The self-evident emergence of Christianity

[mlinssen]

There is a discussion of the historical sources for Marcia at Christian Concubine ? The claim in the Epitome of Cassiud Dio is corroborated by Hippolytus (who is IMO unlikely to have been known to Xiphilinus).

Thanks for the refs.

The first one says: " Xiphilinus, a Christian monk who composed his summaries of Cassius Dio in late 11th century CE Constantinople, may himself have drawn from the Christian patristic tradition for evidence of Marcia’s sympathies, rather than using Dio as his only source." Hippolytus may have used similar Christian patristic traditions.

The emergence of Christianity can be tracked -

* within the Christian literature (canonical, apocryphal and ecclesiastical history)
* within the extant non-Christian literature
* within the surviving physical manuscripts themselves
* within the archaeological remains

I will have to reread Martijn's article

The addendum is out as well now, which compares Mark's ending in detail to that of Luke - but only for the part that Mark has

There's an overwhelming emphasis on the death of Jesus, from which Luke but also Matthew move away

https://www.academia.edu/76105160/The_s ... ristianity

Click Files which has the number 2 to it now, and select

 The_self_evident_emergence_of_Christianity_addendum_v08.pdf

[andrewcriddle]

There is a discussion of the historical sources for Marcia at Christian Concubine ? The claim in the Epitome of Cassiud Dio is corroborated by Hippolytus (who is IMO unlikely to have been known to Xiphilinus).

Thanks for the refs.

The first one says: " Xiphilinus, a Christian monk who composed his summaries of Cassius Dio in late 11th century CE Constantinople, may himself have drawn from the Christian patristic tradition for evidence of Marcia’s sympathies, rather than using Dio as his only source." Hippolytus may have used similar Christian patristic traditions.

The emergence of Christianity can be tracked -

* within the Christian literature (canonical, apocryphal and ecclesiastical history)
* within the extant non-Christian literature
* within the surviving physical manuscripts themselves
* within the archaeological remains

I will have to reread Martijn's article

For the purposes of this thread I'm treating Refutation of All Heresies by Hippolytus as a genuine 3rd century CE text. YMMV but I'm not interested in discussing that point here.

Refutation of All Heresies is the only surviving Christian text to refer to Marcia's Christian sympathies. This text seems to have been little copied and little known (probably because it is so very rude to poor Pope Callistus). We have no evidence of a Byzantine tradition about Marcia's Christian sympathies outside of Hippolytus which Xiphilinus probably did not know. It is simpler to hold that Cassius Dio and Hippolytus provide independent evidence abut Marcia which most Pagan and Christian writers tended to downplay/ignore.

Andrew Criddle

[mlinssen]

The Christian reference in Cassius Dio and Tacitus was mentioned at page 8 in the paper. IMO this reference is derived from the epitome of Xiphilinus and as such was added in the 11th century. It is therefore immaterial whether the reference says Christian or Chrestian because it is likely not from the hand of Cassius Dio, but from the 11th century.

Arthur Drews made a study of "The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus" in non Christian literature, however what is actually required is an expanded study of "The Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians" in non Christian literature. Such a study indicates that arguably all such literary witnesses have been interpolated.

The Christian references in Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Trajan, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Marcus Aurelius, Galen and other pre-Nicene non-Christian authors are arguably much later interpolations by the church industry centuries afterwards. This is actually way this "field" works (IMO). This is not "The Great Silence of the First Century" but the first three.

Sometimes I'm slow - like now

It just dawned me that you're saying that my references are dubious because they come from an 11th CE source MS.
I'm afraid I must admit that such may very well be the case... as apparently even I take things for granted

John Bartram has made a similar comment as the one that you've made, and the truth seems to be that there indeed are no sources at all that date to before 700 CE - Bartram finds the Lindisfarne gospels to be the first with a certified / verified date.
So - back on topic again, AFAIC

And I would like to have one question answered, and anything goes really:

Suppose that indeed Mark invented the resurrection in order to counter Marcion - would the Falsifying Fathers have used that against Marcion in their "Adversus writings"?

