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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1937
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

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

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Ulan wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:31 pmTell 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

The future orthodoxy had the Nicene Creed. That was all they needed to cement their business model. The business model was then altered in the 4th century to encompass the lucrative Holy Relic Trade which would pre-occupy the Christian academics and entertain the common people for more than a thousand years. The NT gospels essentially were relegated into 2nd place. They remained out of the way in the back-office until other academics wanted to see them a millennium hence.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 7889
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 5:31 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:14 pm
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.

I'm not just talking about writings attributed to Origen. I'm talking about writings about Origen—writings about what Origen may or may not have said—soon-ish after Origen's 'time' eg. by Pamphilus, Eusebius, Rufinus and Jerome, and others. And one would need to compare (i) what was said about Origen by them, and by later writers, such as Photius, with (ii) the extant texts we think were written by him (which, in fact, may not have been); and (iii) there's also a need to compare and contrast the various accounts by Pamphilus, Eusebius, Rufinus and Jerome
Ulan
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

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

Post by Ulan »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 5:17 pm (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.
Okay, so you walk the "turn any evidence against my hypothesis into evidence for my thesis by claiming the instigators were such devious geniuses that they even forged all dissent outside of their apologetic literature" route. Noted.

I know enough conspiracy theorists to have learned that there is no escape from that self-dug hole. Any evidence against their beliefs just increases their awe for uncovering an even larger conspiracy than they imagined before.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1937
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

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

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Ulan wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 6:56 pmOkay, so you walk the "turn any evidence against my hypothesis into evidence for my thesis by claiming the instigators were such devious geniuses that they even forged all dissent outside of their apologetic literature" route. Noted.
See Point (2) in the OP
  • 2) The social identity of the authors of the NTA: it will be argued that the authors of the NTA were not Christians, but in fact highly educated and literate pagans, many of whom may be identified as Platonist philosophers.
IMO the primary form of dissent against the NT canonical literature (and other apologetic literature) is represented by the authorship of the NT apocryphal class of literature. The orthodoxy had nothing to do with the authorship of the NTA.
I know enough conspiracy theorists to have learned that there is no escape from that self-dug hole.
So the Nicene Church of the 4th century, supported, protected and legislated for in the Roman law codes by the Christian emperors should not be considered to be involved in any form of conspiracy? The Nicene Church was officialised by Constantine immediately after he had become the supreme victor of a civil war.

Here is one observation about war:

WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1937
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Chrestianity preceded Christianity, and redaction criticism demonstrates it in abundance

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 5:46 pm 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
Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses:

1) Thomas draws from the Synoptics
2) The Synoptics draw from Thomas
3) Thomas and the Synoptics draw from a common source

None of these hypotheses can be proven IMO. On the basis of the evidence you (and Koepke et al) have adduced so far I cannot concede to the truth of hypothesis 2) that Thomas wrote first. Hypothesis 1 seems more likely IMO.

However on the basis that none of these three mutually exclusive hypotheses can be proven, beyond reasonable doubt to be the correct option, I have an open mind.


For example how do you explain:
(1) The Greek noun μοναχός (“single one/monk”) in Logia 16 & 23
(2) Jesus and the GOLD COIN in Logion 100

Details here: viewtopic.php?p=144864#p144864

Other commentators posit interpolation. What do you say?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2338
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Chrestianity preceded Christianity, and redaction criticism demonstrates it in abundance

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:07 am
mlinssen wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 5:46 pm 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
Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses:

1) Thomas draws from the Synoptics
2) The Synoptics draw from Thomas
3) Thomas and the Synoptics draw from a common source

None of these hypotheses can be proven IMO. On the basis of the evidence you (and Koepke et al) have adduced so far I cannot concede to the truth of hypothesis 2) that Thomas wrote first. Hypothesis 1 seems more likely IMO.

However on the basis that none of these three mutually exclusive hypotheses can be proven, beyond reasonable doubt to be the correct option, I have an open mind.

