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.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

There is no ducking in any of this. It is generally acknowledged that the nomina sacra likely began from a two letter rather than two letter exemplar.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

I wasn't being disrespectful regarding self-publishing. I was forced to open a Facebook page, come to forums like this and my Academia page by my then publisher. You can all blame them.
lclapshaw
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 10:01 am

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

Post by lclapshaw »

uickly is by far my favorite word right now! :D
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
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 »

Why not start with Saint Irenaeus, whom the Pope recently appointed as a "Doctor" this year - 2022.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9328
The Reasons to Believe Some/Much of What the Church Fathers Report
Post by Secret Alias » Sat Apr 09, 2022 6:16 am

1. Irenaeus's report about the aeons of the Valentinians = stuff found at Nag Hammadi
Irenaeus as a forgery of the Latin Church industry

The church industry had many centuries to get their story together about their political enemies of the 4th century - the heretics who authored, preserved and circulated various books of the NT Apocrypha. And the Nicene church industry had an education system to cement their story in place. It only took a few generations. Take the major player Irenaeus for example.

Irenaeus was supposed to be the bishop of Lyons and a Greek author writing c.200 CE. He is supposedly cited by Eusebius, and worshipped by Epiphanius and those following. The earliest extant manuscript for Irenaeus is Codex Claremontanus from 10th/11th century and this is a Latin manuscript. Five centuries later the writings of Irenaeus were prepared for the printing press. In 1526 Erasmus creates a Latin edition for Irenaeus and uses sources not found in the three main extant manuscripts. Erasmus thinks that Irenaeus was a Latin author. No Greek manuscripts appear to be brought forward until 1713 when Pfaff publishes the Turin manuscript in Greek. Harnack declared this manuscript to be a forgery. None of this inspires any confidence in the church industry.


Reconstructing the later forgery of the Latin Irenaeus

Consensus has it that the 4th century heresiologist Epiphanius made a catalog (in Greek) of heresies c.370 CE in his "Panarion" and in this quotes the "Blessed" and "Most Holy Irenaeus" many times as an authority on the pernicious heretics. My contention is that Irenaeus was fabricated in part from the Panarion of Epiphanius (who may indeed have been familiar with books in the NHL or other New Testament Apocryphal books circulating in the mid 4th century). The motivation for the forgery was the desire to move the history of books such as the Gospel of Judas et al out of the rule of Constantine and into prior centuries. (See the OP item 3). This explains why "Irenaeus" appears to have knowledge of some details of these books. This chronology is also aligned to the claim of the first known "Latin translation" of Irenaeus c.380 CE.

Eric Osborn in his study of Irenaeus writes:

"The original Greek text of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies is found only in fragmentary form, while [only one] complete Latin translation prepared about the year 380 has survived (emphasis added). There are three early manuscripts of the Latin translation, the oldest of which (Clareomontanus) dates from the tenth or eleventh century. The others are later (Leydensys, Arundelianus). Erasmus’ edition princeps of Irenaeus (1526) contains some readings not represented by any of these three manuscripts and the sources from which his variants may derive have since disappeared."


Inventions of the Nicene Church Industry 370-380 CE

At this stage c.380 CE the end game of the Christian revolution of the 4th century was being played out by the Theodosian decrees. At this time elite Christian bishops (who would later become "Doctors" of both the Latin and the Greek church) were dreaming dreams in which they would obtain a revelation of the location of the bones of various martyrs or the relics of various saints. Lo and behold the bones and relics were "discovered" and gleefully paraded through the streets to be exhibited in churches across the empire. The "Holy Relic trade" and the Cult of the Saints and Martyrs was being commissioned. This pseudo-historical fabrication was destined to dominate the face of the church industry for the next 1,000 or more years. See "Holy Bones: Holy Dust".

All this activity demanded more hagiography for the bogus Saints and more martyrologies for the bogus martyrs. And lo and behold the Nicene Church industry provided this literature from their scriptoria. The Greek and Latin churches collaborated to forged a new and revised orthodoxy and a new and revised Nicene Creed. Pilate is added to the earliest creed of 325 CE and the five sophisms of Arius of Alexandria were removed. The Arian controversy (see item 4 in the OP) was primarily about the heretical books of the NT apocrypha which by 380 CE had been savagely suppressed for more than two generations. This demanded the production of heresiological accounts which would explain to future generations how the canonical books of the orthodoxy had succeeded in the controversial conflict with the "Other Jesus and Apostle Story Books" circulated by the dissidents. Theodosius 381 CE summarises the situation in his decrees: "We authorise followers of this law to assume the title of orthodox Christians; but as for the others since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics." A new history was being forged for the history of the heretics. It was called heresiology.

