My interview on History Valley

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

My interview on History Valley

Post by rgprice »

I did an interview with Jacob for his History Valley YouTube channel. He reached out to me after having read Deciphering the Gospels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQYqjh_ ... toryValley

He didn't give me any of the questions ahead of time so I had to discuss everything on the fly off the top of my head, so it's not the smoothest interview ever. I also made a few minor misstatements, like I said 4th century a few times when I meant 4th century BCE. I also said 2nd century once and then said "270 or 280" when I meant "170 or 180".

I think looking back, we didn't really go over what I would have liked to go over in reference to the book Deciphering the Gospels. But, whatever.
lclapshaw
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 10:01 am

Re: My interview on History Valley

Post by lclapshaw »

rgprice wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 5:20 am I did an interview with Jacob for his History Valley YouTube channel. He reached out to me after having read Deciphering the Gospels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQYqjh_ ... toryValley

He didn't give me any of the questions ahead of time so I had to discuss everything on the fly off the top of my head, so it's not the smoothest interview ever. I also made a few minor misstatements, like I said 4th century a few times when I meant 4th century BCE. I also said 2nd century once and then said "270 or 280" when I meant "170 or 180".

I think looking back, we didn't really go over what I would have liked to go over in reference to the book Deciphering the Gospels. But, whatever.
All in all, I think you did rather well.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: My interview on History Valley

Post by gryan »

That was interesting! Was it your decision not to use video?
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: My interview on History Valley

Post by rgprice »

gryan wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 11:18 am That was interesting! Was it your decision not to use video?
Yes. I'm not a public figure, I don't put myself out there on the internet in terms of my identity. Not that I try to be super secure with my identity, it's just not my thing to be a public figure on the internet.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: My interview on History Valley

Post by GakuseiDon »

Good interview! Very interesting.
dbz
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: My interview on History Valley

Post by dbz »

Per "Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed - R.G. Price". YouTube. History Valley. 3 December 2022. "@time:00:15:13"

The two powers in heaven, El & Yahweh, are well suited to a religious syncretism with first_CE Platonism.

What Middle-Platonism does decisively .. is to push from dualism in a monistic direction, but still with a second-god. See "A History of Philosophy | #18 Middle and Neo-Platonism". YouTube. @time:00:04:50.​

A sophisticated first_CE Platonist (i.e. middle platonic) would understand evil in the same way that something being “cold”—can be understood as merely the absence of heat. All (Loddy, Doddy, and Everybody) have the potential to be good in the same way that every atom (understood as a ball on the Newtonian billiard table universe) has the potential to have heat. Thus a person is evil if they are not living their full human potential. As the bible says; since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, “men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men … They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice.” because they are ‘COLD’ (i.e. not fulfilling their potential to be good), thus have “a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.” Cf. Romans 1:28 & "Plotinus on Evil". YouTube

Walsh argues that Paul is uses "middle platonic" philosophy. Cf. Walsh, Robyn Faith (2021). The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-83530-5. (Middle Platonism & Paul the Apostle: pp. 7, 126, 192)

An article on the second-god of "middle platonic" philosophy is on the chopping block It would be possible to add content on the Jewish belief of two powers in heaven, El & Yahweh. But the flat-earth historicists appear to be in the majority.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: My interview on History Valley

Post by rgprice »

All good points dbz. As I said, he didn't send me the questions ahead of time (a lot of interviewers do) so I was just rambling off the top of my head. you can tell I was struggling a bit in a few places. Yeah, it made it hard to cite more specific facts or certainly to quote anything or make any references to specific scriptures.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: My interview on History Valley

Post by Leucius Charinus »

43:28

Working Title of new book sounds interesting:

Prophecy, heresy and forgery convinced the Romans that Jesus was real

You say (roughly)

"Heresy is important, the heretics promoted Jesus being real // the heretics popularised the gospel story. Gnostic heretics misrepresent teachings of Jesus between 70-150 CE.

Good luck with that. Especially sorting out when and where the heretics wrote from when and where the heresiologists claim the heretics wrote. I hope you plan on taking this study to the beginning of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum with Eusebius and its later instance in the Decretum Gelasianum.

IMO the heretical authors of the NT apocrypha (including the gnostic stuff and the NHL) wrote complete fiction about Jesus and in almost all stories the heretics present the Post Resurrection Jesus. He chiefly answers questions that the apostolic boneheads forgot to ask him the first time around while he was alive in Middle-Earth.

The heretical authors I agree popularised the gospel story but only because because they mimicked and lampooned it, they embellished it, they mixed bits and pieces of the gospel stories together in various combinations and permutations and then added their own stuff which in many cases looks to be Platonist. The heresiologists turned it into a can of worms.

