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: 8027
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 »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 11:27 am This should also be in your 275 CE to 325 CE thread. Imagine for a moment 325 CE in Nicaea and 350 CE in this far away country. How is this possible that Christianity was "invented" in 325 CE? Why would a far away kingdom have converted to a new religion THIS FAR AWAY from the alleged "starting point" of Christianity?

Image
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 12:03 pm
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 wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 12:05 pm So he's given up his Constantine conspiracy theory?
No.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 12:09 pm 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.
Edited to add: On a careful reading, it's not completely clear whether he's saying that the NHL has no pre-325 sources. I mean, there is a fragment of Plato. It's just that I've noticed him to be particularly emphatic about the NHL (the texts, not just the codices) being post-325, thus clumping it together and associating other literature with it as also post-325. He seems to be unique in referring to "NTA/NHL" in this way.

For SA, here is LC's own summary.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 5:58 pm 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.
There is much that is allowed under "there may be earlier sources."

If you look at the way LC goes through inscriptions, you'll notice that they are frequently just marked as not being "True Christianity."(tm)
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: Tue May 02, 2023 12:10 am
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.
You do not understand my argument. And you have not been able to adequately summarise or to even represent it fairly. Our approaches are completely different. Yours is from the perspective of redaction criticism. You are equipped for this argument. You know your Coptic. But you are going to need more than this. My approach is from the perspective of ancient political history. You are not equipped in ancient political history. I know my Ammianus and I know my Eusebius.

I will try to explain why I think it is quite reasonable to see that Thomas does not refute my argument above. That Thomas is a purely Hellenistic (pagan) product produced by those of the "underground" who were resisting the Christian revolution of the 4th century.

Let's look at Cameron's challenge to those who would argue for the dependence (or reaction) of Thomas on the NT. He says that everything uncovered by redaction criticism must be able to be explained as a design to serve a particular purpose.

Those who argue that Gos. Thom. is dependent on the Synoptics not only must explain the differences in wording and order, but also give a reason for Gos. Thom.'s choice of genre and the absence of the gospels' narrative material in the text.

///

For any theory of dependence of Gos. Thom. on the NT to be made plausible, one must show that the variations in form and content of their individual sayings, together with the differences in genre and structure of their entire texts, are intential modifications of their respective parallels, designed to serve a particular purpose.

Ron Cameron comments on Thomas (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 6, p. 537):
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

I have put forward such a hypothetical particular and intentional purpose above. Thomas was reacting against the very first imperial publication of the NT (c.325 CE) and he had it before him. The NT was the "flagship product" or "holy writ" of the Christian revolution of the 4th century. We know it was published by Constantine. We know Eusebius was the editor-in-chief. We know that the following succession Christian emperors and their scriptoria editors were continuators of this model.


The Gospel of Thomas

My argument is that the author of Thomas intently read through the books of the NT and noticed that although there were various sayings of "IS" spread through the synoptics there was no collection of them. So Thomas decided to write his own collection of sayings which he would attribute to the "IS" character. Some of these he harvested from the synoptics but in all cases he purposefully "improved" them to be commensurate with those of a non-dual philosopher.
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.
Unlike your good self Thomas does not deal in ad hominem argument. Such was beneath him. Thomas lashed out at the materialism of the NT. His argument is from the high philosophical ground of the divine essence οὐσία of being. Something which is not present in the NT. The only essence οὐσία described in the NT is the material essence of property, inheritance and church money.

Thomas lashed out at the publisher of the NT by creating a far deeper picture of "IS" and the "kingdom of the heavens" than what was to be found in the NT bible codex. Thomas lashed out at the Supreme Roman emperor who rightfully and legally held the role of Pontifex Maximus. Thomas took the "IS" character from the Emperor's New Book and improved him by - in at least some cases - placing philosophical sayings with a Platonist flavor into his mouth .