I think that would have been way too hot to handle, even though that would have been a first for their case against him, as he then would have left out - in their eyes - something. And not just something of course.
And perhaps we shouldn't forget that their testimony to Marcion corroborates their own case: if it is in their best interest, given their claims, to point out even a single letter that Marcion left out, then such means that whatever they don't point out "was really true"

And what their business really seems to be about is to validate their own story by alleging that Marcion shared whatever they desired him to share.
So would they mention the absence of a resurrection in Marcion? Hell no, that would severely undermine the resurrection

[Leucius Charinus]

Suppose that indeed Mark invented the resurrection in order to counter Marcion - would the Falsifying Fathers have used that against Marcion in their "Adversus writings"?

The Falsifying Fathers were still hard at work in the Latin church forgery mill of Pseudo-Isidore in the 9th century pumping out letter exchanges between 1st-3rd century bishops. The forgery of manuscripts continued well into the middle ages and probably into the 17th-19th centuries. Anything that is derived from the quill of the Falsifying Fathers must be skeptically questioned.

Archaeology, physical manuscripts and non-Christian literary sources are to be highly valued over whatever the Falsifying Fathers have to say IMHO. We only know Marcion because of the Falsifying Fathers. The question becomes (as John Bartram knows) is what is the actual external evidence (i.e not corrupted by the Falsifying Fathers) from the archaeology, the physical manuscripts and the non-Christian literary evidence.

To be honest the non-Christian literary evidence for the existence of Chrestians or Christians prior to the 4th century is highly suspect. This is Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Trajan, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Marcus Aurelius, Galen, etc. Supposedly independent from the church industry all of these references to Christians (or Chrestians) in these pagan and Jewish sources arguably look to have been interpolated by the Falsifying Fathers.

Their motive appears to be Orwellian "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,"

What evidence can be trusted? Dura Parchment 24 probably 3rd century. Radiocarbon dates, archaeology, coins, law codes favoring the Christians (or Chrestians), manuscripts, the NHL - an explosion of evidence appears in the mid 4th century.

I don't have answers but I do have questions. And I am highly skeptical of the Falsifying Fathers and their pseudo-historical propaganda. Was the utterly corrupt church industry capable of conspiring to present a fake history of their origins? Probably.

[mlinssen]

I don't have answers but I do have questions. And I am highly skeptical of the Falsifying Fathers and their pseudo-historical propaganda. Was the utterly corrupt church industry capable of conspiring to present a fake history of their origins? Probably.

The whole dating game is obvious, including the retrofit to 1st CE - safely out of reach for everyone.
Does it really matter whether their lies were created in the 2nd, 4th or 9th CE?

What really does matter is that the NHL is about Chrestianity, and nothing but Chrestianity. When we then look at other writings that are about Christianity, it is evident that there was a more than significant change at some point.
It is also evident why the impaling has to be changed to leisurely hanging from a cross, even though none of the NT attests to the latter: it's tough to resurrect with a stake up your ass or a mortal wound in your body

The Resurrection is where the hostile takeover began; when and where Mark started, Chrestianity got hijacked

A question for you: how do you see what was, before Christianity came to be?

[Leucius Charinus]

I don't have answers but I do have questions. And I am highly skeptical of the Falsifying Fathers and their pseudo-historical propaganda. Was the utterly corrupt church industry capable of conspiring to present a fake history of their origins? Probably.

The whole dating game is obvious, including the retrofit to 1st CE - safely out of reach for everyone.

It reminds me of a joke. A night policeman sees a man, obviously drunk, looking for something on the ground under a streetlight. He asks the man what he's looking for and the man replies that he's lost his keys. So the cop asks the man where he thinks he lost his keys and the man replies that he doesn't know. So the cop asks him why he is looking under the streetlight and the man replies because he can see under the light.

The Vatican and the church industry has constructed a massive row of floodlights which illuminate the 1st century, and committed biblical historians for centuries and centuries and centuries have been looking for the keys to explain Christian origins in the 1st century under these floodlights.

Does it really matter whether their lies were created in the 2nd, 4th or 9th CE?

Yes I consider that it does matter because the historical truth matters, I also consider that we are dealing with various layers of lies and pseudo-historical propaganda that have been deposited by the church industry over the centuries since (at least) the 4th century. The historical truth should matter to historical investigators.

