Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-14-2013, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...Tertullian is hypothetically independent of Eusebius. Physically all T's manuscripts went over the desk of E. This is problematic for the hypothesis of their independence. The rest (with a few exceptions) is via Big E. (But also see aa5874's comments)...

I have not made any claim that all Tertullian's manuscripts went over the desk of Eusebius.

Please, withdraw my name from such a claim.

My position is the complete opposite.

I regard many writings attributed to Tertullian as most likely to be forgeries and composed AFTER Eusebius and Jerome were dead or AFTER the end of the 4th century.

For example, "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is a forgery. No Apologetic writer quoted any passage from "Against Marcion" for hundreds of years and never acknowledged that Tertullian wrote such books.

stephan huller · 07-14-2013, 01:20 AM

Quote:

In a world replete with multiple public domain professional translations of the underlying Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Arabic ..... sources, such sources may appropriately guide all investigators as to what these literary sources are saying (and what they omit to say).

Absolute nonsense. As a man who can almost speak many languages, such a comment strikes a cord. Off the topic of Biblical studies for a minute. When I lived in Toronto there was this time where I was dating a number of - what I thought at the time - were very beautiful black women from the Caribbean who spoke French. Back then, I was fresh out of school where I took courses in French, I even debated someone for the presidency of the school and had to do it in French. Making love is different in French. Different in German too - never made love to a German woman. Yikes! It would seem sort of Oedipal for me.

Anyway the point is anyone who has ever almost spoken another language realizes the absurdity of your statement. There are times when individual sayings get taken over from one language to another. In Quebecois French for instance they say It's all fucked up = C'est tout fucké. Don't fuck with my mom = Fuck pas 'vec ma mere etc.

But the reality is that you only become aware of how much reality is shaped by language when you speak another language. In Hebrew that's especially true. Languages outside of English are so poetic in a way. It's very different.

mountainman · 07-14-2013, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...Tertullian is hypothetically independent of Eusebius. Physically all T's manuscripts went over the desk of E. This is problematic for the hypothesis of their independence. The rest (with a few exceptions) is via Big E. (But also see aa5874's comments)...

I have not made any claim that all Tertullian's manuscripts went over the desk of Eusebius.

Please, withdraw my name from such a claim.

It was not this claim that I was referring to. Your claim to which I was referring is related to the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

They key criteria for calling any given source corrupt or a forgery (a criterion of the historical method) is its dating. Eusebius is used to date all the pre-Constantinian sources. What is the earliest ms for Eusebius?

You should know because you are the one who constantly accuse Eusebius of forgeries while you simultaneously admit there was a forgery mill.

Eusebius may have been already dead when Church History was composed if there was a forgery mill.

Yes I totally agree with this. When I refer to "Eusebius" I refer to the source of the writings under the name of "Eusebius". These writings could have been sourced anytime up until the earliest date of the manuscript that we have for this source we call "Eusebius". AFAIK at the moment we have a date c.400 CE for a Syriac version of "Church History". However I do not know how this Syriac source has been dated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa

Please, tell us the earliest ms for any writing attributed to Eusebius and especially Church History, Life of Constantine - Oration of Constantine "to the Assembly of the Saints" - Oration in Praise of Constantine - Letter on the Council of Nicaea.

I have asked these very same questions myself.

Who knows their answers?

Quote:

Based on the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals writings about Constantine may be all forgeries or manipulated.

This is indeed possible.

Quote:

The Nicene Creed appears to be a fundamental core of the Roman Church yet the Bishop of Rome, the Head Papal authority, at the time of Eusebius is MISSING at the Council of Nicaea.

And, conversely, the disclaimer clause on the earliest Nicaea creeds we have preserved (these are from the 5th century), containing the five sophisms of Arius of Alexandria, were REMOVED from the later creeds.

Quote:

The writings attributed to Eusebius appear to be manipulated and may not represent Eusebius or history.

I agree.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 07-14-2013, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Eusebius may have been already dead when Church History was composed if there was a forgery mill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Yes I totally agree with this. When I refer to "Eusebius" I refer to the source of the writings under the name of "Eusebius". These writings could have been sourced anytime up until the earliest date of the manuscript that we have for this source we call "Eusebius". AFAIK at the moment we have a date c.400 CE for a Syriac version of "Church History". However I do not know how this Syriac source has been dated.

