Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

And that "web-copy false material" mentality is precisely one reason why a thread like this is important, with thanks to Roger and even Toto. Even more so as we see a fabrication from Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History and another early writing, an area of concern where Roger and Ben can be seen as experts world-class.

Nexus actually has had a pretty solid reputation, the 'alternative' genre understood, before pandering to the fabrications of Tony Bushby the last couple of years. The magazine is available in many USA bookstores and could be considered the 'New Scientist' of the alternative & conspiracy genre. Although it is hard to make comparisons .. it will be in the same magazine section as Fortean Times (more or less a joke) and Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer (your opinon here ____). Nexus, imho, has actually run many excellent articles on a wide variety of topics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman I am astounded that this post attracted more attention that three posts in which I presented articles and references from Robert Lane-Fox's "Pagans and Christians".

However this is a magazine that is distributed around the world and one very specific thread was offered. While your posts with their attendant many thread distractions and hijackings to propagate your own ultra-dubious views are a discussion topic on many threads here every day, with repetition being the norm.

Oh, wait, I just noticed that you actually started the thread. So now you are kvetching that the response was thorough ? Hmmm.. fascinating.

Anyway, I sent Nexus an email, pointing out the problem and inviting them to read this thread, however I may have to repeat send it on the web to them, in case USA or Aussie spooks divert the email.

Shalom,
Steven

mountainman

One word, which I stated earlier.
And the word is "paleography"
[Handwriting Analysis].

This premise on the method of dating is not explicit
in all the lnks above, but the first link has this to say:


"If they are all wrong, why is that?" you ask.

My response is that the entire assessment here is reliant
for its chronological historical dating upon "handwriting
analysis", and despite the optimistic tone in the quote
above I am entirely skeptical of the claim.

Best wishes,


Pete

BALDUCCI

OK, well lets be consistently logical. If the case hasnt been definitively been made for 2nd century origins, on what basis can the case be made for 4th century origins, using the same rigor and standards. Surely one can be equally skeptical about both claims ?

Jayhawker Soule

Years ago I asked here if anyone was aware of some "Curve of Knowns" validating paleographic claims. I remain interested in the question.

jackal5096

The author of that article seems to be claiming that the books of the NT were not written until the fourth century. Yet, the Beatty collection, ca. 200AD, has most of the books, and all the books are mentioned by Irenaeus, the Canon of Muratori and Clement of Alexandria, ca. 180 - 200. Papias is reported to have mentioned the Gospel according to Mark at the beginning of the 2nd century. I think the author had taken excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia out of context.

BALDUCCI

Yes, I am quite amazed that Nexus has been so sloppy in its "scholarship" when it seems its claims can be so easily invalidated

mountainman

The basis for the case for the fourth century rests on lack
of attestation to earlier centuries outside the literary tradition
(and its paleography) in the usual categories of evidence
cited in ancient history:

* architecture and buildings.
* sculpture, art
* coins
* inscriptions (stone, metal ,mosaic)
* frescoes, reliefs
* archeological relics
* art, murals, graffitti
* papyrii
* burial relics, sarcophagi, etc
* trinkets, ornaments
* carbon dating <<<<<============
* etc, etc, etc

The fourth century witnesses an explosion of
attestation in all these strands of evidence,
and the paucity of attestation (to anything
whatsoever "christian") earlier.

The carbon dating results are IMO a critical benchmark
and guiding line to the argument. The EVIDENCE itself
points to the fourth century.

The only thing pointing to earlier centuries (aside
from the entirely Eusebian "historical literature"
(prepared to our best estimates between 312-324 CE)
are own own assumptions and postulates.



I totally agree with you here.

Best wishes,



Pete

mountainman

By this do you mean some kind of benchmark against
which the "handwriting analyses" are calibrated?
If so, I dont know.

However I would be interested in learning what you
have determined from your research of carbon-dating
over the years with respect to new testament studies.

Best wishes,



Pete

mountainman

This dating of the Beatty collection is via handwriting analysis.

These four authors are first mentioned in the monumental
work and labour of the very very first "christian historian"
Eusebius, who wrote the "Eccesiastical History".

The claim being explored by the article is that

"what if Eusebius was ordered to deliver a load
of bullshit, by his boss, Constantine?"

How can we tell if the Eusebian "Ecclesiastical History"
is either true, or is a fabrication and a fiction of men?

You tell me.


Did the Erythraen Sibyl predict Jesus by an acrostic formed
by 34 greek hexameters?

Did Cicero know this when he translated the prophecy to
Latin?

Did Virgil also predict christ in a latin poem?

Did Noah's dove land on Mary's head?


Constantine, who founded the shooting match of
the entire christian denominational copyright thing,
starts the practice of taking excerpts out of context
in a manner that is blatant evidence of
fraudulent misrepresentation.

What's changed?

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

jackal5096

So? That technique may be off a generation or so, but not a couple centuries

If that is what the article is claiming, then his poor research is the first strike against him. Irenaeus, in fact, mentions these four authors of the gospels around 180, in Adv. Herasies, Book III, Chapter xi. Feel free to check for yourself.