Eusebius and the Apology for Origen

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Eusebius and the Apology for Origen

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote:And where does this come from:
Jerome generously gives Pamphilus credit for the only work that could claim to be his, in his Lives. (So have I. Nobody's perfect.)
:banghead: Why is this more likely that Jerome was weasel who saw which way the wind was blowing and took the side of the anti-Origenists?
What I've said has been stretched and pressed in the most polemical ways in order to manufacture absurdity and conflict.

A single adverb here has been taken and spun into whatever reading would allow the most bombastic full-court press against my words.

Have you considered setting out your opinions on their own, without needlessly and erroneously pressing someone else's words into service as a foil? Just an idea.
Secret Alias wrote:New me walks in. Nice guy. Here's my counter reconstruction:

1. Rufinus publishes a Latin translation of Origen and the Apology which sets Rome on fire (because as a Greek book it had little impact tucked away in a monastery).
2. the authorities want someone to attack the authenticity of both. Jerome the weasel volunteers his services.
3. like all political spin he has to base his attack on Rufinus based on at least some actual evidence.
4. but the evidence for Eusebian authorship (which I think is compelling) is stretched to the point of incredulity in order to hang Rufinus.

Take what Jerome says with a grain of salt - the moral of the story. He's exploiting difficulties in the tradition acceptance of the Apology as 'by Pamphilus' to help his argument that Rufinus and the Origenists are subversive toward the authorities. Everyone else (Socrates, Photius) is also just trying to make sense of 'where the line is.' We can't know where the line is. Each of us can draw up our own theories. Impossible to know what the truth is.
There's nothing wrong with your "counter reconstruction" (if you think there is, please let us know) ... and that I easily recognize this (speaking sine ire et studio) about this "counter reconstruction," in turn says something in itself about how much I've been misread and unjustly maligned (repeatedly and with prejudice).

Will the new Dr. Jekyll stay with us? If Mr. Hyde returns, I don't see the point. Mr. Hyde is all about his own ego, and the historical texts are just an arena for his arrogance and pride. Mr. Hyde alone understands all the difficulties, epistemological and otherwise, of attempting to figure anything out; he alone senses the futility, which the great unwashed cannot fathom. Simultaneously, Mr. Hyde alone has the best reconstruction and anyone who did not praise it to the heavens in every last detail must have been smoking something. Mr. Hyde is a hypocrite and a boor.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Eusebius and the Apology for Origen

Post by Secret Alias »

Well to explain (or apologize) for my sometimes rash and overbearing appearance. The reason I think many scholars should be whipped in the streets is that they use at least some evidence uncritically when building their models for the development of Christianity. Every time you do this, for every Lego blog in the tower that isn't 'ideal' (i.e. the one set out in the package) the entire model is irrevocably damaged and strays from the proper form.

So for example the situation with Secret Mark (which every discussion of the Alexandrian tradition necessarily goes back to). The Letter to Theodore purports to be from Clement of Alexandria. The writing is clearly reminiscent of Clement's style. The gospel reminiscent of Mark's style too. But why isn't such a gospel ever mentioned by the Alexandrian Church Fathers. Well now we have an inkling of why our Lego blocks don't lead to the discovery of Secret Mark from the writings of the Church Fathers. The MSS were compromised when they were copied out by Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century.

Let me give you an example. Some time ago I started a thread where I laid down an observation when flying on a long plane trip some where. I had the hard copy of the tenth book of the Ante Nicene Church Fathers series. There is the Diatessaron at the front Origen's Commentary on Matthew at the back. And for some reason, like the proverbial robots in the Reese's Peanut Butter cup add I was reading both books at the same time when I noticed Origen tends to cite material from Matthew, Luke and John during course of his (alleged) discussion of Matthew at a rate which corresponded with the Diatessaron a high rate of 'coincidence' (the Diatessaron 'mixes' all four gospels).

It wasn't just comparisons of material from each individual 'pericope' (God I hate that word) but even stories which follow in the Diatessaron. It made me think that there existed a more original form of the Commentary which wasn't actually 'about' Matthew per se but was a Commentary on a 'gospel harmony' and most likely Ammonius's gospel harmony which Eusebius interesting spent a lot of time elsewhere 'tackling.'

This is the reason why getting it right matters so much. I am not saying that I 'get it right' all the time or even most of the time. But just constructing a timeline based on an uncritical (or lazy) reconstruction of the evidence gets in the way of something meaningful - in this case, what I see as good evidence for suggesting that the reason why the writings of Clement, Origen and the like don't seem far removed from what emerged as 'orthodoxy' at Nicaea is because they were 'helped' immeasurably in that respect by a 'final edit' by Eusebius at the library of Caesarea.

If you look at the early anti-Arian treatises of Athanasius for instance the Arians clearly used the Alexandrian Church Fathers to support their claims to represent the actual tradition. But when you look at the surviving writings from the library of Caesarea there isn't much there to support that. There isn't very much 'Arianism' in Clement or Origen (even though we hear repeated reference to it being 'there' at one time, a time which obviously preceded the rewrite).

This is where just following Jerome's argumentation blindly or uncritically is also dangerous. Let's psychologize Jerome for a moment. He was once a devoted Origenist. He spent a lot of time at the library of Caesarea. He was intimately acquainted with the information in that library. At some point he decided to 'switch sides' and attack the Origenists and Origen. IMHO clearly something in that library led to him justify his 'break' with the tradition to which he was once absolutely devoted.

Yes I said he was a weasel. But even weasels need to justify their actions. I can't help but notice that for a smart man (one who learned Hebrew in order to advance his faith) many of his arguments against Rufinus are wholly cynical. He makes reference to two good arguments - viz that Eusebius says one thing (= Pamphilus never wrote a book) and that there was an Origenist conspiracy to reshape the books and reputation - and then proceeds to blame Rufinus for that. It can't have been Rufinus who was responsible for 'misleading' Jerome initially as to the authorship of the Apology for Origen. Recognizing the implausibility of his argument he proceeds to point his finger at a number at a number of possible candidates - Didymus or some unknown fourth century Origenist. But the arguments clearly bear a striking resemblance to the Morton Smith controversy - i.e. some modern person discovered a document in a Palestinian library which shook the foundations of contemporary Christianity.

In both cases methodological questions are raised. Accusations of the 'benefit' the discoverer derived from the discovery are raised etc. etc. But in the end these all serve as distractions from the central reality that the writings of the Alexandrian Church Fathers preserved in the library of Caesarea were not preserved in their original integrity. In the case of the Apology the fact that the handwriting of the scribe undoubtedly 'matched' the recognized 'sample' of Pamphilus known from other texts led Jerome initially to conclude that the book was from the hand of Pamphilus as the Origenists claimed. Then owing to a political change at the time he saw the entire Origenist tradition as a seditious group engaged in a massive cover up of the heretical nature of their founder. What happened?

I think that the discrepancy between Eusebius's statement that Pamphilus never wrote a book and the dominance of the handwriting of Pamphilus throughout the library must have been part of a challenge to Jerome. Why was a rich patron engaged in such a menial activity? How did the imprisoned Pamphilus continue to engage in this menial activity even while imprisoned? Or most convincing of all, how was it that Eusebius and Pamphilus were engaged in this scribal activity together but the slave (Eusebius) was in the role of master and the master was in the role of slave? (with respect to Photius's speculation about Eusebius being a slave his referencing Eusebius as his δεσπότης is very convincing evidence).

To this end, when Jerome goes on to say that the Rufinus 'lied' when he claimed that Pamphilus wrote the Apology and that it was really authored by a heretic Eusebius, he is really directing his attack against the Origenist tradition. He doesn't accuse Eusebius directly of engaging in the deceit because - notice carefully - he also acknowledges his three works (the History, the Chronology and something else) as being in effect 'inspired works.' They were fully accepted into the orthodox canon and were employed by Popes and high officials.

