Sheshbazzar

Something to think about.
WHO was it that actually composed and gave us these so called Christ 'prophecies'? And when, where, and WHY?

They are represented to be 'prophetic' pronouncements made by the cult figure 'Jesus' his-self, and in advance. But were they?

Was there ever a real 1st century Jewish Prophet behind this, and other christ-ian 'prophecies'?

Or was this 'prophecy' an invention of the 'Jesus' cult leaders and promoters as an ad hoc after the fact solution to the problem of the fact that there were already many 'christ' claiments and their followers present and teaching their own ideas and doctrines?

Could these 'prophecies' from 'Jesus' cult have been the cult's literary means of retrojecting the cults claims as being prior, and thus falsely professing to hold priority over any and all other such claiments ....those non Jesus 'christs' and 'christ-ians' whom in point of fact, had preceded, and were established, and were the contemporary claiments during the late rise of the Jesus cult?

I submit that this was the case.

aa5874

Do you not put forward the notion that all of Christianity is a product of the 4th century or later and that all writings which appear to be of an earlier time are forgeries or manipulated even if dated by Paleography?

Do you not reject Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Lucian, Celsus, Origen, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Barnabas, Hermas, Galen, Pliny, Cassius Dio, Dated NT manuscripts, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and all writings which supposedly mention Christians before the 4th century??

You do put forward the notion that writings of antiquity must be rejected out of hand merely because they were preserved or believed to be manipulated by apologetics.

A close examination of some of the writings you reject do show that they were most likely composed well before the 4th century and were not manipulated by the later forgers.

Well, if you examine what is said by Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Anbtioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Rome, Optatus, Ignatius, Ephrem the Syrian, Julian the Emperor, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and others then it is rather easy to logically deduce that the Jesus cult PREDATED Eusebius and was known in the late 2nd century unless you REJECT them out of hand.

In fact, "Church History" may be a Massive forgery. At least Eusebius did NOT write the TF if he Died before Julian was Emperor of Rome.

Roger Pearse

Very interesting; particularly as a way to investigate the backwards influence of Eusebius' version in the HE on subsequent transmission. Thank you.

MrMacSon

This is essentially Earl Doherty's thesis, as summarized over a decade ago by Richard Carrier
Earl has since expanded his thesis as Jesus: Neither God Nor Man: the case for the mythical Jesus
.

Sheshbazzar

Not to argue, but only to clarify, my view is that there essentially was no 'Jesus' cult or 'Gospel story' at all in the 1st century. It coming into being and growing out of the Hellenic philosophical and theological 'Logos' and 'christ' conflicts of 2nd and 3rd centuries CE.
The Gospel's 'Jesus' nothing more than a crafted literary 'talking head' used to present a fabricated and false history that elevated the authority, and thus those 'Christ' doctrines endorsed and promoted by an emerging 'orthodox'.
All these writings reflecting only the struggles for sectarian religious authority and dominance through the publication and distribution of an outlandish and self-serving fabricated religious tale.

MrMacSon

I agree. I thinks that's also something like Doherty's view.

mountainman

I have contacted the site Medicine, ancient and modern - A blog (from the University of Warwick) on ancient medicine and its many connections with later periods in history, who appear quite intimately involved with the "Reading Galen in Byzantium… and beyond" and have asked them whether they are able to furnish a history of the transmission of the Galen manuscripts containing the text of "De differentiis pulsuum" .

The OP is quite specific, and in order to answer the question as to whether Galen mentions Christians we are obliged to consult the manuscript tradition itself. Earlier discussion in this thread has eliminated three out of the five claimed references in Galen, leaving only two remaining references to be checked, both of which are to be found in the text of the manuscripts of "De differentiis pulsuum" .