geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0312300206.3e3787e1@posting.google.com>...

geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0312270411.18613f49@posting.google.com>...

geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0312220352.d60990a@posting.google.com>...

The parallel editorial work was to change the accounts in the NT so
that John was demoted from being a prophet to the status of a mere
baptist who is quickly disposed of at the hands of Antipas to make way
for the fictitious Jesus the Saviour. Eusebius' basic technique was
to change both the NT and the record in Josephus at the same time so
that he could cite the latter in support of the former and "prove" his
case.

There is, however, no evidence of any of this, and I think that it is
wrong to accuse people of such things without very convincing evidence
indeed. Otherwise is it not just libel?

By the way, since the discoveries of the Bodmer papyri of the gospels,
dated to 200AD+, it is not really possible to accuse Eusebius of
editing the NT, unless he could somehow edit papers buried before he
was born.

Roger,

+ what? Such a precise dating is notoriously difficult to prove.

Geoff,

Actually I don't have any special details on the Bodmer papyri, which
is a pity. The various codices are of various dates. The earliest
one I recall is around 200 AD.

You'll excuse me if I don't discourse on Greek paleography, since I
don't know much about it. But I know that paleography is done by
starting with texts that have dates on them -- charters and the like,
-- building up a database of dated bookhands, and then using that
database to compare with others. Since the working life of a scribe
is probably around 25 years, and scribes change with the times anyway,
it's a good and reliable method. (But hey, aren't there professionals
who could talk about this?)

Such a date would be fairly straightforward to show in Latin
paleography. I once dated a document myself to 1380-1405. The
abbreviations used were only recorded in that period, you see.
Likewise I could tell immediately that it was written in England, from
the characteristic 'A' and the general 'feel' of an medieval English
bookhand. (Mind you, I couldn't actually *read* the wretched thing
since it was written in a hideous gothic hand).

I do not agree that the trend in scholarship is to date biblical
papyri early. The trend for all document dates between about 1870 and
1940 was to date everything Christian as late as possible, and
everything heretical as early as possible. That's how we got a date
of ca. 170 for John. It's a silly game, IMHO.

The Nag Hammadi documents indicate that there was a "sayings"
tradition that went on for some time before the fabrication of gospel
narrative.

These late 4th century coptic translations cannot indicate this,
surely?

The Gospel of Thomas, of which coptic translations exist in this
collection, must be second century, since fragments in Greek from
Oxyrhynchus exist (unless you want to argue these are notoriously hard
to date and must be dated later, of course :) ). The argument then
is that from this we can infer the existence of a sayings tradition
(which seems like a dubious argument to me, given the heretical nature
of the work, and the obvious Platonic influence on the movement: did
you know that one of the Nag Hammadi texts is actually a chunk of
Plato?).

Eusebius says something mighty strange (that may have implications for
the Bodmer papyrus) in H3:24: "The three gospels already written (I
kid you not) were in general circulation and copies (it was actually
only one gospel) had come into John's hands (mine really). He
(that's me) welcomed them, we are told (by yours truly), but remarked
that the narrative only lacked the story of what Christ had done first
of all from the beginning of his mission (you bet!)."

This is the remarkable subliminal language of the liar again. I would
suggest that it was not the three gospels that were in general
circulation, but the story of John the Prophet - the so-called Signs
or Semia source which would have lacked the fabricated narrative that
finished John off prematurely, and introduced Jesus. I would further
suggest that it was Eusebius himself who welcomed the receipt of that
signs source. The three synoptics were not yet written.

I'm afraid you made all this up. <smile>

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger,

Have you read the last chapter (10) of Eusebius' History? If you
have, then you will have noticed the astonishing fact that it contains
approximately 20 explicit quotations from the OT, but NONE from the
gospels. That by someone who is supposed to have written earlier:
"The three gospels ALREADY WRITTEN were in general circulation"
(3:24), and "We must of course, put first the holy quartet of gospels"
(3:25). Yet in the final chapter to his History, despite feeling free
to quote the OT, not once does he quote the gospels.

The same is true of Chapter 9, which contains approximately six
explicit quotations from the OT and NONE from the gospels. Chapter 8
has approximately two quotations from the OT and NONE from the
gospels.

Chapter 8 starts:"Having dealt fully with the apostolic succession in
seven books, in this eigth section, it is surely a matter of the
highest importance that for the enlightment of future generations I
should set down, the events of my own day". The next three chapters
contain not one explicit quotation from the gospels, but approximately
a total of 28 from the OT. This is a silence that shouts. It is
fairly obvious that if the gospels existed (were "in general
circulation") when Eusebius wrote, then he would have quoted them. I
continue to think that the production of the text of the gospels, was
much later than is generally thought.

