The Reasons to Believe Some/Much of What the Church Fathers Report

[mlinssen]

Nothing what they say can be trusted - certainly not when you see that they disagree with each other on two thirds of all Marcionite material

to use an analogy, I see the orthodoxy a woman who has been victim of a rape. The trauma she has received is so great, that she can't remember more her previous state of innocence. Everything is defiled, in her vision of herself, by the nocive effects of the received violence.

So a community that has invented "Jesus Barabbas" could only be a community that has been traumatized very a lot by the news about a Jesus Son of Unknown Father who had said: All who have come before me are thieves and robbers (John 10:8)

That is a very dangerous and inept analogy to use, especially given the fact that they're lying and cheating about basically everything: they most certainly are not a victim, but an abusive perpetrator themselves

Best compare it to the USA and Vietnam: even though the former were the most dominant and powerful party by far - on paper - they just kept losing. And the loss of face was something that drove them off the wall really

Only thing is that this time they did win, in the end, after many centuries

We could just make a list of all their lies - we'd highly likely grow weary of it rather soon, but then is then.
Here's one:

1)
Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.17
Scholion 71. 'And when they were come unto a place called Place of a Skull, they crucified him and parted his raiment, and the sun was darkened.' (a) Elenchus 71. Glory to the merciful God, who fastened your chariots together, Marcion, you Pharaoh, and though you hoped to escape, sank them in the sea! Though you make all possible excuses you will have none here. If a man has no flesh, neither can he be crucified. (b) Why did you not evade this great text? Why did you not try to conceal this great event, which undoes all your evil which you have devised from the beginning? (c) If he was really crucified, why can you not see that the Crucified is tangible, and his hands and feet are fastened with nails? This could not be an apparition or phantom, as you say, but was truly a body which the Lord had taken from Mary—our actual flesh, bones, and the rest. For even in your teaching it is admitted that the Lord was nailed to a cross!

<Σχόλιον> <οα>. «Καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τόπον λεγόμενον Κρανίου τόπος ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν καὶ διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος». <Ἔλεγχος> <οα>. Δόξα τῷ ἐλεήμονι θεῷ, τῷ συνδήσαντί σου τὰ ἅρματα, ὦ Φαραὼ Μαρκίων, καὶ βουλομένου σου ἀποδρᾶσαι καταποντώσαντι αὐτὰ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ. προφασιζόμενος γὰρ τὰ πάντα οὐχ ἕξεις ἐνταῦθα οὐδεμίαν πρόφασιν. ὁ γὰρ μὴ σάρκα ἔχων οὔτε σταυρωθῆναι δύναται. πῶς οὐκ ἔφυγες τὸ μέγα τοῦτο ῥητόν; πῶς οὐκ ἐπεχείρησας κρύψαι τὴν μεγάλην ταύτην πραγματείαν, τὴν λύσασάν σου πᾶσαν τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς μεμηχανημένην κακοτροπίαν; εἰ γὰρ ὅλως ἐσταυρώθη, πῶς οὐ βλέπεις τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἁφὴν ἔχοντα καὶ ἥλοις τὰς χεῖρας πηγνύμενον καὶ πόδας; οὐκ ἂν δὲ ἠδύνατο δόκησις τοῦτο εἶναι ἢ φάντασμα, ὡς σὺ λέγεις, ἀλλὰ σῶμα ἀληθῶς, ὃ ἐκ Μαρίας εἴληφεν ὁ κύριος (σάρκα φύσει τὴν ἡμετέραν καὶ ὀστέα καὶ τὰ ἄλλα), ἐπειδὴ ὁμολογεῖται καὶ παρὰ σοὶ σταυρῷ προσπαγεὶς ὁ κύριος.

