Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Historical Jesus

#43101  Postby RealityRules » Jun 18, 2020 4:30 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:
RealityRules wrote:Why do the Pauline letters turn up in Marcion's hands?

Because Eusebius and other church sources suggest they did?

Eusebius is a distant, later factor in this.

The church's first main propaganda about Paul is by Irenaeus in the 3rd of five books of his Against Heresies, starting within the very first section of that book: ie. III, 1,1) -

"Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church"


      Paul did get a previous mention in Adv. Haers. II, 21 where, after a weird rant in section 1 about the twelve apostles being representative of inferior Æons, Irenaeus starts an equally weird s. 2 with a mention of Paul [underlining mine] -
    Moreover we must not keep silence respecting Paul, but demand from them after the type of what Æon that apostle has been handed down to us, unless perchance [that he is a representative] of the Saviour compounded of them [all], [them] who derived his being from the collected gifts of the whole, and whom they term All Things, as having been formed out of them all. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103221.htm

      Is that confirmation that Paul is
      • a type of Æon?
      • "[a representative] of the Saviour compounded of them [all]"?
      • his being [derived] from the collected gifts of the whole"?
      • "formed out of them all"?

      Irenaeus went on [italics original here] -
    Respecting 'this being' the poet Hesiod has strikingly expressed himself, styling him Pandora — that is, The gift of all — for this reason, that the best gift in the possession of all was centred in him. In describing these gifts the following account is given: Hermes ... "implanted words of fraud and deceit in their minds, and thievish habits", for the purpose of leading foolish men astray, that such should believe their falsehoods. For their Mother — that is, Leto — secretly stirred them up (whence also she is called Leto, according to the meaning of the Greek word, because she secretly stirred up men), without the knowledge of the Demiurge, to give forth profound and unspeakable mysteries to itching ears [2 Timothy 4:3]. And not only did their Mother bring it about that this 'mystery' should be declared by Hesiod; but very skilfully also by means of the lyric poet Pindar, when he describes to the Demiurge the case of Pelops, whose flesh was cut in pieces by the Father, and then collected and brought together, and compacted anew by all the gods, did she in this way indicate Pandora and these men having their consciences seared by her, declaring, as they maintain, the very same things, are [proved] of the same family and spirit as the others.

      [a weird diversion]

Back to Against Heresies III.

Chapter 2 -

For [they (the so-called heretics) allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world" [1 Corinthians 2:6]


Then, in chapter 3, Irenaeus talks about -
"tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the 'very ancient', and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul" [and] "it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority."


There's no, little or vague mention of Paul in each of chapters 4 to 12 of bk III.

Chapter 13 of Adv. Haers. III starts -
1. With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him 'the mystery' was manifested 'by revelation', let Paul himself convict them, when he says,* that one and the same God wrought in Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision, and in himself for the Gentiles [Galatians 2:8]. Peter, therefore, was an apostle of that very God whose was also Paul ...

    * it's all taken on face value. Irenaeus is simply affirming Pauline assertions and doctrine as 'history'.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#43102  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 18, 2020 12:54 pm

It is true - that that the church source Irenaeus supports the proposition that Paul existed. It is also true that the church source Eusebius (c.325) is writing at a time distant and later than Irenaeus (c.180 CE).

It is equally true that the earliest manuscript for this church source Irenaeus (who wrote in Greek) is codex Claremontanus from the 10/11th century. This is a Latin manuscript. In 1526 Erasmus published a Latin edition for Irenaeus and is under the impression that Irenaeus was a Latin author No Greek manuscripts are early. Perhaps to remedy this situation in 1713 Pfaff publishes the Turin manuscript of Irenaeus in Greek. But Harnack declared it a forgery.

The church has had since its origins the means, the motive and the opportunity of forging manuscripts. Not just the so-called inauthentic letters of "Paul" (and also Seneca) but any documents which would serve their purpose.