Details here: viewtopic.php?p=144864#p144864

Other commentators posit interpolation. What do you say?
That's nonsense of course, and you omit the substantiation there for a good reason. You also, naturally, just make a statement here that reflects an unsubstantiated opinion instead of taking any one of the thousands of pages that have been written on this by Koepke and me alone, and actually refute something that we claim.
Your training and arguing is extremely weak Pete, you are worse than Bernard Muller

Redaction criticism demonstrates, time and again, far beyond reasonable doubt, that Thomas precedes the canonicals

1.

The splitting of logia by the gospel-writers, such as logion 79, is a solid case for them copying Thomas and not the other way around. Thomas joining Luke 11:27-28 with Mark 13:17 or Matthew 24:19? Good luck with arguing that case. Thomas joining the two masters of Luke 16:13 or Matthew 6:24 to their 5:36-39 respectively 9:16-17, so that he can have his logion 47 complete? The most brutal split occurs around logion 45 where the essential middle sentence is left out, that of the good man and his good storehouse, and the evil man and his evil storehouse. When and where it befits the gospel-writers they include it, and when and where it befits them they exclude it. Logion 39 has its doves and serpents moved to Matthew 10:16 whereas he has the other parts in chapter 23; he is the only one who has it so Thomas must have combined those two parts into one logion, because? Logion 76 is used only by Matthew in a particularly poor version in 13:45-46 while ramming through three logia in a row, yet it is Luke and Matthew who use 76d in 12:33-34 respectively 6:19-21. What on earth would the motive be for Thomas to combine these, and isn't it perfectly intelligible why Matthew didn't want it to follow his copy?

(The 72 logia of Thomas and their canonical cousins

For example how do you explain:
(1) The Greek noun μοναχός (“single one/monk”) in Logia 16 & 23
You missed one:

single ⲟⲩⲱⲧ Adjective 4, 22, 23, 48, 76
Single-One ⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ Noun 16, 49, 75

This would be an interesting exercise if you were to show the existence of the word in the Synoptics - yet in the context of your own question here this entire task is irrelevant, because the word doesn't exist in the NT
For example how do you explain:
(2) Jesus and the GOLD COIN in Logion 100
There is no gold coin in logion 100 Pete, you really try hard to use inaccurate translations (likely Lambdin here). You have no idea about any of this, nor do you possess the necessary skills to discuss the subtle nuances

ⲁ ⲩ ⲧⲥⲉⲃⲉ ⲓ̆ⲥ ̆ ⲁ ⲩ ⲛⲟⲩⲃ
did they show IS [dop] a(n) gold

A gold: a piece of gold

It's there, a piece of gold.
With regards to the story: praising Jesus for his particular ability to teach God's way and then questioning him about something so trivial, mundane and worldly as paying taxes strikes me as a wondrous pretext, but the Pharisees probably are supposed to play with the word Law.
I commented before that the gospel-writers once more miss the point of Thomas and go to extreme lengths in order to link the image on the coin to the punch line, thus introducing a silver coin (the denarius) instead of a gold one - most people would know that a denarius bears his image, and most people would have almost never even seen a gold coin. In Thomas it is unclear whether or not Caesar's image is on the coin and it is a trivial detail: who cares who you pay taxes to, it is part of the rules of society that you do so: this Caesar will die but he will just be replaced by another Caesar. Likewise it is part of the rules of society that you give to God, and that is equally as insignificant; this God might be replaced by another God but that won't change the System, you will still always be required to give to (a) God just as you're always required to give to (a) Caesar. Only one thing is most significant in your entire life, and that is you yourself: me - give me what is mine.
Yet both Luke as well as Matthew follow Mark's scene almost to the letter; where I labelled Mark as longwinded earlier, apparently his verses perfectly serve the gospel-writers' goal.
Praising Jesus, putting down the tricky Pharisees (and Herodians) and showing Jesus' marvellous cunning (and hostile attitude towards them) all at once: that is how they want it.
Given their close similarity, what about the order? The threads I have for Mark-Luke-Matthew are merely two. The end result in Mark is marvelled Pharisees, in Luke they marvel and become silent, in Matthew they marvel, leave him and go away; Luke expands Mark and Matthew expands Luke there. Similarly 'hypocrisy', 'craftiness' and 'wickedness' show a gradual change from just slightly evil and hiding it to outright evil.
Matthew's utmost accomplishment naturally is the fact that Jesus demands to see a tax coin, presumably unprepared, and on apparently suddenly seeing that it bears Caesar's face instantly creates the cunning one-liner - a perfection like that is highly unlikely to come from a first strike. Matthew certainly is last, Mark certainly comes before him, and Luke probably is in between. And Thomas undeniably is first with his beautifully concise version lacking any and all Church motive, directed solely at the true punch line of 'give me what is mine'.

