Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

robert j wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:06 am

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:48 am When ever people ... accuse the Church Fathers of lying ABOUT EVERYTHING ... opens the door to selfishness and hobby horse theories ...

Sure. With your emphasis on “EVERYTHING” I would have to agree. I think the writings of the Church Fathers provide an excellent source of 2nd century (and later) early-catholic tradition and (by then) established “church” doctrine.

However, I think they had little if any real knowledge of the actual origins and events surrounding the belief in a Jesus Christ. The Church Fathers were merely promoters of their own preferred current story.


Whiplash alert ----

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:48 am The evidence is quite comprehensive. Not only what the Church Fathers say but what the Church Fathers say the pagans say about Christianity, what the Church Fathers say the heretics say and then similarities between the position of some Church Fathers and the heretics.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:20 am
I think that in coming generations who have the proper distance from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius and Epiphanius will realize what a bunch of liars these people were.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:26 pm
Our tradition was entrusted to horribly wretched twisted people, the Church Fathers.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:16 pm
But do I believe or am I willing to let the Church Fathers shepherd me to the truth about Marcion or the Marcionite gospel? No. I don't trust them or what they say.

mlinssen wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:26 am

robert j wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:06 am

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:48 am When ever people ... accuse the Church Fathers of lying ABOUT EVERYTHING ... opens the door to selfishness and hobby horse theories ...

Sure. With your emphasis on “EVERYTHING” I would have to agree. I think the writings of the Church Fathers provide an excellent source of 2nd century (and later) early-catholic tradition and (by then) established “church” doctrine.

However, I think they had little if any real knowledge of the actual origins and events surrounding the belief in a Jesus Christ. The Church Fathers were merely promoters of their own preferred current story.


Whiplash alert ----

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:48 am The evidence is quite comprehensive. Not only what the Church Fathers say but what the Church Fathers say the pagans say about Christianity, what the Church Fathers say the heretics say and then similarities between the position of some Church Fathers and the heretics.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:20 am
I think that in coming generations who have the proper distance from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius and Epiphanius will realize what a bunch of liars these people were.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:26 pm
Our tradition was entrusted to horribly wretched twisted people, the Church Fathers.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:16 pm
But do I believe or am I willing to let the Church Fathers shepherd me to the truth about Marcion or the Marcionite gospel? No. I don't trust them or what they say.

Totally!

I don't see what is problematic about this.

1. humans lie about some things but not all things
2. politicians lie about a lot of things
3. Church Fathers are like politicians

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:12 am With respect to the OP Jesus or whatever he was originally called might have been based on a historical character. Not sure how real this makes him.

If an author bases a character on a historical figure for a work of fiction then the author's character is a work of fiction and of no value to a historian.

Examples:

The Alexander Romance is based on the historical Alexander but is useless as a historical source for Alexander. The Alexander in the Romance is a fiction. The historical material on which some of it was based is merely a source to assist a free imagination.

Historia Augusta is based on various historical persons but I know of no historian who uses it as a source for a historical study of those persons; it is only mentioned in histories, as far as I am aware, when independent evidence confirms something in it. The figures in HA are fiction; the historical figures who inspired those fictional creations are historical.

Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is based on a historical person but is a playwright's fiction.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:43 am I don't see what is problematic about this.

1. humans lie about some things but not all things
2. politicians lie about a lot of things
3. Church Fathers are like politicians

Politicians and the Church Fathers also notably promote and defend their own ideological narrative. Just look at how many Catholics take the whole Petrine origin seriously, and just imagine how many clergymen know absolutely nothing about gnosticism, neoplatonism, or the mystery religions (apart from what the Church Fathers say). It's good to reframe all these guys as propagandists through-and-through, obfuscating the truth either out of intent or ignorance, with their only real knowledge being of their own dogma.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:29 pm

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:12 am With respect to the OP Jesus or whatever he was originally called might have been based on a historical character. Not sure how real this makes him.

If an author bases a character on a historical figure for a work of fiction then the author's character is a work of fiction and of no value to a historian.