I do think that Jerome's change of heart was prompted by discoveries in the library. To use the accusation leveled against Morton Smith - he lost his faith. He knew that some sort of extensive cover up had taken place in the last 80 years. Origen's heretical beliefs were systematic erased by means of editorial manipulation of the manuscripts in the library of Caesarea.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Eusebius and the Apology for Origen

Post by Secret Alias »

And one more point - if Nicaea changed Christian identity it was Eusebius who 'popularized' or guided that intellectual transformation and the practical implementation of 'Nicaean identity' on (or 'in') world history. His Church History and his Preparation serve as 'proofs' that orthodoxy was a natural (or better yet 'divinely inspired' and initiated) progression from all the world history that proceeded it. Imagine what Christianity would have been like without the Church History especially? The point is that - while I won't go as far as mountainman of course - it is hard to overestimate the importance of Eusebius. Then when you factor in his inheriting and 'shepherding' the library of Caesarea which was (apparently) spared destruction during the Diocletian persecutions you have what becomes effectively THE HARD DRIVE of Catholic (worldwide) Christianity localized in a series of 'servers' in Palestine. Eusebius is the administrator of that library at it serves as the 'source code' for the History of the Church (and the Preparation for that matter).

My point is that Jerome COULDN'T put in writing the next logical step in his 'discovery' of the discrepancy with respect to the Apology for Origen. He can't accuse Eusebius of engineering the biggest lie in history because well then the entire 'apology' for Nicaean Christianity (for which Eusebius was the author) was nothing but a big lie. He instead proceeds to attack Rufinus, the Origenists who preceded him and calls Eusebius a heretic but never does what should have come natural - identify Eusebius as the head of the Origenist effort to reshape Origen. His argument that because Eusebius was an Arianist that his additions would have necessarily been Arianist is hopelessly naive. Eusebius accepted Nicaea. He is the absolutely perfect candidate for initiating all the transformation of Origen's reputation especially given what he does with Origen in the Church History.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Roger Pearse
Posts: 393
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:26 am

Re: Eusebius and the Apology for Origen

Post by Roger Pearse »

Peter Kirby wrote:I'll say again: Eusebius was the sole author of the Apology for Origen, and of all six books of it.
But if Photius had the actual book in front of him, in the original Greek, and says otherwise, then it would be rather dangerous to contradict him, when we do *not* have access to it. Remember that each book in the manuscript probably ended with a statement of who the authors were.

I don't think Jerome's suggestion that Eusebius wrote book 1 is anything but trolling. Jerome actually had a high opinion of Eusebius' scholarship, and translated many of his works; and he must have known that Eusebius of Caesarea was NOT the standard bearer for Arianism. But Jerome was a funny bitter sort of guy. It suits him to put this point of view in order to try to accuse Rufinus of wrongdoing. That Rufinus was in fact NOT faking the attribution of book 1, in Greek copies, is shown by the statement of Photius.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Eusebius and the Apology for Origen

Post by Peter Kirby »

Thanks for these comments, Roger.
Roger Pearse wrote:Rufinus was in fact NOT faking the attribution of book 1, in Greek copies
I agree with this.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Eusebius and the Apology for Origen

Post by Secret Alias »

But it couldn't be that Book One said 'by Pamphilus' and the rest 'by Eusebius.' Moreover you have Jerome also assuming the whole work was by Pamphilus up until he decided to back stab his fellows.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote:The argument seems to be (if we can read between the lines of Jerome's parallel attack against Rufinus) is that Eusebius was so scared to defend Origen that he wrote a work and published the book (or at least the most controversial parts) under the name of an already dead martyr (so the authorities couldn't assault him).
Secret Alias wrote:Jerome accused Eusebius of pretending to co-author the Apology of Pamphilius (he even took his name) when it was written wholly on his own initiative.
The real fact is that Eusebius Bishop of Cæsarea, as I have already said before, who was in his day the standard bearer of the Arian faction, wrote a large and elaborate work in six books in defence of Origen, showing by many testimonies that Origen was in his sense a catholic, that is, in our sense, an Arian. The first of these six books you have translated and assigned it to the martyr. I must not wonder, therefore, that you wish to make me, a small man and of no account, appear as an admirer of Origen, when you bring the same calumny against the martyr. You change a few statements about the Son of God and the holy Spirit, which you knew would offend the Romans, and let the rest go unchanged from beginning to end; you did, in fact, in the case of this Apology of Pamphilus as you call it, just what you did in the translation of Origen's Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν [Against Rufinus 1.8]
Eusebius had a flair with words --eg. his writing about Pamphilus in The History of the Martyrs of Palestine -
The Confession of Pamphilus, and Vales, and Seleucus, and Paulus, and Porphyrius, and Theophilus (Theodulus), and Julianus, and One Egyptian,

