Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Historical Jesus

#42201  Postby dejuror » Apr 01, 2017 11:40 pm

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr and Celsus support the argument that Marcion knew nothing of the Pauline epistles and that he [Marcion] preached or wrote nothing about Jesus.

Justin was a contemporary of Marcion and the writings attributed to him specifically state that Marcion preached about ANOTHER GOD and ANOTHER SON.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

Firtst Apology XXVI
And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator.

And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.



And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us......


The writing attributed to Celsus "True Discourse" also confirms that Paul and the Jesus story in Pauline letters were unknown up to at least the last quarter of the 2nd century.

The writing "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen admits that Celsus wrote nothing of Paul.

http://newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

Against Celsus 1.63
And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4688

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#42202  Postby tanya » Apr 03, 2017 5:45 pm

:clap: very well written, thanks dejuror.
tanya
 
Posts: 285

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42203  Postby duvduv » Apr 06, 2017 6:00 pm

It's conceivable that the creators of the NT books were not always on the same page, and that the work was farmed out to different freelancers who worked under Eusebius. Indeed Against Celsus sounds like it was written by some "undergraduate" because there are so many gaps in it it definitely sounds fictitious. How could someone argue to the Emperor on behalf of an authentic beleaguered community without giving a detailed description of its history,communities, and leaders?! And good old Justin Martyr doesn't even provide any information about his Old Man and his connection to Christianity way back in the second century. And how could he not discuss in detail the books that had allegedly been written in the prior century? Eusebius needed a general editor to make sure that everything made sense. But maybe it was intended that way to give the religion an odd air of authenticity by having it not appear that it was totally uniform in terms of the experience of its first adherents...... Good old Eusebius....!!
duvduv
 
Posts: 453

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42204  Postby Leucius Charinus » Apr 08, 2017 4:25 am

Image

RE: Eusebius

    Ever since Jacob Burckhardt dismissed him as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity," Eusebius has been an inviting target for students of the Constantinian era. At one time or another they have characterized him as:

    ◾ a political propagandist [1],
    ◾ a good courtier [2],
    ◾ the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine [3],
    ◾ the great publicist of the first Christian emperor,[4]
    ◾ the first in a long succession of ecclesiastical politicians, [5]
    ◾ the herald of Byzantinism, [6]
    ◾ a political theologian, [7]
    ◾ a political metaphysician [8], and
    ◾ a caesaropapist. [9]

    [1] Erik Peterson, Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem (Munich, 1951 ), p. 91;
    [2] Henri Grégoire, "L'authenticité et l'historicité de la Vita Constantini attribuée ê Eusèbe de Césarée," Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, 39 ( 1953 ): 462-479, quoted in T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981 ), p. 401;
    [3] Arnaldo Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century," in The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. A. Momigliano (Oxford, 1963 ), p. 85;
    [4] Robert Markus, "The Roman Empire in Early Christian Historiography," The Downside Review 81 ( 1963 ): 343;
    [5] Charles N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (1940; reprint, Oxford, 1966 ), p. 183;
    [6] Hendrik Berkhof, Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Amsterdam, 1939 ), pp. 21-22;
    [7] Hans Eger, "Kaiser und Kirche in der Geschichtstheologie Eusebs von Cäsarea", Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 38 ( 1939 ): 115;
    [8] Per Beskow, Rex Gloriae. The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church (Uppsala, 1962 ), p. 318;
    [9] J. M. Sansterre, "Eusèbe de Césarée et la naissance de la théorie 'césaropapiste,'" Byzantion 42 ( 1972 ): 593


    It is obvious that these are not, in the main, neutral descriptions. Much traditional scholarship, sometimes with barely sup- pressed disdain, has regarded Eusebius as one who risked his orthodoxy and perhaps his character because of his zeal for the Constantinian establishment. Scholars have often observed, for example, that his literary works in defense of the new order depict Constantine and his reign in eschatological terms that rival and even supplant the Incarnation and Parousia in salvation history.

    To be sure, this assessment relies on abundant documentation: in the Life of Constantine and in the Tricennial Oration, delivered on the thirtieth anniversary of Constantine's reign, as well as in other books, Eusebius gave an enthusiastic Christian endorsement

    . Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius:
    Reassessing the First "Court Theologian"

    --- MICHAEL J. HOLLERICH
    Assistant professor of religious studies
    in Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California.