SEE: The Gospel of Thomas and Plato - A Study of the Impact of Platonism on the “Fifth Gospel” By Ivan Miroshniko In Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies volume 93. My only comment on the above is to quibble over the difference between the signatures of Middle Platonism and Neo-Platonism
There is an understandable reason why religiots reject Thomas as Quelle, precisely because he doesn't contain anything that is in the NT
In the 21st century the redaction critics reject Thomas as Q because they cannot see any logic in the mapping between Thomas and the synoptics. Some scholar wrote that it might be simpler to suggest that Thomas was mentally unstable. Thomas had completely no regard for the authority of the NT. His authority was from pagan philosophy and metaphysics. Some modern scholars treat Thomas as a subsidiary author of interest to the interest they invest in the author(s) of the synoptics and NT. But there is no equating the philosophical content. Thomas is far superior.

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
The author of Thomas applies a deeper philosophical message to the NT parables and sayings. This may indicate that he is acquainted with the philosophical literature of the age.

Just tell me HOW Thomas is "resisting the Christian revolution of the 4th century", please. Can you give just one example there?
The prologue makes this clear. Thomas openly and defiantly publishes the secret words that the official publication omits. Thomas publishes "the secret words which the living IS spoke, and which Didymus Judas Thomas wrote down".

Thomas was resisting the emperor's new orthodox Christian doctrine. No one, during the life of Constantine, had dared to reject his doctrine openly. Thomas was part of the underground.

Ecclesiastical History (Sozomen)
Book III, Chapter 1

We have now seen what events transpired in the churches during the reign of Constantine. On his death the doctrine which had been set forth at Nicæa, was subjected to renewed examination. Although this doctrine was not universally approved, no one, during the life of Constantine, had dared to reject it openly. At his death, however, many renounced this opinion, especially those who had previously been suspected of treachery.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26023.htm

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 »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 12:09 pmHe 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.
Could you provide an example of what you refer to as "True Christianity"(tm)?
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 12:24 pm Edited to add: On a careful reading, it's not completely clear whether he's saying that the NHL has no pre-325 sources. I mean, there is a fragment of Plato. It's just that I've noticed him to be particularly emphatic about the NHL (the texts, not just the codices) being post-325, thus clumping it together and associating other literature with it as also post-325. He seems to be unique in referring to "NTA/NHL" in this way.
That is an accurate representation. I have looked at this idea for a while.

EG: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE
viewtopic.php?p=16490#p16490

There is much that is allowed under "there may be earlier sources."
For example "The Hymn of the Pearl" is an earlier source inserted into the Acts of Thomas by placing it into the mouth of Thomas while he is in an Indian jail.
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Hymn% ... 0Pearl.htm

If you look at the way LC goes through inscriptions, you'll notice that they are frequently just marked as not being "True Christianity."(tm)
Again could you provide an example of what you refer to as marking certain inscriptions as not "True Christianity"(tm)? Thanks.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8027
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: Wed May 10, 2023 4:23 am Again could you provide an example of what you refer to as marking certain inscriptions as not "True Christianity"(tm)? Thanks.
A lot of what's on your website is ambiguous and not clearly addressed.

Here are a couple papyri and their notes:

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/epigraphic_habit.htm

2nd CE: PSI.XIV.1412 "via Sotas, the christian". [chrestian?]


256 CE: P.Oxy 3035 Order to arrest "chrestian". [citation is "chrestian"]

This allows that there were some form of Xians.

As for inscriptions, I was thinking for example of these:
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 3:01 am (viii) Inscription from Aurelia Julia [296-297]

https://archive.org/details/christiansf ... 2/mode/2up

Aurelia Julia for her father ... and her mother, Beroneikiane, and for my sweetest child Severus and my daughter-in-law Moundane, in memory. Christians [Χρειστιανοι].

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 3:36 pm (xi) Tomb Inscription of Family from Temenothyrai [278-279]

T.D. Barnes, Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia, p. 242

In the year 363, the tenth of the month Pereitios. Eutyches son of Eutyches, (prepared this tomb) for Tatia his wife and for his father, in memory; Christans [Χρειστιανοι]; and for himself. Phellinas. From Temenothyrai.

These seem to fall in your "totally unconvincing" category here:

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/ante% ... review.htm
6.5 Inscriptions from the Upper Tembris Valley


**** This section deals with the "Christians for Christians Inscription" and defers
to the catalogue of Else Gibson which has been reviewed in detail in a separate
article.

Refer to The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia
- a review of data presented by Elsa Gibson


Summary: totally unconvincing (See the separate analysis)
If there are references to Χρειστιανοι or Χρηστιανοι that are not indicative of what you're identifying as "Christian," then this suggests there is a divide between some kind of basic Xianity and what is Christian (truly). Referring to the latter as true Christianity helps to make clear the distinction being made: some kind of basic Xians before the fourth century, then true Christians in the fourth century.

I put this out there so that people attempting to criticize your theories can be aware that references to Xians (Chestians/Chreistians) for example are not enough to falsify it. I don't see why we don't take that one step further and also say that references to Christ don't falsify it either, in which case the mid-fourth-century inscription being mentioned wouldn't falsify it, regardless of dating or (what SA was arguing) it implying a period of gestation or whatever.

Put positively, you seem to focus on the texts as the subject of your thesis, allowing that various ideas and groups (Xians, nomina sacra, art) contributed to this full expression of true Christianity in the fourth century - with its texts - that came later. This is why the Dura Europos gospel text vexes you as a falsification - it's a text of the gospel type you say is later (or perhaps it's a proto-text but not a text of the true Christian type). And this seems to be why the inscriptions, papyri, and art are "totally unconvincing" - beyond the fact that several of them individually are quite ambiguous. Even at their best in terms of clarity and dating, they do nothing to disprove your theories regarding the texts. They just show some ideas, sometimes from Xians, that came before the true Christianity of the fourth century.

In short, you're looking for the origins of the New Testament (and what you see as literature reacting to the New Testament), and you're saying that they were written in the fourth century (with the caveat that some sources may be earlier). Some kind of basic Xians precede that, according to what you've said, and that can't disprove your theory.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

Pete has to worst of human qualities. Refusal to admit defeat
Last edited by Secret Alias on Thu May 11, 2023 4:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Peter Kirby wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 8:20 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 4:23 am Again could you provide an example of what you refer to as marking certain inscriptions as not "True Christianity"(tm)? Thanks.
A lot of what's on your website is ambiguous and not clearly addressed.

Here are a couple papyri and their notes:

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/epigraphic_habit.htm

2nd CE: PSI.XIV.1412 "via Sotas, the christian". [chrestian?]


256 CE: P.Oxy 3035 Order to arrest "chrestian". [citation is "chrestian"]

This allows that there were some form of Xians.
See Note (1)
As for inscriptions, I was thinking for example of these:
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 3:01 am (viii) Inscription from Aurelia Julia [296-297]

https://archive.org/details/christiansf ... 2/mode/2up

Aurelia Julia for her father ... and her mother, Beroneikiane, and for my sweetest child Severus and my daughter-in-law Moundane, in memory. Christians [Χρειστιανοι].

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 3:36 pm (xi) Tomb Inscription of Family from Temenothyrai [278-279]

T.D. Barnes, Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia, p. 242

In the year 363, the tenth of the month Pereitios. Eutyches son of Eutyches, (prepared this tomb) for Tatia his wife and for his father, in memory; Christans [Χρειστιανοι]; and for himself. Phellinas. From Temenothyrai.

See Note (2)
These seem to fall in your "totally unconvincing" category here:

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/ante% ... review.htm
See Note (3)
6.5 Inscriptions from the Upper Tembris Valley


**** This section deals with the "Christians for Christians Inscription" and defers
to the catalogue of Else Gibson which has been reviewed in detail in a separate
article.

Refer to The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia
- a review of data presented by Elsa Gibson


Summary: totally unconvincing (See the separate analysis)
For this also see Note (2)



Note (1)

Since making a catalog of these papyri and noting the variants such as PSI.XIV.1412 "via Sotas, the christian" and P.Oxy 3035 Order to arrest "chrestian" (which actually does not have the tau and is better rendered as "Chresian") I have made a separate catalog that is entitled as follows and comment further on below:

Early "Chrestians"
The sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος]
and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/chres ... stians.htm


Note (2)

These inscriptions are all to be found presented in this book:
The "Christians for Christians" inscriptions of Phrygia:
Greek texts, translation and commentary (Harvard theological studies) Paperback – January 1, 1978 by Elsa Gibson (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Christians-inscr ... 089130262X

The separate analysis referred to above relates to a study I made of the data presented in this book. This is located here:
The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia:
- a review of data presented by Elsa Gibson
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_074.htm


