mountainman

AT first sight, the postulate seems far-fetched because of the proverbial
mass of literature known as the "prenicene fathers". However, in the
same century we have evidence of two things:

1) Emperor Julian calling the fabrication a fiction.
2) The production of the pseudo-history and fake-documents known
as the "Historia Augusta".

We may indeed as an historian stand at the beginning of the fourth
century and grant the existence to a generally less-well known cult
known as "christianity", which was to be adoped by the supreme
imperial mafia thug dictator, and christian theologian Constantine,
and who supported, and protected, and later legislated in the new
(and strange -- according to Eusebius) Roman religious order.

Or, as an historian we may postulate that indeed there was no such
existent "tribe of man" before Constantine set foot in ROme, and
that he ordered and/or sponsored Eusebius to generated a pseudo-
history for new ecclesiastical issues. This is essentially the same
postulate as "Eusebius wrote fiction".

Historical postulates need to be tested with respect to what we
know about history, and about the abuse (or otherwise) of absolute
power under malevolent dictatorships, such as COnstantine's.

Postulates also have implications. These following 4 items are essentially
logical implications which necessarily follow a consideration of Eusebian fiction being:

1) There is a true history hitheto unknown ***
2) The pseudo-history arrived with its author (Eusebius) - 312-324 CE
3) Implementation of the pseudo-history cause massive social turbulence.
4) Implementation of this nature mandates the use of imperial power.

NOTE: 3 - we are citing the Arian controversy as being about the implementation
of a brand new and totally unknown religion, and the words of Arius as being
"there was time when he was not", refering to "before Constantine".
NOTE 4: The Council of Nicaea.
*** 1: Apollonius of Tyana --- an author of texts in antiquity, is calumnified
by Eusebius, and his historicity needs to be extracted without anti-christian
bias, in order to see his lineage (neo-pythagorean) as being the very line
of "Hellenic or pagan philosophy" that Constantine commenced burning,
and whose temples and arft, and gold and treasures, he plundered.

spin

Each step further complicating your theory only makes it more ridiculous.

Do you imagine that there were palaeographers in the period? Do you imagine that Eusebius would have his hacks slave away producing early manuscripts which reflected the extremely subtle variations which reflect say the 50 years between 200 and 250 CE? Do you have any evidence that anyone of the era took notice of the particular writing styles of particular periods or are you just fantasizing once again?

The notion of Constantine paying for a new religion misunderstands Constantine, who was a believer in Sol Invictus according to his coins for much of his reign. Writers have to have the fudge of a death bed conversion to link Constantine as a believer of the religion.

What evidence do you have that Constantine had any religious analytical thoughts? Why do you have such a negative approach to Constantine? Was he any different in outlook from others of his period? Why does't he endorse the religion you claim he founded by adhering to it from the beginning? What we know of him is that he was an opportunist and the christian religion came along as an opportunity for him. Why bother totally inventing a new religion as though it had had centuries of history before hand when it would have been easier to impose an already existent religion?

Occam's razor hacks your theory apart at most angles one investigates it. You put so much importance on Eusebius without actually noting that Eusebius doesn't display himself as any particularly great intelligence, yet he has to be your great master religious tactician. That's like getting Tom Cruise to star as Albert Einstein.

You show no great depth of knowledge of either of your two materminds. You don't show any real opportunity for them getting together to orchestrate the invention. You have to ignore palaeography, discount any relevant christian literature, both Latin and Greek, before Eusebius as forgeries by the Eusebian machine, down to the appropriate forms of Greek and Latin language. You ignore the falsification of your theory through historical indications and archaeology. They're wrong and you're right.

Your proposition is somply outlandish and unable to cope with any of the evidence available, except through the vastest conspiracy theory the world has never heard of. Your Eusebius got away with marshalling all those forces necessary to carry out your conspiracy, yet not one of them left any trace of the conspiracy itself.

