spamandham

The evidence for a historical Jesus amounts to "parsimony". If you read through peer reviewed journals, you will find mainstream historians suppporting any manner of hypothesis regarding who Jesus was. It seems that the only thing they can agree on is "he existed". There is no other concensus about him among mainstream historians.

The evidence for a MJ is based primarily on reading the gospels, and recognizing that damn near every verse has a parallel to the old testament. The simplest explanation for this is that they were written intentionally to do that! The implication then is that Jesus might be a fictional character. When this is combined with the fact that nothing whatsoever can be said about the historical man with any force, the MJ position gains footing.

spamandham

How do we know there is little chance, until it has been completely explored? All the evidence we need might well be in front of us, with some assembly required.

The MJ idea has, for all practical purposes, not really been investigated. Doherty may have kick started the idea after 100+ years of slumber, but very little modern scholarly work has been done to persue it.

Doug Shaver

As best I recall from all I've read so far, the dispute between Paul and Jerusalem was solely about whether gentile converts to their movement had to comply with Jewish law. I'm not sure whether that fact, assuming it to be a fact, fits better with either historicism or mythicism. Off the top of my head, though, I'm inclined to think it doesn't fit historicism well.

Given a historical Jesus, the disputants would surely have quoted anything he might have said, or that they imagined him to have said, on the issue. There is no indication that anyone did, and I find it hard to believe that there would be no record of it if they had.

I believe they do represent an evolution. The problem is that according to the conventional historicist chronology, the gospels end up (with John) where Paul started. Or rather, they end up John approaching the point where Paul was but without having quite gotten there.

mountainman

Myth is a politically correct watering down of the word fiction.
It amounts to some form of conscientious inability to use the far
more appropriate terminology of the FJ position.

A fictional jesus, implemented perhaps early in the 4th century
appears to be reasonably consistent with all the available evidence.

spamandham

From my perspective, when I use the word 'fiction', I actually am referring to a genre. To me, at this moment, with what I know, it appears that the gospels (or at least Mark/pre-Mark from which the others were presumably based) were written with intent as mystical (not mythical) works of fiction.

It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the entire story would be built up as myth, with pretty much every aspect having an OT basis. I'm not saying it's impossible, it just doesn't seem like the simplest explanation.

The sequence I imagine goes something like this:

- OT Judaism -> scribal myth making -> the books of Enoch -> various 'son of man' myths -> early Christianity based on vague salvation theology (to include Paul) -> the fall of the temple -> the first gospel composed whole cloth as a work of fiction but based on early Christian myths -> abundant follow on works + pre-empirial Christianity -> empirial Christianity

While I haven't seen anything that excludes this, why do you believe your idea is simpler than the alternatives?

aa5874

Mountainman, after reviewing your post, maybe the mythical, historical and fictional position can be abandoned and the Fabricated Jesus be substituted, since any of the previous positions require some fabrication.

As I said earlier, the Fabricated Jesus fits your hypothesis nicely. Eusebius, it can be argued, fabricated 'his Jesus' in the fourth century, just like we can say Joseph Smith of the Mormons fabricated 'his Jesus' in the 19th century.

mountainman

Logically, because the theory can be reduced to one postulate;
namely that Eusebius tendered fiction, and that we are dealing
with a pseudo-history imposed as theological canon under a
malevolent despot with effect from 325 CE at his supremacy
party, where his subjects would learn all about "the fear of god".

The key phrase "fear of god" is plainly mentioned before
and after the council of Nicaea, in the personal letters
purported to have been authored by bullneck himself.

Theories of history for the period of antiquity in question (0-300)
are reliant upon multiple postulates, perhaps as many as half a
dozen separate postulates for example, in the standard theories
of history in which is considered an "historical jesus".

spamandham

By my count, this is really at least 3 postulates:

- Constantine was a malevolent despot (probably not controversial)
- The first nicean council was actually a supremecy party (probably somewhat controversial)
- Eusebius spent the next dozen or so years writing a pseudo history (probably very controversial)

Well, perhaps your proposal beats standard theories in absoluert count, I certainly don't know, but what also matters is the plausibility of each count, not merely the absolute quantity of them.

