The Biggest Lie in the Study of Earliest Christianity

[andrewcriddle]

How historical is Abul Fath's account ?

Among other issues the historical Alexander of Aphrodisias seems to have been largely active from the time of Severus on. He does not appear to have been a prominent figure in the time of Commodus.

Andrew Criddle

[stephan happy huller]

Abu'l Fath is drawing from a lost historical text of some sort. These are clearly his words summarizing the remaining portion of the text before him.

The debate between them dragged on, with argument and polemic . The situation reached the stage where the possibility of the Creator's "Speaking" was denied. And the Mission of the Messengers is (implicitly) denied by whoever denies that the trustworthy Message has been uttered. Perhaps more of the discourse of this question ought to have been given here. But I have related it as I found it, and as much as I could cope with.

Alexander was alive at this time and he was appointed to a philosophical chair by Severus I believe. Every famous man has to prove his worth somehow. Abu'l Fath has similar references whenever he is using sources. Often times he will say simply 'I didn't understand what the text was saying,' 'I could only take so much' etc.

[ghost]

But these were overcome in the fourth century. The example of Edessa and Osroene and Armenia and later Persia all point to the ultimate triumph of Nicene Christianity.

There was no monarchianism before trinitarianism?

http://www.inarah.de/cms/das-qsanctus-q ... mmedq.html

Dort wurde bis zum Konzil von Nizäa im Jahre 325 der sogn. Monarchianismus vertreten: Gott allein ist Herrscher, Wort und Geist sind „nur" seine Kräfte (dynameis), durch die er selbst nach außen wirkt. Es gibt nur den einen und selbigen Gott,er ist unitarisch einer. Jesus wurde auch hier als unser Heilsmittler bekannt. Er war dies aber deswegen,weil er sich in vollkommener Weise im Gehorsam dem Vater gegenüber bewährt hat, die syrische Bewährungschristologie. Er ist also (nur) Mensch, aber der ethisch exemplarische Mensch.

[andrewcriddle]

Here is the answer. From Abu'l Fath who was clearly citing an earlier source:

After Eleazer, ‘Aqbun was High Priest for 23 years. ln the days of this ‘Aqbun, terrible hardships fell upon the Samaritans from Commodus the king — worse than anything that had befallen them from Hadrian. He forbade them to read the Torah; he closed the schools of learning and (forbade) all instruction in the Law. He bolted shut the Synagogues. The High Priests fled, The High Priests fled, as did the wise men, from the tyranny of Commodus the king on account of the great number whom he killed and crucified in every place.

The reason for this (persecution) was a debate that took place in his presence between Levi and a man from his (Commodus') community called Alexander Aphridisias, from Aphridisias, concerning the coming-into-being of the world. Alexander said that its Substance and Prime Matter were eternal and that the Creator only provided the Form and Accidents. Levi replied that Substance and Matter need an originator, just as Form and Accidents do. To this, Alexander retorted, "This would lead to a situation where the world would not be possible and where God would have no power to bring it into being. . For, if he had the power from the first, then before that it cannot have been possible. And yet, if before that it were impossible, this would be a restriction, and there can be no restriction on his power."

Levi said that the world was possible of existence ab aetemo and that no time could be conceived in which the coming-into-being of the world could not be conceived. "lf it were to be supposed that the world simply 'existed' without being created and it be tried to prove that this belongs to the realm of possibility, then this would be a figment of the imagination — an intellectual fiction — and the world would be insubstantial and immaterial. And if something were to exist such as Matter and Substance, then it would exist de se. This existence must be either possible or necessary. lf it were possible, then the argument would be as before. lf it were necessary, however, then it would share with the first Almighty One in eternal existence. And if it did thus share, it would not change either in toto or in paribus, for change is an effect and an effect presupposes an Agent. For the one thing cannot be both Matter and Agent under any aspect.

The debate between them dragged on, with argument and polemic . The situation reached the stage where the possibility of the Creator's "Speaking" was denied. And the Mission of the Messengers is (implicitly) denied by whoever denies that the trustworthy Message has been uttered .( 690) Perhaps more of the discourse of this question ought to have been given here. But I have related it as I found it, and as much as I could cope with.

