DCHindley

Pete,

Coins are instruments of imperial propaganda, and thus no better than hearsay. Are these figures really divine because the coins say so or depict the emperor in the guise of the mythical gods from Greek and Roman tradition? Of course they depict real persons, but the historical value for interpretation has to be weighted by a number of factors, depending on whether we have relics that were composed by or left behind by the subject with no intent to present an image (coins are not on this list, but cell phones and PDAs are), to inscriptions and other literary remains which are subject to possible factual misepresentation and spin doctoring. We have absolutely nothing of this former class of relics from these subjects, simply because time has obliterated them, but we do have quite a bit of the latter class of relic. The only thing left to do is compare and contrast and analyze against hypotheses, but you will never have certainty or "proof."

I'm objecting to the manner in wihch you weigh the historical evidence, and the inferences you draw from lack of what you think should be there to prove a histocical Jesus ever existed. Asking questions is fine, but you (and a few others here) ask loaded questions and brush away whatever historical sources you don't like. You (pl) are drawing hard conclusions from lack of evidence (a no-no in any historical investigation) and completely dismissive of any literatue touched by Christian hands (meaning, everything) attributing it all to hypothetical forgeries by Eusebius or Constantine or whoever makes a good target.

You are entering a PhD program? If you think your dissertation advisors are going to let this sort of thing fly, you have another thing coming! If you are serious, start reading up on postmodern approaches to history. Alun Munslow (_Deconstructing History_) is a good place to get the feet wet. I am parial to the theory of narrative history found in the 40 page introduction to Hayden V. White's _Metahistory_. In his view, all historians select a subset of avalable facts based on how they want to emplot the narrative, the manner of argumentation they have chosen to employ, and the ideological implication they want to leave with the reader. White is interested in historians from the 19th century onwards, so the emplotments, argumentative strategies and ideologies he assigned to various authors are drawn from literature from the enlightment on, but ancient writers had conventions, themes and ideologies too.

Master out what these were, for the authors, not the modern reader, and you will impress the advisors.

DCH

Minimalist

The flaw in your argument is that there is no "historical evidence" that Jesus ever existed.

mountainman

Dave,

The question I am asking is not that of your
first paragraph ... about the "divinity" of people
but historicity. The field in which my
thesis rests is not "Biblical History" but
"Ancient History". Thus, matters of theology
to me are of secondary consequence.

I repeat, there appears to be no archaeological
evidence for the (unexamined postulate
of an) historical jesus. Surprisingly, there also
appears to be no archeological evidence for
either the gospels or "christianity" itself, if
the criteria for this evidence is examined at
the same time with a review of the field.

Your objection of the second paragraph I feel
is thus unreasonable without addressing the
work that I have actually presented with respect
to the detail citations being currently accepted
as "discussion evidence" -- such as the Prosenes
inscription (See separate thread).

Moreover, the argument that I am employing
is that previoulsy used by Richard Carrier, in
a 2002 article regarding the argument to
Ahistoricity, as is (I hope) clearly outlined
at the abstract page to the thesis.

What objections do you have in this argument,
or indeed to my use of it?

Finally in the third paragraph you allude to
problems that I may have with my thesis
advisors. At present my only advisor is
Dr. Michael Birrell and the advice provided
is on an informal basis only.

I sincerely understand that I will not be able
to get my thesis published in any journal that
is associated with an academic institution due
to the bold revisionist history that the thesis
explores.

I have had a referee report back from the
Journal of Hellenic Studies, which was my
first preference for publication. As the
referee report did not support publication
I now understand I must seek second and
third and subsequent submission for publication.

As an aside, can you or anyone advise me
whether the referee report sent to me has
in it a form of copyright, that prevents me
from say, posting it here for discussion --
or rather -- is it "appropriate academic
etiquette" to allow general discussion of such.


Thanks for your response, Dave.
The field is ancient history and
I am working to the criteria of
this field, no other.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Thanks Minimalist.

