Transient

I am glad that you are glad that I am glad that people like Mountainman are researching way out ideas.
That's good because a lot of discoveries have been made in science by people working on hunches and theories that would have been considered way out in their time
Of course you don't mean what you are saying but then I am getting used to that.
I know that you have a lot of emotional energy invested in your dig site - hope it reveals something useful, time will tell. In the mean time it is best left to one side.

avi

Thank you for this clarification.

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that there is no relationship between an omnipotent, mass-murderering, homicidal maniac, and an ability to forge documents, as well as an ability to order the wholesale destruction of documents authored by an opponent.

There is sufficient evidence available, for my taste, to conclude that Eusebius participated in forgery. Ergo, one requires no great leap of faith to hypothesize, that where there's smoke, there's fire. In other words, I contend that what appears to us, as an insurmountable obstacle, forging, creating de novo, or modifying texts (entire volumes) of half a dozen authors, written one hundred, or even two hundred years before Eusebius, destroying the originals, and then reissuing the newly copied papyrus, was in their view:

a. absolutely necessary, as an adjunct to Nicea, in order to hold the empire together, i.e. to ensure uniformity of the canon, and to ensure acceptance of it, on pain of death.

b. relatively easy to accomplish, particularly in comparison with a comparable task executed today.

I believe, in short, that our problem is one of short-sightedness, imposing our own values and ideas on people living two millenia earlier, and supposing them incapable, of what seems to us, like a Herculean task.

avi

avi

Referring to Transient's cogent rejoinder urging stehan huller to cease further discussion of his forthcoming excavation in Alexandria, and his accompanying explanation that such discussion supposedly illuminated why mountainman's argument was invalid, stephan replied:
That may, or may not be the case. We have no data.
However, the topic is not relevant to the discussion of the Canon, unless you are hypothesizing that the Nicean council was influenced in some way, by the activities at this site, in particular. We all know that Arius was the precipitating cause of Nicea, and we all acknowledge his presence somewhere in Alexandria, so, what some of us imagine is that stephan huller's theme of a fourth coming (pun intended) architectural dig, may represent a different thread topic.

avi

Chili

I think the problem began at that post resurrection fishing trip when they had caught nothing all nigth and then Peter put on a new cloak of faith and dove headfirst into the celestial sea and there caught those big fish that Jesus had promised to built his church on. This later became the the obelisk that Constanine raised which has been an eyesoar to those who parted company already when Jesus first broke bread in John 6:66. These then would be the early self proclaimed Christians scattering about in those days (while wondering what to do next) that we are seeking continuity in . . . I suppose.

Transient

Chili

Fair enough and those unproven assertions number 20,000 now, so i hear, while tho obelisk is still standing tall as the presence of Peter in Rome where it represents the faith (read insight) of Jesus nee Joseph, to be sure, who was defrocked when Thomas became a believer in that faith without doubt cannot be conceived to exist . . . which then is also why they caught nothing that night, to say that the new religion was new and void of Judaism but twain nonetheless = NT only!

Sheshbazzar

Actually, I prefer bologna on white bread with mayo, or less often mustard, and a good cold crisp pickle on the side, but then I prefer securing the sub-flooring with screws rather than nails. There is less of a dust problem with the clothesline placed on the north side of the house. Henry never did get around to making up his mind about taking those guitar lessons, and Shelly could'nt swim well anyway, so the city decided to seek legal counsel.... Next, the left front suspension collapsed but the other three escaped with only minor bruises. Blackberries make delicious fruit cobbler= on Tuesday Fred drove the Chevy. Why is who's on first the way to make a great garden fertilizer?

Chili

I can see that you prefer bologna but my post happens to be true, or do you go swimming naked and put on a heavy cloak before you dive in too?

mountainman

Pseudoskepticism


Hello?


This is plain and valid skepticism as I see it.



palaeography

You have made a FALSE ASSERTION

I am skeptical of, and question, the authoritative inertial reliance on the palaeographic attestations
based on the following three arguments which each mitigate to a fourth century dating.
These arguments are not pseudo-scientific and do not involve C14.
.

(1) The population demographics of Oxyrhynchus explode mid fourth century - this deserves an explanation. .
(2) The papyri fragments are from codices and not earlier scribal technologies - this deserves an explanation.
(3) The papryi fragments are both canonical and non canonical - this deserves an explanation.


This is plain and valid skepticism as I see it.
It is not based on any faith-based disbelief, but upon the evidence itself
- its interpretation and its relative importance to the whole picture.