"Dear Old Eusebius"

He wrote in the early fourth century a thesis in the field of ancient history.
The thesis concerned the rise of the nation of the Christians and the Universal Christian Church.
These claimed Eusebius, were the followers of Jesus Christ and the Twelve Apostolic Boneheads,

For his literary thesis he was paid in gold by the Emperor Constantine.
But his thesis was never peer reviewed.

It could be complete bullshit.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 734

Print view this post


Re: Historical Jesus

#42206  Postby proudfootz » Apr 14, 2017 8:39 pm

Interesting series from Vridar about claims that GLuke rewrote GMatthew from a Pauline perspective:

http://vridar.org/2017/04/12/the-gospel ... rts-study/

This is based on studies from the 19th century, calling into question the notion that doubts about the 'gospel accounts' is merely a current fad among New Atheists.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10249

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42207  Postby duvduv » Apr 16, 2017 3:50 pm

Does one have to be an atheist to question the origins of the books of the NT? Of course there is no evidence that a Luke or a GLuke etc. ever even existed in the 1st or even 2nd century. But the new regime of Constantine did have the means, motive and opportunity to create the new religion.
duvduv
 
Posts: 453

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#42208  Postby dejuror » Apr 16, 2017 5:55 pm

duvduv wrote:Does one have to be an atheist to question the origins of the books of the NT? Of course there is no evidence that a Luke or a GLuke etc. ever even existed in the 1st or even 2nd century. But the new regime of Constantine did have the means, motive and opportunity to create the new religion.


Manuscripts of gLuke [Papyri 4 and Papyri 75] are dated by Paleography to the late 2nd to early 3rd century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

The abundance of evidence show that stories of Jesus were already written at least a hundred years before the Roman Catholic Religion which was initiated in the 4th century.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4688

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42209  Postby Leucius Charinus » Apr 17, 2017 6:25 am

dejuror wrote:
duvduv wrote:Does one have to be an atheist to question the origins of the books of the NT? Of course there is no evidence that a Luke or a GLuke etc. ever even existed in the 1st or even 2nd century. But the new regime of Constantine did have the means, motive and opportunity to create the new religion.


Manuscripts of gLuke [Papyri 4 and Papyri 75] are dated by Paleography to the late 2nd to early 3rd century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

The abundance of evidence show that stories of Jesus were already written at least a hundred years before the Roman Catholic Religion which was initiated in the 4th century.


The papyri evidence derives from about a dozen or more rubbish dumps surrounding the city of Oxyrhynchus, a city which went a massive population explosion of "monks" in the mid 4th century.

    OXYRHYNCHUS
    Historia Monachorum


    "The city is so full of monasteries
    that the very walls resounded
    with the voices of monks.
    Other monasteries encircled it outside,
    so that the outer city forms
    another town alongside the inner.
    Monks outnumbered the secular citizens.

In the mid 4th century we may naturally expect that these "monks" were practicing writing bits and pieces out of the Greek New Testament Bible and throwing stuff on to the mid 4th century rubbish dumps. We may also naturally expect that with such a large amount of "monks" (male and female) practicing writing the NT Bible there would be a great variety of handwriting styles and skills, and that at least some of them would be archaic.

It follows that manuscripts of the NT dated by Paleography to the 2nd & 3rd centuries may in fact be manuscripts written upon in the 4th century at which time the NT Bible became the source of inspiration for the entire Roman empire. Palaeography is not as accurate a dating methodology as has sometimes been advertised, as recent articles have argued. For example:

    The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P.Bodmer II (P66)
    By Brent Nongbri, Macquarie University [2014]

    Abstract

    Palaeographic estimates of the date of P.Bodmer II, the well-preserved Greek papyrus codex of the Gospel of John, have ranged from the early second century to the first half of the third century. There are, however, equally con- vincing palaeographic parallels among papyri securely dated to as late as the fourth century. This article surveys the palaeographic evidence and argues that the range of possible dates assigned to P.Bodmer II on the basis of palaeography needs to be broadened to include the fourth century. Furthermore, a serious con- sideration of a date at the later end of that broadened spectrum of palaeographic possibilities helps to explain both the place of P.Bodmer lI in relation to other Bodmer papyri and several aspects of the codicology of P.Bodmer II.

    http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_071.htm


Consequently it is not necessarily true that that stories of Jesus were already written (according to palaeography) at least a hundred years before the Roman Catholic Religion of the 4th century.

