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: 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 »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 5:20 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 1:09 am The anti-heresy works of Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc were designed to show the books of the NTA were circulating early.
If this is what you've landed on, then your attempt to prop up this idea is like Weekend at Bernie's. As soon as you stop pushing it, it will completely die and fade, and nobody will care.

The quoted comment was in context a response to G'Don's attempt to summarise my arguments. A professional and fair practice when attempting to understand the actual arguments with which one does not agree. And I appreciate G'Don's attempt because others here seem content to employ strawman arguments and ridicule rather than trying to understand what the idea actually is.

The idea that there was never an historical Jesus is not going to fade away and die. Not for a weekend but for almost seventeen long and dark centuries a fabricated corpse has been propped up in the "[dead] writings" pushed by Nicene church industry. Not only that but the massive (Arian) controversy which erupted forth from the Nicene Council has not been understood in terms of a plain and simple political history. The Ecclesiastical "Histories" written by the Christian victors are not political histories but rather idealised propaganda. (See my comments about "British Colonial Histories")

The historical existence of Irenaeus and Tertullian ("the father of Latin Christianity") essentially represent unexamined postulates which are at the moment held to be true by all those who study Christian "history". I would argue that we must responsibly question whether these literary sources were authored by historical figures. Or whether they were fabricated by the Latin Church industry many centuries removed and to whom we have, unreasonably and unreservedly IMO, extended the benefit of the doubt.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

I may have missed something.
But I doubt Constantine and Eusebius and co. could have written, for example, Origen.
You have failed to provide plausible motive nor means nor opportunity.
If you hate Christianity, why not explain that directly?
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

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

Post by GakuseiDon »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:09 pmThe quoted comment was in context a response to G'Don's attempt to summarise my arguments. A professional and fair practice when attempting to understand the actual arguments with which one does not agree. And I appreciate G'Don's attempt because others here seem content to employ strawman arguments and ridicule rather than trying to understand what the idea actually is.
Thanks LC. I've been trying to use what's called "Rapaport's Rules" or "Dennett's Rules", which I came across when listening to Daniel Dennett's talks about philosophy and free-will.

Dennett's rules are: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rapoport%27s_Rules

1: You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way."
2: You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3: You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4: Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.


Not that I can claim I'm able to stick to those rules 100% or even 50% of the time, but it's an on-going discipline thing.
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 »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:24 pm I may have missed something.
But I doubt Constantine and Eusebius and co. could have written, for example, Origen.
The Christian Origen is relatively easy to explain. Origen of Alexandria was an historical 3rd century Platonist. The pagan Origen was a contemporary of Plotinus and the student of the "Father of Neoplatonism" Ammonias Saccas of Alexandria. Origen the Platonist established a library which also contained, among many things Platonist, different translation versions of the Hebrew Bible into the Greek LXX. Like Eusebius, the pagan Origen may possibly have been a "man of Jewish descent". This library was eventually inherited by Eusebius who was in the 4th century seeking to write a history of the lineage of Christian bishops.

I have written an article on all this and previously linked to it:

A Pageant of Christian Identity Frauds masquerade in the Academy of Plato

ABSTRACT

Evidence is presented to substantiate the presence of at least a trinity of Christian Identity Frauds masquerading in the Academy of Plato during the 3rd century. (1,2,3) From the 4th century mention is resurrected of Porphyry's Christian Identity Fraud and the likelihood is explored that the Christian Presbyter Arius of Alexandria, is just another Identity Fraud in a pattern of similar evidence. (4,5) The events of the Council of Nicaea are reconstructed in such a manner as to narrate from the profane perspective, the heresy, the exile and the "damnatio memoriae" of Arius of Alexandria, a non christian theologian/philosopher associated with the Alexandrian academy of Plato c.324 CE. (6,7)

(0) Introduction - The Nondual God of Plato, Plato's Canon and its Apostolic Lineage
(1) The Two Ammonii - Ammonius Saccas the Platonist and Ammonius the Christian
(2) The Two Origen's - Origen the Platonist and Origen the Christian.
(3) The Two Anatolii - Anatolius of Alexandria the Platonist and Anatolius the Christian Bishop
(4) The Two Porphyrii - Porphyry the Platonist and Porphyry the Christian author
(5) The Two Arii - Arius of Alexandria the Platonist and Arius the Christian Presbyter.
(6) Reconstructing a Profane History of Nicaea - The Gods in the books of Plato and Constantine
(7) Identity Frauds, conclusions and recommendations - Condemnation of pious forgery.
(8) Reference: the Apostolic Lineage of the Academy of Plato - a chronological tabulation

Identity Fraud: - A criminal activity involving the use of a stolen or misappropriated identity. The process usually involves either stolen or forged identity documents used to obtain goods or services by deception.

