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

[GakuseiDon]

Just to add: I don't expect answers to all of the questions above. What I'd like to understand is where the LC theory of dating New Testament Apocrypha offers greater explanatory power for the data we have over the mainstream theory of NTA dating. Not just as an alternative theory, but one with greater explanatory power with regards to NTA dating. So it would be good if we can concentrate on those points. I'll grant in advance your view that all physical evidence for NTA post-dates the Nicene point.

[Leucius Charinus]

Thanks for the questions G'Don. I have numbered them sequentially.

(1) Even granting your dating, there is nothing in the mainstream theory that falls if the physical evidence post-dates Nicene. Nothing in the mainstream theory relies on the physical evidence for NTA texts to pre-date Nicene. It just means current scholarship is wrong in the consensus of the dates of those papryi. So my question is: assuming the earliest physical evidence of NTA texts is pushed to Nicene times, how does that show that the LC theory has greater explanatory power than the mainstream one? Is it unexpected in the mainstream theory? If so: why?

The mainstream theory expects us to be able to discover primary evidence prior to 325 CE. The LC theory expects us to be able to discover primary evidence only after 325 CE. We have discovered no primary evidence prior to 325 CE Therefore (on the surface) the LC theory best explains the absence.

Conditions may be added ...

(2) (Mainstream theory: pre-Nicene NTA physical materials were destroyed either through active suppression or passive neglect.) How does the LC theory offer greater explanatory power than the mainstream one?

Hitchens's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

I do not need to assert any earlier NTA physical materials existed which were then destroyed. Mainstream may be compelled to abide by the historical integrity of heresiological attestations (discussed above). I am not so constrained. I argue that this secondary evidence (by which mainstream directly expects Ante Nicene NTA) has been interpolated and/or forged. The LC theory expects all NTA books to be post Nicene.

Another element of the argument relates to biblical textual criticism of many texts constituting the class of NTA literature. Frequently the textual critics assert that NTA texts have been redacted over the centuries. They often have "Jewish bits" and then "Christian bits" and often there are "pagan bits". All this is not required under the LC theory (for early century redaction). The texts can be interpreted as literary products stitched together at a certain (late) point in time. The Ascension of Isaiah could be a good example.

No doubt that later redactions and censorship did take place, especially after the rise of the Latin church in the later 360's. But the LC theory does not require redaction layers from the early centuries. It explains them as "design features". Authors for example culd mix stories in the LXX with those of the NT because they were responding to the NT/LXX Bible codex of 325 CE.

(3) RE: Eusebius is our first witness:
When orthodox Christians gained power, they started book burning.
How does the LC theory offer greater explanatory power than the mainstream one?

Its equal because the LC theory also recognises that when the orthodox Christians gained power, this precipitated the authorship of the NTA which in turn prompted burning the heretical books. The reality is more like Constantine gained (military) power first and then the orthodox Christians were supported by Constantine. Political history requires us to know who was in control of the military authority 325 CE.

The LC theory provides a plain and simple political explanation for the appearance of the heretical books, and then why the authors and preservers of such books were classed as heretics by the imperial orthodoxy. The heretics are simply political dissidents who were not respecting the authority of the emperors new codex. They created their own stories (the NTA). The mainstream theory where authorship is spread out continuously over centuries (150-400 CE) does not have a fixed political context. Does the mainstream theory provide any means, motive or opportunity for the authors of the NTA to write their stories? IDK that it does. Tertullian says the author of the Acts of Paul wrote" out of love for Paul". If you read the Acts of Paul the author compares Paul to a mouse, and the story of the lion and the mouse from Aesop's fables.

So as far as means. motive and opportunity I think the LC theory provides some plain and simple explanations. Including why heretics became heretics through political dissidence.

(4) Archeology: the relevance ? same question about explanatory power.

It is evidence to be explained. The key point is that archaeological evidence for both the NTC and the NTA becomes unambiguous and abundant from the mid 4th century. The NTA stories concerning Peter in Rome were extremely useful for Damasus the Bishop of Rome. I guess the explanatory power for both theories are equal.

(5) authors of the NTA were not Christians:
The mainstream theory (as I understand it) would have that there was a great variety of groups that called themselves "Christians" over the first few centuries. how is your argument is less expected under the mainstream theory.

This brings in Hitchens again.

The mainstream theory, as a result of its chronology, postulates the existence of this great variety of "Christian groups". Examples include Sethians, Valentinians, Gnostics, Ebionites, this list goes on and on. But the substantial evidence for any of these ante Nicene sects resolves to the heresiological assertions. The irony is that while we all know that the evidence for the existence of any Christians is quite sparse before the 4th century, this has not prevented mainstream scholars from radically expanding the diversity of Christian sects.

