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 »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:47 pmHis method of working with the biblical text is also said to be described in a message to Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 240)
Are you referring to a papyrus fragment from a roll described as P.G., XI, 41-85 ?

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 ...
I can agree for the need for all the above cautionary notes. They are absolutely necessary and not too many people are capable of articulating these caveats. Hat's off to you.
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.
The hypothesis points to the fact that (arguably) all the primary evidence for the NT apocryphal (NTA) literature can be considered to be all stacked up into a mountain of Coptic and Greek codices, manuscripts and fragments from the mid 4th century. The radiocarbon C14 dating results confirm this mid 4th century chronology.

On the other side of the balance scales for its earlier chronology we have - and also considered to be factual - the secondary evidence of ante Nicene heresiologists attesting to the circulation of (some of) the NTA books. But the earliest extant manuscripts for this heresiological literature are from the middle ages (or in some cases later).

I reject the notion that it is "complete nonsense" to engage the proposition that the heresiological literature is a later forgery. On the contrary I believe the possible forgery of this material needs to be taken seriously because it directly effects the appearance of the NT apocryphal literature by a matter of two centuries.
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 »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:52 pm 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.
No single 'regime' preserved the extant texts (which are hardly 'sources' : you show you either fail to adequately understand concepts and relationships of the concepts to each other or too easily misrepresent them)

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:52 pm 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.
We don't have to 'reconstruct' a 'chronological context' for 'the propaganda' / 'stuff' that we have : we already have a [reasonable] chronology (and context) except for the formation of the main books of the NT including for the key Pauline epistles.

We have a reasonable chronology and context for the apocryphal [early Christian] literature:
  • for the Simonian, Sethian, Valentinian, Marcionite, and other apocryphal [early Christian] literature
  • Various scholars have given us this for these
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 5:19 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:52 pm 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.
No single 'regime' preserved the extant texts
The Theodosian regime of 379 to 395 CE enforced a revised Nicene orthodoxy and obviously must have preserved the texts of the original 325 CE Nicene orthodoxy in the imperial libraries of the city of Constantine. At this time there was collaboration between the Greek east and the newly kick-started Latin church of Rome in harmonising the groundwork for the appearance of the cult of the Saint and martyrs, and the development of the lucrative Holy Relic trade which was to last for more than a thousand years. The Theodosian regime of 379 to 395 CE can be considered as a single regime. All this is mentioned in the OP.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:52 pm 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.
We don't have to 'reconstruct' a 'chronological context' for 'the propaganda' / 'stuff' that we have : we already have a [reasonable] chronology (and context) except for the formation of the main books of the NT including for the key Pauline epistles.
What you might call a reasonable chronology others might not. For example there are scholars who consider there to be no genuine Pauline epistles. Paul they claim, was not an historical figure, and the letters in his name are not from the 1st century at all but are instead the product of 2nd century forgeries. This is precisely the reason that I mentioned "lower and upper bounds". These cater for various and differing hypotheses. Arguably we have no physical evidence for the canonical literature before the 3rd century.
We have a reasonable chronology and context for the apocryphal [early Christian] literature:
  • for the Simonian, Sethian, Valentinian, Marcionite, and other apocryphal [early Christian] literature
  • Various scholars have given us this for these
Surely you know by now that I am aware of and do understand the mainstream chronology of the NT apocryphal literature and specifically the actual primary and secondary evidence upon which the mainstream chronology is based. I outlined this evidence above but you have chosen not to comment on the primary and secondary evidence, and how it may be alternatively interpreted.

What don't you understand about someone putting forward an alternative chronology which challenges the mainstream paradigm and which is based on a different interpretation of the same evidence?

Your response is similar to statements like that of Philipp von Jolly telling the young Max Planck (in 1874) that it was "probably not a great idea to study theoretical physics, since there was not much left to do." Or in 1899 when Charles Deull, the Commissioner of the US patent office stated that "everything that can be invented has been invented."

When Edward Gibbon wrote that "The scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church", what did he mean by the "dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church"? My answer is that Gibbon's dark cloud is fraud and forgery perpetrated by the church industry.
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 »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 5:19 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:52 pm 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.
We don't have to 'reconstruct' a 'chronological context' for 'the propaganda' / 'stuff' that we have : we already have a [reasonable] chronology (and context) except for the formation of the main books of the NT including for the key Pauline epistles.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 9:47 pm What you might call a reasonable chronology, others might not. For example, there are scholars who consider there to be no genuine Pauline epistles. Paul they claim, was not an historical figure, and the letters in his name are not from the 1st century at all but are instead the product of 2nd century forgeries. This is precisely the reason that I mentioned "lower and upper bounds".
  • Yes, it's feasible most if not all the Pauline letters were written in the 2nd century AD/CE.