There is no evidence for it. (You even don't understand Julian.) There is no tangible reason for you to consider the proposition. This is what you're doing:



spin

mountainman

Was there a great deal of trade in earlier centuries with counterfit
"Pythagorean writings"? Do you imagine that the some of the learned
in the period could not look at a writing, and see forgery. Was
forgery absent in antiquity? When did it start? Were there any practiced
in the learned art of "forgery detection"?

I get the impression spin that you think you are alot smarter
than the ancients. Please correct me if I am erroneously persuaded.


Constantine
saw himself as a King and not an emperor according to one coin he had issued from
his Constantinople mint, called the Daphne, from 326/7-330 CE.

Of this coin, McGregor, John. "Constantiniana Dafne: A Different Point of View". Journal for the Society of Ancient Numismatics Vol. XV, No. 3 (Fall 1984): 44-46. convincingly shows how this coin is a rejection of paganism and translates the reverse legend, loosely, as INFORMATION ABOUT, OF OR FROM DAPHNE PERTAINING TO CONSTANTINE. This coin is a personal statement from Constantine explaining why he gave up the laurel headress and replaced it with the diadem.

For further information see
http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/hist/hist.html
or http://www.constantinethegreatcoins....tml/dafne.html

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=195978

They were all thugs.
Terry Jones' barbarians ....

"The thesis is that
we've all been told
a false history of Rome that has twisted
our entire understanding
of our own history -
glorifying (and glossing over)
a long era of ruthless imperial power ..."

He was boss, and did what he pleased. Brigandry and a ward
irresponsible for his own actions describes the period 315-337 CE.

He had absolute power, and could do as he pleased.
His military associates had secured the empire, and he
was about to milk its accumulated riches. Why split the
profits with a bunch of wall plants?




We've been through this, and Dura Europa, and the citations
from Yale Divinity College that prove beyong any reasonable
doubt that there was a picture on a recessed wall. Other
posters in this forum have called upon you for these citations,
for some form of visible proof that christianity existed before
the fourth century ....

Julian was not convinced that the fabrication of the galilaeans
was a fiction of men composed by wickedness, I suppose?


Perhaps spin, there were in fact a "tribe of christians" on the planet
before the fourth century, and they were raised to official state
recognition by a supreme imperial mafia thug dictator, and eminent
theologian.

Vlasis Rassias, Demolish Them!, tells us what happened.
What's this business about "knowing a tree by its fruit"?

There is a falseness about the regime.
The postulate of Eusebian fiction is perhaps skeptical,
but IMO it needs to be explored, objectively.

spamandham

I agree there is strong (irrefutable as far as I'm concerned) evidence of Pythagoreanism in the gospels (particlularly John). I also agree that it's perfectly plausible that Jesus was a purely fictional character designed around OT passages.

How does your theory explain the rampant astrological symbolism of the age of Pisces imbedded in the gospels and in Revelation?

Aside from carbon dating invaluable manuscripts (which might still be possible on some of the lesser valued pieces I suppose), is there any way to test this theory?

