Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:49 pmWhile I used to think basically the same thing I no longer do. I now consider that we must include at least all of the 4th century in order to include what Momigliano refers to as the [Christian] "Revolution of the 4th century" which notionally may be confined to the epoch 325-381 CE. An investigation of the feasability of a 4th century origins hypothesis/theory will necessarily involve a complete re-evaluation (literature, social and political) of the empire wide Arian controversy, including the authorship of the entire NT apocryphal corpus (including the NHL).

This investigation thus includes an examination of the extension of 4th and 5th CE "Ecclesiastical Histories" into the appearance of Christian hagiography (c.360 CE), the 4th century political appearance and rise of the cults of the saints and martyrs, and the holy relic trade which were to define the outward face of Christian religious belief for the following thousand years or more.

That's reasonable. My suggestion was to start with a focus on the outer layers of the onion, i.e. the later time periods, so considering the rest of the fourth century extends what I was saying more than it contradicts.

I don't think you've answered my question about what you consider the dividing line of interest right now. Is the early fourth century a period of interest to you, i.e. that you are currently not certain about? Would you want to discuss stuff from the first quarter of the fourth century?

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:49 pmWell I disagree that it is faulty. You need a method for determining the earliest date and a separate method for determining the latest date so that an argument can be made with certainty that the event being investigated falls between the two bounds. I do not agree that Gmirkin's statement of that method is faulty and I provided my reasons for this.

You defended the idea that Gmirkin was justified in using a reduced set of methods in the context of the Bible.

And I am replying to you now: sure, fine, ok, whatever! Maybe you're right that the Hebrew Bible doesn't validly fall under the scope of the first two categories of method. They are still two valid categories of method. If the Hebrew Bible texts don't validly fall under them, that doesn't diminish their validity in all cases. They are useful methods in some cases, and that's determined individually.

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:49 pmWe are still in disagreement over whether or not Gmirkin uses faulty methods. So that needs to be resolved first.

At this point, you haven't completely convinced me that we truly are in disagreement and, if so, why. You are maintaining that the some of the methods will not apply in certain cases. I am agreeing. Very well, then! Can we proceed?

Trust me, you will have plenty of opportunities to object in every particular instance. I'm not sure what's to be gained for you by continuing to quibble about the existence of these valid methods. Accepting the need to do analysis on a case by case basis would show good faith and at least the willingness to consider the outcome not predetermined in advance. That would allow a fruitful discussion to develop.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:36 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:49 pm Well I disagree that it is faulty. You need a method for determining the earliest date and a separate method for determining the latest date so that an argument can be made with certainty that the event being investigated falls between the two bounds. I do not agree that Gmirkin's statement of that method is faulty and I provided my reasons for this.

You defended the idea that Gmirkin was justified in using a reduced set of methods in the context of the Bible.

And I am replying to you now: sure, fine, ok, whatever! Maybe you're right that the Hebrew Bible doesn't validly fall under the scope of the first two categories of method. They are still two valid categories of method. If the Hebrew Bible texts don't validly fall under them, that doesn't diminish their validity in all cases. They are useful methods in some cases, and that's determined individually.

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:49 pmWe are still in disagreement over whether or not Gmirkin uses faulty methods. So that needs to be resolved first.

At this point, you haven't completely convinced me that we truly are in disagreement and, if so, why. You are maintaining that the some of the methods will not apply in certain cases. I am agreeing. Very well, then! Can we proceed?

Yes by all means.

Trust me, you will have plenty of opportunities to object in every particular instance. I'm not sure what's to be gained for you by continuing to quibble about the existence of these valid methods. Accepting the need to do analysis on a case by case basis would show good faith and at least the willingness to consider the outcome not predetermined in advance. That would allow a fruitful discussion to develop.

Let me finally say that I do accept the necessity of treating the comprehensive dating methodology you compiled on a case by case basis. In many cases we will have a known author with some degree of certainty (especially in Greek and Roman classical literature). Also in many cases the literature work to be dated may contain much factual INTERNAL information, such as works about geography, politics, natural science, temples, architecture, medicine, astronomy and the rest of the "Greek intellectual traditions". In both these cases your categories 1 and 2 will have to be addressed.

I will return to your other points separately.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:36 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:49 pmWhile I used to think basically the same thing I no longer do. I now consider that we must include at least all of the 4th century in order to include what Momigliano refers to as the [Christian] "Revolution of the 4th century" which notionally may be confined to the epoch 325-381 CE. An investigation of the feasability of a 4th century origins hypothesis/theory will necessarily involve a complete re-evaluation (literature, social and political) of the empire wide Arian controversy, including the authorship of the entire NT apocryphal corpus (including the NHL).

