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")Ulan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 5:56 amWhich 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.Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:23 pm Well it appears to be that Origen felt the need to oppose and counter the writings of the gnostic heretics.
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.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.
How similar is Eusebius' "Historia Ecclesiastica" (EH) - in which Origen first appears - to the overall fabricated propaganda of the "Historia Augusta"?: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.
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)
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.Basically, Origen here delivers something that looks like a precursor to the historical-critical method, plus some spiritual solution to the issue, of course.