Well, once you agree totally then you must stop accusing Eusebius of forgeries without proof.

There is evidence that "Church History" or parts of "Church History" were manipulated or forged after Eusebius was dead.

"Church History" appears to be the product of multiple authors or a LATE editor.

Up to the 5th century, certain information found in "Church History", were UNKNOWN by Augustine of Hippo.

It is claimed that Augustine was born after Eusebius was dead or around c 354 CE.

Also, we have certain details found in "Against the Galileans" composed AFTER Eusebius was dead, after c 354 CE, which suggest that the "TF" was unknown to Julian the Emperor when he composed his books against the Jesus cult.

Again, any claims made about Constantine may have been written hundreds of years after Eusebius and Constantine were dead.

The Pseudo-Isidorian (False) Decretals are evidence of a forgery mill of accounts of Constantine and Bishops of the Church.

DCHindley · 07-14-2013, 08:19 AM

I think I may well shell out the money myself. To be honest, I have been somewhat interested in these Pseudo-Isidorian documents since I became aware of them from reading the ANF. Maybe I am attracted to the detective work. Joe Wallack is not the only one who imitates Peter Falk's detective Columbo character, although I do not drive a beat up Pugeot.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It's not that I haven't been looking for the details of the detective story behind the discovery that these 9th century mass of writings were forged. I have posted what little I have found.

I have taken note of this book and before I think about buying it will spend another week or two conducting google searches in the public domain and through JSTOR. (I have JSTOR access via my membership of the state library in Sydney).

stephan huller · 07-14-2013, 10:04 AM

I do find myself however ending a conversation, almost leaving a room, turning around and saying to people, 'Oh yes, there's just one more thing ..."

mountainman · 07-15-2013, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Maybe I am attracted to the detective work. Joe Wallack is not the only one who imitates Peter Falk's detective Columbo character, although I do not drive a beat up Pugeot.

Nothing much so far.

False decretals by E.H. Davenport (c.1914)

Quote:

Cardinals Nicholas of Cusa (1)and John of Torquemada (2)in the
latter half of the fifteenth century were the first to suggest forgery.
Then in the sixteenth century Erasmus (3) and the Protestant canonist
Charles du Moulin (4)and the Catholic canonist Antoine le Conte (5)
declared their strong suspicions. However in 1580 in the official
edition of the Corpus Juris the authenticity of the Decretals was
never doubted. Probably the difficulty of a formal repudiation
was shirked, and, moreover, the controversies of that period pre-
vented an impartial discussion of the subject. However, a reply
by the Jesuit Torres to the centuriators of Magdeburg (6), who had
launched in 1559 a polemic against papacy, deriding the False
Decretals, provoked a violent rejoinder by the Protestant David
Blondel (7) in 1628 in his Pseudo-Isidorus et Turrianus vapulantes.
Since then the ' forgery ' of the Pseudo-Isidore has been an estab-
lished fact.

(C/. Encyclopcedia Britannica, Vol. VH, p. 916, and
Catholic Encyclopcedia, Vol. V, p. 773).

This reduces the detectives to ....

Nicholas of Cusa (1) (1450-1499)
John of Torquemada (2) (1450-1499)
Erasmus (3) (1520?)
Charles du Moulin (4)
Antoine le Conte (5)
centuriators of Magdeburg (6)
David Blondel (7) in 1628

Quote:

His 1628 book against Francisco Torres[6] conclusively demonstrated that the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals were a very learned forgery. This work was praised by Voltaire, writing in his Dictionnaire Philosophique.[7] Blondel tracked down sources actually used by the Pseudo-Isidore.[8] Later scholarship has sustained his conclusions.

Thus according to the above, the ' forgery ' of the Pseudo-Isidore has been an established since 1628.
The specifics of the forgery and all its gory details and further proofs continue in the 21st century.

So it looks like Blondel was the proverbial Inspector Clouseau for the forgery.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 07-16-2013, 01:35 AM

The critical paper of Blondel's (following the criticism of centuriators of Magdeburg) is located here but its in Latin .......