This investigation thus includes an examination of the extension of 4th and 5th CE "Ecclesiastical Histories" into the appearance of Christian hagiography (c.360 CE), the 4th century political appearance and rise of the cults of the saints and martyrs, and the holy relic trade which were to define the outward face of Christian religious belief for the following thousand years or more.

That's reasonable. My suggestion was to start with a focus on the outer layers of the onion, i.e. the later time periods, so considering the rest of the fourth century extends what I was saying more than it contradicts.

I don't think you've answered my question about what you consider the dividing line of interest right now. Is the early fourth century a period of interest to you, i.e. that you are currently not certain about? Would you want to discuss stuff from the first quarter of the fourth century?

If we were to follow your outer layers of the onion process we could start at the end of the 4th century and work backwards. I would tend to describe it as a world where the Nicene Creed and the Christian trinity had been written into the law codes by Theodosius. Anyone not subscribing to these laws were referred to as either "madmen" or "heretics" and they were to be dealt with by the state (army). It was a world full of anti-pagan legislation, the destruction of pagan architecture (temples and shrines), and reflected a hegemon of Christian orthodoxy although that orthodoxy looked a lot different than it does today.

As mentioned above the cults of the saints and martyrs were beginning to flourish, and the holy relic trade was just beginning. Hagiography was in demand for the lives and deaths of the many saints and martyrs which were being literally "dug up". Most of the high profile bishops of both the eastern and western Roman empire were "dreaming dreams" that would indicate the location of some holy relic or bones. These were then "discovered" and paraded through the streets to be displayed in the Christian churches for the edification and entertainment of the masses. The bible was more or less in the "back-office" and read to the people by the readers appointed by the bishops.

All of this I have referred to as the "church industry" and the above description would be part of how I would start to describe it at the end of the 4th century.

The deeper part of this outer layer of the onion skin would look at the period from the death of Julian (363 CE) though to the rise of Theodosius (381 CE). This epoch I see as characterised by a massive backlash by the Christian elite filling the vacuum left when Julian died. It would also include the rise of Damasus as bishop of Rome, the beginning of the PETER-WAS-HERE Roman tourism business, a major renovation of the Roman catacombs, the preparation of Jerome's Latin translation of the NT/LXX Bible, and the political appearance of the Latin Church industry. So this is the first layer according to your suggestion. (Say 360-400 CE)

The rule of Julian (360-363 CE) is a separate layer.

Again I have attempted to map out all this stuff in a schematic:
An Evidence Map: Chronology of the components of Christian Literature
This is located at the end of my response to Carrier and also in a separate brief article:

https://www.academia.edu/78665273/Evide ... Literature

I'll stop here for the moment to evaluate any feedback over the above. However I will respond separately on your comments about neo-Platonism.

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:01 pm Platonism is plastered throughout the Nag Hammadi Library. The question is which form of Platonism --- middle Platonism or neo-Platonism? Second century or fourth century?

See, this is where you resort to your usual stick: throwing a completely unsubstantiated claim at the table, only to immediately disperse it in all possible directions and leave it up to others to pick up those pieces

Basically, all of your theory is pure trolling Pete - which is the only explanation for it having endured for so long
It is exactly like you said and admitted: your entire theory is designed so it cannot be proven, precisely because the result of that is that it can never be debunked

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:09 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:01 pmPlatonism is central to "Christian philosophy". Augustine later finds that "only a few words and phrases" need to be changed to bring Platonism into complete accord with Christianity. Platonism is plastered throughout the Nag Hammadi Library. The question is which form of Platonism --- middle Platonism or neo-Platonism? Second century or fourth century?

How many "church fathers" were (according to the "history" of Eusebius) "converts" from Platonism? Can we start with Clement, Ammonius, Origen and Anatolius?

This is itself a valid point. I'm not sure where you want to go with it.

This will need to be examined in the ante-Nicene layer of the onion. That is Eusebius and his "history of the universal church".

A separate claim I would want to test out is that the Christians of the 4th century basically "borrowed" the philosophical / metaphysical "trinity" of Plotinus for the Christian holy trinity which was enshrined in law by Theodosius as mentioned in the earlier post.