Many biblical scholars rely on the existence of P.Oxy 405 - a Greek fragment of Irenaeus (citing "Matthew") and dated palaeographically c.200 CE without any range of error. I don't subscribe to a date without a range "earliest" and "latest". Neither am I convinced that palaeographical dating is always reliable in isolation as a dating method. Where does that leave the investigation?


The earliest possible date hasn't changed for Paul or for Irenaeus.

It's the latest possible dates that IMO are interesting.

What are the realistic limits of church forgery?



    Extracted from Joseph Wheless, "FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY", 1930

    Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons

    IRENAEUS (120-c. 200) Saint, Martyr, Bishop of Lyons; ex-
    Pagan of Smyrna, who emigrated to Gaul and became Bishop;
    "information of his life is scarce, and [as usual] in some measure
    inexact. ... Nothing is known of the date of his death, which may
    have occurred at the end of the second or beginning of the third
    century." (CE., vii, 130.) How then is it known that he was a
    Martyr? Of him Photius, ablest early critic in the Church, warns
    that in some of his works "the purity of truth, with respect to
    ecclesiastical traditions, is adulterated by his false and spurious
    readings" (Phot.; Bibl. ch. cxx); -- though why this invidious
    distinction of Irenaeus among all the clerical corruptors of
    "tradition" is not clear. The only surviving work of Irenaeus in
    four prolific Books is his notable Adversus Haereses, or, as was
    its full title, "A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely
    so Called," -- though he succeeds in falsely subverting no little
    real knowledge by his own idle fables. This work is called "one of
    the most precious remains of early Christian antiquity." Bishop St.
    Irenaeus quotes one apt sentiment from Homer, the precept of which
    he seems to approve, but which he and his Church confreres did not
    much put into practice:

    "Hateful to me that man as Hades' gates,
    Who one thing thinks, while he another states."

    (Iliad, ix, 312, 313; Adv. Haer. III, xxxiii, 3.)

    JESUS DIED OF OLD AGE!

    Most remarkable of the "heresies" attacked and refuted by
    Bishop Irenaeus, is one which had just gained currency in written
    form in the newly published "Gospels of Jesus Christ," in the form
    of the "tradition" that Jesus had been crucified to death early in
    the thirties of his life, after a preaching career of only about
    one year, according to three of the new Gospels, of about three
    years, according to the fourth. This is rankly false and
    fictitious, on the "tradition" of the real gospel and of all the
    Apostles, avows Bishop Irenaeus, like Bishop Papias earlier in the
    century; and he boldly combated it as "heresy." It is not true, he
    asserts, that Jesus Christ died so early in life and after so brief
    a career. "How is it possible," be demands, "that the Lord preached
    for one year only?"; and on the quoted authority of John the
    Apostle himself, of "the true Gospel," and of "all the elders," the
    saintly Bishop urges the falsity and "heresy" of the Four Gospels
    on this crucial point. Textually, and with quite fanciful
    reasonments, he says that Jesus did not die so soon:

    "For he came to save all through means of Himself -- all,
    I say, who through Him are born again to God -- infants, and
    children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore
    passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus
    sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying
    those who are of this age; a youth for youths, and thus
    sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man
    for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not
    merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as
    regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and
    becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came
    on to death itself, that He might be 'the first-born from the
    dead.'

    "They, however, that they may establish their false
    opinion regarding that which is written, 'to proclaim the
    acceptable year of the Lord,' maintain that he preached for
    one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In
    speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage,
    destroying His work and robbing Him of that age which is both
    more necessary and more honorable than any other; that more
    advanced age, I mean, during which also, as a teacher, He
    excelled all others. ...