The LC theory requires none of these groups co-existing in the early centuries. For example the dozen or more "Sethian" texts in the NHL (plus gJudas) are those tractates that utilise Seth either directly, or the so-called Sethian philosophy / cosmology. The authors are Platonists responding to the Genesis stories in the LXX. They got rid of Adam and instead started with Seth. This allowed them to merge Plotinic philosophy and cosmology with their own version of a tri-part creation. The LC theory views the NHL for example as a collection of philosophical, religious, cultural and literary tractates. The Valentinian collection of texts are responding to the NT part of the Bible Codex. (Sethians are responding to the LXX part).

Christian scholars have approached the NHL as a collection of books which include "Christian Books" (such as the Gospel of Thomas, Philip, Truth). This assumption I believe to be wrong. I see in the NHL the last and final dying voice of the Hellenistic literary culture. Pagans are reacting to the Emperor's Canonical gospels. (IMO)

(6) "In the Book of Thomas, the teaching of Jesus has become Platonised, while Plato's teaching has become Christianised."
Relevance of John Turner's statement?

This statement acknowledges how mainstream scholarship describes the vital indications of Platonism in the NHL. The LC theory proposes that much of the NTA and NHL were the product of Platonists responding to the NT and LXX Bible. The mainstream theory has to try and work out how Middle Platonism from the 2nd century is relevant. The LC theory expects Neo-Platonism from the early 4th century to be dominant.

(7) heresiological narratives have been either interpolated or forged.
Does the mainstream theory depend on the Holy Relic Trade with regards to NTA dating?
I have not read the use of the Holy Relic Trade to date any NTA texts.

No. The mainstream theory for the NTA occurs before the 4th century. Whereas the Holy Relic Trade was a Christian invention of the later 4th century. The LC theory however is post Nicene NTA and it claims that the heresiological literature was fabricated later in the 4th century at the same time as other stuff. The people who indulged in this fabrication were the same identities who fabricated the pseudo-historical basis of the Holy Relic trade, the cult of the Saints and Martyrs, Martyrologies and Martyrdoms and hagiography. The LC theory is obliged to deal with the claim that heresiology has been fabricated. So here I have identified the earliest time and place of the fraud, and the people involved.

(8) My focus here is Bayesian when comparing two separate theories

I think that is the way to go. In an earlier thread I explored the use of a Pearson's chi-squared test
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9320
I was not inclined to use Bayes. But maybe I should ?
If you have any ideas related to statistical analysis I am all ears.

The LC theory would predict that all NTA manuscripts, codices, fragments that might be discovered in the future will be dated after 325 CE.

(9) Origen attests to Clementines? No - Basil and Gregory 4th centuries editors corrupted Origen. Example of 4th C interpolating into an apparent 3rd C text, but is it unexpected according to the mainstream theory of NTA dating? Does the LC theory of NTA dating offer greater explanatory power here than the mainstream theory of NTA dating?

What is provided here is an example of how 4th century Christians interpolated (in this case edited) Ante Nicene writings for the purpose of making readers deduce that ante Nicene Christian writers had knowledge of various NTA books. Essentially this example is a blue-print of how 4th and 5th century heresiologists retrojected (or retroscripted) references to the books of the NTA into the Ante Nicene epoch.

The mainstream theory does not recognise systematic forgery of heresiology.

[GakuseiDon]

So my question is: assuming the earliest physical evidence of NTA texts is pushed to Nicene times, how does that show that the LC theory has greater explanatory power than the mainstream one? Is it unexpected in the mainstream theory? If so: why?

The mainstream theory expects us to be able to discover primary evidence prior to 325 CE.

I would nitpick the word "expect". Does the mainstream theory expect physical traces of NTA prior to 325 CE? That would need to be established. "Expect" implies measure: how many per decade/century? How many traces expected to be found in the preserving sands of Egypt? Etc. I'd frame it as "anticipates" rather than "expects".

The LC theory expects us to be able to discover primary evidence only after 325 CE. We have discovered no primary evidence prior to 325 CE Therefore (on the surface) the LC theory best explains the absence.

Conditions may be added ...

Yes indeed. If you could show that the mainstream theory of NTA dating expects there to be physical traces and there are none (which I am granting for sake of argument), then the LC theory is the better explanation.

It's worth going into the details on this for that reason. Do you have in mind a number of physical fragments of NTA writings you'd expect to find under the mainstream theory of dating NTA? If the expectation is more than zero, does the mainstream theory provide reasons for a number? Same question if this is your own expectation about what the mainstream theory of NTA dating should expect.

