An alternative theory of the history of antiquity
The Evolution of Christs and Christianities: - a review of data and ideas presented by Jay Raskin
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia

Editorial Comments

After reading Jay Raskin's recent publication entitled "The Evolution of Christs and Christianities I have presented a small review containing a number of extracts of some of the themes developed. These issues consist of:

• An Introduction to the Scope.
• Eusebius: The Master Forger.
• Eusebius and the Miraculous Founding of the Christian Churches.
• Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus.
• The Tacitus and Suetonius Interpolation.
• Eusebian forgery of the Vienne/Lyon Martyrs' Letter.

I would like to thank the author for permission to reproduce substantial quotations from the book, specifically with reference to the first chapter entitled "Eusebius: The Master Forger", and in particular his excellent outline of the hypothetical forgery of both the Tacitus reference (Annals, 15.44), and the Suetonius reference (Lives, Nero, 16.) to "christianity" in the early second century.

I can recommend this book as an excellent introduction to the
latest developments in the field of Biblical Criticism and History.

PRF Brown
Editor
Mountain Man Graphics,
Australia

Southern Winter, 2007

The following extracts have been taken from the book with the permission of the author. It is notable that a series of themes and hypothesis are explored in a great deal of depth and detailed discussion. The arguments and information are presented in a clear and logical manner.

To commence this review, it is expedient to allow the author to state the scope of his work, as summarised in his intoduction.

INTRODUCTION

Although the book has fifteen chapters, in my original
plan I divided the work into five sections, with each
one demonstrating a major proposition.  The five major
propositions are:


(1) Eusebius was the master constructor of the
    still dominant paradigm of Christian history,

(2) A woman probably named Mary was the original
    writer of a Christ play, perhaps loosely based on
    historical incidents,

(3) Gospel writers changed a great deal of material
    about John the Baptist into material about Jesus,

(4) The model for the crucified man was possibly a
    Samaritan magician named Simon,

(5) An international proto-Christian Church of God
    existed with James the Just as their dying-founder,
    Christ figure.

In order to demonstrate these things, I had to
demonstrate the plausibility of many other interesting
propositions.  Thus the work has grown wildly into
fifteen chapters after this introductory section.

THE ELABORATION OF MAIN CONCEPTS

p.18

The safest thing we can say about early Christian
history is that there were many Christs and
Christianities.  The New Testament texts tell us this.
Josephus, the historian tells us this, and over two
hundred Christian and Christian related texts from
the first, second, third and fourth centuries tell us this.
The multitude of Christs and Christianities is a
simple fact.  The development and authenticity of
them are the points of controversy, both then and now.

The second safest thing that we can say about early
Christian history is that forgeries, interpolations and
re-editing  of documents was the norm.  Many texts
of the period express doubt about the authenticity of
other Christian texts.  Many texts contain anachronisms
demonstrating that they were produced later than the
time of their stated production.  There were no
consistent or widespread procedures for determining
the age or authenticity of documents.

p.19

We will argue that Eusebean History is indeed a
fabulous construction of Eusebius.  He has not
related historical events in his history, but he has
created a powerful source for discourse that is
Christ-Church centered.  Our problem is not just
to show that Eusebean history was a fabulous
creation of Bishop Eusebius, but to show what
most or more probably did happen.  Eusebean
history will remain a central form of discourse
until we proved an alternative source."

Elsewhere at this site is presented a review of a collection of descriptions that have been levelled at the historical figure of Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea by a series of scholarly academics, historians, and other researchers, who have for one reason or another had reason to doubt the genuine integrity of Eusebius as an historian.

The first chapter, and part of the second chapter, of Jay Raskin's "The Evolution of Christ's and Christianities" is directly related to an assessment of Eusebius --- as a master forger. It is notable that the author is of the opinion that the future of all studies in Biblical Criticism and History will commence to focus around the body of literature tendered by the author Eusebius.

In the following sections, with the author's permission, I have extracted various articles, and arranged them is a sequence of ideas, which provide a brief insight into the more complete exposition to be found in the book itself.





EUSEBIUS THE MASTER FORGER

p.39
The History that is Not
"a Perfect and Complete History"


But at the outset I must crave
for my work the indulgence of the wise,
for I confess that it is beyond my power
to produce a perfect and complete history ...

