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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 9:53 pmOf course we could look into it. I have stated up front that I am super skeptical of the material furnished by the Nicene (and subsequent) church. I want to see some physical evidence as proof of the claims made by the church in its "historical records". This should not be surprising or regarded as fringe. It is standard investigatory practice.
I'll keep going through the details, then, and I will include all kinds of available evidence to be discussed and evaluated. I aim to keep to similar standards to what is used in classical source criticism, naturally.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 5:58 pm
mlinssen wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 8:34 am
Denying reality.
There was Chrestianity before Constantine, such is for sure.

///

Pete's theory in concept is not so strange: Christianity is much later than assumed. But to assert that the NT, the NHL and the FF were all fabricated at one and the same time is untenable given all the Chrestian attestations in them
I appreciate the respectful dialogue ML but you're misrepresenting my claims. The hypothesis / theory does not assert that the NT, the NHL and the FF were all fabricated at one and the same time. I don't claim that. I have not yet made any claims about the Chrestian / Christian paradox but am interested in solving it. For the moment the major claim is that the NT, the NHL and the FF were written at different times, by different groups with different motivations and agendas.


SUMMARY

1) The NTC was written in the 4th century (there may be earlier sources)
2) The NTA and NHL were written 325-340 CE (there may be earlier sources)
3) EH (featuring the FF) was first written 325 but modified for a thousand years.


Some further details:

1) New Testament Canon (NTC)

1) The NTC was designed and fabricated as late as the 4th century (312-324 CE) to serve as a "Holy Writ" of the Graeco-Roman civilisation. It's suggested that it was prepared as part of Constantine's strategy to unite the Roman empire with a centralised monotheistic religion. By 312 CE he had just taken Rome and looked east to the City of Alexander. The blueprint for such a strategy may have been inspired by the demonstrated successful implementation of the "Avesta" as the One true canonised holy writ of the Persian empire by Ardashir less that a century earlier. Constantine (perhaps c.312 CE) commissioned a scriptorium or scriptoria with a lavishly appointed team of professional scribes, some of whom were well educated elites, and appointed Eusebius as the editor-in-chief of the "literary school".

The question about what literary sources available to the project can be left for later. One thing's for sure - they had a specifically revised Greek LXX on their bookshelf. They knew their Seneca very well and the libraries of functioning philosophical schools. They were well aware of Philostratus' "Life of Apollonius of Tyana". Mani loomed over the recent political memory in the empire. Diocletian had savagely persecuted the Manichaeans. It may be that there was a very similar narrative (singular) Gospel featuring a holy man, healer, educator, god-like figure in existence. Dura Parchment 24 could be from the 3rd century. These earlier sources may have included lists of sayings. But the claim is that they did not include the four gospels, the epistles and the NTC as we have received it.

Once he obtain complete military control of Alexandria 324/325 CE he revealed the NTC and openly announced and advertised his doctrine at the Council of Antioch. All this sparked a massive controversy. The Hellenistic civilisation reacted to Constantine's new doctrines expressed in codex technology. They wrote their own Jesus Story Books.


2) The Nag Hammadi Library (NHL) and the New testament apocrypha (NTA)

The new idea is that all this stuff was composed by pagans in reaction to the NTC and LXX being circulated by the emperor. These other Jesus Story Books and other Adam and Eve Story Books were of different genres. Some were pulp fiction. Some were highly philosophical adaptations of the NTC+LXX. Some of the authors of the NTA/NHL knew their Plato and their Plotinus. Some were sayings lists. Sayings from whom? IDK atm. The NHL and NTA certainly preserve a number of ante-Nicene sources. But the over-rider is that the NTA/NHL was not written by the emperor's agents. It represents grass roots pagan (Egypto-Graeco-Roman) responses to the meteoric rise of the Emperor's New Codex. Orthodoxy was horrified.

There were no heretics before Arius of Alexandria, himself a pagan. The Sethians, the Valentinians and other "groups" identified by modern scholarship within the NHL are different classes of literary responses. The Sethian writings instead I suggest are pagans rewriting the LXX and the creation stories and other themes involving the Platonic philosophical "god" recently described in the Enneads of Plotinus. Where biblical scholarship identifies Valentinian tracts within the NHL they are identifying 4th century pagan commentary on the NTC Jesus Story. The NHL seems to be a monastic product. It may not have been conducive to produce all these books as Greek literature in Alexandria.

In the 20th century Greek and Hebrew biblical scholarship is sidelined by the first generations of Coptic "scholars" (the inverted commas are for ML) to have the opportunity of translating a Coptic time-capsule from the mid 4th century. A trove of "banned books"?


