Arguing Against the Church Fathers

[Secret Alias]

It's incredible that your 4th century forgery factory were so subtle that they managed not only to invent the gospels of a hitherto non-existent religion but also to summon similarly forged writings of Church Fathers whose understanding of the gospels was deliberately fraudulent. A real masterstroke there. I would have expected the fourth century inventors to be incapable of such subtlety - fake gospels and DELIBERATELY incorrect commentary and exegesis. Thanks to Pete I see they were real geniuses of the highest order.

[Secret Alias]

If there was ever a thead that proved that even Pete doesn't believe his own bullshit. Pete knows the Church Fathers are real. He wouldn't hate invented people. He wouldn't hate the fake exegesis of non-existent people. Even Pete doesn't believe the mountainman theory.

[Leucius Charinus]

"The science of politics is the one science that is deposited by the streams of history, like the grains of gold in the sand of a river; and the knowledge of the past, the record of truths revealed by experience, is eminently practical, as an instrument of action and a power that goes to making the future ...............and remember ..... where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

~ John Dalberg-Acton (1834-1902)

It's incredible that your 4th century forgery factory were so subtle that they managed not only to invent the gospels of a hitherto non-existent religion but also to summon similarly forged writings of Church Fathers whose understanding of the gospels was deliberately fraudulent. A real masterstroke there.

Two core principles for determining reliability include:

(1) any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

I contend that the combined literary sources we today know as "The Church Fathers" (38 volume set) may be regarded and treated as a single "historical" source which was accreted, preserved and transmitted by hand within the scriptoria of the church industry from antiquity until the printing press was invented.

It follows from (1) that this collection of literary sources (and their manuscripts) could have been forged or corrupted. Any investigator worth his or her salt is obliged to consider this core principle. What if the Nicene Church just fabricated an elaborate pseudo-history for themselves? Nothing novel about that. Plato even told the ruling class how to do it:

"If there exist laws under which men have been reared up and which (by the blessing of Heaven) have remained unaltered for many centuries, so that there exists no recollection or report of their ever having been different from what they now are, then the whole soul is forbidden by reverence and fear to alter any of the things established of old. By hook or by crook, then, the lawgiver must devise a means whereby this shall be true of his State." (Plato, Laws 7.798a-b)" ---- (Gmirkin, 254).

(2) if a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

Let's first set aside the non-Christian sources (such as Seneca, Josephus, Pliny, Trajan, Tacitus, Suetonius, Marcus Aurelius and the crew). These are supposed to be "independent" of the church industry. Arguably this entire class of evidence is better viewed as either forgeries or interpolations by the church industry since antiquity. Let's just focus on the "Church Fathers". Identities often found on "lists of Bishops". Who wrote stuff. Identities such as Justin, Tertullian, Irenaeus.

If scores of these (supposedly independent) identities -- the "Ante Nicene Church Fathers" - have been fabricated by the one church industry what is it that they disagreed about and what was their common message? Their common message supported the notion of the historical existence of the nation of early Christians and their "universal early church" albeit fractured and schismatic. Was it fabricated?

The devil's advocate would ask "What evidence exists to indicate the church fathers were NOT fabricated in later centuries"? That's easy. Just produce a genuine non-Christian literary reference attesting to the existence of any of the early church fathers. Or point at a relic, some artwork, an inscription, some archaeology or manuscript. Better yet get a BBC14 date. C14 date Before Bullneck.

Good luck with that. Get back to me when you find something. I've been looking for a while now.

I would have expected the fourth century inventors to be incapable of such subtlety - fake gospels and DELIBERATELY incorrect commentary and exegesis. Thanks to Pete I see they were real geniuses of the highest order.

The inventors were not restricted to the 4th century. That's a strawman. What you refer to as "fake gospels" can be explained in a political history in which the NT apocryphal literature is a response to the publication and circulation of Bullneck's Bible.

[Leucius Charinus]

If there was ever a thead that proved that even Pete doesn't believe his own bullshit. Pete knows the Church Fathers are real. He wouldn't hate invented people. He wouldn't hate the fake exegesis of non-existent people. Even Pete doesn't believe the mountainman theory.

Evidence, not Jesus, is king. If the NT / the early Christians / Church Fathers existed prior to the 4th century then there should be some evidence out there that supports and corroborates the proposition. What is this "early" and unambiguous Christian evidence? Provide that and I will relinquish my provisional conclusion that Christian origins has been completely fabricated.

