mountainman

The basis and rigor is the consistency by which this (or any) political approach is applied to the interpretation of the evidence in the field of ancient history in antiquity (0-312CE). The issue of course, as most ppl
here realise, that the mainstream HJ "theory of ancient history" does not cut it in any way whatsoever for the first century. The 2nd and 3rd centuries are then the subject of massive conjectures, and a frightening lack of non-literary evidence, for the existence of the Eusebian Nation of Christians, struggling with their crosses (yet to be invented in the 4th century), towards the legitimacy of the light offered by "The Boss" and his Basilicas.

Fiction examines the ground afresh. Nobody has yet formally challenged the authenticity of Eusebius. His detailed history stands today at face value with the mainstream, almost as it did 1700 years ago. The Eusebian fiction postulate is a succinct way of summarising the essence of the basis of the consistency of the dismissal of testament due to political fraud.

Or if they have formally challenged Eusebius, they have not explored and analysed the logical implications of the possibility that Eusebius was the first mega fat cat public servant, who lied through his teeth, because he was paid well in gold, and because he wanted to keep on the right side of his megalomaniacal warlord Constantine, who executed people, even his immediate family, at the drop of a soldier's helmet.

Ancient history only requires consistency of interpretation, and then simplicity of political interpretation. The consistent dismissal of everything written by an 'apologetic source' as fiction may in fact be the appropriate
approach by which we finally understand the mystery of christ. The key is to try and bring in as much detailed evidence as possible, and see where it leads.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Thanks Ben,

These all look highly non canonical in comparison to the 14
specifically canonised letters which I took from the list in the Decretum Gelasianum of c.491 CE.

I notice your site is continually expanding is various dimensions from the above pages, and others. DO you anywhere discuss the genre of the non canonical texts as a whole set? There are very few resources about that make the attempt to pull all the non canonical texts together into a coherent whole. Sure, many sites list them all, but commentary and discussion of the entire set of this literature - the flip-side of the canon - seems scarce. DO you know any resources? Do you have any plans to examine this aspect of the big picture?

As an example, your page above on 3 Corinthians has
a whole host of docetic references in it, such as:
This docetism has been noted by many commentators in other non canonical texts (Gospel of John, etc). But what does it mean? How do you explain this text? Are these guys all writing weird because of a certain philosophy or theology? How are these coincidences explained?


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Ben C Smith

No. I am just compiling raw data for the most part. I do make excursions into hypotheses and theories and such at times, but more often it is just locating and listing all the stuff I can.

Koester in Ancient Christian Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk) tries to pull all the gospel materials together (canonical and noncanonical, quite consciously), classify them, and so forth. I am not certain about the epistles.

I always try to consider both canonical and noncanonical materials together, but I cannot say that I have any actual plans to do an official study in the way you seem to be leading.

Yes, but let us make sure we all understand that these are anti-docetic references. The letter is not worth very much in the way of an historical Paul. Nor is Laodiceans.

John is noncanonical? Doubtless a slip of the pixels.

It means, I think, that the author of 3 Corinthians strongly opposed docetism.

Ben.

aa5874

As soon as scholars claimed Jesus of Nazareth was more likely to be an "itinerant preacher", then in effect, Eusebius' Church History became obsolete. Church History is just littered with fiction, book after book and chapter after chapter.

This is Eusebius in Church History 2.17.6 Eusebius is obsolete.

Fiction, in the the days of Eusebius, was universally accepted as authentic.

Not now, Eusebius, not today, we are living in a World where fiction is universally accepted as inauthentic.

mountainman

Thanks for the Koester in Ancient Christian Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk) reference.


Yes, I meant the NC "Acts of John".


That is a possible conclusion, I'll agree. The author has Paul writing a letter against a pair of wandering docetic "christian heretics". I am not convinced that we are necessarily dealing with an author strongly opposed to docetism, but I have as yet no way to support this conjecture.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

spamandham

The difference is, I consider apologetic sources historically useful. You've indicated repeatedly you consider them historically worthless, yet have no problem using them nonetheless when it suits your argument.

aa5874

So how must a person show that a source is worthless? By, exposing the wothlessness of the source.

These sources had the right to remain silent, but they did not, so everything they said can be used against them.

spamandham

The problem is, you haven't even been attempting to expose Tertullian, Marcion, Justin, et. al. as historically worthless. You've decreed them as such by picking on a few nits in regards to their religious beliefs, in order to support your claim that Paul is fictional.

I'm wondering if there are any ancient writers who did not accept fantasy and magic as reality, hell, even most modern writers do, but that doesn't mean everything they write is part of an elaborate plot to deceive.

I'm not arguing we should just accept everything they say as historically authoritative, but I don't see any validity at all in summarily dismissing them.

There is no obvious motive for them to fabricate Paul.

aa5874

So, why did they fabricate a history of Paul in Acts of the Apostles? And why are there more than one person posing as Paul in the epistles?

There must have a been a motive. That is blatantly obvious.

spamandham

To syncretize two pre-existing traditions, obviously.