(3) Ecclesiastical History (EH) and the FF

This was first prepared within the nascent Nicene church. This was not written in a short time span like (1) and (2). It claims to preserve all forms of literature by the "Fathers" and "Bishops" et al from the ante Nicene, Nicene and post Nicene epochs. It may have started with Eusebius but Eusebius' literature may have been added to, modified or deleted in part over the centuries by those who preserved these "Church Histories" and the "collections" within them. It is layered over the centuries. One day the full story may be able to be reconstructed. But for now...

The History of Eusebius appears on a list of prohibited and "anathematized" books in the 5th century for example. Perhaps the 5th century church wished to recall some of the earlier versions for some reason that we may never know. Why would you ban a book? Perhaps it didn't serve the times?

We can say for sure that the literature of Justin Martyr for example must have existed as late as his earliest extant physical manuscript of the 14th century. Ditto for each of the separate literary works of all these "fathers". They're all very late. Did Justin actually write in the 2nd century what is found in a 14th century manuscript? Did Hippolytus write in antiquity what is presented in a 14th century manuscript? Did Irenaeus write in the Greek language in the 2nd/3rd century what we find only in Latin manuscripts of the 10/11th century? IDK. We don't know. Do we? So much for the FF and EH.
What I don't understand is why you want him or his material banned
Not sure myself. Authoritarianism? Paradigm hubris?
Irish has suggested Odium theologicum

Had to look that up thanks Irish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odium_theologicum

And a gentle reminder: even if something like reality exists, I doubt that there are more than a handful interacting with it. We all live inside our own bubble, define our own truths, assume our own reality. Everything we believe that we are, know, our rules, virtues, morals: it's all a figment of our own imagination
  • “Two men looked out from prison bars,
    One saw the mud, the other saw stars.”


    ― Dale Carnegie, How to Stop Worrying and Start Living
I'm not, 325 is the date that all share. So in the year 325 of our dearly beloved Lord Jesus Christ the NT was being written, the NHL was being written, Apocrypha were being written, and Falsifying Fathers were being written

Do you have a date for the LXX yet? It comes after the NT, such is for sure


By the by:

All Coptic "scholars" who have translated Thomas in the usual way (à la Lambdin, so to say) indeed are exactly that: Christian, biased, falsifying semi-academics. Some of the names: Lambdin, Layton, Gathercole, Plisch
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

My exploration of sources, to be followed on with my discussion of a historical reconstruction of the time period, continues on here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10711
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

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

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 10:56 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 5:58 pm
the major claim is that the NT, the NHL and the FF were written at different times, by different groups with different motivations and agendas.

SUMMARY

1) The NTC was written in the 4th century (there may be earlier sources)
2) The NTA and NHL were written 325-340 CE (there may be earlier sources)
3) EH (featuring the FF) was first written 325 but modified for a thousand years.
I'm not, 325 is the date that all share. So in the year 325 of our dearly beloved Lord Jesus Christ the NT was being written, the NHL was being written, Apocrypha were being written, and Falsifying Fathers were being written.
Technically that's possible. But in theory, technically, there would have been a time in the year 325 of our dearly beloved Lord IS XS, in which the NTC and Eusebius EH had been written and were being circulated in the east but the NTA / NHL had not yet commenced to have been composed. During this small time period the pagans of the Egypto-Graeco-Roman milieu would be reading "The Good News" about "Jesus the Good" and wondering WTF. The hypothesis is that the NTA/NHL represent a literary avalanche of responses to the Emperor's NTC. (they also incorporated other and earlier sources)
Do you have a date for the LXX yet? It comes after the NT, such is for sure
The NTC and the LXX appeared in the same codex. The scenario proposed envisages that whoever assembled the NTC also, at the same time, assembled the Christianised version of the LXX from which literary material was drawn and then inserted (copy/pasted) into the NTC. So I see the Christianised LXX and NTC being prepared at the sane time, in the same scriptorium by the same "literary school"
By the by:

All Coptic "scholars" who have translated Thomas in the usual way (à la Lambdin, so to say) indeed are exactly that: Christian, biased, falsifying semi-academics. Some of the names: Lambdin, Layton, Gathercole, Plisch
Not only that but as a result they have run with their assumption that the "Christian sounding" tracts in the NHL (Gospels of Thomas and Philip, the Acts of Peter and the 12) were composed by Christians. Indeed the assumption that any mention of XS or IS in any NHL tractate implies a Christian author. Contrary to this assumption I think that everything in the NHL was not composed by Christians, but by elite pagan academics, some of whom were Platonists. And that they were responding to the NTC + LXX contained in the Emperor's New Codex. And also, for that matter, the Chi-Rho on the Christian emperors' coins (from 316 CE)

