mountainman

As far as I see it the two positions being declared
can both be questioned ...

Scribal intervention, spin? Would you like to also advise
whether this scribal intervention theory concerning the
perversion of the birthplace of the main figure of the
plot is one in which there is any form of intelligence
behind the scribal act? IOW, was it just an off-the-cuff
fudge by an individual unknown scribe, or was it rather
a directive of an over-all, behind-the-scenes editor
of a work, which included the synoptics.

Also, you'd have to allow this "scribal intervention"
to be shall we say "fourth century", or you prefer
to remain silent as to the chronology?

Then we have Malachi saying ...


Seriously Malachi, what do you mean by "allegory"?
Its viewable as a dead giveaway for a late fiction.
Someone made a mistake (via anachronism).

Fourth century fiction, sponsored during the years 312-324
by Constantine, in which the intelligence resources available
to (both Constantine and his ) editor-in-chief, did not with
sufficient study understand that the (then 312) existent town of
Nazareth in Galilee, did not have more than a hunded years
of "ancient history".

According to spin, some scribe intervened after the town
of Nazareth was not only formed, but had become at
least established by name. The problem was that his
intervention was anachronistic. Perhaps the entire
synoptic literature and NT corpus is anachronistic
fourth century fiction. It's quite possible.

Spin, who is this anachronistic scribal intervenor in the
gospels concerning the origin of the main figure of this
literature, and who would have had the authority to have
physically intervened in the preservation process of this
literature? Does Origen mention Nazareth? Does Eusebius
mention Nazareth?

Best wishes,



Pete

spin

Yup. Perhaps you might like to explain the differences between the various manuscripts as anything other than scribal interventions.

Given the range of variations in the manuscripts, I wouldn't consider the theory of a lone scribeman serious.

Again the manuscript tradition gives indications of scribal intervention at various times.

In what sense "anachronistic"?

What seems quite possible to you seems fantasy to the rest of the w orld.

The most interesting indication about Nazareth is a fragment from a priestly roster found at Caesarea Maritima dating from the 3rd or 4th c. CE. (See here for example). I don't think the Jews of the period were part of your vast conspiracy theory, were they?


spin

mountainman

My explanation is that all the major surviving codexes
are scribal copies of the Constantine Bible circa 330 CE.

All manuscripts have a beginning and a source, a date and an author.
The mass of writings collectively labelled the corpus of christian
related manuscripts (NT) had many scribes, but perhaps only
one editor-in-chief.


From your reference below:

This third to fourth-century marble fragment is inscribed with the names of the places where four of the divisions resided, including Nazareth, the residence of Happizzez. Until that discovery there was no record of Nazareth's existence before the sixth century C.E., other than in the New Testament and later Christian literary sources.

If a scribe intervened during the third to fourth-century, and if the
place of Nazareth is found to date from (only) the third to fourth-century,
then the scribal intervention, declaring the existence of Nazareth
in the first century or earlier, is anachronistic, with respect to Nazareth.


Be that as it may, we share a common antiquity
which may not yet be altogether known. Therefore
what is possible and what is not possible is unlikely
to be known by the world at large.


It does say third to fourth-century Nazareth.
It does not say first century Nazareth.

So you were not impressed with King Constantine writing letters
to the prospective attendees of Nicaea, neither him giving up the
traditional wearing of the laurel, in place of the kingly diadem,
as depicted on the Daphne 327-330 CE?

Vast conspiracy theory my foot. One highly intelligent supreme
imperial mafia thug invents the new Roman religious order and
sponsors the extemely intelligent literacist, playright, rhetocian
and theologian Eusebius to manufacture a mass of fiction, much
like the assembly of an army of false references, fraudulent
interpolations, etc.

He sells the package at Nicaea to a captive audience.
He asks Arius to explain his objections to his new and
strange Roman religion. Arius does his thing.

He asks the prospective elite of the eastern empire
whether they want to follow Arius, or like himself,
follow this new ROman religious order.

There is a rush on quills, everyone thinks Constantine's
support is warranted, over the support of Arius.

Where is the conspiracy?
Its a dictatorship.

The first decade he was good, but in the second
decade he was a brigand (ie: a pirate on land),
and the third, an irresponsible ward.

The new Roman religious order plunders the treasures
of the Graeco-Egyptian antiquity for short term gain,
the issue of gold coins, and the massive destruction
of the ancient literature, within a century of Nicaea.
(See Demolish Them!)





