Roger Pearse

You might look at www.tertullian.org/fathers.

mountainman

Thanks for digging this out Huon.
The comparison of Constantine to Nero
by one of his prefects is quite "enlightening".

Neronian

Like Nero, Roman emperor infamous for cruelty and vice

Neronian

notoriously cruel & depraved

Nero had ambitions to be a poet and artist.
Among his last words were,
"What an artist the world is losing in me!"

Did Constantine have ambitions to be a literary promoter?
Who was responsible for the widespread publication of the NT?
Why did a robber and gangster and a Neronian
support the popularity of the new testament?

Perhaps he wanted to unify the Roman empire by means of a monotheistic
state religion and, seeing that he abhored the Hellenistic religions, he simply
commissioned the fabrication of the christians for his own political use.

What does the evidence in our possession actually suggest?
I can find no compelling and/or unambiguous evidence for
the existence of the new testament in any earlier century.

....... N E R O N I A N ....... !!!!!!

How succinct a description is this of Constantine
by one of his prefects Flavius Ablavius.

Of course there is alot of "emotional baggage" at stake here.
Emotional baggage may be useful in religion.
However ancient historians usually jetison it.

mountainman

Sooner or later Toto you will understand that my arguments
arise from the contention that I value the evidence in the
field of ancient history and that I do not believe in the
traditional explanation that there was an HJ.

It is far from being outlandish.
All it does is to question Eusebius.
Eusebius is the pivitol witness to
all of "Early Christianity" before Constantine.

I am questioning our most basic tradition.
Dont I have the right to do this?


The evidence is not unambiguous.
The "Dura-Europa Poll" was not a clean sweep for your position.
There is nothing compelling in the Early Christian Epigraphic Habit
which suggests certitude within the scope of the field of ancient history.
If there were any unambiguous citations I can assure you that I would
have quit this research years ago.


What new evidence? Carbon dating technology is new evidence!
We do not have any substantial evidence before the C14 citations.

And I have attempted on many occassions to modify my discussion
and limit it to an examination of any or all of the new testament
non canonical tractates (ie: the NT apocrypha) in which I am happy
to allow the canon to have been written in century 1,2 or 3.

That is, I am happy to reject my own theory when discussing the
theories of the ancient history of the origin, authorship and the
chronology of the new testament non canonical corpus of literature.
In what manner does this demonstrate "Impishness" or "mischief making" ?
Surely this demonstrates some degree of open mindedness?

It appears that everyone is enamoured by the canon,
and that a study and discussion of the non canonical
for their own (historical) sake is treated like a poor and
distant relative of the "canon" within BC&H.

What are the NT Apocrypha?

"insipid and puerile amplifications" [Ernest Renan]

"excluded by their later and radical light" [John Dominic Crossan]

"severely conditoned responses to Jesus ... usually these authors deny his humanity" [Robert M. Grant]

"they exclude themselves" [M.R. James]

"The practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history" [Bart Ehrman]

"The Leucian Acts are Hellenistic romances, which were written to appeal to the masses" [Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard]

"The key point ... [NT Apocrypha] have all been long ago considered and rejected by the Church.

"The names of apostles ... were used by obscure writers to palm off their productions; partly to embellish and add to ... partly to invent ... partly to support false doctrines; decidedly pernicious, ... nevertheless contain much that is interesting and curious ... they were given a place which they did not deserve." [Tischendorf]

"Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently ... making fun of traditional biblical beliefs"[April Deconick]

"heretics ... who were chiefly Gnostics ... imitated the books of the New Testament" [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

Toto, based on the above citations from scholarship listed above,
can you perceive that your terminology of "Impishness" or "mischief making"
is essentially the same as how the orthodox view the intent of the authors
of the NT apocrypha?

I am a student of ancient history and
I am with the authors of the apocrypha.
They had a story to tell of their own
which was not the canonical fiction but
another far more popular version, albeit
unauthorized (fiction).

Toto

Many people here reject the HJ, but do not think that the idea that the Christian religion was invented from whole cloth in the 4th century has any explanatory value.

You were overwhelmingly defeated on the Dura Europa question.

But you never need to concede if you raise the level of proof you will accept high enough. That's why the question is not of interest to anyone else at this point.

mountainman

If one rejects the HJ how does one consciously understand and
explain the actions and literature of Eusebius and Constantine?
Did these people then knowingly and purposefully
promulgate a non-historical centralised Roman state god?

Toto

What is there to explain? :huh: By their time, there were stories and gospels about a historical Jesus, and at least some factions of the church had decided that he had to be fully man and fully god. I doubt if either Constantine or Eusebius cared one way or another if there were a historical Jesus, or if he was just a good story.

mountainman

How about the historical origin of the new testament (a) canon and (b) apocrypha?

Aside from the fact that most people here reject the historical Jesus,
these two people made the assertion that there were pre-existent
stories and records and archaeological relics in respect of the history
of Jesus, and his followers and that there was a pre-existent church
network. None of these assertions can be corroborated by archaeology,
and with the rise of C14 these assertions are being contradicted.

The terms homoiousios and homoousios mean "similar essence" and
"same essence." According to those who adopted homoiousios,
Jesus was not the same as God but simply had a "similar essence."
This was the opinion of Arius of Alexandria who was politically
exiled by Constantine.

According to those who argued for homoousios, the doctrine which
was eventually adopted as orthodoxy, Jesus and God had the exact
same essence. This was the opinion of Constantine and Hosius who
is recorded as having suggested it. It defined the orthodox.

The orthodox were to believe that they were dealing with "god".
The heretics were opposed to this. They believed that they were
dealing with something "like god" but not the same as "god".


Constantine and Eusebius concerned themselves with the issue of
"orthodoxy" in a big centralised political Roman militaristic way, and
their personal feelings in this were incidental. If most people here
do not believe in an historical Jesus, as responsible researchers into
the field of ancient history are we not obliged to provide some sort
of explanation as to the actual origin of the new testament canon
and the new testament apocrypha, both of which from the perspective
of the earliest surviving manuscripts appear to have their sources in the
fourth century?

I find the attitude "we dont care" childish and irresponsible.
I certainly "care" about the mystery of the origins of the
corpus of new testament literature, and the fact that the
Nag Hammadi Codices -- NT Apocryphal sources -- suggest
that these "Hidden Books" were prepared and buried in the
century that the Hellenistic civilisation was destroyed by the
emergence of an imperially sponsored new testament cult.
The Constantinian times were described as Neronian. (Thx Huon)

Do we care what this term might actually mean?
Although most people here may not believe in an HJ
they believe because of the traditional stories (all of
which were first published in the epoch of Constantine) that
by the time of Constantine the horse of the new testament
canon had already bolted, despite the fact that Ammianus
account that "the highways were covered with galloping
bishops" relates to the fourth century, and his account
of the Neronian life of Constantine is "missing".