[MrMacSon]

... If the NT / the early Christians / Church Fathers existed prior to the 4th century then there should be some evidence out there that supports and corroborates the proposition. What is this "early" and unambiguous Christian evidence? Provide that and I will relinquish my provisional conclusion that Christian origins has been completely fabricated.

The references to early Christianity in the works of Lucian and Plotinus, at least

[neilgodfrey]

If the Church Fathers are our only source of information about early Christianity why do so many here arguing for another understanding of Christianity which is TOTALLY DIVORCED from the Church Fathers? Is that even likely?

A possibly relevant "response" from Mario Liverani . . . .

Laziness is common among historians. When they find a continuous account of events for a certain period in an ‘ancient’ source, one that is not necessarily contemporaneous with the events, they readily adopt it. They limit their work to paraphrasing the source, or, if needed, to rationalisation. No one would recommend such a procedure on a theoretical level, but nonetheless it continues to be used, especially in fields where awareness of the methodology and aims of history is not great. It is only too easy to object – and it can never be repeated often enough – that such ‘ancient’ historical narratives are generally separated by decades or centuries from the events they narrate. Therefore they are not to be considered as primary sources, but as historical reconstructions in themselves. And it is only too easy to recall – this too can never be repeated often enough – that such historical narratives do not have a ‘pure’ historical aim, if such an aim could ever exist. Their aim is political, moral, theological, or whatever else it may be, and therefore they view events from a particular perspective. All these objections can be subsumed under a single point: history is not something that already exists or is already reconstructed, and that can be accepted without question. On the contrary, it is an active engagement, which the ancient authors took up in relation to their own needs, not to ours. In fact, the ‘lazy’ historian fails twice: first by refusing to take an active role, and then by preserving the active role of the ancient source without even recognizing the fact. Instead, we need to take an active role with respect to the passive ‘material’ source. In order to make the ancient documents passive, we need to dismantle them and strip them of their specific ideology. First of all it is necessary to understand them truly – a task not always as easy and automatic as some seem to believe, and a task in need of proper analytical techniques.

• Liverani, Mario. Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2007. p. 28

[Leucius Charinus]

... If the NT / the early Christians / Church Fathers existed prior to the 4th century then there should be some evidence out there that supports and corroborates the proposition. What is this "early" and unambiguous Christian evidence? Provide that and I will relinquish my provisional conclusion that Christian origins has been completely fabricated.

The references to early Christianity in the works of Lucian and Plotinus, at least

The following from my article:
Carrier and the Mainstream Dating Game:
Defending a 4th century "terminus ad quem" for Christian Origins
https://www.academia.edu/60176264/Carri ... an_Origins

Non-Christian Literature

pp.5-6

Richard Carrier helpfully states that “Christians were shameless liars, and ancient Christian forgery (and document meddling) was rampant” [10]. The historian Arnaldo Momigliano more helpfully recounts that “one is never simple-minded enough about the condemnation of forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one must show no piety - and no pity.” [11]

Carrier, unlike some mainstream scholars, allows the Christian references in Suetonius, Tacitus, and Josephus to have been later interpolations by the church industry. He then (along with mainstream scholarship) relies on the Christian references in the following authors to be genuine: Pliny, Trajan, Celsus, Porphyry, Fronto, Hierocles, Galen, Marcus Aurelius, Lucian, Epictetus. Let’s look at a sample of these.

The Christian reference in Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations is classed as a margin gloss or interpolation by at least two Greek translators, Maxwell Staniforth (1964) and Gregory Hays (2003). The reference to “Galileans” in Epictetus is not a reference to Christians but rather to the lawless inhabitants of Galilee. In regard to Celsus “it is indeed impossible to be certain that Celsus is fairly represented by the texts Origen quotes to refute him”. The same applies to Hierocles and Fronto. In all cases we are reliant upon later Christians quoting the original author.

The letter exchange in Pliny’s 10th book with Trajan containing reference to the Christians has been questioned by scholars on a number of grounds. Among the eighty-two works of Lucian known to A.M. Harmon (Loeb, 1913) at least fifteen forgeries are listed, some of which are clearly Christian forgeries (e.g., Philopatris).