Another element of the argument relates to biblical textual criticism of many texts constituting the class of NTA literature. Frequently the textual critics assert that NTA texts have been redacted over the centuries. They often have "Jewish bits" and then "Christian bits" and often there are "pagan bits". All this is not required under the LC theory (for early century redaction). The texts can be interpreted as literary products stitched together at a certain (late) point in time. The Ascension of Isaiah could be a good example.

The AoI would be a good example to go through, since I know it pretty well. I'd be interested in how its use of Nero (Testament of Hezekiah) fits in there, since the expected apocalypse was late even in the 2nd C CE. It would have been later still by the 4th C CE. But I'd like to avoid tangents, as interesting as they may be! So best to leave it to a later thread.

My initial feeling is that NTA does indeed take the appearance of redaction over the centuries, rather than stitched up at a late point in time. The beliefs of Marcion appear to be different than the beliefs of latter Marcionites, as I understand it. It would be a huge task to overturn that view, as you undoubtedly already know.

No doubt that later redactions and censorship did take place, especially after the rise of the Latin church in the later 360's. But the LC theory does not require redaction layers from the early centuries. It explains them as "design features". Authors for example culd mix stories in the LXX with those of the NT because they were responding to the NT/LXX Bible codex of 325 CE.

The issue here is that the mainstream theory doesn't require layers from the early centuries either. The layers appear to exist. (For example, the concept of trinitarianism appears to evolve over the first three centuries) Layers are stratified based on attestation within texts whose provenance are based often on tradition and whose dating is determined through textual analysis and internal references. The layers help to determine the presence of anachronisms and interpolations. The LC theory of dating NTA doesn't require redaction layers but it will need to explain the apparent existence of layers. I don't know if you do that or whether you hand that away, but it is something you'll need to explain since the mainstream view seems well established.

That may be the biggest challenge to the LC theory of dating of NTA: how well the mainstream theory hangs together with how it maps out the attestation of NTA writings in apparent pre-4th C literature. It's probably something that we'd need to evaluate on a text-by-text basis. A mighty work indeed!

(3) RE: Eusebius is our first witness:
When orthodox Christians gained power, they started book burning.
How does the LC theory offer greater explanatory power than the mainstream one?

Its equal...

Okay.

The LC theory provides a plain and simple political explanation for the appearance of the heretical books, and then why the authors and preservers of such books were classed as heretics by the imperial orthodoxy. The heretics are simply political dissidents who were not respecting the authority of the emperors new codex. They created their own stories (the NTA). The mainstream theory where authorship is spread out continuously over centuries (150-400 CE) does not have a fixed political context. Does the mainstream theory provide any means, motive or opportunity for the authors of the NTA to write their stories? IDK that it does. Tertullian says the author of the Acts of Paul wrote" out of love for Paul". If you read the Acts of Paul the author compares Paul to a mouse, and the story of the lion and the mouse from Aesop's fables.

So as far as means. motive and opportunity I think the LC theory provides some plain and simple explanations. Including why heretics became heretics through political dissidence.

It seems to me to be a huge home-goal for the orthodox to then add legitimacy to the 4th C heretics by inserting them into their apparent pre-4th C writings. It's one thing to have heretics start in the 4th C who believe that Jesus was just a man; it's another to then insert them into the apparent 2nd C writings of Justin Martyr and have him call them "Christians". Similarly to insert heretics who believe that they got their teaching directly from Paul. That part of the LC theory does seem to be unlikely.

(5) authors of the NTA were not Christians:
The mainstream theory (as I understand it) would have that there was a great variety of groups that called themselves "Christians" over the first few centuries. how is your argument is less expected under the mainstream theory.

This brings in Hitchens again.

The mainstream theory, as a result of its chronology, postulates the existence of this great variety of "Christian groups". Examples include Sethians, Valentinians, Gnostics, Ebionites, this list goes on and on. But the substantial evidence for any of these ante Nicene sects resolves to the heresiological assertions. The irony is that while we all know that the evidence for the existence of any Christians is quite sparse before the 4th century, this has not prevented mainstream scholars from radically expanding the diversity of Christian sects.

I'm sorry, what's the irony? The diversity of early Christianity, from its very start, is attested to in the writings of pre-4th C writers, as sparse as the physical evidence it is for the evidence of those groups.

The LC theory requires none of these groups co-existing in the early centuries.

And yet, the orthodox inserted them into their manufactured history anyway. That's a HUGE red-flag for me.

It's one thing to claim that 4th C heretics arose in a response to the orthodoxy Constantine was trying to establish for his new religion, but another thing to then retrospectively insert those heretics into his manufactured history. To the point that Christianity appears to have been very diverse from its apparent start. Far better to have declared "hey, those guys weren't there back then! And if they say that, they're lying!"