Being in number Eight, in the Seventh Year of the Persecution of Our Days.
The time now calls upon us to describe that grand spectacle which was displayed of the all-holy martyr Pamphilus, and of those [p. 39] who together with him were consummated by martyrdom; men admirable and brave, who exhibited, under many forms, contests for the sake of the worship of God. For indeed there are many whom we know to have been victorious in this persecution; but in none altogether like these whom we have just mentioned did we behold so completely all kinds of bodily stature, and of moral qualities of soul and education, and of deaths by different tortures, receiving the glory of the consummation of martyrdom by various triumphs. For all of the Egyptians who were with them appeared to be youths and boys; others Were young men in the prime of life, among whom was Porphyrius; others again were in the full vigour both of mind and body, namely, those who were of the house of Pamphilus, that name dearly beloved by me; and Paulus, who came from Iamna; and Seleucus and Julianus, both of whom came from the country of Cappadocia ... .But like the sun which giveth light to the day among the stars, so in the midst of them all shone forth the excellency of My Lord Pamphilus --for it is not meet that I should mention the name of that holy and blessed Pamphilus without styling him My Lord, for he indeed had no slight acquaintance with that learning which those among the Greeks admire; while there was no one in our time who was [p. 40] so well instructed in those scriptures which proceed from the Spirit of God, and also in the whole range of theology. And what is even greater than these acquirements, he was possessed of natural wisdom and discernment, that is, he received them by the gift of God. Moreover, Pamphilus was by birth of an illustrious family, and his mode of living in his own country was as that of the noble ...

It is also worthy of our admiration, when we look to their number, how they were twelve like the prophets and the apostles. Nor is it fit that we should omit the all-patient readiness of every one of them, each in his own part; the combs on their sides, and their incurable scourgings, and their tortures of every kind, and how they forced by violence these martyrs to do that which was abominated by them. And what necessity is there for our telling of the divine sayings which they uttered, as though stripes were reckoned by them as nothing, while with a cheerful and joyous countenance they answered the interrogatories of the judge, and jested with readiness under the very tortures themselves. And when he asked them over again whence they came, they avoided speaking of the city to which they belonged on earth, and spake of the city which in truth is theirs, and said that they were from Jerusalem which is above in heaven, confessing that they were hastening to go thither ...

Moreover, the modes of their deaths also were of all kinds; for two of them were hearers (catechumens), and they were baptized at their deaths with the baptism of fire only, while others of them were delivered up to be crucified like our Saviour.

But Pamphilus, that name so especially dear to me --one who was a lover of God in truth, and a peacemaker among all men-- [p. 42] received a triumph different from these. He was the ornament of the church of Caesarea, because he also sat in the chair of the presbytery, both adorning it and being himself adorned thereby during his ministry in that place. In all his conduct too he was truly godly, being at all times in communion with the Spirit of God; for he was eminently virtuous in his mode of life, shunning wealth and honours, despising and rejecting them, and devoting himself entirely to the word of God ....