    "Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty
    years, and that this extends onward to the fortieth year,
    every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year
    a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord
    possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher,
    even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were
    conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord,
    (affirming) that John conveyed to them that information. AND
    HE REMAINED AMONG THEM UP TO THE TIMES OF TRAJAN [Roman
    Emperor, A.D. 98-117]. Some of them, moreover, saw not only
    John, but the other Apostles also, and heard the very same
    account from them, and bear testimony as to [the validity of
    ] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?"
    (Iren.
    Adv. Haer. Bk. II, ch. xxii, secs. 3, 4, 5; ANF. I, 891-2.)

    The Bishop's closing question is pertinent, and we shall come
    back to it in due course.

    Irenaeus also vouches his belief in magic arts, repeating as
    true the fabulous stories of Simon Magus and his statue in the
    Tiber and the false recital of the inscription on it; and as a
    professional heresy-hunter he falls upon Simon as the Father of
    Heresy: "Now this Simon of Samaria, from whom all heresies derive
    their origin. ... The successor of this man was Menander, also a
    Samaritan by birth; and he, too, was a perfect adept in the
    practice of magic." (Adv. Haer. I, xxiii; ANF. i, 348.)

    -- extracted from Joseph Wheless,
    "FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY", 1930
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 843

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43103  Postby RealityRules » Jun 18, 2020 11:10 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Irenaeus also vouches his belief in magic arts, repeating as true the fabulous stories of Simon Magus and his statue in the Tiber and the false recital of the inscription on it; and as a professional heresy-hunter he falls upon Simon as the Father of Heresy: "Now this Simon of Samaria, from whom all heresies derive their origin. ... The successor of this man was Menander, also a Samaritan by birth; and he, too, was a perfect adept in the practice of magic." (Adv. Haer. I, xxiii; ANF. i, 348.)

-- extracted from Joseph Wheless, "Forgery in Christianity", 1930

Jan N. Bremmer (2019) 'Simon Magus: The Invention and Reception of a Magician in a Christian Context', Religion in the Roman Empire 5(2); pp. 246ff -

    "In my contribution I propose to offer an analysis which will elucidate the gradual emergence of the main features of Simon Magus in the course of late antiquity, the Christian difficulties in distinguishing miracles from magic, and the changing face of magic in late antiquity. Having discussed his first occurrence in the Acts of the Apostles (c. 100–120 CE or even later) and in the Church Fathers Justin and Irenaeus (c. 150–180), I will proceed with his role in the apocryphal Acts of Peter (c. 190) and his presentation in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies in the mid-fourth century, and end with some conclusions regarding the nature of Simon Magus as magician, the nature of his literary persona, and the changing place of the magician in late antiquity."
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43104  Postby RealityRules » Jun 18, 2020 11:19 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Extracted from Joseph Wheless, "FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY", 1930

    Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons

    IRENAEUS (120-c. 200) Saint, Martyr, Bishop of Lyons; ex-Pagan of Smyrna, who emigrated to Gaul and became Bishop; "information of his life is scarce, and [as usual] in some measure inexact. ... Nothing is known of the date of his death, which may have occurred at the end of the second or beginning of the third century." (CE., vii, 130.) How then is it known that he was a Martyr?*

    Of him Photius, ablest early critic in the Church, warns that, in some of his works, "the purity of truth, with respect to ecclesiastical traditions, is adulterated by his false and spurious readings" (Phot.; Bibl. ch. cxx); -- though why this invidious distinction of Irenaeus among all the clerical corruptors of "tradition" is not clear. The only surviving work of Irenaeus in four prolific Books is his notable Adversus Haereses, or, as was its full title, "A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely so Called," -- though he succeeds in falsely subverting no little real knowledge by his own idle fables. This work is called "one of the most precious remains of early Christian antiquity." ...

lol, Yep.

* isn't there a proposition that he was killed by heretical Christians in Gaul?

It's interesting the key ''Church Fathers'', Irenaeus and Tertullian, were supposedly working in relative isolation at the edges of the Empire, not in brotherhood with others, in those key times in the early 'Church'.
Last edited by RealityRules on Jun 19, 2020 9:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43105  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 19, 2020 1:14 pm

RealityRules wrote:It's interesting the key ''Church Fathers'', Irenaeus and Tertullian, were supposedly working in relative isolation at the edges of the Empire, not in brotherhood with others, in those key times in the early 'Church'.