What really does matter is that the NHL is about Chrestianity, and nothing but Chrestianity. When we then look at other writings that are about Christianity, it is evident that there was a more than significant change at some point.

I have to agree with your recent findings that Chrestos stalks the halls of the NHL. But I have yet to understand the significance in your discovery of the explicit mixture of Chrestians and Christians in the Gospel of Philip. The author is obviously trying to tell us something, as were all the authors of the books in the NHL,

It is also evident why the impaling has to be changed to leisurely hanging from a cross, even though none of the NT attests to the latter: it's tough to resurrect with a stake up your ass or a mortal wound in your body

The evidence of the earliest crucifix (with a body - presumably Jesus - on the cross) does not appear until the late 6th century.

The Resurrection is where the hostile takeover began; when and where Mark started, Chrestianity got hijacked

According to Bruno Bauer (1809–1882) , the writer of Mark's gospel was "an Italian, at home both in Rome and Alexandria"; Matthew's gospel was written by "a Roman, nourished by the spirit of Seneca"; and Christianity is essentially "Stoicism triumphant in a Jewish garb." Bauer thought that all of the books of the NT were 2nd century fabrications. I don't know precisely why he stopped in the 2nd century but I suspect it may have been the perceived authority invested in the Ante-Nicene Falsifying Fathers,

A question for you: how do you see what was, before Christianity came to be?

Thanks for that question.

I see a world as described by the classical historians untainted by all the various elements of Christian ecclesiastical pseudo-history. A world which was in no way perfect but was nevertheless struggling to make sense of humanity, and the nature of the world and cosmos. I see a world which was largely collegiate. A mass of colleges that perpetuated themselves by means of an education system related to the various Greek intellectual traditions.


Greek Intellectual Traditions

THE SCIENCES (or "Proto-Sciences" for presentists)

1. Logic (Philosophy) - Platonism, Stoicism, etc
2. History
3. Medicine (Asclepius)
4. Astronomy
5. Mathematics
6. Geometry
7. Geography
8. Physical science
9. Architecture


THE ARTS

* Language (Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric) & Writing
* Literature (Epic, history, poetry)
* Poetry
* Law Codes
* Music
* Sculpture
* Art
* Theatre
* Mystery schools


FYI here are some discussion threads (Historum) related to the decline and fall of the Greek intellectual traditions in the 4th and 5th centuries

Philosophy:
https://historum.com/threads/was-there- ... ry.124717/

History Writing:
https://historum.com/threads/was-there- ... ry.123776/

Medicine:
https://historum.com/threads/was-there- ... ry.121019/

Astronomy:
https://historum.com/threads/was-there- ... ry.178006/

[mlinssen]

What really does matter is that the NHL is about Chrestianity, and nothing but Chrestianity. When we then look at other writings that are about Christianity, it is evident that there was a more than significant change at some point.

I have to agree with your recent findings that Chrestos stalks the halls of the NHL. But I have yet to understand the significance in your discovery of the explicit mixture of Chrestians and Christians in the Gospel of Philip. The author is obviously trying to tell us something, as were all the authors of the books in the NHL,

Philip talks of Chrestianity, and at some point he continues about Christianity. Philip is telling what I'm telling right here - but all of that got obfuscated by incompetent and biased academics or evil and biased academics. There's no grey area in between there really

It is also evident why the impaling has to be changed to leisurely hanging from a cross, even though none of the NT attests to the latter: it's tough to resurrect with a stake up your ass or a mortal wound in your body

The evidence of the earliest crucifix (with a body - presumably Jesus - on the cross) does not appear until the late 6th century.

That is awfully interesting - that would date Justin Martyr and chums to the same era, even though Sweet Jus refers to the staurogram as well with his "protruding nose"

The Resurrection is where the hostile takeover began; when and where Mark started, Chrestianity got hijacked

According to Bruno Bauer (1809–1882) , the writer of Mark's gospel was "an Italian, at home both in Rome and Alexandria"; Matthew's gospel was written by "a Roman, nourished by the spirit of Seneca"; and Christianity is essentially "Stoicism triumphant in a Jewish garb." Bauer thought that all of the books of the NT were 2nd century fabrications. I don't know precisely why he stopped in the 2nd century but I suspect it may have been the perceived authority invested in the Ante-Nicene Falsifying Fathers,

A question for you: how do you see what was, before Christianity came to be?