In regard to the writings of Porphyry, aside from other writings forged in his name, “Life of Plotinus” (Chapter 16) is [better adduced as] an interpolation motivated in order to have Porphyry attest to the 3rd century existence of such books as Zostrianus and Allogenes (found in the Nag Hammadi codices). When this section 16 is removed from the text, there is a smooth flow of narrative between sections 15 and 17. The Nicene Church industry variously both preserved and/or supposedly consigned to the flames, the literature of Porphyry. They were in control of the libraries, the preservation of literature and the education system. It is suggested that “Life of Plotinus” (16) be referred to as the Testimonium Porphyrianum.

One of the four Christian references in the voluminous writings of Galen should in the future be referred to as the Testimonium Galenium. From his summary of Plato's Republic:

• "In the religious community of the followers of Christ there are most admirable people who frequently act according to perfect virtue; and this is to be seen not only in their men but in their women as well." And I see that he admires them for their virtue, and although he is a man whose position is known and whose opposition to Judaism and Christianity is manifest and clear to everybody who has studied his books and knows what he states in them, he nevertheless cannot deny the excellent qualities which the Christians display in their virtuous activities."

Shades of the Testimonium Flavianum. Such a glowing reference by Galen is simply too good to be true. Where Arthur Drews studied the non-Christian witnesses to the historicity of Jesus, this present study concerns the non-Christian witnesses to the historicity of the early Christians.

The results of this study do not look good because the utterly corrupt Christian church industry seem to have fabricated references to their prior existence in a selection of supposedly independent pagan literature.

The church industry between the 4th century and the later middle ages has simply corrupted non-Christian literature with interpolations and forgeries designed to support the assertion that a “nation of Christians” coexisted in the empire before the 4th century. What motivated the church industry to do this? Could it be that they had problems substantiating their claims? Setting aside the church dogma and our beliefs, what does the archaeological evidence have to say?


[10] No, Christianity Was Not Invented in the 4th Century • Richard Carrier
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18047

[11] p.7, On Pagans, Jews and Christians: Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

[Leucius Charinus]

If the Church Fathers are our only source of information about early Christianity why do so many here arguing for another understanding of Christianity which is TOTALLY DIVORCED from the Church Fathers? Is that even likely?

A possibly relevant "response" from Mario Liverani . . . .

Laziness is common among historians. When they find a continuous account of events for a certain period in an ‘ancient’ source, one that is not necessarily contemporaneous with the events, they readily adopt it. They limit their work to paraphrasing the source, or, if needed, to rationalisation.

Most mainstream biblical historians find the 38 volume set of the "Fathers" to be a continuous account stretching from the 1st century through to the early 5th century in three series: the Ante Nicene Fathers, the Nicene Fathers and the Post Nicene Fathers.

The Ante Nicene Fathers (for example Clement, Justin, Tertullian, Irenaeus et al) are data mined for historical nuggets prior to the Nicene Council. The Nicene Fathers (for example Eusebius, Lactantius, Athanasius) are data mined for historical nuggets from the Nicene Council, the Arian controversy and the opening gambits of the Christian State Revolution. The Post Nicene Fathers are data mined for the end-game of the Christian revolution which encompasses the Arian controversy and the anti-pagan decrees of Theodosius. The Post Nicene Fathers also reflect the commissioning of the Latin Church of Rome under Pontifex Maximus Damasus.

Nine centuries later c.1298 CE some of these "Post Nicene Fathers" (Jerome, Augustine and Ambrose) would be appointed by the Pope to become "Doctors of the Latin Church". The Latin education system would reflect the status of these "VIP sources" as "Doctors". Almost twelve centuries later c.1568 CE another set of these "Fathers" would become "Doctors" of the Greek church. (Athanasius, Gregory, Basil, Chrysostom). And once again the church education system would be adjusted to reflect these authoritative sources. Doctorates in Theology - the pinnacle of the education system at that time - needed to know everything that these 4th century "Doctors" preserved for the sake of posterity. What's changed? Nothing much. The church industry relentlessly promotes its own "historical" authorities and the its tertiary education sector is still growing.

No one would recommend such a procedure on a theoretical level, but nonetheless it continues to be used, especially in fields where awareness of the methodology and aims of history is not great.

To be specific - quasi-historical procedures and criteria used in the mainstream study of the history of Christian origins. Stuff like the criterion of embarrassment. It's sick.