-- Eusebius Pamphilius

Jay Raskin provides a brief introduction to the Eusebian narrative foundational to our knowledge of the history of the earliest and most important of the purported christian churches, including the Church at Edessa, the Church at Jerusalem, and the Church at Caesarea, at which Eusebius reports himself domicile. Here is the author's summary:

p.63

To sum up what Eusebius tells us of the history
of his own Church in Caesaria: he gives us five
names Theophilus, Theocritus, Domnus, Theoctistus,
Agapius. He asserts that Theophilus was bishop
around 190 C.E., and Agapius (apparently) died
in 306.

...[...]...

Eusebius gives us no firm dates for when these men
took office or when they left office. He tells us
virtually nothing of their practices or lives. He
only claims that the bishop before him, Agapius, was
persecuted and martyred (although we cannot be certain
that this is the claim he is making).  This is
suprising. Caesarea was perhaps the second largest
city in Palestine.

One may come up with a number of  reasons for Eusebius'
lack of interest in displaying knowledge about the
history of his own Church of Ceasarea or in exploiting
that history.  Perhaps he did not want to be accused of
self promotion and glorification by the other churches,
or perhaps there was something that he considered
shameful in this history of his church that he preferred
not to go into.

Still, if one looks at Acts of the Apostles, one
finds lots of things happening at Caesarea. What is the
relationship between that material and Eusebius' silence
about the early history of his church?

Misplaced Footnotes:

[96] The little detail of an orthodox Christian Church
functioning in Jerusalem for some 100 years after
the death of Christ is one that Josephus and every
other writer before Eusebius failed to notice.
There is no evidence that such a church existed
beyond the word of Eusebius.  He repeats this in
H.E. (4::5.1), listing the names without giving any
source.

[97]  Note the popularity of Apollonius.  Apparently,
it was so great that Eusebius felt compelled to
write a treatise specifically against him.  Robin
Lane Fox points to an Orace at Oenoanda, where
a man asks Apollo if he could come near to the
Gods through self examination and gets the reply
that this privilege belongs only to "Egyptian Hermes,
"Moses of the Hebrews: and "the wise man of the
Mazacenes."  The last epithet is a reference to
Apollonius.  Thus we find that at least one priest
though Apollonius to be the equivalent of Moses and
Hermes Trismegistus. Fox, Robin Lane, Pagans
and Christians, Alfred Knopf, New York, 1986, pg. 191.

[98]  Eusebius, The Treatiese of Eusebius, the Son
of Pamphilus, Against the Life of Apollonius of Tyana
Written by Philostratus, Occasioned by the Parallel
Drawn by Hierocles Between Him and Christ.

In this section, Jay Raskin discusses the TF:

p.78

The Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus, is another
case where few writers have shown an understanding
of the artificial nature of Eusebean History.  The recent
article by Ken Olson [91] which proved that Eusebius
was the author of the Testimonium Flavianum is a recent
turning point in New Testament Studies.  Even after this,
few writers have understood that the obvious forgeries
found in Eusebius are not accidents of erroneous
transmission or due to his bad judgment in source
selection.  Creating and presenting fictitious documents
and quotes is his modus operandi.

Olson demonstrated that the phrases and words in
the TF reflected language Eusebius often used but
Josephus never or hardly ever does.
For example, the phrases

      "maker of many miracles,"
      "tribe of Christians,"
       and
      "until this day"

are found throughout Eusebean texts and rarely in others.

What Olson actually proved was not only did Eusebius
write the Testimonium, but that he was a rather inept
forger.  Unlike good forgers with the ability to copy
the language or voice of the works they interpolate
into, Eusebius's text always sounds like Eusebius.

It does not matter if he is quoting a first century
Jewish Historian, a second century Christian Philosopher,
or a third century group of Christian prisoners in Gaul,
the voice is identical and identifiable as Eusebius's.

In spite of our knowing this, Eusebius' narrative
remains credible for academicians throughout the world.
As Everett Ferguson declares, 

    "However one evaluates Eusebius's achievement,
     his work remains foundational for our knowledge
     of the church in its first three centuries.
     And this foundation stands firm
     despite noticeable crack." [92]


Knowing this should drastically affect every aspect of
New Testament Studies.  For example, the work
Dialogue with Trypho of Justin Martyr is often used
for dating other documents and to assert an early
date for the Gospel of Luke.  Yet scholars base the
dating of this work to Justin's references to the Bar
Kochbar War of 132-135 C.E.