The forgery of pre-Nicene heresiology retro-scripted heresies and heretical books of the post-Nicene epoch described by Epiphanius, into the earlier centuries and a fabricated source they called Irenaeus. This fabrication was probably undertaken in the Latin scriptoria of Rome oversighted by Damasus and Jerome. Epiphanius visited Rome c.370 CE. We only have Latin sources for this Doctor and Saint Irenaeus. The church industry produces self-serving pseudo-historical propaganda not political history.


The Clementine Literature as an example of 4th century forgery by retro-scripting

An example of such "forgery by retro-scripting" is found with the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies. This was traditionally dated to the 2nd/3rd centuries because it was thought that it was cited by Origen. (But it wasn't), Consensus is now that the Clementine literature was authored by an Arian c.330 CE. This

Quoting Rendel Harris

"Harnack gave a very complete summary of all the literary parallels on the Patristic side, and his work is a standard of reference for those who approach the subject. He made, however, one bad mistake is supposing, as others had done, that the Recognitions were quoted by Origen, thus determining a literary terminus ad quem for their composition; and it fell to the lot of Dr. Armitage Robinson to show that the supposed reference in the Philocalia of Origen was not Origen's at all, but was to be credited to the
editorial hands of Basil and Gregory."

-- Notes on the Clementine Romances - https://www.jstor.org/stable/3259292


The Fathers of the Church become Pre-Nicene in the 5th century

When did Irenaeus and the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers rise to prominence? Until the time of the thug Bishop Cyril of Alexandria all references to the "Fathers of the Church" were references to "The Three Hundred and Eighteen Nicene Fathers". If you'd like some references:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/The%2 ... athers.htm


Orthodox Doctrinal History (EH1) vs. Heresiology (EH7)

These are capable of being treated as two separate strands. See post #3 above which defines EH1 and EH7. Irenaeus for example promotes the vital importance of apostolic succession. Pope Damasus would have appreciated this. However the OP is unconcerned about orthodox doctrinal history E1. We can assume Irenaeus, if you wish to, has faithfully represented the notion of apostolic succession. That Irenaeus existed and wrote about orthodoxy but was interpolated with a later layer of heresiology. Or that Irenaeus was completely forged in Damasus' Latin scriptorium and they just added other stuff which suited their propaganda at the time, such as the importance of apostolic succession.



Provisional Conclusion

There is absolutely no reason to believe any of what the ante-Nicene church fathers report in respect of the heretics and/or their heretical books the NT apocrypha. Why should anyone uncritically believe what the utterly corrupt church industry of the 4th and subsequent centuries wrote about the actual history of their political opponents, and the conflict between the two?


We can deal with 2. the Philosophumena on another occasion.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
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 »

What is the earliest non-fragmentary Greek Irenaeus manuscript?

The Greek writer Irenaeus is often cited as an authority in many 2nd century issues but the fact remains AFAIK that - setting aside fragments such as P. Oxy.405 - there are no early Greek manuscripts.

This question is not concerned with the fragments such as P. Oxy. 405 discussed here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4392&p=89870

What is the date of the earliest non-fragmentary Greek Irenaeus manuscript?
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The Nag Hammadi Library: Codex, Tractate, Title and Leaf numbers

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:12 am
Yes, nomina sacra is yet another attempt by Christians to claim them as their property and invention, and it falsely alleges a purpose and goal behind them while there is not a single sane academic paper that claims to have found one.
They are found in the earliest Greek NT + LXX codices, in the Coptic NHL, in the Greek papyri and on inscriptions - at least from the 4th century. There is no consensus on a whole range of questions about the nomina sacra. Despite assertions to the contrary.
It is all so very obvious and all is hidden in plain sight.
But what is your elevator pitch to all this, what is the REASON for allegedly falsifying the NHL?
Who's claiming the NHL was falsified? Not me. My claim is that it is a time capsule from the mid 4th century at which time, according to the political history of Ammianus "the highways were covered with galloping bishops"
I'll be frank, as usual: you have based your theory on the biased and falsified NHL translations, which is completely understandable
What theory are you responding to? The OP is about the entire contents of the NHL to have been post-Nicene literary reactions to the Emperor's New Books, with An Old Part and a New Part. I have allowed possible exceptions to this idea such as Thomas.
but now is the time to either reject my findings that all of the NHL talks about Chrestian instead of Christian, or to accept them and then adapt your theory.
I have not rejected your findings that Chrestos and Chrestians stalk the halls of the Nag Hammadi Library. Of course I accept these findings. And I silently ponder on the implications as to why the earlier translators missed this. What else has been missed from the 4th century time capsule?