And when they had endured affliction in prison for about two years, the immediate cause of their martyrdom was the arrival of those Egyptians who were also consummated in martyrdom at the same time together with them ... First of all, then, the governor tried the Egyptians, and proved them by every kind of torture; and he brought forward the first of them into the midst, and asked him what was his name; but instead of his real name he heard from them the name of a prophet. Also the rest of the Egyptians who were with him, instead of those names which their fathers had given them after the name of some idol, had taken for themselves the names of the prophets, such as these-- Elias, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Samuel, Daniel. And when the judge heard from the same martyrs some such name as these, he did not perceive the force of what they said, and asked them again what was the city to which they belonged. He then gave a reply similar to the former, and said, Jerusalem is my city; for he was acquainted with that city of which St. Paul spake, Jerusalem which is above is free, and our mother in whom we confess is the holy church. And the governor inquired diligently about this. Then he brought against them the combs and cauteries of fire. But he, when his hands had been bound behind him, and his feet were twisted in the stocks, sealed what he had said before, [p. 44.] and spake the truth. And again, when he questioned him many times as to what city and in what country was that Jerusalem which was said to belong to the Christians only, he replied, It is in the east, and on the side of the light of the sun, again making use of this artifice as it were in his own mind, while those who surrounded him continued to torture him with combs. Nor was he at all changed, but seemed as one who had no body. Then the judge grew furious in his mind, and imagined that perchance the Christians had built in some place a city for themselves; and so he became much more instant with tortures against them, making inquiries respecting this city, and the country in the east ...

And then, after these things he turned to those of the house of Pamphilus; and when he learned that they had been previously tried by many tortures, he thought that it would be folly in him to apply to them the same tortures again, and so labour in vain. He therefore only put to them the question whether they would now comply; and when he heard from them one after another the words of confession, he condemned them in the same manner as those who had preceded them, and gave sentence against them that they should be beheaded. And before the whole of the sentence was uttered, a youth from among the men, who was a slave of Pamphilus, cried out from the midst of the crowd which was standing round about the place of judgment; and then came forward into the midst, and cried out again with a loud voice to persuade the governor to grant permission for the bodies of the confessors to be buried. And he was no other than the blessed Porphyrius, the beloved disciple of Pamphilus, the mighty man of valour, [p. 45.] But Porphyrius himself was not yet eighteen years old; and he had been instructed in literature and writing, and for his modesty and manners was deserving of all praise. This youth then, who had been brought up by such a man, when he was informed of the sentence which had been issued against his master, cried out from the middle of the crowd, and begged the bodies of the confessors. Then that wretch, who is not worthy to be called a man, but rather a savage brute, not only refused to grant this becoming request, but also neither spared nor had pity upon one who in years was but a youth; and having learnt this one thing only, that he was a Christian, gave orders to those who applied the tortures to tear him with all their might: and after this, having commanded the blessed youth to sacrifice, and experiencing a refusal, he now applied the torture upon him, not as if it were upon a human body, but rather as if it were upon lifeless wood or stone, and commanded him to be torn even till they came to his bones and entrails ...


But there was still one wanted after these to complete the number twelve; and so Julianus arrived from a journey, and, as if it were on purpose to make up the number of martyrs twelve, the moment he arrived, before he was yet entered into the city, immediately on the way he was told by some one respecting the matter of the confessors, and ran to have a sight of the confessors; and when he beheld the bodies of the saints lying upon the ground, he was filled with joy, and embraced them one after another with heavenly love, and saluted them all with a kiss. And while he was still visiting them, and lamenting that he himself had not suffered martyrdom with them, the officers seized him, and took him before the judge; and that judge commanded what his evil heart conceived, and delivered him also to a slow fire. So this Julianus, also, with joy and gladness praised God with a loud voice for having counted him worthy of this; and his soul ascended to his Lord with the company of the confessors. And this man was by family of Cappadocia, and in his soul he was filled with the fear of God, being a quiet and religious man, and diligent in the practice of every virtue. There was also in him a glorious savour of the Holy Spirit; and he was counted worthy to be associated with the company of these who received the consummation of confession together with the blessed Pamphilus. [p. 48.]