If the last three chapters are nearer to what Eusebius actually
thought and wrote, then the first seven chapters, which are
considerably different, were edited by later writers (may be to
establish that "apostolic succession"). The first seven chapters deal
with some of the logical problems which the creators of the gospels
must have encountered. The primary issues that stand out in the text
of Eusebius' History are: (1) How to dispose of John, the prophet of
the Spirit, to make way for the fictitious man god Jesus; (2)How to
play down the role of James, the principal disciple of John, later
elected the true leader of the Roman church, and its primary
missionary and letter writer, sent out from Rome. Paul was created
to do most of James' missionary activities, and Peter was created to
keep James in Jerusalem away from most of the action, and in
particular away from Rome.

On this basis, Eusebius would not be the liar. The liars were the
later editors of his texts. There does seem to be a pattern of
editorial interference with the texts of early writers such as
Eusebius' History, and Tertullian's Apology.

Geoff

Geoff,

Thanks for your notes. I don't agree with your view, because I think
any text may be made to say anything if we use methods of this general
type. Argument from absence of evidence is always fallacious in
ancient texts. The other problem I have with the hypothesis is that I
think we must go with the grain of the text. I don't feel comfortable
with an approach that seems very close to reading into the text
whatever we want it to say, not what it does say.

So I'm not sure we can take this discussion much further.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger,

I agree if you wish to remain comfortable in the belief that what you
read is true. Do you really go with the grain of the text in the
story of Paulina and Mundus? And what might be the answer to the lack
of quotation of the NT in Eusebius' History?

There are a number of scholars who would discount your sweeping
statement, and who do argue from absence of evidence. Some, such as
Earl Doherty argue that Jesus is mythical based on lack of mention of
the name in early church writings. Does "going with the grain of the
text" mean believing that what you read is true? Robert Eisenman in
his James the Brother of Jesus repeatedly refers to the garbling of
ancient texts, for example the book of Acts in the NT.

I am just the opposite to you in that I feel decidedly uncomfortable
whenever I read ancient texts, and I know I am not alone.

It is one thing to scan an ancient text to admire its beauty on a
computer, and another to actually read it and then interpret it.

Geoff

Geoff,

Your problem is not with the individual accounts, then, but with
ancient literature as such? I'm not sure this is my problem: there
are faculties of people out there who can talk to you about this. But
thinking for a moment myself, if we choose to adopt the position that
it is *all* more or less unreliable, then we cannot use this argument
selectively to debunk particular works, surely? The argument either
proves nothing, or too much. Indeed in the latter case it seems
indistinguishable either from subjectivism or obscurantism. Our first
need, in any investigation, must be to get our own prejudices out of
the way, and our methodology must help us do this, surely?

Incidentally, Earl Doherty is not a scholar (even less than I am) but
a populariser for an exploded theory, working mainly from out-of-date
texts. It seems to my ignorant eyes quite unscholarly to create a
silence by selective omission of evidence, and then argue from that
silence. Surely that is just playing games with words?

I reviewed Doherty's presentation of the data on the second century
fathers -- that they either did not believe in the reality of the man
Jesus of Nazareth, or thought whether he existed unimportant (after
one of his disciples repeated to me some of what he was unwise enough
to pronounce on the date of Minucius Felix) and found it most
misleading. Raw data plus analysis here:
<http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html>

Arguing from absence of evidence in the ancient world is almost always
mistaken. The reason is that only about 1% of ancient literature has
survived, so 'silence' means not 'absence', as it might in our own
day, but only 'did it happen to survive'.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0312290741.5685c1f4@posting.google.com>...

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0312220747.fcd39ee@posting.google.com>...

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0312200727.3aef7745@posting.google.com>...

The parallel editorial work was to change the accounts in the NT so
that John was demoted from being a prophet to the status of a mere
baptist who is quickly disposed of at the hands of Antipas to make way
for the fictitious Jesus the Saviour. Eusebius' basic technique was
to change both the NT and the record in Josephus at the same time so
that he could cite the latter in support of the former and "prove" his
case.

There is, however, no evidence of any of this, and I think that it is
wrong to accuse people of such things without very convincing evidence
indeed. Otherwise is it not just libel?

By the way, since the discoveries of the Bodmer papyri of the gospels,
dated to 200AD+, it is not really possible to accuse Eusebius of
editing the NT, unless he could somehow edit papers buried before he
was born.

Roger,

+ what? Such a precise dating is notoriously difficult to prove.

Geoff,

Actually I don't have any special details on the Bodmer papyri, which
is a pity. The various codices are of various dates. The earliest
one I recall is around 200 AD.

You'll excuse me if I don't discourse on Greek paleography, since I
don't know much about it. But I know that paleography is done by
starting with texts that have dates on them -- charters and the like,
-- building up a database of dated bookhands, and then using that
database to compare with others. Since the working life of a scribe
is probably around 25 years, and scribes change with the times anyway,
it's a good and reliable method. (But hey, aren't there professionals
who could talk about this?)