Witness and observe the main goal of the Falsifying Fathers: even though there is nothing in the NT itself about Jesus being nailed to anything, let alone by hands and feet, that story develops afterwards - and in order to corroborate their own story and let it prevail over the literal text of the NT, the Falsifying Fathers abuse "Marcion" by faking that he has that text as well.
Which would make him not only the only one to have that, but also the first LOL - and the NT the one to deviate from that story. But let's not dwell on that

This undoubtedly also is the case with the Tiberius dating for example, and many other elements that absolutely were not present in Marcion but that the FF needed to be true

Does any of them comment to the fact that Marcion explicitly has nails in the hands and feet of Jesus whereas the NT has none of that? Of course not - this is all armchair rhetoric safely within their comfort zone. The one and only goal is to create their story about their Jesus and they will use and abuse any and all means necessary - as it is all for the greater good

[yakovzutolmai]

9. what establishes their doctrine is the "Old Testament." They argued the gospel and its interpretation has to be limited or restricted by what was predicted with respect to the coming Messiah by the Jewish writings. To do this they consulted arguments from what were "heretics" like Justin and Papias in order to see how Jesus was predicted by the "dominical logia" (cherry picking of course because there were a lot of stupid arguments) and limiting "the truth" or orthodoxy to the best arguments found in the early second century.

At the very least there is a predictability here which makes them useful sources on Christian antiquity. Better, more reliable than modern interpreters who are more like the heretics.

I have argued that the Church Fathers' project can be described very succinctly.

Among a vast controversy over hidden teachings, they asserted authority through a methodology vaguely describable as Sola Scriptura.

We might imagine actually multiple mystery traditions (of great antiquity: Egyptian, Assyrian, Jewish, Judeo-Egyptian, Judeo-Alexandrian, Armenian) seeping into the Christian zeitgeist, and then from them many sub-branches and novelties. Not only among the Christians, but also competing schools from Apollonius to that guy with the serpent marionette.

One way to address this is to reject the oral and mystery traditions, and rely on textual authority to build the doctrine.

If you look from 200-800 AD, we see exactly and evolving theology that presents an orthodoxy in one era, and then people find what amount to basically legal or rationalistic inconsistencies leading to new orthodoxy. It's very clear this theology is not derived from apostolic tradition. Make it up as we go along, sort of thing.

That said, the text becomes the ultimate basis for theological discussion. Hagiography relies heavily on the textual account, and is more of a search to validate the documents rather than to supplement or critique them.

Obviously, contemporary philosophy was used to interpret the scripture.

I think we see the emphasis on the primacy of the Old Testament, certainly a reaction to Marcion, as the beginnings of building a text-based theology . The documents are communicating the religion.

I have no doubts that transitional/diaspora Jews, former Alexandrians/Therapeutae/Philonics were involved in this push. The emphasis on the Old Testament in conjunction with Christian texts is almost precisely in parallel with rabbinical efforts, and also we have to consider original Christianity as a wholly Jewish religion, a branch of that movement. So the Church Fathers are doing what the rabbis of Nisibis and Naerda are doing, exactly the same thing, and really - if it had been closer to the year 100 - Christianity could practically claim to be a genuine true branch of Judaism with perhaps as much or more legitimacy than the others.

I'm quite certain that Paul derives from an entirely Jewish school of thought about the Law of Moses which might have supplanted the Pharisees had not the Christian moment happened, and the war, etc.

[mlinssen]

9. what establishes their doctrine is the "Old Testament." They argued the gospel and its interpretation has to be limited or restricted by what was predicted with respect to the coming Messiah by the Jewish writings. To do this they consulted arguments from what were "heretics" like Justin and Papias in order to see how Jesus was predicted by the "dominical logia" (cherry picking of course because there were a lot of stupid arguments) and limiting "the truth" or orthodoxy to the best arguments found in the early second century.

At the very least there is a predictability here which makes them useful sources on Christian antiquity. Better, more reliable than modern interpreters who are more like the heretics.

I have argued that the Church Fathers' project can be described very succinctly.

Among a vast controversy over hidden teachings, they asserted authority through a methodology vaguely describable as Sola Scriptura.