Quote:

...

Pseudo-Isidorus et Turrianus vapulantes, seu, Editio et censura noua epistolarum omnium : quas piissimis vrbis Romae praesulibus a B. Clemente ad Siricium, &c. nefando ausu, infelici euentu, Isidorus cognomento Mercator supposuit, Franciscus Turrianus Iesuita, aduersus Magdeburgensium elegchois, aculeato stylo defendere conatus est

Latin to English via google translate for title ....

Pseudo-Isidore and Turrianus beaten, or, censorship and a new edition of the letters, which most of the city of Rome, the bishops from B. Siricium to the Clement & c. unspeakable daring, unfortunate event, named Isidore Mercator submitted, the Jesuit Francis Turrianus against Magdeburg elegchois, sharp pen tried to defend.

Also see Pseudo-Isidorus Et Turrianus Vapulantes Seu Editio Et Censura Nova (1628) (Latin Edition) [Hardcover] (or via: amazon.co.uk)

I am looking for an English translation.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 07-16-2013, 04:10 AM

Thank you for your kind defence Roger.

At the end of the day we are discussing ideas and thoughts that's all.

The sun shines above us all.

But I find compelled to correct Stephan's misconceptions about my motive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

......his hatred of Christianity so utterly transparent.

..... guided by hatred for Christianity as anyone who holds the forgery proposition must ....

..... Pete is not being led by evidence. He hates Christianity ....

Again Stephan your totally warped opinions are right off the radar.

http://www.mountainman.com.au/jc_mount.html
http://www.mountainman.com.au/thebible.html
http://www.mountainman.com.au/emeraldi.html

I am motivated in seeking the historical truth.

The following from another thread ....

From Why Christianity spread so rapidly to become the main religion of the Roman empire

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor of Religion Gregory J. Riley

It was the appeal of the early Church to the wider Greco-Roman society that fueled its rise, and that appeal was very much a result of its success in modeling the ideals of the culture as a whole. The early Christians imitated and copied the fundamental values found in the literature and stories of its wider culture as it formed its self-image and presented itself to the world. . . .

Christianity took hold in the empire as no foreign cult could (for example, Judaism, the Isis cult, and Mithraism) precisely because it was not foreign, but an expression and imitation of the best the empire had to offer.

Acts 17:28 .......

For in him we live and move and have our being.'
As some of your own poets have said [about ZEUS !!!!!],
'We are his offspring.'

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 07-16-2013, 04:14 AM

PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN DECRETALS AND OTHER FORGERIES

Quote:

With the possible exception of Hincmar and the guarded expression of the Synod of Gerstungen, no one raised his voice against the forgeries till the fifteenth century. Then Heinrich Kalteisen of Coblenz, Nicholas of Cusa, and Juan Torquemada challenged the decretals of Clement and Anacletus. In the next century suspicion extended as far as Siricius (Erasmus; two editors of the Corpus juris canonici, Charles Du Moulin, 1554, and Antoine Le Conte, 1556; Georgius Cassander, 1564).

The "Magdeburg Centuries" (1559) and David Blondel (1628) brought the full and incontestable proof.

For the history of criticism since then, see the bibliography.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