We must consider that Eusebius himself is the first
person to mention this text and the first person to
mention this date within the text.  We must consider
the possibility that he wrote this text and/or inserted
this date reference into the text specifically to support
his own chronology and history.  If this is the case,
when we date other works, based on the date of
of Justin Martyr's Dialogue, we are following the
chronology of Eusebius, whether scholars know it
or not, or wish to acknowledge it or not.

When we trace back almost all the certainties
regarding the chronology of early Christian
documents, we find that the certainties really
are certainties because they match Eusebius's
chronology and do not come from sources
really independent of Eusebius.  Eusebius
provides the anchor for historical certainty for
most scholars in the field.

[91] K.A. Olson, "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum,"
     Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 61 (1999): 305-322.

[92] Ferguson, Everett, Christian History,
    "The Problem of Eusebius," Nov, 2001, Vol.20
     Issue 4, p8, 6c

There is a polite and formal term used to describe the unauthorised insertion of additional phrases and words into the already existing text of another author. The term is called "interpolation". Essentially, it is something like a little (or a minor) forgery. (Note this further article on the Tacitus Reference being a Fifteenth Century Forgery)

In the following section, Jay Raskin examines the evidence for the hypothesis that the purportedly earliest "christian reference" by a Roman historian, Tacitus (c.110 CE) is in fact an interpolation by Eusebius.

Here is Jay's discussion:




DID EUSEBIUS MAKE INTERPOLATIONS
INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S TEXTS?

p.98

So far we have established a number of interpolations
to documents mentioned within Eusebius's History. This
has been relatively easy to do as Eusebius's methodology
seems to have been for the most part rather ad hoc. He
figures out a good rhetorical point and then changes or
invents documents to support that point.  There are also
what appear to be Christian interpolations in important
historical works outside Eusebius's History.  It is
difficult to establish that Eusebius is the man behind
these textual manipulations. Still there is evidence
supporting such a hypothesis.

Here we will try to establish that two early
references to Christianity found in the historians
Tacitus and Suetonius are likely from Eusebius.
While non-mention of both these references in
his History would seem to indicate they could not
have been done by Eusebius, we should keep in
mind that Eusebius lived at least ten years after
he finished his History.  If anything, he would have
included their mention in his History if he had
done them prior to his History, we may suggest
that he did them subsequent to his History.

The earliest reference to Christianity by a Roman
historian comes from Cornelius Tacitus, writing
circa 110-117.  It is in his annals.

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skin of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

--- Tacitus, Annals, 15.44.

The next reference to Christianity appearing
in a history book is in Gaius Suetonius's
Lives of the Twelve Caesars, written circa
22-140 C.E.:

He devised a new form for the buildings of the city and in front of the houses and apartments be erected porches, from the flat roofs of which fires could be fought (This was undoubtedly after the great fire); and these he put up at his own cost. He had also planned to extend the walls as far as Ostia and to bring the sea from there to Rome by a canal. During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food, the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city (Because of their disorderly conduct).

--- Suetonius, Lives, Nero, 16.

What is most interesting is the context of these two
passages.  Neither Tacitus nor Suetonius refers to
Christians before [147] or after this point in their
works.  If we allow that they are both working from a
third source, we must allow that it is quite a fantastic
coincidence that they both chose to include exactly
the same incident and do not choose any other
incidents involving Christians from any other sources.


We also have to account for the fact that neither
mentions this third source and nobody else mentions
a third source regarding Nero and the fire.  We may
reject the third source hypothesis as unnecessary
to explain the phenomena we are studying.  Since
Suetonius is writing after Tacitus, we may suppose
that he found only this one reference to Christians in
Tacitus and summarized that one incident.  This
argument is bolstered by the fact that they both use
the same phrase "mischievous superstition" in
reference to Christianity.

Actually there is an alternative to the hypothesis
that the passage concerning Christianity was in
Tacitus and Suetonius copied it.  The alternative
hypothesis is that someone interpolated the
Christian reference into both works.

