Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians
Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians
Re 'Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians' : the Simonian Great Declaration Summary, preserved in the Refutation of All Heresies 6:14-18 - and its likely use by 'Luke' in Acts - would be one such witness to the historicity of early Christians : in fact it'd be a witness to two types of early Christians
- Leucius Charinus
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
- Location: memoriae damnatio
Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians
Essentially, yes. My position is such that there is the possibility that Marcion existed in history in another capacity but not as a Christian.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:27 pmDo you hold the same for Marcion?Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:10 pm The apparent existence of such debates is also IMHO entirely fictional and a product, intentional or unintentional, of the fabricator(s).
By this I mean, for example, like the three 3rd century Alexandrian identities Ammonius, Origen and Anatolius whom Eusebius asserts were Christian. The classical historians OTOH suppose these identities existed but strongly assert they were Platonists and not Christians. As a result we have three duplicates - one set Christian the other set Platonist . I have argued that Eusebius indulged in identity theft to produce the three Christians of the same names.
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Nicae ... Christ.htm
Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians
Whie it is possible that Origen and, to a lesser extent, Ammonius and Anatolius have been Christianized or overly Christianized, it's false equivalence and mere bare assertion to say the same happened to Marcion, especially without providing an attempted argument to that effectLeucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:30 pm
Essentially, yes. My position is such that there is the possibility that Marcion existed in history in another capacity but not as a Christian.
By this I mean, for example, like the three 3rd century Alexandrian identities Ammonius, Origen and Anatolius whom Eusebius asserts were Christian. The classical historians OTOH suppose these identities existed but strongly assert they were Platonists and not Christians. As a result, we have three duplicates - one set Christian the other set Platonist. I have argued that Eusebius indulged in identity theft to produce the three Christians of the same names.
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Nicae ... Christ.htm
- Leucius Charinus
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
- Location: memoriae damnatio
Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians
Setting aside the NT, my position is that the texts of the so-called Church Fathers were added to between Eusebius and the later middle ages. The earliest extant manuscripts of each of these texts are quite late and represent the terminus ad quem for authorship.
- I think you mean the terminus a quo was late
I have used the term terminus ad quem to define - via deduction from the evidence - the latest possible date for Christian origins: the NT, the Fathers and the "universal church". Most other theories are interested in the earliest possible date. These are the upper and lower bounds.
For example:
Defending a 4th century "terminus ad quem" for Christian Origins
https://www.academia.edu/60176264/Carri ... an_Origins
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:10 pm 2) Who gained the most from the NT? The money trail IMO leads to Constantine
- lol: that's conspiracy level beyond the tenth heaven
All things considered Constantine became (probably) the richest person in the world as a result of implementing the Christian State religion. In his (supreme) rule he looted the exceedingly ancient and rich pagan temples of the East for their gold, and treasures, sculptures and art works. Much was recycled from the city of Alexander to the city of Constantine. He constructed basilicas on their foundations and real estate. And he diverted whatever sponsorship and tithing which previously went to the pagan cults, to the Christian State religion, by means of edicts such as "At death, people shall have the right to leave property to the Church." (321 CE, Codex Theodosianus 16.2.4)
Julian writes in his satire of Jesus and Constantine:
- When Marcus had finished his speech, Hermes asked Constantine,
"And what was the height of your ambition?"
"To amass great wealth," he answered, "and then to spend it liberally so as to gratify my own desires and the desires of my friends."[/i]
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Julia ... Kronia.htm
- Leucius Charinus
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
- Location: memoriae damnatio
Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians
All that we know about Marcion is via the early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. My proposition is that these sources have been fabricated. It follows that Marcion (as a Christian) is part of their fabrication. Unless we have any other independent evidence for Marcion's existence. I have looked for this independent evidence but to date I cannot find anything. This does not mean such evidence does not exist. I just am not aware of it.MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:44 pmWhile it is possible that Origen and, to a lesser extent, Ammonius and Anatolius have been Christianized or overly Christianized, it's false equivalence and mere bare assertion to say the same happened to Marcion, especially without providing an attempted argument to that effectLeucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:30 pm
Essentially, yes. My position is such that there is the possibility that Marcion existed in history in another capacity but not as a Christian.
By this I mean, for example, like the three 3rd century Alexandrian identities Ammonius, Origen and Anatolius whom Eusebius asserts were Christian. The classical historians OTOH suppose these identities existed but strongly assert they were Platonists and not Christians. As a result, we have three duplicates - one set Christian the other set Platonist. I have argued that Eusebius indulged in identity theft to produce the three Christians of the same names.
