Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Thanks, Pete/LC/Mtm, for that reply, though much of it seems not relevant to my question, with one exception, namely:
"[0325-CE] Did Constantine Invent Christianity?: An article concerning an alternative history of pre-Nicaean antiquity"
In case that is the source of your view, and in case there is more than one article with that title, could you please identify the author and/or where it was read and/or where it may be read?

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 4:37 am Thanks, Pete/LC/Mtm, for that reply, though much of it seems not relevant to my question, with one exception, namely:
"[0325-CE] Did Constantine Invent Christianity?: An article concerning an alternative history of pre-Nicaean antiquity"

In case that is the source of your view, and in case there is more than one article with that title, could you please identify the author and/or where it was read and/or where it may be read?

That's my notes on the study of Christian origins and links to:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/

Pete/LC, I know that you have written a lot.
That is not what I'm asking for. (You don't have to tell me if you choose not to.)
My question:
when, why, or how did you FIRST become convinced that Constantine created Christianity?
It is no secret that I do not think so.
But, for example, did you read an article that made that claim? If so, which one?
If not, by what other means did you FIRST become convinced of such?
Not your subsequent arguments, but your first time. Please.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 6:45 am My question:
when, why, or how did you FIRST become convinced that Constantine created Christianity?

For the first 6 months I was not "convinced". Rather I explored the question "Could Constantine have invented Christianity" and gradually sifted through all the physical evidence especially that cited in Biblical scholarship articles about papyri and inscriptions. My expectation was that I would myself find evidence to refute the idea and answer the question with a negative.

It is no secret that I do not think so.

Nobody thinks so.

But, for example, did you read an article that made that claim? If so, which one?
If not, by what other means did you FIRST become convinced of such?
Not your subsequent arguments, but your first time. Please.

After about 6 months of study I came across the reconstruction of the opening paragraph of Emperor Julian's three books "Against the Christians". It was this item of evidence which made me think that the question could possibly be answered in the positive.

• It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
  the reasons by which I was convinced that
  the fabrication of the Christians
  is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.
  
  Though it has in it nothing divine,
  by making full use of that part of the soul
  which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
  it has induced men to believe
  that the monstrous tale is truth.

At this point I became convinced that it may have been possible that Constantine invented Christianity. However unlike many people I do not view history as black and white but rather as a million shades of grey. At the moment I have identified a number of items of evidence which indicate a reasonable likelihood that something resembling Christianty existed in the 3rd century:

1) Dura Parchment 24
2) One or two "Chreistian" inscriptions from Phrygia
3) A number of inscriptions and/or papyri which identify "Chrestians" or "Chresians"
4) A rock inscription which I have not yet discussed here.

The way I see it now is that there may have been a group of people who were known as Chrestians or perhaps colloquially as "Good People". But I do not see a proliferation of a "nation of Christians" tended by "Bishops" who preserved the NT canonical writings in the early centuries as described by Eusebius' "Church History".

The missing piece of the puzzle is the NT apocryphal writings and how these fit in to the overall big picture. That is what I have been focused upon for the last ten or more years and I belief it is essential to try and understand the NTA corpus. If we are peeling back the onion skins of evidence then the NTA skin is outside and later than the NTC skin. If this makes sense.

No matter when the NT canonical books were composed my primary idea is that the NTA books were composed after 325 CE and that the heresiological narratives have been fabricated. This fraud was undertaken by the Nicene church (and in the centuries following) in order to cover up the massive literary controversy that the avalanche of NTA books caused during the rule of Constantine and throughout the Christian revolution of the 4th century (325-381 CE). This new idea explains the pattern of evidence we have today. IMO it deserves to be discussed.

I may have worded my question poorly.
Instead of asking when did you first become convinced, what I am really wondering is when, why, how, the question arose for you as a serious possibility.
You are *not* the first person to exaggerate the influence of Constantine on Christianity. By that, I do not mean to minimize the big changes when Rome first allowed Christianity legal status and, later, made it the preferred religion; both were indeed major changes; rather, I am referring to the Constantine inventing Christianity notion.

