Micromanaging the Saints

[Snow]

Everyone's entitled to their opinions. I would hardly call Eusebius "notoriously unreliable". You've apparently got a bone to pick with him, or don't like how he wrote or what he said or something.

Well that's a very interesting perspective - that unless someone agrees with you about Eusebius then they have a bone to pick with him or disagree with his idealogy - interesting but wrong.

The difficulty is not that I have a bone to pick with him, but rather that I have read him and understand his limitations.

For example, about Christian martyrs, he claims that wild beasts were magically restrained from attacking the naked holy athletes.... riiiggghhttt.

His "historical" work on Constantine suffers from a major case of suckupitis.

In general he shows a distinct lack of ability to distinguish faith-promoting myth from actual fact or reality.

But he is not all that terrible, not any worse than, say, the Old Testament in its presentation of certain historical events.

Is that your standard? Recall that the OT would have you believe in talking donkeys and a giant boat that carried 2 (or 7 depending on which OT story you believe) of every animal during a worldwide flood up to the tops of the mountains.

The OT is not not particularly helpful as a history book. Eusebius may not be worse than other historians of his time but I was commenting on your claim that you get uneasy when someone starts quoting an authority and then you held how Eusebius as a model of credibility.

[pam]

believe in talking donkeys

I believe in talking donkeys. They post regularly on the threads.

[lilered]

:QUOTE=pam;423615]I believe in talking donkeys. They post regularly on the threads.

dead donkey::deadhorse:[

[Lorenzo]

Well that's a very interesting perspective - that unless someone agrees with you about Eusebius then they have a bone to pick with him or disagree with his idealogy - interesting but wrong.

Your characterization of my opinion of people who disagree with me about Eusebius is a distortion of reality.

The difficulty is not that I have a bone to pick with him, but rather that I have read him and understand his limitations.

You probably read him with a religious prejudice that blinded you to the good he has done, or at least to those qualities and that performance for which I clearly stated I held him as a "standard".

For example, about Christian martyrs, he claims that wild beasts were magically restrained from attacking the naked holy athletes.... riiiggghhttt. .

I won't waste my time asking for your evidence that the wild beasts were not magically restrained - or miraculously, to use a more modern, more theological apt, and more correct term, but not one that is entirely out of harmony with the perception of what some would call "magic" and which later writers who were more accomplished theologians such as St. Augustine who was apparently a more accomplished historian as well, also would attribute, genuinely or metaphorically, to seemingly miraculous events among pagans and Christians both.

Apparently, some beasts did not kill some Christians. That is the more history part, and that is what I see in Eusebius. Anyone can express his opinion, as you have, derogatorily, about Eusebius, and as Eusebius has done, in primitive innocence, about some martyrdoms. Even if a person's description is not entirely accurate, I would have to give more credence to an imperfect testimony that was contemporaneous with events, rather than the opinion of someone who came along over a thousand years later.

His "historical" work on Constantine suffers from a major case of suckupitis.

Your prejudice again shows. Eusebius' history is a history. It is not science fiction, it is not poetry, it is not theology, it is not geometry. It is history. To put the word in quotations is the same as to charge him with insincerity. He, like you, had prejudices which, like yours, worked their way into his writing. Mutatis mutandi, his "historical" work really was a historical work. (Which isn't perfectly germaine to my post to which you were replying - see below.)

"Suckupitis" The prejudicial language illustrates the prejudiced view I mentioned. Or, in academic terms, "please provide primary documentation from Constantine or Eusebius that proves one was suffering from "suckupitis" and the other from being sucked up."

In general he shows a distinct lack of ability to distinguish faith-promoting myth from actual fact or reality. .

You have no idea what he was able to distinguish. You only know how he expressed himself to a particular audience for a particular purpose which we can be only half-certain of knowing.

Is that your standard? Recall that the OT would have you believe in talking donkeys and a giant boat that carried 2 (or 7 depending on which OT story you believe) of every animal during a worldwide flood up to the tops of the mountains.

O, gee, thanks, how could I have forgotten! You are really nit-picking this to death. I in no way claimed to believe every single detail of every single thing that every book and every prophet and every Mormon ever said. What I wrote was: "the Old Testament in its presentation of certain historical events". Talking donkeys was not one of those certain historical events, force it into your carping template though you try.

