Eusebius as a forger.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Charles Wilson »

What counts as evidence? This page from Raskin's Christs and Christianities (ISBN-10: 1413497918, ISBN-13: 978-1413497915) gives a count on the number of times a phrase "...down to our time..." or similar is used by Eusebius and the examples are given. Further, as pointed out, why would another writer from a different time period use language that Eusebius uses and only when quoted by Eusebius?

Conclusive? No, of course not. It does, however lead one to examine what these people are asserting as happened "...down to this day..." in Eusebius.

"What a surprise and can you believe it, Ladies and Gentlemen"? It's almost like a Miracle, sorta' kinda'. Except that it is not. Remember, as Jay points out, Eusebius himself states that the claims of the History of the movement are so outlandish that no one, not one, would believe them, if told. So Eusebius gets into the business of telling you just that, so that you might believe.
Attachments
Raskin-Eusebius Trope.jpg
Raskin-Eusebius Trope.jpg (133.82 KiB) Viewed 10340 times
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Secret Alias »

No. Aside from being the most ardent Bill Cosby supporter in the world, Raskin is wrong also here. The source of Eusebius's information is Hegesippus.
“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
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Charles Wilson »

Plz clarify, SA. A week or so ago, you claimed that Heggie was a complete forgery in Eusbius' writing.
Y/N/M?

Wha...?
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Charles Wilson »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:17 am The bottom line is clearly - Hegesippus is not history or historical.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Secret Alias »

Right but we're not here with the overriding purpose of attacking Christianity or calling it fake. We're here to figure out how it developed, how its story came to be. So it's not enough to say 'it's all fake.' There is a difference between Eusebius using a fake source and Eusebius faking a source. The source was pre-existent. Hegesippus as a source existed before Eusebius. Irenaeus used Hegesippus. As such it has little to do with the question of Eusebius as a forger.
“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
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Charles Wilson »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 12:14 pmWe're here to figure out how it developed, how its story came to be.
100%
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 5:52 am
MrMacSon wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 3:21 amI disagree that "The change to direct speech is a red herring" (and I don't see the point of an Obama analogy).
In what way does changing a statement from indirect speech to direct speech constitute misrepresentation? The fact that you do not understand the Obama analogy leads me to wonder whether you understand the point being made. The Obama analogy again, hopefully more clearly:

Person A: The reporter said that Obama inhaled.
Person B: The reporter said, "Obama inhaled."

That is so far within the bound of ancient quotation and citation that I am not even sure what the argument against that point would be.
My point is not that Eusebius was misrepresenting Origen, but that Eusebius was reifying Origen's misrepresention of Josephus.

ie., -
MrMacSon wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 3:21 am
[my] point is that Eusebius takes - or seems to take - that (mis)interpret[ation] misrepresentation further.

... Eusebius may have just taken Origen at face value, but he may have here seems to have been complicit in a gross misrepresentation of Josephus ie. forgery.
------------------------------
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 5:52 am They all have the "James the brother of the Lord" passage, which Eusebius also quotes as if it were a separate passage, but Origen does not quote.
Which I think is significant.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ken Olson »

Ben Smith wrote:
I want to compile a list of passages for which arguments have been mounted (not merely suspicions coddled) in favor of Eusebius, instead of merely quoting a source, having actually forged that source, or at least added interpolations to it.
Ben, have you looked at the examples in Sabrina Inowlocki Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context (Brill 2006), especially chapter 5, pp. 206-222. Inowlocki would by and large agree with you. She gives numerous examples of places where she thinks Eusebius altered the texts of the Jewish authors he cites, but she balks at the idea that he created entire passages and explicitly disagrees with me on the Testimonium.

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 7:27 am Ben Smith wrote:
I want to compile a list of passages for which arguments have been mounted (not merely suspicions coddled) in favor of Eusebius, instead of merely quoting a source, having actually forged that source, or at least added interpolations to it.
Ben, have you looked at the examples in Sabrina Inowlocki Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context (Brill 2006), especially chapter 5, pp. 206-222. Inowlocki would by and large agree with you. She gives numerous examples of places where she thinks Eusebius altered the texts of the Jewish authors he cites, but she balks at the idea that he created entire passages and explicitly disagrees with me on the Testimonium.

Best,

Ken
I do have access to that book, but have not read it yet. Thanks!
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ken Olson »

Over in The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops thread, Ben Smith wrote concerning the passage concerning James, which Eusebius misattributes to Josephus in HE 2.23.20.
Eusebius did not forge the passage. Had he added it (from Origen) to some physical manuscript of Josephus, that would be forgery. It is not forgery to pass on erroneous information from someone whom one respects or trusts; that is simply credulity. (It is not the semantics here that matter so much as it is the very real distinction between misquoting a manuscript based on erroneous information and actually adding something to a manuscript.)
I think we have to be careful of any information passed on at second hand; we should look for indicators, as I have done in this case (the lack of information about where to find the snippet, in stark distinction from Eusebius' usual custom).
Ben,

If Eusebius misattributes material to Josephus in the HE, and a copyist of Josephus takes the Eusebian reading (i.e., erroneous information from someone he respects and trusts) in preference to what was in his (or perhaps her) exemplar, would this be forgery by the definition you are using?
Post Reply