mountainman

Why is it that none of the arrows loosed by biblical historians
towards the target of the historical jesus have ever been observed
to find their mark.

A prodigous list of biblical historians over the last few centuries
have all walked up to the archery range of historical commentary
and fired their best shots.

None have been acclaimed as hitting any HJ, and none have been
acclaimed as being particularly successful hitting targets in the
prenicene epoch.

Arrows fired towards the history of post-nicene have a far greater
chance of success, there are basilicas and coins, texts by the bucket,
and many people fare well in the five criteria of historicity outlined
by Richard Carrier. Things are far more substantial in the fourth century.

Why is this?

Why is it that the measure of the historicity of things takes a big
dive beyond the pre-Nicene boundary? Are their any archery marshalls
out there, way down the paddock, who are noticing the repititious
nature of the academic results?

There have been some disturbing reports that a few of the
arrows have in fact been found buried in the desk of the Eusebius
of Caesarea, such as those of Ken Olsen.

The reason that this is a concern is because this man, Eusebius,
is regarded as the man who personally set up all the targets of
historical research in the pre-Nicene epoch, with his momentous
work "Ecclesiatical History" and "In Preparation for the Gospels",

Arnaldo Momigliano, perhaps regarded by historians as the
foremost of their experts in the fields of ancient history, clearly
noted in 1960, that Eusebius must be considered as an inventor
of a brand new form of historiology, quite different in its novelty
over the "pagan" historiography, continued in Ammianus Marcillenus
(who incidently, makes good mention of the figure of Apollonius of
Tyana).

The invented historiography of the lineage of bishops is juxtaposed
against the traditional lineage of Augustas, Caesars, of philosophers
and of the ancient pre-Nicene epoch .... but only in the fourth
century, to be precise, immediately after Constantine reveals his
conversion to a new and strange Roman (not Greek or Hebrew or
Egyptian) religious order, perhaps circa 313 CE.

The archery contest of NT biblical history has been in action now
for almost 1700 years. Shortly after Constantine had his new propaganda
prepared (elsewhere referred to as "the fabrication of the galilaeans")
he sent it, in advance of his military assault of the eastern roman
empire, perhaps as early as 317 CE, to Alexandria.

What happened? The eastern regime threw his new testament on the
rubbish dumps of Oxyrynchus, and a very loud and vociferous controversy
arose, later to be termed after the name of one man, Arius, who shot
the first arrow in the tournament of NT biblical history scholarship, when
he dogmatically and intractably asserted:

* THERE WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT
* before he was born he was not
* he was made out of nothing existing
* God’s Son is from another subsistence or substance
* he is subject to alteration or change

But Constantine had the last say, when he summoned all the important
people in the eastern Roman Empire in the year 325 CE, to celebrate
with him the very presence of God, and to vote against the words of
Arius, and to agree how the empire was going to be run under the
rule of Constantine, now that he had become supreme (324).

So then, what if this is the history
of the invention of christianity?

Would that not explain the archery results? Noone really
wishes to discuss in any depth, the burning of codexes and
books and manuscripts in the fourth century by the christians.

Essentially, Constantine took the gold from the pagan treasuries,
and set up the christians, but his sons burned the literature of
the pagans, and the christian regime after Julian, ending in the
Theodosius, tidied up the end-game, according to Rassias.

Not a pretty history for the invention of christianity, but it explains
quite adequately why biblical historians invariably disagree about the
accuracy of their colleagues in matters of pre-Nicene targets, in this
great and honourable tradition of seeing arrows fly towards the
targets in the mind of the archers, but not in the field of history.

Who has ever or who ever will hit the target of the shadowy
Hegisippus, but how many arrows aimed at Hegisippus in the
early centuries, have in fact been found firmly stuck in the desk
of Eusebius in the fourth.

When will the archery marshalls for the presumed targets of NT related
historicity wake up to the fact that their scholarly competition has an
element of fraud thereto attached, first cited within a generation of
the council of Nicaea, by the emperor Julian.

It is an interesting competition though. Novel (textual) methods of
scoring points have been devised, even though no targets are
oberved to be hit. They all swear the arrow is aimed at the historical
jesus, and it seems to be divinely on target, but it just "disappears"
in the vicinity of the historicial target.

Perhaps for some its a hobby?
Perhaps some are serious?
Who knows?





Pete Brown

A skillful soldier is not violent;
An able fighter does not rage;
A mighty conqueror does not give battle;
A great commander is a humble man.

You may call this pacific virtue;
Or say that it is mastery of men;
Or that it is rising to the measure of God,
Or to the stature of the ancients.
---- Tao