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Nicae ... Christ.htm
FRAUD?
The OP lists all the known "Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians" which I have been able to identify. I may have missed something but the trend on the list is that all the items either represent, or can be explained by, interpolation or forgery. If this is the case then it is clear, to me at the moment, that the church industry has in this instance perpetrated a fraud.
Since the church did not / could not cite any legitimate or authentic references to the historical existence of "early" Christians in the writings of non-Christian authors prior to the 4th century, then it seems to me that they fabricated this entire class of evidence.
Can you or anyone else produce any authentic evidence in this class? If there is an error of logic here explicate it.
Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:58 pm Setting aside the NT, my position is that the texts of the so-called Church Fathers were added to between Eusebius and the later Middle Ages
- So, you think that the terminus a quo for the texts of the Church Fathers is before Eusebius ...
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:24 pmLeucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:10 pm 2) Who gained the most from the NT? The money trail IMO leads to Constantine
- lol: that's conspiracy level beyond the tenth heaven
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:58 pm All things considered Constantine became (probably) the richest person in the world as a result of implementing the Christian State religion.
- That is manifest bullshit. Constantine did not implement Christianity as the [Roman] State religion
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:58 pm In his (supreme) rule he looted the exceedingly ancient and rich pagan temples of the East for their gold, and treasures, sculptures and art works
- What is the evidence for that statement?
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:58 pm Much was recycled from the city of Alexander to the city of Constantine
- What is the evidence for that statement?
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:58 pm He constructed basilicas on their foundations and real estate
- What is the evidence for that statement?
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:58 pm And he diverted whatever sponsorship and tithing which previously went to the pagan cults, to the Christian State religion, by means of edicts such as "At death, people shall have the right to leave property to the Church." (321 CE, Codex Theodosianus 16.2.4)
- Codex Theodosianus is said to have been published by a constitution of 15 February 438. It is said to have been commissioned by by Emperor Theodosius II and his co-emperor Valentinian III on 26 March 429.
Whether there were such laws or edicts of the Roman Empire since 312 is arguable. And highly doubtful.
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:58 pm
Julian writes in his satire of Jesus and Constantine:
- When Marcus had finished his speech, Hermes asked Constantine,
"And what was the height of your ambition?"
"To amass great wealth," he answered, "and then to spend it liberally so as to gratify my own desires and the desires of my friends."[/i]
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Julia ... Kronia.htm
- That satire is not evidence of anything
Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians
I have always tended to think that the various 'criteria' developed to try to underpin the 'history' of early Christianity, as has been traditionally averred, are special pleading to cover up the fact there is little tangible evidence for those traditions. But I recently saw an example of it, the 'criteria of embarrassment,' applied to so-called heretical texts or theologies such as that attributed to Marcion. and I think that works ie. Marcion (& others, such as Simon & later reverence for him) was /were an embarrassment to the likes of 'Irenaeus' and those who followed Irenaeus (and perhaps enhanced the works attributed to Irenaeus).Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:20 pm
All that we know about Marcion is via the early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. My proposition is that these sources have been fabricated. It follows that Marcion (as a Christian) is part of their fabrication. Unless we have any other independent evidence for Marcion's existence ... I cannot find anything.
There is no good reason that even the 'church industry' would invent Marcion and other so-called heretics. Their followings were big and remained so for a long time.
- Leucius Charinus
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
- Location: memoriae damnatio
Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians
The reason I'd put forward is that there was no heresy before the Nicene council. The very fist heretic in Christian history was Arius of Alexandria. Arius was an author of books. Bullneck wanted him dead. There's good reasons to view him as a neo-Platonist. The Emperor and the Nicene church industry wanted the Arian controversy forgotten forever. So they invented "early heretics". Piece of cake. They could insert whatever pseudo-history they liked into Eusebius' literature. Extra books by Irenaeus? No worries.
- Leucius Charinus
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
- Location: memoriae damnatio
Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians
At the moment I'm looking at Eusebius as the point of origin.MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:32 pmLeucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:58 pm Setting aside the NT, my position is that the texts of the so-called Church Fathers were added to between Eusebius and the later Middle Ages
- So, you think that the terminus a quo for the texts of the Church Fathers is before Eusebius ...
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:24 pmLeucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:10 pm 2) Who gained the most from the NT? The money trail IMO leads to Constantine
- lol: that's conspiracy level beyond the tenth heaven
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:58 pm All things considered Constantine became (probably) the richest person in the world as a result of implementing the Christian State religion.