On other aspects, we of course disagree on pre-300 Christianity (which can't legitimately be dismissed as Chrestianity). Also, another reason, for example, that I am not asking about your argued proposal--you're free to make it, of course, but I'm trying to explain why I'm much less interested in such than in my initial question above--is that your split categories of NT canon and NT apocrypha are arbitrary, anachronistic retrojections.
They overlapped.
Ancient authors did not know your "rules."

So, if I may stick with my question:
why, as a task for you, did a Constantine-as-Christianity-inventor question arise?

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 3:33 amSo, if I may stick with my question:
why, as a task for you, did a Constantine-as-Christianity-inventor question arise?

Simply put: I did not in 2005, and do not in 2023, trust Eusebius.


The extent to which we should NOT trust Eusebius with respect to the history of orthodoxy concerning IS XS, the lists of bishops and the ante-Nicene "nation of Christians" can be set to the side when investigating trusting Eusebius with respect to the history of the heretics. I want to investigate the history of the NT apocryphal books (including the NHL). I am suggesting Eusebius lied about his enemies.

LC, Peter, I know you consider that Constantine and Eusebius, on the subject of the origin of Christianity, were big liars. And you may have eventually developed a default setting of presenting that case.

I am assuming that you were not born thinking that they promoted such lies.
Hence my interest in how this conviction for you first arose.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 5:44 amI am assuming that you were not born thinking that they promoted such lies.
Hence my interest in how this conviction for you first arose.

It arose reading the works of Eusebius and commentary upon them.

Edward Gibbon wrote:"The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself,
indirectly confesses that he has related what might rebound to the glory,
and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion.
Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion
that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history
has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other;
and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius,
which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries".

Edward Gibbon wrote:"Perhaps, on some future occasion, I may examine
the historical character of Eusebius;
perhaps I may enquire, how far it appears
from his words and actions,
that the learned Bishop of Caesarea
was averse to the use of fraud,
when it was employed in the service of Religion."

Arnaldo Momigliano wrote:
"...an historian can be guilty of forging evidence or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to support his own historical discourse. One is never simple-minded enough about the condemnation of forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one must show no piety - and no pity."

ETA: viewtopic.php?p=158627#p158627

So, LC/P/M, if I understand you correctly, you regarded Constantine and Eusebius as much less than reliable, opportunist.
But that--plus ignoring contrary evidence on origins--leaves unexplained your jump from regarding them as much less than reliable
to original creators,
ab initio,
of Christianity.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 6:38 am So, LC/P/M, if I understand you correctly, you regarded Constantine and Eusebius as much less than reliable, opportunist.

The unreliability and opportunism should be extended until the century of our earliest physical manuscript for the works of these authors. As an skeptical investigator I'd like to be able to cite physical evidence. We are dealing with a probability space and it is necessary to estimate its boundaries.

But that--plus ignoring contrary evidence on origins--leaves unexplained your jump from regarding them ....

We have no physical evidence for Christian origins prior to the 3rd century. What contrary and earlier physical evidence would you put on the table with any degree of certainty?

as much less than reliable
to original creators,
ab initio,
of Christianity.

We are not dealing with ab initio. To repeat what I wrote above I do not view history as black and white but rather as a million shades of grey. At the moment I have identified a number of items of evidence which indicate a reasonable likelihood that something resembling Christianty existed in the 3rd century:

1) Dura Parchment 24
2) One or two "Chreistian" inscriptions from Phrygia
3) A number of inscriptions and/or papyri which identify "Chrestians" or "Chresians"
4) A rock inscription which I have not yet discussed here.


Constantine also appears to have used a blue print:

Ardashir creates the Persian State Zorastianism Religion c.223 CE
Constantine creates the Roman State Christian Religion c.324 CE
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_009.htm