These NT manuscript palaeographic dating estimates may in fact be perceived as a form of pareidolia or confirmation bias.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 734

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42210  Postby dejuror » Apr 18, 2017 3:53 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:......It follows that manuscripts of the NT dated by Paleography to the 2nd & 3rd centuries may in fact be manuscripts written upon in the 4th century at which time the NT Bible became the source of inspiration for the entire Roman empire. Palaeography is not as accurate a dating methodology as has sometimes been advertised, as recent articles have argued.......


NT Manuscripts dated to the 2nd &3rd century may in fact be from those very centuries.

It must not be forgotten that dating by Paleography was not initiated just to date NT manuscripts. Paleography is the accepted method used to date ancient writings [christian and non-christian] throughout the whole world.

Carbon dating does not date the written texts but the material on which the text is written and in addition carbon dating and Paleography have very wide date ranges.


Leucius Charinus wrote:......Consequently it is not necessarily true that that stories of Jesus were already written (according to palaeography) at least a hundred years before the Roman Catholic Religion of the 4th century.

These NT manuscript palaeographic dating estimates may in fact be perceived as a form of pareidolia or confirmation bias.


It is also not necessarily true that the stories of Jesus were started in the 4th century by the Roman Church.

By means of Paleography [the universally accepted method of dating ancient manuscripts] texts with Jesus stories have been dated long before the 4th century therefore the argument that Jesus cults or believers of the Jesus stories predated the 4th century Roman Church cannot be overturned presently.

Based on the abundance of evidence, I argue that the 4th century Roman Church hijacked the so-called Christian religion and invented their false history of the Church.

For example, writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and even Eusebius of Caesarea were corrupted in whole or in part by the Roman Church or their agents.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4688

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42211  Postby tanya » Apr 18, 2017 10:06 am

dejuror wrote:For example, writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and even Eusebius of Caesarea were corrupted in whole or in part by the Roman Church or their agents.


1. But not those writings of Philo of Alexandria, or Lucian of Samosata ???

2. "corrupted" implies possession of an original copy against which the extant (presumably mutilated) version can be compared. Do we possess today, among the various texts excavated from desert sands, an original copy of any document quilled 1800 years earlier?

Did the former Greek military commander and historian Arrian of Nicomedia (92-175 CE) confirm, repudiate, or even mention the military exploits, Roman empire infrastructure, or political machinations of the first century CE as detailed by Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius? How did Arrian's texts survive unscathed ? How do we confirm their pristine composition?
tanya
 
Posts: 285

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42212  Postby dejuror » Apr 19, 2017 2:19 pm

dejuror wrote:For example, writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and even Eusebius of Caesarea were corrupted in whole or in part by the Roman Church or their agents.


tanya wrote:1. But not those writings of Philo of Alexandria, or Lucian of Samosata ???


We have examples of corrupted texts in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 attributed to Josephus and Annals 15.44 attributed to Tacitus and there is no such mutilation in the writings attributed to Philo and Lucian.

Examine the writings attributed to Philo and Lucian and there is found not a single mention of Jesus, Christ, Jesus Christ, the twelve disciples, Saul/Paul, bishops of the Church or Gospels attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/fowl/index.htm


tanya wrote:2. "corrupted" implies possession of an original copy against which the extant (presumably mutilated) version can be compared. Do we possess today, among the various texts excavated from desert sands, an original copy of any document quilled 1800 years earlier?



We have no original copy of "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 yet the passage is regarded as a forgery almost universally.

We also have no original copy of "Church History" attributed to Eusebius that we can compare the extant version but we can examine what is written in the supposed copies.


In "Church History" the author makes references to the forgery called the "TF" Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and other writings that are now considered or contain forgeries or false attribution.

The author of "Church History" [under the supposed name of Eusebius] has [inadvertently] listed writings that were manipulated or corrupted.

This is a partial list of the corrupted writings in "Church History"---Josephus, Irenaeus, Clement, Ignatius, Tertullian and Origen.

It can be easily shown that writings attributed to Josephus, Irenaeus, Clement, Ignatius, Tertullian and Origen were manipulated when writings attributed to Justin, Celsus, Municius Felix, Philo, Lucian, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ephraem the Syrian are examined.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4688

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42213  Postby Leucius Charinus » Apr 22, 2017 1:07 am

dejuror wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:......It follows that manuscripts of the NT dated by Paleography to the 2nd & 3rd centuries may in fact be manuscripts written upon in the 4th century at which time the NT Bible became the source of inspiration for the entire Roman empire. Palaeography is not as accurate a dating methodology as has sometimes been advertised, as recent articles have argued.......