Pete Brown
Codex Theodosius: is there an English Translation anywhere?????

spin

How does that explain the Alexandrian tradition which seems to be better and earlier than the Byzantine tradition?

What evidence do you have for this hilariously fanciful editor in chief??

For your stuff to have any validity at all, it cannot include the third century or even the beginning of the fourth century, ie the period of the fragment from Caesarea Maritima synagogue.

The name Nazareth is included in a priestly roster, so it must predate the roster. The name Nazareth had to exist in Hebrew tradition before your grand conspiracy.

So you would prefer to fantasize that Jews of the third/fourth century were in league with your mid-fourth century conspiracy.

Doh! It comes in before your grand Constantine-Eusebius conspiracy.

The pagan Constantine wouldn't have been too interested in christianity per se. It was a tool to gain a bit of unity amongst the fractious empire.

Michael Rostovtzeff, "Dura-Europos and its Art", Oxford (Clarendon), 1938, pp.131-132, will describe the christian frescoes for you.

Your foot doesn't have much to do with your falsified musing.

When Julian happily accepts Paul and Jesus, you have nothing up your sleeve.


spin

Malachi151

A symbolic fiction that is intended to represent various truths through abstractions and metaphor.

mountainman

Better scribes did the copy of the Constantine ms.

The TF is but one fraudulent incident pointing at Eusebius as an editor.
Jay Raskin has listed a number of editorial freedoms attributable to
Eusebius as a master forger, who quite shamelessly makes fanciful
edits in the purported testimony of prenicene authors. Hegessipus.

You of course have no problem with Eusebius being the editor in chief
of the Historia Ecclesiastica, or In Preparatio, etc as outlined above.

We have plenty of evidence that Eusebius was an editor in chief
of a number of works, the question is whether he was also editor
in chief of the synoptic gospels and the rest of the NT.

I understand this.

I have no problem with Nazareth existing in the 3rd century or even 2nd.
That Nazareth was founded say in the year 200 does not in any way
conflict with the theory that christianity was founded in the 4th century.

It just means that the 4th century fiction used Nazareth as the birthplace
for the leading character in the fiction. If Nazareth was not existent in
the first century, then your scribal alteration is revealed as false, and
in terms of its own integrity, a conspiracy.

There is no conditional logic between the two events (4th CE dictator,
and a scribe altering the birthplace of Jesus to Nazareth sometime in
the third or fourth century). They are independent.

I believe he invented the new and strange Roman religious order.
The pagan Constantine was a supreme imperial mafia thug who
wanted more and more absolute power, and GOLD.

That Constantine "wouldn't have been too interested in christianity per se"
is totally inconsistent with historical considerations. Start with the
Letters of Constantine and see if Constantine avoids talking about christianity.

You may like to assume that christianity existed at the time of
Constantine and he used an existent religious order to destroy
the old religious order. However I do not make this assumption,
and suggest that we ought to be sure that he did not create
this new and strange Roman religion out of the wholoe cloth.

The only real and ancient power in the land in the fourth century
were the vestiges of the Graeco-Egyptian religious orders, typified
by the lineage of the neopythagorean and neoplatonist philosophers.

Constantine created a new religion in order to plunder the old.


That the frescoes are "christian" is a 1930's academic assumption
based on what scientific principle of artistic appreciation? We have
all seen pictures of the "frescoes".

Julian happily accepted the entire fabrication of the galilaeans
as a fiction of men composed by wickedness, and even then
I have up my sleeve that Cyril refused to refute some of the more
serious invectives of Julian for "fear of contaminating the minds
of christians".


Pete

spin

I was asking for an explanation, not giving you an opportunity to fantasize.

PhilosopherJay tends to be underevidenced.

You are claiming something very different here from normal understanding of what Eusebius did with HE et al. Most understand him not as an overseer, but as a compiler, somewhat analogous to Diodorus, Pliny the Elder, and Alexander Polyhistor. As usual you proffer no evidence for your claim.

I don't know when Nazareth was founded and it is irrelevant to my analysis. Its incorporation into the gospel tradition is a late event, for it certainly wasn't in Q for example. What the first gospel gives us is the term Nazarene, which cannot directly be related to Nazareth and cannot mean someone from Nazareth. (But I suggest you read the previous threads on the subject to get the full argumentation if you need it.)

You claim that Nazareth "did not have more than a hunded years of "ancient history"." You have no evidence to make this claim. That Nazareth can be included in a priestly roster indicates that at the time it was mentioned it is neither a new town nor one under the influence of hellenism.