My theory is not restricted to having to provide an explanation as to the sources of Chrestian and Christian in antiquity. My theory is a theory in political history which attempts to demonstrate that the NT apocryphal texts (and NHL) are political, literary, religious, philosophical, and sometimes satirical reactions to the NT/LXX Bible codex in the eastern empire c.325 CE.

My theory views the Ante Nicene heresiological narratives to have been forged and fabricated by the Nicene Church industry of the later 4th and following centuries. You refer to these as the Falsifying Fathers. The chief of all Ante Nicene heresiological sources is the Greek source Irenaeus for whom we have Latin manuscripts, dating from a 380 CE translation. The Pope made Irenaeus a "Doctor of the Church" this year.

If the Latin church lied and forged manuscripts left, right and center like everyone knows they did, then they certainly did it to get rid of their political enemies. Their political enemies at that time were involved in the composition, preservation and circulation of the NT apocryphal books. The orthodoxy possessed the NT + LXX Bibles that Constantine and his son had published. These books needed to be protected by the church industry from the list of books which the church industry prohibited. Heresy involved books.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Nag Hammadi Library: Codex, Tractate, Title and Leaf numbers

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:03 pm
mlinssen wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:12 am It is all so very obvious and all is hidden in plain sight.
But what is your elevator pitch to all this, what is the REASON for allegedly falsifying the NHL?
Who's claiming the NHL was falsified? Not me. My claim is that it is a time capsule from the mid 4th century at which time, according to the political history of Ammianus "the highways were covered with galloping bishops"
I'll be frank, as usual: you have based your theory on the biased and falsified NHL translations, which is completely understandable
What theory are you responding to? The OP is about the entire contents of the NHL to have been post-Nicene literary reactions to the Emperor's New Books, with An Old Part and a New Part. I have allowed possible exceptions to this idea such as Thomas.
Let me refresh your memory:
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 11:48 pm Nag Hammadi Library (NHL) ---- AUTHORS = Unknown

Another tabulation for the texts in the NHL is here:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Autho ... _Index.htm
The NHL is a subset of the NTA texts addressed in the OP.


New Testament Apocrypha (NTA) ---- AUTHORS = Unknown

A tabulation for some of the texts in the NTA is here:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Autho ... _Index.htm
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocrypha.html
1. The NHL is a subset of the NTA, you say.
2. http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Autho ... _Index.htm includes Thomas, Truth and Philip there
3. In the OP you claim:
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 5:59 pm Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.
So: NTA is forged, NHL is a subset of NTA, hence NHL has been forged.
The smaller subset then? Thomas, Truth and Philip have been forged

You need to clearly delineate your TLA's, this looks very close to the ridiculous and preposterous gospel dependency picture by Geoff:
rgprice wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 12:19 pm Alternatively we have the potential of Marcionite priority below.
SynopticDiagram-Marcion.png
SynopticDiagram-Marcion.png (57.33 KiB) Viewed 1950 times
Circular refences all over the place, with only Matthew not having a proto version. "Yeah no that was not in Luke but in proto-Luke, hence why Mark could have used it while the dependency clearly goes from Mark as source to Luke".
An incredibly dumb and useless theory that doesn't solve anything and leads to nothing but confusion and convolution. Geoff's entire Christian Origins theory can be concisely confined to "Man it all was one great gospel orgy"

Likewise, in your scheme, Thomas and Philip (among others) belong to NHL as well as NTA whereas you make different claims about both TLA's - and that's confusing to say the least

A. Make a list of all the texts
B. Mark all of them with one single cross: either NTA or NHL
C. If you need to include any of the NHL writings among NTA ones, then you cannot use NHL as a TLA, and need to find another denomination
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The Nag Hammadi Library: Codex, Tractate, Title and Leaf numbers