Such a date would be fairly straightforward to show in Latin
paleography. I once dated a document myself to 1380-1405. The
abbreviations used were only recorded in that period, you see.
Likewise I could tell immediately that it was written in England, from
the characteristic 'A' and the general 'feel' of an medieval English
bookhand. (Mind you, I couldn't actually *read* the wretched thing
since it was written in a hideous gothic hand).

I do not agree that the trend in scholarship is to date biblical
papyri early. The trend for all document dates between about 1870 and
1940 was to date everything Christian as late as possible, and
everything heretical as early as possible. That's how we got a date
of ca. 170 for John. It's a silly game, IMHO.

The Nag Hammadi documents indicate that there was a "sayings"
tradition that went on for some time before the fabrication of gospel
narrative.

These late 4th century coptic translations cannot indicate this,
surely?

The Gospel of Thomas, of which coptic translations exist in this
collection, must be second century, since fragments in Greek from
Oxyrhynchus exist (unless you want to argue these are notoriously hard
to date and must be dated later, of course :) ). The argument then
is that from this we can infer the existence of a sayings tradition
(which seems like a dubious argument to me, given the heretical nature
of the work, and the obvious Platonic influence on the movement: did
you know that one of the Nag Hammadi texts is actually a chunk of
Plato?).

Eusebius says something mighty strange (that may have implications for
the Bodmer papyrus) in H3:24: "The three gospels already written (I
kid you not) were in general circulation and copies (it was actually
only one gospel) had come into John's hands (mine really). He
(that's me) welcomed them, we are told (by yours truly), but remarked
that the narrative only lacked the story of what Christ had done first
of all from the beginning of his mission (you bet!)."

This is the remarkable subliminal language of the liar again. I would
suggest that it was not the three gospels that were in general
circulation, but the story of John the Prophet - the so-called Signs
or Semia source which would have lacked the fabricated narrative that
finished John off prematurely, and introduced Jesus. I would further
suggest that it was Eusebius himself who welcomed the receipt of that
signs source. The three synoptics were not yet written.

I'm afraid you made all this up. <smile>

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger,

Have you read the last chapter (10) of Eusebius' History? If you
have, then you will have noticed the astonishing fact that it contains
approximately 20 explicit quotations from the OT, but NONE from the
gospels. That by someone who is supposed to have written earlier:
"The three gospels ALREADY WRITTEN were in general circulation"
(3:24), and "We must of course, put first the holy quartet of gospels"
(3:25). Yet in the final chapter to his History, despite feeling free
to quote the OT, not once does he quote the gospels.

The same is true of Chapter 9, which contains approximately six
explicit quotations from the OT and NONE from the gospels. Chapter 8
has approximately two quotations from the OT and NONE from the
gospels.

Chapter 8 starts:"Having dealt fully with the apostolic succession in
seven books, in this eigth section, it is surely a matter of the
highest importance that for the enlightment of future generations I
should set down, the events of my own day". The next three chapters
contain not one explicit quotation from the gospels, but approximately
a total of 28 from the OT. This is a silence that shouts. It is
fairly obvious that if the gospels existed (were "in general
circulation") when Eusebius wrote, then he would have quoted them. I
continue to think that the production of the text of the gospels, was
much later than is generally thought.

If the last three chapters are nearer to what Eusebius actually
thought and wrote, then the first seven chapters, which are
considerably different, were edited by later writers (may be to
establish that "apostolic succession"). The first seven chapters deal
with some of the logical problems which the creators of the gospels
must have encountered. The primary issues that stand out in the text
of Eusebius' History are: (1) How to dispose of John, the prophet of
the Spirit, to make way for the fictitious man god Jesus; (2)How to
play down the role of James, the principal disciple of John, later
elected the true leader of the Roman church, and its primary
missionary and letter writer, sent out from Rome. Paul was created
to do most of James' missionary activities, and Peter was created to
keep James in Jerusalem away from most of the action, and in
particular away from Rome.

On this basis, Eusebius would not be the liar. The liars were the
later editors of his texts. There does seem to be a pattern of
editorial interference with the texts of early writers such as
Eusebius' History, and Tertullian's Apology.

Geoff

Geoff,

Thanks for your notes. I don't agree with your view, because I think
any text may be made to say anything if we use methods of this general
type. Argument from absence of evidence is always fallacious in
ancient texts. The other problem I have with the hypothesis is that I
think we must go with the grain of the text. I don't feel comfortable
with an approach that seems very close to reading into the text
whatever we want it to say, not what it does say.

So I'm not sure we can take this discussion much further.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger,

I agree if you wish to remain comfortable in the belief that what you
read is true. Do you really go with the grain of the text in the
story of Paulina and Mundus? And what might be the answer to the lack
of quotation of the NT in Eusebius' History?

There are a number of scholars who would discount your sweeping
statement, and who do argue from absence of evidence. Some, such as
Earl Doherty argue that Jesus is mythical based on lack of mention of
the name in early church writings. Does "going with the grain of the
text" mean believing that what you read is true? Robert Eisenman in
his James the Brother of Jesus repeatedly refers to the garbling of
ancient texts, for example the book of Acts in the NT.