You contrast middle Platonism and neo-Platonism, attributing the latter to the fourth century. Are you saying you found markers of neo-Platonism that allow us to date certain documents to the fourth century? If so, say more. Why are these markers of Platonism specifically of a fourth century variety? What are the examples of such documents that you have in mind?

I had in mind a number of the tracts within the Nag Hammadi library. If the discussion is to proceed in an onion-like fashion it may be best to leave this until we get to the onion skin after Julian's rule (360-363 CE). These I would describe as the rule of Constantius (337-360 CE) and the rule of Constantine (305-337 CE).

Or, if you prefer not to defend your hypothesis just now, you could just answer the question about which date you had in mind (is it 325 or 300? so I know whether to refer to early 4th century examples), if you want to go through some cases other than the Dura fragment.

I'm always happy to discuss any evidence presented because upon that the hypothesis will either rise or fall.

There is also one other issue that has not received any discussion and upon which I have relied in order to construct my "mud map" of Christian literature and all ancient historical evidence that must be considered by all hypotheses and all theories. This is:


Proposition: There are Three Major Classes of Christian Literature
viewtopic.php?p=144019#p144019

This proposition is more or less fundamental to my analyses. If it is wrong or deficient then I'd rather like to know about that earlier than later.

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:26 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:01 pm Platonism is plastered throughout the Nag Hammadi Library. The question is which form of Platonism --- middle Platonism or neo-Platonism? Second century or fourth century?

See, this is where you resort to your usual stick: throwing a completely unsubstantiated claim at the table, only to immediately disperse it in all possible directions and leave it up to others to pick up those pieces

I can't help it if you have not read widely on the subject or whether you have decided to read Thomas in almost complete exclusion from the rest of the tracts in the NHL. For example "The Book of Thomas" is located in the same codex as the Gospel of Thomas.

John D. Turner wrote:
"In the Book of Thomas, the teaching of Jesus has become Platonised,
while Plato's teaching has become Christianised."

John D. Turner, The Book of Thomas and the Platonic Jesus, pp.606-607

Do you think you could excise the ad hominem arguments from any arguments you make about the evidence? You are beginning to sound like Richard Carrier or Tim O'Neill.

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:58 pm

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:26 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:01 pm Platonism is plastered throughout the Nag Hammadi Library. The question is which form of Platonism --- middle Platonism or neo-Platonism? Second century or fourth century?

See, this is where you resort to your usual stick: throwing a completely unsubstantiated claim at the table, only to immediately disperse it in all possible directions and leave it up to others to pick up those pieces

I can't help it if you have not read widely on the subject or whether you have decided to read Thomas in almost complete exclusion from the rest of the tracts in the NHL. For example "The Book of Thomas" is located in the same codex as the Gospel of Thomas.

John D. Turner wrote:
"In the Book of Thomas, the teaching of Jesus has become Platonised,
while Plato's teaching has become Christianised."

John D. Turner, The Book of Thomas and the Platonic Jesus, pp.606-607

GNOSTICISM AS PLATONISM WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO MARSANES (NHC 10,1)*
Birger A. Pearson
University of California, Santa Barbara

From ancient times it has been averred that the Gnostics derived their basic ideas from the Greek philosophers, especially Pythagoras and Plato. For example,

Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 2.14) argued that the Valentinian Gnostics borrowed their doctrines of the pleroma and kenoma from Democritus and Plato.

Hippolytus (Ref. 1.11), more systematically, tried to show that the founders of the Gnostic heresies borrowed most of their ideas from Greek philosophy and religion.

The Valentinian brand of gnosis, Hippolytus (Ref. 6.21-29) argues, is derived from the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato. [1]

Tertullian (Praesc. 7) claimed that all of the heresies were based on Greek philosophy.

Valentinus is stated specifically to be "of the school of Plato."

Plotinus (Enn. 2.9.6), the reputed founder of Neoplatonism, claimed in a famous tract that his doctrinal opponents, whom he did not identify but who were obviously Gnostics, [2] based their doctrines on a misunderstanding of Plato.

Porphyry's Life of Plotinus 16 provides us with more information on the Gnostic opponents of Plotinus, and refers to them "sectarians from the ancient philosophy," i.e., Platonism.