It is said that writers are often concerned with the political issues of the time in which they wrote. Irenaeus and Tertullian were both concerned with heresy before there was any strong orthodoxy (such as the later 4th century). Irenaeus and Tertullian were both concerned with the apostolic succession and Roman primacy (something Pope Damasus was very interested in). The dating of the Latin manuscript for Irenaeus to 380 CE puts it square under the influence of Damasus, and his key pupil Jerome without whom the Latin church could not have been kick-started. Irenaeus mentions books found in the Nag Hammadi library which is dated to the mid 4th century. Did he see these "heretical books" in the 2nd century, or did he see these books in circulation in the mid 4th century?

The proposition that the works of these two writers are the product of the later church has a reasonable explanatory power. It is consistent with the proposition that the church fabricated all of its key documents and when it became the orthodox monopoly industry in the religious sector in the later 4th century, it simply fabricated more sources to support and reflect its ongoing business model.

Here is an article that suggests Irenaeus is a forged source:

    Why Irenaeus may be dismissed as an early source for “apostolic succession”

    ///

    Roger Collins has noted, writing of the Symmachan forgeries”, describes these “pro-Roman” “enhancements” to history:

      So too would the spurious historical texts written anonymously or ascribed to earlier authors that are known collectively as the Symmachan forgeries. This was the first occasion on which the Roman church had revisited its own history, in particular the third and fourth centuries, in search of precedents That these were largely invented does not negate the significance of the process. Forgery is an emotive word, and it should not necessarily be assumed that the documents, including the acts of two synods, were cynically concocted to justify a particular claim. Some of the periods in question, such as the pontificates of Sylvester and Liberius (352-366), were already being seen more through the prism of legend than that of history, and in the Middle Ages texts were often forged because their authors were convinced of the truth of what they contained. Their faked documents provided tangible evidence of what was already believed true.

    Thus, he says, “It is no coincidence that the first systematic works of papal history appear at the very time the Roman church’s past was being reinvented for polemical purposes.” (Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven,” pgs 80-82).

    Thus it is “not inconsistent” with the facts as we know them, and in fact, it is possible to suggest that there is a high degree of probability, given that there is no complete Greek text, and a “translation” of the text dating to 380, during the time when Damasus was beginning to work to enhance Rome’s status vis-à-vis actual history, that this “controversial text” was doctored to enhance Rome’s status.

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/ ... early.html
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 843

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43106  Postby Clive Durdle » Jun 19, 2020 3:06 pm

Mention of mystery, perfect, Demi urge here reminds me of another heresy that some were definitely against - the Cathars! Would tracing the alleged heresies and what the Orthodoxy was so agin give clues to what this originally was? I propose it was a Greek mystery religion merged with Judaism and a dash of Zoroaster to taste :-)
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive Durdle
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4854

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43107  Postby Clive Durdle » Jun 19, 2020 3:16 pm

The discussion of what is forgery is very important here. We are looking at people who believed the Christ had come and they were the bearers of the truth. When they built a cathedral with weak walls they would erect buttresses. If they found weaknesses in the greatest story ever told, why not build word buttresses? Is a cathedral buttress a forgery? Why then is a word buttress?
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive Durdle
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4854

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#43108  Postby Clive Durdle » Jun 19, 2020 3:21 pm

I wonder if the arrow of time is important here. We believe strongly that time is linear, but most peoples have seen it as circular. If you are attempting to build God’s kingdom on earth, why not hone the truthiness of something as your skills improve?