Now, Suetonius writing only a decade or so after
Tacitus requires the reference in Tacitus to be
authentic.  Conversely, if the passage in Tacitus is
fake, we may assume that the passage in Suetonius
is as well.  Anybody who knew the historian Tacitus,
we may expect to also know the historian Suetonius.
If we prove the Tacitus passage a forgery, we may
assume that the same hand worked on both passages.

We will examine the passage in conjunction with
Eusebius's Nero references in Church History.  We
will show how in these texts the relationship of Nero
to the Christians was created and evolved.   After
demonstrating how the passage in Tacitus most
likely came to be, we will show how the passage in
Suetonius changed along with the Tacitus passage.
Surprisingly, when properly understood, the
Suetonius passage is not a witness to the existence
of the Tacitus passage as we have received it, but
a witness to the changes that the Tacitus text has
undergone.

There are numerous reasons to suspect that the
passage in Tacitus is a forgery.  It goes unmentioned
in antiquity until Sculpitius Severus [148] apparently
quotes from it in his Sacred History circa 425 C.E.
Both Tertullian and Eusebius talk about Nero but do not
quote the text.  It is quite surprising that Tacitus refers
incorrectly to Pontius Pilate by the title of procurator,
instead of his correct title of prefect (praefectus).
It is a bit like a historian of today confusing a general
with a governor.  It is also surprising that he gives us
a title at this point at all.  This indicates that he is
mentioning him for the first time, by identifying him with
his title - "in the hands of one of our procurators,
Pontius Pilate."  If Tacitus had already spoken about
Pilate, we would already know that he was "one of
our procurators" and there would be no need to
repeat the information as if new.

One would have expected that he would have told us
something about Pilate when discussing the reign of
Tiberius.  After all, Pilate ruled over the important Roman
province of Judaea for at least ten years.  It is possible
that nothing worthy of note happened in Judea during
this time so that Tacitus would not even have recorded
his name and title while writing about Tiberius in his
Annals?

Some of the most important Annals are missing, so
we cannot be absolutely sure if Pilate was mentioned or
not.  still it is odd that Tacitus mentions a personage
like Pilate over twenty-five years after his rule and does
not refer us back to any prior reference to him.  Why
mention his name now if he did nothing to merit mention
before.  If mentioned before why not refer us back to
that mention with something like "Pilate whom I told you
before served under Tiberius and was so cruel to the Jews."

While being suggestive and allowing us to be suspicious
of the passage, none of these characteristics disqualify
the reference from being authentic.  Christians may have
been hesitant to use a passage that referred negatively to
Christianity.  Eusebius may not have know Latin very well,
and Tertullian may have been obliquely referring to it when
he urged Romans to consult their records.

Tacitus may have misheard and misunderstood a source
about Pilate being a procurator.  It is not necessary that
Tacitus found anything interesting in Pilate during the time
he lived to write about.  Only in hindsight and because of
his mention in the gospels does Pilate seem significant
to us.  Each of the objections to the passage have a
plausible or at least possible counter.

Still, instead of creating plausible reasons/excuses for
these oddities, we may try a different approach.  Darrell
Doughty has already done a deconstruction of the passage
taking out what he considers the interpolated material with
the problems and restoring the original passage by Tacitus:

"Therefore, to put an end to the rumour Nero created a
diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures
those hated for their abominations by the common people.
Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and
was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with
the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a
chariot.  Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme
and exemplary punishment there arose a feeling of
compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public
good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being
punished." [149]

This suggestion eliminated the numerous anomalies
mentioned above.  It explains all the anomalies.  Nobody,
including Eusebius and Tertullian, quotes the passage
before 425 C.E. because there was originally no reference
to Christians in it.  Tacitus did not make the silly
procurator-prefect mistake, and Tacitus did not refer
to Pilate for the first time more than twenty-five years after
the left office.  We have to consider it a viable alternative
hypothesis as it explains the anomalies as well as the
plausible counter suggestions.

However, there are several problems with this
reconstruction.  Our current copy of the passage has this
line: "a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for
the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first
source of the evil, but even in Rome ..."  A Christian
interpolator would not say that Christianity first broke out
in Judaea, but would more likely claim Nazareth,
Bethlehem or Galilee as the place where it started.  This
suggests that a Christian interpolator did not write this
line but it was in the text prior to any interpolation.

