Sheshbazzar

The writings of Josephus survived because once Eusebius had "doctored" them they ever after served the agenda of the church.
The church was not the "source" of Josephus' actual history.

But what became of all contemporary writings that were critical of the church and opposed to chrisianity?
Obviously the church didn't conserve them, didn't want to preserve them, and went to extreme lengths to make damn sure that neither those writings nor their authors survived. Not a very good testimony for a peaceable and loving religion.

aa5874

A coin really has a third side which is ignored or not taken into account, and almost always the third can be seen regardless of how the coin falls.

The fictitious nature of the NT is always present or seen regardless of any one's position.

All that I have read about Jesus appears to be fiction, implausible, incoherent and chronologically improbable, all elements of the third side that is always present.

I only have one thing left to look at.

When was the coin manufactured?

Eusebius is on one side, for sure.

Who is on the other side? Constantine or the author of Mark? I can't see him clearly right now, I need a microscope or something.

spamandham

The existence of Rome has no obvious theological/propaganda implications, yet it is mentioned in the NT. The existence of Jerusalem, likewise. I do not find any such obvious implications in the existence of Passover, nor in traditions displayed in the marriage at Cana. I also see no such implications in the implied weather patterns, nor in the types of professions expressed. I do not assume Pilate is fiction simply because the NT mentions him.

...to name a few.

Nothing. The subdiscussion about St. Nicholas, obviously has nothing to do with the NT. I guess I'm not all that amazed that you don't realize that.

The historical Santa lives in Vegas with his Elvises in the "Toy Shop" - a well known brothel. You can read all about it in pamphlets at the airport, which I consider infallible since they are not written by the church.

aa5874

But, when Cana, Pilate, the Passover and Rome were mentioned there were theological/propaganda implications. And it is claimed things out of the ordinary were done at these locations and by Jesus and Paul.

You need to read your own post.

spamandham

Are you complaining that my criteria are to strict, and maybe I should loosen them up a bit? It is possible to extract historically useful information even from works of pure fiction and propaganda.

If we did not have independent confirmation of the existence of Pilate, your approach would have you arguing he is a fictional character with 0% probability of having existed.

aa5874

You are making wild guesses as to my position.

You should tell me what your position would be if it was ONLY reported that Pilate was conceived of the Holy Ghost, tempted by the devil on the pinnacle of the Temple, received the Holy Ghost like doves, walked on the sea during a storm, raised a dead men after four days, fransfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds witnessed by his disciples.

I would treat Pilate like Achilles if that is all the information that was given. I would call Pilate a myth like Jesus and Achilles.

And, the Pilate in the NT is fiction, all resemblance to the real Pilate is co-incidental.

I have in front of me a book of fiction and it has the following statement: That disclaimer should be in the NT, since the NT has a fictional core.

teamonger

As there is ample internal and external evidence that the earliest strata of Jesus information is from a few short decades after the times portrayed, I simply disagree that the character of Jesus was "highly legendary (at best)". On the contrary, some of his character appears highly historical; when the nonsense is stripped away, we are left with a probable human cult leader, one whose attributes (origins, nationality, attitudes about Gentiles, false prophecies, execution, etc.) were sometimes embarrassing to the early church, and were often glossed over by later writers.

The historical techniques used to discover this have been described in detail by many scholars, including Sanders, Vermes, Ehrman, Grant, etc.
t

mountainman

Dear S&H,

The answer to this question must be yes IMO. Although there may be nothing of historical value in the internal characteristics of the fiction, it would appear to me that the very nature of the study of ancient history will demand that there be also a range of external characteristics about this fiction, such as name of the author, the name of the sponsor, the date of authorship and/or fabrication, the physical location(s) at which the fiction was prepared, the material used in a technological sense for the work, etc.

We have our microscopes rivetted upon the canon. The canon is subject of the greatest of human scrutiny. Round and round the mulberry bush. The phenomenom known as "christian origins" has additional material to be considered in full and complete picture. The author of the canon has Pilate appearing in a certain light.

Way out on the very edge of the stage, covered and draped, and not often examined, are the new testament apochrypha, containing "The Acts of Pilate". What is this all about? How is Pilate in the Canon related to Pilate in the non-canonical "Acts of Pilate". Or perhaps a better question would be ...
In what manner is the author of Mark related to the author of "The Acts of Pilate"?

I ask this question in order to pursue the probability of an HJ (if not null) because the full and complete equation for the HJ must have some form of component, albeit small, for each single bit of evidence available: "The Acts of Pilate" being one such "atom" of evidence of the whole. I dont know whether this makes sense to anyone.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear aa5874,

Good point.


Another good point.

In order to see what is on the other side, you have to turn the coin over and examine (with equal effort) the NT non canonical literature, and its solidus chronology.

Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

[QUOTE=mountainman;5692548] I am really really interested in Eusebius and Tertullian, They seemed to "know" a lot about Jesus, Paul and the history of the Church. It is claimed Eusebius canonised the NT and Tertullian claimed he was familiar with Marcion.

Eusebius "knew" all the church writers from the 1st century to his time and appeared to have been familiar with many other writers including Josephus and Philo.

I think Eusebius with the help of Tertullian, will eventually tell me who is on the other side of the coin.