The situation became such that Commodus took umbrage, and said, "These people have perverted our faith, and have maliciously watered down what our sect regards as traditional, and they have acted in a hostile manner towards us.” So, he stretched out his hands, and many of their wise men were burnt to death; and the eyes of some of them were put out with red-hot iron pokers. He wiped out a great number of people, taking the Books of Chronicles which they had, as well as the Hymns which used to be recited over the Offerings.

In his day Galen the Physician had been an instructor of Commodus . Commodus ordered that the flesh of swine should be sold in every place and that it should be used with all that was eaten and drunk, so as to defile the Samaritans. He also forbade the Samaritans to open a Synagogue for themselves to pray or to read (the Torah) in. Many of the priests fled as from the sword. He took 100 elderly men from among the Chiefs of the Samaritans, and said to them, "Worship the idols". They refused, so he had them burnt to death. He captured 40 priests and dipped a bunch of grapes in pigs' fat and said to them, "Eat it !" They refused, so he heated iron pokers in a fire until they became red-hot and then put them in their eyes. Then he captured another 40 and said to them, "Eat this bunch (of grapes)". They refused, so he crushed them under the stones of the wine press. Then he took 40 of the High Priests "Eat this bunch (of grapes)". They refused, so he had them flung from the top of the fortress and no one dared bury them

He crucified numbers of them, and (other) people he beheaded and the dogs ate their corpses. The Chiefs of the Empire said to him, "If you want all "these Samaritans to embrace our religion, and to bow down to images, then summon their High Priest ‘Aqbun, for he is their model. Compel him to bow down, and all the others will follow him". Now ‘Aqbun was an extremely wealthy man. They sought him, and out of fear he hid himself. They looked for him in the Mountains and in caves, but they did not succeed in finding him. So the king instructed his servants, "Confiscate his wealth and burn down his house.”

This they did, and in burning down his house, they burnt in it the Prayers, the Songs of Praise and the Hymns which used to be recited on the Sabbath and Festivals and which had been handed down from the days of Divine Grace. And it was said to the High Priest 'Akbon: "All that is yours has been taken and your house is burnt down". And he answered and said "All is from God and it belongs to God, and if they have obtained mastery over me and my abode, I submit myself to affliction and destruction but I will not disavow God nor Moses, His prophet, nor His law." So they seized his two sons and the King said to them: "Worship idols." And they said: "We will die, but we will not worship other than God the Merciful."

And they inserted sticks under their nails and they flayed them alive and they put them to death with all torture and they cast their corpses to the dogs; and they hanged on the walls of Nablus thirty-six priests and they did not take down their corpses until they fell of themselves. And in the days of this King Commodus (may God curse him) none taught his son the Torah, except one out of a thousand and two out of a myriad secretly. And Commodus ruled thirty-two years and he died (may God not have mercy on him).

The government of Commodus and later Septimius Severus was actively involving itself in reshaping the Israelite cults to make them conform with a desired 'form.' The Jewish leadership seem to have embraced these reforms better than either the Samaritans or Christians and we don't hear of any persecutions of Jews in the period but interestingly the 'prince of the world' (cosmocrator) enters the liturgy by the command of Caesar undoubtedly.

Sorry about reactivating a very old thread, but I've been thinking about this passage.

Apart from its lateness it has several specific issues.
a/ Alexander of Aphrodisias is more plausibly in the time of Severus than the time of Commodus.
b/ Commodus reigned 12 years not 32 but the period from the accession of Commodus to the death of Severus is 180 to 211 (32 years counting parts of years)
c/ We have no contemporary evidence of Commodus acting against the Samaritans but there may be evidence of Severus persecuting the Samaritans
Second Jewish Revolt

Tentatively I suggest that events from Commodus to Severus have been attributed to the notorious Commodus and that the historical basis of this account is action taken by Severus against the Samaritans.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

I think Alexander had a father named Alexander who was a philosopher too. Even Alexander could have gotten his start under Commodus and then received the chair in Athens under Severus. There are no difficulties that I can see.

