Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-05-2010, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

The past of Arius of Alexandria that I hypothetically sketch a revision of is ubiquitously pagan

But getting back to spin's original point - there is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence to support this claim.

According to mainstream dogma, what is the estimated ratio between the christians and the pagans during the rule of Constantine? I have seen a few figures in the 90% range.

My claim is that this ration was effectively zero, and that it was a miraculous religious revolution !!! Constantine imported his own "christians" from Rome and the West. It was all new for the non christian Alexandrian's and Antiochians c.324/325 CE. Many immediately subscribed to Constantine's new traditions, especially after torture (See Lane-Fox on Constantne's rescripts at Antioch 324/325 CE)

Quote:

Why not make the argument that Arius was Chinese?

I have put forward an analogy between Constantine and Arius, but one in which Constantine, who must be characterised as an oppressor, was the Chinese "Chairman Mao" with his "Little Red Book", and Arius was the Dalai Lama, who had to flee - not Tibet - but Alexandria. Just like Pachomius.

Pachomius's Codes tangent

You seem to enjoy codes stephan. What do you know about the solution to the series of Greek letter codes employed by Pachomius, perhaps carried on by Zozimus, in his segregation of the masses of people in his monsatic communities, who also fled Alexandria and elsewhere. From what I have read, nobody has yet explained the code system of Pachomius.

Toto · 12-05-2010, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

... It provides the political context for the year 312 CE. The year we know Eusebius took up his mighty pen.

Do you know this?

Eusebius_of_Caesarea

Quote:

In the 290s, Eusebius began work on his magnum opus, the Ecclesiastical History, a narrative history of the Church and Christian community from the Apostolic Age to Eusebius' own time. At about the same time, Eusebius worked on his Chronicle, a universal calendar of events from Creation to Eusebius' own time. Eusebius completed the first editions of the Ecclesiastical History and Chronicle before 300

Quote:

This is not rocket science. Fourth century and far earlier investigators it is argued would also naturally expect both contradictions and inconsistencies between eye witness accounts. This is not new phenomenom, but ancient.

The early church does not appear to have viewed the gospels as mere eyewitness accounts, but as inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit should be able to inspire a consistent story, in the same way that the translators of the Septuagint all miraculously came up with the same translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek.

The eyewitness excuse for the variations in the gospels is part of Protestant rationalism, the idea that the Bible is a reliable record by the standards of modern legal or journalistic principles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is where I have to wonder - can you be serious?!? Referential integrity is a requirement for relational databases, which were invented in the last part of the 20th century to allow large institutions to keep customer phone numbers and addresses and billing data in the most efficient manner possible. It makes no sense for the sort of data that ancient historian deal with.

I disagree with this in entirety as a completely simplistic assessment. I have elsewhere written A Brief History of the RDBMS, after 20 years in the field. This is all over a tangent term "referential integrity". I have used it to mean something like "inter-corroboration of evidence".

Referential integrity has a specific meaning, which is not "inter-corroboration of evidence."

Quote:

Loosely, it can be applied to the state of the evidence as a collection. If the referential integrity is good, then the underlying data is most likely in a satisfactory state. If the referential integrity is bad, then the underlying data is most likely not in a satisfactory state, and all sorts of exceptions are appearing on the surface. The converse also normally applies.

This is bullshit. Referential integrity means that the data will be internally consistent, not that it is satisfactory by an external standard.

You are not Humpty Dumpty. You cannot just redefine terms to mean what you want. If you want to say that there is no corroboration for the claims in Eusebius, you can just say that in plain English. (But in the case of Abercius, you continued to reject Eusebius even when there was some corroboration of his claims.)

Quote:

At the end of the day, if there was some corroboration - some "referential integrity" - between the story of Eusebius for the period before 324 CE, and the evidence available in all the myriad fields of ancient history, which I have elsewhere exhaustively tried to list, then I would not be here. The problem I have is that when I examine the external corroboration for the mainstream "In Eusebius We Trust" postulate, I find nothing of any great certainty or probability. All I find is a mass of contradictions, a fact noted by many people, one of whom was convinced that "Eusebius was the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity".