Maybe it is us with our concept of forgery and before and after are causing problems for the truthiness of this? :-)
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive Durdle
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4854

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43109  Postby RealityRules » Jun 19, 2020 10:08 pm

The grammarian Asclepiades of Myrlea (first century BCE)...defined three kinds of stories:

    history (historia), fiction (plasma), and [i]mythos[/i] ...
Asclepiades’s threefold categorization was rehearsed in a handbook the orator Quintilian wrote around the same time the gospels were [supposedly] written (the late first century CE). [Quintilian] said,

    “We accept three kinds of narrative . . . : fable, found in tragedies and poems and remote not only from the truth but also from the appearance of truth; fiction, made up by comedians as false but like the truth; and history, which contains the exposition of events that happened.”
In this account, mythos is translated as “fable” (fabula) and is considered to be untrue. By untrue, Quintilian evidently meant that the events recounted in fable did not actually happen. ... After reading these definitions, one might have the impression that mythoi or fabulae were thought to be stories that were by definition untrue. Yet the relation between mythoi and truth was more complex.

Plato [who had a big influence on writers and philosophies of the times, had] famously created an eikos mythos—a plausible myth that he intended, in some fashion, to speak the undercurrent of truth. Truth could also be found in mythoi, for the ancients hid their wisdom even in strange and fantastical stories.

Aelius Theon, a first-century CE author of a manual on preliminary rhetorical exercises, gave the following definition ...

    Mythos is a false story [logos] offering an image [eikonizōn] of truth.”
from the 'Introduction: the Gospels, Mythology, and Historiography', in Litwa, M. David (2019). How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths, Yale University Press; part of a series titled, Synkrisis: a series on Comparative Approaches to Early Christianity in Greco-Roman Culture.


Litwa then quotes another first century CE writer, Plutarch, saying much the same thing, -

    Mythos,” he opined, “means a false story [logos] resembling the truth [eoikōs alēthinōi].

And notes -
Plutarch posited an ontological hierarchy based in part on his Platonic philosophy. The actual events (erga) are considered most real, while 'historical' narrative (logos) relat[ed] those events [a]s a second-order representation. Even less real is mythos, a third-order simulation of the second-order account (logos).


Moreover, -
According to both Theon and Plutarch, the definition of mythos included what Asclepiades and Quintilian called plasma—“fiction,” or more literally “a made-up story.” Plasma designated a story that did not happen but could have happened and in many cases seemed to have happened. For Plutarch specifically, there [wa]s nothing necessarily impossible about a mythos. In fact, a mythos can resemble an account of what occurred, even if the resemblance implie[d] a failure to accurately represent the events. As a result, there was no absolute division between mythos and historia. A mythos, just like historia, could be believed, especially if the mythos was embedded in historiography or history-like literature.

... In the second century CE, for instance, Lucian called Thucydides “the lawgiver of historical writing.” Yet hardly any later historian lived up to—or even aimed to live up to—the standards of Thucydides. Many of them followed the tradition of Herodotus by weaving in fantastic and entertaining tales ...

Mythoi in the ancient world were widely viewed as entertaining. According to Seneca, historians tapped into the entertainment value of mythoi to spice up their writing ... historians who skillfully blended mythoi into their work were often quite successful—a fact that Lucian lamented in the mid-second century CE.

Litwa, M. David (2019). How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths, Yale University Press


Litwa has a sub-section titled. 'Historiographical Tropes', that includes
Perhaps the most important historiographical trope is objectification, or presenting an event as if it occurred in space and time. Not all events are objective in this fashion. In fact, a great deal of what occurs in human experience cannot be precisely described as an external event. Dreams, visions, perceptions of divine intervention, and so on are deeply personal and idiosyncratic experiences. Nevertheless, humans regularly tell stories about them ...

A good example of objectification is the description of Jesus’s resurrection appearances ...

... Synchrony...is the mention of famous persons who lived at the same time as the depicted hero. The third evangelist, for instance, mentioned the governor of Syria, Quirinius, as a contemporary of Jesus (Luke 2:2). This author wrongly dated the rule of Quirinius by about a decade, but the very mention of him as a well-known ruler (along with the then universally known “Caesar Augustus”) increased the realism of his tale.