And thus I believe that it is reasonably expeditious
to mount a search for the Ahistorical Jesus,
on the basis that some evidence for this may be
found, or old evidence which was previously not
explainable, might be seen to make sense if in fact
we are dealing with an Ahistorical (ie: Fictional) J.

Noone has yet looked for such evidence!
Noone has before questioned Constantine.
It is only a question, for goodness sake,
in the field of ancient history.


Wherever the evidence may lead.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

youngalexander

Who is Noone?

Can you cite any of his articles, published in peer reviewed journals, preferably not staffed by Dutchmen?

What is your estimation of his worth as assessed by registered swots such as AJ Milne, Angrillori, Asha'man, B.S.Lewis, Biff the Unclean, Cthulhu, Don1, DonnieDarko, Febble, George Oilwell, and the list goes on!

Can you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Noone has sed, or ever could say, or ever would say, wot you sed he sed? And when did he say it, and why, and what does it all mean?

And bear in mind that I shall concoct another ream of questions irrespective of what you say, when you say it, which I doubt, for if you do, then that will demonstrate to the satisfaction of the assembled glitteraty, that without a doubt, that I, I, I, ....

do not feel at all well ...

Lugubert

Considering the towards 7 million Google hits, I consider "noone" a valid English word, despite the views of the Grammar Police.

I think that far fewer people than those accepting "noone" accept "wot" or "sed".

Is "swots" a way of insulting the people mentioned, or what do you intend to say?

Hex

So ... If I read this right, you're advocating that we stop looking for anything in the Middle East, and rather look to evidences for a Roman conspiracy to invent a fictional character? :huh:

I'm not going to argue about the fictionality ... But I might wonder over laying the blame entirely with Constantine. He seems a compatent enough leader to invent a deity more easily controlled than the son of a troublesome desert god who seemed to have lost potency by Constantine's own time ... :huh:

And how exactly would such a search be mounted anyhow?

Minimalist

I do think that DC's critique of ancient writers is valid in most cases. Anyone who has ever read Josephus' bootlicking paens to Vespasian and Titus will know instantly that this was a guy with an agenda. One must always attempt to ascertain the bias of the writer and then mentally tone down the claims. When he is not kissing Titus' ass or defending his own cowardice and treason, Josephus does a pretty good job in describing the geography and such but he must be watched like a hawk.

I was just implying that DC may have not been so eager to apply that same standard of 'personal bias' to Christian writers who also had an agenda. The fact that no one outside the movement seems to have taken much notice of it is a big sticking point with me.

DCHindley

I am not a Christian either. However, I don't have any problem lumping early Christian sources in with the other secondary sources. I don't buy them hook line and sinker by any means. I think the canonical gospels are apologies written in the form of biographies (well, that is the quick explanation) that tried to explain how a leader crucified as a pretender to the Jewish kingdom was really only a misunderstood wise man, the Paulines were written by a non-christian whose letters were adopted and adapted by a Christian publisher/editor who made Paul an early 2nd century Christian, Acts was written about the same time as the redacted Paulines were published (not by same author) but with similar aim of making Paul out to be a Christian and also "explaining" where Christians fit into the histories of folks like Josephus (who otherwise ignire them), that 1 Clement and the Ignatian letters have undergone similar "updating" (not necesarily by same hand as the Paulines), the letter of Polycarp is a total fabrication, etc.

That kind of thing, I assure you, is not Christian friendly stuff. Yet I get there without resorting to conspiracy theories or imagining the superior creative genius of Jesus, or Peter, or Paul, or Mark, or whoever to fabricate Christianity's elaborate myth whole cloth. I see it as the natural syncretistic assimilation of various ideas over time as the result of the pressure of historical events such as the Jewish rebellion(s), and socio-economic changes going on in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, eventually transforming a Jewish rebel into a divine redeemer figure.

Amen

DCH

Minimalist

Ah, okay. I was treading softly because I didn't want to put words in your mouth.

We're cool.