Note (3)

The repeated "totally unconvincing" comment is derived from my study of the book by Graydon F. Snyder entitled "Ante pacem: archaeological evidence of church life before Constantine". The study and review is located here:

A critical review & re-examination of the evidence presented in "Ante Pacem"
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/ante% ... review.htm

The term "totally unconvincing" was in response to a range of evidence presented. The evidence is ordered as follows:

Chapter 2: Early Christian Symbols
Chapter 3: Pictorial Representations
Chapter 4: Pictorial Interpretations
Chapter 5: Early Church Buildings
Chapter 6: Inscriptions and Graffiti
Chapter 7: Papyrus Documentation


The first batch of evidence is outlined in Chapter 2: Early Christian Symbols. The suggestions made by the author explored the question as to whether the presence of any of the following symbols could be viewed as evidence for a "Christian presence". These symbols were:


2: Early Christian Symbols.

2.1 The Lamb
2.2 The Anchor
2.3 The Vase
2.4 The Dove
2.5 The Boat
2.6 The Olive Branch
2.7 The Orante
2.8 The Palm or Tree
2.9 The Bread
2.10 The Good Shepherd
2.11 The Fish
2.12 The Vine and Grapes
2.13 The Cross (appears in the 4th century)

That any of these symbols can indicate the presence of "ante pacem" Christians is certainly unconvincing IMHO. Special pleading can only go so far. The same problem is encountered in Chapter 3: Pictorial Representations and Chapter 4: Pictorial Interpretations. Here is a sample description:

Plate 13: "The sarcophagus located in Sta. Maria Antiqua, Rome.
"Likely the oldest example of Early Christian plastic art"

"The Teaching of the Law stands in the center, with a Good Shepherd immediately to the right and an Orante immediately to the left. Continuing left is a Jonah cycle, first Jonah resting, then Jonah cast out of the ketos, and finally Jonah in the boat. To the extreme left side stands a river god. To the right of the Good Shepherd there is a baptism of Jesus with a dove descending. Jesus is young, nude, and quite small next to the older, bearded John the Baptist. A pastoral scene concludes the right end"

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Ante% ... view.htm#5

What more can anyone say other than "totally unconvincing"? It's like seeing Jesus in a slice of toast.


Then there was CHAPTER 5: Early Church Buildings

5.1 The Church at Dura-Europos
5.2 The Domus Petri in Capharnaum
5.3 The Double Church at Aquileia
5.4 The Tituli Churches of Rome
5.5 Cemetry Structures
5.6 Baptistries

The house church at Dura is the only one confidently dated prior to the 4th century. I have argued that this is just as likely to be a Jewish house church and have set forth a number of reasons for thinking so.

I find that the often cited evidence from the catacombs must contend with the known fact that some of these were renovated by Damasus in the later 4th century in order to boost the tourist trade to Rome with the catch-cry that "Peter was Here". A claim only found in the Acts of Peter, some variants, and the Clementine literature. How is this to be explained?

My answer is that these non canonical legends were extremely useful to the Roman Bishop who would later receive the title "Pontifex Maximus". A title the Roman Emperor (Gratian?) no longer wanted. Very useful and super prestigious title for a Christian bishop at that time.


Chapter 6: Inscriptions and Graffiti
Chapter 7: Papyrus Documentation

The review of these last two chapters incorporated the data that I had reviewed earlier and which is separately tabulated. The refrain found against a great deal of evidence of "totally unconvincing" is for stuff I had earlier found in online material by Christian academics from the old school. Stuff like "He Sleeps" implies the presence of Christian thought.


So lets move back to the paradox of Chrestian and Christian
If there are references to Χρειστιανοι or Χρηστιανοι that are not indicative of what you're identifying as "Christian," then this suggests there is a divide between some kind of basic Xianity and what is Christian (truly). Referring to the latter as true Christianity helps to make clear the distinction being made: some kind of basic Xians before the fourth century, then true Christians in the fourth century.

I put this out there so that people attempting to criticize your theories can be aware that references to Xians (Chestians/Chreistians) for example are not enough to falsify it. I don't see why we don't take that one step further and also say that references to Christ don't falsify it either, in which case the mid-fourth-century inscription being mentioned wouldn't falsify it, regardless of dating or (what SA was arguing) it implying a period of gestation or whatever.

