mountainman

Hi JonA,

So the received tradition states.

Yes, but this is the received tradition, and it is being questioned. Perhaps, may I add, questioned for the first time in a more amenable environment than what was available in the last 1600 years.


I am claiming that we do not as yet have before us a political history of the 4th century Roman Empire in which the christians and the non christians are provided with equal rights. By this I mean an equal voice. We have before us the One True Account for the period from the year dot to the Council of Nicaea courtesy of Eusebius, and the One True account of the 4th century by Eusebian continuators in the 5th century. None of these two spliced "histories" are fair and unbiased. Neither represent the Gnostics favorably. I dont trust the history of the church over the 1st 4 or 5 centuries. I am suspicious of its claims. And the evidence indicates that during most of the last 1600 odd years, it was run by power hungry despots.


For those who believe in the historical Jesus my arguments may appear to be a distraction because I do not make use of the hypothesis of the historical jesus but instead am exploring the scenario of a fictional Jesus. As far as I see it, these are just two of the hobby horses around BC&H. Certainly, the JH Hobby horse is the heavily tenured backed favorite, while all other runners are ranked at present as outsiders.

Best wishes and welcome,


Pete

JonA

Tradition has nothing to do with it. Historical analysis is sufficient.

Who is questioning that the letters of Paul and the gospels were written in the first century/early second? Is any serious scholar proposing that they date to no earlier than the fourth century?

Even if true, does this even matter?

Good thing you don't have to, since many unbiased historians have done the research that has led to these conclusions.

Utterly irrelevant.

You aren't exploring anything. You're looking for a first century Palestinian Jew in fourth century Rome. It's no wonder you haven't found him yet.

Word salad. Tasty but unfilling.

Jon

Toto

JonA - Pete has a unique theory. It is his. He thinks that the evil Constantine invented Christianity as a means of social control, and had Eusebius write the entire back history, including all the contradictions and confusions of the gospels and Paul's letters. You can read more about it in this thread. It is off topic in any other open thread.

mountainman

It occupies a respectable place in a spectrum of belief under R G Price's "Myth Spectrum". Here it is listed - but not specifically - as "Pious Forgery". See item 8. It is simply in that class of theories.

Minor correction. I think that Constantine's rule of (approx) three successive decades (following Aurelius Victor) may be appropriately described as the Good the Bad and the Ugly, and it was not until the last long decade, when he became the supreme military commander, and had absolute rule over the East-West empire, that Constantine's actions may be apperceived to be evil and despotic. (i.e. from 324/325 until 337 CE).

Social control via the establishment of monotheistic state religions had been working, and working very vigorously and well for his major enemy - the Sassanid Persians - for a century. Constantine simply copied Ardashir's creation of a new religion. Where we have archaeological evidence for the existence of an earlier (Mandean) religion before Zorostrianism was created c.222 CE by Ardashir, we do not have this evidence in respect of Christianity prior to c.312 CE.

Major correction. The idea that the Gnostic Gospels are a literary reaction to the appearance of the Constantine Bible does not in any way rely upon the idea that Constantine invented Christianity. In the Gnostic Gospels thread, I am happy to allow the new testament canonical books to have been authored as early as the 1st century just as Eusebius tells us in his "Church History".

JonA

Thank you for clarifying. If I have further comments on his hypotheses, I will take them to the other thread.

Jon

mountainman

The received traditon has everything to do with it. The tradition that we are all still very deeply moved by was received by the church in the 4th century. That much is clear. But whether it is just bullshit we dont know, since it has never had the opportunity to be critically questioned. If I am in error about this fact, then you can correct me.

This state of affairs may be sufficient from your frame of reference, but it is not from my frame of reference. The received tradition has a name associated with it (Eusebius), and an exceedingly great vacuum of corroborating evidence.

An appeal to the church's unexamined authoritative tradition is sufficient? I dont think so. I call that faith.



Best wishes



Pete