Ben C Smith

Not sure, but some papyri of the gospel materials can be dated based on other factors, I think. Does not the Dura-Europos fragment pretty much have to predate the fall of the city in the middle of century III?

Ben.

Peter Kirby

Not if it was deposited in the abandoned city centuries later by fringe desert dwellers!!! :Cheeky:

regards,
Peter Kirby

ChandraRama

//HJ: Historical Jesus
MJ: Mythical Jesus

Of the above much has already been written.

FJ: Fictional Jesus//

There is one more called AJ - Allegorical Jesus

http://www.geocities.com/samram1964/

This contends that Jesus is an allegory for the Zealot movement. That is the Zealots wrote Gospel of Mark in order to tell the emigrant Jews who live in the Roman empire about the Zealot History and the ideology of Zealot movement.

So this is half way between Historical Jesus and Mythical Jesus. The historical information is true in the Gospel but the Jesus character is an amalgam of the many "jesus"es of the Zealot movement. Zealot movement itself is personified as Jesus.

Chris Weimer

The "Allegorical Jesus" would definitely fit under either MJ or FJ.

mountainman

In regard to the church, ms and fragments found at Dura-Europa substantiating the earliest priority date for archeological christianity,
and the argument previously supplied against this ....

I have recently determined that we are told by the historians
Ammianus (23.5.1-15) and Zosimus (3.14.2) that the Roman
army lead by Julian (the Apostate) travelled to the region
called Zaitha (or Zautha [Zosimus]) near the abandoned town of Dura
where they visted the tomb of the emperor Gordian. This was Julian's
final campaign, and he was accompanied by the entire army.

Therefore it is entirely possible that post Nicaean literature was
deposited in the wall at Dura, and that christian graffiti was
scrawled on the walls, during this very brief Roman occupation of the
town, for possibly only a few days, in early April of the year 363 CE.

Just thought I'd add this footnote to this thread.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

gstafleu

I suspect that MJ is just a handy abbreviation of Non-H-J. In the universe of MJ it is no doubt valid to hypothesize how the M-ing happened. But if each version of possible story generation needs its own letter, we might at some point run out of alphabet (although Aleph 0 always remains a possibility).

Is the OP suggesting that the dynamic duo of Constantine/Eusebius made up everything about JC from scratch? Including the development of the story we can trace from elements like Paul and Q? To me that sounds just a bit like the idea that some bright guy created the whole universe 6000 years ago, including all the fossils .

mountainman

The significance of FJ is that whereas HJ, and to a large extent most if
not all modern MJ theories, implicitly rely upon a theory of history penned
in the fourth century in respect of the preceeding three centuries.

The Eusebian theory of history has to be allocated a probability by
the HJ and MJ parties which is a numeric. The FJ class of theories
are able to ascribe to the Eusebian theory of history a NULL VALUE.

That's correct. The evolution of "the tribe of christians" first took shape
in tabulated format between the pen and mind of Eusebius of Caesarea,
assisted by the Origen like technological invention of tabulated literature.


Fossils stayed totally undisturbed from the moment life ceases.
Literature was continually refreshed by the hand of a scribe.
There is no comparison. Think about it carefully.

And since you brought up the subject of carbon dating you'll be
pleased to learn that both the Nag Hammadi and the Judas mss
carbon date (within the prescribed tolerance) to the fourth century.

Therefore, the theory that christianity is ACTUALLY a fourth century
invention of the supreme imperial commander Constantine implemented
out of whole cloth at the Council of Nicaea is consistent with C14 dating.

Exceptions to the theory (and their refutations/resolutions)
are listed here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_070.htm

I will list any other exceptions pointed out to me, and have
yet to add the supposed Megiddo exception.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm

mountainman

I agree completely with Jay Raskin's assessment that scholarship
will finally explore the logically distinct possibility of a fourth century
(surely you meant 4th century Toto) mass of fiction to account
for the (presumed evolutionary) history of christianity a la Eusebius.

The 200 years of german scholarship has been based on the postulate
that the integrity of the Eusebian account (circa 324 CE) is suitably
and appropriately classified as an account of history. All HJ theories
and most MJ theories rely upon this postulate.

The FJ class of theories are not based on this postulate, and in fact
essentially postulate that the literature generated under Constantine
which is commonly acknowledged to have been redacted and assembled
for the first time by his presumed editor-in-chief Eusebius, is neither
history nor indeed anything like history, but is best described - in the
words of the supreme Roman Emperor Julian writing within a generation
of Nicaea "a fiction of men composed by wickedness".


Wake up world!



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: "The spirit in me honors the spirit in you"

mountainman

This serves to make distinct the separateness of claims
in the theory space reserved to FJ theories. Such theories
specifically promote a fiction or a fabrication of the Galilaeans
to which literature an historical author is sought.

FJ may be new to the world as far as most people are concerned
but it is for any reasonable person to judge that the antiquity of
the FJ class of theories (of history) takes precedent with the
author ... emperor Julian c.362 CE.

In fact, it is my thesis that there is an earlier priority date.
I am confident that there will come a time in the history of
this planet when the words of Arius will commonly be
associated with the words of someone who subscribes to
a FJ theory, but who out of self-preservation sought out
clever disputations of the Constantinian inititiative, by which
he could call the fabrication of the Galilaeans
a fiction of men composed by wickedness and yet live.

As if the FJ theory was ever ever new or strange!!!
"What pride! What conceit" exclaims Basil. !!!!!

Best wishes one and all,


Pete Brown
NAMASTE

jeffevnz

I've always been a believer in the South Park Jesus (SPJ).