The mainstream view is not that Eusebius can be trusted, or that he is an especially reliable historian. The conclusion that you can draw from this is not that Eusebius created the entire history of Christianity from scratch in the year 312.

stephan huller · 12-06-2010, 12:11 AM

And what makes this theory even kookier is that there are all these Church Fathers from the late second century to the time of Constantine who represent witnesses to the evolution of the concept of New Testament canon. This is why I keep stressing that Pete just isn't simply familiar enough with the writings of the Church Fathers to make such a sweeping pronouncement as his fourth century conspiracy theory.

The concept of the four gospels EVOLVES over time. At the time of Irenaeus (the guy who introduces the quaternion) it is clear that what is meant is that the four together make one gospel. It is almost an impossible concept to get one's head around (like the Trinity which wasn't as evolved in Irenaeus's writings) but 'the Gospel' in the singular was Matthew, then Mark, then Luke and then John. Trobisch has argued that John 21:25 ("Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.") was not the conclusion of John but of the four.

If you look at Clement of Alexandria's writings he almost never refers to the individual gospels by name. He usually cites from 'Scripture' 'the gospel' etc.

By the time Origen comes along it's 'Luke said this' 'Matthew wrote that' again an evolution in the way material is approached.

I think that by the time of the fourth century the general bullshit about four gospels being one gospel written by the Holy Spirit was uttered in public but the entire approach was more rational.

My point here (to avoid cutting up Pete for at least one post) is to note how the different each generation of Christian commentators were and how this couldn't be faked. I think the gospels eventually became more like 'Matthew's writing' 'Peter's writing' 'Luke's writing' and 'John's writing' but originally there was still a mystical idealism associated with the collection which was never duplicated again in later generations.

Doug Shaver · 12-06-2010, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And what makes this theory even kookier is that there are all these Church Fathers from the late second century to the time of Constantine who represent witnesses to the evolution of the concept of New Testament canon.

No, there weren't, according to Pete. He says all the writings that everybody thinks are from second and third century are Eusebian forgeries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The concept of the four gospels EVOLVES over time.

Yeah, but not much time. Just the time it book Eusebius to write them.

stephan huller · 12-06-2010, 07:45 AM

Doug I don't know what to say about that. I don't want to attack Pete again. His theory is wrong. There is too much nuance in the writings of the Church Fathers, the way opinions change from generation to generation and within the lifespan of an author to take that claim seriously.

Toto's point about Eusebius writing his Ecclesiastical History before the end of the third century is worth investigating further. There is a book called 'Eusebius and Constantine (or via: amazon.co.uk)' which provides a reference on how

Quote:

Eusebius had completed the original edition of his Ecclesiastical History toward the close of the third century.(*) The books which he subsequently added do not constitute a proper history of the eastern Church between the Probus (where the first edition ended) and Constantine's conquest of the East; their aim is the more circumscribed one of narrating the persecutions which eastern Christians suffered under Diocletian and Galerius, under Maximinus and and Licinius. Eusebius neither intended nor attempted to describe fully the the internal condition of the Christian church in the late third and early fourth century, so that he left the history of Greek Christendom during this important period largely unwritten, apart from the persecution and its direct effects. What Eusebius added to Book Seven in later editions of the History reflects a personal and provincial viewpoint.

Eusebius brought the lists of emperors and bishops in the History down to the persecution, though in an unsystematic fashion. Probus (he noted) was succeeded by Carus and his sons, then came Diocletian and his colleagues, under whom occurred the persecution and the destruction of the churches. At Rome, the bishop Gaius was succeeded by Marcellinus, who still held the see when the persecution began. At Antioch, Cyrillus was followed by Tyrannus, in whose time the churches stood siege.10 In Jerusalem, zabdas succeeded Hymenaeus for a brief period; then came Hermon, who still occupied the episcopal throne when Eusebius added the relevant notice." At Alexandria, Max- imus held the see for eighteen years after Dionysius, Theonas for nineteen after Maximus, and Peter for twelve years after Theonas. Peter guided his church through the difficult days of persecution until he died as a martyr in its ninth year. Eusebius also notes that as bishop of Caesarea, Theotecnus was followed by Agapius, a wise pastor who gave to the poor with openhanded generosity.