- That is manifest bullshit. Constantine did not implement Christianity as the [Roman] State religion
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:58 pm In his (supreme) rule he looted the exceedingly ancient and rich pagan temples of the East for their gold, and treasures, sculptures and art works
- What is the evidence for that statement?
WIKI:
Constantine pillaged many pagan sanctuaries, but according to Hans-Ulrich Wiemer, that pillaging was motivated more by a desire to supply his new capital with "imposing statuary" than it was by a desire to destroy paganism.[39]: 522, 523 Noel Lenski also says Constantinople was "literally crammed with statuary gathered, in Jerome's words, by 'the virtual denuding' of every city in the East."[27]: 263 According to Ramsay MacMullen, Constantine did this as an act of anti-paganism.[50]: 96 However, Wiemer says that Libanius, the contemporary chronicler of Constantine, writes in a passage from his In Defense of the Temples, that Constantine looted the Temples in order to get their treasures to build Constantinople, not because of anti-paganism.[39]: 522 [5]: 85
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... _the_Great
Constantine pillaged many pagan sanctuaries, but according to Hans-Ulrich Wiemer, that pillaging was motivated more by a desire to supply his new capital with "imposing statuary" than it was by a desire to destroy paganism.[39]: 522, 523 Noel Lenski also says Constantinople was "literally crammed with statuary gathered, in Jerome's words, by 'the virtual denuding' of every city in the East."[27]: 263 According to Ramsay MacMullen, Constantine did this as an act of anti-paganism.[50]: 96 However, Wiemer says that Libanius, the contemporary chronicler of Constantine, writes in a passage from his In Defense of the Temples, that Constantine looted the Temples in order to get their treasures to build Constantinople, not because of anti-paganism.[39]: 522 [5]: 85
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... _the_Great
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:58 pm Much was recycled from the city of Alexander to the city of Constantine
- What is the evidence for that statement?
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:58 pm He constructed basilicas on their foundations and real estate
- What is the evidence for that statement?
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:58 pm And he diverted whatever sponsorship and tithing which previously went to the pagan cults, to the Christian State religion, by means of edicts such as "At death, people shall have the right to leave property to the Church." (321 CE, Codex Theodosianus 16.2.4)
- Codex Theodosianus is said to have been published by a constitution of 15 February 438. It is said to have been commissioned by by Emperor Theodosius II and his co-emperor Valentinian III on 26 March 429.
Whether there were such laws or edicts of the Roman Empire since 312 is arguable. And highly doubtful.
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:58 pm
Julian writes in his satire of Jesus and Constantine:
- When Marcus had finished his speech, Hermes asked Constantine,
"And what was the height of your ambition?"
"To amass great wealth," he answered, "and then to spend it liberally so as to gratify my own desires and the desires of my friends."[/i]
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Julia ... Kronia.htm
- That satire is not evidence of anything
It is evidence of what Julian wrote about Jesus and Constantine.
- Leucius Charinus
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
- Location: memoriae damnatio
Re: Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians
IMO the criterion of embarrassment - "if it was embarrassing, it must be true" - is logically flawed. And as a result to be avoided.MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:57 pmI have always tended to think that the various 'criteria' developed to try to underpin the 'history' of early Christianity, as has been traditionally averred, are special pleading to cover up the fact there is little tangible evidence for those traditions. But I recently saw an example of it, the 'criteria of embarrassment,' applied to so-called heretical texts or theologies such as that attributed to Marcion. and I think that works ie. Marcion (& others, such as Simon & later reverence for him) was /were an embarrassment to the likes of 'Irenaeus' and those who followed Irenaeus (and perhaps enhanced the works attributed to Irenaeus).Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:20 pm
All that we know about Marcion is via the early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. My proposition is that these sources have been fabricated. It follows that Marcion (as a Christian) is part of their fabrication. Unless we have any other independent evidence for Marcion's existence ... I cannot find anything.
Carrier cites these authors as essential reading on “Historicity Criteria”:
* Stanley Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous
Discussion and New Proposals (Sheffield Academic Press: 2000).
* Christopher Tuckett, “Sources and Methods,” The Cambridge Companion to Jesus,
edited by Markus Bockmuehl (Cambridge University Press: 2001): pp. 121-37.
* Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of
Criteria (John Knox Press: 2002).
There is ample evidence that the church industry operated forgery mills.There is no good reason that even the 'church industry' would invent Marcion and other so-called heretics.
What do you mean by followings? As a percentage of the population stats most estimates have stats of something like a 95% pagan demographic c.325 CETheir followings were big and remained so for a long time.