Ted Hoffman

He doesnt indicate that he thinks Q1 was oral.
He just indicates that Q1 was foreign. Irrespective of its form. Of course Q must have been a written source. It is reconstructed from written sources.
You are treating Kloppenborg's hypothesis as a touchstone. Which is fine. But Doherty doesnt have to stick with him lock and step.
Allusions to the Hebrew bible alone dont make a document Jewish. It could be Christian.
I dont think you understand Doherty. What reasons does D give for stating that those sayings were not from Jesus? Why are those reasons incorrect?
That you disagree with Doherty is not proof that Doherty is wrong.
Point unclear.
What does D say are his reasons for making that interpretation? Or are you arguing that he just makes an unsupported assertion? Why speculate about his reasons?
Nobody gives a fuck about K's hypothesis. What is important is the reasons why you think D is wrong. D doesnt say that he bases his analysis on K's hypothesis.
Unclear.
And your reasoning is that if he properly understood the difference between tradition and composition, he would not have reached such a conclusion?
Ok
My point is that you keep attacking Doherty's conclusions because they do not resonate with yours. That is why I referred you to NT Wright regarding Jewishness. Please address D's premises.
Availability of cynic sources are irrelevant to the argument. The city of Galilee was hellenized enough to have Cynic preachers. The itinerant lifestyle that Jesus advocated (Lk 14:26), Criticizing earthly posessions (Lk 7:24-26, 16:13), stressing action over empty belief (Luke 6:46-49) bear close similarities to Cynic practices.
Circumstantial evidence (cynic sayings and lifestyle) leads us to think they may have been present. Plus there is no reason to think they werent present.
No matter. Nobody is saying Q was 100% Cynic: just that there are cynic influences detectable in Q.
What can I say - Q studies are rife with difficulties and scholarly disagreements.
Examples, sources please.
Well, Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the NT addresses JM theorists, both scholars and non-scholars. I dont think it is about the credentials of a writer: it is about the amount of public interest a theory arouses, which compels scholars in the field to set the record straight. I think that the JM theory has aroused substantial public interest.
It appears he took it down.

Ted Hoffman

Turton's work can be accessed here:
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html

spin

Changing the subject.
I do wish you'd get a clue about palaeography and the development of knowledge.

Being smarter hasn't got anything to do with the issue. If it were a matter of being smarter, why didn't the ancients know much about mathematics, geometry, astronomy, physics, chemistry. You have some sort of misguided idea that you can project any knowledge back into the past and voila that solves any question against your theory.

Yup, as I said purdy late.

Great thought put into this mountainman. You've got recent comedy to support your irrationality. I guess there is some strange coherence there.

Hey, shit, really? I guess you call almost every single Roman emperor after the time of Marcus Aurelius a thug or mafia or whatever term of endearment pops into your folly.

This doesn't answer my question. The religion served a purpose, ie he needed it. If he doesn't "split the profits with a bunch of wall plants" as you so colorfully put it, he shares it with the cadre of religion creators. All you are doing is attempting to sweep the propblem under the carpet.

Why is it that this gives an error to my browser?? Doesn't augur well for your content, does it?

You have to try to shoot the messenger because you can't face the message. The evidence is in. Clear dated evidence which shows that you are wrong. Denial is a healthy response. Unhelpful, but quite understandable.

What Jesus and Paul talked about, he put down to fabrication, yes. He accepts the existence of both. We have been through this and you have had no tangible response.

Om Mani Padma Hum

Let me quote the first item:

314 Immediately after its full legalization, the Christian Church attacks non-Christians. The Council of Ancyra denounces the worship of Goddess Artemis.

Already in 314 according to this there was a complete christian church. Doh! Read your sources.

Or, in your case, no fruit?

You're pushing a mediocre churchman into a role he doesn't belong in. That shows your desperation or lack of knowledge -- whichever is the closest.


spin

Zeichman

To be more precise: he doesn't commit to it, but he acknowledges the possibility.

He apparently doesn't think that he needs to take this course of logic back to Q1.

Sure, it could be. As I said before, my point was not one of Jewish/Christian but of Jew/gentile. If he's going to make controversial claims and changes to Kloppenborg's hypothesis in order to make even more controversial claims, he should justify his actions, which he does not do well, if at all.
incorrect. He says that liberal scholars (by which he almost always seems to mean the Jesus Seminar and its fellows) find Q2 to be completely inauthentic. I am citing evidence that this assessment is wrong. If I'm wrong, tell me how you interpret the relevant comments on p 157.

Doherty, Jesus Puzzle, p. 152. “Those [sayings] judged ‘authentic’ [in Thomas] by the Jesus Seminar are from the stratum similar to Q1.”
The cited sayings are Thomas sayings deemed authentic with Q2 parallels. His assessment is wrong. Other possible interpretations either indicate he needs to better define what "like" means, are meaningless, or are simply wrong.