It is possible that slightly different versions of the LXX and NTC appeared in later Bible codices in the 5th and subsequent centuries. That's what I think atm FWIW. I could be wrong and am willing to re-examine any other arguments related to what evidence remains from antiquity.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 2:49 am Not only that but as a result they have run with their assumption that the "Christian sounding" tracts in the NHL (Gospels of Thomas and Philip, the Acts of Peter and the 12) were composed by Christians. Indeed the assumption that any mention of XS or IS in any NHL tractate implies a Christian author. Contrary to this assumption I think that everything in the NHL was not composed by Christians, but by elite pagan academics, some of whom were Platonists. And that they were responding to the NTC + LXX contained in the Emperor's New Codex. And also, for that matter, the Chi-Rho on the Christian emperors' coins (from 316 CE)
Well, then how come Thomas did not talk about any XS, but only IS or IHS? Likewise for the book of the Contender

And the NHL certainly wasn't composed by Christians, nor even "scribed" by them - they surely would have brought Thomas in line with the gospels, fixing among others the colostrum into leaven. The incredible differences between Greek and the Coptic Thomas - of which the former at times is verbatim with the NT - pose great obstacles to Christian hands touching Coptic Thomas
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

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

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 5:01 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 2:49 am Not only that but as a result they have run with their assumption that the "Christian sounding" tracts in the NHL (Gospels of Thomas and Philip, the Acts of Peter and the 12) were composed by Christians. Indeed the assumption that any mention of XS or IS in any NHL tractate implies a Christian author. Contrary to this assumption I think that everything in the NHL was not composed by Christians, but by elite pagan academics, some of whom were Platonists. And that they were responding to the NTC + LXX contained in the Emperor's New Codex. And also, for that matter, the Chi-Rho on the Christian emperors' coins (from 316 CE)
Well, then how come Thomas did not talk about any XS, but only IS or IHS? Likewise for the book of the Contender
IDK. Maybe they were explicitly addressing the person of "IS" and purposefully completely ignoring the title of "XS"?
And the NHL certainly wasn't composed by Christians, nor even "scribed" by them - they surely would have brought Thomas in line with the gospels, fixing among others the colostrum into leaven. The incredible differences between Greek and the Coptic Thomas - of which the former at times is verbatim with the NT - pose great obstacles to Christian hands touching Coptic Thomas
Contrary to the mainstream paradigm I don't think that any Christian hands touched anything at all in the NHL. It represents IMO a purely Hellenistic (pagan) product produced by those of the "underground" who were resisting the Christian revolution of the 4th century.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 10:05 pm Contrary to the mainstream paradigm I don't think that any Christian hands touched anything at all in the NHL. It represents IMO a purely Hellenistic (pagan) product produced by those of the "underground" who were resisting the Christian revolution of the 4th century.
Thomas refutes your entire argument, as he reacts to none of the NT - absolutely none. If I were Thomas in your theory I would have lashed out at Matthew, even Mark, for the dumb escatology, the death of the protagonist, his alleged resurrection, the entire itinerary through non existing places and impossible routes, the cringing Greek such as birds that are "pitching their tents" in trees, and so on.
There is an understandable reason why religiots reject Thomas as Quelle, precisely because he doesn't contain anything that is in the NT

Thomas doesn't explain any parable or saying, he doesn't apply any of them to a moral message like the NT does, and I have tried immensely hard to see how Thomas would repurpose the content of the NT - but I can't come up with anything

Just tell me HOW Thomas is "resisting the Christian revolution of the 4th century", please. Can you give just one example there?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 11:27 am This should also be in your 275 CE to 325 CE thread.
Sure. I'm trying to get some more background information on it and its interpretation.
Secret Alias wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 11:27 am How is this possible that Christianity was "invented" in 325 CE?
As far as I can ascertain, nobody in this forum believes that basic Xianity were invented in 325, not even LC.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by Secret Alias »

So he's given up his Constantine conspiracy theory?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 12:05 pm So he's given up his Constantine conspiracy theory?
He talks about sources that preceded Constantine, but he has the idea of "True Christianity"(tm) to say that, sure, there are various sources that preceded Constantine, but they aren't "True Christianity."(tm) The emphasis on discovering a "True Christianity"(tm) is his own, although he attributes it to others and claims that they have failed to make their case if they do not demonstrate a "True Christianity"(tm) to the sources.

He also claims that a number of sources, according to his categorical scheme, are post-325, including all the NHL and all the sources that would discredit his idea that all the NHL came post-325.
Post Reply