[Secret Alias]

And it is worth comparing the contemporary testimony of the Christian 'heretic' Apelles to what is preserved in Abu'l Fath. I will go through it line by line:

At this time Rhodo, a native of Asia, who had been instructed, as he himself states, by Tatian, with whom we have already become acquainted, having written several books, published among the rest one against the heresy of Marcion.

So already this 'Rhodo' represent a similar cultural background to the production of not only Tertullian's Against Marcion but much of the literature I am examining in the other thread - i.e. 'Diatessaron' or 'harmony' based. The fourfold gospel was either unknown or unused by this 'Rhodo.' Then in the very next line we read:

He says that this heresy was divided in his time into various opinions; and while describing those who occasioned the division, he refutes accurately the falsehoods devised by each of them.

So his 'against Marcion' assumes Marcion to be the fountainhead of a number of heretical groups. And then

But hear what he writes: “Therefore also they disagree among themselves, maintaining an inconsistent opinion. For Apelles, one of the herd, priding himself on his manner of life and his age, confesses one principle (μίαν ἀρχὴν ὁμολογεῖ), but says that the prophecies are from an opposing spirit, being led to this view by the responses of a maiden by name Philumene, who was possessed by a demon.

Now if we compare this to the interrogations of the Samaritans we find the very same idea likely in two different parts of the word both in the age of Commodus. In this case the Marcionite, a clear believer in two powers is said to "agree with" or "say the same thing as" his Catholic interrogators regarding the monarchia. How is this possible? Clearly the Samaritan testimony has the answer - the 'inquiry' was hostile and Apelles knew that harm would come to his body if he failed to acknowledge the 'one rule(r).'

As Rhodo acknowledges in what immediately follows:

But others, among whom are Potitus and Basilicus, put forward two rulers (or two principles = δύο ἀρχὰς εἰσηγοῦνται), as does the mariner Marcion (ὁ ναύτης Μαρκίων) himself. These following the wolf of Pontus, and, like him, unable to fathom the division of things, became reckless, and without giving any proof declared two rulers (δύο ἀρχὰς ἀπεφήναντο). Others, again, drifting into a worse error, consider that there are not only two, but three natures. Of these, Syneros is the leader and chief, as those who defend his teaching say.

Eusebius goes to cite another section of the same work in what immediately follows:

The same author writes that he engaged in conversation with Apelles. He speaks as follows: “For the old man Apelles, when he met with us (ὁ γὰρ γέρων Ἀπελλῆς συμμίξας ἡμῖν), was refuted in many things which he spoke falsely; whence also he said that it was not at all necessary to examine (ἐξετάζειν) one’s doctrine, but that each one should continue to hold what he believed. For he asserted that those who trusted in the Crucified would be saved, if only they were found doing good works (μόνον ἐὰν ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς εὑρίσκωνται). But as we have said before, his opinion concerning God was the most obscure of all. For he spoke of one principle (μίαν ἀρχὴν), as also our doctrine does.

Why does a Marcionite have such a ridiculous opinion completely and utterly in contradiction to everything Marcionite? The obvious answer given Abu'l Fath's lost Greek testimony is that the same pressure that the Samaritan community faced in proving their adherence to the 'one ruler' (i.e. Caesar). I can't find any other 'natural' explanation.

So Eusebius continues reporting from Rhodo's original testimony:

Then, after stating fully his own opinion, he adds: “When I said to him, Tell me how you know this or how are you able to say that there is one principle (πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν μίαν ἀρχήν), he replied that the prophecies refuted themselves, because they have said nothing true; for they are inconsistent, and false, and self-contradictory. But how there is one principle he said that he did not know (τὸ δὲ πῶς ἐστιν μία ἀρχή), but only being so moved (to accept the proposition = οὕτως δὲ κινεῖσθαι μόνον). As I then adjured him to speak the truth (εἶτ' ἐπομοσαμένου μου τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν), he confirmed by oath (ὤμνυεν) that he did so when he said that he did not know how there is one unbegotten God (μὴ ἐπίστασθαι πῶς εἷς ἐστιν ἀγένητος θεός), but that he believed it (τοῦτο δὲ πιστεύειν). Thereupon I laughed and laid a charge against him on this account (ἐγὼ δὲ γελάσας κατέγνων αὐτοῦ διότι) calling himself a teacher (διδάσκαλος εἶναι λέγων), he knew not how to confirm what he taught (οὐκ ᾔδει τὸ διδασκόμενον ὑπ' αὐτοῦ κρατύνειν).