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Nicae ... Christ.htm

You may have missed something in the reading of my arguments.
You have failed to provide plausible motive nor means nor opportunity.
I have provided what I deem to be plausible motive, means and opportunity both for the authorship of the NTC, the NTA and for elements of EH (Ecclesiastical History) especially the forgery of heresiology. You have yet to engage with the actual arguments in the same manner that you have not yet engaged with my arguments about the historical duplication of at least three Platonists of the 3rd century.
If you hate Christianity, why not explain that directly?
Prosecuting the argument that Christian history writing has purposefully engaged in fraud, forgery, cover ups and common deceit is certainly not to be equated with hatred of Christianity. Historians both professional and amateur are primarily investigators of the historical truths of the past centuries. These investigations should be guided by the actual ancient historical evidence not by rhetoric and/or ideology. Or by what the mainstream paradigms dictate how any finding are to be made. These investigations should be fearless in exposing common fraud. If you can't handle the heat in the kitchen leave the kitchen.

I have previously repudiated your assertion that I "hate Christianity". I don't. I have the greatest respect for many great modern and past Christians. Examples would include Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King Jr. and many others. I have the greatest respect for those people who run soup kitchens for the homeless, the sick and the disabled. But I do not attribute all these great deeds of all these people to love of Christianity but rather to love of humanity and to humanitarianism in general. You may not get this but I can't help that.
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 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:39 pm
Dennett's rules are: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rapoport%27s_Rules

1: You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way."
2: You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3: You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4: Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Yes I am impressed with Dennett's rules or guidelines of engagement. These guidelines should be added to the Useful links & Forum rules
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=129
Not that I can claim I'm able to stick to those rules 100% or even 50% of the time, but it's an on-going discipline thing.
Absolutely.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

I think a (pre-Constantine era) philosopher named Origen became a Christian. Some think they were separate people. Either way, I doubt Eusebius could write the Christian Origen texts plus many others (e.g. Tertullian).

When a gospel text is first written it is neither canonical nor apocryphal--that's a later determination. So anachronistic to retroject.

LC wrote Nov 4 up-thread:
"One popular adage highlights three stages for the recognition of truth: * Ridicule * Violent opposition * Acceptance as self-evident."
But what if the initial claim is false? Are there mermaids? (Did Disney trick many into thinking they exist only in animated cartoons?) In other words, are some claims absurd?
Ulan
Posts: 1505
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 »

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 9:08 am Either way, I doubt Eusebius could write the Christian Origen texts plus many others (e.g. Tertullian).
I agree. It's kind of hard to fake something exceeding your own abilities, at least as far as aspects like this can be estimated from the existing texts.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
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 »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:24 pm ... I doubt Constantine and Eusebius and co. could have written, for example, Origen.
You have failed to provide plausible motive nor means nor opportunity.
I agree. And it's very unlikely that Constantine wrote anything 'Christian' (how involved Constantine was in Christianity is not clear despite assertions and legends he was: the accounts of Lactantius and Eusebius are likely very exaggerated or even completely false, and may not be by them ie. the accounts of Constantine in the writings attributed to Eusebius and Lactantius may not be fully by them or by them at all).

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 9:08 am I think a (pre-Constantine era) philosopher named Origen became a Christian. Some think the[re] were [two] separate people [Origen the Philosopher and Origen the Christian]. Either way, I doubt Eusebius could write the Christian Origen texts plus many others (e.g. Tertullian).
'Origen' is said to have studied biblical Hebrew in his youth and, after being 'forced' to relocate to Palestine during the persecution of Christianity in Alexandria, he went into biblical textology. His most significant work is his Hexapla : Ἑξαπλᾶ, "sixfold". It was an immense and complex columnated word-for-word comparison of the original Hebrew Scriptures, the same in Greek, the Greek Septuagint translation, and with other Greek translations: the versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion.

Origen's purpose for creating the Hexapla is explained in the Commentary of the Gospel of Matthew attributed to him:

due to discrepancies between the manuscripts of 'the Old Testament,' with God's help, we were able to overcome using the testimony of other editions. This is because these points in the Septuagint, which because of discrepancies found in [other] manuscripts had given occasion for doubt, we have evaluated on the basis of these other editions, and marked with an obelus those places that were missing in the Hebrew text [...] while others have added the asterisk sign where it was apparent that the lessons were not found in the Septuagint; we have added the other, consistent with the text of the Hebrew editions.