The OT is not not particularly helpful as a history book. Eusebius may not be worse than other historians of his time but I was commenting on your claim that you get uneasy when someone starts quoting an authority and then you held how Eusebius as a model of credibility.

"Helpful"? What is it that you need help in? That would determine whether or not the OT would be specifically helpful to you.

However, in aboslute terms (separated from requests for specific sorts of help in specific limited areas), the OT is extremely useful as a history book, a cultural anthropology book, and as cultural poetry.

(Where did I say Eusebius was "a model of credibility". You not only exaggerate, you prevaricate! I am wounded! To judge from your misanalysis of what I posted, however, I would venture to suggest his is a better model of credibility than someone who calls him a "suck-up".)

I purposefully included the following in the post which you are prejudicially quoting, misrepresenting, and unjustly picking to death:

"In offering St. Augustine as one of my Standards I was not suggesting that he was a standard for my theology, but for history and for Christian sociology. Likewise, Eusebius is a standard I prefer for the development of the Christian canon and limited information on apostolic and presbyterian succession, not for theology, and not for detailed post-Christian history, although much he gives is useful, helpful, and true, and I will keep using him until I find a perfect history of the time he covers. Fat chance."

I included that and what followed specifically to forestall such quibbling and carping. Unfortunately, what I offered was not clear enough for some. Please do me the courtesy of reading my post to the end next time before responding to things I didn't say.

(If you have written that unassailable perfect history for which so many have been waiting, please don't keep it to yourself.)

[Snow]

Your characterization of my opinion of people who disagree with me about Eusebius is a distortion of reality.

Wow - what a rebuttal.

Weren't you the one who said: "Everyone's entitled to their opinions. I would hardly call Eusebius "notoriously unreliable". You've apparently got a bone to pick with him, or don't like how he wrote or what he said or something." - simply because I think it is weird that you hold him out as "an authority, reliable, credible, and all that"?

Why yes, yes it was.

You probably read him with a religious prejudice that blinded you to the good he has done, or at least to those qualities and that performance for which I clearly stated I held him as a "standard".

You are just making all that up - again demonstrating what you just finished denying - simply because I understand Eusebius's limitations as a historian.

I won't waste my time asking for your evidence that the wild beasts were not magically restrained - or miraculously, to use a more modern, more theological apt, and more correct term, but not one that is entirely out of harmony with the perception of what some would call "magic"

Thank goodness because we all understand that it's a bunch of malarky - wild animals magically steering clear of the Christians to feed on the pagans first. Fortunately today we have a bit more critical eye than Eusebius.

and which later writers who were more accomplished theologians such as St. Augustine who was apparently a more accomplished historian as well, also would attribute, genuinely or metaphorically, to seemingly miraculous events among pagans and Christians both.

Now you're really making me chuckle. I've never seen anybody refer to Augustine as a historian and I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish by comparing the historian Eusebius's belief in magical animal control to Augustine's theological views. It's strange.

Apparently, some beasts did not kill some Christians. That is the more history part, and that is what I see in Eusebius. Anyone can express his opinion, as you have, derogatorily, about Eusebius, and as Eusebius has done, in primitive innocence, about some martyrdoms.

What is this strange and scary gift you seem to have to understand my motivations and Eusebius's "primitive innocence?"

Even if a person's description is not entirely accurate, I would have to give more credence to an imperfect testimony that was contemporaneous with events, rather than the opinion of someone who came along over a thousand years later.

Yes - I can see that. You are the kind of person that believes that wild animals magically avoid eating people based on those people's theology.

Tell me what you think of Eusebius's claim that King Abgar wrote a letter to Christ, and GOT AN ANSWER?

Your prejudice again shows.

Why? Because I don't agree with you - which is what you denied in the opening of your post.

"Suckupitis" The prejudicial language illustrates the prejudiced view I mentioned. Or, in academic terms, "please provide primary documentation from Constantine or Eusebius that proves one was suffering from "suckupitis" and the other from being sucked up."

I'm guessing that you haven't even read the Vita Constantini. No one who had read it would confuse it with history - it can only be understood as a pagegyris - full of eloborate praise - a suck-up... and I quote (on Constantine's entrance at the Council of Nicaea:

"And now, all rising at the signal which indicated the emperor’s entrance, at last he himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones. Such was the external appearance of his person; and with regard to his mind, it was evident that he was distinguished by piety and godly fear. This was indicated by his downcast eyes, the blush on his countenance, and his gait. For the rest of his personal excellencies, he surpassed all present in height of stature and beauty of form, as well as in majestic dignity of mien, and invincible strength and vigor. All these graces, united to a suavity of manner, and a serenity becoming his imperial station, declared the excellence of his mental qualities to be above all praise. As soon as he had advanced to the upper end of the seats, at first he remained standing, and when a low chair of wrought gold had been set for him, he waited until the bishops had beckoned to him, and then sat down, and after him the whole assembly did the same"

Mind you that this "heavenly messanger" was, in historical reality, a mass murderer and serial killer.

You have no idea what he was able to distinguish. You only know how he expressed himself to a particular audience for a particular purpose which we can be only half-certain of knowing.

No - it's quite apparent what the purpose was - to suck up to the Emperor.

However, in aboslute terms (separated from requests for specific sorts of help in specific limited areas), the OT is extremely useful as a history book,

Sure it is. Keep telling yourself that.

AS RABBIS FACE FACTS

(Where did I say Eusebius was "a model of credibility". You not only exaggerate, you prevaricate! I am wounded! To judge from your misanalysis of what I posted, however, I would venture to suggest his is a better model of credibility than someone who calls him a "suck-up".)

Did you try looking at post 61 of this thread?

You said: "It's probably just me. I'm probably being too strict in who I consider an authority, reliable, credible, and all that. My standards are few in number: maybe: Bible, Book of Mormon, Journal of Discourses, Gospel Principles, all the talks of the General Authorities that are published in the official church magazine The Ensign, St. Augustine's City of God, the Koran, Eusebius, and a couple more."

Likewise, Eusebius is a standard I prefer for the development of the Christian canon

Would that be the same Eusebius who lists the Apocalypse of John as both "homologoumena" AND "antilegomena?"

Say - can you remind me of what method Eusebius employs to determine what is canonical and what wasn't?

(If you have written that unassailable perfect history for which so many have been waiting, please don't keep it to yourself.)

This isn't about whether Eusebius has made a wonderful contribution to our understanding of early Christianity - it's about your hold him out as a model of authority and credibility when you have a problem with what so many others write.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Snow

[Lorenzo]

Not to Snow:

(GnatStrainer collapses in disbelief. "Of much learning there is no end." My simplest statements as well as less simple are so horribly, continuously, intentionally distorted by Snow, and Snow's attitude seems so hostile to my every word, that I see no benefit in continuing to discuss this matter with Snow. It's not personal. My decision is based on the Snow's repeated insults, distortions, and academic dishonesty.

I'd like to give two examples:

(1) GnatStrainer:

and which later writers who were more accomplished theologians such as St. Augustine who was apparently a more accomplished historian as well, also would attribute, genuinely or metaphorically, to seemingly miraculous events among pagans and Christians both.

Snow: Now you're really making me chuckle. I've never seen anybody refer to Augustine as a historian and I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish by comparing the historian Eusebius's belief in magical animal control to Augustine's theological views. It's strange.

St. Augustine is not just a Christian apologist, but a historian. It doesn't matter whether Snow has "never seen anybody refer to Augustine as a historian". He addresses Roman history, pagan history, and the history of Christianity in the Roman empire. In fact, The City of God is his view of the history of two communities which began before the earth was created until the resurrection. A review of my post to which Snow is reponding will show that I did not "compare the historian Eusebius's belief in magical animal control to Augustine's theological views." Snow again prevaricates.

(2) GnatStrainer:

Likewise, Eusebius is a standard I prefer for the development of the Christian canon

Snow:

Would that be the same Eusebius who lists the Apocalypse of John as both "homologoumena" AND "antilegomena?"

Say - can you remind me of what method Eusebius employs to determine what is canonical and what wasn't?

Belligerence and insincerity blind Snow to the post Snow is responding to. Eusebius is a standard (not the only standard, but "a" standard) for understanding "the development of the Christian canon." That is obvious. Eusebius' personal opinion regarding various gospels and documents and heretical groups does not change that. He can believe no gospel is true and the moon is the true God - but the fact is he does provide lists of accepted documents. Therefore, he is a standard for understanding the development of the Christian canon. the issue for me (remember, it is my standard, not Snow's) is not what he thought was canonical and what not, but what he said about their acceptance or rejection.