One substantive addition to the History has a very sharp tone. A new heresy arose in the late third century at the prompting of Satan. The mad Mani posed as Christ, claimed to be the Holy Spirit, and sent out twelve apostles from Persia to infect the Roman world with deadly poison. His system, a patchwork of false and godless doctrines from countless moribund heresies, enjoyed a distressing popularity — and proved that "knowledge falsely so-called" (l Timothy 6:20) was still a danger. A later writer supplies the the precise information that Manichees settled in Eleutheropolis in the very year of Mani's death.

For the most part, however, the additions to the History commemorate Eusebius' friends ... (David Timothy Barners Eusebius and Constantine 141 - 143)

The footnote (*) is worth citing as it explains that our current edition is developed from the fourth edition of Ecclesiastical History - "Thereafter, the Ecclesiastical History received only minor modifications. A fourth edition reflected Constantine's victory in 324: Eusebius deleted or rewrote every passage where he had earlier named the defeated and discredited Licinius as a champion of religion and virtue ... He also added a brief account of Licinius' policy of persecution and overthrow."

His attempt to clean up his narrative in the Historia, however, was not completely successful. In his discussion of Licinius' character, Eusebius would Eusebius would appear to be referring to the division of the empire at the time of the Settlement of Serdica.

To understand how serious a blow this information is to Pete's theory just consider the dates for Probus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius_Probus). Marcus Aurelius Probus was Emperor from 276 - 282. There can be no doubt about this original edition of Ecclesiastical History. It is well known (except to Pete apparently). Are we now suiggesting that Eusebius and SEVERAL Emperors plotted the 'creation' of a Christian Church as far back as the year 280 CE? This is getting crazier by the minute.

spin · 12-06-2010, 08:26 AM

I wonder why Eusebius, who was not a Latinist, could write Mark with a distinct Latin bias? There are phrases that don't make too much sense in Greek but do make sense as Latin idioms. In Mk 2:23 we hear of that the disciples began to "make way", a phrase that implies the construction of a road in Greek, but works just fine in Latin, "iter facere". Another idiom which doesn't work well in Greek, 15:15, Pilate wished to "make complete" the crowd, ie Latin "satis facere" ("satisfy"). Or again a frequent "the is" literally from Greek is an idiom in Latin "hoc est" ("that is"), used for exaplanations.

So let's consider two of these explanations: Mk 12:42 "two leptas, that is, a quadrans", here are two Greek coins explained in terms of a Roman coin, and Mk 15:16, "the palace, that is, the praetorium", explaining a Greek building in terms of a Roman one. Why would a Greek speaking audience need clarifications useful for Romans? From Rome there were two types of Phoenicians, Syro-phoenicians (from the Levant) and Lybo-phoenicians (from Carthaginian lands). In Mk 7:25 there is a Syrophoenician woman (who becomes a Canaanite woman in Mt 15:22). Even calling the supporters of Herod, "Herodians" points to a Latin derivation.

The signs we have in Mark are of a Greek text written for a Roman audience, yet we are being asked to think that Eusebius, the non-Latinist, could write with a Roman bias at a time when Rome was becoming a backwater. And why would he need to have done so? One can imagine that he was writing for posterity or that he simply wasn't that able a writer and that he just didn't have the requisite linguistic skills to pull off such a work, writing simplistic Greek so different from his own wordy style, nor would he have had any good reason to include such a manifestation.

