Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.

[Leucius Charinus]

Well it appears to be that Origen felt the need to oppose and counter the writings of the gnostic heretics.

Which wasn't what my answer to your objection referred to. I linked a longer text where Origen opposed the literal view of our canonical NT and OT scriptures, because those texts contain many contradictions. This is in direct opposition to the view of the Christianity whose establishment the topic of your thread is, who insisted on that everything in the Bible is true and doesn't have contradictions.

The OP is about heresiology and the NT apocryphal class of Christian literature in contrast to the orthodox doctrines and the NT canonical class of Christian literature. (Of particular note is point (5) in the OP). Nevertheless I am happy discuss Origen's contribution to both these classes of literature. (Although I maintain it is possible to focus on the NTA and heresiological strands of Ecclesiastical "history")

There's no imaginable reason why anyone who wanted to establish a unified Christianity would fabricate a text that calls the unity of the core message into question.

My response is that many texts were fabricated during and/or well after a unified imperially proscribed Christianity (325-381 CE) had already been established.

:lol: Unless you go the usual conspiracy theorist road and, whenever they find evidence that contradicts their thesis, go "oh, that's how devious they were. They even invented their opponents to make their story more believable". To modern readers, nonetheless. That's how deep their deception went.

How similar is Eusebius' "Historia Ecclesiastica" (EH) - in which Origen first appears - to the overall fabricated propaganda of the "Historia Augusta"?

The Historia Augusta was authored in the 4th century and dedicated in part to Constantine. It is a collection of (bogus) biographies of Roman emperors of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. It was on the surface authored by two separate "fake" groups of six "fake" authors. Computer analysis suggests it was written by one author. In it fake documents abound - totaling about 160 separate forgeries. The senatorial audience of the 4th century preferred novels and fictions, not history and facts. Fake dates abound. In this fabrication not only is there the novel Invention of fake sources but also in addition there is the further (novel) invention of other Fake Sources which disagree with earlier fake sources. Fake sources were not a new practice (cf. the invented letters in Plutarch's Life of Alexander). What is new, however, is that the author of the Historia Augusta invents sources to disagree with them.

Isn't this a lot like the textual / literary squabbles between the orthodox sources and the heretics depicted in EH? Two groups of fake sources squabbling between themselves. Both the Historia Augusta and the Historia Ecclesiastica are the product of the 4th century.

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/ ... a-augusta/

Such evidence supports (but does not prove) the notion of 4th century conspiracy creation with respect to the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, but it must remain on the table for reference.

"That the Historia Aurusta, is guilty of professional dishonesty is not a sign of strength, for historiography of this kind." (Arnaldo Momiglano)

Basically, Origen here delivers something that looks like a precursor to the historical-critical method, plus some spiritual solution to the issue, of course.

Yes (ears on SA?) I have read most of Origen's stuff but I remain unconvinced that it was authored when claimed in the 3rd century. I agree that it "looks like a precursor to the historical-critical method, plus some spiritual solution to the issue" but I am not convinced of the early chronology of authorship. I am open to evidence to the contrary.

[MrMacSon]

Sure. The synoptic gospels themselves or the Testimonium Flavianum are witness to that. However, that has nothing to do with my argument.

When I said -

But they often redacted those texts

- I wasn't referring to the gospels or the TF, I was referring to 2nd and 3rd century texts such as Origen's:

What Origen really wrote, and that much of what he wrote, seems to be up for debate, based on what I have gleaned from researching Pamphilus and finding out about what he and Eusebius are said to have written about Origen, and how that was received by the likes of Rufinus and Jerome, and disputed by them and b/w them: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10139

I'm yet to unpack it all (it all looks very convolute and complicated)

[Leucius Charinus]

That's not a core Christian message but a hilarious superstition.

Hey Klaus. Don't you acknowledge that the Evangelists wrote by the Holy Spirit? Surely the Holy Spirit is not an hilarious superstition?

3. WHAT WE ARE TO THINK OF THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT GOSPELS.

We must, however, try to obtain some notion of the intention of the Evangelists in such matters, and we direct ourselves to this. Suppose there are several men who, by the spirit, see God, and know His words addressed to His saints, and His presence which He vouchsafes to them, appearing to them at chosen times for their advancement.

Origen. Commentary on John

Book X

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ohn10.html

What was the "chosen times for the advancement of the Saints"?

When did the Saints start marching towards the Cult of the Saints and their most Holy Relic Trade? This did not happen until the later 4th century.

[Ulan]

When I said -

But they often redacted those texts

- I wasn't referring to the gospels or the TF, I was referring to 2nd and 3rd century texts such as Origen's:

To which I answered that this has nothing to do with my argument, which statement I can only repeat.

Tell me a good reason why someone who wants to establish orthodoxy would forge or redact a text of Origen that still - in the form it reaches us today - tells us that the canonical gospels are full of contradictions and impossible statements and cannot be literally true.

[Leucius Charinus]

Which in turn brings me to what I was actually addressing with this example: Origen is obviously one of the more intellectually capable early Christian writers, and this intellectual capability even shows in his writings that deal with obviously orthodox Christian texts. Why would anyone forging Christianity forge a text that throws shade on orthodox Christan writings?

