darstec

We aren't. We are rejecting it because there is no evidence those people actually existed. We are rejecting it because Eusebius distinctly said it was ok to lie to promote the faith. We are rejecting it because Eusebius has been caught in enumerable lies.

Except they aren't independent. We get their comments from one source, Eusebius. Or we get their comments passed down from the hands of Eusebius biased church.

We we know them and know what they teach in class then we can disqualify what they say to gain that Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat.

stephan huller

How is that biased? My father was an atheist growing up in Nazi Germany and my mother was Jewish. My 'acceptance' of the early Christian writers is a result of deliberation. The first I ever heard of Jesus was as the son of Yosef Pandira ...

mountainman

As OUTSIDERS we can reject Eusebius on the basis that he is the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity, on the pay-roll of his imperial sponsor Constantine - just another Constantinian mercenary. As INSIDERS we are unable to reject Eusebius because Eusebius is all the history of "Early Christianity" that anyone is ever going to locate prior to Nicaea.

By the terms INSIDERS and OUTSIDERS, I am siding with the Jewish Italian ancient historian Momigliano who wrote:

Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders.

I see Momigliano as an outsider. He is addressing the general field of ancient history and not its church-controlled subset - namely "Biblical History". Here are some more observations on my position - shared ....

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.





p.7

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:


1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.


The form of exposition they choosen for their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

--- ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS

--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987


Chapter 1:

Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
Simple Reflections upon Historical Method

We must show the KNOWN forger Eusebius NO PITY.
To do this, we may hypothetically reject his value.
This leaves us at the doorstep of the Councils of Antioch and Nicaea c.324/325 CE.
We must understand that Constantine was at war - and very ambitious.
The first widespread publications of the bible represent his Roman wartime propaganda.

Quite successful of course, but was the literature authentic?
His tradition vouchsafed its own authenticity!
Good enough for the power of the church and for the INSIDERS - the "Biblical Historians".

But not good enough for those who would like some evidence - the OUTSIDERS.
The OUTSIDERS are quite entitled to hypothecize that "Church History" is as BOGUS as "Augustan History".

As ancient historians We MUST be aware of the massive integrity problems of the "Historia Augusta"
As "Biblical Historians" we need only turn a blind eye to it, and to Eusebius' many counts of common fraud.