For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[Confused Ape]

Scholarship has come a long way since the 1870's!

Not necessarily. This is why I'm trying to figure out if scholars could have hidden agendas no matter which side of an argument they are on.

this is another bit that is preserved (only) in Eusebius...and therefore suspect...

There might be some kind of truth in it because I found more information in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The orthodox were not permitted to seek martyrdom. Tertullian, however, approves the conduct of the Christians of a province of Asia who gave themselves up to the governor, Arrius Antoninus (Ad. Scap., v). Eusebius also relates with approval the incident of three Christians of Cæsarea in Palestine who, in the persecution of Valerian, presented themselves to the judge and were condemned to death (Church History VII.12). But while circumstances might sometimes excuse such a course, it was generally held to be imprudent. St. Gregory of Nazianzus sums up in a sentence the rule to be followed in such cases: it is mere rashness to seek death, but it is cowardly to refuse it (Orat. xlii, 5, 6).

It's unlikely that a 4th century Archbishop would have disapproved of something that wasn't going on at all.

Breaking idols was condemned by the Council of Elvira (306), which, in its sixtieth canon, decreed that a Christian put to death for such vandalism would not be enrolled as a martyr.

Looks like things might have been getting a bit out of hand.

But a Ministry of Silly Christians would have been a funny bit.

I can imagine the governor thinking he'd better not oblige the loonies otherwise there'd be queues of Christians from all over the empire. He could have made a fortune charging execution fees, though.