If indeed the encounter with Apelles was a hostile one and Rhodo was 'laying a charge' κατέγνων against him whom did he lay the charge with? Eusebius tells us in the very next like:

In the same work, addressing Callistio (Καλλιστίωνι), the same writer acknowledges that he had been instructed at Rome by Tatian. And he says that a book of Problems had been prepared by Tatian, in which he promised to explain the obscure and hidden parts of the divine Scriptures. Rhodo himself promises to give in a work of his own solutions of Tatian’s problems. There is also extant a Commentary of his on the Hexæmeron.

Hilgenfeld argued that Καλλιστίωνι was the diminutive of Callistus (Καλλιστος), a term of affection and closeness, in the same way that Marcion (Μαρκίων) was to Marcus (Μάρκος).

The point is that there is enough here to see the same pattern as we saw in the Samaritan testimony. Apelles is being charged with not acknowledging the monarchia in the correct manner. The Samaritan text puts forward that the same charge was laid against the contemporary community. For those who argue that Callistus wasn't sufficiently powerful in the age of Commodus read the Philosophumena.

[Secret Alias]

On the use of κατέγνων to mean charge or condemn see the Loeb translation - http://www.loebclassics.com/view/eusebi ... 53.469.xml as well as Julian's letters "If you had understood, you would not have condemned." (εἰγὰρ ἔγνως, οὐκ ἂν κατέγνως).

[Secret Alias]

On the same person being called both Kallistion (Καλλιστίων) and Kallistos (Κάλλιστος) cf.

http://www.late-antique-historiography. ... /works/60/

Upon reflection I think Hilgenfeld's arguments for Marcion similarly derived from Marcus are better than mine. Hilgenfeld's argument is:

Dass Μαρκίων ein Deminutivum von Μαρκος ist, schliesse ich auch aus dem Verhaltniss von Εὐρυτίων zu Εὔρυτος (vgl. Phil. Griech. Gramm. 21. Aufl. S. 119, Anm. 12), κοδράτίων (bei Philostratus vit. sophist. II, 6 p. 250) zu κοδράτος (vgl. W. H. Waddington, Memoire sur la Chronologie de la vie du rheteur Aristide, 1867, p. 32). So möchte ich auch an den von dem Verfasser der Philosophumena so angefeindeten κάλλιστος, romanischen Bishof 217 - 222, denken, wenn Rhodon bei Eusebius KG, V, 13, 8 κάλλιστίωνι προσφωνων genanne wird. Um so mehr werden die Μαρκιανοί welche Justinus Dial. c. Tr. c. 35 p. 253 vor Valentinianern, Basilidianern, Satornillianern, u.s.w. erwahnt, Marcioniten sein. Ebenso wird man in dem Muratorianum Z 82 - 84 zu lesen haben: quia etiam novum psalmorum librum Marciani (= Marcionitae) conscripserunt.

In modern times Deininger argues that Καισαρίων is a diminutive and probably an Alexandrian nickname http://uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/do ... 131221.pdf It would seem possible than that 'Marcion' too may have been an Alexandrian diminutive especially given Apelles's association with the city.

[Secret Alias]

For those who don't want to make the connection between the heavenly monarchia and the earthly Eusebius in Praise of Constantine helps pave the way.

