mountainman

When you day others (the plural) above, it suggests that there are
a number of non-contradictory dating tools available to researchers.
I'd like to define a list of them and will start one below. Are there
any more that need to be added?

LIST 1: Citations used by "Biblical History"

* The text - Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History.
* The text - Eusebius' In Preparation for the Gospels
* The texts of the new (and according to Eusebius strange) testament.
* Paleographical analysis of papyrii texts and fragments.

I put it to you that by default there has always existed
a foundation for the entire history of Christianity, and that
is to be found in the texts tendered by Eusebius (and this
includes the Eusebian profiles, Celsus and Origen,
and the fictional tribe of fathers of the primitive burp)


Usually, for many other citations for events in ancient history
we have available, as you suggest above, a number of other
dating tools such as:

LIST 2: Citations used by "Ancient History"

* buildings and architecture
* coins (gold, silver, copper ...)
* sculpture
* art, frescoes, reliefs
* inscriptions (stone, tablets, mosaics, metal)
* burial artefacts
* archeological relics
* human remains
* texts of authors (papyrii, vellum, metal)
* other stuff
* paleography
* carbon dating citations

Notably, no citations to any of these usual forms
of ancient history citations are available to anyone
adopting a theory of ancient history in which there
are "christians" before the fourth century. Thus all
theories involved with prenicene christianity by default
must use the List Number 1: "Biblical History Citations".

To put it another way, Biblical Historians have Eusebius
and a few paleographical corroborations to work with,
and precious little else from the Ancient History List
number 2, for the period before the rise of Constantine.

Doug Shaver

If I attempted to respond to that, it would be a massive derailment of this thread.

I am not well versed in historians' methodologies, though I've been trying to do some research on the matter. For the time being, I tend to accept what appears to be the consensus of professional historians, making exceptions only for particular issues about which I think I have good reason to question the consensus.

The consensus among professional historians is that Christianity originated during the first century. I have yet to find any reason whatever to think they are mistaken about that. But if they are mistaken, it looks to me as if the actual origin was before the first century, not any time later.

mountainman

I see it as a valid method for determining the consistencies
and inconsistencies available to an ancient historian, and by
way of explanation, to a Biblical Historian, in answer to the
thread topic.

It is part logic, part what have we got as evidence of this
epoch, and in what evidentiary fields, etc. I understand
that this may be perceived as a "generalist's tangentiation"
and simultaneously NOT a derailment.

I have been examining the consensus of opinion expressed by
two separate categories of commentators. (1) Ancient Historians,
(2) Biblical Historians.

The former appear to appeal to far more than the literature
tradition in their review of the epoch, without express regard
as to whether the author of the text was a poet, mathematician,
philosopher, emperor, priest, etc. The latter, on the other hand,
appear to appeal to the "Biblical Literature tradition" in an almost
exclusive dialogue, and with an express regard for the deliniation
of purportedly salient points in the lonley and untrodden path
of prenicene christianity to the light of the 4th century.

There is a significant bias inherent, by simple traditiion,
in the latter group, IMO. One commentator in this forum
described it something like, at the stong end of this spectrum,
where the HJ is accepted as an unexamined postulate.

All this of course "in my opinion".

Doug Shaver

If a writer on Christianity's origins is commenting on an ancient document, and the date of its production is relevant (as it invariably is) to what the document is evidence of, then I don't much care about the writer's particular specialty. If the dating was established by paleography, then all I want to know is whether the writer is accurately reporting what were the results of the paleographical analysis.

And if someone else tells me that the paleographers' conclusions are wrong, then I want to know exactly what evidence he or she has for that assertion.

mountainman

A paleographer's conclusion will be wrong in the case that
the documents examined are forged or fabricated to appear
more ancient than the age in which they were written. The
fourth century probably has more forgeries attributed to it
than any other century, and we can start well outside the
field of Biblical History with the Historia Augusta, the
classical historiological mystery.

Thus, in this instance, with a thesis examining the political
invention of christianity in the 4th century by means of
forgery, fabrication, interpolation, and absolute (military)
power, I have reasonable grounds to put aside dating
assessments by paleographers, and instead rely on the
carbon dating citations.

spamandham

I think I have to agree on this point. Under your hypothesis, it stands to reason that Eusebius would indeed attempt to replicate the style of older manuscripts, so that his fake manuscripts would be seen as genuine.

But then, that implies there were people already intimately familiar with the style of older manuscripts, such that Eusebius would see a need to go to great pains to mimic those styles - i.e., Eusebius did not fabricate his story from whole cloth, but instead really did use older sources at least in part.

Doug Shaver

I see. You have a theory that Christianity was invented in the fourth century. Since the paleographical analysis of some documents contradicts that theory, then there must be something wrong with the paleographical analysis of those documents. However, you can't find anything wrong with the methodology itself, and so the documents must have been produced by a remarkably skillful and preternaturally clever forger.

mountainman

Under the hypothesis we have it that the launch of
the viewing of this assembled collection of mss
was the council of nicaea, and there were people
there that Constantine wanted to conscript, such
as the entire set of the ruling class of the eastern
empire which he had just "subjugated" by his military.

Obviously, Arius did not see things as genuine.
Obviously there were others who agreed with Arius.
Obviously people felt better about agreeing with
the boss, after all, he was the boss.


The Hebrew Texts were used enmasse to bolster
the presentation and credibility of something which
Eusebius, in a number of places, refers to as a
"new and strange" testament.

The Hebrew texts had been around from 250 BCE to 325 CE in
the greek. The question is exactly how many years had the
fabrication of the Galilaeans been around the empire before the
rise of the malevolent despot Constantine.

mountainman

Almost. Either the documents, or the hypotheses inherent
in the combined art and science of paleography (aka handwriting
analysis). When paleographers do their thing, one of their main
hypotheses is that they are not examining a forgery.


Which is a claim that is not really an extraordinary one.
The fourth century saw an abundance of forgeries.
Skilful forgery was commonplace in antiquity.
Do you want some citations?

Over.

mountainman

In addition tomy earlier response to this question concerning
the part that the Hebrew Texts have to play in the fabrication
of the Galilaeans, there is of course this issue of "people already
intimately familiar with the style of older manuscripts".

Lets start in the fourth century and work backwards. Who was
regarded as the foremost of academicians in the empire at the
turn of the fourth century? Porphyry

The lineage of authors of philosophical traditions that are inclusive
but not limited to ... the neopythagroeans, the neoplatonists, the
stoics, the Hebrew and Judaic traditions. In a more restricted sense
there would have been smaller representation of the Egyptians,
the Buddhists, the Jains, the Hindus, the Zoroastrian Persians,
the Druids, the Celtic, and every type of belief on the planet.

But in terms of the educated who could read GREEK in the 4th
century, these were the ancient lineage first provided, and it
was precisely this (Hellenic) Lineage who were the ones in a
position to be able to question the texts when they were first
published.

We know that Arius questioned things.
We know that Arius was poisoned in 331 in Constantinople.
We know that Constantine first published the bible 331 CE.
We know that Constantine was a malevolent despot.
We know that opposition is often crushed by despots.
We know that the victors write the history.
We think we know there were christians before Constantine.
(Because his propaganda, with absolute authority, told us so)
How can we be sure?
This is my question.

My answer is "to question it".
Thus the hypothesis: "Eusebius tendered fiction".
Hence you find the situation.
Best wishes,


Pete