J-D

So what? I don't read every thread on this board. You may have said the same things that you're saying in this thread in other threads that I haven't read (I wouldn't know), and what you have to say may have gone unchallenged in those other threads (I wouldn't know). That doesn't do anything to back up your claims. I am reading this thread, I have seen you make claims in this thread, I have seen that you have not backed them up, and I don't see any reason not to point that out.That may be what you see. I don't know that anybody else sees that. I know that I don't. What I see is you making claims, not backing them up, and trying to obscure this simple point with clouds of rhetorical obfuscation.

aa5874

Your reply highlights that "Appearances can sometimes be deceiving".

How do you know or can actually substantiate that "Eusebius" wrote ALL of or any part of Ecclesiastical Histories and that he did so between 312 and 324?

Please explain why the Bishop of Rome between 312 and 324 did NOT write the History of the Roman Church and why "Eusebius" did NOT ever get a single piece of information from the supposed MOST POWERFUL BISHOP of the Roman Empire when he wrote his "Ecclesiastical Histories"?

"Appearances can sometimes be deceiving".

You MUST know that "Eusebius" implied that the TF [Antiquities 18.3.3] was written in the 1st century by Josephus.

Can it possible be that the Roman Church wanted people to BELIEVE "Eusebius" wrote ALL of his "Ecclesiastical Histories" in the 4th century?

Do we have a case of the FORGED FORGERIES called Ecclesiastical Histories?

"Appearances can sometimes be deceiving".

mountainman

This date range is the consensus hypothesis relating to the chronology of Eusebius's writing, taken from a fairly large number of scholars who have examined the specific question of the chronology of Eusebius's authorship. Of course, it is still quite possible that these original writings were altered in their transmission from that epoch, later in the 4th or 5th centuries. For example, Eusebius's history seems to appear in the "Apocryphal Writings" listed in the Decretum Gelasianum.



Perhaps he did, but it didn't survive. Many histories were written in the 4th and 5th century, but none of them survive except for:

a) Eusebius - his "Ecclesiastical History" (the only surviving one in repect of the period leading up the Council of Nicaea) and

b) Socrates, Sozomenus and Theodoretus the three 5th century orthodox heresiologists's "Ecclesiastical Histories" covering the period from Nicaea to the early 5th century. A fragment of Philip of Sides's history authored in the 5th century might recently be added to these three.

aa5874

You seem to be implying that you also AGREE with the consensus hypothesis WITHOUT a shred of credible evidence.

There appears to be serious chronological problems with writings from the Church and massive forgeries.

mountainman

I have simply stated the consensus position on the chronology of Eusebius's authorship of "Ecclesiastical History". If we can rely on Julian's comment about Eusebius being "wretched", then this would represent evidence for the existence of Eusebius, and his involvement in the composition of a history of the Hebrew sages, who knew about Greek logic. Eusebius's history mentioned in the Decretum Gelasianum (possibly sourced from the 4th century and Damasius) lends support that a history of Eusebius was in circulation in the later 4th century. Of course none of this tells us what this "history" may have contained, or if it was added to, or revised, by the continuators of Eusebius in the subsequent centuries.

The hypothesis that the "early church" indulged in pious forgery (about events and people) is not without its merit.

aa5874

So are you therefore willing to admit that the charater called Eusebius may have NOT forged the TF and may have NOT written "Church History" or that there was NO Council of Nicea as stated by Church writers since you willingly admit that there were NO Christians in the 2nd century?

Surely, if there were NO Christians in the 2nd century due to fraud and forgeries then perhaps there were NONE in the 4th century for the very same reasons unless you accept Eusebius' "Church History".

mountainman

Emperor Julian wrote three books against them c.361 CE and legally renamed the "Christian" religious cult to the "Galilaean" religious cult. The Nag Hammadi codices and the gJudas indicate the presence of a Gnostic reaction to orthodox christianity. Evidence for canonical christianity in the 4th century includes the earliest Greek codices, thought to be related to the 50 Constantine Bibles. Many Christian basilicas appear over the foundation of pagan temples in the 4th century. The name of christians appear in the law codes. Inscriptions that are unambiguously christian appear in the 4th century.

The hypothesis that christianity did not exist until the 5th century is falsified by the abundant and corroborative evidence of many kinds. Christianity appears to have exploded in the 4th century. The mainstream hypothesis is that there was a long fuse burning through the earlier centuries.

aa5874

The evidence does NOT show that Christianity exploded in the 4th century. We know that Christians were operating in Secret associations based on Celsus "True Discourse" since the 2nd century as stated in "Against Celsus".


"Against Celsus" All we had in the 4th century was a Political/Theological change and all people of the Roman Empire were FORCED to worship the Gods of the Already Existing Christians.

mountainman

This knowledge is hypothetical, and far from certain.



It was a REVOLUTION. It was enforced by the sword.
It exploited the high technology of codex manufacture.

aa5874

Well, based on your view, you must therefore also admit "it is impossible to be certain" that Eusebius is fairly represented by the texts attributed to him.

Again, based on your position, You must also admit that "it is impossible to be certain" that Julian is fairly represented by texts attributed to him.

If one adopts a position that it is impossible to ascertain fair representation of any texts then what is the point of attempting to resolve any matter relating to the history of Christianity?

Please STATE the authors of antiquity whose texts were fairly represented.