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 1:19 am
3. In the OP you claim:
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 5:59 pm Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.
So: NTA is forged,
No. My claim is that Heresiology has been forged. By heresiology (< 325 CE) I mean specifically the narratives of Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, etc. Heresiology is a strand of the Ante Nicene fathers reserved to provide information about the books of the NTA, and the heretics and heretical groups who preserved these books. Heresiology is part of "Church History". It is this which I am proposing to have been forged. Not the NTA. Heresiology prior to 325 CE is pseudo-historical fabrication. It is common sense that we dont see heresy before orthodoxy. There is no orthodoxy before 325 CE, and no heresy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresiology
NHL is a subset of NTA, hence NHL has been forged.
The smaller subset then? Thomas, Truth and Philip have been forged
No I am not considering the NTA to be have been forged. The NT apocryphal texts (and NHL) are explained (with some exceptions) as political, literary, religious, philosophical, and sometimes satirical reactions - by non-Christian authors - to the NT/LXX Bible codex in the eastern empire c.325 CE.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
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 »

Here is a basic map of the evidence as I see it at the moment:
https://www.academia.edu/78665273/Evide ... Literature


Description of the map:

Evidence Map: Chronology of the components of Christian Literature

(1) New Testament Canonical literature (NTC) including the LXX or Septuagint. (Authors unknown)

(2) New Testament Apocryphal literature (NTA) including the Nag Hammadi Codices (NHC). (Authors unknown)

(3) Ecclesiastical History (EH) (Authors - Eusebius & his continuators)

consisting of:

EH1 - Orthodox doctrines, preservation of NTC, creeds, lists of bishops, collected commentaries, attestations to NT readings, patristic comments, expositions, sermons, testimonia, early church "fathers", etc;

EH2 - Persecution by Roman emperors - political history;
EH3 - Martyrology;
EH4 – Hagiography;
EH5 - Cult of Saints and Martyrs;
EH6 - Holy Relic Trade;
EH7 - Heresiology - Heresy, Heresiologists, Heretics, Heresiarchs and the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

Completed by non-Christian evidence...

(4) Non-Christian literary sources; and

(5) Archaeological and manuscript evidence. [C14]


Showing proposed alternative chronology for the composition of the NTA (325-337 CE), NHC and the subsequent forgery of EH7 (heresiology).
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 3:07 am Here is a basic map of the evidence as I see it at the moment:
https://www.academia.edu/78665273/Evide ... Literature


Description of the map:

Evidence Map: Chronology of the components of Christian Literature

(1) New Testament Canonical literature (NTC) including the LXX or Septuagint. (Authors unknown)

(2) New Testament Apocryphal literature (NTA) including the Nag Hammadi Codices (NHC). (Authors unknown)

(3) Ecclesiastical History (EH) (Authors - Eusebius & his continuators)

consisting of:

EH1 - Orthodox doctrines, preservation of NTC, creeds, lists of bishops, collected commentaries, attestations to NT readings, patristic comments, expositions, sermons, testimonia, early church "fathers", etc;

EH2 - Persecution by Roman emperors - political history;
EH3 - Martyrology;
EH4 – Hagiography;
EH5 - Cult of Saints and Martyrs;
EH6 - Holy Relic Trade;
EH7 - Heresiology - Heresy, Heresiologists, Heretics, Heresiarchs and the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

Completed by non-Christian evidence...

(4) Non-Christian literary sources; and

(5) Archaeological and manuscript evidence. [C14]


Showing proposed alternative chronology for the composition of the NTA (325-337 CE), NHC and the subsequent forgery of EH7 (heresiology).
I think I'm getting to understand your point.
Yet I see it differently, although I agree that the creation of the Septuagint went along with that of the NT: they needed falsified Scripture to support their falsified prophecies, and that is why the translation of the Hebrew is so gruesome at points

Yet the NHL comes first; the emergence of Chrestianity is where it all starts, and Philip attests to a full blown theology and baptism with receiving the Holy Spirit.
Then we get the NT with the Septuagint: the hostile takeover by the Romans.
And then we get the fierce protests to that including some of the source material as well that got added later on in the NT: what you call NTA

And then, as a reaction to that, the Falsifying Fathers produce all their rhetoric and we're likely already in the 5th / 6th CE at that point - so I agree that those are completely falsified as well

Yet what I don't understand is why there are so many errors in everything: why do the FF disagree for 2/3rds of their attestations to Marcion, for example? Why, if we didn't find any of it all until 10th CE, and when we did find it all of it was curated by Christians - why is it all so very imperfect?
Why is it so very far removed from "too good to be true"?
Post Reply