NT Manuscripts dated to the 2nd &3rd century may in fact be from those very centuries.

It must not be forgotten that dating by Paleography was not initiated just to date NT manuscripts. Paleography is the accepted method used to date ancient writings [christian and non-christian] throughout the whole world.

Carbon dating does not date the written texts but the material on which the text is written and in addition carbon dating and Paleography have very wide date ranges.


These very wide date ranges are rarely completely specified. For example you wrote above:

"Manuscripts of gLuke [Papyri 4 and Papyri 75] are dated by Paleography to the late 2nd to early 3rd century."

Is this an appropriately estimated date range? The fact is that I have provided reasoned arguments by which these same palaeographical date ranges must also be inclusive of the 4th century. Additionally I have presented one extremely relevant item of evidence that no one seems to have had addressed, including the Biblical Scholars and academics studying the papyri from the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps. The bulk of these rubbish dumps were commissioned in the 4th century when the population of the city went through the roof and another city - of "monks" - was expanded outside the city walls.

How is this not relevant to the dating of Oxyrhychus papyri?
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 734

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42214  Postby dejuror » Apr 22, 2017 6:53 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:

These very wide date ranges are rarely completely specified. For example you wrote above:

"Manuscripts of gLuke [Papyri 4 and Papyri 75] are dated by Paleography to the late 2nd to early 3rd century."

Is this an appropriately estimated date range? The fact is that I have provided reasoned arguments by which these same palaeographical date ranges must also be inclusive of the 4th century. Additionally I have presented one extremely relevant item of evidence that no one seems to have had addressed, including the Biblical Scholars and academics studying the papyri from the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps. The bulk of these rubbish dumps were commissioned in the 4th century when the population of the city went through the roof and another city - of "monks" - was expanded outside the city walls.

How is this not relevant to the dating of Oxyrhychus papyri?


The flaw with your argument is that you must reject all writings dated by Paleography before the 4th century when dating by Paleography is universally accepted.

Now,even with a very wide date range for Paleograhic dating NT manuscripts are not dated to the 1st century and this is extremely significant.

Christian writers claimed Justin Martyr wrote in the 2nd century during the reign of Antoninus [c138-160]. Examine the writings attributed to Justin and it is found that there is no mention of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul and the Epistles.

The writings attributed to Justin appear to corroborate the late dating of NT manuscripts by Paleography, that is, the NT books were not composed before c 138-160 CE.

Christian writers claimed Celsus wrote against the Christians sometime in the 2nd century c 175 CE. Examine excerpts from "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus.

Again, there is no mention in excerpts of "True Discourse" of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul and the Epistles.

It would appear that both Justin and Celsus knew stories of Jesus and the disciples but had zero knowledge of NT manuscripts.

If it is assumed that it was the 4th century Roman Church who invented all the Jesus stories and NT Manuscripts then it makes no sense to invent writings attributed to Christian and non-Christian which do not make mention of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul and the Epistles.

During and after the 4th century virtually all Christian writers knew NT manuscripts however before the 4th century many Christian writers have no reference at all to Gospel authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or Epistles written by Peter, Paul, James, John and Jude.

The writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, Suetonius Pliny the younger and the Dead Sea Scrolls support the argument that there was no story or cult based on a character called Jesus or a Jew called Paul in the 1st century.

The writings attributed to Aristides, Justin, Celsus, Tatian, Municius Felix, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Lucian, Arnobius support the argument that Gospel authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or Epistles written by Peter, Paul, James, John and Jude were late inventions as late as the 3rd century.

My argument is that the 4th century Roman Church or its agents hijacked the pre-existing Jesus stories and cults and then invented their own history.

The 4th century Roman Church or its agents invented bogus lists of bishops of Rome and other places. There is no historical evidence of any person called Bishop of the Roman Church before the 4th century.

All writings with a lists of bishops of Rome and other cities supposedly since the 1st century attributed to writers before the start of the 4th century Roman Church are most likely forgeries/false attribution or corrupted.


Writings attributed to Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement and Hippolytus are forgeries/false attribution or corrupted writings in whole or in part. These writings contain bogus lists of bishops of Rome and other cities since the 1st century.

All writings before c 362 CE or before Julian's Against the Galileans which claimed Josephus, Tacitus or Suetonius wrote about Jesus are forgeries/false attribution or corrupted since Julian knew of no well-known writer who wrote of Jesus and Paul.

