MortalWombat

If by "all the ancient evidence", you mean everyone after Irenaeus in the late 2nd century, then yes.

Before this, we don't see names attributed to the Gospels.

mountainman

I agree. Amidst the stack of evidence we have on the table are the extant canonical literature fabricated by Constantine and bound by him with the Shepherd of Hermas about the time he consecrated his new City of Constantine, at which treasures and art and statues and wealth that he had robbed from the traditional temples of the empire.

In addition to the canon there is the non canonical (or apochryphal) new testament literature which I explain as the poltical and seditious writing of people like Arius of Alexandria against the political initiatives of the warlord Constantine. Mainstream has no explanation (or chronology) for the apochrypha. My explanation for the apochypha as satirical polemic is bolstered by the archaeological find at Nag Hammadi, especially the sixth codex which is entirely and fully "pagan" (ie: non-christian) even though the very first story in the book is entitled "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles". I am arguing that this text contains an allegory of the Pearl of Great Price (second only to the text "The Hymn of the Pearl" -- which is located in another apochryphal writing "The Acts of Thomas"). And that it was written as a polemical reaction to the Constantinian Canon. It is carbon dated to 348 CE and academic study suggests it to be part of a haul of forbidden writings.

Finally, the evidence includes a whole stack of controversies: The Arian, the Origenist, the Nestorian --- again which my thesis explains as arising from the consequences of the new testament literature having an antiquity no earlier that the fourth century.

And if that were not enough, I have listed and cited and discussed all archaeological references to the existence of "christianity" in the centuries preceeding the fourth --- inscriptions, Dura-Europa, etc, etc, etc.

So I think I have attempted to explain all the evidence available in a simple and consistent fashion. And this includes "evidence" which mainstream has stashed in the too-hard basket.




Let's stop here. I want to ask you a simple question. Are you aware of the transmission history of the text you are reading? Start with this:


All discussion on the planet regarding this matter has necessarily had to follow the text of this tax-exempt bishop Cyril author, since in that work entitled "AGAINST JULIAN", is preserved the only references extant to what the emperor Julian may have actually written in that work.

We are one step removed from Julian spamandham. We are reading the text of his political censor. Is this too difficult to understand? Have you studied the activities of Cyril of Alexandria?


Finally, there is another extant text of Julian, in which he writes:

Now if you read the full text Julian is writing a satire against Constantine and his effete jesus, and he does not bring Jesus onto the stage until the arrival of Constantine, and before that time he introduces three dozen earlier Roman emperors, one after the other.

So we may be assured that Julian was convinced that the historical jesus was to be securely identified as incontinent. Julian did not have any high regard for the galilaeans, or their fabrication of literature.



Best wishes,


Pete





Best wishes



Pete

spamandham

...but we were discussing details internal to the text, that are somewhat obscure from anything but a first century perspective. You theory has to explain those as well. If you wish to simply write them off as part of the "boss"'s grand fiction, then fine, but at least recognize they exist and write them off as such.

It seems to me, you get to pick to either accept what it says as reasonably representing what Julian said, or not. If you wish to attack the veracity of it in regards to faithfully reproducing Julian's points, then you can not also use it to try to prove your main thesis. I can see no justification for asserting certain parts of it are faithful to Julian, and other parts are not.

Which one do you want?

...but a fabrication of literature is fairly well accepted among skeptics. It was after all, the very way all literature was composed at the time (yes, even 'historical records'). If the canonical texts were more one dimensional, your thesis would carry much more weight. But they are not. They show signs of layers of redaction over time by different authors, using different writing styles, and with different agendas. They also make references that would seem to be obscure in the 4th century but not the 1st (I pointed out a few a couple of posts back).

In other words, the 4th century forgery hypothesis, while possible, requires ad hoc complexity to explain away these problems. You have to argue that the forgery was so grand, as to even include features undetectable until modern analysis techniques were invented. I don't see that as simpler than a more traditional approach, which has Christian origins in the 1st/early 2nd century. If I were to wager my own wild eyed speculation, I'd say Christianity originated before the first century.

Roger Pearse

Because there are passages verbally identical in Matthew and Mark, we may reasonably infer connection. But to infer from that that the author of the former cannot possibly be the apostle Matthew is a non sequitur. The two statements have no logical connection, other than by speculation about the process of composition. Faced with clear ancient evidence to the contrary, I prefer evidence.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

And I was discussing the external characteristics of the new testament corpus of literature. Dont you think both aspects are relevant?

Constantine thought it would be a solid legal foundation to solicit four independent eyewitness accounts of the life of his professed new fourth century god, sufficient to stand up in any Roman court of law.

My position is that the justification rests in my claim that the bishop Cyrilus of Alexandria was a political and literary censor of the literary work of Julian. In the matter of Cyril verse Nestorius, and Cyril verse other authors, I think you will find that the scholarly opinion of this bishop Cyril has taken a rather dramatic plumetting.



The oldest canonical texts in our possession are the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus are all considered to be derived from the fourth century. Some commentators have suggested they may be copies of, or one of the 50 Constantine Bibles. This is all pretty one dimensional in terms of which century.

Have a look at the New Testament uncial codices and check the dates associated with this list. There is plenty of room for all sorts of generational layers of redaction during the fourth century alone. I dont need to hypothesise centuries worth of redaction.

In fact, Robin Lane-Fox comments about the Nag Hammadi codices that there is ample evidence of the redaction of a pagan letter to a christian letter. This may not be redaction inside the canon, but the principle of "christian redaction" is adequatedly demonstrated as being active c.348 CE (as per the C14 citation).


Best wishes,


Pete

spamandham

I do think both are relevant, which is why I would like to see your theory address both, and not just one.

Has your position then changed? Your site still seems to be trying to make a point in ragrds to what Julian said.

Amaleq13

Your disagreement with the editors of the Catholic Study Bible is, of course, entirely irrelevant to refuting your original assertion.

Though, in addition to the obvious indications of a literary connection, one cannot simply ignore the arguments for the precedence of Mark that the editors of the CSB (and certainly not alone among Christian scholars) clearly accept.

Taking into consideration all the evidence, the conclusion is entirely rational but, more relevant to your claim, clearly not dependent upon "secular belief".

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid I was unable to discern any real connection between this post and my own, except insofar as it reiterated matters which I have already dealt with.

Cynic that I am, I am a little amused at your attempts to claim the endorsement of the Roman Catholic Church, ex cathedra, for whatever claim to authority you might be making -- you don't trouble to state it, after all!

But of course if you want to make such a claim properly you need to provide evidence rather than claims like this. You would also need to find an interested audience, since it seems to have very little to do with my post!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

The connection is explicitly stated. Willful ignorance does not become you, Roger. You were simply and obviously wrong to assert that the conclusion must have a basis in secular beliefs.

thedistillers

What evidence

Either way, it's speculation :huh: