Page 13 of 22
Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2022 1:24 am
by Leucius Charinus
If you are asking about Carrier I am of little faith of his reconstruction. If you are asking about Paul I think he will eventually follow Jesus down the path of Moses. If you are asking about Leucius Charinus --- in the theme of the OP --- I think he was actually an Arian who wrote books as described by Photius:
"In a word, his books contain a vast amount of childish, incredible, ill-devised, lying, silly, self-contradictory, impious, and ungodly statements, so that one would not be far wrong in calling them the source and mother of all heresy."
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/phot ... ca.htm#114
Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:39 pm
by Leucius Charinus
History Hunters International (website now defunct)
Mentioned here:
https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/tag/gospels/
the-vacuum-of-evidence-for-pre-4th-century-christianity
Perhaps the most surprising discovery is somewhat akin to the famous Holmesian episode in which the dog didn’t bark in the night.
Not a single artefact of any medium – including textual – and dated reliably before the fourth century can be unambiguously identified as Christian. This is the most notable result of our archaeological survey of sites, inscriptions, libraries, collections and so on from the Indus River to the Nile and north to Britain.
Taking into account the vast volume of scholarly works claiming expert opinion for the exact opposite point of view, let me clarify terms.
There is, of course, much archaeology interpreted commonly as Christian. This does not contradict the bald statement above. The difference lies between data that spells out Christian clearly and unambiguously, and that which expert opinion claims to look as though it is Christian.
There are very many texts claimed to be Christian and composed before the fourth century, though the documents themselves are not dated to that early period. We have found no text before the fourth century which mentions either Jesus Christ, or the term ‘Christian’.
The earliest fragments and codex of the New Testament pre-date the fourth century, though nowhere in them have we found the key word Christ. Many biblical scholars claim that they do, but our visual inspection of them fails to find a single such usage of this term. We have been unable to find a single text transliterated correctly in this regard.
As there are gospels and other texts of a religious character, so there is archaeology for places of worship and many artefacts: none spell Christian. Claims that any are Christian are, in fact, a matter of opinion only and we disagree with all such opinions.
Six months ago, this was a tentative view and during this time, many scholars have been asked – challenged even – to provide evidence of a contradictory nature and other than largely silence, the response has been supportive of this view. We did receive a list of (well-known) sites and events purported as Christian, though not a single artefact.
This should not be understood as a claim that nothing was happening in these three centuries that can be related to the appearance of Christianity in the fourth century. The archaeology that can be associated most-closely with Christianity is for the name Chrest, a magical Jesus Chrest and for ‘Servants of Jesus’. We have termed these chrestic. In ancient Greek, the pronunciation of both terms – Christ and Chrest – is identical as far as is known today and this acutely interesting and fortuitous linguistic circumstance facilitated the re-working of textual artefacts as well as recasting the entire context of the original theurgy related to the cult.
As Chrest was expunged from the New Testament and replaced with Christ, so the possibility arises that following the prosecution of chrestic followers by Diocletian – mis-termed commonly ‘The Great Persecution’ of Christians – the chrestic archaeology record was wiped clean generally as far as possible.
Author: John Bartram
Active link:
https://www.quora.com/profile/John-Bartram
Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2022 4:54 pm
by Leucius Charinus
Can anyone add any further NT Apocryphal literature to this list?
Alternatively are any of these attestations considered "doubtful"?
List of New Testament Apocryphal literature
attested by the Pre-Nicene Heresiologists
* Gospel of Judas - Irenaeus, Eusebius
* Gospel of Peter - Origen, Justin Martyr, Serapion, Eusebius
* Gospel of Thomas - Hippolytus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius
* The Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Irenaeus, Eusebius (room for doubt)
* The Infancy Gospel of James - Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius (doubts)
* The Gospel of Truth - Irenaeus ?
* The Apocalypse of Peter - (This is not the Gnostic text! there is no extant text)
* The Apocyphon of John = Mentioned by Irenaeus (Eusebius?)
* Ascension of Isaiah - Justin Martyr and Tertullian
* Clementina - previously Origen but now Eusebius
* The Acts of Paul (+7) - Tertullian, Eusebius, [Leucius Charinus ]
A summary of the above by heresiologist is therefore as follows:
List of the Pre-Nicene Heresiologists (and number of texts)
who attest to the Pre-Nicene existence of NT Apocryphal texts
Eusebius, the "historian of the church", (numerous);
Origen, one of two in antiquity (5);
Irenaeus, the pious Bishop of Lyons (4);
Clement, the pious Bishop of Alexandria (3);
Tertullian, the pious Bishop of Carthage (2);
Justin Martyr, the pious Martyr and Foremost Apologist (2);
Serapion (1);
Hippolytus (1).
Is this a fair summary of the situation?
Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:41 pm
by Leucius Charinus
A note on primary and secondary historical sources wrt the OP
When dealing with any studies related to the appearance, preservation and transmission of the NT Canonical literature the early church fathers (most of whom were also heresiologists) may be considered to be primary sources.
However for studies related to the appearance, preservation and transmission of the NT Apocryphal literature the early church fathers (heresiologists) must be considered to be secondary sources. The primary sources here are the texts and manuscripts of the NT Apocrypha and their unknown authors - deemed by the heresiologists to be heretics.
This is important to keep in mind. Especially for those historical enquiries which attempt to stay with the primary sources as far as possible.
Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:05 am
by schillingklaus
Mainstream apologists like Carrier (Markan prioritists + Pauline Aurthenticists) cannot be trusted in this business.
Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2022 5:28 pm
by Leucius Charinus
schillingklaus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:05 am
Mainstream apologists like Carrier (Markan prioritists + Pauline Aurthenticists) cannot be trusted in this business.
If by "this business" you mean the business of the authorship and history of the 27
NT Canonical (NTC) Books then I agree that "mainstream apologists like Carrier (Markan prioritists + Pauline Aurthenticists) cannot be trusted."
NTA - New Testament Apocryphal corpus
But the "specific business" here in the OP concerns the business of determining the authorship and history -
not of the NTC but - of the hundreds of NT Apocryphal (NTA) Books (including the NHL).
Carrier and the mainstream opinion (ever since Eusebius) maintain that the "
latest possible dates" for the authorship of the NTA literature is fixed and determined by the
secondary evidence of 2nd / 3rd century attestations by heresiologists such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Origen et al.
OTOH the
primary evidence for the authorship of the NTA literature (including the NHL) is accumulating in a veritable mountain of mid 4th century Coptic and Greek codices, manuscripts and fragments. It may be reasonably argued that we do not in fact have any primary evidence for the NTA prior to the 4th century. (We only have secondary evidence)
A researcher who was to remain fixed on an historical reconstruction of the authorship of the NTA based exclusively on the primary evidence would have to consider the possibility that perhaps the secondary evidence, which points to an earlier NTA authorship date, may have been fabricated.
The means, motive and opportunity for the forgery of all the earlier heresiological attestations (to the NTA literature) would need to be outlined and argued. Hence the OP.
Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2022 1:40 am
by neilgodfrey
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 10:50 pm
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 8:04 am
1.
how did the Romans all agree to follow a religion that never existed before Constantine?
The same way that (via R. Gmirkin) the Hebrews - Jewish and Samaritan - all agreed to follow a religion that never existed before Ptolemy II. Ditto for Ardashir and Zoroastrianism in the Sassanid Persian empire. Ditto for Muhammad and Islam in the Arabian empire. These book religions all followed civil wars and were implemented by the victorious war lord ("Savior") at the zenith of his military power. In each case the populace followed a top-down coalition-of-the-willing.
Luke 16:16:
The Good News of God's Kingdom Is Proclaimed and Everyone Is Forced into It
Gmirkin does not argue that the Judean and Samaritan populations "all agreed to follow a religion that never existed before". Rather, he notes that there were theological debates among the authors of the Pentateuch and other Jewish writings. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that there were forced conversions to the "one religion" until a good century after Gmirkin's proposed date for the Pentateuch. Even then, Jews and Samaritans were far from united as one cult under God.
Similarly with the rise of Islam. We need to distinguish between the myth of later times that attempted to claim a pure beginning when the religion just emerged suddenly completely formed in the shape it was known to take in later times.
Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2022 8:41 am
by StephenGoranson
Of course I think the thread title is certainly false.
(Origen may have mentioned more, but I'm not up for counting what LC will ignore.)
But, on a more positive note, if interested, a source of information is
Apocryphicity: a blog devoted to the study of Christian Apocrypha
by Tony Burke
https://www.apocryphicity.ca/
Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2022 6:00 pm
by Leucius Charinus
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 1:40 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 10:50 pm
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 8:04 am
1.
how did the Romans all agree to follow a religion that never existed before Constantine?
The same way that (via R. Gmirkin) the Hebrews - Jewish and Samaritan - all agreed to follow a religion that never existed before Ptolemy II. Ditto for Ardashir and Zoroastrianism in the Sassanid Persian empire. Ditto for Muhammad and Islam in the Arabian empire. These book religions all followed civil wars and were implemented by the victorious war lord ("Savior") at the zenith of his military power. In each case the populace followed a top-down coalition-of-the-willing.
Luke 16:16:
The Good News of God's Kingdom Is Proclaimed and Everyone Is Forced into It
Gmirkin does not argue that the Judean and Samaritan populations "all agreed to follow a religion that never existed before".
Gmirkin argues that the Pentateuch was created c.274 BCE at the library of Alexandria during the rule, and with the sponsorship, of Ptolemy II Philadelphus - the son of one of Alexander's generals. It was produced by the ruling class. It was guided by the precepts of Plato relating to the creation of a new colony, with a new constitution that proclaimed to be ancient. Plato argued that the population should be enrolled in an appropriate education system. This included censorship of "deemed" competing material). Plato wrote that within a few generations the population would be on board (essentially "converted"). This Platonic "perfect theocrasy" would be brought into being by the guardian class. This is how I read Gmirkin.
Rather, he notes that there were theological debates among the authors of the Pentateuch and other Jewish writings.
My main point above is while that there may well have been theological debates following the appearance of the "Five Books of Moses" there were also "military debates". The victors of the military debates (between the ruling class and their challengers) were obviously influential in not only the theological debates but also in how the history of their victory was to be perceived. This included the perception of the history associated with the "Holy Book" at the center of the "Book Religion".
As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that there were forced conversions to the "one religion" until a good century after Gmirkin's proposed date for the Pentateuch. Even then, Jews and Samaritans were far from united as one cult under God.
I too must admit that I have not studied the history of the transmission into the Hebrew culture of the Books of Moses in the centuries following c.274 BCE. All I know is that the Jewish orthodoxy smashed the Samaritan temple c.110 BCE in what appears to have been an irreversible civil war.
Similarly with the rise of Islam. We need to distinguish between the myth of later times that attempted to claim a pure beginning when the religion just emerged suddenly completely formed in the shape it was known to take in later times.
All the "Book Religions" (Judaism 274 BCE, Sassanid Zoroastrianism 224 CE, Christianity 325 CE and Islam 620 CE) took a number of generations to "kick-start". A revolution was started but not finished. Opening gambits played by one generation formed the basis for the End Game played by later generations. For example the revised Nicene Creed of 381 CE supplanted the Nicene Creed of 325 CE. Each case is different but in common the "Book Cult" has the support, protection and favorable legislation from a warlord - a supreme military commander who had just been victorious in a civil war.
FYI I'd just like to repeat claim 5) in the OP:
5) All theories for the authorship of the NTC and the history of Christian origins may be entertained in relation to the transmission of the NTC to the 4th century, The proposal here is that no matter when the NTC was composed, whether Jesus is historical or mythical, when the NTC was published by Constantine, none of the books of the NTA had been authored.
[NTC = NT Canonical books]
[NTA = NT Apocryphal books]
Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2022 6:14 pm
by Leucius Charinus
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 8:41 am
Of course I think the thread title is certainly false.
(Origen may have mentioned more, but I'm not up for counting what LC will ignore.)
Are you up to admitting that -
* primary and secondary evidence is generally separated in historical investigations.
* primary evidence is generally more valuable than secondary evidence
* what is primary evidence in one investigation may be secondary evidence in another
* and vice verse
* in an investigation about "Non-Christian Literary Witnesses to the Historicity of Early Christians" the source known as Origen is a secondary source not a primary source.
* in an investigation about the authorship of the NT Apocryphal literature the church fathers / heresiologists are secondary sources not primary sources.
* could you address claim 5) in the OP
5) All theories for the authorship of the NTC and the history of Christian origins may be entertained in relation to the transmission of the NTC to the 4th century, The proposal here is that no matter when the NTC was composed, whether Jesus is historical or mythical, when the NTC was published by Constantine, none of the books of the NTA had been authored.
[NTC = NT Canonical books]
[NTA = NT Apocryphal books]