After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

[StephenGoranson]

Again, Peter/LC/Mt, you appear to have avoided my question, been unreliable, opportunist.
I know you now cite sources.
My question--which you are free to avoid--is the sequence in your life leading you to claim that Christianity was *created* after, say, 300 ce.
If you wish to share.

[Leucius Charinus]

I know you now cite sources.
My question--which you are free to avoid--is the sequence in your life leading you to claim that Christianity was *created* after, say, 300 ce.
If you wish to share.

I have already done that in this discussion thread. I have also indicated in this discussion that for the last 12 years I have ceased to defend the claim. I have even cited evidence against the claim.

Instead I have defended the novel claim that the NT apocryphal (NTA) corpus of literature is best explained as a post Nicene literary avalanche (composed by highly educated and elite pagan authors) in direct reaction to the imperial publication of the NT canonical books in a single codex along with the LXX.

You yourself appear to have published on different subject matters. So what don't you understand about this revised claim related to the NTA?

[StephenGoranson]

Peter/LC,
I am not aware of a good reason to consider works that were eventually classed as NT Apocrypha as all being written in a short time, in a late time, nor by a narrowly-defined group of writers.

Above, you wrote, in part:
"Ardashir creates the Persian State Zorastianism [sic] Religion c.223 CE"
Whatever Ardashir (I) did, perhaps we can agree that Zoroastrianism existed before he did.
And Christianity before Constantine.

[Leucius Charinus]

I am not aware of a good reason to consider works that were eventually classed as NT Apocrypha as all being written in a short time, in a late time, nor by a narrowly-defined group of writers.

In the field of history the primary evidence is generally regarded as king. Isn't the late Post-Nicene date of the surviving physical primary evidence of each of the hundreds of different texts of the NTA good reason enough? A handful of NTA manuscript fragments have been dated earlier by paleography in isolation. But experts caution scholarship that the upper bounds of this dating by paleography in isolation could well be in the 4th century.

On the basis of the primary physical evidence alone there is good reason to suspect the entire NTA corpus of literature to be post Nicene. Notionally a reaction to the Emperor's Nicene agenda.

[Ulan]

In the field of history the primary evidence is generally regarded as king. Isn't the late Post-Nicene date of the surviving physical primary evidence of each of the hundreds of different texts of the NTA good reason enough?

And we are back to square one of this thread, before the discussion of "what is evidence" started.

Who would have thought.

[Leucius Charinus]

In the field of history the primary evidence is generally regarded as king. Isn't the late Post-Nicene date of the surviving physical primary evidence of each of the hundreds of different texts of the NTA good reason enough?

And we are back to square one of this thread, before the discussion of "what is evidence" started.

Who would have thought.

Only those who do not logically differentiate between the NTA (NT Apocryphal literature) and the NTC (NT canonical literature) and/or who don't understand that my primary theory now involves the former (NTA).

Those like SA who at square one started this thread about my earlier theory (2007) about Constantine and the provenance of the NTC which I have since relegated/ discarded /replaced (who would have thought) in favor of my now primary theory (2011) about the Nicene epoch pagans and the provenance of the NTA.

[Ulan]

Only those who do not logically differentiate between the NTA (NT Apocryphal literature) and the NTC (NT canonical literature) and/or who don't understand that my primary theory now involves the former (NTA).

That point is irrelevant to what I said, which was about the treatment of evidence.

[Leucius Charinus]

In the field of history the primary evidence is generally regarded as king. Isn't the late Post-Nicene date of the surviving physical primary evidence of each of the hundreds of different texts of the NTA good reason enough?

And we are back to square one of this thread, before the discussion of "what is evidence" started.

Who would have thought.

That point is irrelevant to what I said, which was about the treatment of evidence.

I looked back over your posts here and am at a loss as to what you mean by the treatment of evidence. Which evidence do you mean? I see above you wrote:

For the 4th century, the Eusebian "Church History" as extension of Acts would have been sufficient to finish that task. Everything else looks completely superfluous to me. For the rest, you could just conjure the typical apologetics you sometimes find even today: everything was burnt during the persecutions, the last of which conveniently just happened before Constantine took office. Problem solved.

This appears to address the evidence related to the provenance of the NTC rather than that related to the provenance of the NTA. Are you lumping the NTC and the NTA into one category of Christian literature, or something else?

Thanks for any clarification.

[Ulan]

This appears to address the evidence related to the provenance of the NTC rather than that related to the provenance of the NTA. Are you lumping the NTC and the NTA into one category of Christian literature, or something else?

I can only repeat that this is irrelevant. My comment regarded the treatment of evidence in general.

[Leucius Charinus]

My comment regarded the treatment of evidence in general.

So how are you proposing to treat evidence in general which differs from my approach?