Examine the words in "Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian Emperor of Rome 361-363 CE

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm


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.



In other words, 'Church History' itself attributed to Eusebius appears to be corrupted, that is, parts of "Church History" appear to have been written after the supposed Eusebius was dead.

The forgery called the "TF" found in Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 and "Church History" 1.11.7-9 were most likely fabricated after c 361-363 CE.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4688

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42215  Postby Leucius Charinus » Apr 25, 2017 6:13 am

dejuror wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:

These very wide date ranges are rarely completely specified. For example you wrote above:

"Manuscripts of gLuke [Papyri 4 and Papyri 75] are dated by Paleography to the late 2nd to early 3rd century."

Is this an appropriately estimated date range? The fact is that I have provided reasoned arguments by which these same palaeographical date ranges must also be inclusive of the 4th century. Additionally I have presented one extremely relevant item of evidence that no one seems to have had addressed, including the Biblical Scholars and academics studying the papyri from the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps. The bulk of these rubbish dumps were commissioned in the 4th century when the population of the city went through the roof and another city - of "monks" - was expanded outside the city walls.

How is this not relevant to the dating of Oxyrhychus papyri?


The flaw with your argument is that you must reject all writings dated by Paleography before the 4th century when dating by Paleography is universally accepted.


But you have just admitted that palaeographical dating estimates are to be universally associated with error bounds, and I have supplied various articles suggesting that it is quite within reason to associate palaeographic dates in the 2nd or 3rd centuries with error bounds that include the 4th century.

Consequently it is not a flawed argument to point out that the Christian writings dated by Paleography before the 4th century may in fact, when a more reasonable error bound is universally applied, be Christian writings from the 4th century.

Additionally you have not responded to the historical evidence that suggests the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhychus were commissioned in the 4th century when a second city - of "monks" - formed outside the old city walls.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 734

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#42216  Postby dejuror » Apr 25, 2017 9:47 pm

dejuror wrote:

The flaw with your argument is that you must reject all writings dated by Paleography before the 4th century when dating by Paleography is universally accepted.

Leucius Charinus wrote:
But you have just admitted that palaeographical dating estimates are to be universally associated with error bounds, and I have supplied various articles suggesting that it is quite within reason to associate palaeographic dates in the 2nd or 3rd centuries with error bounds that include the 4th century.

Consequently it is not a flawed argument to point out that the Christian writings dated by Paleography before the 4th century may in fact, when a more reasonable error bound is universally applied, be Christian writings from the 4th century.


Your argument is just as flawed as those who put forward the claim that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 1st century before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE without the supporting evidence.

Actual ancient manuscripts have been recovered with Jesus stories have been dated by Paleography before the 4th century and none have been dated before c 70 CE.

Again, it must be understood that dating of ancient manuscripts whether by carbon dating or paleography have wide ranges.

See page 845 of dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/1537/1541


Leucius Charinus wrote:
Additionally you have not responded to the historical evidence that suggests the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhychus were commissioned in the 4th century when a second city - of "monks" - formed outside the old city walls.


The claim or historical evidence that rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchus were commissioned in the 4th century does not mean that all the material found were from that time.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus_Papyri

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri are a group of manuscripts discovered during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by archaeologists including Bernard Pyne Grenfell and Arthur Surridge Hunt at an ancient rubbish dump near Oxyrhynchus in Egypt (28°32′N 30°40′E, modern el-Bahnasa). The manuscripts date from the 1st to as late as the 7th century AD. They include thousands of Greek and Latin documents, letters and literary works. They also include a few vellum manuscripts, and more recent Arabic manuscripts on paper (for example, the medieval P. Oxy. VI 1006[1]).


It must not be forgotten that virtually all early ancient NT manuscripts were found in Egypt and that Oxyrynchus is also a city of the same place.

At this present time, based on the existing dating of manuscripts and writings attributed to ancient writers, I argue that the Jesus story and cult most likely originated in Egypt and was initiated sometime in the 2nd century or after writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus and Suetonius.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4688

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42217  Postby Leucius Charinus » Apr 26, 2017 4:45 am

dejuror wrote:
dejuror wrote:

The flaw with your argument is that you must reject all writings dated by Paleography before the 4th century when dating by Paleography is universally accepted.

Leucius Charinus wrote:
But you have just admitted that palaeographical dating estimates are to be universally associated with error bounds, and I have supplied various articles suggesting that it is quite within reason to associate palaeographic dates in the 2nd or 3rd centuries with error bounds that include the 4th century.