Thanks for that question.

I see a world as described by the classical historians untainted by all the various elements of Christian ecclesiastical pseudo-history. A world which was in no way perfect but was nevertheless struggling to make sense of humanity, and the nature of the world and cosmos. I see a world which was largely collegiate. A mass of colleges that perpetuated themselves by means of an education system related to the various Greek intellectual traditions.


Greek Intellectual Traditions

THE SCIENCES (or "Proto-Sciences" for presentists)

1. Logic (Philosophy) - Platonism, Stoicism, etc
2. History
3. Medicine (Asclepius)
4. Astronomy
5. Mathematics
6. Geometry
7. Geography
8. Physical science
9. Architecture


THE ARTS

* Language (Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric) & Writing
* Literature (Epic, history, poetry)
* Poetry
* Law Codes
* Music
* Sculpture
* Art
* Theatre
* Mystery schools


FYI here are some discussion threads (Historum) related to the decline and fall of the Greek intellectual traditions in the 4th and 5th centuries

Philosophy:
https://historum.com/threads/was-there- ... ry.124717/

History Writing:
https://historum.com/threads/was-there- ... ry.123776/

Medicine:
https://historum.com/threads/was-there- ... ry.121019/

Astronomy:
https://historum.com/threads/was-there- ... ry.178006/

I was thinking a little closer to home really. I've read my Greeks and Romans in Grammar School, from Socrates until the fall of the Roman empire.
I now know that the empire never fell - it created a new hide out for the upper management layer alone; and it rules much of the world until today

[Leucius Charinus]

Philip talks of Chrestianity, and at some point he continues about Christianity. Philip is telling what I'm telling right here - but all of that got obfuscated by incompetent and biased academics or evil and biased academics. There's no grey area in between there really

Confirmation bias rules the mainstream paradigm. An analysis of Philip looks to be the best source from which this "Christian/Chrestian" terminological problem might be resolved.

The evidence of the earliest crucifix (with a body - presumably Jesus - on the cross) does not appear until the late 6th century.

That is awfully interesting - that would date Justin Martyr and chums to the same era, even though Sweet Jus refers to the staurogram as well with his "protruding nose"

The earliest extant manuscript for Saint Justin Martyr is from the year 1364 CE. It is in the form of an "Omnibus edition". What could possibly go wrong ?

I now know that the empire never fell - it created a new hide out for the upper management layer alone; and it rules much of the world until today

I'd agree.

"The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians
appreciated and exploited
"the miracle"
that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector,
and later a legislator
of the Christian church."

A. Momigliano, ed., The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, pp. 79—99 (1)

The "new historiography" was the "Ante-Nicene Fathers & Church History" of Eusebius.

[mlinssen]

Philip talks of Chrestianity, and at some point he continues about Christianity. Philip is telling what I'm telling right here - but all of that got obfuscated by incompetent and biased academics or evil and biased academics. There's no grey area in between there really

Confirmation bias rules the mainstream paradigm. An analysis of Philip looks to be the best source from which this "Christian/Chrestian" terminological problem might be resolved.

Well, you can easily analyse that now, in order to resolve that "terminological problem"

viewtopic.php?p=129716#p129716

The translation is by Paterson Brown, so "okayish"

[Charles Wilson]

The whole dating game is obvious, including the retrofit to 1st CE - safely out of reach for everyone.
Does it really matter whether their lies were created in the 2nd, 4th or 9th CE?

The Resurrection is where the hostile takeover began; when and where Mark started, Chrestianity got hijacked

You are staring into the abyss, Mlinssen!

Your Grand Work on Thomas screams for an analysis of how - AND WHEN - a corrupted Set of Thomas Sayings got merged into the NT.
Which means that the "Judaic" material is important if a Zakkai and others laid the groundwork for its inclusion (or even creation!) in the NT.

On this view, the Judaic Basis in the 4th or 9th centuries would not have been apparent, remembered or accessed in these Supersessionist centuries.
That is what would be "Out or Reach" and yet the Clues, which you are finding to your credit, are still there.

Good points.

CW