Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

You have been at this for considerable time.
How many historians have you persuaded?
Are they all fools?

One popular adage highlights three stages for the recognition of truth:

* Ridicule
* Violent opposition
* Acceptance as self-evident

As we all do I too have my allotted time. And get to decide what to do with it. I may indeed be the fool and I am prepared to accept that. Time and other historical investigators will tell. Thanks for your questions Stephen.

Indeed you may choose what to do as you wish with your allotted time.
Not all historians are Christians.
You may think that, in time, reception will turn markedly to your proposals.
Why, I wonder, did you think that that has not happened after so many years of your dedicated efforts?

The real question, the psychologists question: does Pete even believe in this? Or better yet, HOW MUCH does he believe in his own bullshit. Call me naive but I think even Pete knows deep down this is all garbage. My psychologists instinct tells me there's a parallel between believing that bullshit can fly (= Constantine faking a 1st century Christian tradition) and wanting to shovel manure that Constantine faked a 1st century Christian tradition. If I can do it, the circular logic goes, they can be believed to have done it too. Pete, in effect is a latter day Constantine.

Can we not worry about motives, please? Leucius Charinus, mythicists, Christians, atheists. all have perspectives that are either worth considering, or not. Either they are right -- in which case who cares their motivation? -- or they are wrong, in which case who cares their motivation? In the latter case, either ignore them or show why they are wrong.

"Great Minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."

You don't have to engage small minds. That choice is yours.

Leucius Charinus has a perspective about the provenance of early texts that is worth keeping in mind. As long as he isn't poisoning other threads with irrelevancies, I see his contribution as a positive for this board.

I wasn't actually addressing motive as much as the parallel between Pete and Constantine (in Pete's system). Pete is Constantine. More of a Woody Allen subplot.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 2:20 pm Not all historians are Christians.

I'd put forward an interesting comparison for discussion - the comparison between two different types of historiography. Namely (1) the writing of Ecclesiastical History in the 4th and 5th centuries of the common era, and (2) the writing of National Colonial Histories in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century.


National Colonial histories

By National Colonial histories I refer to the history of the British colonies in the US, Canada, Australia, India, Africa and many other places in the world. These histories were written by the colonists and were entirely colonial-centric. The discussion of the military conflict with the indigenous (first nations) people was hardly mentioned as was any discussion of their culture, their achievements and their own histories. In the earliest colonial histories the history writing was entirely focused on the values and the achievements of British colonialism.


Legitimate Historical Revisionism of the "Colonial Historiography"

In the 1970's and following these initial (1800-1960) colonial histories were subject to revisionism. A more balanced form of history writing appeared in which the history of the colonialisation admitted the experience of the indigenous peoples. In Australia I could cite Henry Reynold's work "The Other Side of the Frontier : Aboriginal Resistance to the European Invasion of Australia (1981)". There were many other historians in Australia, and elsewhere in the US, in Canada etc who contributed to the writing of a revisionist history covering the period of colonisation. Some of these use the term genocide.


Ecclesiastical History - National Christian History

Now let us return to the writing of Ecclesiastical History in the 4th and 5th centuries. These were written from an exclusively Christian perspective. The Christians were colonising the Roman empire and their history writing reflected this. The Christian church histories suppressed the conflict between the Christians and the pagans and highlighted how good the Christian colony was for everyone. The pagan culture was suppressed from their histories as was most stages of its genocide.

These Christian "Church Histories" need to be subject to the same form of revisionism that the Colonial histories of the US, OZ, CA etc have been subjected to. The voice of the pagan resistance to the Christianisation of the empire - previously suppressed - needs to be heard since it is an integral part of history.

You may think that, in time, reception will turn markedly to your proposals.

Historical revisionism has its necessary place. I have provided what I think to be a good example of how legitimate historical revisionism has a critical role in our understanding of past histories. To date there has not been written a purely political history of what went down in the empire during the Christian revolution of the 4th century (325-381 CE). The ground of history is still being dictated by the "records of the church industry". This IMHO needs to be revised. And I believe that sooner or later it will be.

Why, I wonder, did you think that that has not happened after so many years of your dedicated efforts?

Historical paradigms have a great deal of inertial resistance to change.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 2:55 pm
///

bullshit can fly (= Constantine faking a 1st century Christian tradition)

Strawmanning as usual SA?

The logic is simple enough. Let us assume I am wrong about Constantine and the history of the canonical Christian literature. Let us assume the gospels and Paul and Acts etc was transmitted (perhaps through the library of Origen). Read the OP especially point (5).

We have logically therefore yet to explain the history and authorship of the non canonical texts - the NT apocrypha (NTA).

You have the floor. You explain the history of the NTA. Especially what motivated the authors of the texts in the Nag Hammadi Library to write the stuff that we have in front of us.

• "As the Savior was sitting in the temple of the three hundredth year of the covenant"
  
  ///
  
  "The bishops and deacons are dry canals"

Thanks for your contribution(s) G'D.