Secondly, the use of the tem  "procurator" was
probably in the original as an interpolator would have
checked Pontius Pilate's status first and would not
have inserted it.  The term makes perfect sense when
referring to an appointment by Nero.  It only does not
make sense when referring to Tiberius.

Thirdly, the term "extreme penalty" would not be a term
a Christian would use for the crucifixion of Jesus.  We
may take it that this term too was part of the original
text.

Fourthly, and most importantly, we find that Tacitus
(Histories, Book 5) later refers to Judaism
repeatedly as a superstition: "King Antiochus
strove to destroy the national superstition, "
"fostered the national superstition by appropriating
the dignity of the priesthood as the support of their
political power, " "Prodigies had occurred, which
this nation, prone to superstition..." We may
conclude from this that reference in the original
to a superstitious people from Judaea was to Jews
and not to Christians.  We may reconstruct the
original passage this way:

RECONSTRUCTION OF TACITUS'
CHRISTIAN REFERENCE

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Jews by the populace. Jews suffered extreme penalties [150] during the reign of Nero who sent the procurator Porcius Festus [151], and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil [152], but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty, then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.




As with Tacitus, Suetonius never mentions
Christians, neither before nor after his one
sentence, "Punishment was inflicted on the
Christians, a class of men given to a new and
mischievous superstition."  He does not mention
Jews some four times before and four times
after.  As we noted before, if Tacitus is an
interpolation then Suetonius must also be an
interpolation.  We may reconstruct the original
sentence as "Punishment was inflicted on the
Jews, a class of men given to an old and
mischievous superstition."

Now, almost any Christian could have
decided that these passages referring to
Jews was probably a mistake and needed
slight corrections.  However not many
Christians  would have had the opportunity to
make the corrections.  Certainly, no one before
the time of Eusebius would have had the
opportunity to make the corrections.
Certainly, no one before the time of Eusebius
would have had the necessary power and
authority to do so.  We may conclude from
the fact that Eusebius did not quote the
passages in his History that he had not done
it before that point in time, but the way he
handles the Nero material in his History may
suggest that he did it afterwards.

There are two clues here that point towards
Eusebius.  First, while he does not quote
Tacitus's fire report, he does suggest that
"many have recorded his history" which seems
to be a reference to Tacitus and Suetonius.
second, in the same passage he paraphrases
the passage in Tacitus that leads into the
report on Nero and the fire.  This makes it
certain that Eusebius did know the Nero fire
passage.  Here is the passage in Tacitus's
Annals, before the fire passage, and the
relevant passage in Eusebius's Church
History.

For Nero's part, he wallowed in all sorts of defilements, natural and unnatural. He, in truth, had then left no kind of abomination untried, which could serve to finish his vileness, had he not, in a few days after, personated a woman, and been given in marriage, with all the forms and solemnity of genuine nuptials, to one of this contaminated herd, a Pathic named Pythagoras: Over the Roman Emperor, as over a bride, was cast the sacred nuptial veil; the Augurs were seen in form solemnizing the espousals, the portion of the bride was openly paid, the bridal bed displayed, the nuptial torches kindled, and, in fine, to view was exposed whatever, even in natural commerce with women, is buried under the shades of night. [153]

and now the relevant passage
in Eusebius's Church History ...

To describe the greatness of his depravity does not lie within the plan of the present work. As there are many indeed that have recorded his history in most accurate narratives, every one may at his pleasure learn from them the coarseness of the man's extraordinary madness, under the influence of which, after he had accomplished the destruction of so many myriads without any reason, he ran into such blood-guiltiness that he did not spare even his nearest relatives and dearest friends, but destroyed his mother and brothers and his wife, with very many others of his family as he would private and public enemies, with various kinds of deaths. But with all these things this particular in the catalogue of his crimes was still wanting, that he was the first of the emperors who showed himself an enemy of the divine religion. [154]

For Tacitus, Nero had committed every
kind of depravity, save one: his depravity
was complete when he became a cross-gender
homosexual and married a man.  For Eusebius,
Nero had only left one thing out of his "catalogue
of crimes:: his attack on the divine religion.
Eusebius has copied the anti-Nero rhetoric of
Tacitus, only changing the nature of the
ultimate crime from becoming a wife to
attacking Christians.