Consequently it is not a flawed argument to point out that the Christian writings dated by Paleography before the 4th century may in fact, when a more reasonable error bound is universally applied, be Christian writings from the 4th century.


Your argument is just as flawed as those who put forward the claim that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 1st century before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE without the supporting evidence.

Actual ancient manuscripts have been recovered with Jesus stories have been dated by Paleography before the 4th century and none have been dated before c 70 CE.

Again, it must be understood that dating of ancient manuscripts whether by carbon dating or paleography have wide ranges.

See page 845 of dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/1537/1541


Thanks for the link.

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Additionally you have not responded to the historical evidence that suggests the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhychus were commissioned in the 4th century when a second city - of "monks" - formed outside the old city walls.


The claim or historical evidence that rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchus were commissioned in the 4th century does not mean that all the material found were from that time.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus_Papyri

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri are a group of manuscripts discovered during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by archaeologists including Bernard Pyne Grenfell and Arthur Surridge Hunt at an ancient rubbish dump near Oxyrhynchus in Egypt (28°32′N 30°40′E, modern el-Bahnasa). The manuscripts date from the 1st to as late as the 7th century AD. They include thousands of Greek and Latin documents, letters and literary works. They also include a few vellum manuscripts, and more recent Arabic manuscripts on paper (for example, the medieval P. Oxy. VI 1006[1]).


It must not be forgotten that virtually all early ancient NT manuscripts were found in Egypt and that Oxyrynchus is also a city of the same place.


The key word in my argument above is "monks". In the mid 4th century this Egyptian city underwent such a massive population explosion of "monks" that another city grew outside the core city site and its walls. It is reasonably certain that Christianity and the Greek NT Bible codex was distributed extensively under the rule of Constantine and his son Constantius (from 325-360 CE). Eusebius seems to have oversighted bible production for Constantine, Athanasius for Constantius. The Greek Bible had become an extremely powerful political instrument of the Roman state, and everyone wanted to study it monkishly. It follows that the Christian related scribal material being found on the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchus is most likely to have been produced when the city was fill of "monks" attempting to read and write - not just the canonical NT Bible but also some of the non canonical Christian material.

When one considers the argument that all palaeographical dating of Christian papyri reasonably includes a 4th century UPPER BOUND, then all this suggests to me that it is more likely than not that the Christian related papyri have a "monkish" 4th century provenance.



At this present time, based on the existing dating of manuscripts and writings attributed to ancient writers, I argue that the Jesus story and cult most likely originated in Egypt and was initiated sometime in the 2nd century or after writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus and Suetonius.


I am inclined to suggest that the Pliny - Trajan, Tacitus and Suetonius references to Christians are fabrications of the middle age church corporation - which was utterly corrupt. See my notes on each:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/i ... stians.htm

Josephus and Philo were not preserved other than by the church, so there's not any independence. Most people grant that Eusebius corrupted Josephus. The manuscripts of Philo are also not without their difficulties, especially for example "On the Contemplative Life".

Sometime in the 2nd century?
About the time of Marcus Aurelius?

You should already be aware that the Christian reference in Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations" is an interpolation.

    The Interpolated Meditations of Marcus Aurelius

    Marcus Aurelius Antoninus' reference to "christian obstinacy" (circa 167 CE) is located at Meditations, 11:3. Here is George Long's English translation:

      "What a soul that is which is ready, if at any moment it must be separated from the body, and ready either to be extinguished or dispersed or continue to exist; but so that this readiness comes from a man's own judgement, not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians, but considerately and with dignity and in a way to persuade another, without tragic show."



    Gregory Hays' 2003 translation of Meditations

    Hays' endnote for 11.3 says:

      "This ungrammatical phrase [like the Christians]
      is almost certainly a marginal comment by a later reader;
      there is no reason to think Marcus
      had the Christians in mind here."



    Maxwell Staniforth's 1964 translation of Meditations

    The translation is as follows:

      Happy the soul which, at whatever moment the call comes for release from the body, is equally ready to face extinction, dispersion, or survival. Such preparedness, however, must be the outcome of its own decision; a decision not prompted by mere contumacy, as with the Christians, * but formed with deliberation and gravity and, if it is to be convincing to others, with an absence of heroics.