In our own times scholars have referred to Gnosticism as a kind of Platonism.
Willy Theiler calls the Gnosticism of the Imperial period, both Christian and pagan (Chaldean Oracles, Hermetica), "Proletarier platonismus." [3]

Simone Petrement portrays Gnosticism as "un platonisme romantique"; [4]

A. D. Nock prefers the designation "Platonism run wild." [5]

John M. Dillon refers to the Gnostic and Hermetic writings and the Chaldean Oracles as "the 'underworld' of Platonism." [6]


It can hardly be doubted that the ingredients of the Gnostic religion in its origins and early history included a substantial dose of popular Platonism. [7]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1509519

Do you think you could excise the ad hominem arguments from any arguments you make about the evidence? You are beginning to sound like Richard Carrier or Tim O'Neill.

See, and this is how you continue: I challenge you to your claim about Platonism in the NHL and the only thing you come up with is opinions from other people about statements by FF and related texts about Gnosticism - there is not one single reference to any of the NHL texts, save for a single page from Turner which I guess I'll have to look up for myself in order to find out whether there's an argument to that, let alone a reasonable one

Have you actually read any text at all? There is a very good reason why I call your theory a troll theory, Pete.
And why don't you react to the fact that you have stated that your theory can't be proven, but instead try to derail me into biting your fake ad hominem bait?

It's not just that your theory is crap, Pete - and there is no way that you can turn that into an ad hominem - but that the argumentation behind it is completely absent. Your entire theory is a mere statement, an opinion, and you refuse to do any research into it yourself

Why don't you go by my Thomas translation and take a few logia, and demonstrate how they perfectly fit into your theory and prove its viability?
Go on then, no need to be shy

I would like to add to the list by subdividing (2) (a) into two parts, now (2) (a) and (2) (b).

Surface-level references are those that require necessarily that we are dealing with a work that was constructed without being entirely fiction. For example, the apology of Aristides is addressed to Hadrian, and the Muratorian Canon refers to Pope Pius. In a work created fictitiously, these would necessarily be regarded as pretenses of the author. So their use to find a date depends on resolving whether the work is fiction.

Incidental references don't necessarily require this. They are not obvious things that an author would have to have put in just to be able to claim an older date. And, indeed (working from the terminus a quo side of these problems), incidental references to circumstances can sometimes betray a date that is later than the author intended. This is how many texts have been identified as fictitious. Of course, like anything else, each such incidental reference needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

(1) from dating its author, with both:
(1) (a) source criticism regarding authorship, using external and internal evidence
(1) (b) information regarding the author, using external and internal evidence

(2) from internal evidence
(2) (a) surface-level references in the text to contemporary people and circumstances
(2) (b) incidental references in the text to contemporary people and circumstances
(2) (c) incidental use of certain words and phrases (identified individually)
(2) (d) statistical analysis of the text

(3) from external evidence
(3) (a) the first quotation or other utilization of the text by some other datable work
(3) (b) the reference to an earlier quotation that has been lost but has been dated
(3) (c) references regarding when the text was composed

(4) the dating of a manuscript of the text by:
(4) (a) stratiographic analysis (via archeology)
(4) (b) re-use of manuscript on recto or verso, when the re-use can be dated
(4) (c) use of papyri in the binding or wrapping that can be dated
(4) (d) specific references in the manuscript (e.g. in the margins) that can be dated
(4) (e) paleography (human-based)
(4) (f) paleography (computer-based)
(4) (g) ink analysis
(4) (h) radiocarbon dating

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:44 pm There is also one other issue that has not received any discussion and upon which I have relied in order to construct my "mud map" of Christian literature and all ancient historical evidence that must be considered by all hypotheses and all theories. This is:

Proposition: There are Three Major Classes of Christian Literature
viewtopic.php?p=144019#p144019

This proposition is more or less fundamental to my analyses. If it is wrong or deficient then I'd rather like to know about that earlier than later.

Sure, I can comment on that.

I don't see where you've made explicit what the purpose of this particular categorization is. Also, I don't yet understand how you suggest that your categorization becomes a proposition that has a definite truth value. My own understanding of such categorizations usually are:

(a) they are subjective in that they reflect the interests of the categorizer, even if the boundaries are clearly defined
(b) accordingly, they permit of multiple different schemes of categorization, especially if different interests are at work
(c) ultimately, they often provide a good initial lay of the land to a rough approximation, but advanced study requires discarding them

I can take one particular statement that stands out:

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:44 pmEH2 - Christian Persecutions by Roman emperors - political history;
EH3 - Martyrology;
EH4 – Hagiography;
EH5 - Cult of Saints and Martyrs;
EH6 - Holy Relic Trade;

The sub-classes EH3 Martyrology; EH4 – Hagiography; EH5 - Cult of Saints and Martyrs; and EH6 - Holy Relic Trade apply to literature which authored (or at least collected together) in the 4th century. These should not be primary material in the saga of Christian origins. However they have been listed for completeness because this material appears in the post Nicene Ecclesiastical sources that immediately continue on after Eusebius.

