wordy

Don't mock persons here Yes Constantin saw and opportunity to use the fervor for his own purpose to get much power.

Maybe that is why US admin goes fundie. Fundies are more fervent or strident than laid back liberals and socialists. To get them strident you have to go to their kind of fundies. Marxists, Castro and Mao and Animal Right Anarchists and such. Them too are strident while ordinary socially concerned people are more laid back and therefor not so politically effective.

The historical writers most likely was those who was the most strident and who burned all the laid back writings so only the "Jesus" type of texts remains.

Johann_Kaspar

The Josephus text about Essenes is mutilated. (By whom? Exactly the most interesting part.) It is not clear if he wrote it himself or just copied it from an older source. There can be no much doubt that Yeshua was member of one of the 4 Essene parties.

mountainman

Why not? One hundred years before Nicaea we have the precedent
of the actions of the military supremacist, king of kings, Ardashir,
who from the fragments of a hymn from the previously existent
Parthian civilisation, created the theocracy then known as Iran,
before he then totally destroyed the traditional writings of the
ancient Parthian civilisation.


The only real problem with that particular perspective is the
total lack of physical, tangible, objective, scientific and/or
archeological evidentiary citations for the existence of anything
whatsoever related to "christians" in the prenicene epoch.

Equally sound and consistent with all available scientific evidence
is the hypothesis that we have no 1st, 2nd or 3rd century evidence
(external to the literature tradition) because "the tribe of christians"
actually only appeared on the planet, and into the archeological
record, in the fourth century.

spamandham

Ok, so assuming we can establish that someone named Yeshua was a member of the 4 Essene parties (I'll take you're word on that for the moment), can we establish that this same person is Jesus the Christ? How common was the name 'Yeshua' at the time?

mountainman

Yes, this is possible.

In fact, you only need to examine the precedent of Eusebius,
and his political attack upon the neopythagorean sage/philosopher
of the first century, Apollonius of Tyana.

Subsequent to this attack we have the destruction of the writings
of this first century author. This fourth century censorship against
this particular neopythagorean was attended with attacks on his
second century biographer, the author Philostratus. The book of
Philostratus "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana" was also targetted.

One or two copies however survived.

Then of course we have the precedent of the neopythagorean
author Porphyry, considered one of if not the foremost of all
academics of the late 3rd and early fourth centuries. His writings
were burnt by edict of bullneck the great immediately before the
new writings known as "the bible" was published (by bullneck the
great).

Then also the writings of the (probably imo) neopythagorean author
Arius of Alexandria were similarly edicted for death and destruction.

In such political environment was "the bible" first published.
The history of what happened after this event, by the group
who controlled this publication is given by Vlasis Rassias.

Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century A.D.
--- ARNALDO MOMIGLIANO (1959/60)

On 28 October 312 the Christians
suddenly and unexpectedly
found themselves victorious.
The victory was

a miracle


though opinions differed
as to the nature of the sign
vouchsafed to Constantine.

The winners became conscious of their victory
in a mood of resentment and vengeance.
A voice shrill with implacable hatred
announced to the world
the victory of the Milvian Bridge:
Lactatius' De mortibus persecutorum.

In this horrible pamphlet by the author of De ira dei
there is something of the violence of the
prophets without the redeeming sense of tragedy
that inspired Nahum's song for the the fall of
Nineveh.

Why does such a man as Momigliano use the word "miracle"?
He knew only too well that the victory, as described by Gibbon,
for example, was certainly no miracle. Constantine was
a great military commander, was very well prepared for
the military exercise, and in fact never lost a battle
in his 30 years at the top. So there was nothing at
all "miraculous" in the military victory.

It is as if Momigliano is saying "hint", "hint".
But indeed why?

And as if to highlight this, on the following page (p.80)
of the work, Momigliano makes a second reference to
this "miracle". This only serves to highlight something
about what Momigliano is saying, or not saying. The
expanded context of this quote is as follows:

If there were men who recommended
tolerance and peaceful coexistence
of Christians and pagans,
they were rapidly crowded out.

The Christians were ready
to take over the Roman empire,
as Eusebius made clear
in the introduction of the Preparatio evangelica
where he emphasises the correlation
between pax romana and the Christian message:
the thought indeed was not even new.