I am just the opposite to you in that I feel decidedly uncomfortable
whenever I read ancient texts, and I know I am not alone.

It is one thing to scan an ancient text to admire its beauty on a
computer, and another to actually read it and then interpret it.

Geoff

geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0312270411.18613f49@posting.google.com>...

geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0312220352.d60990a@posting.google.com>...

The parallel editorial work was to change the accounts in the NT so
that John was demoted from being a prophet to the status of a mere
baptist who is quickly disposed of at the hands of Antipas to make way
for the fictitious Jesus the Saviour. Eusebius' basic technique was
to change both the NT and the record in Josephus at the same time so
that he could cite the latter in support of the former and "prove" his
case.

There is, however, no evidence of any of this, and I think that it is
wrong to accuse people of such things without very convincing evidence
indeed. Otherwise is it not just libel?

By the way, since the discoveries of the Bodmer papyri of the gospels,
dated to 200AD+, it is not really possible to accuse Eusebius of
editing the NT, unless he could somehow edit papers buried before he
was born.

Roger,

+ what? Such a precise dating is notoriously difficult to prove.

Geoff,

Actually I don't have any special details on the Bodmer papyri, which
is a pity. The various codices are of various dates. The earliest
one I recall is around 200 AD.

You'll excuse me if I don't discourse on Greek paleography, since I
don't know much about it. But I know that paleography is done by
starting with texts that have dates on them -- charters and the like,
-- building up a database of dated bookhands, and then using that
database to compare with others. Since the working life of a scribe
is probably around 25 years, and scribes change with the times anyway,
it's a good and reliable method. (But hey, aren't there professionals
who could talk about this?)

Such a date would be fairly straightforward to show in Latin
paleography. I once dated a document myself to 1380-1405. The
abbreviations used were only recorded in that period, you see.
Likewise I could tell immediately that it was written in England, from
the characteristic 'A' and the general 'feel' of an medieval English
bookhand. (Mind you, I couldn't actually *read* the wretched thing
since it was written in a hideous gothic hand).

I do not agree that the trend in scholarship is to date biblical
papyri early. The trend for all document dates between about 1870 and
1940 was to date everything Christian as late as possible, and
everything heretical as early as possible. That's how we got a date
of ca. 170 for John. It's a silly game, IMHO.

The Nag Hammadi documents indicate that there was a "sayings"
tradition that went on for some time before the fabrication of gospel
narrative.

These late 4th century coptic translations cannot indicate this,
surely?

The Gospel of Thomas, of which coptic translations exist in this
collection, must be second century, since fragments in Greek from
Oxyrhynchus exist (unless you want to argue these are notoriously hard
to date and must be dated later, of course :) ). The argument then
is that from this we can infer the existence of a sayings tradition
(which seems like a dubious argument to me, given the heretical nature
of the work, and the obvious Platonic influence on the movement: did
you know that one of the Nag Hammadi texts is actually a chunk of
Plato?).

Eusebius says something mighty strange (that may have implications for
the Bodmer papyrus) in H3:24: "The three gospels already written (I
kid you not) were in general circulation and copies (it was actually
only one gospel) had come into John's hands (mine really). He
(that's me) welcomed them, we are told (by yours truly), but remarked
that the narrative only lacked the story of what Christ had done first
of all from the beginning of his mission (you bet!)."

This is the remarkable subliminal language of the liar again. I would
suggest that it was not the three gospels that were in general
circulation, but the story of John the Prophet - the so-called Signs
or Semia source which would have lacked the fabricated narrative that
finished John off prematurely, and introduced Jesus. I would further
suggest that it was Eusebius himself who welcomed the receipt of that
signs source. The three synoptics were not yet written.

I'm afraid you made all this up. <smile>

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger,

Have you read the last chapter (10) of Eusebius' History? If you
have, then you will have noticed the astonishing fact that it contains
approximately 20 explicit quotations from the OT, but NONE from the
gospels. That by someone who is supposed to have written earlier:
"The three gospels ALREADY WRITTEN were in general circulation"
(3:24), and "We must of course, put first the holy quartet of gospels"
(3:25). Yet in the final chapter to his History, despite feeling free
to quote the OT, not once does he quote the gospels.

The same is true of Chapter 9, which contains approximately six
explicit quotations from the OT and NONE from the gospels. Chapter 8
has approximately two quotations from the OT and NONE from the
gospels.

Chapter 8 starts:"Having dealt fully with the apostolic succession in
seven books, in this eigth section, it is surely a matter of the
highest importance that for the enlightment of future generations I
should set down, the events of my own day". The next three chapters
contain not one explicit quotation from the gospels, but approximately
a total of 28 from the OT. This is a silence that shouts. It is
fairly obvious that if the gospels existed (were "in general
circulation") when Eusebius wrote, then he would have quoted them. I
continue to think that the production of the text of the gospels, was
much later than is generally thought.

