mountainman

The father of Constantius Chlorus.

Toto

Constantius_Chlorus He was a military officer in the area of what is now Serbia or Croatia. He fought the Germans.

Goat herding is an honorable occupation, but I don't see any mention of it in connection to this lineage.

mountainman

Julian Morgan

"Constantius was the son of a goatherder from the Danube lands".

Toto

So Constantine was the grandson of a goat herder from the region of the Danube in what is now Serbia in Southeast Europe. Not German. (The Danube River flows through Germany, and through or on the borders of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Moldova.)

A good example of upward mobility. But what was the point here?

Doug Shaver

Apologists love to say, "The Bible speaks for itself." It won't work for them. It won't work any better for their adversaries.

That holds for the words of any document, no matter when, where, or by whom it was produced. But, knowing when, where, and by whom it was written can help us figure out whether the words relate to real or imaginary things when we have no independent evidence telling us one way or the other.

If a document says that a dead man came back to life, then I'm not going to believe it no matter what the document's provenance. If it says Pilate was governor of Judea, well, I already know that from two other sources. If it says Pilate crucified a preacher called Jesus of Nazareth, then, having no antecedent knowledge one way or the other, I've got some more work to do.

If you make up your mind beforehand that a document records no reality or has no legitimacy, then yes, it probably won't make a bit of difference to you when it was written. But for an open-minded investigation of whether there is any reality or legitimacy to the document, then a reliable date can be a useful clue to the answer.

In that case, I won't be investigating whether a snake spoke. I'll assume that it never really happened. But I might want to know whether it is true that a certain group of people, in a certain place at a certain time, believed that a snake spoke. If a certain document alleges that those people so believed, then it's going to matter when that document was written.

It makes perfect sense to people who know how to do some historiography and whose minds are still open to the possibility of a historical Jesus.

No. My earlier point was about how early the gospels collectively were written -- more particularly and by implication, it was about how early the first gospel was written. This point is about the sequence in which they were written.

That history cannot be established in the first place without addressing what Paul was on about and what the gospel authors were on about. What you're suggesting is like what the apologists do. They have a story about how their religion got started, and they interpret Paul and the gospels to fit that story.

No, it will stand or fall on its how well it is supported by all the relevant evidence. That evidence consists almost entirely of the earliest surviving Christian writings, including the canonical writings. Any story about Christian origins that you make up in disregard of that evidence will almost certainly be just at as false as anything Christians themselves have been saying for the past 2,000 years.

maryhelena

I gave up on that model of reading the gospel storyline many moons ago...Its a dead end - as is evidenced by no historical search finding any evidence for a historical Jesus. Hanging on to such an assumption re historicity, hanging on a faint possibility that Jesus is historical, will not do any more for understanding the gospel storyline as would a full acceptance that such a figure as the gospel Jesus is historical. I'm not looking in the gospel storyline for indications of a historical Jesus. I'm looking at the dating of the written words in order to get that storyline in sequence, right way up. I reached the conclusion, made the decision, against a historical Jesus a long time ago - and see no need to give this assumption the time of day. It plays not the slightest part in my seeking to understand the gospel storyline or the beginning of early Christianity. Why the rhetoric re apologists?
The apologists read their Christian origin story from the NT. A story that, to be charitable, is doubtful to say the least.
My attempt at understanding early Christian beginnings takes a look at the gospel story - takes out of that story the historical elements re Pilate, Herod etc - and then opens up a history book. I really don't see any comparison with apologists whatsoever...


The 'evidence' - all you get from Christian writings is a reflection of the gospel Jesus storyline. A storyline re Jesus that has yet to be confirmed as historical - after years and years of trying by the best apologists and historians of the day. Relying on Christian writings to support a Christian storyline - well, what can one say...

maryhelena

I’d say you are on the right trail...

Re-dating GJohn is probably going to hit some rough times. Consider just these two positions:
Yes, a big issue is the high Christology in GJohn - if it was there from the start of the Jesus storyline and not a developing tradition - then it could mean that a serious re-think about early Christian origins is in order. And yes, such a high Christology at the start does work in favour of a mythicist position. However, depending upon how early GJohn is dated, that dating could have consequences for some mythicists positions that rely on Paul as being the earliest of Christian writings.

How early could GJohn be dated? Some parties are saying somewhere between 60 and 70 ce. Perhaps it could be dated even earlier than that:
GJohn places the crucifixion story somewhere in the rule of Pilate - 26 -36 ce. This gospel gives Jesus about a 3 year ministry. These years could fit anywhere within these 10 years of Pilate.

However, when we come to Mark and Matthew, there looks to be only a one year ministry. All of this, of course, makes no difference to a mythological or allegorical storyline - but to a historical storyline it presents problems. Why did Mark and Matthew have a different time frame for the Jesus ministry? One reason could be that they introduced the storyline re John the Baptist, Antipas, Herodias and Philip. The marriage between Antipas and Herodias, according to dating by Nikos Kokkinos, would have been after his divorce from his wife and prior to the war between Antipas and Aretas in 36 ce. Both the gospels of Mark and Matthew have Antipas taking his brother Philip’s wife. Philip dies in 33/34 ce. If the re-marriage of Herodias to Antipas takes place just prior to the war in 36ce - then giving the gospel Jesus a three year ministry prior to this war could place the start of his ministry at a time when Herodias was still married to Philip.

(more info in this post and the whole thread).

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....24#post6155824

So, GJohn gives a wide 10 years in which to place the three year ministry. Mark and Matthew, with their John the Baptist/Antipas/Herodias/Philip storyline are reducing the crucifixion time slot to close to the end of Pilate’s rule - around 35/36ce.

(Luke comes along later and backdates the storyline to a time slot in 29 ce. A time period when Herodias was still married to Philip. Luke making no mention of the name of the previous husband of Herodias. Luke could also be on a mission re use of symbolic numbers for the allegorical storyline - 29 to 36 ce being a 7 year period. - probably both, backdating and number symbolism.)

Dating GJohn as the earliest gospel presents a storyline about a high Christology to a pseudo-historical storyline. From a generalised time period in GJohn to a specific date stamp in Luke. From a wide wisdom/logos philosophical context to a narrow prophetic context. From an anti-Jewish context to a wholly Jewish context. Marcion must have been besides himself....

Doug Shaver

Yep, that's about what you'd expect -- on the assumption that it all began with a charismatic rabbi whose disciples thought they saw him alive again sometime after he was executed.

If Christianity originated with belief in a strictly heavenly Christ, of the sort Paul seems to describe, then you'd expect the earliest story about an incarnation to portray him as very godlike, as John does. Subsequent retellings of the story would humanize him even more, as the synoptics do -- to the point where some Christians could easily get the idea that such a man had actually existed, and that the earliest leaders of their religion were some of his disciples.

I wouldn't say that. It's really hard to get the conventional wisdom about Christian origins out of one's mind.

Doug Shaver

I don't assume that a story is false just because Christians tell it, not even if they're the only ones telling it.

temporalillusion

You can say that again.

Thanks for the feedback both of you, appreciated.