Now answer the obvious difficulties in my point 1. please - it is evident that your examples won't lead to anything decisive.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1937
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Possible historical allusions in Thomas: "monarchos" and "gold tax"

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 8:42 pm
For example how do you explain:

(1) The Greek noun μοναχός (“single one/monk”) in Logia 16 & 23
You missed one:

single ⲟⲩⲱⲧ Adjective 4, 22, 23, 48, 76
Single-One ⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ Noun 16, 49, 75

This would be an interesting exercise if you were to show the existence of the word in the Synoptics - yet in the context of your own question here this entire task is irrelevant, because the word doesn't exist in the NT
The word was never used as a noun - applied to a person - until the 4th century. It's use by the author of Thomas and by the author of The Dialogue of the Savior (NHC 3.5) is novel.

Significantly, this word is not employed as a noun by Classical Greek authors, Philo of Alexandria, the Septuagint, Greek and Latin Christian literature of the first three centuries, any Gnostic writings, nor, according to G. Quispel, any of the sources that the author of Thomas used when writing his gospel.35

The employment of monachos by the author of the Dialogue in the same context as we find in Thomas, the only other text to use this word at this time in history, may signal that the author of the Dialogue was familar with the actual text of Thomas rather than the sayings tradition behind it.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583732

Various academics comment on the novel appearance of monarchos in Thomas. Some consider that it is possible that the final 4th century editor of Thomas in the NHL added the term.

Koepke writes:

Now the question is: is this the meaning of the word in the two sayings 49 and 75? The way Jesus uses the word already differs grammatically from its use by classical Greek authors: he uses it as a noun which they never did, and he uses it to designate persons which was not the case before. Has he changed the meaning as well or does it simply mean "the unique ones" or "the essential, indivisible ones"?

So my question to you is how do you explain the appearance of this 4th century term in Thomas? Did Thomas invent it? Was Thomas edited in the NHL version?
For example how do you explain:
(2) Jesus and the GOLD COIN in Logion 100
There is no gold coin in logion 100 Pete, you really try hard to use inaccurate translations (likely Lambdin here). You have no idea about any of this, nor do you possess the necessary skills to discuss the subtle nuances

ⲁ ⲩ ⲧⲥⲉⲃⲉ ⲓ̆ⲥ ̆ ⲁ ⲩ ⲛⲟⲩⲃ
did they show IS [dop] a(n) gold

A gold: a piece of gold
They showed him a gold and they are being taxed.

LAYTON

(100) They showed Jesus a gold (coin) and said to him,
"Caesar's agents are exacting taxes from us."
He said to them,
"Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
give unto god the things that are god's,
and give unto me that which is mine."

Imperial taxation was required to be paid in gold by both Diocletian and Constantine.

Stephan Witetschek has argued that the presence of the ⲛⲟⲩⲃ indicates that Gospel of Thomas 100 was only incorporated into the text very late, in Egypt, after the Diocletianic reform of 305 CE, which saw gold currency established across the Empire, and taxes raised in an attempt to remedy economic crisis.


Why does Jesus get given a gold (coin) in his interview by those who are paying tax to the boss? When did Thomas write and was Thomas redacted in the 4th century for the NHL edition?
Post Reply