If the last three chapters are nearer to what Eusebius actually
thought and wrote, then the first seven chapters, which are
considerably different, were edited by later writers (may be to
establish that "apostolic succession"). The first seven chapters deal
with some of the logical problems which the creators of the gospels
must have encountered. The primary issues that stand out in the text
of Eusebius' History are: (1) How to dispose of John, the prophet of
the Spirit, to make way for the fictitious man god Jesus; (2)How to
play down the role of James, the principal disciple of John, later
elected the true leader of the Roman church, and its primary
missionary and letter writer, sent out from Rome. Paul was created
to do most of James' missionary activities, and Peter was created to
keep James in Jerusalem away from most of the action, and in
particular away from Rome.

On this basis, Eusebius would not be the liar. The liars were the
later editors of his texts. There does seem to be a pattern of
editorial interference with the texts of early writers such as
Eusebius' History, and Tertullian's Apology.

Geoff

Geoff,

Thanks for your notes. I don't agree with your view, because I think
any text may be made to say anything if we use methods of this general
type. Argument from absence of evidence is always fallacious in
ancient texts. The other problem I have with the hypothesis is that I
think we must go with the grain of the text. I don't feel comfortable
with an approach that seems very close to reading into the text
whatever we want it to say, not what it does say.

So I'm not sure we can take this discussion much further.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0312220747.fcd39ee@posting.google.com>...

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0312200727.3aef7745@posting.google.com>...

The parallel editorial work was to change the accounts in the NT so
that John was demoted from being a prophet to the status of a mere
baptist who is quickly disposed of at the hands of Antipas to make way
for the fictitious Jesus the Saviour. Eusebius' basic technique was
to change both the NT and the record in Josephus at the same time so
that he could cite the latter in support of the former and "prove" his
case.

There is, however, no evidence of any of this, and I think that it is
wrong to accuse people of such things without very convincing evidence
indeed. Otherwise is it not just libel?

By the way, since the discoveries of the Bodmer papyri of the gospels,
dated to 200AD+, it is not really possible to accuse Eusebius of
editing the NT, unless he could somehow edit papers buried before he
was born.

Roger,

+ what? Such a precise dating is notoriously difficult to prove.

Geoff,

Actually I don't have any special details on the Bodmer papyri, which
is a pity. The various codices are of various dates. The earliest
one I recall is around 200 AD.

You'll excuse me if I don't discourse on Greek paleography, since I
don't know much about it. But I know that paleography is done by
starting with texts that have dates on them -- charters and the like,
-- building up a database of dated bookhands, and then using that
database to compare with others. Since the working life of a scribe
is probably around 25 years, and scribes change with the times anyway,
it's a good and reliable method. (But hey, aren't there professionals
who could talk about this?)

Such a date would be fairly straightforward to show in Latin
paleography. I once dated a document myself to 1380-1405. The
abbreviations used were only recorded in that period, you see.
Likewise I could tell immediately that it was written in England, from
the characteristic 'A' and the general 'feel' of an medieval English
bookhand. (Mind you, I couldn't actually *read* the wretched thing
since it was written in a hideous gothic hand).

I do not agree that the trend in scholarship is to date biblical
papyri early. The trend for all document dates between about 1870 and
1940 was to date everything Christian as late as possible, and
everything heretical as early as possible. That's how we got a date
of ca. 170 for John. It's a silly game, IMHO.

The Nag Hammadi documents indicate that there was a "sayings"
tradition that went on for some time before the fabrication of gospel
narrative.

These late 4th century coptic translations cannot indicate this,
surely?

The Gospel of Thomas, of which coptic translations exist in this
collection, must be second century, since fragments in Greek from
Oxyrhynchus exist (unless you want to argue these are notoriously hard
to date and must be dated later, of course :) ). The argument then
is that from this we can infer the existence of a sayings tradition
(which seems like a dubious argument to me, given the heretical nature
of the work, and the obvious Platonic influence on the movement: did
you know that one of the Nag Hammadi texts is actually a chunk of
Plato?).

Eusebius says something mighty strange (that may have implications for
the Bodmer papyrus) in H3:24: "The three gospels already written (I
kid you not) were in general circulation and copies (it was actually
only one gospel) had come into John's hands (mine really). He
(that's me) welcomed them, we are told (by yours truly), but remarked
that the narrative only lacked the story of what Christ had done first
of all from the beginning of his mission (you bet!)."

This is the remarkable subliminal language of the liar again. I would
suggest that it was not the three gospels that were in general
circulation, but the story of John the Prophet - the so-called Signs
or Semia source which would have lacked the fabricated narrative that
finished John off prematurely, and introduced Jesus. I would further
suggest that it was Eusebius himself who welcomed the receipt of that
signs source. The three synoptics were not yet written.