We might imagine actually multiple mystery traditions (of great antiquity: Egyptian, Assyrian, Jewish, Judeo-Egyptian, Judeo-Alexandrian, Armenian) seeping into the Christian zeitgeist, and then from them many sub-branches and novelties. Not only among the Christians, but also competing schools from Apollonius to that guy with the serpent marionette.

One way to address this is to reject the oral and mystery traditions, and rely on textual authority to build the doctrine.

If you look from 200-800 AD, we see exactly and evolving theology that presents an orthodoxy in one era, and then people find what amount to basically legal or rationalistic inconsistencies leading to new orthodoxy. It's very clear this theology is not derived from apostolic tradition. Make it up as we go along, sort of thing.

That said, the text becomes the ultimate basis for theological discussion. Hagiography relies heavily on the textual account, and is more of a search to validate the documents rather than to supplement or critique them.

Obviously, contemporary philosophy was used to interpret the scripture.

I think we see the emphasis on the primacy of the Old Testament, certainly a reaction to Marcion, as the beginnings of building a text-based theology . The documents are communicating the religion.

I have no doubts that transitional/diaspora Jews, former Alexandrians/Therapeutae/Philonics were involved in this push. The emphasis on the Old Testament in conjunction with Christian texts is almost precisely in parallel with rabbinical efforts, and also we have to consider original Christianity as a wholly Jewish religion, a branch of that movement. So the Church Fathers are doing what the rabbis of Nisibis and Naerda are doing, exactly the same thing, and really - if it had been closer to the year 100 - Christianity could practically claim to be a genuine true branch of Judaism with perhaps as much or more legitimacy than the others.

I'm quite certain that Paul derives from an entirely Jewish school of thought about the Law of Moses which might have supplanted the Pharisees had not the Christian moment happened, and the war, etc.

I'd agree with the first parts, but not the second:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9335

The rabbinical efforts arose as a response to the Romans meddling with the Tanakh in order to create Christianity. Paul is guaranteed to be Roman just like Mark and Matthew

[Secret Alias]

So let's make another analogy. Fast food. The fact that there were many different 'mystery religions' in antiquity doesn't mean that a Big Mac = Gordita Crunch = Chick-Fil-A Deluxe Sandwich. While fast food restaurants hold many similar principles and have similar products each restaurant does its best to differentiate itself in some way. When you go through the Chick-Fil-A drive through they 'my pleasure' instead of 'you're welcome' and have people standing outside in the driveway ON PURPOSE. McDonald's sells all sizes of soft drinks for $1. Shake Shack has wine and beer on the menu and gourmet options. My point is that you can't just assume that Jesus = Isis = whatever. Yes there was demand for the 'mystery religion' shop. But that doesn't mean that they weren't competing with one another and doing their best to put each other out of business.

[yakovzutolmai]

The rabbinical efforts arose as a response to the Romans meddling with the Tanakh in order to create Christianity. Paul is guaranteed to be Roman just like Mark and Matthew

Self-indulgent here, but consider the following.

Paul (not the author, but the character the author of the early authentic epistles was pretending to be) is Ananus ben Ananus, and he is representing the Ananian school - a particular philosophy of Judaism advanced by Rome's favorite High Priests. Let me argue that Ananus/Ananias/Annas himself is Hillel.

The founder of the Christian school was one of the sons of Simon Boethus. Perhaps Eleazar. This is Shammai.

The Ananians were arguing for a cosmopolitan, inclusive, non-legalistic Judaism which oriented away from the Earthly Temple, and instead toward the Heavenly Temple and its High Priest Joshua. The sacrifice at Jerusalem, while an act of faith unto God, was not essential. Only the Heavenly sacrifice was essential. This is fully Jewish, but completely consistent with Paul. I would argue this could be Hillel.

The Boethusians, best seen as the Jamesian enemies of Paul, supported Israel-only proselytization (the lost Israel were the Semitic and Israelite peoples of the Euphrates Valley, some of whom were there from before Second Temple times). They saw purity and purity within the law as the source of salvation. They opposed the Pharisees, because they had esoteric teachings which went beyond the Tanakh and which resonated with folk Israelite religion. But they were virulent about the law of Moses nonetheless, and you could imagine still perhaps less legalistic about it than the Pharisees.

