Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 05-08-2007, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Until you compare it systematically with alternatives, you have given no reason to think that is has a 'greater' degree of consistency with the available evidence.

The mainstream alternatives which postulate the existence
of christianity in the prenicene epoch will in some measure
adher to the following "possible" historical citations from the
first three centuries.

You will note that every citation from the first century below
is known to be fraudulent, and I have yet to add the letters
exchanged between Paul and someone. This is what I call
poor integrity for the first century.

The second and third centuries will ultimately be shown to have
the same degree of integrity. In this manner, I believe I have
answered some of your question, perhaps not all.

Here is the register for most mainstream theories:
(Essentially citing events where "christianity" becomes known
to existent people, groups, authors, and non-christians in the
Roman empire in the prenice epoch)

COL1 = Century
COL2 = Date where known
COL3 = Description of correspondence

1st - 032 - Letter of King Agbar & Jesus' Rescript
1st - 030? - Letter from Herod Antipas
1st - 030 - letter of Publius Lentulus
1st - 032? - Letters of Caiaphas
1st - 050 - Letters of Pilate
1st - 050 - Confession of Pilate,
1st - 064 - Nero fire references (Tacit.Annals XV written 109.CE)
1st - 075 - Domitian (emp:069-079) "Persecution"
1st - 091 - Josephus Flavius (Refs in Antiquity of the Jews)

2nd - XXX - Papyrii fragments (Dated via paleography
2nd - 109 - Tacitus (references in Annals XV)
2nd - 112 - Plinius, Ep 10:97 - Pliny to Trajan
2nd - 113 - Trajan to Pliny (rescript)
2nd - 115? - Trajan's order of the Martyrdom Ignatius
2nd - 135? - Hadrian Rescript to the pro-consul of Asia
2nd - 150? - Antonius Pius (emp:138-161) to the commune of Asia
2nd - 166 - Martydom of Justin Martyr at Rome
2nd - 167 - M.Antoninus "christian" ref (Med, 11:3)-INTERPOLATION
2nd - 167 - Martydom of Polycarp at Smyrna
2nd - 169 - Lucian (Life of Peregrine)
2nd - 174 - M.Antoninus (Rescript?)
2nd - 174 - M.Antoninus (Report to Senate re: "Thundering Legion")
2nd - 175 - Celsus
2nd - 177 - Apology of Melito (to M.Antoninus ?)
2nd - 177 - Apology of Tatian (to M.Antoninus ?)
2nd - 177 - Letter "Gallic christians" - Martydom of Blandina & Pothinus
2nd - 177 - Apology of Athenagoras (to M.Antoninus ?)
2nd - 178 - Apology of Apollinaris (to M.Antoninus ?)
2nd - 178 - Apology of Theophilus (to M.Antoninus ?)
2nd - 178 - Apology of Miltiades (to M.Antoninus ?)
2nd - 180? - Lucian (Alexander the Prophet)

3rd - 202 - The "edict of Septimius Severus"
3rd - 248 - Philip Arabus, turns christian for the millenial games of Rome.
3rd - 250 - Emperor Decius - perhaps 50 executions (250/251)
3rd - 255? - Galienus' decree (via H.E.); emperor 253-258
3rd - 258? - Dura-Europa "house church" conjecture.
3rd - 276 - Mani, the Sassanian "sage" (made to appear "christian")

4rd - 301 - Porphyry's violent anti-christian polemic
4th - 303? -Diocletian - perhaps 50 executions

=============================

J-D · 05-09-2007, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In this manner, I believe I have
answered some of your question, perhaps not all.

Definitely not all. In fact, not even a bit. You haven't compared your hypothesis to alternative hypotheses, whether or not you are right to say that all the documents you mention are fraudulent.

mountainman · 05-09-2007, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Definitely not all. In fact, not even a bit. You haven't compared your hypothesis to alternative hypotheses

There are a great deal of mainstream hypotheses.
I have indentified at least nine for mainstream HJ.

List of postulates for HJ Theories

1) Sufficient historicity - the actual history of the time
can be recovered in sufficient detail to have some assurance
that one obscure person existed.
2) HJ Core (assumed as an unexamined postulate).
3) Evidentiary - because "of the fact" that christianity exists,
it may be concluded that some HJ, or charismatic founder,
or "NRM personality" started it.
4) Textual core written records are historical evidence of an HJ.
5) Source Language: the New Testament was written in Greek
6) Transmission: the critical Westcott-Hort transmission is correct
7) History: the christian historiology written c.314 is true and correct
8) Apostlic lineage: the apostle Paul wrote something preserved to us
9) Paul and his letters are "historical"

A similar series may be derived in principle for MJ theories.
Quite remarkably, most current MJ theories share some of
the postulates above --- those of the HJ theories.

However what is more remarkable, all current theories (HJ/MJ)
appear to assume the existence of "christianity" prior to 312 CE,
and with remarkably little variance, trot out a chronology which
is in all cases pretty much the same as that published by Eusebius
in the fourth century.

Quote:

whether or not you are right to say that all the documents you mention are fraudulent.