I'm afraid you made all this up. <smile>

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger,

Have you read the last chapter (10) of Eusebius' History? If you
have, then you will have noticed the astonishing fact that it contains
approximately 20 explicit quotations from the OT, but NONE from the
gospels. That by someone who is supposed to have written earlier:
"The three gospels ALREADY WRITTEN were in general circulation"
(3:24), and "We must of course, put first the holy quartet of gospels"
(3:25). Yet in the final chapter to his History, despite feeling free
to quote the OT, not once does he quote the gospels.

The same is true of Chapter 9, which contains approximately six
explicit quotations from the OT and NONE from the gospels. Chapter 8
has approximately two quotations from the OT and NONE from the
gospels.

Chapter 8 starts:"Having dealt fully with the apostolic succession in
seven books, in this eigth section, it is surely a matter of the
highest importance that for the enlightment of future generations I
should set down, the events of my own day". The next three chapters
contain not one explicit quotation from the gospels, but approximately
a total of 28 from the OT. This is a silence that shouts. It is
fairly obvious that if the gospels existed (were "in general
circulation") when Eusebius wrote, then he would have quoted them. I
continue to think that the production of the text of the gospels, was
much later than is generally thought.

If the last three chapters are nearer to what Eusebius actually
thought and wrote, then the first seven chapters, which are
considerably different, were edited by later writers (may be to
establish that "apostolic succession"). The first seven chapters deal
with some of the logical problems which the creators of the gospels
must have encountered. The primary issues that stand out in the text
of Eusebius' History are: (1) How to dispose of John, the prophet of
the Spirit, to make way for the fictitious man god Jesus; (2)How to
play down the role of James, the principal disciple of John, later
elected the true leader of the Roman church, and its primary
missionary and letter writer, sent out from Rome. Paul was created
to do most of James' missionary activities, and Peter was created to
keep James in Jerusalem away from most of the action, and in
particular away from Rome.

On this basis, Eusebius would not be the liar. The liars were the
later editors of his texts. There does seem to be a pattern of
editorial interference with the texts of early writers such as
Eusebius' History, and Tertullian's Apology.

Geoff

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FDA6070.E2BE1FD4@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Not-easily-duped wrote:

Why do you believe that the "clemetines" is right and the epistleis wrong?

===>2 Peter is a recognized FORGERY!

How do you go about to deciding which one to believe?

===>On the basis of scholarship. -- L.

Scholars do not agree with this idea about the Clementines.

Who is there to validate that scholarship?

===>Scholars tend to validate one another. It is called
"peer review".

On matters of controversy, however, this process merely ensures that
those holding state-funded posts all more or less agree with the
spirit of the age. At one time, all scholars agreed that Christianity
was true. Today they all agree that it is untrue. At one time large
numbers were communists. Today none are.

Politics and religion are always biases. There is no purpose in
seeking a pronouncement of academic 'authority' on these topics: on
them, they write as men, not as scholars.

"One of Christianity?s most authoritative
CONSERVATIVE biblical scholars Bruce Metzger,

Metzger is a mainstream scholar, not a conservative scholar.

Mr. L. -- This technique of labelling scholars conservative is a ploy
which one comes across in some of the more dishonest atheist
pamphlets, as I see you have (I know you post in good faith, but I
need to talk about your sources here).

The polemical reason to do this is fairly obvious: the writer wants to
use some statements from the standard text, which support his
position, but dismiss others.

So, by claiming (in this case) Metzger as belonging to 'the other
side', anything he says which is damaging to the Christians can be
touted as 'even one of their own admits...', while anything he says
which is unwelcome can be dismissed as bias. All this, of course, is
the stuff of dishonest polemic: one should either use an author as an
authority, or not.

So watch out for misassignments of this kind -- they are not morally
neutral.

wrote:

"Although the author of this letter calls himself ?Simon Peter,
a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ? (1:1), and makes
reference to his being present at the transfiguration of
Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have
lead nearly all modern scholars to regard it as the work of an
unknown author of the early second century who wrote in
Peter?s name....

Indeed they do, but there seems no pressing reason ever cited for
this.

In light of such internal and external evidence
one must conclude that 2 Peter was drawn up sometime after
A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the
great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority."
(Bruce Metzger, "The New Testament, its background, growth,
and content, p. 258.)

Again, we have to ask why. How do they know?

In fact 2 Peter was not recognized as canonical until the Councils of
Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century.

This is not what the ancient sources actually say. Origen tells us
that some people accept it, as does Eusebius. Both say that others
regard it as orthodox, but do not know it to be Petrine.

Letters by their very nature tend to circulate in the area to which
they were despatched. That some know a work, and others have no such
tradition, is likely, and indeed must have occurred with every work.
It isn't evidence, tho.

Until then it is known to have
been disputed up to the time of the Church historian Eusebius, who
acknowledges the first epistle as authentic, but mentions
"that which is called the second, we have not, indeed, understood to be
embodied with the sacred books, (endiaekon) yet as it appeared useful
to many, it was studiously read with the other Scriptures." He also
quotes Origen as having said that Peter "left one epistle undisputed,"
and thatregarding a second one, "there is some doubt". -- L.