    The corresponding footnote reads as follows:


      * If these words are authentic and not a later insertion,
      they are the only reference which Marcus makes to the Christians.
      C.R. Haines, however, in the Loeb edition of the Meditations,
      points out that the clause is
      'outside the construction, and in fact ungrammatical.
      It is in the very form of a marginal note,
      and has every appearance of being a gloss
      foisted into the text.'


    This is simply a polite way of saying Marcus
    has been interpolated by a later hand.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 734

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42218  Postby dejuror » Apr 30, 2017 8:41 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:
I am inclined to suggest that the Pliny - Trajan, Tacitus and Suetonius references to Christians are fabrications of the middle age church corporation - which was utterly corrupt. See my notes on each:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/i ... ians.htm...


It must not be forgotten that the term "Christian" does not inherently mean only followers of Jesus or only believers in Jesus stories. If there were cult leaders who called themselves the Anointed One [Christ] then their followers could be called Christians.

In addition Jewish High Priest were called Christ [the Anointed] hundreds of years before Jesus fiction stories were invented.

In any event, the term Anointed [Christ] was used in writings hundreds of years before the 1st century.


Leucius Charinus wrote:Josephus and Philo were not preserved other than by the church, so there's not any independence. Most people grant that Eusebius corrupted Josephus. The manuscripts of Philo are also not without their difficulties, especially for example "On the Contemplative Life".


There is no actual evidence that the writings of Philo were corrupted by the 4th century Roman Church. The writings attributed to Philo do not mention any person called Jesus the Christ, the twelve disciples, the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, James, Jude, John and Peter or bishops of Rome and anywhere else.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4688

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42219  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 02, 2017 12:07 am

dejuror wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:Josephus and Philo were not preserved other than by the church, so there's not any independence. Most people grant that Eusebius corrupted Josephus. The manuscripts of Philo are also not without their difficulties, especially for example "On the Contemplative Life".


There is no actual evidence that the writings of Philo were corrupted by the 4th century Roman Church. The writings attributed to Philo do not mention any person called Jesus the Christ, the twelve disciples, the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, James, Jude, John and Peter or bishops of Rome and anywhere else.


Eusebius' theory that Philo's "therapeutae" were the "missing link" of Christians between the apostolic age and the age of the church was followed until complications were discovered by academics. To overcome these problems Coneybeare suddenly realised that Philo's "therapeutae" were Jewish. Academics from as early as the later 19th century have seriously questioned the integrity of the text "On the Contemplative Life", attributed to Philo. A number of scholars concluded that the text was a 4th century forgery. Here is a list of paradoxes about this text:

PARADOX 1: Dominance of Literary and archaeological evidence citations

A mass of literary evidence is cited for pagan therapeutae (See TLG etc) .
This mass of literary evidence is corroborated by the archaeological evidence.
One item of literary evidence "Vita De Contemplativa" is cited to establish
a Utopian sect of Jewish therapeutae. This single item of literary evidence
remains uncorroborated by the archaeological evidence.


PARADOX 2: Monastic communities are evidence from the 4th century.
The author of "VC" described a monastic community in the 1st century.
The author states this group (monastic community) was all over the empire.
That makes them the first monastic community in the empire.
The Egyptian monastic community movement belongs to the 4th not the 1st century.
How could the author of "VC" have portrayed a monastic community in Egypt
(or indeed all over the empire) from the 1st century?


PARADOX 3: Was "VC" authored by Philo or someone else?
The author of "VC is virulently anti-Hellenic, Philo is not.
Philo is allied to Greek culture and philosophy, the author of "VC" is not.
Philo praises Pythagoras, Plato, etc while the author of "VC" repudiates them.
Philo has great respect for the symposium, while the author of "VC" presents a detestable, common drinking-bout.
Philo respects the Platonic Eros, the author of "VC" does not.

Source: The Jewish Encyclopedia: by Isidore Singer and Cyrus Adler.

PARADOX 4: Nowhere does "VC" explicitly state the group is Jewish.
That the group of "VC" are Jewish is an assumption drawn from the
authors recounting the story of Moses Dead Sea Surfing Comp. This
mention by the author of "VC" presents as an allusion not a reality.

PARADOX 5: Philo identifies the therapeutae consistently as "them" not "us".
Why would he do that if he viewed them as Jewish?

Philo describes these Theraputae as though 'they' and 'their' religious practices are -alien- to him and his religious practices.
Why would he do that consistently throughout this entire text if he viewed them simply as being fellow Jews practicing the very same Jewish religion as himself?


