mountainman

The date of the widespread publication of the Jesus story might also be highly relevant, since we may safely assume that christian origins was not later than this event. This puts an upper bound on the puzzle.

The story about a Jewish Jesus was authored, published and probably sketched, dreamt-up, conceived, or if you prefer - inspired in the Greek language. The Jewish Jesus was sketched from the Greek of the LXX and not any other language.

The dating and the storyline are inseparable -- (in normal circumstances).

When the storyline is suspected of being non historical then logically we cannot be constrained by any "false leads" incorporated into the storyline. The Jewish storyline compels us (falsely I think) to consider the fall of the Jewish temple as relevant to how and when the authorship of the story might somehow be fit into ancient history. The Greek speaking readers of the NT were to be deceived by the relevance of the Jewish Jesus.

But the story is a Greek story, written in Greek for the Greek speaking populace, for the purpose of converting these people to the new religion. The destruction of the Jewish temple was probably almost entirely inconsequential for the bulk of the Hellenistic populace of the Roman empire. However the destruction of the Hellenistic temples was doomsday for the Graeco-Roman populace as they knew it through tradition.

The story of Jewish Jesus compels us to look at the fall of the Jewish temple, and it consequently makes us myopic about the utter fall of the hundreds of extremely ancient and extremely highly revered temples of the Hellenes, which the archaeologists tell us previously rested at the foundation of practically every single "Christian [BASILICA] Church".

The dating and the storyline are inseparable --- to historical assessment.
There are two exceptions: (1) science fiction set in the future and, (2) fiction retrojected into the past.
With respect to christian origins, as much as option (1) seems very attractive for a number of reasons,
we are obviously dealing with a variation upon option (2) -- retrojection.

When we suspect we are dealing with a fabricated and retrojected history, a story which has twisted the actual historical truth, then we are obliged to cast aside this dependence of inseparability. Nothing in the story becomes relevant for a landmark of sure dating, except it be by way of identifying anachronisms. We must search the corroborative political history outside the text itself, for all clues which might provide information about when this "fabrication of the christians" may have been politically authored as a false story. The publication date becomes increasingly relevant to the solution of the unknown date of authorship. Temple destruction was a regular passtime of many 4th century Christian emperors.

Other evidence - the destruction of the Greek temples
in the Gnostic gospels and acts

You will also see that in a number of Gnostic Gospels (which oppose orthodox canonical christianity) the apostles themselves are presented as destroying the Greek temples with impressive displays of Herculean and divinely supported strength. These represent evidence independent from the canonical story. To me they are political documents authored in such a way as to focus the reader on the destruction of the Greek temples not the Jewish temple by the imaginary and fictitious "Early Christians". The gnostic gospels and acts were very popular stories with the Greek populace --- ripping yarns which poked fun at the canonical story. These accounts simply copied and expanded upon the retrojected and fabricated canon. These accounts --which were written in highly academic and studious Greek (and not the common Greek of the NT canon) -- presented Roman apostles who destroyed temples.

arnoldo

We have searched the corroborative political history and determined that Constantine did not invent Christianity, rather he used it as a tool to unite his empire.


The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade; Susan Bauer (or via: amazon.co.uk)

mountainman

Thankyou Arnoldo.

But I too have searched the corroborative political history and remain unconvinced that these two things are necessarily mutually exclusive. Perhaps the common ground is that the 4th century is the "Upper Bound" of possibilities, in the same sense that the 1st century constrains the "Lower Bound".

Best wishes,


Pete

maryhelena

No, not really - the storyline, the ideas contained within that storyline, could easily have had a 'history' that predated the writing down of that storyline. All dating does is date the writing down not the history or the tradition of those ideas. Ideas don't just drop out of the sky, they usually have some relevance to what has gone before. Again, dating does nothing for dating the ideas contained within the storyline - all it does is date the time when the ideas were written down - not the date of the time when people first believed those ideas. And of course, dating the written words of the gospel story is usually dating the last edition, the latest layer, the updates - so, again, such dating has little to do with the date, if such a date was even possible to determine, when people first started to believe the ideas that the written words were reflecting and endeavoring to preserve.The 'birth' of the non-historical Jesus storyline - impossible to date. See above. Dating written words need have no relevance to the actually history of the ideas contained within those written words.

The gospel storyline is contained in four books - four versions or interpretations of the storyline. Dating these written words can contribute towards reading the gospel storyline in the correct order. It could help in indicating any developments in that storyline. Developments that might throw some light upon understanding that storyline. For example: reading GJohn as the last 'chapter' and one could think that a high Christology was the end result of the gospel storyline. Reading GJohn as the first 'chapter' and one could draw the conclusion that a high Christology was the starting point of the gospel storyline. That is the sort of thing that dating the written words can do.

aa5874

Well, you have finally admitted, although inadvertently, that dating is extremely critical to understanding history whether the information contained in the writing itself is non-historical or not.

It is extremely important to know when Homer wrote the Iliad. The contents, date of writing and authorship of the Iliad are inseparable parts of history, so too with with any work of antiquity, the Jesus story included.

maryhelena

Of course, dating is very important to understanding history, to get a clear picture of historical happenings. What I have said is that dating the written words of the gospel storyline is not the same thing as dating the history of early Christianity.

Nothing, 'inadvertently', about my previous statements. Perhaps you might care to re-read them.

aa5874 - I'm not interested in a 'you said', 'I said' exchange - so I don't think this discussion will benefit from that type of communication. I'm really not interested in having to keep repeating myself. Beg to differ by all means. But please don't try to make my words say something that I am not attempting to say.

aa5874

I must address your contradictions.

You are admitting that dating and the storyline are critically important yet is still trying to claim that there are exceptions.

There are no exceptions when dealing with history. History is directly related to proper dating of any source of antiquity whether writings of mythology or artifacts.

You must admit that dating Roman/Greek mythology is extremely critical important in understanding the history of the Greeks and it must be the same with the Jesus story and Jesus believers.

And it must be noted that the Jesus story produced the new God that replaced the Roman/Greek Myths.

maryhelena

We are talking at cross purposes here - so I won't be replying further to you on this matter.

J-D

Constantine was the son of a Roman Emperor. Who was this Germanic goatherd?

temporalillusion

If I may can I ask why this is?

If John is much later than the synoptic gospels, then the views of Jesus would have had time to naturally change and mature (Mark where Jesus is begotten at baptism, Luke/Matthew where Jesus is begotten upon birth, John where Jesus was always begotten because he's God) which fits better with a single source of it all (a man)?

While if it's earlier and closer, there's less time for things to change and mature so that points more to a parallel set of views, possibly from a different source that eventually all merged into one (mythicism)?

Or am I completely off the trail?