Origen, Commentary on John, book 5 (not sure this is extant, other
than in Eusebius, tho.)

Incidentally, while I am glad to see you using Eusebius, do you
likewise accept his citation of the Testimonium Flavianum? (One of
your coreligionists is currently attacking the honesty of Eusebius
again, so you see why I am reluctant to allow you people to both cite
him and abuse him as convenient!).

All the best

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FDA6070.E2BE1FD4@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Not-easily-duped wrote:

Why do you believe that the "clemetines" is right and the epistleis wrong?

===>2 Peter is a recognized FORGERY!

How do you go about to deciding which one to believe?

===>On the basis of scholarship. -- L.

Scholars do not agree with this idea about the Clementines.

Who is there to validate that scholarship?

===>Scholars tend to validate one another. It is called
"peer review".

On matters of controversy, however, this process merely ensures that
those holding state-funded posts all more or less agree with the
spirit of the age. At one time, all scholars agreed that Christianity
was true. Today they all agree that it is untrue. At one time large
numbers were communists. Today none are.

Politics and religion are always biases. There is no purpose in
seeking a pronouncement of academic 'authority' on these topics: on
them, they write as men, not as scholars.

"One of Christianity?s most authoritative
CONSERVATIVE biblical scholars Bruce Metzger,

Metzger is a mainstream scholar, not a conservative scholar.

Mr. L. -- This technique of labelling scholars conservative is a ploy
which one comes across in some of the more dishonest atheist
pamphlets, as I see you have (I know you post in good faith, but I
need to talk about your sources here).

The polemical reason to do this is fairly obvious: the writer wants to
use some statements from the standard text, which support his
position, but dismiss others.

So, by claiming (in this case) Metzger as belonging to 'the other
side', anything he says which is damaging to the Christians can be
touted as 'even one of their own admits...', while anything he says
which is unwelcome can be dismissed as bias. All this, of course, is
the stuff of dishonest polemic: one should either use an author as an
authority, or not.

So watch out for misassignments of this kind -- they are not morally
neutral.

wrote:

"Although the author of this letter calls himself ?Simon Peter,
a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ? (1:1), and makes
reference to his being present at the transfiguration of
Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have
lead nearly all modern scholars to regard it as the work of an
unknown author of the early second century who wrote in
Peter?s name....

Indeed they do, but there seems no pressing reason ever cited for
this.

In light of such internal and external evidence
one must conclude that 2 Peter was drawn up sometime after
A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the
great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority."
(Bruce Metzger, "The New Testament, its background, growth,
and content, p. 258.)

Again, we have to ask why. How do they know?

In fact 2 Peter was not recognized as canonical until the Councils of
Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century.

This is not what the ancient sources actually say. Origen tells us
that some people accept it, as does Eusebius. Both say that others
regard it as orthodox, but do not know it to be Petrine.

Letters by their very nature tend to circulate in the area to which
they were despatched. That some know a work, and others have no such
tradition, is likely, and indeed must have occurred with every work.
It isn't evidence, tho.

Until then it is known to have
been disputed up to the time of the Church historian Eusebius, who
acknowledges the first epistle as authentic, but mentions
"that which is called the second, we have not, indeed, understood to be
embodied with the sacred books, (endiaekon) yet as it appeared useful
to many, it was studiously read with the other Scriptures." He also
quotes Origen as having said that Peter "left one epistle undisputed,"
and that

Roger Pearse wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FDA6070.E2BE1FD4@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Not-easily-duped wrote:

Why do you believe that the "clemetines" is right and the epistleis wrong?

===>2 Peter is a recognized FORGERY!

How do you go about to deciding which one to believe?

===>On the basis of scholarship. -- L.

Scholars do not agree with this idea about the Clementines.

Who is there to validate that scholarship?

===>Scholars tend to validate one another. It is called
"peer review".

On matters of controversy, however, this process merely ensures that
those holding state-funded posts all more or less agree with the
spirit of the age. At one time, all scholars agreed that Christianity
was true. Today they all agree that it is untrue. At one time large
numbers were communists. Today none are.

Politics and religion are always biases. There is no purpose in
seeking a pronouncement of academic 'authority' on these topics: on
them, they write as men, not as scholars.

"One of Christianity?s most authoritative
CONSERVATIVE biblical scholars Bruce Metzger,

Metzger is a mainstream scholar, not a conservative scholar.

Mr. L. -- This technique of labelling scholars conservative is a ploy
which one comes across in some of the more dishonest atheist
pamphlets, as I see you have (I know you post in good faith, but I
need to talk about your sources here).

The polemical reason to do this is fairly obvious: the writer wants to
use some statements from the standard text, which support his
position, but dismiss others.

So, by claiming (in this case) Metzger as belonging to 'the other
side', anything he says which is damaging to the Christians can be
touted as 'even one of their own admits...', while anything he says
which is unwelcome can be dismissed as bias. All this, of course, is
the stuff of dishonest polemic: one should either use an author as an
authority, or not.