One could then talk about the ways Matthew and Luke improved on Mark from conflicting traditions. Did Joseph live in Nazara, as per Luke? or did he move there as per Matt 2:23? Why does Lk have a sermon on a plain while Mt has the sermon on the mount? Why does Luke have one feeding of the multitudes, rather than Mt & Mk's two feedings? These are just some of the traces of conflicting traditions rather than works written by the same guy(s).

Why do we get indications of "churches" in the accepted Pauline works but a single institution "the church" in the Pastoral letters?

Why are the christian texts trinitarian? I can see how the claim that Constantine had the texts written fits any of the facts.

spin

show_no_mercy · 12-06-2010, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

OK, then, can someone explain to me what the substantive evidence for the whole Constantine thing, given that it apparently has already been falsified? (And learn to use this English word, avi.)
spin

Eusebius falsifies the behaviour and philosophy of Mani (providing spin with both "substantive evidence" and correct usage of falsify):

That is not the definition of "falsify" used in science. I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems like you're using the legal definition "falsify".

We are not dealing with law, we are dealing with science.

If someone has a hypotheiss that all swans are white, the observation of a black swan would falsify the hypothesis that all swans are white.

If someone has a hypothesis that Christianity was created when Constantine was Emperor of Rome, then the observation of Christian activity prior to Constantine would falsify the hypothesis that Constantine and Eusebius created Christianity.

stephan huller · 12-06-2010, 08:50 AM

As you know there are a number of Patristic writers who do claim that Mark was first written in Latin at Rome. I think bar Hebraeus is one.

spin · 12-06-2010, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Eusebius falsifies the behaviour and philosophy of Mani (providing spin with both "substantive evidence" and correct usage of falsify):

That is not the definition of "falsify" used in science. I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems like you're using the legal definition "falsify".

We are not dealing with law, we are dealing with science.

If someone has a hypotheiss that all swans are white, the observation of a black swan would falsify the hypothesis that all swans are white.

If someone has a hypothesis that Christianity was created when Constantine was Emperor of Rome, then the observation of Christian activity prior to Constantine would falsify the hypothesis that Constantine and Eusebius created Christianity.

You can explain this usage to avi. You can cite dictionaries to show the usage. Other people can support this usage, but at the end of the day, avi simply refuses to accept the usage as a part of the English he is able to understand. For him, there can't be such a usage as it doesn't agree with him and he doesn't agree with it. It doesn't matter how many people take him to task on the matter: the wall is up. Despite scholars freely talking about the falsifiability of a hypothesis, it will have to be translated into aviese as something like "the validation of a hypothesis as viable by establishing the possibility of it being able to be refuted".

spin

stephan huller · 12-06-2010, 10:11 AM

As I just noted most scholars think that Eusebius DID NOT write most of the section on Mani.

Just for interest sake here is the pre-Constantine ending of Eusebius's original Ecclesiastical History in what is now the end of Book Seven. I will start with the section which describes the end of Aurelian's reign (Aurelian is usually credited with introducing the celebration of Christmas):

Quote:

18. As Paul had fallen from the episcopate, as well as from the orthodox faith, Domnus, as has been said, became bishop of the church at Antioch.

19. But as Paul refused to surrender the church building, the Emperor Aurelian was petitioned; and he decided the matter most equitably, ordering the building to be given to those to whom the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome should adjudge it. Thus this man was driven out of the church, with extreme disgrace, by the worldly power.

20. Such was Aurelian's treatment of us at that time; but in the course of his reign he changed his mind in regard to us, and was moved by certain advisers to institute a persecution against us. And there was great talk about this on every side.

21. But as he was about to do it, and was, so to speak, in the very act of signing the decrees against us, the divine judgment came upon him and restrained him at the very verge of his undertaking, showing in a manner that all could see clearly, that the rulers of this world can never find an opportunity against the churches of Christ, except the hand that defends them permits it, in divine and heavenly judgment, for the sake of discipline and correction, at such times as it sees best.