Examples:

The Alexander Romance is based on the historical Alexander but is useless as a historical source for Alexander. The Alexander in the Romance is a fiction. The historical material on which some of it was based is merely a source to assist a free imagination.

Historia Augusta is based on various historical persons but I know of no historian who uses it as a source for a historical study of those persons; it is only mentioned in histories, as far as I am aware, when independent evidence confirms something in it. The figures in HA are fiction; the historical figures who inspired those fictional creations are historical.

Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is based on a historical person but is a playwright's fiction.

The Christ of the Gospels is also seemingly based on other historical/fictional characters, including Odysseus, Socrates, Elijah/Elisha, Dionysus, Moses, and maybe even the Buddha. This is how we end up with this messiah-healer-philosopher-savior-god-rabbi-ascetic-revolutionary-magician. There are so many different reference points and molds that the authors tried to fit Christ into that I can hardly imagine them really basing them on any historical person. Even the deeply mythologized Buddha has a consistent core character.

Jagd wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:51 pm Even the deeply mythologized Buddha has a consistent core character.

fwiw, that doesn't make Buddha historical, of course. It only makes him a less imaginative creation.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 3:01 pm

Jagd wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:51 pm Even the deeply mythologized Buddha has a consistent core character.

fwiw, that doesn't make Buddha historical, of course. It only makes him a less imaginative creation.

Just help me out here please - isn't the particular trait of religion that it is based on a fantasy?
If your hero is real and alive and kicking, then what you have is a sect or cult.
When he's dead, what you have is a hoax.
When he's dead and it's impossible to prove that he really existed, what you have is religion

Not trying to be sarcastic, although I'm quite a natural in that regard and chances are that I'll succeed even without trying, but just for the record

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 3:01 pm

Jagd wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:51 pm Even the deeply mythologized Buddha has a consistent core character.

fwiw, that doesn't make Buddha historical, of course. It only makes him a less imaginative creation.

Certainly! After my research I think there's a 10-15% chance that the Buddha was historical, and it's fairly simple to reconstruct who that historical person probably could have been (even though you end up with only about half a dozen bullet points and nothing close to a biography). But it is still much more probable that this Buddha was an invented figure for the earliest "Buddhist" practitioners.

And when it comes to Jesus, there's nothing firm to grab onto at all in terms of ascertaining any kind of likely historical person, despite the historicists parroting the same "failed Jewish preacher" character over and over. It really appears that almost all of our historical view of 1st century Judea is built to be the perfect setting for this historical Jesus to emerge, and it's so tiresome to unpack and remove all those junk presuppositions.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:29 pm

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:12 am With respect to the OP Jesus or whatever he was originally called might have been based on a historical character. Not sure how real this makes him.

If an author bases a character on a historical figure for a work of fiction then the author's character is a work of fiction and of no value to a historian.

Examples:

The Alexander Romance is based on the historical Alexander but is useless as a historical source for Alexander. The Alexander in the Romance is a fiction. The historical material on which some of it was based is merely a source to assist a free imagination.

Historia Augusta is based on various historical persons but I know of no historian who uses it as a source for a historical study of those persons; it is only mentioned in histories, as far as I am aware, when independent evidence confirms something in it. The figures in HA are fiction; the historical figures who inspired those fictional creations are historical.

Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is based on a historical person but is a playwright's fiction.

Actually ancient historians do out of necessity cautiously use portions of the Historia Augusta, (the lives of the actual emperors prior to Elagabalus as distinct from a/ the imperial pretenders and b/anything post-Elagabalus ), as a source for otherwise uncorroborated material. I'm giving an example from memory which may not be accurate but IMS Paul Veyne in Bread and Circuses uses the Historia Augusta for otherwise uncorroborated evidence about imperial finance. The issue is that for the 2nd and very early 3rd century Emperors the Historia Augusta used a good otherwise lost historical work which it rewrote to a greater or lesser extent from life to life. (Elagabalus is a special case some historians regard the first half of his life as pretty accurate and the second half as total fiction but this IMO is problematic.)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Augusta

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add
I should have included Macrinus among the largely fictitious lives.