This shows that Eusebius was familiar with the
relevant section in Tacitus.  We must conclude
that he left out a direct reference to the
following fire passage only because the
passage in Tacitus did not contain a reference
to Christians.  While presenting a proof of
Eusebius's involvement in the Tacitus/Suetonius
interpolations lie outside the plan of the current
work, we can at least put him down as a chief
suspect in the case.



[147] Suetonius does say "As the Jews were making
      constant disturbances at the instigation of
      Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome," The Life
      of Claudius, 25.4.  This may be a changed or
      inserted reference to Christ and may mean Christians.
      I think this highly probable, but let us for the moment
      treat it as just a reference to Jews.

[148]  Severus, Sculpitius, Sacred History, Book 2,
       chapter 29.

[149]  Doughty, Darrell, Tacitus' Account of Nero's
       Persecution of Christians, retrieved January 14, 2005

[150]  A Christian would be unlikely to use the term extreme
       penalty in reference to the execution of Jesus, so we
       may suppose the interpolator found it there.

[151]  Josephus, Ant., 20:8.5.  Yet did
       Felix catch and put to death many of those
       imposters every day, together with the robbers.
       Unlike the Prefect Pontius Pilate, Porcius Festus
       was a "procurator."  We may also note that
       Tacitus was writing "Annals" accounts of
       events year by year. He would have been
       likely to have included a reference to Pilate
       in an earlier book.  One would have expected
       Tacitus to refer back to this earlier mention.
       He does not.

[152]  A Christian would have referred to Bethlehem or
       Nazareth as the source of Christianity.  We may
       suppose that the term Judaea was in the original.

[153]  Tacitus, Annals, 15:43.

[154]  H.E., 2:25.2.

I present what I believe is some evidence that Eusebius forged the Vienne/Lyon Martyrs' Letter that he presents exerpts from in chapter 5 of his Church History.

I base this on 1) the parallels between Blandina and Perpetua, 2) the historical parallel of the Christian Attalus from Pergamum and the Greek Attalus from Pergamum and 3) Eusebius' refusal to give more names or even the number of the martyrs and/or survivors of the persecution.

If we look at the structure of the letter, we find strangely that the lead character appears to be a woman - Blandina. More is said about her than any other martyr. This naturally leads us to group the letter with Tertullian's "Acts of Perpetua" which also has a woman as its main martyr. Here are five narrative parallels that allow us to say that Blandina has been constructed based on Perpetua:

1. Both declare themselves Christians with the phrase "I am a Christian":

Perpetua:

2.2 Hilarianus said, 'Are you a Christian?' And I replied, 'I am a Christian.'

Blandina:

5.1.19 But the blessed woman, like a noble athlete, renewed her strength in her confession; and her comfort and recreation and relief from the pain of her sufferings was in exclaiming, `I am a Christian, and there is nothing vile done by us.'

2. Both are dressed in a net, tossed by a bull, feel no pain and survive.

Perpetua:

6.3. Moreover, for the young women the devil prepared a very fierce cow, provided especially for that purpose contrary to custom, rivalling their sex also in that of the beasts. And so, stripped and clothed with nets, they were led forth. The populace shuddered as they saw one young woman of delicate frame, and another with breasts still dropping from her recent childbirth. So, being recalled, they are unbound. Perpetua is first led in. She was tossed, and fell on her loins; and when she saw her tunic torn from her side, she drew it over her as a veil for her middle, rather mindful of her modesty than her suffering. Then she was called for again, and bound up her dishevelled hair; for it was not becoming for a martyr to suffer with dishevelled hair, lest she should appear to be mourning in her glory. So she rose up; and when she saw Felicitas crushed, she approached and gave her her hand, and lifted her up. And both of them stood together; and the brutality of the populace being appeased, they were recalled to the Sanavivarian gate. Then Perpetua was received by a certain one who was still a catechumen, Rusticus by name, who kept close to her; and she, as if aroused from sleep, so deeply had she been in the Spirit and in an ecstasy, began to look round her, and to say to the amazement of all, "I cannot tell when we are to be led out to that cow." And when she had heard what had already happened, she did not believe it until she had perceived certain signs of injury in her body and in her dress, and had recognised the catechumen.