22. After a reign of six years, Aurelian was succeeded by Probus. He reigned for the same number of years, and Carus, with his sons, Carinus and Numerianus, succeeded him. After they had reigned less than three years the government devolved on Diocletian, and those associated with him. Under them took place the persecution of our time, and the destruction of the churches connected with it.

23. Shortly before this, Dionysius, bishop of Rome, after holding office for nine years, died, and was succeeded by Felix.

Most scholars think that this is the last reference from the original narrative written during the reign of Probus. What follows was likely part of the second edition (still pre-Constantine) likely written during the reign of Licinius and ammended again in the fourth century edition written after the death of Constantine:

Quote:

Chapter 31. The Perversive Heresy of the Manicheans which began at this Time.
1. At this time, the madman, named from his demoniacal heresy, armed himself in the perversion of his reason, as the devil, Satan, who himself fights against God, put him forward to the destruction of many. He was a barbarian in life, both in word and deed; and in his nature demoniacal and insane. In consequence of this he sought to pose as Christ, and being puffed up in his madness, he proclaimed himself the Paraclete and the very Holy Spirit; and afterwards, like Christ, he chose twelve disciples as partners of his new doctrine.

2. And he patched together false and godless doctrines collected from a multitude of long-extinct impieties, and swept them, like a deadly poison, from Persia to our part of the world. From him the impious name of the Manicheans is still prevalent among many. Such was the foundation of this “knowledge falsely so-called,” which sprang up in those times.

Chapter 32. The Distinguished Ecclesiastics of our Day, and which of them survived until the Destruction of the Churches.
1. At this time, Felix, having presided over the church of Rome for five years, was succeeded by Eutychianus, but he in less than ten months left the position to Caius, who lived in our day. He held it about fifteen years, and was in turn succeeded by Marcellinus, who was overtaken by the persecution.

2. About the same time Timæus received the episcopate of Antioch after Domnus, and Cyril, who lived in our day, succeeded him. In his time we became acquainted with Dorotheus, a man of learning among those of his day, who was honored with the office of presbyter in Antioch. He was a lover of the beautiful in divine things, and devoted himself to the Hebrew language, so that he read the Hebrew Scriptures with facility.
3. He belonged to those who were especially liberal, and was not unacquainted with Grecian propædeutics. Besides this he was a eunuch, having been so from his very birth. On this account, as if it were a miracle, the emperor took him into his family, and honored him by placing him over the purple dye-works at Tyre. We have heard him expound the Scriptures wisely in the Church.

4. After Cyril, Tyrannus received the episcopate of the parish of Antioch. In his time occurred the destruction of the churches.

5. Eusebius, who had come from the city of Alexandria, ruled the parishes of Laodicea after Socrates. The occasion of his removal there was the affair of Paul. He went on this account to Syria, and was restrained from returning home by those there who were zealous in divine things. Among our contemporaries he was a beautiful example of religion, as is readily seen from the words of Dionysius which we have quoted.
6. Anatolius was appointed his successor; one good man, as they say, following another. He also was an Alexandrian by birth. In learning and skill in Greek philosophy, such as arithmetic and geometry, astronomy, and dialectics in general, as well as in the theory of physics, he stood first among the ablest men of our time, and he was also at the head in rhetorical science. It is reported that for this reason he was requested by the citizens of Alexandria to establish there a school of Aristotelian philosophy.
7. They relate of him many other eminent deeds during the siege of the Pyrucheium in Alexandria, on account of which he was especially honored by all those in high office; but I will give the following only as an example.

8. They say that bread had failed the besieged, so that it was more difficult to withstand the famine than the enemy outside; but he being present provided for them in this manner. As the other part of the city was allied with the Roman army, and therefore was not under siege, Anatolius sent for Eusebius,— for he was still there before his transfer to Syria, and was among those who were not besieged, and possessed, moreover, a great reputation and a renowned name which had reached even the Roman general—and he informed him of those who were perishing in the siege from famine.