Four days and nights then were the bodies of the all-holy martyrs of God exposed to be devoured by wild beasts, by the command of the governor Firmillianus. When, therefore, nothing had touched them, not even the wild beasts, they were taken up whole without the permission of the governor, and with due reverence committed to an honourable burial; and were laid in the interior of the churches, and so consigned to a never-to-be-forgotten memorial in the temples of the house of prayer, that they might be honoured of their brethren who are with God.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefat ... artyrs.htm
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Eusebius and the Apology for Origen

Post by MrMacSon »

In looking at issues around martyrdom, I came across a review of Robert M Price's of Candida Moss's 2013 book The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom (HarperOne).

In that review, Price had this to say about Eusebius - which I think is relevant to discussions of (i) how Eusebius portrayed Pamphilus; (ii) how they may have portrayed Origen; (ii) and, how, in turn, they and their views of others (and various events) may subsequently have been portrayed by the likes of Jerome and Photius; particularly, (iv) in light of the theological doctrine likely to have been laid down in the times of Eusebius -

Martyr accounts started to flourish once the Diocletian trouble was past, and for reasons of ecclesiastical power politics. Eusebius, a great cataloguer of martyr-fictions, tended to meld the (real and imagined) pagan persecutors of the past with their supposed successors in his own day, the so-called heretics, both of them Satan’s agents to subvert and to destroy the One True Church. This equation allowed him to invoke the martyrs as endorsing the theological opinions of Eusebius’ own party ... Moss early on mentions the stale argument of Christian apologists that Jesus must really have risen from the dead because the apostles would scarcely have yielded up their lives for a falsehood (though we have no evidence at all as to how they may have died..). She warns us that this bad argument will be found writ large over the history of martyrdom, and this is what she means: Eusebius and the other spin-doctors invoked the testimony of martyrs and confessors to establish Orthodoxy. If these saintly folks attested to the truth of our faith...this must mean they (ie. we) are right! ...


Throughout The Myth of Persecution I could not help noticing again and again how what Moss says about the fictive and anachronistic features of the martyr accounts applies equally to the New Testament writings. She seems to draw a distinction.
  • The reason it was so easy to forge or invent martyrdom stories is that, unlike the New Testament but like the overwhelming majority of early Christian literature, stories about martyrs weren’t canonized. This meant that when they [ie. stories about martyrs] were copied, the scribes responsible had considerable freedom to alter, expand, edit, or invent traditions as they saw fit. Sometimes authors were just adding to an earlier tradition. They set down in writing campfire stories or gossipy oral traditions, the origins of which are completely unknown. Other times they edited a text to make it more orthodox, placing creeds, statements of faith, or denouncements of heretics on the lips of the saints. (p. 235)
... She just means, I think, that, once canonized, the New Testament books could not be casually expanded or rewritten as the non-canonical materials could. But comparison of New Testament manuscripts shows that, the farther back into the manuscript genealogy one goes, the greater the fluidity of the text and the scribal liberty to emend and to amend. And then we must wonder if the same tendencies were more rampant in the decades during which the New Testament books were taking shape, before canonization. For instance, Moss shows how ostensible trial records in martyr accounts do not really conform to the legal patterns on record in actual trial transcripts from the ancient world, and that the martyrs are often depicted as standing up for much later theological beliefs than prevailed in the era in which the scenes are set.

... is it possible that the reports about the third-century persecutors demanding that Christians hand over their sacred books should be understood along the same lines that Old Testament Minimalists understand 4 Ezra 14? --where the seer reminds God how, apparently during the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem in 567 BCE, “thy Law has been burned, and so no one knows the things that have been done or will be done by thee” (v. 21), and asks that he may be supernaturally inspired to replace the lost 24 books of the canon (vv. 22-45)? -Is not this passage an attempt to create a false ancient pedigree for books written, de novo, in one’s own day? And dare we consider whether various New Testament writings were likewise composed as ostensible “replacements” for hypothetical apostolic scriptures that had actually had no previous existence? That would sure explain all those apparently anachronistic references to persecution.

...if Eusebius trumped up the myth of a long age of Christian martyrdom in order to advance the interests of his preferred brand of Christianity...

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... cution.htm
Post Reply