For example the dozen or more "Sethian" texts in the NHL (plus gJudas) are those tractates that utilise Seth either directly, or the so-called Sethian philosophy / cosmology. The authors are Platonists responding to the Genesis stories in the LXX. They got rid of Adam and instead started with Seth. This allowed them to merge Plotinic philosophy and cosmology with their own version of a tri-part creation. The LC theory views the NHL for example as a collection of philosophical, religious, cultural and literary tractates. The Valentinian collection of texts are responding to the NT part of the Bible Codex. (Sethians are responding to the LXX part).

Christian scholars have approached the NHL as a collection of books which include "Christian Books" (such as the Gospel of Thomas, Philip, Truth). This assumption I believe to be wrong. I see in the NHL the last and final dying voice of the Hellenistic literary culture. Pagans are reacting to the Emperor's Canonical gospels. (IMO)

Is my summary here correct?'

(1) Constantine creates his new religion with a canon containing a manufactured history, in the 4th C.
(2) Pagans react to the canonical gospels by writing heretical works, many of them found in the NGL (Nag Hammadi Library).
(3) In those heretical works, the pagans insert themselves into the manufactured history by including figures from Constantine's canonical works
(4) The orthodox then create the anti-heresy works of Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc, in which they accept those pagan insertions into their manufactured history by showing that the pagans were 'actually' there.

Does that sound accurate? It's just that Point (4) seems like an unlikely approach for the orthodox to use.

If I said, "Hey LC, I was there for your 10th birthday party! I saw you kissing my sister!" then I'd guess you'd respond "No GDon, you and your sister weren't there!" rather than "Yes, you were there, but it was someone else who kissed your sister!"

(6) "In the Book of Thomas, the teaching of Jesus has become Platonised, while Plato's teaching has become Christianised."
Relevance of John Turner's statement?

This statement acknowledges how mainstream scholarship describes the vital indications of Platonism in the NHL. The LC theory proposes that much of the NTA and NHL were the product of Platonists responding to the NT and LXX Bible. The mainstream theory has to try and work out how Middle Platonism from the 2nd century is relevant. The LC theory expects Neo-Platonism from the early 4th century to be dominant.

That's a powerful point. If 4th C neo-Platonic ideas are represented in the 2nd C, then it suggests manufacture in the Fourth Century. And you do show that Origen has been interpolated into with the Clementine Recognitions. While the same kind of thing can occur under the mainstream theory, it is proof-of-concept for the LC theory.

(8) My focus here is Bayesian when comparing two separate theories

I think that is the way to go. In an earlier thread I explored the use of a Pearson's chi-squared test
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9320
I was not inclined to use Bayes. But maybe I should ?
If you have any ideas related to statistical analysis I am all ears.

I'll have a think about it, but I'm not an expert on it by any means.

[Leucius Charinus]

The LC theory provides a plain and simple political explanation for the appearance of the heretical books, and then why the authors and preservers of such books were classed as heretics by the imperial orthodoxy. The heretics are simply political dissidents who were not respecting the authority of the emperors new codex. They created their own stories (the NTA). The mainstream theory where authorship is spread out continuously over centuries (150-400 CE) does not have a fixed political context. Does the mainstream theory provide any means, motive or opportunity for the authors of the NTA to write their stories? IDK that it does. Tertullian says the author of the Acts of Paul wrote" out of love for Paul". If you read the Acts of Paul the author compares Paul to a mouse, and the story of the lion and the mouse from Aesop's fables.

So as far as means. motive and opportunity I think the LC theory provides some plain and simple explanations. Including why heretics became heretics through political dissidence.

It seems to me to be a huge home-goal for the orthodox to then add legitimacy to the 4th C heretics by inserting them into their apparent pre-4th C writings.

Thanks for the opportunity to work through this.


The orthodox had to deal with the NTA books of the heretics. It was an embarrassing epoch. Some of these NTA books eppear to be popular satirisation of Jesus and the Twelve Apostles. What would have Constantine and Eusebius thought about the Gospel of Judas circulating alongside the Official tetrarchy of gospels?

So the orthodoxy burned books and prohibited / censored books. The "Uncanonical Books" were not to be read in churches according to some 4th century church councils. Anyone found preserving prohibited books would be executed. What was Plan B for the heretics and heretical books? Secreting the books away out of sight, preservation by "burial" or caches of books put away for another time. That's what happened. The Nag Hammadi library etc. The stuff went underground bigtime.

After a generation or two passed, or perhaps even longer, the orthodox wondered how they would write up the history of the avalanche of NTA books which were precipitated in the pagan literary reception of the Holy Bible. What would they do with the Gospel of Judas for example? Would they just not mention anything? Their greatest problem (at that later time) was that the Gospel of Judas might possibly turn up. How could their history explain the authorship of this book, or be written in such as way as to bury the whole controversy over the NTA books?