9. When he learned this he requested the Roman commander as the greatest possible favor, to grant safety to deserters from the enemy. Having obtained his request, he communicated it to Anatolius. As soon as he received the message he convened the senate of Alexandria, and at first proposed that all should come to a reconciliation with the Romans. But when he perceived that they were angered by this advice, he said, “But I do not think you will oppose me, if I counsel you to send the supernumeraries and those who are in nowise useful to us, as old women and children and old men, outside the gates, to go wherever they may please. For why should we retain for no purpose these who must at any rate soon die? And why should we destroy with hunger those who are crippled and maimed in body, when we ought to provide only for men and youth, and to distribute the necessary bread among those who are needed for the garrison of the city?”

10. With such arguments he persuaded the assembly, and rising first he gave his vote that the entire multitude, whether of men or women, who were not needful for the army, should depart from the city, because if they remained and unnecessarily continued in the city, there would be for them no hope of safety, but they would perish with famine.

11. As all the others in the senate agreed to this, he saved almost all the besieged. He provided that first, those belonging to the church, and afterwards, of the others in the city, those of every age should escape, not only the classes included in the decree, but, under cover of these, a multitude of others, secretly clothed in women's garments; and through his management they went out of the gates by night and escaped to the Roman camp. There Eusebius, like a father and physician, received all of them, wasted away through the long siege, and restored them by every kind of prudence and care.

12. The church of Laodicea was honored by two such pastors in succession, who, in the providence of God, came after the aforesaid war from Alexandria to that city.

13. Anatolius did not write very many works; but in such as have come down to us we can discern his eloquence and erudition. In these he states particularly his opinions on the passover. It seems important to give here the following extracts from them.
14. From the Paschal Canons of Anatolius. There is then in the first year the new moon of the first month, which is the beginning of every cycle of nineteen years, on the twenty-sixth day of the Egyptian Phamenoth; but according to the months of the Macedonians, the twenty-second day of Dystrus, or, as the Romans would say, the eleventh before the Kalends of April.

15. On the said twenty-sixth of Phamenoth, the sun is found not only entered on the first segment, but already passing through the fourth day in it. They are accustomed to call this segment the first dodecatomorion, and the equinox, and the beginning of months, and the head of the cycle, and the starting-point of the planetary circuit. But they call the one preceding this the last of months, and the twelfth segment, and the final dodecatomorion, and the end of the planetary circuit. Wherefore we maintain that those who place the first month in it, and determine by it the fourteenth of the passover, commit no slight or common blunder.

16. And this is not an opinion of our own; but it was known to the Jews of old, even before Christ, and was carefully observed by them. This may be learned from what is said by Philo, Josephus, and Musæus; and not only by them, but also by those yet more ancient, the two Agathobuli, surnamed 'Masters,' and the famous Aristobulus, who was chosen among the seventy interpreters of the sacred and divine Hebrew Scriptures by Ptolemy Philadelphus and his father, and who also dedicated his exegetical books on the law of Moses to the same kings.

17. These writers, explaining questions in regard to the Exodus, say that all alike should sacrifice the passover offerings after the vernal equinox, in the middle of the first month. But this occurs while the sun is passing through the first segment of the solar, or as some of them have styled it, the zodiacal circle. Aristobulus adds that it is necessary for the feast of the passover, that not only the sun should pass through the equinoctial segment, but the moon also.

18. For as there are two equinoctial segments, the vernal and the autumnal, directly opposite each other, and as the day of the passover was appointed on the fourteenth of the month, beginning with the evening, the moon will hold a position diametrically opposite the sun, as may be seen in full moons; and the sun will be in the segment of the vernal equinox, and of necessity the moon in that of the autumnal.

19. I know that many other things have been said by them, some of them probable, and some approaching absolute demonstration, by which they endeavor to prove that it is altogether necessary to keep the passover and the feast of unleavened bread after the equinox. But I refrain from demanding this sort of demonstration for matters from which the veil of the Mosaic law has been removed, so that now at length with uncovered face we continually behold as in a glass Christ and the teachings and sufferings of Christ. 2 Corinthians 3:18 But that with the Hebrews the first month was near the equinox, the teachings also of the Book of Enoch show.
20. The same writer has also left the Institutes of Arithmetic, in ten books, and other evidences of his experience and proficiency in divine things.