Eusebius implies that Constantine, in his fulfillment of his godly roles, becomes a model for his kingdom, and brings about a reflection of the kingdom of Heaven on earth. Just as the emperor’s soul conforms to the divine original, so too is his kingdom conformed. Preceding Augustine's contrast between the City of Man and the City of God by a century, Eusebius asserts that the true emperor fixes his desires on the Kingdom of Heaven, the incorruptible and incorporeal Kingdom of God and sees earthly sovereignty to be but a petty and fleeting dominion over a mortal and temporary life.325 For the emperor, invested with a “semblance of heavenly sovereignty,” directs his gaze above, and “frames his earthly government according to the pattern of that Divine original (ἀρχέτυπον ἱδέαν), feeling strength in its conformity to the monarchy of God (μονάρχου μοναρχία).” 326 Eusebius asserts that because the true religion is monotheism, the true government must be monarchy, for the Supreme Sovereign decrees that “all should be subject to the rule of one (μίαν αρχήν).” 327 The emperor should thus assume the monarchic role that corresponds to monotheism. He continues, “there is one Sovereign, and his Word (Logos) and Royal Law are one (τούτού καί νόμος βασιλικός είς), a Law not expressed in syllables and words, not written. . . but living and selfsubsisting Word.”328 Eusebius’s declaration of one sovereign and one law opposes polyarchy, the rule of many. He states that monarchy transcends every other constitution (συστασεώς) and government administration (διοικήσεως). The opposite of monarchy is polyarchy, which Eusebius equates with anarchy and discord (στάσις).329 Polytheism and polyarchy are thus rejected together, and monotheism and monarchy are proclaimed as the true religion and government, bringing about an imitation of the kingdom of Heaven on earth.

[Secret Alias]

And then what can you say about Rabbi Judah the Prince who codified the Mishnah? He was a puppet of the Empire

Rabbi Judah one day asked Rabbi Appas to compose a letter from him to another leading figure of the time, the Roman emperor Antonius. Appas began to write, “From Judah the Prince to our master, Emperor Antonius…” Reading these words, Rabbi Judah took the letter and tore it to pieces. He said, “Write [instead], ‘From your servant Judah, to our master, Emperor Antonius.” Dismayed to hear his teacher refer to himself as a servant, Appas protested, “Rabbi, why do you shame your honor?” Rabbi Judah replied by asking, “Am I better than my forefather Jacob, who called Esau Master?"

and

Antoninus made a lamp for the synagogue. Rabbi [Judah Ha-Nasi] heard of it and said: 'blessed be the Lord who had him [the emperor] make a lamp for the synagogue'. Semu'el b. R. Ishaq asked "what did Rabbi say? Blessed be the Lord, or blessed be our Lord? (i.e. Antoninus)

There is a historical marker which is worth considering with Judah. Avi-Yonah sorts the passages into four categories: (1) historically reliable material, (2) legends, (3) anecdotes, and (4) remains of a philosophicaltheological treatise. In the first category he places certain discussions between Antoninus and Judah in Palestine (Caesarea) concerning a revolt in Egypt, a statement of the emperor's desire to elevate Tiberias to the status of a colony his use of the wealthy patriarch's breeding cattle to improve his own herd, letters exchanged by the two, and finally Antoninus's gift to Judah of an inscribed golden candelabrum. The other categories contain material that is patently apocryphal, such as accounts of Antoninus's conversion. One might be tempted to dismiss the friendship between Antoninus and “Rabbi” as the product of wishful thinking were it not for the similar relationship between the rhetor Libanius, a friend and advisor to Julian, and the Jewish patriarch Gamaliel V.

I think the reference to the campaign of 'Antoninus' in Egypt fixes the date of this relationship to 172 - 176 CE. I know of no other Emperor who fits the name 'Antoninus' who campaigned in Alexandria (archaeological evidence fixes Marcus Aurelius's presence in Alexandria along with presumably his son Commodus who was his viceroy toward the end of his reign). Before the discovery of this archaeological evidence most scholars thought the story was complete nonsense. For instance the Jewish Encyclopedia writes:

The emperor would take counsel of his friend prior to any warlike enterprise, as, for instance, concerning his intended campaign against Alexandria (this is told regardless of the absurdity of a war at that period between Rome and Egypt). He is said to have undertaken this expedition relying upon Rabbi's assurance, based upon Ezek. xxix. 15, that he had nothing to fear from the Egyptians (Mek., Beshallaḥ, Shirah 6).

But the story is true and helps fix the date to around 176 CE. Indeed it is not at all surprising that Avi-Yonah accepted evidence as historical given that the source - the Mekhilta - is among the oldest surviving documents associated as it is with the (surviving) circle of R Ishmael.