Blandina:

5.1.56 And, after the scourging, after the wild beasts, after the roasting seat,44 she was finally enclosed in a net, and thrown before a bull. And having been tossed about by the animal, but feeling none of the things which were happening to her, on account of her hope and firm hold upon what had been entrusted to her, and her communion with Christ, she also was sacrificed. And the heathen themselves confessed that never among them had a woman endured so many and such terrible tortures.

3. After their encounter with the Bull, both die sacrificial deaths:

Perpetua: The rest indeed, immoveable and in silence, received the sword-thrust; much more Saturus, who also had first ascended the ladder, and first gave up his spirit, for he also was waiting for Perpetua. But Perpetua, that she might taste some pain, being pierced between the ribs, cried out loudly, and she herself placed the wavering right hand of the youthful gladiator to her throat.

Blandina: 5.1.56: she also was sacrificed.

4. Both are martyred along with one other female:

Perpetua: 5.1 Felicitas
Blandina: 1.25 Biblias

5. Both Die alongside two other Christian Men who wish for the “crown” of martyrdom and survive tortures:

Perpetua – Revocatus and Saturus:

6.2 Saturninus indeed had professed that he wished that he might be thrown to all the beasts; doubtless that he might wear a more glorious crown. Therefore in the beginning of the exhibition he and Revocatus made trial of the leopard, and moreover upon the scaffold they were harassed by the bear. Saturus, however, held nothing in greater abomination than a bear; but he imagined that he would be put an end to with one bite of a leopard. Therefore, when a wild boar was supplied, it was the huntsman rather who had supplied that boar who was gored by that same beast, and died the day after the shows. Saturus only was drawn out; and when he had been bound on the floor near to a bear, the bear would not come forth from his den. And so Saturus for the second time is recalled unhurt.

Blandina – Maturus and Sanctus:

5.1.38 Both Maturus and Sanctus passed again through every torment in the amphitheater, as if they had suffered nothing before, or rather, as if, having already conquered their antagonist in many contests,35 they were now striving for the crown itself. They endured again the customary running of the gauntlet36 and the violence of the wild beasts, and everything which the furious people called for or desired, and at last, the iron chair in which their bodies being roasted, tormented them with the fumes.

39 And not with this did the persecutors cease, but were yet more mad against them, determined to overcome their patience. But even thus they did not hear a word from Sanctus except the confession which he had uttered from the beginning.

40 These, then, after their life had continued for a long time through the great conflict, were at last sacrificed, having been made throughout that day a spectacle to the world, in place of the usual variety of combats.

One might argue about which account came first, but we cannot seriously argue that one character has not been created from the other. There is no need to make up a Platonic argument that they both used an unknown original earlier source.

A second interesting aspect of the letter is the second most important character Attalus from Pergamon. Here we find no parallel in the "Acts of Perpetua". This is because the author has gotten it from history.

Here is Eusebius' description of the Christian Attalus, followed by a passage on the Greek Attalus from Wikipedia:

43 "But Attalus was called for loudly by the people, because he was a person of distinction. He entered the contest readily on account of a good conscience and his genuine practice in Christian discipline, and as he had always been a witness for the truth among us.

44. He was led around the amphitheater, a tablet being carried before him on which was written in the Roman language 'This is Attalus the Christian,' and the people were filled with indignation against him. But when the governor learned that he was a Roman, he commanded him to be taken back with the rest of those who were in prison concerning whom he had written to Cæsar, and whose answer he was awaiting...

50. But the people being enraged because those who formerly denied now confessed, cried out against Alexander as if he were the cause of this. Then the governor summoned him and inquired who he was. And when he answered that he was a Christian, being very angry he condemned him to the wild beasts. And on the next day he entered along with Attalus. For to please the people, the governor had ordered Attalus again to the wild beasts.

51. And they were tortured in the amphitheater with all the instruments contrived for that purpose, and having endured a very great conflict, were at last sacrificed. Alexander neither groaned nor murmured in any manner, but communed in his heart with God.

52. But when Attalus was placed in the iron seat, and the fumes arose from his burning body, he said to the people in the Roman language: 'Lo! this which you do is devouring men; but we do not devour men; nor do any other wicked thing.' And being asked, what name God has, he replied, 'God has not a name as man has.'...