As an alternative to your proposal, consider the one I proposed above. Why is yours superior?

(I'm not claiming it isn't, I'm just trying to get to what underlays your position).

mountainman

Apart from the few lines we can be sure are those of Arius,
Emperor Julian's writings express the first formalised statement
of the hypothesis to be published after the Constantinian
regime briefly lost control ....

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

-- Julian, (c.362 CE)

mountainman

The way I see it is that the one postulate (Eusebius tendered fiction)
in fact has a number of logical implications. The Eusebian literature,
including Ecclesiastical Historia and other works, represent the basis
for the theory of christian history subscribed to almost without
exception.

One reason for this, is that there are very few substantial
alternative histories, for the period in question.

However, my research represents a sketch of an alternate theory
of the history of christianity. The logic of the situation is simply this:
the Eusebian history has integrity problems (to be detailed),
and is rightfully questioned.

The big question asked here is: "What if the history is fiction?"

The answer to this question is explored by means of making a simple postulate, namely suppose the history is in fact fiction. Logically, if the Eusebian history is false, there are at least five very specific implications. These are the following:


First Implication of Historical Fiction = Alternative

The first implication of the postulate is that there must exist another theory of history with a far greater integrity for the period, and perhaps quite different than the theory of history presented by Eusebius. For the exercise, this is to be called "reality".

Second Implication of Historical Fiction = Conjoins

The second implication is that there must exist a point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality". That is, the fictitious theory of history must have been physically inserted into "reality" at some stage, or point in time.

Third Implication of Historical Fiction = Precedent date

The third implication is that this point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality" must necessarily be - at the earliest - either during, or after, the life of the author of the fiction. Eusebius the author completes his work at some time prior to the Council of Nicea, in 325 CE.

Fourth Implication of Historical Fiction = Turbulent controversy

The fourth implication of the postulate is that this point in "reality" at which the fiction was implemented, would necessarily be associated with possibly massive social turbulence. People would be bound to notice the change in their history books, and possibly overnight. The Arian controversy and heresy is here cited and analysed with a new perspective.

Fifth Implication of Historical Fiction = party with power

The fifth implication of the postulate is that because of the possibly massive social turbulence associated with the actual implementation of the fiction, a great degree of power would have been needed to be brought to bear, by
the party responsible for the implementation of the fiction. The supreme imperial commander of the Roman Empire, Constantine I, is cited and his involvement in the establishment of the Nicean Council, for the express purpose of containing the Arian controversy (heresy) is cited and detailed.


These five implications are explored in detail, and evidence is presented in which such events, as described by these five implications, are documented as happening under the reign of the emperor Constantine (312 to 337 CE).


Summary

One postulate with five logical implications.
If the postulate is false, the implications must be false.
Yet events correspondent to the implications may be cited.
This indicates that the five implications are observable.
Thus the postulate could be correct.




We consider the stronger implication that there were in fact
no christians on the planet until Constantine arrived. That there
were no Christian persecutions, that there were no Christian
churches – until Constantine took Rome.

We consider the implication that, if indeed Eusebius perverted,
forged, deleted, interpolated and otherwise distorted the process
of hand-written preservation of ancient authors, christianity
was an invention of Constantine, and first appeared in Rome
in 312 CE as a propaganda to be associated with his military
supremacy.


Of course.


Using this summary ...

Specifically I see problems with items 5, 7 and 8.
The problem is that there is no historical evidence.
All is conjecture based on the "literature tradition".
The "literary tradition" was tendered by Eusebius.

All other historical evidence in its myriad of strands:
architecture and building, coins, statues and scupture,
art, frescoes and reliefs, inscriptions of various kinds
(research of greek Phyrgian inscriptions pending),
archeological relics, and all other scientific citations
including carbon dating citations commences only
with effect from the fourth century.

The lonely road of the literary tradition, first trodden
by that brave soul Eusebius, stands alone in its
testiment of "things christian" before Constantine.

It is possible that it is a fiction equipped with a pseudo-
history passed off by a malevolent despot as political
and expedient "historical truth" since his supremacy
party in 325 CE at Nicaea.

This is a question for ancient historians, archeologists
and scientists.