Put positively, you seem to focus on the texts as the subject of your thesis, allowing that various ideas and groups (Xians, nomina sacra, art) contributed to this full expression of true Christianity in the fourth century - with its texts - that came later. This is why the Dura Europos gospel text vexes you as a falsification - it's a text of the gospel type you say is later (or perhaps it's a proto-text but not a text of the true Christian type). And this seems to be why the inscriptions, papyri, and art are "totally unconvincing" - beyond the fact that several of them individually are quite ambiguous. Even at their best in terms of clarity and dating, they do nothing to disprove your theories regarding the texts. They just show some ideas, sometimes from Xians, that came before the true Christianity of the fourth century.

In short, you're looking for the origins of the New Testament (and what you see as literature reacting to the New Testament), and you're saying that they were written in the fourth century (with the caveat that some sources may be earlier). Some kind of basic Xians precede that, according to what you've said, and that can't disprove your theory.

The paradox of Chrestian and Christian

It should be noted that in the schematic "Chronological Map of the Evidence" related to Christian Origins I have reserved an element (labelled 12) for the change of "Chrestian" to "Christian". As mentioned above I have collected the papyri and the inscriptions for the "Early Chrestians" and also a number of references to this in the "Ante Nicene Fathers". This reviews can be found here:

The sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/chres ... stians.htm

At the conclusion of that catalog I made a few comments as to how to explain this data. The data indicates that the term "Chrestian" (and not "Christian") invariably appears with the earliest evidence - the question must naturally arise as to why. How is the chronology of the use of the terms "Chrestian" and then "Christian" to be explained? Also pointed out in this review is that the term "antichrist" always appears with the iota and never the eta as "antichrest". This complicates things.

The usual explanation why Chrestian exclusively dominates the early evidence, there following a change to Christian (via Chreistian), is that this is a result of iotacism. However I don't agree. Moreover since preparing this catalog new data has come to light. As a result the explanatory hypothesis outlined at the end of the review will need to be revised.


Chrestian and Christian in the NHL

Martijn Linssen more recently conducted a review of the use of "Chrestian" and "Christian" in the NHL. along with the Coptic "nomina sacra". Here it has been found that the terms Chrestian and Chrestos dominate.

ChrEstian all over the Nag Hammadi Library
https://www.academia.edu/62646507/ChrEs ... di_Library

One of the more remarkable findings is that both terms Chrestian and Christian) are explicitly used in the Gospel of Philip. This cannot be explained by iotacism. The author seems to use these terms in a differentiated manner.

From Chrestian to Christian - Philip beyond the grave
https://www.academia.edu/89583617/From_ ... _the_grave


SUMMARY

As I have mentioned elsewhere I have yet to revise any explanatory hypothesis to make sense of this new data. I have some thoughts on this but have yet to discuss them. The data prior to the 4th century suggests that there appears to have been a class of people in antiquity who were referred to as "Chrestians" or "Chresians". I am not quite sure what this term actually meant when applied in a generic sense to a class or group of people. Another article which I assembled earlier may have some value:

The sources of CHRESTOS (χρηστός- Strong's Number: 5543) and
CHRISTOS (Χριστός - Strong's Number: 5547) in Antiquity

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/chres ... ristos.htm

It could be that the term Chrestian meant something like "The Good Ones" or "The Good Guys" or "The Good People" in the sense of some sort of community name for the good folk. I do not find that it necessarily had anything to do with the "Christians" as defined in the Church history of Eusebius. It appears to be a Hellenistic term used in the Graeco-Roman milieu. As to whom it was applied, or why, IDK at the moment.

So I hope the above response answers most of the questions raised.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2311
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

In the LC/Mt./Peter Brown or Toth post just above, he declares the following to be "totally unconvincing"--
(The full LC sentence pronounced:
"What more can anyone say other than "totally unconvincing"?)