His method of working with the biblical text is also said to be described in a message to Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 240)

He may have been prolific enough to have commented on virtually all books of the New Testament (as it stood then) as well, but it's also possible that others' commentaries have been folded in the 'corpus' of Origen's 'works'.

As is possible for other key figures, such as Tertullian.

And, with all the works attributed to Eusebius, there's no way Eusebius could have produced those works; and Origen's; and Tertullian's, etc.

It's possible all these works, as is likely with the four canonical gospels, and other NT texts, have been redacted multiple times over many decades, if not centuries, to both (i) align and smooth and (ii) elaborate on the lore, legends, myths, memes, etc., therein.

All of these works are likely the result of 'cumulative elaboration' : Layer upon layer upon previous layers ...

But to say, as the title of this thread does, "Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible," is complete nonsense.

As is the proposition that the NT was started post Nicene.
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 »

Ulan wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:46 pm
StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 9:08 am Either way, I doubt Eusebius could write the Christian Origen texts plus many others (e.g. Tertullian).
I agree. It's kind of hard to fake something exceeding your own abilities, at least as far as aspects like this can be estimated from the existing texts.
The fact appears to be that the NT canonical writings lack a cohesive philosophy while the NT apocryphal writings are saturated in Platonic philosophy.

The church dogma has it that some writers who had studied the philosophical writings of Plato and his school decided to convert to the super-philosophical writings contained in the canonical books of the NT literature.

"The most important fact in the history of Christian Doctrine was that the father of Christian Theology, Origen, was a Platonic philosopher at the school of Alexandria. He built into Christian Doctrine the whole cosmic drama of the soul, which he took from Plato."

Harvard Theological Review (1959);
cited by Bernard Simon (2004),
The Essence of the Gnostics, p.111

Augustine, much later, finds that "only a few words and phrases" need to be changed to bring Platonism into complete accord with Christianity.


So how did Platonism enter Christianity?

Certainly not by Eusebius' abilities as a Platonist philosopher. Eusebius' abilities are highlighted as an interpolator / forger and manipulator of pagan literary sources like those of Origen (who's entire library he controlled) and Josephus and others. The claim is that Eusebius interpolated and "Christianised" the Platonic treatises of Origen. Eusebius meddled with the extant works of Origen. Be aware the claim is that Eusebius may have started the practice but he certainly did not finish it. 4th and 5th century Church Fathers after him such as Basil and Gregory did precisely the same thing. Origen's Commentaries on the NTC and NTA writings were "preserved" by the (Nicene) church industry for many centuries after Eusebius.

What must be factored in to this discussion is that the classical historians have a series of references to the writings and the life of Origen the Platonist who, the classical historians maintain, was not Origen the Christian. Likewise the classical historians maintain that there was an Ammonius (Saccas) and an Anatolius of Alexandria whom they regard to be Platonists and NOT Christians. Are these duplicate identities just coincidental?

In the 4th and later centuries there are enormous controversies about the "Books of Origen" which are outlined under the heading of the Origenist Controversy. This crisis over the books of Origen is explained by the proposition that Eusebius subverted and "Christianised" the books of Origen, and the controversy was then all about "What did Origen actually write"? Those who had their own Platonic versions of Origen (like the Platonist school) had to compete with the elite bishops of the Nicene Church who, in well appointed scriptoria associated with the imperial libraries, had different versions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origenist_Crises
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 »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:47 pm
StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:24 pm ... I doubt Constantine and Eusebius and co. could have written, for example, Origen.
You have failed to provide plausible motive nor means nor opportunity.
I agree. And it's very unlikely that Constantine wrote anything 'Christian' (how involved Constantine was in Christianity is not clear despite assertions and legends he was: the accounts of Lactantius and Eusebius are likely very exaggerated or even completely false, and may not be by them ie. the accounts of Constantine in the writings attributed to Eusebius and Lactantius may not be fully by them or by them at all).
The accounts of Constantine were either from Constantine AND/OR they were fabricated (in whole or in part) by the regime which preserved the sources which we have as extant. In either case we are IMO dealing with the propaganda of the church (or the authors) at some point in time, or over multiple layers of redaction lasting centuries. The task is to unpack all this and to reconstruct - within lower and upper bounds - a chronological context for the propaganda / stuff that we have.

Even if what we have is all pseudo-historical propaganda it should be possible to in the end determine what was the purpose of the propaganda (perhaps in various layers). After all it represents what the authors / church industry (at various times) would like us to believe.
Post Reply