mountainman

HJ: Historical Jesus
MJ: Mythical Jesus

Of the above much has already been written.

FJ: Fictional Jesus

Does a further category exists in regard to theories about Jesus that is not appropriately represented by the (HJ,MJ) dichotomy, that is FJ.

The fictional Jesus category of theories entertain the possibility that the theory of history redacted by Eusebius under Constantine many not have been history, but fiction. Literary romance. That Eusebius was not an historian at all but a theological literary romancer under supreme imperial sponsorship, who had (CEO) free-range access to the fourth century manuscript preservation process. We outline a sketch of such a theory here:
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes

Independent of the above theory, I am aware of other theories in the FJ category involving claims related to "missing periods of time" (eg: 300 years), but have not yet collated them.

QUESTION: Is the FJ category properly represented amidst the HJ and MJ ensemble, and if it is not widely recognised as a viable category of theories regarding the historicity of Jesus, what arguments have been set against it?





Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm

Peter Kirby

Much as I dislike the MJ and HJ nomenclature, I dislike more the attention-seeking and/or pride-in-my-theory that lies behind the invention of a new pair of letters. Unless you could convince others to start using FJ instead of MJ, or unless you want to go without using these labels, you will be placed with the MJers.

Remember, just as there is not just one HJ idea, there is not just one MJ idea.

Also, I've learned one other thing. No matter how radical you think your ideas about early Christianity are, there will always be someone who prides himself on being more radical. (See Fomenko, for example. On second thought, don't see Fomenko.)

regards,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I can see a valid distinction between people who believe that Christianity started with a mythical savior in the 1st/2nd centuries and people who think that it was a fictional construction by a political schemer in the 3rd. I don't think those theories have much in common.

Peter Kirby

As to where the arguments are against the Eusebius-and-Constantine-invented-Christianity theory, I would suggest that people haven't been poking holes in it because it hasn't really been developed and presented yet; quite strictly, it's not even a theory. It might be a hypothesis.

regards,
Peter Kirby

mountainman

Thanks for the comments and clarifications. That it might be a hypothesis is a fair comment at this stage, and in fact it has been expressed as the (Constantine sponsored) Eusebian fiction postulate, or hypothesis.

Discussions on usenet (perhaps 5 months) have been followed up with a listing of exceptions various people have levelled against this hypothesis.

However, the claim that (irrespective of detailed development, and as a general consequence) all theories based on such a postulate will be able to make a specific testable prediction is one independent claim to this class of theories.

All such FJ class theories must necessarily predict the manuscripts and literatures at the basis of "the tribe of christians" to be of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.

Recent carbon dating experiments continue to report manuscript dates in the fourth century, and no earlier.



Pete Brown

Julian

Except, of course, the newly released Gospel of Judas, which might be 4th century but is probably 3rd century.

Julian

Peter Kirby

There are plenty of Christian manuscripts that have been claimed to be second or third century on the basis of palaeographic study. Which ones have been carbon dated? (Julian mentions the Gospel of Judas.)

regards,
Peter Kirby

Chris Weimer

Not many. Carbon dating really hurts manuscripts, especially papyrus fragments which we don't have a lot of material to work with.

Clivedurdle

Is Caesar's Messiah more FJ than MJ?

(Technically when was fiction invented?)

Chris Weimer

Atwill specifically promotes a fabricated Jesus.