21. Theotecnus, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, first ordained him as bishop, designing to make him his successor in his own parish after his death. And for a short time both of them presided over the same church. But the synod which was held to consider Paul's case called him to Antioch, and as he passed through the city of Laodicea, Eusebius being dead, he was detained by the brethren there.

22. And after Anatolius had departed this life, the last bishop of that parish before the persecution was Stephen, who was admired by many for his knowledge of philosophy and other Greek learning. But he was not equally devoted to the divine faith, as the progress of the persecution manifested; for it showed that he was a cowardly and unmanly dissembler rather than a true philosopher.

23. But this did not seriously injure the church, for Theodotus restored their affairs, being straightway made bishop of that parish by God himself, the Saviour of all. He justified by his deeds both his lordly name and his office of bishop. For he excelled in the medical art for bodies, and in the healing art for souls. Nor did any other man equal him in kindness, sincerity, sympathy, and zeal in helping such as needed his aid. He was also greatly devoted to divine learning. Such an one was he.

24. In Cæsarea in Palestine, Agapius succeeded Theotecnus, who had most zealously performed the duties of his episcopate. Him too we know to have labored diligently, and to have manifested most genuine providence in his oversight of the people, particularly caring for all the poor with liberal hand.

25. In his time we became acquainted with Pamphilus, that most eloquent man, of truly philosophical life, who was esteemed worthy of the office of presbyter in that parish. It would be no small matter to show what sort of a man he was and whence he came. But we have described, in our special work concerning him, all the particulars of his life, and of the school which he established, and the trials which he endured in many confessions during the persecution, and the crown of martyrdom with which he was finally honored. But of all that were there he was indeed the most admirable.

26. Among those nearest our times, we have known Pierius, of the presbyters in Alexandria, and Meletius, bishop of the churches in Pontus—rarest of men.

27. The first was distinguished for his life of extreme poverty and his philosophic learning, and was exceedingly diligent in the contemplation and exposition of divine things, and in public discourses in the church. Meletius, whom the learned called the “honey of Attica,” was a man whom every one would describe as most accomplished in all kinds of learning; and it would be impossible to admire sufficiently his rhetorical skill. It might be said that he possessed this by nature; but who could surpass the excellence of his great experience and erudition in other respects?

28. For in all branches of knowledge had you undertaken to try him even once, you would have said that he was the most skillful and learned. Moreover, the virtues of his life were not less remarkable. We observed him well in the time of the persecution, when for seven full years he was escaping from its fury in the regions of Palestine.

29. Zambdas received the episcopate of the church of Jerusalem after the bishop Hymenæus, whom we mentioned a little above. He died in a short time, and Hermon, the last before the persecution in our day, succeeded to the apostolic chair, which has been preserved there until the present time.
30. In Alexandria, Maximus, who, after the death of Dionysius, had been bishop for eighteen years, was succeeded by Theonas. In his time Achillas, who had been appointed a presbyter in Alexandria at the same time with Pierius, became celebrated. He was placed over the school of the sacred faith, and exhibited fruits of philosophy most rare and inferior to none, and conduct genuinely evangelical.

31. After Theonas had held the office for nineteen years, Peter received the episcopate in Alexandria, and was very eminent among them for twelve entire years. Of these he governed the church less than three years before the persecution, and for the remainder of his life he subjected himself to a more rigid discipline and cared in no secret manner for the general interest of the churches. On this account he was beheaded in the ninth year of the persecution, and was adorned with the crown of martyrdom.

32. Having written out in these books the account of the successions from the birth of our Saviour to the destruction of the places of worship,— a period of three hundred and five years, — permit me to pass on to the contests of those who, in our day, have heroically fought for religion, and to leave in writing, for the information of posterity, the extent and the magnitude of those conflicts

.