PARADOX 6: Who were the "worshipers" [of the god(s)] in antiquity
Church scholars have answered this question for us in the past.
For 1400 years the church scholars had us all believing they were Christian.
One hundred years ago a Professor of Theology wrote they were Jewish.
Conybear was the calf who made a new trail which the herd followed to new pastures.

Why are we avoiding the consideration of pagan worshipers?
Because the worshipers as described in "VC" are Jewish?
Why are the biblical academics so dismissive of the ubiquitous pagan worshipers?
Who were the therapeutae of the medical profession and Asclepius for example?
They were the dominant worshipers. They had the largest sector of the temple market.

PARADOX 7: The modern and ancient use of the term "therapeutic".
See therapeutic
therapeutic - definition of therapeutic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
The term therapeutic is obviously related to the therapeutae (worshipers) of the healing god asclepius.
Asclepius was the healing god from deep BCE until Nicaea.
His worshipers include Hippocrates and especially Galen.
These people are regarded as the fathers of modern medicine.
The word therapeutic appears to belong to the therapeutae of asclepius.


PARADOX 8: How are the essenes related to the therapeutae?
Are they both fictional Utopian dream groups?

It has recently been argued that VC was only a Philonic utopia:
see Troels Engberg-Pedersen, "Philo's DVC as a Philosopher's Dream"


PARADOX 9: Why Does Clement of Alexandria Call Philo "The Pythagorean"?
This supports the notion that Philo was more of a Greek [Platonist?] than a Jewish theologian.

See David T. Runia
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1584152

Elior says Josephus, inspired by descriptions of life in the Greek city of Sparta, made the Essenes up.
http://www.haaretz.com/scholar-the-esse ... d-1.272034
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 734

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42220  Postby dejuror » May 03, 2017 2:26 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Eusebius' theory that Philo's "therapeutae" were the "missing link" of Christians between the apostolic age and the age of the church was followed until complications were discovered by academics. To overcome these problems Coneybeare suddenly realised that Philo's "therapeutae" were Jewish. Academics from as early as the later 19th century have seriously questioned the integrity of the text "On the Contemplative Life", attributed to Philo. A number of scholars concluded that the text was a 4th century forgery.........


It makes no sense at all that the 4th century Roman Church would invent or falsely attribute writings to Philo and then forget to mention anything about Jesus Christ, Christians, Bishops of Rome, Paul, the disciples, Mary, the Gospels and their authors, the Epistles, Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John and their authors.

Philo was supposedly a contemporary of Tiberius and Gaius so potentially could have been a witness of the early Jesus cult and Paul yet not a single mention of any person or event about Jesus, Paul and the disciples is found in the 40 or more books.

The writings attributed to Philo are probably as large as the total compilation of the NT books.


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/

Examine excerpts from the Life of Moses

I. (1) I have conceived the idea of writing the life of Moses, who, according to the account of some persons, was the lawgiver of the Jews, but according to others only an interpreter of the sacred laws, the greatest and most perfect man that ever lived, having a desire to make his character fully known to those who ought not to remain in ignorance respecting him...


Moses [not Jesus, not Paul] was the greatest and most perfect man who ever lived in writings attributed to Philo.

Examine an excerpt from APOLOGY FOR THE JEWS

(11.1) But our lawgiver trained an innumerable body of his pupils to partake in those things, who are called Essenes, being, as I imagine, honoured with this appellation because of their exceeding holiness.


The Essenes [not Christians] were exceedingly holy in writings attributed to Philo.

It is simply not logical at all that the 4th century Roman Christian Church or its agents would invent, forge or falsely attribute writings to Philo which contradict or present no "historical" evidence to support their "Church History".

We know the writings that support the fiction called "Church History" and were most likely forged or falsely attributed to writers before the 4th century.

Writings [in whole or part] supposedly composed before the 4th century with a list or mention of Christian bishops of Rome [or anywhere] or Gospels called according Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, or mention of Acts of the Apostles and Epistles to Churches since the 1st century are corrupted, forgeries or false attribution .

This is a partial list of manipulated writings, forgeries or false attribution [whole or in part]:

Writings attributed to Ignatius [ Bishop of Antioch].
Writings attributed to Clement [Bishop of Rome]
Writings attributed to Irenaeus [bishop of Lyons].
Writings attributed Tertullian.
Writings attributed to Origen.
Writings attributed to Eusebius.

Writings which support the false claims in "Church History" were most likely invented[whole or in part] by the agents of the Roman Church.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4688

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 7 guests