What is a better solution than to pretend that the Gospel of Judas was in circulation well before the great controversy by getting Irenaeus to mention it? The solution is obviously Orwellian in nature. But it has seemed to work. It was ruthlessly pragmatic. The church controlled the historical narrative.

"Who controls the past controls the future:
who controls the present controls the past,"

It's one thing to have heretics start in the 4th C who believe that Jesus was just a man; it's another to then insert them into the apparent 2nd C writings of Justin Martyr and have him call them "Christians".

The orthodox were writing the history of the Nicene controversy over what Jesus was and how he was being depicted in the literature of the time. It was a tumultuous time. When we lift the hood of the Arian controversy and peer into the machinery I believe it was al about books. Arius of Alexandria is initimately involved by implication of exploring NTA > 325 CE. This may be another subject. However it is a direct implication.

At any rate I repeat the above that the church history writers employed an Orwellian history. The orthodox were prepared to corrupt the historical record in order to conceal the political context in which the NTA appeared. The NTA was an avalanche of "Bad Press" that greeted the first political circulation of the imperial bible. The orthodox wanted to rub the entire episode out of history. They did this by writing bits and pieces into prior centuries.

Similarly to insert heretics who believe that they got their teaching directly from Paul. That part of the LC theory does seem to be unlikely.

Like the above two responses, what could the church do about the "Acts of Paul"? They wanted to remove it as far as possible from the Nicene controversy when the bible was floated. Generations later, perhaps even centuries later the orthodox spread the more controversial books into the "Early Centuries" of the church. The church was motivated to control the history of the past.

The LC theory requires none of these groups co-existing in the early centuries.

And yet, the orthodox inserted them into their manufactured history anyway. That's a HUGE red-flag for me.

It's one thing to claim that 4th C heretics arose in a response to the orthodoxy Constantine was trying to establish for his new religion, but another thing to then retrospectively insert those heretics into his manufactured history. To the point that Christianity appears to have been very diverse from its apparent start.

I hope to have adequately responded to his in my above comments. If I haven't let me know.

Yes the result of manufacturing heresiological literature which gives the impression of many Christian sects prior to the Nicene controversy created the impression of many sects. That did not worry the orthodox history at all. The proto-orthodox one true branch of the NT canonical followers eventually won out over the rest.

Is my summary here correct?'

(1) Constantine creates his new religion with a canon containing a manufactured history, in the 4th C.

See OP point 5).

(2) Pagans react to the canonical gospels by writing heretical works, many of them found in the NGL (Nag Hammadi Library).

Correct.

(3) In those heretical works, the pagans insert themselves into the manufactured history by including figures from Constantine's canonical works

The pagan authors inserted highly weird and controversial versions of figures found in Constantine's canonical works into their new books. The authors of the NTA books seemed to have foccussed on a post-resurrection Jesus who deals with the usual bunch of apostles. The pagan authors produce more than 20 other gospels, more than 30 other acts of the apostles, a large number of apocalypses, and so on. Just as we deduce that the authors of the canonical books "data mined" the Greek LXX, so too did the NTA authors "data mine" both the LXX and the NT canonical books.

If one treats the NTC as "manufactured history" then the NTA authors expanded this history manyfold. I am not really inclined to class the NTC or the NTA as history however. The evaluation of "Ecclesiastical History" as a separate class of Christian literature is important here. It is within the "History of the Church" that we find "heresiology".

(4) The orthodox then create the anti-heresy works of Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc, in which they accept those pagan insertions into their manufactured history by showing that the pagans were 'actually' there.

The anti-heresy works of Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc were designed to show the books of the NTA were circulating early. Nowhere in the church history are the names of the authors of the NTA mentioned. Eusebius calls them the wolves who devastate the flock. The name of Leucius appears against the Acts of John in the later 4th and 5th century but that's it.

To the orthodox the heretics are completely nameless and adrift in political history. They are adrift over a long period 150-400 CE. The orthodox (later) claim that these "Early" authors are some form of deviant Christians. This was far less embarrassing than admitting that the pagans trashed the first imperial version of the NT Bible. It was pragmatic. They had possession of "Church History". They could do whatever they liked with it. And IMO they did.

After a number of generation pass the orthodox are writing a history of the 4th century conflict. They are writing from the 5th century at least and they are writing at a time where circulation of the NTA has been well and truly stamped out. They want to bury these books and the controversy they caused. They buried them in a heresiological pseudo-history. (Orwellian)

Does that sound accurate?

Pretty close. I have made some comments.

It's just that Point (4) seems like an unlikely approach for the orthodox to use.

I hope I have explained why I think this approach for the orthodox to use was pragmatic (and Orwellian).