    Robert M Price, in The Amazing Colossal Apostle, 2012, proposed that the Pauline letters were written and edited by other people, including Marcion, and Polycarp of Smyrna; and that 'Paul' is a composite of several historical figures, including Simon the Sorcerer, Stephen the Martyr, Marcion of Pontos, and an iconoclastic evangelist who was indeed named Paul.

    Priced noted


    Edgar J. Goodspeed and Walter Bauer (together with Hans von Campenhausen and others) have maintained that there is a reason for the crushing silence throughout the second century regarding the Pauline epistles. For instance, Justin Martyr never mentions Paul in his voluminous writings. When he is mentioned by other writers, Paul has nothing distinctive to say: he is a pale shadow and obedient lackey of the Twelve, as in Acts ...

    Van Manen had made almost exactly the same diagnosis of Galatians, in which we read of an encounter between Paul and the Jerusalem pillars, strikingly reminiscent of Marcion’s clash with the Roman Church hierarchy: it was at first a Marcionite text, later catholicized by his opponents, who then covered their tracks by accusing Marcion of abbreviating it.


    He talks of 'snow-balling' theories and 'second-coming theories' to account for them

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 9:47 pm Arguably we have no physical evidence for the canonical literature before the 3rd century
  • No, but there's feasible, collective evidence that at least some canonical literature was started in the 2nd century AD/CE
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 »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:34 pm 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
That's all nice and dandy, and those philosophical struggles are interesting in their own way (and no, Christianity had to bend several Platonic concepts drastically to fit Christian doctrine, like the statements regarding the "One" or what hypostases are, just to name two), just not for the question at hand. Origen was a very vocal proponent of the finding that the Bible is full of contradictions, including the gospels. He gives enough examples of statements in different canonical gospels that don't fit together. From this he concluded that the text doesn't tell history, but has to be read spiritually. He also proposed that the actual reason for the death penalty for Jesus was the ruckus he caused in the temple, because the other given explanations didn't make sense to him.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ohn10.html

These are topics that don't have anything to do with Platonic philosophy, and I don't quite see why anyone who wanted to establish a unified Christianity would go to such lengths to discredit the core Christian message that everything in the Bible is true as it is written.
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 know. Pete doesn't think he has to read the material in order to gain expertise. Odd that approach doesn't work.
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: Tue Nov 22, 2022 5:51 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:34 pm 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
That's all nice and dandy, and those philosophical struggles are interesting in their own way (and no, Christianity had to bend several Platonic concepts drastically to fit Christian doctrine, like the statements regarding the "One" or what hypostases are, just to name two), just not for the question at hand. Origen was a very vocal proponent of the finding that the Bible is full of contradictions, including the gospels. He gives enough examples of statements in different canonical gospels that don't fit together. From this he concluded that the text doesn't tell history, but has to be read spiritually. He also proposed that the actual reason for the death penalty for Jesus was the ruckus he caused in the temple, because the other given explanations didn't make sense to him.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ohn10.html

These are topics that don't have anything to do with Platonic philosophy, and I don't quite see why anyone who wanted to establish a unified Christianity would go to such lengths to discredit the core Christian message that everything in the Bible is true as it is written.
There are many here who think that by simply reading the material attributed to Origen that they will gain expertise in what this 3rd century church father actually thought and wrote. As if they were peering directly into a time capsule that has been preserved by a process of immaculate transmission from antiquity (like the Nag Hammadi codices). I do not subscribe to such a notion. I want to know as much a I can about the history of the transmission of Origen's manuscripts from antiquity to the earliest extant manuscripts that have been identified by those who have studied this.

What supposedly motivated Origen to write?

Well it appears to be that Origen felt the need to oppose and counter the writings of the gnostic heretics. These writings are today classed as the NT apocryphal literature and the subject of the OP.

Today, under the pretext of gnosis, the heretics set themselves up against the holy Church of Christ, and multiply the volumes of their commentaries in which they pretend to interpret the evangelical and apostolic writings. If we ourselves keep silence, if we do not oppose them with true and sound doctrines, they will attract famished souls who, in the absence of healthy nourishment, will seize upon these forbidden foods which are indeed impure and abominable... In your own case, it was because you could not find masters capable of teaching you a higher doctrine, and because your love for Jesus could not abide an unreasoned and common faith, hence you formerly gave yourself up to those doctrines which subsequently you condemned and rejected, as was right.

https://www.copticchurch.net/patrology/ ... ter02.html

As such Origen is wearing his heresiological hat. He is also quite capable of removing this hat and putting on the hat encompassing the exegesis of LXX and NT scripture. But the ultimate question is whether the writings currently attributed to Origen are in fact from an historical Origen of the 3rd century or whether these writings were accumulated in the following centuries - especially the 4th century. But not limited to the 4th century. You may call me over suspicious but I see that such suspicion is warranted. I want evidence of the integrity of the transmission of Origen's manuscripts.

