Onias

Mountainman,
Yes, that is plausible as I agree the Romans wrote the extant gospels. Atwill thinks the gospels were written by the Flavians but he admits they could have been written by a later Roman author.

Am I correct in understanding we only have small fragments of the gospels up until the time of "Bullneck" Constantine and his scribe, Eusebius?
Goodonya cobber,
Onias
PS Seen any bunyips lately?:wave:

mountainman

We have a finite number of papyri fragments that have been dated via paleography (handwriting and script analysis) to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. None of these have been C14 dated. We have little or no archaeology before the explosition of christian evidence in the 4th century.

The collection of oldest Greek NT codices (Vaticanus, Sinaticus, Alexandrinus, etc) have been dated to the 4th century and have been conjectured by some to be exemplars of the "Fifty Constantine Bibles" or copies of these.

The hypothesis that we are dealing with a 4th century fiction appears to be quite consistent with the evidence, but quite inconsisent with the psychological state of the so-called investigators. Most of the published investigators are tenured within the Jesus Industry. This does not help the investigation. In short our culture has been mind fucked into believing the conditioning that they have received from centuries of conditioning by the Christian church(es).

There are other options. I think that Moses, Jesus and Muhammad did not exist but were featured as central figures in a high profile holy writ that services Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Each of these centralised monotheistic state religions was implemented following the supreme military victories of warlords, in order to consolidate the rule of the state.







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Onias

Mountainman,
I tend to agree with you!
But can you give examples of how Constantine does his mocking?
Onias

maryhelena

I've no interest in Roman conspiracy theories regarding the gospel JC story.

Onias

Mary,
With all respect, I think you are thinking "inside the box". You are pre-judging different points of view before you examine them. I have also previously suggested you read a few other books to gain a wider perspective, such as How Jesus Became Christian, and The First Messiah. And the Dead Sea Scrolls that have messianic content.
All the best!
Onias

maryhelena

Wow - that's the first time anyone has ever said that my thinking is "inside the box"......

Onias, there are lots of theories out there regarding the gospel story. It is not necessary to read all these theories. The source material is available to everyone. People come up with different ideas from the same source material. I have come up with my ideas. Ideas that I have been considering, for what it's worth, for something like 30 years now. Many years before many of these books were written.

Yes, lots of people can have interesting ideas, even ideas that can take the HJ/MJ debate further. If you think there are specific ideas, in any of the books you mention, that have such value - then why not start a thread on such specific ideas?

This thread is seeking to deal with Hasmonean/Jewish history - and how specific elements of that history are reflected in the composite character of the gospel JC. That is the focus of my research. History. If you have come across a book that is taking seriously how this history is reflected in the composite gospel JC figure - I would welcome you giving me the details.

Onias, while it is good to have a wide perspective on things - that wider perspective does not overrule the necessity to focus - otherwise the net will be cast so wide that one will not see the wood for the trees. While interesting aspects of the 'trees' can be of value - it's the bigger picture - the 'wood' - that has to be focused on. Hasmonean/Jewish history - as it relates to the gospel JC story - is my focus. And no, I"m not about to get side-lined anytime soon...:wave:

Onias

Yes, the miracle-working Jesus of the NT matches Mythology, but the question I pose is: Was there a man behind the myth?

maryhelena

There is no man behind the myth of the gospel JC story. What is 'behind' the gospel story is Hasmonean/Jewish history. From that history, elements of the lives of historical figures have been used in the creation of the literary, symbolic or mythological, figure of the gospel JC.

If it's a 'hook' we are seeking by which to gain access to an understanding of how that gospel figure was created - then Hasmonean/Jewish history cannot be neglected. Yes, the literary figure of JC includes mythology, symbolism and OT interpretations and midrash - but it also includes a reflection of historical figures. It's the *why* of these historical figures that is relevant. Why did the gospel writers reference these specific figures. That is a question that needs an answer. It is also a question that can open up the road forward in a search for early christian origins.

Bottom line in all of this - either Hasmonean/Jewish history is relevant to the creators of the gospel JC figure - and hence relevant to the gospel JC story - or it is not. Without a historical basis, all interpretations of the gospel JC story are arbitrary and will continue to keep the ahistoricist/mythicist position on the back foot in the HJ/MJ debate.

The response to the assertion of the JC historicists cannot rest upon interpretation and speculation of the source material. That material is what it is - a story. Literary interpretations of that story, while interesting in and off themselves - are unable to counter the assertion of the JC historicists; the assertion that the figure of the gospel JC, minus whatever arbitrary element the historicists choose to remove, was a historical figure.

The potential to counter the assertion of the JC historicists lies within Hasmonean/Jewish history.

mountainman

If you think Philo could have written the gospels you need either a conspiracy theory or a Big Mistake theory.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

I have examined and noted down the arguments second hand.

I agree that we are dealing with a conspiracy but not the type of conspiracy that everyone seems to be expecting. Constantine was the Lord God Caesar and stood alone as the supreme military warlord of the Roman Empire c.324/325 CE.

Whatever he decided to run with as a holy writ for his new centralised monotheistic state religious cult was his business. He could have selected the Enneads of Plotinus, or the Gospel and Letters of Mani, or the Books of Apollonius, or the Books of Euclid. It appears he chose to use the combined books of the Greek LXX and the New Testament.

Whether he found these books in Rome or whether he commissioned these books to be prepared and bound together is not a conspiracy in itself, since he was the rightful Boss.

The conspiracy is concerned with the historical reporting of the public response to Constantine's agenda of getting rid of the old religions and replacing them with a brand new centralised monotheistic state cult.

When you examine the history of Nicaea (325) to the start of Ammianus's history (c.352 CE) you will find a "black hole" of evidence. The history of this time that we are using as "history" was written in the early 5th century 100 years removed from the action. These 5th century historians are very unreliable.

IMO the conspiracy is in the destruction of evidence by the later victorious centralised monotheistic state cult related to the political reception it received by the people of the Eastern empire, especially the Greek academics of Alexandria, Antioch, Pergamum, Ephesus, Aegae, etc.

IMO this conspiracy exists whether the NT was a "fiction of men composed by wickedness" in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th century, or whether the NT was once a genuine 1st century manuscript.

The victorious heresiological church organisation disposed of the political history which saw it claw its way to the top, because such a history was not very pretty since they used the sword to get their heresiological way. Instead they presented a harmonious account of political acceptance, and relegate the controversy to the field of theology, by describing the Arian controversy as a heated discussion over subtle theological nuances which nobody really understood, then or now.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia