neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 4:39 am
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 12:41 pm
If the Church Fathers are our only source of information about early Christianity why do so many here arguing for another understanding of Christianity which is TOTALLY DIVORCED from the Church Fathers? Is that even likely?
A possibly relevant "response" from Mario Liverani . . . .
Mario Liverani wrote:Laziness is common among historians. When they find a continuous account of events for a certain period in an ‘ancient’ source, one that is not necessarily contemporaneous with the events, they readily adopt it. They limit their work to paraphrasing the source, or, if needed, to rationalisation.
Most mainstream biblical historians find the 38 volume set of the "Fathers" to be a continuous account stretching from the 1st century through to the early 5th century in three series: the Ante Nicene Fathers, the Nicene Fathers and the Post Nicene Fathers.
The Ante Nicene Fathers (for example Clement, Justin, Tertullian, Irenaeus et al) are data mined for historical nuggets prior to the Nicene Council. The Nicene Fathers (for example Eusebius, Lactantius, Athanasius) are data mined for historical nuggets from the Nicene Council, the Arian controversy and the opening gambits of the Christian State Revolution. The Post Nicene Fathers are data mined for the end-game of the Christian revolution which encompasses the Arian controversy and the anti-pagan decrees of Theodosius. The Post Nicene Fathers also reflect the commissioning of the Latin Church of Rome under Pontifex Maximus Damasus.
Nine centuries later c.1298 CE some of these "Post Nicene Fathers" (Jerome, Augustine and Ambrose) would be appointed by the Pope to become "Doctors of the Latin Church". The Latin education system would reflect the status of these "VIP sources" as "Doctors". Almost twelve centuries later c.1568 CE another set of these "Fathers" would become "Doctors" of the Greek church. (Athanasius, Gregory, Basil, Chrysostom). And once again the church education system would be adjusted to reflect these authoritative sources. Doctorates in Theology - the pinnacle of the education system at that time - needed to know everything that these 4th century "Doctors" preserved for the sake of posterity. What's changed? Nothing much. The church industry relentlessly promotes its own "historical" authorities and the its tertiary education sector is still growing.
Mario Liverani wrote:No one would recommend such a procedure on a theoretical level, but nonetheless it continues to be used, especially in fields where awareness of the methodology and aims of history is not great.
To be specific - quasi-historical procedures and criteria used in the mainstream study of the history of Christian origins. Stuff like the criterion of embarrassment. It's sick.
Mario Liverani wrote:It is only too easy to object – and it can never be repeated often enough – that such ‘ancient’ historical narratives are generally separated by decades or centuries from the events they narrate. Therefore they are not to be considered as primary sources, but as historical reconstructions in themselves.
Tell that to Mr Huller and his acolytes. Some of the ‘ancient’ historical narratives are a thousand years removed from the Nicene council. What could possibly go wrong following these narratives as "history"? That "we are assured this stuff is legit" does not cut it. Get real FFS. The "Fathers" are in all likelihood basically propaganda and "Fake News".
Mario Liverani wrote:And it is only too easy to recall – this too can never be repeated often enough – that such historical narratives do not have a ‘pure’ historical aim, if such an aim could ever exist. Their aim is political, moral, theological, or whatever else it may be, and therefore they view events from a particular perspective.
The perspective is likely to be related to the well-being of the monopoly business model of the church industry. If the church industry can commit genocides, inquisitions, executions, tortures, murders, exiles and the like, would they draw the line at fraud? We already have evidence that the organisation and industry which preserved the "Sacred Writings of the Fathers" fabricated the pseudo-historical narratives associated with the Holy Relic Trade. And the hagiographical and martyrological narratives of the Cult of the Saints and Martyrs.
Wake up. Church history says one thing. Political history says another (i.e. fraud)
“The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.” — Harry S Truman,
Obviously we have to ask questions from first principles. This implies investigating and questioning the authority and authenticity of the literary narratives preserved by the church. This isn't rocket science. This isn't about space aliens. It's about fraud.
Mario Liverani wrote:All these objections can be subsumed under a single point: history is not something that already exists or is already reconstructed, and that can be accepted without question.
Paraphrasing Mario: the history of the "Church Fathers" is not something that already exists or is already reconstructed, and that can be accepted without question.
Mario Liverani wrote:On the contrary, it is an active engagement, which the ancient authors took up in relation to their own needs, not to ours. In fact, the ‘lazy’ historian fails twice: first by refusing to take an active role, and then by preserving the active role of the ancient source without even recognizing the fact.
In the case of the history of Christian origins the ancient source is the "Fathers". Almost without exception their role was two fold. They were the emergent orthodoxy quoting the NT writings, and they were heresiologists identifying heresies and heresiarchs. The church narratives presented both sides of the conflict. They were the political victors.
Mainstream biblical scholars cite Tertullian for his knowledge of Marcion. How often do they cite Tertullian for his knowledge that Pontius Pilate converted to the Christian cult? What sort of special pleading is this?
Mario Liverani wrote:Instead, we need to take an active role with respect to the passive ‘material’ source. In order to make the ancient documents passive, we need to dismantle them and strip them of their specific ideology. First of all it is necessary to understand them truly – a task not always as easy and automatic as some seem to believe, and a task in need of proper analytical techniques.
- Liverani, Mario. Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2007. p. 28
The most primitive analytical is to ask what corroborating evidence exists which substantiates the narratives of the church fathers. To do this we must temporarily ignore the narratives of the church fathers and search through any and all external narratives of antiquity. These external narratives seem to me to be able to be stated as:
1) The narratives provided by the "heretics" - This will probably include the NT Apocryphal literature, including the Nag Hammadi library
2) The narratives provided by the non-Christian literary sources - this is outlined for discussion here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9833
3) The narratives provided by a study of the archaeology - useful links are provided here:
viewtopic.php?p=3416#p3416
What do we find in these external narratives which corroborates the church fathers?
OVER.