HIS VOLUMINOUS WRITINGS

Origen was the most prolific Christian writer of antiquity. St. Epiphanius declared that Origen had written 6000 works-scrolls of undoubted value and of varied lengths. The complete list of his writings that Eusebius added to the biography of his friend and teacher Pamphilus was lost. According to St. Jerome who used it, Origen's treatises are two thousand. St. Jerome's question, "which of us can read all that he has written?" is a sufficient testimony to the magnitude of Origen's literary works. Charles Bigg says, "The marvel is not that Origen composed so much, but that he composed so well."

The Origenistic Controversies caused most of the literary output of the great Alexandrian to disappear. The greater part of his writings has perished as a result of the violent quarrels which broke out concerning his orthodoxy. Not only the reading of his works was proscribed but even preserving any of them was considered an illegal deed.

We possess only a small remnant of his work, mostly preserved, not in the original Greek, but in Latin translations. There is a number of Latin translations. Some are made by Saint Hilary, Saint Jerome, and several others.. The greater part comes from the pen of Rufinus of Aquileia. St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nazianzus compiled an anthology (Philokalia Origenis).

https://www.copticchurch.net/patrology/ ... ter02.html

So here we have mention of those who transmitted the supposed manuscripts of Origen in the 4th century as the first port of call connecting antiquity with the presently known "earliest extant manuscripts". Elsewhere I have pointed out that St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nazianzus are responsible for the editing of Origen's works such that Origen is a witness to the circulation of the Clementine literature. Here is the citation again:

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
Author(s): Rendel Harris
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 40, No. 3/4 (1921), pp. 125-145
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3259292

When we move from Basil and Gregory to Rufinus we find more troubling integrity issues.

THE LATIN TRANSLATION

The Latin translations of Origen's works, especially those by Rufinus, are not accurate. For he wanted to present his author to the Latin-speaking public and therefore did not hesitate to abridge some passages that seemed to him to be too long or to add explanations when he thought it advisable. Rufinus thought that Origen's books had been altered by heretics, and that he had the right to expurgate them... Heine has summarized Rufinus’ alteration of Origen’s text along five lines.

1. Heine suggests that Rufinus suppressed contradictory elements in Origen.

2. Rufinus attempted to restore the original thought of Origen from other texts of Origen’s works.

3. He attempted to clarify Origen’s thought where he found it obscure.

4. He admitted that he had abridged the text of Origen.

5. Rufinus translated the sense into Latin and did not give a word for word translation.


ibid

So in summary we have Christian elites of the 4th century taking the liberty of presenting all sorts of stuff that Origen may or may not have written as supposedly factual. As far as I am concerned this should set off the alarm bells on most integrity detectors.

Did Origen deny the idea that “there was a time when the Son was not”?

Roger Pearse has a blog on this here:
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/202 ... n-was-not/

Origen anticipating & contradicting the Arian heresy 10yrs before Arius was born and 80yrs before Nicaea is Fire. “He who was a son according to the flesh came from the seed of David…According to the Spirit, however, he existed first & there was never a time when he was not.” …

It’s from Origen’s commentary on Romans 1, ch.5.

Pamphilus in his Apology (ch. 50) also quotes it in the Greek from Origen’s commentary on Hebrews.

Roger at the end attributes this to Rufinus. But blind Freddy can see the writing on the wall. Rufinus or whichever other (and possibly much later Christian scribe) has attempted to interpolate into Origen the 4th century Nicene philosophy attributed to Arius of Alexandria.

All the above is just the tip of an iceberg of historical integrity problems. What motivated all this corruption and interpolation into Origen by the Christian church industry of later centuries? I set out one possibility in the OP.
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 are many here who think that by simply reading the material attributed to Origen that they will gain expertise in what this 3rd century church father actually thought and wrote.
What about those who say you should at least have read the material PERIOD.
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 »

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.
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. 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.

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.

Basically, Origen here delivers something that looks like a precursor to the historical-critical method, plus some spiritual solution to the issue, of course.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

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

Post by schillingklaus »

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