Toto

We think of it as figurative language because our later theology says that God is a perfect spirit who does not have human emotions. But there is nothing else there that shows it is figurative. I think that you are reading our modern sensibilities back into ancient times. I think the idea that it is figurative language is just a ploy to get around having to admit it is not true.

I still look at the text and see Eusebius quoting Plato as advocating lying, and approving of it.

Carrier is extremely busy right now, but I suspect that eventually he will address this. He has made revisions in the past when warranted.

Alexis Comnenus

Toto, it's not later theology to think of God as spiritual. Have you read anything by the church fathers or Philo? Eusebius is saying figurative language about God, while not literally true, is OK for people who need it. That is all he says and no reasonable person could believe he has said anything else.

It appears you are one of those people who will not let go of their pet ideas no matter what.

Anyway, I've done all I can so this matter is closed unless anyone has anything else to add.

Regards

Alex

Toto

By "later theology" I mean later than the people who wrote the Old Testament. By the time of Philo and the church fathers, the god described in the Old Testament sounded like a myth, but rather than call those stories "untrue", they were described as "metaphorical" or "figurative". They are still literally untrue.

I have in the past given up pet ideas, but only where there is some evidence. You have been quite unpersuasive. You sound like someone who will grasp at any straw to rehabilitate a Christian source. So there is a quotation commonly attributed to Eusebius that turns out not to be a direct quotation? It is still a paraphrase that may be fair, especially given other statements by Eusebius. There is a chapter heading that wasn't part of the original text (but sounds like a fair summary to me)? And the best defender of Eusebius, the passage from Lightfoot sited in your source, says he was incompetant but not actually lying? Sorry, not a very impressive case.

Alexis Comnenus

Toto, I fear I've come down a bit hard on you. I'm not actually making an allegation (apart from the one we all admit, that Mr Carrier's quote is inaccurate). Instead, I am challenging the oft repeated allegation that Eusebius was a 'forger' or 'liar'. I'm not even clear if you hold to these allegations or not.

Anyway, I've not read Lightfoot (indeed I'd never heard of him and don't consider him an authority). You might like, instead, to read the introduction to Eusebius's History in the Penguin Classic edition. You might even like to read the History as this is an excellent translation and easy to read.

Eusebius is actually well liked by historians as he quotes older sources at length and his editorialising is so clumsy as to be obvious. When he speaks with his own voice, as in a sermon at the end of the History, he's simply boring.

Finally, that Josephus passage is completely worthless to the historian. It is clearly tainted and the idea of pulling out the interpolations to be left with the pristine original is pure fantasy. The only people interested in this passage are pseudo historians who think Jesus never existed and Christians who can be bothered to argue with them. All other historians are fully aware Jesus existed from the multitude of other sources and don't need a doctored Josephus to tell us.

Regards

Alex

Pandora

All other historians are fully aware Jesus existed from the multitude of other sources

Care to substantiate this claim?

Alexis Comnenus

Pandora, I'm not going to bother get involved in the discussion which is mind blowingly boring. I'd just as rather argue with the people who think the moon landings were filmed in a parking lot or that Jesus survived the crucifixion and retired to France with his wife and children or that the Turin Shroud is real.

I note there are plenty of Christian apologists who can't ignore this topic however, so you can argue with them.

Regards

Alex

Pandora

It's all right, no-one's asking you to get into a debate about them. One itsy bitsy little reference from "the multitude" will suffice. You wouldn't want anyone thinking you were question dodging would you?

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Pandora ]</p>

Vorkosigan

All other historians are fully aware Jesus existed from the multitude of other sources and don't need a doctored Josephus to tell us.

Yes, I'd sure like to here this "multitude" of other sources. As far as I know, there are none outside of the Xtian legend cycle and sources such as Tacitus or Lucian of Samosata that are clearly derived from it. I hope you won't waste our time quoting Suetonius or Mara Bar Serapion.

Of course, I'd also like to see your survey data on what "all other historians" know and how they know it. One hears this claim airily made all the time, without the slightest support.

Other than twenty centuries of intellectual inertia, I don't know of any reason to regard the several dozen gospels and related propaganda as anything other than myth, with perhaps some basic kernel of truth.

Michael

Alexis Comnenus

Pandora,

We have the New Testament, letters by Ignatius, Clement and others, we Tacitus (regardless of what Spin thinks), we have the Gospel of Thomas and Peter, we have Justin Martyr etc etc etc.

I know most of these are Christian. So what? We make allowances for that as we must with all other sources. Historians have become quite highly skilled at picking up bias and knowing where to look for it. Basically, we know that Jesus existed because the alternative explanations either tie us up in knots (like the unfortunate Iasion), rely on explaining away inconveniences galour (like Spin with Tacitus) and that there is absolutely no reason why, if one wanted to invent a god man, they would have created the total mess of contradiction and failed prophecies that the New Testament authors are obviously struggling with.

The Jesus of the Gospels makes a very bad messiah who requires all sorts of acrobatics to promote to divine status. Any invention would be far better at the job.

Finally, the idea that a Jewish preacher went around giving an anti-establishment rant and got killed off by the authorities for his troubles is so commonplace, so normal, so totally unsurprising that not to believe it is plain perverse. The surprising thing is that this failed preacher got turned into a God after he died but that is another question.

Regards

Alex

godfry n. glad

- Alex


Well, Alex, although I agree with you that the Testimonium is "clearly tainted and the idea of pulling out the interpolations to be left with the pristine original is pure fantasy," your assertion about the usefulness of the cite to historians is misguided. If we can judge by the works of an historian such as Bart Ehrman and his work "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture", the early Christians were busy little buggers at altering texts to fit their favored dogma. Even, and especially, sacred texts. That evidence of such tampering, and that of the Josephean texts, is enlightening and, as such, exceedingly useful to historians. That early Christians, up to an including Eusebius, have tampered with sacred texts seems to be a pretty strong case. That they would shy from doing so with a non-sacred text like Josephus, stretches credulity.

Your repeated assertion that Eusebius was not a "liar" or "forger" seems to be predicated on the posters here relying upon the Gibbon generalization. But none here have done so. Instead they have relied upon the Eusebian citation of Plato in a document separate from the _Ecclesiastical History_. Your position is the weak one.

I would think that the inclusion of a document which is a known forgery and that modern historians have every reason to believe that Eusebius knew was a forgery would indicate that he was a willing participant in propogating a forgery or lie. Is that not right? It is my understanding that his inclusion of a citation of a letter reputedly from the hand of Jesus to a King (Agnus? - sorry, I don't have my resources at hand) who supposedly sought his counsel would qualify him as a conspirator in fraud or misrepresentation. At minimum.

And, I'd suggest that you might wish to peruse the following article by Ken Olson, which presents an interesting case in support of the fabrication of the Testimonium by Eusebius:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusM...Testimonium%22

Your ad hominem attacks upon those who hold that Jesus may never have existed are misbegotten, misplaced, and attest to your confessional interests. I think it may be _you_ who is mired in a fantasy world.

Best,

godfry n. glad

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]</p>