There have been a number of discussions on this forum and
elsewhere in which all the documents on the above index,
belonging to the first century, have all been generally seen
to be without any integrity.

1st - 032 - Letter of King Agbar & Jesus' Rescript
1st - 030? - Letter from Herod Antipas
1st - 030 - letter of Publius Lentulus
1st - 032? - Letters of Caiaphas
1st - 050 - Letters of Pilate
1st - 050 - Confession of Pilate,
1st - 064 - Nero fire references (Tacit.Annals XV written 109.CE)
1st - 075 - Domitian (emp:069-079) "Persecution"
1st - 091 - Josephus Flavius (Refs in Antiquity of the Jews)

One century down, two to go.
The stats are not looking good
for any of the mainstream theories.

How many of these 2nd and 3rd century
citations have to be shown fraudulent before
the possibility of 4th century fabrication is
seriously examined by objective historians?

Are there any statistical mathematicians out there?

Toto · 05-09-2007, 11:01 AM

As a matter of statistics, showing that all of the references to Christianity in the 1st c. are forgeries does not indicate that the references in the second century are also forgeries - especially if the alternative hypothesis is that Christianity developed in the 2nd century.

You have done nothing to refute the alternative hypothesis that those 1st c. forgeries were done in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, giving Eusebius a lot of material to work with.

jgibson000 · 05-09-2007, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

How many of these 2nd and 3rd century
citations have to be shown fraudulent before the possibility of 4th century fabrication is seriously examined by objective historians?

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to tell us what your criteria are for determining who is and who is not an "objective" historian, as well as why it is you think that historians who have examined 1-3 CE "christian documents" and references to Christianity and who have pronounced them genuine are not to be believed?

JG

J-D · 05-09-2007, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

There are a great deal of mainstream hypotheses.
I have indentified at least nine for mainstream HJ.

List of postulates for HJ Theories

1) Sufficient historicity - the actual history of the time
can be recovered in sufficient detail to have some assurance
that one obscure person existed.
2) HJ Core (assumed as an unexamined postulate).
3) Evidentiary - because "of the fact" that christianity exists,
it may be concluded that some HJ, or charismatic founder,
or "NRM personality" started it.
4) Textual core written records are historical evidence of an HJ.
5) Source Language: the New Testament was written in Greek
6) Transmission: the critical Westcott-Hort transmission is correct
7) History: the christian historiology written c.314 is true and correct
8) Apostlic lineage: the apostle Paul wrote something preserved to us
9) Paul and his letters are "historical"

A similar series may be derived in principle for MJ theories.
Quite remarkably, most current MJ theories share some of
the postulates above --- those of the HJ theories.

However what is more remarkable, all current theories (HJ/MJ)
appear to assume the existence of "christianity" prior to 312 CE,
and with remarkably little variance, trot out a chronology which
is in all cases pretty much the same as that published by Eusebius
in the fourth century.

There have been a number of discussions on this forum and
elsewhere in which all the documents on the above index,
belonging to the first century, have all been generally seen
to be without any integrity.

1st - 032 - Letter of King Agbar & Jesus' Rescript
1st - 030? - Letter from Herod Antipas
1st - 030 - letter of Publius Lentulus
1st - 032? - Letters of Caiaphas
1st - 050 - Letters of Pilate
1st - 050 - Confession of Pilate,
1st - 064 - Nero fire references (Tacit.Annals XV written 109.CE)
1st - 075 - Domitian (emp:069-079) "Persecution"
1st - 091 - Josephus Flavius (Refs in Antiquity of the Jews)

One century down, two to go.
The stats are not looking good
for any of the mainstream theories.

How many of these 2nd and 3rd century
citations have to be shown fraudulent before
the possibility of 4th century fabrication is
seriously examined by objective historians?

Are there any statistical mathematicians out there?

Once again, you have failed to come to grips with the point which is actually at issue.

The historical question we are concerned with is this: 'How did Christianity originate?'

You are offering a possible answer to this question, which may be summarised thus: 'It was consciously invented in the fourth century at the direction of the Emperor Constantine, for his political advantage, and all records of or references to it which allegedly date from before the age of Constantine were fabricated at that time as part of the deliberate invention of the new religion.'

Now, in order to argue that this answer of yours is a better answer to the question than other possible answers, you need to compare it to other possible answers. You haven't. You haven't even stated even one possible alternative answer to which you could make such a comparison, let alone made any effort to do the comparison itself.

jgibson000 · 05-09-2007, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

1st - 075 - Domitian (emp:069-079) "Persecution"

Ummm ... what??? Domitian was emperor when?? And what persecution of Christians did he actually undertake?

JG

mountainman · 05-12-2007, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to tell us what your criteria are for determining who is and who is not an "objective" historian, as well as why it is you think that historians who have examined 1-3 CE "christian documents" and references to Christianity and who have pronounced them genuine are not to be believed?

JG

"Trances and visions and hallucinations
were a feature of the age. Perhaps
Constantine had seen a rare cross-like
natural phenomenom, produced by the
sun. At any rate, whatever the explanation
Constantine was able to convince himself
that he had been granted a supernatural
experience."

p.354. The Ancient Historians (or via: amazon.co.uk) - Michael Grant

This is an excellent resource.
I am totally absorbed at present.