The Christians were also determined
to make impossible a return to the conditions
of inferiority and persecution for the Church.
The problems and conflicts inside the Church
which all this implied
may be left aside for the moment.

“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.”

One fact is eloquent enough. All the pioneer works
in the field of Christian historiography are earlier
than what we may call their opposite numbers in
pagan historiography."

END QUOTAGE — Arnaldo Momigliano

wordy

That is why I fail to see Jesus as historical and more likely mythical.

And this being the case, is it not more or most likely that it is not the historical Jesus that is the important.

The important thing is that the fundies today need literalistic readings of the text. That tells it all from my perspective.

The "real" Jesus is the one here and now in the heart of the believers. Look at the documentary "Jesus Camp" movie and as far as I know they are not interested at all in the HJ or the MJ even, for the the "Living Jesus" LJ is the most important person cause he has political clout. He works for them.

andrewcriddle

Hi Steven

I have a vague idea that the Qumran scrolls possibly used a 3 year cycle (1092 days) linked to 37 lunar months of 29 or 30 days. (It is a long time since I studied this and I may be misremembering). 1092 days is pretty close to 37 actual lunar cycles.
IIUC there is no direct evidence that the date of Purim was a problem for the Qumran community it is a speculation although IMHO a plausible one.

Andrew Criddle

Gamera

What?

I've never said that in any post. I don't have a "guy." You seem to be grasping at straws. Indeed, it is you who have the "guy", since you seem determine to privilege certain "historical" texts for unknown reasons using unknown standards. I've called you on this before.

No, I have attempting, successfully in your case, to show that the same quantum of evidence that relates to typical historical figures from antiquity relates to Jesus. So far, you haven't rebutted the evidence I've adduced supporting that claim.

The list wasn't all-inclusive. Put Alexander on it. Now, why exactly is it silly?

None, since I've never felt the urget to analyze Ebion's historicity.

I've been over this before with you, so you seem to be perseverating. Texts are texts, and the meaning of historicity is be texual referenced. However there are genre of texts, as we all know, and some don't purport to involved historical personages. However, this won't help you, since the gospels and Acts are clearly within the real of historigraphical writings, particular biography. Now,whether various events described in historigraphical texts are accurate is another matter.

Really this isn't very complex, except for you apparently.

Yep, it means something. The issue is the standard for making that determination, which I notice is constantly changed by those, like you, who want to privilege certain "historical" texts, for reasons I cannot fathom.

I see know difference between the gospels and any biography of the time, except that the gospel writers seem to have more narrative talent. I see no difference between Acts and any history in antiquity, except again Luke has certain writing talents that Herodotus lacks.

But here's your chance. Spell of the difference you discern.

Gamera

I would consult whether there is any references to these works from patristic writers and see what they thought about it, being closer in time. I would use textual analysis to see if we can determine the source of these works. In short, I wouldn't do anything different than I would do in determining the historigraphical nature of the gospels or Thucydides.

Why what would you do? Make unexamined categories and put them in it?

How is analysing texts a metaidea? You seem to disagree with the type of analysis, but are unable to articulate your disagreement. Which is not a good sign.

Texts are historical evidence. Or can be. What's your problem with that?

As to ignoring other evidence, this is another strawman argument.
I think this gets at the heart of your naivte in these matters. What do you mean by Ramses II and how do you know what you know about Ramses II?

mountainman

I dont understand why other posters are using this thread
to discuss issues tangential to your questions however ...

I think it is possible that Jesus first became historical
by an imperial decree during a turbulent political event
in the fourth century.

Any generation born after this event were obliged through
the events of those times to deem a great deal of importance
to the historical Jesus.

Life goes on.

There is much in "the bible" about the elements of nature.
Naturalistic philosophy type of stuff. Do you mean this
genre of "literalistic readings of the text" --- as more an
experiential metaphysician rather than an intellectual
theological philosopher?

Ammianus Marcellinus describes in all fairness some good qualities
of some --- admittedly few --- of these "early christians". Nothing
is black and white but a million shades of grey.

The water cycle evidences that the sun works for life on this planet.
If it were not for this miracle none of us would be around.