A similar trope might be called syntopy, the mention of real and familiar places. The evangelists placed Jesus in Galilee under the administration of a historical Jewish king (Herod Antipas). The third evangelist intentionally clarified elements in an earlier evangelist’s topography (Luke 8:26 and Mark 5:1; Luke 4:31 and Mark 1:21), and added a travel narrative showing a discrete move from Galilee to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51–19:28).

Other tropes include the introduction of eyewitnesses, vivid presentation (enargeia), alternative reports, links of causation, and (in the case of the third gospel) a preface highlighting 'deliberate research'. In using these tropes, the evangelists imitated the historicizing practices of Greco-Roman authors and gave the impression that they wrote historiography.

Litwa, M. David (2019). How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths, Yale University Press


Among these outlines and discussions, Litwa had noted, among other things, -
... an author claiming to be Paul associated mythos with Jewish lore (2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:14) and “old wives’ tales” (1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7).

and
A writer claiming to be the apostle Peter denied that he and his fellow apostles promoted “cleverly devised mythoi” (2 Pet. 1:16).


And said

    "Nevertheless, mythic historiography was still a widespread form of historiography that proved both entertaining and successful."

Litwa, M. David (2019). How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths, Yale University Press
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43110  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 20, 2020 9:24 am

Clive Durdle wrote:The discussion of what is forgery is very important here.


What is forgery?

"a 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."

~ A.M.
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 843

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43111  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 20, 2020 10:01 am

Clive Durdle wrote:Maybe it is us with our concept of forgery and before and after are causing problems for the truthiness of this? :-)



The forgery is not a simple and straight-forward one-off event. The forgery transmitted from antiquity to the present day must be expected to have at least several chronological layers. Also at least two languages: Greek and Latin.


Sample layers in the forgery of Christian literature

Layer 1: The "Early Christian literary school" (which centuries)
Layer 2: Constantine and Eusebius (4th century)
Layer 3: Theodosius and Damasus - (4th century)
Layer 4: Corbie Abbey Latin forgery mill- Pseudo-Isidore (9th century)
Layer 5: Church Industry CEO John de Medici (Pope Leo X) at the time of the Printing Press (15th century)
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 843

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43112  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 20, 2020 10:23 am

RealityRules wrote:And said

    "Nevertheless, mythic historiography was still a widespread form of historiography that proved both entertaining and successful."

Litwa, M. David (2019). How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths, Yale University Press


Emperor Julian wrote that the literary fabrication of the Christians "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." I don't know what the Greek word being translated as "fable" here. Good point about the world being full of mythic literature.

Historiography is an interesting study when applied to Christian literature. I have tended to identify chronological layers in it as follows:

1) canonical literature (when?)
2) non canonical literature (when?)
3) ecclesiastical history (325 CE: Eusebius and continuators)
4) persecutions and martyrologies (325 CE: Eusebius and continuators)
5) hagiography (360 CE: Athanasius and continuators)
6) heresiological literature (when?)

IDK whether these are capable of being classed as different forms of historiography. They do seem to me to be distinct forms of Christian literature which in many cases consists of anonymous documents without a date or a provenance.
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 843

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43113  Postby RealityRules » Jun 20, 2020 10:38 pm

Tertullian Against Marcion V, 1.1, in part, -
... As then I have now in the ordering of my treatise reached this part of the subject, I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher. For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed without good reason, and that what is believed without good reason is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace. So when I am told that he was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design.
.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43114  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 21, 2020 10:18 am

RealityRules wrote:
The grammarian Asclepiades of Myrlea (first century BCE)...defined three kinds of stories:

    history (historia), fiction (plasma), and [i]mythos[/i] ...
Asclepiades’s threefold categorization was rehearsed in a handbook the orator Quintilian wrote around the same time the gospels were [supposedly] written (the late first century CE). [Quintilian] said,

    “We accept three kinds of narrative . . . : fable, found in tragedies and poems and remote not only from the truth but also from the appearance of truth; fiction, made up by comedians as false but like the truth; and history, which contains the exposition of events that happened.”
In this account, mythos is translated as “fable” (fabula) and is considered to be untrue. By untrue, Quintilian evidently meant that the events recounted in fable did not actually happen. ... After reading these definitions, one might have the impression that mythoi or fabulae were thought to be stories that were by definition untrue. Yet the relation between mythoi and truth was more complex.