I can't say that I accept any of this. As a general rule, all primary material is primary material.

Also, my impression of historians of the non-biblical-scholarship world is that, compared to the other texts we have, they love this kind of stuff. A lot of it is much less abstract than the more theologically oriented stuff. Especially the texts we have regarding individual acts of persecution, individual martyrs therefore, individual saints therefore, etc. While it's not quite the same as inscriptions and documentary papyri, obviously, as there is a religious aspect, and much of it was transcribed by monks instead of found in situ (which is obviously not irrelevant), a lot of it is a little closer to the mundane world than "Against Heresies" and "Church History" are.

I was going to start with looking at some of this material, honestly! I'm genuinely surprised to see it being ruled out of bounds.

I was also wanting to revisit the question of archeology, notwithstanding Carrier's remarks here.

I'm also quite willing to go through the post-325 stuff, but I'm not sure what you're interested in, from me, there. So far I've learned that this is when you propose that the purportedly earlier stuff may have been forged. As such, I will keep that alternative hypothesis in mind. For anything more than that, I'll let you start that discussion, perhaps pointing out any additional ideas you have about that period, other than the production of pseudepigrapha and forgeries (which as we all know isn't even that much of a departure ... those forgeries aren't making themselves!).

It should be noted that the production of pseudepigrapha and forgeries was part of the classical world as well. Making a quick fake letter or a collection of them, for example, was relatively easy and cheap. Assigning it to a famous person was lucrative. Many of the motives are similar to those that lead to forgeries like the "Jesus Wife" text of recent times. In an attempt to get to the point and to try to avoid detection, the forgery is relatively economical, both in terms of length and the ratio of effort + risk to payoff. Just enough of a hook is there to sell the illusion.

From a recent article:

https://aeon.co/essays/what-the-controv ... l-about-us

There are 13 letters that have come down to us among the works of Plato, a corpus compiled and organised in ancient times. One of the 13 – the first – is demonstrably not by Plato, and this bad apple has raised doubts about the authenticity of the whole collection. Another reason for scepticism is the epistolary genre itself. Forgers, as we know, made good money in antiquity by creating spurious letters from famous people and selling them to libraries and collectors. We have great numbers of surviving forgeries, attributed to Socrates, Diogenes and other Greek sages but showing stylistic features out of step with the Greek of their authors’ times. All personal letters from Greek antiquity are therefore suspect, although some – such as a number of those attributed to Demosthenes – appear to be genuine.

A comparison of the Platonic letters with known fakes reveals important differences. Where forgers tend to keep their letters brief and vague, for fear of committing errors that would give them away, Plato’s letters are detailed and in some cases – that of the Seventh Letter in particular – extremely long. This point stands out as crucial for the renowned Hellenist Robin Waterfield, among others. ‘Given Plato’s stature, it would be a bold forger who would pretend to know so much about his character and thinking,’ he writes, defending his decision to treat the Seventh Letter (along with two others) as legitimate in his biography Plato of Athens (forthcoming, 2023). Only a genius forger, it seems, would attempt an imposture on such a huge scale; one scholar has compared such an unlikely figure to Descartes’s demon, a being who creates illusions that can’t be distinguished from truth. Others, though, have noted that virtuosic forgers do on occasion arise and are very hard to detect.

Some points about forgeries:

• forgeries were a known part of the classical world, as we know both from examples of forgeries and ancient discussion of forgeries
• ancient people themselves were sometimes concerned with distinguishing whether a text is forgery
• the greater the surface area the forgery creates for admitting errors of visimilitude, the more likely errors would be discovered
• recognizing this, forgers in antiquity would keep their letters brief and vague, to avoid detection
• occasionaly there are virtuosic and daring forgers with greater ambition, and such rare individuals show themselves to be prodigious, such that with enough output it still would be possible to build a profile of them from their forged body of work
• in either case, each forger had his motives and proceeded to achieve his aims in a way that made sense to him, and so we are able to piece together a plausible story for understanding the context of each product or (as the case may be) understand each part of a larger project
• even genius has its limits, and while many scholars are able to regard Plato's seventh letter as the product of genius, this serves as an instructive case in point as the outline of a body of work that is already regarded as the work of a genius forger ... and not the supernaturally powerful Descartes's demon