Unsupported assertion. I only provided what were responses to what might have been his reasons.

It may not be necessary, but this is the route he chose to take. My point has rarely extended outside of the realm of "it's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about" or "he's just BSing the whole time." Either way, he could solve these problems by reading some more.

No, my point is that, as it stands, it is apparent he is confusing the techniques (tradition-historical, form-critical, and composition historical). I am not making any claims about his conclusions at this point, only that he is quite sloppy in his methods. He would have to demonstrate that this is the way it was in Q1 by showing the introduction to the chreia to be representative of the Q2 (or Q3) stratum, which he doesn't attempt.

I've been trying to avoid talking about his conclusions so people would not suggest it were things like this. And what premises are you talking about. He simply states that the Q1 is strikingly NON-Jewish, without saying anything particularly new for his premises.

I'll leave the issue of itinerants for the time being, but adducing parallels does not even suggest dependence. If Q1 was the product of Cynics, it would be about the only "surviving" piece during a rather long period.

This is nothing other than circular logic.

Doherty seems to suggest that Q1 WAS cynic, unlike almost every other advocate of the cynic hypothesis.

But Doherty does not even acknowledge many of these sort of changes he makes.

If you have access to ATLA, Wells and Price have a number of their books reviewed. Arnal, and Craig Evans reviewed "Incredible Shrinking..." and Stephen Brown, George Montague, and Adam English did for Deconstructing Jesus. I can only assume that there are more not on ATLA. His Luke-Acts book has several reviews from feminists. One can find the same of Wells.

Perhaps they soon will. We'll see.

I see a link has been posted below. I'll respond to it this evening or tomorrow. I've got a stressful day ahead.

Gregg

You obviously have it in for Christianity, and because you want to paint Christian origins in the worst possible light, you want it to have been invented out of whole cloth by this "supreme imperial mafia thug dictator" instead of just another typical opportunistic tyrant like practically every emperor was back then. Oh, and let's not forget his evil genius Rasputin-like sidekick, Eusebius, who was able to forge all at one time a large corpus of "Christian" literature of various types (letters, histories, gospels, apocalypses) that continues to fool even the most objective researchers, many using powerful text analysis software, into thinking it was written over a long period of time and copied and revised numerous times in that period.

To prove this you're gonna need evidence. Lots and lots and lots of evidence. So far, you haven't provided any. Quotes showing that some people thought Constantine was a power-hungry monster aren't going to cut it. Are you aware of some of the things Southernors said about Abraham Lincoln? How about John Wilkes Booth: "Sic temper tyrannis" (Thus ever to tyrants)?

mountainman

They were all imperial mafia thugs with military representatives,
and some of them were supreme, and some of them were indeed
dictatorial. If you want a recent summary of the picture, here
is the thesis of Terry Jones', in his Barbarians:

"The thesis is that
we've all been told
a false history of Rome that has twisted
our entire understanding
of our own history -
glorifying (and glossing over)
a long era of ruthless imperial power ..."

If you'd like to read a more ancient commentator on the
nature and actions of over 30 ROman emperors, have a read
through Julian's Kronia.

Admittedly Julian singles out Constantine at the end of his
satire, but I am sure that Julian rightfully believed that
Constantine deserved his censure.


It is quite clear to me that there exists a certain class of objective
researchers who have found the integrity of Eusebius wanting, in
the sphere of historical reporting. What have you to say about
the comments of these researchers?


You will note that all I am doing is asking the question
"Did Constantine invent christianity", and this on the
basis of examining the implications of consideration of
a Eusebian fiction postulate.

If Eusebius actually generated a "fabrication of the Galilaeans,
being a fiction of men composed by wickedness" then logically,
it is likely that christianity may not have existed prior to
the time of Eusebius (and of course the time of Constantine).