The early ed. is in J. Merlin, Tomus primus quatuor conciliorum generalium, 2 vols., Paris, 1524 and Cologne, 1530, reprinted with prolegomena in MPL, cxxx.; a later ed. is P. Hinschius. Decretales Pseudo-Isidionaniœ et capitula Angilramni, Leipsic, 1863 (critical, from the oldest and best MSS.). Consult: F. Knust, De fontibus e consilio Pseudo-Isidorianf eolzectionis, Göttingen, 1832; F. C. von Savigny, Geschichte des römischen Rechts im Mitlelalter, ii. 99-106, 478-479, 2d ed., Heidelberg, 1834; MGH, Leg., ed. H. Knust, ii. 2 (1837), 19-39; J. O. Ellendorf, Die Karolinger and die Hierarchie ihrer Zeit, ii. 130-192, Essen, 1838; A. Möhler, in Gesammelte Sehriften, ed. Döllinger, i. 283-347, Regensburg, 1839; H. Wasserschleben, Beitrage zur Geschichte der falschen Decretalen, Breslau, 1844; A. F. Gförer, Untersuchung fibber Alter, Ursprung, Zweck der Decretalen des falschen Isidorus, Freiburg, 1848; W. B. Wenek, Das frankische Reich nach dem Vertrage von Verdun, pp. 382-424, Leipsic, 1851; J. Weizsacker, in ZHT, xxviii (1858), 327-430; idem, in Historiache Zeitschrift, iii (1860), 42-96; C. von Noorden, Hinkmar Embischof von Rheims, Bonn, 1863; J. J. I. von Döllinger, Der Papst and das Concil, Leipsic, 1869, Eng. transl., The Pope and the Council, Edinburgh, new ed., 1873; H. C. Lea, Studies in Church Hist., pp. 43-102, Philadelphia, 1869; F. Maassen, Geschiehte der Quellen and der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande, Vol. i., pp. xxxi. sqq., 556 sqq., 710-716, 780 sqq., Gratz, 1870; idem, in NA, xviii (1892), 294-302; Thaner, in the Sitzungsberichte of the Vienna Academy, lxxxix (1878), 601-632; Lapötre, Hadrien II. et les fausses décréales, in Revue des questions historiques, xxvii (1880), 371-431; C. H. Föste, Die Reception Pseudo-Isidors unter Nikolaus I. and Hadrian II., Leipsic, 1881; F. Rocquain, La Papauté au moyen-âgs, Paris, 1881; B. Jungmann, Dissertationes selectæ, iii. 256-320, Regensburg, 1882; H. Schrörs, Hinkmar, Erzbischof von Rheims, passim, Freiburg, 1884; A. Tardif, Hist. des sources du droit canonique, pp. 132158, Paris, 1887; E. Dummler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reichs, i. 231-238, vols. ii.-iii. passim, Leipsic, 1887-1888; P. Fournier, De l'origine des fausses décrétales, St. Dizier, 1889; J. Havet, Œuvres, i. 103 sqq., 271 sqq., 331 sqq., Paris, 1896; Hampel, in NA, xxiii (1897), 180-195; G. C. Lee, Hincmar, in Papers of the American Society of Church History, viii (1897), 229-260; Werminghoff, in NA, xxv (1900), 361-378; idem, in ADB, xlviii. 242-248; Seckel, in NA, xxvi (1900), 37-72; Marenier, De valsche Decretalen, Leeuwen, 1901; F. Lot, Études sur Ie règne de Hugues Capet, pp. 361-375, Paris, 1903; A. Hauck, Der Gedanke der Papatlichen Weltherrschaft bis auf Bonifaz VIII., pp. 3-7, 12 sqq., 17 sqq., Leipsic, 1904; the works on ecclesiastical law (Kirchenrecht) by G. Phillips, iv. §§ 173-176, ed. of Regensburg, 1851; J. F. von Schulte, Giessen, 1860; A. L. Richter, ed. Dove, §§ 26, 36-39, 43, 53, Leipsic, 1867; F. Walter, §§ 95-99, 14th ed., Bonn, 1871; J. B. SIgmuller, Freiburg, 1900-04; and E. Friedberg, pp. 46-47, 121-124, 281, Leipsic, 1903; Schaff, Christian Church, iv. 266-273; Neander, Christian Church, iii. 346 sqq., Milman, Latin Christianity, iii. 58-66, v. 398; Hauck, KD, ii. 522-533; KL, x. 600-824; Rettberg, KD, vol. i.; DCA, i. 539-540.

By "the full and incontestable proof" I take this to mean that Blondel tracked down sources actually used by the Pseudo-Isidore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric's blog

So it looks like a secretarial team was going through manuscripts of key works in the Corbie library (one of the best appointed in all of Carolingian Europe), highlighting relevant passages. Later on, somebody else took all of these highlighted excerpts and stitched them together, yielding the forgeries as we have them today.

DCH I am uncertain whether wading through the book mentioned is going to alter this summary.

Has anyone followed any of this?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

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

07-14-2013, 10:04 AM	#46
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I do find myself however ending a conversation, almost leaving a room, turning around and saying to people, 'Oh yes, there's just one more thing ..."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.