Thanks for your interest in this stuff G'Don.

[Paul the Uncertain]

What is a better solution than to pretend that the Gospel of Judas was in circulation well before the great controversy by getting Irenaeus to mention it? The solution is obviously Orwellian in nature. But it has seemed to work. It was ruthlessly pragmatic. The church controlled the historical narrative.

In the possible world you posit, where all NTA are 4th Century or later reactions to the NTC, it is not obvious that the truth would be ineffective. That is, to acknowledge that Constantine had enemies, corresponding with Emmanuel Goldstein in the Orwellian universe to which you allude, but by the grace of God, our Emperor has crushed these creeps, although we must always be vigilant lest they or their kind re-emerge to make some more mischief.

Indeed, according to Eusebius, Maximinus, one of Constantine's enemies, used propaganda against Christians, both a fake passion narrative (an Acts of Pilate) and at least one more general political philippic. Maximinus apparently had the means to compose, copy, and widely distribute this literature through a network of local operatives.

In rebuttal, Eusebius, easily mistaken for a propagandist himself, insisted on the recent and hostile provenance of the Maximinus works, and contrasted the fake passion narrative with friendly, parallel, supposedly genuine works of the sort mentioned by patristic authors Justin and Tertullian. Not that in our universe there ever was any genuine "Acts of Pilate," but the point is to illustrate how Eusebius chose to use the patristic literature when confronted with anti-Christian anti-Constantine propaganda.

It is also interesting that other apologists produced pro-Christian Acts of Pilate (e.g. the Gospel of Nicodemus). This, too, points to an alternate strategy for dealing with inconvenient propaganda: production of spurious primary source "documents." While Eusebius doesn't appear to know about the Nicodemus Acts, he does something similar with the fake primary Abgar-Jesus correspondence.

Assessing hypothetical superiority among hypothetical tactics ("what is a better solution ...") is indefinitely debatable. Still, I have this nagging intuition that cranking out a fake primary document as needed is a lot cheaper and plausibly no less effective than faking a library of secondary or hearsay literature. Whether or not "better" solutions existed, frank recognition of hostile agents and shrewd invention of phony primary documentation were among the observed responses of Christian apologists that were actually implemented in the 4th Century and later.

[Leucius Charinus]

What is a better solution than to pretend that the Gospel of Judas was in circulation well before the great controversy by getting Irenaeus to mention it? The solution is obviously Orwellian in nature. But it has seemed to work. It was ruthlessly pragmatic. The church controlled the historical narrative.

In the possible world you posit, where all NTA are 4th Century or later reactions to the NTC, it is not obvious that the truth would be ineffective. That is, to acknowledge that Constantine had enemies, corresponding with Emmanuel Goldstein in the Orwellian universe to which you allude, but by the grace of God, our Emperor has crushed these creeps, although we must always be vigilant lest they or their kind re-emerge to make some more mischief.

Thanks for your comments Paul the Uncertain. I hope to be able to respond to them in a satisfactory manner.

In the Orwellian epoch of the 4th century to which I allude there lived a direct analog of Emmanuel Goldstein. His name was Arius of Alexandria.

Indeed, if I may provide your own words: "but by the grace of God, our Emperor [and future emperors] crushed this creep Arius [and his followers - the Arians], although we must always be vigilant lest they or their kind re-emerge to make some more mischief".

The idea (1) that where all NTA are 4th Century or later reactions to the NTC is followed with what I termed idea (2) - Evidence of systematic Christian identify theft suggests Arius may not have been a Christian, but in fact a Platonic theologian, and may be identified with the Gnostic Leucius Charinus".

If you Paul, G'Don or other readers think this idea is worthy of any investigation then I'd refer them to an article I wrote in 2009 that explores what it might look like if Arius was the author of books, the first and chief of the "heretics". Here is the abstract and link:

Arius Satirized Constantine’s Jesus
The Hidden History of the New Testament Apocryphal Literature

ABSTRACT:

The books of the New Testament Apocrypha (NTA) are currently postulated to have been authored continuously by Christians ‘out of love for the authors and/or books’ of the New Testament Canon (NTC) across the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and perhaps 5th centuries. It is argued that the core series of books of the NTA was largely authored as a political reaction to the “Constantine Codex” between the years of 325 and 336 CE by a non-Christian - Arius of Alexandria.