The Dura Europos "House-Church" archaeological citation

You have made another FALSE ASSERTION

I am skeptical of the scientific merit of "art appreciation" in the identification
and categorisation of "New Testament Motifs" from the "Other Pagan Milieu".

You must understand in the first place that the proposal that the ruins previously domicile at Dura, now at Yale Divinity College, are "Christian"
is supported in part or in whole by an artistic interpretation of a series of "restored murals".
There is sufficient doubt in the process and validity of the "artistic appreciation exercise"
to reject the murals as being inspired by the books of the new testament at Dura Europos ante pacem.
The Dura Europos "house church" is a single exemplar - there are no others like it anywhere in the empire.
If more of these structures are found at arcaheological digs then I reserve the right to alter my skeptical position.
But the fact of the matter is that no christian churches or christian church-houses have been found.
Therefore there is a great coherence of the evidence and thus the reason for rejection at this stage.

This is plain and valid skepticism as I see it.
It is not based on any faith-based disbelief, but upon the evidence itself
- its interpretation and its relative importance to the whole picture.



Quotations and Citations from Various Soruces



Example please.


Was the Emperor Constantine a Nero-like malevolent despot?



It is not amiss to gauge the character of the person that history
discloses was the first to openly and widely publish the bible.
Whenever the bible is studied this fact should be meditated upon.
As a skeptic of the divine nature of the NT, I reserve the right
to hold such a position.



Am I a "Secret Christian"?
It seems obvious to me that you do not recognise true skepticism when you encounter it. I think you should look at me as a Pagan, maybe even a Pythagorean or a Stoic or a Buddhist. But whatever you do, dont look at me as an historian.




What "skeptical study"?
What "Early Christianity"?

On the basis of the evidence being brought to the table
I am skeptical that there was any "Early" Christianity.

Very skeptical. Not pseudo-skeptical.


The Emperor Constantine's Fourth Century Codex and Manuscript OUTPUT

And as far as I can see there has been no truly critical and skeptical
questioning of the integrity of the manuscript evidence as it was
delivered to the Roman Empire during the epoch of Consantine.

Codices (Manuscripts) published by Constantine

(1) The Christian Bible Prototype (Greek New Testament and LXX)
(2) The History of the Church and other Reference Manuals (Eusebius).
(3) The History of the Caesars - (Did Constantine publish the "Historia Augusta"?)
(4) Others ....

When was the opportunity given to anyone to be skeptical of, and to question, the historical integrity of these 4th century publications? As far as I can see, never. When have the English translations of the source documents relevant to studies in Biblical Criticism and History been available to the general public in their own homes (and when has the general public been more literate) ? As far as I can see, only in the last 10 to 15 years. Where were these manuscripts and texts retained for the preceeding sixteen hundred years, and who had the opportunity to examine them and for what reasons and purposes?


Skeptical questioning of the evidence
vs.
faith-based disbelief

I do not pretend to know the complete solution to the 4 dimensional jigsaw puzzle of ancient history within which the saga of Christian Origins has been played out. I am sorry if my skeptical questions offend anyone. But I feel that it is time that these questions be asked and answered.

I will be the first to admit that Constantine could not have commissioned the fabrication of the NT if some reasonable evidence were able to be provided, and I have never been committed by any faith-based disbelief to the outcome of the investigation, but rather have always been committed by reason and the collection and the examination and the review and the interpretation of the evidence - and not just some of the evidence but rather all the evidence available over the first 4-5 centuries of the common era.

stephan huller

Pete, you don't realize it but you are imitating the very people you claim to oppose. Your entire theory is so out in left field that it appears as a 'faith based initiative.' You are like Abraham wandering through the desert of scholarship relying on nothing more than a belief in the infallibility of your own interpretation of history. Every step along the way you posit a formula that bears striking similarity to the general mythical view of history shared by Christians and most other religions.

They have no proof for the resurrection but will point to a collection of 'witnesses' writing long after the events to prove their beliefs. You deny those witnesses but in so doing posit another faith - a belief in a fourth century conspiracy that is in my opinion even more incredible than some attempts to explain the resurrection in terms of pseudo-scientific terms.

Science is about trying to find the simplest and most accurate explanation to any given phenomenon. Arguing that the entire nexus of first, second, third and early fourth century witnesses was invented in a Roman factory somewhere isn't a plausible scientific explanation. It is merely a new variation of traditional mythical speculation.

Nietzsche once said be careful when you fight a monster you don't become one in the process. In combatting Eusebius's reshaping of the canon, you have become a latter day Eusebius, albeit with far less influence, credibility and lasting historical significance.