3.2. It runs as follows: "For a certain Alcibiades, who was one of them, led a very austere life, partaking of nothing whatever but bread and water. When he endeavored to continue this same sort of life in prison, it was revealed to Attalus after his first conflict in the amphitheater that Alcibiades was not doing well in refusing the creatures of God and placing a stumbling-block before others.

3. And Alcibiades obeyed, and partook of all things without restraint, giving thanks to God. For they were not deprived of the grace of God, but the Holy Ghost was their counselor." Let this suffice for these matters.

From Wikipedia, we read this about the most famous Greek Attalus before this time:

According to Pausanias, "the greatest of his achievements" was the defeat of the "Gauls"(Ga??ta?)[5]. Pausanias was referring to the Galatians, immigrant Celts from Thrace, who had recently settled in Galatia in central Asia Minor, and whom the Romans and Greeks called Gauls, associating them with the Celts of what is now France, Switzerland, and northern Italy. Since the time of Philetaerus, the uncle of Eumenes I and the first Attalid ruler, the Galatians had posed a problem for Pergamon, indeed for all of Asia Minor, by exacting tributes to avoid war or other repercussions. Eumenes I had (probably), along with other rulers, dealt with the Galatians by paying these tributes. Attalus however refused to pay them, being the first such ruler to do so.[6] As a consequence, the Galatians set out to attack Pergamon. Attalus met them near the sources of the river Caïcus[7] and won a decisive victory, after which, following the example of Antiochus I, Attalus took the name of Soter, which means "savior", and claimed the title of king. The victory brought Attalus legendary fame. A story arose, related by Pausanias, of an oracle who had foretold these events a generation earlier:

Then verily, having crossed the narrow strait of the Hellespont, The devastating host of the Gauls shall pipe; and lawlessly They shall ravage Asia; and much worse shall God do To those who dwell by the shores of the sea For a short while. For right soon the son of Cronos Shall raise a helper, the dear son of a bull reared by Zeus Who on all the Gauls shall bring a day of destruction.

Pausanius adds that by "son of a bull" the oracle "meant Attalus, king of Pergamon, who was styled bull-horned".[8] On the acropolis of Pergamon was erected a triumphal monument, which included the famous sculpture the Dying Gaul, commemorating this battle.

We know that Eusebius was familiar with Pausanius and therefore familiar with the Greek Attalus from Pergamon. We may assume that when he wrote the martyr's letter, he was making some kind of statement regarding the historical Attalus from Pergamon.

Finally, I would like to note this strange passage that seems to show bad faith on the part of Eusebius:

(5.4.3.) Why should we transcribe the catalogue of the witnesses given in the letter already mentioned, of whom some were beheaded, others cast to the wild beasts, and others fell asleep in prison, or give the number of confessors still surviving at that time? For whoever desires can readily find the full account by consulting the letter itself, which, as I have said, is recorded in our Collection of Martyrdoms. Such were the events which happened under Antoninus.

As an historian, it was encumbant upon him to give the names of those killed or at least tell us the number. Also, by telling us the number of confessors who did not die, we could get a sense of how terrible or light the persecution actually was. If a 1,000 confessed and only the nine mentioned names of martyrs died, we could see that these were specially chosen. However if only 12 confessed and nine died, we could get a sense of how lucky the survivors were. As a Christian, he should have been glad to pronounce the names of those who died for Christ so gloriously. Eusebius assures us that he has already published the names and number in another work where we can find the whole letter. But really, how could Eusebius be sure his reader could have access to his other work. Eusebius has spent more than 60 paragraphs telling us the most minute details of the torture of his martyrs, yet refuses to tell us the size of the persecution. Imagine an historian who tells us that he will not tell us the size of troops in a battle because he has listed it in another place. Note that if the letter did not contain this information, we could excuse Eusebius for not informing us, but he instead informs us that it does, and yet does not give it to us.

The "Collection of Martyrdoms" to which Eusebius refers us to no longer exists. Nobody in antiquity ever read it either.

Thus, we add suppose from the relationship of Blandina to Perpetua that the letter is a work of fiction, and from the fact that it includes the historical character Attalus, it is likely to have been written by an historian familiar with the works of Pausanias, and from his refusal to give us the most elementary information about the persecution (number of people involved) that it was forged by Eusebius himself.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin





INDEX | Author Index | Apollonius of Tyana | Mountain Man Graphics