It is only too easy to object – and it can never be repeated often enough – that such ‘ancient’ historical narratives are generally separated by decades or centuries from the events they narrate. Therefore they are not to be considered as primary sources, but as historical reconstructions in themselves.

Tell that to Mr Huller and his acolytes. Some of the ‘ancient’ historical narratives are a thousand years removed from the Nicene council. What could possibly go wrong following these narratives as "history"? That "we are assured this stuff is legit" does not cut it. Get real FFS. The "Fathers" are in all likelihood basically propaganda and "Fake News".

And it is only too easy to recall – this too can never be repeated often enough – that such historical narratives do not have a ‘pure’ historical aim, if such an aim could ever exist. Their aim is political, moral, theological, or whatever else it may be, and therefore they view events from a particular perspective.

The perspective is likely to be related to the well-being of the monopoly business model of the church industry. If the church industry can commit genocides, inquisitions, executions, tortures, murders, exiles and the like, would they draw the line at fraud? We already have evidence that the organisation and industry which preserved the "Sacred Writings of the Fathers" fabricated the pseudo-historical narratives associated with the Holy Relic Trade. And the hagiographical and martyrological narratives of the Cult of the Saints and Martyrs.
Wake up. Church history says one thing. Political history says another (i.e. fraud)

“The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.” — Harry S Truman,

Obviously we have to ask questions from first principles. This implies investigating and questioning the authority and authenticity of the literary narratives preserved by the church. This isn't rocket science. This isn't about space aliens. It's about fraud.

All these objections can be subsumed under a single point: history is not something that already exists or is already reconstructed, and that can be accepted without question.

Paraphrasing Mario: the history of the "Church Fathers" is not something that already exists or is already reconstructed, and that can be accepted without question.

On the contrary, it is an active engagement, which the ancient authors took up in relation to their own needs, not to ours. In fact, the ‘lazy’ historian fails twice: first by refusing to take an active role, and then by preserving the active role of the ancient source without even recognizing the fact.

In the case of the history of Christian origins the ancient source is the "Fathers". Almost without exception their role was two fold. They were the emergent orthodoxy quoting the NT writings, and they were heresiologists identifying heresies and heresiarchs. The church narratives presented both sides of the conflict. They were the political victors.

Mainstream biblical scholars cite Tertullian for his knowledge of Marcion. How often do they cite Tertullian for his knowledge that Pontius Pilate converted to the Christian cult? What sort of special pleading is this?

Instead, we need to take an active role with respect to the passive ‘material’ source. In order to make the ancient documents passive, we need to dismantle them and strip them of their specific ideology. First of all it is necessary to understand them truly – a task not always as easy and automatic as some seem to believe, and a task in need of proper analytical techniques.

• Liverani, Mario. Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2007. p. 28

The most primitive analytical is to ask what corroborating evidence exists which substantiates the narratives of the church fathers. To do this we must temporarily ignore the narratives of the church fathers and search through any and all external narratives of antiquity. These external narratives seem to me to be able to be stated as:

1) The narratives provided by the "heretics" - This will probably include the NT Apocryphal literature, including the Nag Hammadi library

2) The narratives provided by the non-Christian literary sources - this is outlined for discussion here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9833

3) The narratives provided by a study of the archaeology - useful links are provided here:
viewtopic.php?p=3416#p3416


What do we find in these external narratives which corroborates the church fathers?

OVER.

[schillingklaus]

Carrier hypocritically calls them shameless liars but then believes most of their lies, such as "authentic" "epistles" of "Paul".

[Secret Alias]

If the Church Fathers are our only source of information about early Christianity why do so many here arguing for another understanding of Christianity which is TOTALLY DIVORCED from the Church Fathers? Is that even likely?

A possibly relevant "response" from Mario Liverani . . . .

Laziness is common among historians ...

• Liverani, Mario. Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2007. p. 28

So if we have (a) the 'laziness' of those who take 2nd and 3rd century eyewitnesses over (b) hypothetic reconstructions of history based on eisegesis who is reasonably going to prefer (b)? What do you call, how do you characterize those who prefer (b)? Are they 'truth-seekers' or pushing history into the realm of video games and fantasy? The Church Fathers have to figure in terms of any reconstruction of early Christianity. Either they are as a collective 'early Christianity' or they know those who are properly called 'earliest Christianity' or know those who know those who properly represent 'earliest Christianity' but they are certainly not completely divorced from earliest Christianity.