So watch out for misassignments of this kind -- they are not morally
neutral.

wrote:

"Although the author of this letter calls himself ?Simon Peter,
a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ? (1:1), and makes
reference to his being present at the transfiguration of
Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have
lead nearly all modern scholars to regard it as the work of an
unknown author of the early second century who wrote in
Peter?s name....

Indeed they do, but there seems no pressing reason ever cited for
this.

In light of such internal and external evidence
one must conclude that 2 Peter was drawn up sometime after
A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the
great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority."
(Bruce Metzger, "The New Testament, its background, growth,
and content, p. 258.)

Again, we have to ask why. How do they know?

In fact 2 Peter was not recognized as canonical until the Councils of
Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century.

This is not what the ancient sources actually say. Origen tells us
that some people accept it, as does Eusebius. Both say that others
regard it as orthodox, but do not know it to be Petrine.

Letters by their very nature tend to circulate in the area to which
they were despatched. That some know a work, and others have no such
tradition, is likely, and indeed must have occurred with every work.
It isn't evidence, tho.

Until then it is known to have
been disputed up to the time of the Church historian Eusebius, who
acknowledges the first epistle as authentic, but mentions
"that which is called the second, we have not, indeed, understood to be
embodied with the sacred books, (endiaekon) yet as it appeared useful
to many, it was studiously read with the other Scriptures." He also
quotes Origen as having said that Peter "left one epistle undisputed,"
and thatregarding a second one, "there is some doubt". -- L.

Origen, Commentary on John, book 5 (not sure this is extant, other
than in Eusebius, tho.)

Incidentally, while I am glad to see you using Eusebius, do you
likewise accept his citation of the Testimonium Flavianum? (One of
your coreligionists is currently attacking the honesty of Eusebius
again, so you see why I am reluctant to allow you people to both cite
him and abuse him as convenient!).

All the best

regarding a second one, "there is some doubt". -- L.

Origen, Commentary on John, book 5 (not sure this is extant, other
than in Eusebius, tho.)

Incidentally, while I am glad to see you using Eusebius, do you
likewise accept his citation of the Testimonium Flavianum? (One of
your coreligionists is currently attacking the honesty of Eusebius
again, so you see why I am reluctant to allow you people to both cite
him and abuse him as convenient!).

Not-easily-duped wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD55845.5A48B20C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Not-easily-duped wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD28D3E.8FD6E83D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.

===>No one says he was "known by" some other name, other than SAUL.
It is only that he is RECOGNIZED by the things written about him under
the name of "Simon". A good look at the things said about the two characters
in the Bible and elsewhere makes it clear that they ARE the same person.

Only in your imagination....
This following verse by Peter get you wrong:"And account that the long
suffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother
Paul/Simon has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
Do you think it makes more sense to replace Paul by Simon Magus in
this letter?
Your mind is truly fucked up.

===>Ignoramus "Duped" believes that Peter (the real
Peter) penned those words. He and Saul/Paul were mortal enemies,
as shown by the Clementines and the Preaching (Kerygmata) of
Peter., and even by the letters of Saul/Paul himself! -- L.

Why do you believe that the "clemetines" is right and the epistleis wrong?

===>2 Peter is a recognized FORGERY!

How do you go about to deciding which one to believe?

===>On the basis of scholarship. -- L.

Not-easily-duped wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD55845.5A48B20C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Not-easily-duped wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD28D3E.8FD6E83D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.

===>No one says he was "known by" some other name, other than SAUL.
It is only that he is RECOGNIZED by the things written about him under
the name of "Simon". A good look at the things said about the two characters
in the Bible and elsewhere makes it clear that they ARE the same person.

Only in your imagination....
This following verse by Peter get you wrong:"And account that the long
suffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother
Paul/Simon has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
Do you think it makes more sense to replace Paul by Simon Magus in
this letter?
Your mind is truly fucked up.

===>Ignoramus "Duped" believes that Peter (the real
Peter) penned those words. He and Saul/Paul were mortal enemies,
as shown by the Clementines and the Preaching (Kerygmata) of
Peter., and even by the letters of Saul/Paul himself! -- L.

Why do you believe that the "clemetines" is right and the epistleis wrong?

===>2 Peter is a recognized FORGERY!

How do you go about to deciding which one to believe?

===>On the basis of scholarship. -- L.

Not-easily-duped wrote:

Only in your imagination....
This following verse by Peter get you wrong:"And account that the long
suffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother
Paul/Simon has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
Do you think it makes more sense to replace Paul by Simon Magus in
this letter?
Your mind is truly fucked up.

===>Ignoramus "Duped" believes that Peter (the real
Peter) penned those words.

He and Saul/Paul were mortal enemies,

as shown by the Clementines

and the Preaching (Kerygmata) of
Peter.,

and even by the letters of Saul/Paul himself! -- L.