Snow's other comments, likewise belligerent and snarky, continue the distortions and insults. I believe Snow is arguing with me on what I have chosen for my standards, purely for the sake of fighting, not for the cause of truth.)

[Snow]

Not to Snow:

(GnatStrainer collapses in disbelief. "Of much learning there is no end." My simplest statements as well as less simple are so horribly, continuously, intentionally distorted by Snow, and Snow's attitude seems so hostile to my every word, that I see no benefit in continuing to discuss this matter with Snow.

But my guess is that you are going to discuss it anyway. Let's see if I am right.

It's not personal. My decision is based on the Snow's repeated insults, distortions, and academic dishonesty.

Bingo.

Btw, I especially like the part where you call me a liar.

I'd like to give two examples:

(1) GnatStrainer:

and which later writers who were more accomplished theologians such as St. Augustine who was apparently a more accomplished historian as well, also would attribute, genuinely or metaphorically, to seemingly miraculous events among pagans and Christians both.

Snow: Now you're really making me chuckle. I've never seen anybody refer to Augustine as a historian and I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish by comparing the historian Eusebius's belief in magical animal control to Augustine's theological views. It's strange.

St. Augustine is not just a Christian apologist, but a historian. It doesn't matter whether Snow has "never seen anybody refer to Augustine as a historian". He addresses Roman history, pagan history, and the history of Christianity in the Roman empire. In fact, The City of God is his view of the history of two communities which began before the earth was created until the resurrection. A review of my post to which Snow is reponding will show that I did not "compare the historian Eusebius's belief in magical animal control to Augustine's theological views." Snow again prevaricates.

(2) GnatStrainer:

Likewise, Eusebius is a standard I prefer for the development of the Christian canon

Snow:

Would that be the same Eusebius who lists the Apocalypse of John as both "homologoumena" AND "antilegomena?"

Say - can you remind me of what method Eusebius employs to determine what is canonical and what wasn't?

Belligerence and insincerity blind Snow to the post Snow is responding to. Eusebius is a standard (not the only standard, but "a" standard) for understanding "the development of the Christian canon." That is obvious. Eusebius' personal opinion regarding various gospels and documents and heretical groups does not change that. He can believe no gospel is true and the moon is the true God - but the fact is he does provide lists of accepted documents. Therefore, he is a standard for understanding the development of the Christian canon. the issue for me (remember, it is my standard, not Snow's) is not what he thought was canonical and what not, but what he said about their acceptance or rejection.

Is prevaricate another word for lie?

Does this mean that you won't be responding to Eusebius's 'reliability' and 'credibility' when he describes a mass murderer as a heavenly messenger whose beauty surpassed all the others.

It's not like my opinion on Eusebuis is understood by others and especially by the scholarly community. No one says he didn't make a valuable contribution but as a standard of 'reliability' and 'credibility,' he has limitations. Google for heaven's sake. Type in the word Eusebius and some other words like limitation or unreliable. It's no mystery.

Snow's other comments, likewise belligerent and snarky, continue the distortions and insults. I believe Snow is arguing with me on what I have chosen for my standards, purely for the sake of fighting, not for the cause of truth.)

Yeah - here's the problem with that. You can't very well claim to be a victim of belligerence when your posts have accused me of dishonesty, and bias, starting from your very first post to me.

If you want a standard on canon development you ought try Metzger. If you want a a discussion of Eusebius limitations on canon development, try Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987, pp 201-206.

... and please - drop the melodrama about this being some "cause for truth." You were mighty quick to jump up and try marginalize my opinion in pejorative terms for no reason other than if differed from yours.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Snow

[BenRaines]

While we have differing opinions of what each of you believe and since it can not be discussed with out name calling, "liar, belligerent, etc". This thread is being closed.

If forum posters can not cease to attack one another infractions will be issued.

This is from my perspective and perhaps from a few other moderators. You want to state your opinion, "I like this guys writings, I believe them" or "I find this interesting or whatever" but to attack one another as liars, idiots, ignorant, etc. is not acceptable.

This thread is being closed and more will be in the future that evolve to this.

Ben Raines