"Plate 13: "The sarcophagus located in Sta. Maria Antiqua, Rome.
"Likely the oldest example of Early Christian plastic art"....[Snyder, Ante-Pacem, 1985, page 36]
--that is, Early (pre-Constantine) and Christian according to several art historians (bibliography given on the page cited)

Well, I (SG) can say, along with Theodor Klauser, C. R. Morey, Marcel Simon, G. F. Snyder and others, that that sarcophagus is early and Christian.
If it had only pictured a good shepherd, one could have said it isn't necessarily about Jesus, but the baptism scene, with the dove above, is Christian, convincingly.
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 »

StephenGoranson wrote: Thu May 11, 2023 6:24 am In the LC/Mt./Peter Brown or Toth post just above, he declares the following to be "totally unconvincing"--
(The full LC sentence pronounced:
"What more can anyone say other than "totally unconvincing"?)

"Plate 13: "The sarcophagus located in Sta. Maria Antiqua, Rome.
"Likely the oldest example of Early Christian plastic art"....[Snyder, Ante-Pacem, 1985, page 36]
--that is, Early (pre-Constantine) and Christian according to several art historians (bibliography given on the page cited)

Well, I (SG) can say, along with Theodor Klauser, C. R. Morey, Marcel Simon, G. F. Snyder and others, that that sarcophagus is early and Christian.
If it had only pictured a good shepherd, one could have said it isn't necessarily about Jesus, but the baptism scene, with the dove above, is Christian, convincingly.
Here's an image:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Sarco ... us%204.jpg
Image

Plate 13: "The sarcophagus located in Sta. Maria Antiqua, Rome.

"Likely the oldest example of Early Christian plastic art"

"The Teaching of the Law stands in the center, with a Good Shepherd immediately to the right and an Orante immediately to the left. Continuing left is a Jonah cycle, first Jonah resting, then Jonah cast out of the ketos, and finally Jonah in the boat. To the extreme left side stands a river god. To the right of the Good Shepherd there is a baptism of Jesus with a dove descending. Jesus is young, nude, and quite small next to the older, bearded John the Baptist. A pastoral scene concludes the right end"

Bart Erhman wrote:How Old Was Jesus? Jesus’ Age at His Baptism and Start of Ministry

According to Luke 3:23, Jesus was “about thirty” years old when he was baptized by John. Now, let me say that, historically, there’s no way to know whether Luke had special information about this or if he was just guessing.

Mark gives no indication at all of Jesus’ age. Either does Matthew or John. How would Luke, writing so many decades after Jesus’ life, know? Either he (a) had a reliable source unavailable to the others; (b) had an unreliable source, or (c) came up with it himself. At what age was Jesus baptized? My guess is that it is the latter, but there’s no way to know for sure.

https://ehrmanblog.org/how-old-was-jesus/
Question for Stephen:

How do you, Theodor Klauser, C. R. Morey, Marcel Simon, G. F. Snyder and others, claim that that sarcophagus depicts the baptism of Jesus as a small child? What evidence can you provide for this claim?

As someone with a strong sense of skepticism I'd like some convincing arguments for a claim such as that. I do not have a will to believe this stuff. I genuinely suspect the claim requires a will to believe and that it is a product of groupthink from bygone centuries. Feel free to change my mind with some evidence.
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 »

Pete has to worst of human qualities. Refusal to admit defeat
I am the last to claim any victory. I don't deal in 100% certainties like some. I have conceded Dura Parchment 24 has a 90% chance of being from the 3rd century. This angers those who seek refuge in the 100% certainty that it does. I refuse to stop asking questions and I see that as a virtue rather than a fault. Some would disagree with this. That's up to them.

Feel free to run with reconstructing Christian origins via Marcion using 14th century church "preserved" manuscripts as sources. I'm a little more skeptical. I'd like some physical proof and prefer primary evidence over secondary sources. The NHL has survived from the 4th century. You claimed to have a theory about the NHL but despite questions have not provided any details. Such is life.
Last edited by Leucius Charinus on Thu May 11, 2023 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Is It True That When You Say Noah You Really Mean Yeshua?

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCGD9dT12C0
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Apr 10, 2023 7:02 am Just curious to find out how many people at the forum believe that Christianity was wholly invented by Constantine in the fourth century and that Christianity didn't exist before Constantine?
JW:
So you think that after 20 years of repeating the same lie no one will ever believe it? How about giving him 2,000 years?


Joseph

https://israelpolicyforum.org/west-bank ... 0in%201967.
Post Reply