Imagine now, especially after the destruction of the temple, an intense conflict particularly between these two sects. Where Shammai/Jamesian/Ebionite Christianity "wins". Until it wanes after two more successive revolts.

Rome meanwhile had tried to Romanize Hillelite Judaism as Pauline Christianity. Meanwhile, the same zeitgeist which manifested Christian schools of thought as the evolution of Judaism in the first century also promote the religion of messianic Sol in Syria, Mithras in Armenia, Maren in Hatra.

It's not until 200AD in Media, where exile Jews descended from Galilean nationalist Pharisees, take the mismatched teachings of Tannaim and redact and consolidate them into rabbinical Judaism. The Tannaim must, necessarily, be presented as united in theology as proper Jews. To emphasize the illegitimacy of Christianity. Leaving the paradoxical possibility that many of the Tannaim, in spite of their vicious disagreements, were essentially proto-Christian. We would concede that this process began with Rabbi Akiva, but it was not fully embraced and codified until the time of the Amoraim.

[Leucius Charinus]

The Greek source Irenaeus (whom the Pope made "Doctor" in 2022)
as a forgery of the Damasian 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.

Where are the Greek manuscripts? (Don't bother with P. Oxy. III 405)


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 was most likely familiar with books in the NHL or other New Testament Apocryphal books circulating in the mid 4th century). And Epiphanius was interpolated for the back-reference to Saint and Doctor Irenaeus.

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. 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."

No Greek manuscripts for the Greek writer but stacks of Latin manuscripts, all late. The Latin forgery mill known as Pseudo-Isidore was in full swing in the 9th century. But no worries, just give the utterly corrupt church industry the benefit of the doubt and let their historiography define the political history of the Christian revolution of the 4th century.

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

Get the drift here? Origen is interpolated to mention the Clementines and all scholarship until recent times accept the church manuscripts at face value. But the Clementines are now generally thought to be Post-Nicene. In fact authored by an Arian c.330 CE.


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 another post 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? The manuscripts are extremely late - many in the later middle ages.

[davidmartin]

right now i'm re-reading the whole of Irenaeus. He spends more than 50% of his time establishing orthodoxy more than he does describe the heresies (I want my money back!). In this he is creative, like he will see that in a psalm David is praising 'new things' and he says look, that means the New Testament dispensation, and so on that the Word spoke through David. Ignoring that the psalm is just praising 'new things' and doesn't have this hidden meaning. He does what he accuses the Valentinians of, finding abstract clues to theology in scripture but magically when he does it, it's ok

It's as if he has to create all possible connections back to the Hebrew scriptures like someone has his balls in a vice
All this putting the finishing touches to orthodoxy means it was logically was less developed and defined prior to him

The stuff he says about the heresies is interesting, like how he includes the Simonians as a Christian heresy but in Contra Celsum that is denied 'nothing to do with us' evidently the Simonians believed Simon was Jesus which is pretty obviously what they claimed. But so far it's still confusing that he is continually quoting Paul in 180AD but a few decades earlier when Acts was written there's no hint of his epistles, and Justin doesn't mention him, nor does the Shephard of Hermas. That still a real mystery. I guess either Marcion was much earlier if orthodoxy got the epistles from his sect (to give time for them to say 'they were always ours') or they were barely used until Marcion came along and suddenly orthodoxy saw their value and embraced them because of Marcion's use of them. There must be some clue about this but I can't see it. I want to find where it says "we always had Paul's writings" or some other clue to their origin

Oh and there appears to be a hint that some of the orthodox churches didn't celebrate the eucharist AT ALL in the past i thought that interesting

[Leucius Charinus]

Why Irenaeus may be dismissed as an early source for “apostolic succession”
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/ ... early.html

Apostolic succession was of course an important issue for Damasus.