The heretics added more than 20 gospels to the canonical 4 on the floor. They added 30 or more Acts of (various) Apostles to the One Acts. They created a dozen or more further revelations and apocalypses. No wonder the orthodoxy needed a list of prohibited books.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: My interview on History Valley

Post by rgprice »

@Leucius Charinus

Obviously the so-called heretics preceded the proto-orthodox. Even Justin Martyr, the earliest figure who could be called proto-orthodox, complained about Marcion and other Gnostic types. It is well established now that Marcion was the first to utilize a written "New Testament" type work, consisting of a Gospel and the letters of Paul, along with possibly other writings.

It also now becoming increasingly accepted that the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, at the very least, all came after Marcion's Gospel and were produced in reaction to it. "The four" Gospels are not attested to until Irenaeus around 170, anywhere from 50 to 30 years after it is believed Marcion's Gospel was in use.
IMO the heretical authors of the NT apocrypha (including the gnostic stuff and the NHL) wrote complete fiction about Jesus and in almost all stories the heretics present the Post Resurrection Jesus.
EVERYONE wrote complete fiction about Jesus. And there are good reasons to believe that the story of Jesus originally began with a post-resurrection ministry. The Markan type Gospel, whatever version of it came first, is likely the first narrative that described a pre-crucifixion ministry of Jesus. This Gospel recast Jesus in the likeness of Paul.

I think it likely that the earliest narrative about Jesus was similar to the one found in Vision of Isaiah, in which the heavenly messiah is transfigured into the world in order to hide his identity. This figure then deceives his way into being crucified in order to be able to enter the realm of Satan, where he can rescue the souls of those whom Satan has captured and defeat Satan once and for all. Then he returns from the grave, after having completed this mission, and embarks in a ministry that lasts approximately a year and a half before returning to heaven. I think its very likely something like this was the earliest story about Jesus.
The heretical authors I agree popularised the gospel story but only because because they mimicked and lampooned it, they embellished it, they mixed bits and pieces of the gospel stories together in various combinations and permutations and then added their own stuff which in many cases looks to be Platonist. The heresiologists turned it into a can of worms.
There simply is no evidence to show that the "orthodox" account of Jesus was ever known or popularized prior to the Gnostic account. There is none. And consider the fact that by 170 Irenaeus is able to list out a dozen or more major schools of heresy. It doesn't make sense that there was some "true" Christianity that looked like orthodox Christianity, and then it got corrupted and distorted by Gnostics, and then Irenaeus and others came in and defended the "original teachings". That simply is not plausible.

Clearly, the gnostic heresies preceded the version of Christianity that we know today. The NT isn't the original version of the story, it is the later reaction to Gnosticism. There is not a single ounce of evidence to show that the NT literature preceded "Gnosticism".
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: My interview on History Valley

Post by Leucius Charinus »

rgprice wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 4:19 am
Obviously the so-called heretics preceded the proto-orthodox. Even Justin Martyr, the earliest figure who could be called proto-orthodox, complained about Marcion and other Gnostic types. It is well established now that Marcion was the first to utilize a written "New Testament" type work, consisting of a Gospel and the letters of Paul, along with possibly other writings.

It also now becoming increasingly accepted that the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, at the very least, all came after Marcion's Gospel and were produced in reaction to it. "The four" Gospels are not attested to until Irenaeus around 170, anywhere from 50 to 30 years after it is believed Marcion's Gospel was in use.
How do you view the historical integrity of the NT attestations and references by the "Church Fathers"

* both before Marcion c. 85 – c. 160 CE (such as Ignatius died c. 108/140 CE, Polycarp 69 – 155 CE, and Clement c. 35 – 99 CE),

* and after Marcion (such as Justin 103 – 165 CE, Tertullian 155 – c. 220 CE, and Irenaeus c. 130 – c. 202 CE) ? (See further below)

There simply is no evidence to show that the "orthodox" account of Jesus was ever known or popularized prior to the Gnostic account. There is none. And consider the fact that by 170 Irenaeus is able to list out a dozen or more major schools of heresy. It doesn't make sense that there was some "true" Christianity that looked like orthodox Christianity, and then it got corrupted and distorted by Gnostics, and then Irenaeus and others came in and defended the "original teachings". That simply is not plausible.
Irenaeus' views on orthodoxy (or proto-orthodoxy) include apostolic succession and the fact that scholars contend that Irenaeus quotes from 21 of the 27 New Testament books. At the same time Irenaeus is a chief heresiologist and as you say "is able to list out a dozen or more major schools of heresy.".

Are we to trust and effectively reconcile Irenaeus as a reliable witness for both :

* apostolic succession and proto-orthodoxy
* Marcion and the gnostic heretics

It seems to me to be paradoxical that we accept Irenaeus as an authority in latter case but not in the former. Can you resolve this?
Post Reply