire at that time.

The relative consistency of evidence supporting the Eusebian
truthfulness paradigm, and the Eusebian fiction paradigm has
yet to be examined by scholarship.

People today are not compelled to believe (without evidence)
in that universal church to which Eusebius alone holds
the keys. We only have his word, as the deliverer of the gospels,
the Acts and the History to his emperor Coinstantine, who indeed
retained Eusebius at his right hand in such matters, that what he
presented was not simply a fabulous account, a monstrous tale,
or indeed a fabrication and a fiction of men, which was composed
by wickedness and the desire to control the captive and subjugated
populations of the (particulalry Eastern) empire c.324 CE.

Noone want to contemplate Constantine was a despot.
And noone wants to admit in the possibility that their
cherished belief system is in fact not divine, but man
made, quite some time back now.

The 21st century is an age of growing up and maturing.
Perhaps the most erudite ancient historian of the 20th
century needs to be studied with a little more respect?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arnaldo Momigliano

p.141
"Eusebius' History of the Church ideally reflected the moment in which
the Church had emerged victorious under Constantine - a separate body
within the Roman Empire. With all his gifts Eusebius could not shape
his historiography in such a way as to envisage situations in which
it would be impossible to separate what belonged to Caesar from what
belonged to Christ."

There was a very real duality in Eusebius' notion of eccesiastical history:

p.141/142:

"on the one hand eclesiastical history was the history of the Christian nation
now emerging as the ruling class of the Roman Empire. On the other hand it was
the history of a divine institution not contaminated by political problems."

"How to deal with this divine institution's very earthly relations with other
institutions in terms of power, violence and even territorial claims?

"How would the continuators of Eusebius deal with the politics of the emperors,
the plotical intrigues of the bishops?"

"If we had the Christian History which the priest Philip of Side wrote
about 430, we would know more about the significance of the predominance
of the Eusebian model. It is evident that Philip of Side tried to go
his own way and to avoid imitating Eusebius..."

p.152

"At the beginning of this imposing movement of research and controversy
there remains Eusebius of Caesarea. In 1834 Ferdinand Christian Baur
wrote in "Tubingen" a comparison between Eusebius and Herodotus:
Comparatur Eusebius Caesarensis historiae ecclesiasticae parens cum
parente historiarum Herodoto Halicarnassensi.

We can accept this comparison and meditate on his remark
that both Herodotus and Eusebius wrote under the inspiration
of a newly established freedom.

Extracted from:
The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography
Arnaldo Momigliano
Sather Classical Lectures (1961-62)
Volume Fifty-Four
University of California Press, 1990

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Wasn't there a book released two or three years ago that actually purported to be a studiy on the motivations and standards Eusebius used when deciding what was to included in the Constatine Bible?

I wish I could remember the name. I remember that the conclusions seemed to favor the idea that Eusebius' standards made sense to him at the time even though they clearly were not the best ones for determining historical accuracy. He was esentually relying on what he thought was genuine apostolic succesive authority, ie passed down tradition.

The book also made the claim that much of Constitines preported intolerence and power lust was hyperboyle.

Personally, while I can beleive the interpretation of Esuebius' actions, I have a hard time swollowing the idea of a benign Constitine.

Anyone know what book this was?

patcleaver · 12-17-2007, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Textual dating (paleontological dating) is only used by historians to establish the earliest date that a work may have been written.

This is rather ignorant. I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but I am getting a little impatient with the quantity of ignorant hearsay without sources that you are posting in this forum, and I doubt I am alone in this.

Paleography is the technique to date *manuscripts*, not texts. The date of a manuscript has no bearing on the date of the text contained within it, since nearly all ancient literary texts are extant in manuscripts written after the 9th century AD or later (often much later).

Paleography is the standard means to date a manuscript.

So, what is the Paleographic evidence that the gospels were written before the 4th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

For aesthetic reasons, copiers often copied documents in ancient textual styles, so all you can really say is that the document was written after that style was first introduced.

I hate to imagine where you are getting this nonsense from. Before paleography was invented (by Dom Jean de Mabillon in the 18th century) it was impossible to forge old bookhands.

Forgery is an ancient art. e.g. Donation of Constantine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Carbon dating is not used for dating manuscripts. The text of the NT exists in manuscripts from ca. 200 onwards (if you want to argue about this, go and find a professional).

This is just silly nonsense. How could you not know that carbon dating is used for manuscripts?

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

12-17-2007, 05:47 PM	#113
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Apollo was not crucified. Follow the link to the quote, and you can see that the title of the paragraph is Chapter XIII.-Of Jesus, God and Man; And the Testimonies of the Prophets Concerning Him. In that quote, the Milesian Apollo is the oracle of Apollo Didymaeus, and the "he" to which Apollo refers is presumably the person mentioned in the first sentence, Therefore the Most High God, and Parent of all, when He had purposed to transfer124 His religion, sent from heaven a teacher of righteousness, that in Him or through Him He might give a new law to new worshippers; Roger may give a better answer, but I didn't want a new rumor to get started.

12-17-2007, 07:13 PM	#115
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I don't think Oracles actually meet the person that they prophesy about, so this oracle only met Jesus in the spirit world, or some such.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.