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

12-06-2010, 12:11 AM	#93
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And what makes this theory even kookier is that there are all these Church Fathers from the late second century to the time of Constantine who represent witnesses to the evolution of the concept of New Testament canon. This is why I keep stressing that Pete just isn't simply familiar enough with the writings of the Church Fathers to make such a sweeping pronouncement as his fourth century conspiracy theory. The concept of the four gospels EVOLVES over time. At the time of Irenaeus (the guy who introduces the quaternion) it is clear that what is meant is that the four together make one gospel. It is almost an impossible concept to get one's head around (like the Trinity which wasn't as evolved in Irenaeus's writings) but 'the Gospel' in the singular was Matthew, then Mark, then Luke and then John. Trobisch has argued that John 21:25 ("Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.") was not the conclusion of John but of the four. If you look at Clement of Alexandria's writings he almost never refers to the individual gospels by name. He usually cites from 'Scripture' 'the gospel' etc. By the time Origen comes along it's 'Luke said this' 'Matthew wrote that' again an evolution in the way material is approached. I think that by the time of the fourth century the general bullshit about four gospels being one gospel written by the Holy Spirit was uttered in public but the entire approach was more rational. My point here (to avoid cutting up Pete for at least one post) is to note how the different each generation of Christian commentators were and how this couldn't be faked. I think the gospels eventually became more like 'Matthew's writing' 'Peter's writing' 'Luke's writing' and 'John's writing' but originally there was still a mystical idealism associated with the collection which was never duplicated again in later generations.

12-06-2010, 08:26 AM	#96
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	I wonder why Eusebius, who was not a Latinist, could write Mark with a distinct Latin bias? There are phrases that don't make too much sense in Greek but do make sense as Latin idioms. In Mk 2:23 we hear of that the disciples began to "make way", a phrase that implies the construction of a road in Greek, but works just fine in Latin, "iter facere". Another idiom which doesn't work well in Greek, 15:15, Pilate wished to "make complete" the crowd, ie Latin "satis facere" ("satisfy"). Or again a frequent "the is" literally from Greek is an idiom in Latin "hoc est" ("that is"), used for exaplanations. So let's consider two of these explanations: Mk 12:42 "two leptas, that is, a quadrans", here are two Greek coins explained in terms of a Roman coin, and Mk 15:16, "the palace, that is, the praetorium", explaining a Greek building in terms of a Roman one. Why would a Greek speaking audience need clarifications useful for Romans? From Rome there were two types of Phoenicians, Syro-phoenicians (from the Levant) and Lybo-phoenicians (from Carthaginian lands). In Mk 7:25 there is a Syrophoenician woman (who becomes a Canaanite woman in Mt 15:22). Even calling the supporters of Herod, "Herodians" points to a Latin derivation. The signs we have in Mark are of a Greek text written for a Roman audience, yet we are being asked to think that Eusebius, the non-Latinist, could write with a Roman bias at a time when Rome was becoming a backwater. And why would he need to have done so? One can imagine that he was writing for posterity or that he simply wasn't that able a writer and that he just didn't have the requisite linguistic skills to pull off such a work, writing simplistic Greek so different from his own wordy style, nor would he have had any good reason to include such a manifestation. One could then talk about the ways Matthew and Luke improved on Mark from conflicting traditions. Did Joseph live in Nazara, as per Luke? or did he move there as per Matt 2:23? Why does Lk have a sermon on a plain while Mt has the sermon on the mount? Why does Luke have one feeding of the multitudes, rather than Mt & Mk's two feedings? These are just some of the traces of conflicting traditions rather than works written by the same guy(s). Why do we get indications of "churches" in the accepted Pauline works but a single institution "the church" in the Pastoral letters? Why are the christian texts trinitarian? I can see how the claim that Constantine had the texts written fits any of the facts. spin

12-06-2010, 08:50 AM	#98
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	As you know there are a number of Patristic writers who do claim that Mark was first written in Latin at Rome. I think bar Hebraeus is one.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.