My response is that the forgery was conducted AFTER Christian orthodoxy had gained political control of the empire by means of the Christian emperors. But the orthodoxy had at least two very serious problem to deal with. The first was the Arian controversy over the words of Arius and these are appended to the Nicene Creed of 325 CE as the disclaimer and anathema clause. My contention is that the Arian controversy was not about street corner arguments over theological nuances. Rather it was about an avalanche of "Other Jesus Stories" (the NT Apocryphal books) which the orthodoxy could not completely control by burning and execution of preservers. The second problem was Emperor Julian's three books against the Christians in which he asserted that "the fabrication of the Christians was a fiction of men composed by wickedness."

These two problems were already very real shades on orthodox Christian writings. The church industry had to respond to these problems. Origen provided some measure towards making these black problematic shades a little less black. One forgery at a time over many many centuries through to the church industry of the middle ages.

[Leucius Charinus]

Or perhaps, Origen has personality. Bots don't have personality. Even today.

With AI it won't be long.

Why should we expect so much personality from a supposedly ancient 'bot'?

Never under-estimate forgeries. Especially those created by the ludicrously wealthy and influential church industry and their business model as the centuries passed.

[Leucius Charinus]

My main issue here is that, while forgers may forge texts that refute supposed critics or heretics [..............] they usually don't forge texts that doubt their own main religious texts.

(1) When the NT Greek NT was first widely published c.325 CE in the rule of Constantine the each of the four gospels were prefaced by the Eusebian canon tables which declared in no uncertain terms who AGREED with who. The focus was on the agreements not on the doubts and disagreements.

(2) The NT Bible was received and immediately c,325 CE the pagan critics and detractors and dissidents (called heretics by the orthodox history) created a massive controversy. Emperor Julian inflamed the situation 360-363 CE.

(3) By the time of Theodosius the critics and heretics had entered the law codes of the Roman Empire as "mad men" who would be dealt with by the army.

(4) The orthodoxy (Rufinus, Jerome, Basil, Gregory, etc) forged material which doubted their own NT in order dissemble the complete and utterly controversial rejection of the NT by the pagans. They were in control anyway. Business was booming. They were the rich and influential getting richer and more influential. They needed an Origen to provide an intelligent and scholarly form of doubt which they could point at as the centuries passed. Origen was framed as an intelligent early Christian theologian. Origen would be remembered while Arius would be forgotten.

[Leucius Charinus]

What Origen really wrote, and that much of what he wrote, seems to be up for debate, based on what I have gleaned from researching Pamphilus and finding out about what he and Eusebius are said to have written about Origen, and how that was received by the likes of Rufinus and Jerome, and disputed b/w them: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10139

I'm yet to unpack it all (it all looks very convolute and complicated)

I agree that unpacking the writings of "Origen" is very convoluted and complicated exercise. My contribution is to insist (which I think you agree with) that the manuscripts from antiquity have gone though a relatively unknown (or at least unconfirmed) transmission history in the hands of the church.

But the exercise or investigation must be conducted.

[Leucius Charinus]

One might be able to propose some kind of 5th dimensional chess is being played, but it seems unlikely.

I have proposed that the study of history is like trying to solve a 4 dimensional jig saw puzzle. The writings of Origen are a good example. We may assume they have been transmitted to us from a particular point in time but we don't know precisely when. We could assume they appeared and were authored in the 3rd century and underwent various forms of highly turbulent transmission (including burning, censorship and redaction) in the 4th and subsequent centuries. But we cannot be sure of much at the moment. Assumptions of course can always be constructed. The books of Origen are like four dimensional pieces in a four dimensional puzzle. The bits change over time.

[mlinssen]

Chrestianity came into existence in the first CE, perhaps second at the latest.
Given the fact that Xristos doesn't start to appear in (loose) texts until 4th / 5th CE:

The Interchange of ι and η in the Spelling of Χριστ- Words in Egyptian Papyri

I reckon that Christianity didn't really launch until that same period, which would explain why we have no Septuagints that operate that period - as those were needed so very desperately to back up the bogus "prophecies" and distortions of the Tanakh but the Romans.
And I imagine (sic) that the Inquisition was there for a solid reason, namely to settle all disputes once and for all - and as such, Chrestianity lasted until well into the Middle Ages

The order of texts:

Thomas writes his text about self salvation: the kingdom is of your inside and of your eye. It's not about any Jesus we know, not about Christianity, not even about Chrestianity: Thomas precedes all that

John takes that into a narrative, fully breathing the spirituality of Thomas: John has more occurrences of "father" than the Synoptics together (Matthew 64, Mark 18, Luke 55, John 137);

Marcion takes John and adds some 50+ logia from Thomas, and some really fierce anti-Judaism, among others the Transfiguration (cf. Christi Thora)

Mark counters Marcion by inverting the anti-Judaism, and catches two birds with one stone: he redirects the anti-Judaism to the Pharisees - and also invents the resurrection, blaming the women (from the Chrestian tradition) for the fact that no one had ever heard of that

Chrestianity still persists and after Mark an even bolder move is made: Marcion's *Ev gets redacted into Luke - by Matthew, who is writing his own gospel on the side

There's no historicity of anyone, the characters all are figments of the imagination, invented by Thomas and everyone who came after him: one will look in vain for XS or XRS in Thomas; there is no Chrest or Christ in his text, only an IS and IHS. Yet all the names in his text are in the NT

For Pete's sake Pete: concede. Let it all go, and find a hobby that has some return on investment.
Please