Constantine is sketched as a supreme imperial fascist. Arius is sketched as a Greek Gnostic priest, perhaps one of the therapeutae of Asclepius, [COMMENT: I now see him as a Platonist] whose temples and shrines Constantine had utterly destroyed c.324 CE. Arius as an anti-Christian satirist was so good at his business that the preservation of his books was not only prohibited by the death penalty but was reinforced by Constantine’s pronouncement of “damnatio memoriae” both upon his name and his living memory. Later Christian heresiologists harmonized Arius’ utterly controversial satirical literary reception to Constantine’s NTC and fabricated a “twisted” Hollywood history in which the academic Greek priest appears as one of the cast of “Constantine’s many readily available Christian Bishops”. Arius’ dogmatic sophisms such as “Jesus was made from nothing existing” suggest that the 4th century Arian controversy was not over the theology of Jesus but over the historicity of Jesus.

https://www.academia.edu/37961293/Arius ... _s_Jesus_-

Indeed, according to Eusebius, Maximinus, one of Constantine's enemies, used propaganda against Christians, both a fake passion narrative (an Acts of Pilate) and at least one more general political philippic. Maximinus apparently had the means to compose, copy, and widely distribute this literature through a network of local operatives.

In rebuttal, Eusebius, easily mistaken for a propagandist himself, insisted on the recent and hostile provenance of the Maximinus works, and contrasted the fake passion narrative with friendly, parallel, supposedly genuine works of the sort mentioned by patristic authors Justin and Tertullian. Not that in our universe there ever was any genuine "Acts of Pilate," but the point is to illustrate how Eusebius chose to use the patristic literature when confronted with anti-Christian anti-Constantine propaganda.

My consistent argument has been that the 4th century Christians "retrojected" references to the NTA. Here we find Eusebius doing the same thing with the "Acts of Pilate" which we must regard as being in the universe since we have ancient manuscripts and texts. (See below)

It is also interesting that other apologists produced pro-Christian Acts of Pilate (e.g. the Gospel of Nicodemus). This, too, points to an alternate strategy for dealing with inconvenient propaganda: production of spurious primary source "documents." While Eusebius doesn't appear to know about the Nicodemus Acts, he does something similar with the fake primary Abgar-Jesus correspondence.

Eusebius asserts that the "Pagan Acts of Pilate" appears c.311/312 CE. My opinion is that this actually appeared soon after 325 CE (and not before) and Eusebius used chronology as a tool of propaganda.

Here are some of the sources - a brief discussion of the "Pagan" Acts of Pilate:

The Pagan "Acts of Pilate"

Scholarship seems to have convinced itself that the "Pagan Acts of Pilate" described below by Eusebius as having been authored c.312 CE, is no longer extant, and possibly destroyed by Constantine. Eusebius presents the tractate as "blasphemous". In their book Apocryphal gospels Hans-Josef Klauck and Brian McNeil (2003) write:

• "Eusebius mentions another reason for their composition in his Historia Ecclesiastica (1.9.3; 9.5.1; 9.7.1): when the pagan Acts of Pilate, hostile to Christianity, were published c.311-312 CE, under the reign of emperor Maximinus Daia, Christians had to react to these texts. "

Eusebius' report of The Pagan Acts of Pilate
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I
Church History of Eusebius/Book IX/Chapter 5 & 7
Chapter V.—The Forged Acts.

Having forged, to be sure, Memoirs of Pilate [2731] and Our Saviour,
full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ,
with the approval of their chief they sent them round
to every part of his dominions, with edicts
that they should be exhibited openly for everyone to see
in every place, both town and country, and that
the primary teachers should give them to the children,
instead of lessons, for study and committal to memory.

Eusebius here is describing the actions of the pagan resistance c.325 CE not c.312 CE. It is important for us to realise there must have been a pagan resistance to the NTC Jesus Story Book and that Eusebius is probably describing it. He just made a mistake with the chronology.

Here is footnote [2731] from the above:

[2731] These Acts are no longer extant, but their character can be gathered from this chapter. They undoubtedly contained the worst calumnies against Christ’s moral and religious character.They cannot have been very skillful forgeries, for Eusebius, in Bk. I. chap. 9, above, points out a palpable chronological blunder which stamped them as fictitious on their very face. And yet they doubtless answered every purpose; for few of the heathen would be in a position to detect such an error, and perhaps fewer still would care to expose it if they discovered it. These Acts are of course to be distinguished from the numerous Acta Pilati which proceeded from Christian sources (see above, Bk. II. chap. 2, note 1). The way in which these Acts were employed was diabolical in its very shrewdness. Certainly there was no more effectual way of checking the spread of Christianity than systematically and persistently to train up the youth of the empire to look with contempt and disgust upon the founder of Christianity, the Christian’s Saviour and Lord. Incalculable mischief must inevitably have been produced had Maximin’s reign lasted for a number of years. As it was, we can imagine the horror of the Christians at this new and sacrilegious artifice of the enemy. Mason assigns “the crowning, damning honor of this masterstroke” to Theotecnus, but I am unable to find any proof that he was the author of the documents. It is, of course, not impossible nor improbable that he was; but had Eusebius known him to be the author, he would certainly have informed us. As it is, his statement is entirely indefinite, and the Acts are not brought into any connection with Theotecnus. [Schaff, editor]

Here is some extra stuff:

Chapter VII. The Decree Against Us Which Was Engraved on Pillars.

1. The memorials against us and copies of the imperial edicts
issued in reply to them were engraved and set up
on brazen pillars in the midst of the cities, -
a course which had never been followed elsewhere.

The children in the schools had daily in their mouths
the names of Jesus and Pilate, and the Acts
which had been forged in wanton insolence.

2. It appears to me necessary to insert here
this document of Maximinus which was posted on pillars ...

When we read the text of the surviving "Acts of Pilate" we read that Pilate informs the Jews that Jesus does not cast out devils by an unclean spirit, but by the god Asclepius.

The pagan author is indulging in satire. Which of course was blasphemous. Heretical.

Assessing hypothetical superiority among hypothetical tactics ("what is a better solution ...") is indefinitely debatable. Still, I have this nagging intuition that cranking out a fake primary document as needed is a lot cheaper and plausibly no less effective than faking a library of secondary or hearsay literature. Whether or not "better" solutions existed, frank recognition of hostile agents and shrewd invention of phony primary documentation were among the observed responses of Christian apologists that were actually implemented in the 4th Century and later.

I have also written a very relevant article on -

The "Three Acts of Pilate

(3.1) The very early Christian "Acts of Pilate"
(3.2) The early fourth century pagan "Acts of Pilate"
(3.3) The late fourth century Christian "Acts of Pilate"

This article includes extracts from the Text (M.R. James) and asks the question:

Are the "Christian" Acts of Pilate in fact "Pagan"?

If you or anyone is interested in this NTA text here's the article:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/The_T ... Pilate.htm

[Leucius Charinus]

Yes indeed. If you could show that the mainstream theory of NTA dating expects there to be physical traces and there are none (which I am granting for sake of argument), then the LC theory is the better explanation.

I appreciate that is a conditional concession. Thanks.

It's worth going into the details on this for that reason. Do you have in mind a number of physical fragments of NTA writings you'd expect to find under the mainstream theory of dating NTA? If the expectation is more than zero, does the mainstream theory provide reasons for a number? Same question if this is your own expectation about what the mainstream theory of NTA dating should expect.

No I do not have any value for this expectation other than in theory it should be greater than zero. That is we should by now have some mss and/or fragments that may be unambiguously dated prior to 325 CE. As you have indicated somewhere along the line this expectation should be able to be cast as some derived statistical probability.

FWIW some years ago I spent some money asking Richard Carrier whether this statistical probability distribution could be considered a random distribution. Such as the Chi Squared test referred to above, and modelled in that older thread.

The older thread mentioning the Chi Squared test is here:
viewtopic.php?p=33682#p33682


Carrier argued that it could not be considered to be a random distribution but must be calculated by doing a study on the preservation of manuscripts in general across the relevant centuries. However I remained unconvinced by his arguments and still think that it would be entirely valid to explore an underlying statistical model which treats the expectation of early (< 325 CE) and later (> 325 CE) dates for physical mss as a random variable. Sure the older stuff has less chance of surviving. But the stuff we have is quite significant and it did survive. So where to from here? Not entirely sure.

If there are any statisticians out there feel free to chime in.

[GakuseiDon]

Thanks for your interest in this stuff G'Don.

No worries. It has been interesting but I think I'll leave it there. Thanks for spending the time to answer my questions. It's given me a better idea of where you're coming from, since I've found the writings about heresies in (apparent) pre-4th C apologists as a major problem for your theory. I still think your theory is a few fries short of a McHappy meal (though I'm just an amateur with no knowledge of ancient languages so who cares?), but I also think you raise genuine points against assumptions made in academia around provenance and dating. No doubt I'll be crossing swords again with you soon but I genuinely wish you all the best with getting your theories out there.

[Leucius Charinus]

Thanks for spending the time to answer my questions.

Questions are more valuable than answers G'Don and I thank you for them.

It's given me a better idea of where you're coming from, since I've found the writings about heresies in (apparent) pre-4th C apologists as a major problem for your theory.

Well I hope to have provided some reasonable points on why we should doubt the received Christian "Church Histories" concerning the political history, not of themselves the orthodoxy, but of their enemies, the heretics. Be well.

[Peter Kirby]

The anti-heresy works of Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc were designed to show the books of the NTA were circulating early.

If this is what you've landed on, then your attempt to prop up this idea is like Weekend at Bernie's. As soon as you stop pushing it, it will completely die and fade, and nobody will care.