NOTE: Is this relevant to "Momigliano's Miracle"?

jgibson000 · 05-13-2007, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

"Trances and visions and hallucinations
were a feature of the age. Perhaps
Constantine had seen a rare cross-like
natural phenomenom, produced by the
sun. At any rate, whatever the explanation
Constantine was able to convince himself
that he had been granted a supernatural
experience."

p.354. The Ancient Historians - Michael Grant

I'm sorry, but for the life of me I cannot figure out how this reply to my question (reproduced below) is any way an answer to it and is not just another of your dodges.

JG

Quote:

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to tell us what your criteria are for determining who is and who is not an "objective" historian, as well as why it is you think that historians who have examined 1-3 CE "christian documents" and references to Christianity and who have pronounced them genuine are not to be believed?

mountainman · 05-13-2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

As a matter of statistics, showing that all of the references to Christianity in the 1st c. are forgeries does not indicate that the references in the second century are also forgeries - especially if the alternative hypothesis is that Christianity developed in the 2nd century.

Here is the citations index for the second and third centuries:

2nd *- XXX - Papyrii fragments (Dated via paleography
2nd *- 109 - Tacitus (references in Annals XV)
2nd *- 112 - Plinius, Ep 10:97 - Pliny to Trajan
2nd *- 113 - Trajan to Pliny (rescript)
2nd *- 115? - Trajan's order of the Martyrdom Ignatius
2nd - 135? - Hadrian Rescript to the pro-consul of Asia
2nd - 150? - Antonius Pius (emp:138-161) to the commune of Asia
2nd - 166 - Martydom of Justin Martyr at Rome
2nd *- 167 - M.Antoninus "christian" ref (Med, 11:3)-INTERPOLATION
2nd - 167 - Martydom of Polycarp at Smyrna
2nd - 169 - Lucian (Life of Peregrine)
2nd - 174 - M.Antoninus (Rescript?)
2nd - 174 - M.Antoninus (Report to Senate re: "Thundering Legion")
2nd - 175 - Celsus
2nd - 177 - Apology of Melito (to M.Antoninus ?)
2nd - 177 - Apology of Tatian (to M.Antoninus ?)
2nd ***- 177 - Letter "Gallic christians" - Martydom of Blandina & Pothinus
2nd - 177 - Apology of Athenagoras (to M.Antoninus ?)
2nd - 178 - Apology of Apollinaris (to M.Antoninus ?)
2nd - 178 - Apology of Theophilus (to M.Antoninus ?)
2nd - 178 - Apology of Miltiades (to M.Antoninus ?)
2nd - 180? - Lucian (Alexander the Prophet)

3rd - 202 - The "edict of Septimius Severus"
3rd - 248 - Philip Arabus, turns christian for the millenial games of Rome.
3rd - 250 - Emperor Decius - perhaps 50 executions (250/251)
3rd - 255? - Galienus' decree (via H.E.); emperor 253-258
3rd *- 258? - Dura-Europa "house church" conjecture.
3rd - 276 - Mani, the Sassanian "sage" (made to appear "christian")

I have not yet added any comments or links to all of these
"biblical history" (ie: Eusebian) citations in the second and third
centuries. However you will recall discussions concerning:

* The interpolation into Marcus Aurelius' meditations re: "christian".
* Dura Europa -- which I have written an article upon.
* The Inscription of Abercius (an article).
* Eusebius forgery of the Martydom of Blandina & Pothinus
(NB: See Jay's Post upon this specific item)

Others marked * above therefore are essentially already
marked as forgeries and/or interpolations. I will be arguing
that Eusebius interpolates the two texts of Lucian.

Quote:

You have done nothing to refute the alternative hypothesis that those 1st c. forgeries were done in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, giving Eusebius a lot of material to work with.

That particular hypothesis has no archeological and/or scientific
evidence to support it, aside from the documents tradition, which
we know was tendered by Eusebius to Constantine in the 4th CE.

It is equivalent, if examined consistently, with the unexamined
postulate of an historical jesus, due to its null evidence,
in terms of its supporting claims (ie: to the hypothesis itself).

As far as I am concerned, the hypothesis that "christian texts"
existed in either the second or third centuries is conjectural.
Evidence for the existence of "christian texts" exists in all
certainty, only from the rise of Constantine.

Perhaps the greatest of 4th century historiographical mysteries,
the Historia Augusta, a lavish and mocking treatment of past
political history, written by a collegiate team of "scholars",
replete with lavish reference to forged documents, often
attributed to the age of Constantine, is a sign-post.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-09-2007, 11:01 AM	#84
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	As a matter of statistics, showing that all of the references to Christianity in the 1st c. are forgeries does not indicate that the references in the second century are also forgeries - especially if the alternative hypothesis is that Christianity developed in the 2nd century. You have done nothing to refute the alternative hypothesis that those 1st c. forgeries were done in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, giving Eusebius a lot of material to work with.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.