Remember, it does say prior to the time of writing, ie prior to the third/fourth century. It doesn't say that it was built in the third/fourth century.

Who cares what you believe, mountainman? What one cares about is what you can show.

Let's reword this. Mountainman doesn't know anything about the frescoes and won't read about them, even when references are supplied.

We've looked at the text and you don't have any grounds for your claims. He accepts the existence of Jesus and Paul. Here is something that Julian says about Paul:

But that from the beginning God cared only for the Jews and that He chose them out as his portion, has been clearly asserted not only by Moses and Jesus but by Paul as well; though in Paul's case this is strange. For according to circumstances he keeps changing his views about God, as the polypus changes its colours to match the rocks, and now he insists that the Jews alone are God's portion, and then again, when he is trying to persuade the Hellenes to take sides with him, he says : "Do not think that he is the God of Jews only, but also of Gentiles : yea of Gentiles also." Therefore it is fair to ask of Paul why God, if he was not the God of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles, sent the blessed gift of prophecy to the Jews in abundance and gave them Moses and the oil of anointing, and the prophets and the law and the incredible and monstrous elements in their myths?

This passage assumes that Paul existed and was of a changeable character.

I've already pointed out a passage which you misinterpret due to your a priori commitment to the grand conspiracy. That passage also assumes the existence of both Jesus and Paul.

nowhere did either Jesus or Paul hand down to you such commands. The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the women, and men like Cornelius and Sergius. But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.

Julian happily falsifies your conjectures.


spin

mountainman

RE: Julian's invectives ...

We will try this one more time...


Julian calls the fabrication of the galilaeans (NT) a fiction
at the very head of his treatise against the galilaeans.
Only after that does he deal with the details of the fiction,
but not before making a strong disclaimer concerning the
legalities of his major claim.

As an example, say a little black book appears in which it is
claimed that Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble descended
into a packed football oval in a flying saucer, and performed
a rendition of "Smoke of the Water" to a startled crowd
before departing again for the heavens.

Someone takes exception to the little book, for some reason,
and hires a barrister to make an arraignment against the book.
The barrister will state that the book is a fiction at the head
of his proceedings.

However the barrister will still be obliged to go throught the
elements and characters embedded in the fiction, because
they were existent in the book. When he talks about Fred
and Barney, the barrister accepts the existence of Fred and
Barney in the book, but not in any historical sense.

Do you see the differentiation spin?

So too, IMO, Julian accepts the presence of Jesus and Paul
as figures in a fiction, and can adequately discuss both people,
while still being convinced they are fictitious, as is the book.




Pete

spin

Why? -- when you clearly won't read the source text.

I can talk about the fabrication of the catholic church as a fiction, and still recognize the reality of the early church fathers.

I guess you think Julian thought both Moses and Plato were of the same fictitious nature.

Let's look at yet another dose of Julian:

Even Jesus, who was proclaimed among you, was one of Caesar's subjects. And if you do not believe me I will prove it a little later, or rather let me simply assert it now. However, you admit that with his father and mother he registered his name in the governorship of Cyrenius.

But when he became man what benefits did he confer on his own kinsfolk? Nay, the Galilaeans answer, they refused to hearken unto Jesus.

The distinction Julian makes here is between the actions of Jesus and the interpretation of the Galileans.

Now tell me this: who were this sect of Galileans that Julian is referring to, a hypothetical conspiracy of 40 years earlier? Here's a little more about them:

But that not only the Galilaeans of our day but also those of the earliest time, those who were the first to receive the teaching from Paul, were men of this sort [the baser sort, shopkeepers, tax-gatherers, dancers and libertines], is evident from the testimony of Paul himself in a letter addressed to them.

I wish you would read the bloody text.


spin

aa5874

This passage does not ascertain or attempt to verify the existence of God, Moses, Jesus or Paul. It is evident that Julian's knowledge of God, Moses, Jesus and Paul is based on written text. Julian has no firsthand knowlegde of God, Moses, Jesus or Paul.

With regards to Paul, Julian's characterisation of him is as a result of studying Biblical text and that same characterisation can be gleaned if the Pauline Epistles were studied today.

It is apparent that you have not understood 'Against the Galileans'. Julian refers to Christianity as a fabrication.

This passage demonstrates that Julian did not know of any writer who wrote about Jesus during the reign of Tiberius or Claudius, as early as the 4th century. To date no-one can provide such information, 1600 years later.

In my opinion, 'Against the Galileans' destroys Judaism and Christianity simultaneously.