mountainman

Incontravertible evidence that the new testament was fabricated
in the early fourth century, and is in fact a fiction of men
composed by wickedness.

For example, perhaps a copy of the three books of Julian will
become available, or perhaps Ammianus Marcellinus' obituary
to Constantine, in book 12 or 13 of his lost works.

The most damage to both the HJ and the MJ class of theories
will hypothetically derive from strong evidence which may only
be explained by the Fictional Jesus class.

Peter Kirby

And what if Eusebius were shown to be a fiction of the medieval period a la Anatoly Fomenko? How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? :wave:

mountainman

Fomenko has to deal with the two extant carbon dating citations.
Namely gThomas binding at 350 CE, and the gJudas binding at
280 CE +/- 60 years, for starters.

Peter Kirby

He deals with them the same way you deal with the mass of ante-Nicene Christian literature: essentially, a wave of the hand.

mountainman

I deal with the issue of Popperian falsifiability with a fair hand.

The theory is clearly not the same as Fromenko's.
Being the self-titled reliquary of Ockham's razor
you will appreciate the theory is based on one
postulate, not a handful or more. The theory is
capable of being refuted with any citation that
is generally agreed to be scientific and/or
archeologically integrous. Handwriting analysis
is fairly dismissed in this instance.

Predictive ability: the theory predicts that if Julian's
Three Books "Against the Christians" actually managed
by some miracle to survive, then we will find that
not only was Julian "convinced that the fabrication
of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by
wickedness", but that he names the perpetrators
of the fraud.

Ditto, the should by some miracle the first 13 books
of Ammianus Marcellinus be found, then the obituary
to Constantine, and the description of the pre-Nicaean
epoch will both prove potentially damaging to both
the HJ and the MJ mainstream theories.

I have listed reasoned argument against the theory
at a separate page.
What article should I add. You be the editor,
What do I call it?

The last item listed there was an article outlining my reasons
for not accepting the citations conatined in Elsa Gibson's
Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia. Which of
these issues exemplifies "handwaving"?

Peter Kirby

On your website you have the following chart:

312 Barnabas
312 Jesus of Nazareth
312 Jude
312 Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter
312 Clement of Rome
312 Ignatius of Antioch
312 Aristides the Philosopher
312 Quadratus
312 Aquila of Sinope (of Pontus)
312 Marcion of Sinope
312 Polycarp
312 Papias
312 Valentinus
312 Apology of Aristides
312 Apology of Quadratus of Athens
312 Apollinaris Claudius
312 Basilides
312 Diognetus
312 Epiphanes On Righteousness
312 Aristo of Pella
312 Marcion
312 Mathetes
312 Ophite Diagrams
312 Polycrates of Ephesus
312 Pinytus of Crete
312 Tatian C
312 Saint Apollonius
312 Ptolemy
312 Minucius Felix
312 Isidore
312 Fronto
312 Agrippa Castor
312 Alexander (of Cappadocia,Jerusalem)
312 Excerpts of Theodotus
312 Heracleon
312 Martyrdom of Polycarp
312 Justin Martyr
312 Julius Cassianus
312 Claudius Apollinaris
312 Apelles
312 Octavius of Minucius Felix
312 Dionysius of Corinth
312 Lucian of Samosata
312 Melito of Sardis
312 Hegesippus
312 Letter of Peter to Philip
312 Julius Africanus
312 Irenaeus of Lyons
312 Athenagoras of Athens
312 Rhodon
312 Theophilus of Caesarea
312 Theophilus of Antioch
312 Bardesanes
312 Hippolytus of Rome
312 Clement of Alexandria
312 Maximus of Jerusalem
312 Origen
312 Victor I
312 Pantaenus
312 Anonymous Anti-Montanist
312 Tertullian
312 Serapion of Antioch
312 Apollonius
312 Caius
312 Cornelius (of Rome)
312 Cyprian of Carthage
312 Dionysius (of Alexandria) the Great
312 Novatian
312 Dionysius of Rome
312 Hermias
312 Gregory Thaumaturgus
312 Malchion (of Antioch)
312 Anatolius of Laodicea in Syria
312 Lactantius
312 Victorinus (bishop) of Petau
312 Arnobius
312 Methodius
312 Phileas (Bishop) of Thmuis
312 Alexander of Alexandria
312 Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea

Your contention is that these are all the work of one man, namely Eusebius of Caesarea. Is that accurate?

mountainman

The possibility needs to be examined --- YES.
With the exception of Origen and Lactantius
the works of all the above may have been the
work of one (editorial) man.

Perhaps the situation is best described by an article
on my website entitled the fabrication of the galilaeans

Draft specifications of the package by module:

Module (1): Texts bound within the "Constantine Bible"
Module (2): Text support, service manuals, tools, horror stories, etc.
Module (3): Texts described as {Non Canonical/Apocryphal/pseudepigraphal}
Module (4): Prenicene historiological citations re: "tribe of christians".
Module (5): Text creation, preservation, perversion and destruction in antiquity.
Module (6): Burning and destruction of textual petitions at the Council of Nicaea.
Module (7): Fourth century book-burning; destruction of heretical texts and heretics.

Peter Kirby

Who else was involved then? Be clear about it.

mountainman

His boss, the one who thought it was time for a new religion:

“The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians
appreciated and exploited

"the miracle"

that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector,
and later a legislator
of the Christian church.”

— Arnaldo Momigliano (1908-1987),
Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century A.D; (1960)
[Considered in the foremost of 20th century ancient historians]

Peter Kirby

So Constantine and Eusebius were involved in the editing and writing of these texts. Anyone else?