Plato [who had a big influence on writers and philosophies of the times, had] famously created an eikos mythos—a plausible myth that he intended, in some fashion, to speak the undercurrent of truth. Truth could also be found in mythoi, for the ancients hid their wisdom even in strange and fantastical stories.

Aelius Theon, a first-century CE author of a manual on preliminary rhetorical exercises, gave the following definition ...

    Mythos is a false story [logos] offering an image [eikonizōn] of truth.”
from the 'Introduction: the Gospels, Mythology, and Historiography', in Litwa, M. David (2019). How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths, Yale University Press; part of a series titled, Synkrisis: a series on Comparative Approaches to Early Christianity in Greco-Roman Culture.


Litwa then quotes another first century CE writer, Plutarch, saying much the same thing, -

    Mythos,” he opined, “means a false story [logos] resembling the truth [eoikōs alēthinōi].

And notes -
Plutarch posited an ontological hierarchy based in part on his Platonic philosophy. The actual events (erga) are considered most real, while 'historical' narrative (logos) relat[ed] those events [a]s a second-order representation. Even less real is mythos, a third-order simulation of the second-order account (logos).


Moreover, -
According to both Theon and Plutarch, the definition of mythos included what Asclepiades and Quintilian called plasma—“fiction,” or more literally “a made-up story.” Plasma designated a story that did not happen but could have happened and in many cases seemed to have happened. For Plutarch specifically, there [wa]s nothing necessarily impossible about a mythos. In fact, a mythos can resemble an account of what occurred, even if the resemblance implie[d] a failure to accurately represent the events. As a result, there was no absolute division between mythos and historia. A mythos, just like historia, could be believed, especially if the mythos was embedded in historiography or history-like literature.

... In the second century CE, for instance, Lucian called Thucydides “the lawgiver of historical writing.” Yet hardly any later historian lived up to—or even aimed to live up to—the standards of Thucydides. Many of them followed the tradition of Herodotus by weaving in fantastic and entertaining tales ...

Mythoi in the ancient world were widely viewed as entertaining. According to Seneca, historians tapped into the entertainment value of mythoi to spice up their writing ... historians who skillfully blended mythoi into their work were often quite successful—a fact that Lucian lamented in the mid-second century CE.

Litwa, M. David (2019). How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths, Yale University Press


Litwa has a sub-section titled. 'Historiographical Tropes', that includes
Perhaps the most important historiographical trope is objectification, or presenting an event as if it occurred in space and time. Not all events are objective in this fashion. In fact, a great deal of what occurs in human experience cannot be precisely described as an external event. Dreams, visions, perceptions of divine intervention, and so on are deeply personal and idiosyncratic experiences. Nevertheless, humans regularly tell stories about them ...

A good example of objectification is the description of Jesus’s resurrection appearances ...

... Synchrony...is the mention of famous persons who lived at the same time as the depicted hero. The third evangelist, for instance, mentioned the governor of Syria, Quirinius, as a contemporary of Jesus (Luke 2:2). This author wrongly dated the rule of Quirinius by about a decade, but the very mention of him as a well-known ruler (along with the then universally known “Caesar Augustus”) increased the realism of his tale.

A similar trope might be called syntopy, the mention of real and familiar places. The evangelists placed Jesus in Galilee under the administration of a historical Jewish king (Herod Antipas). The third evangelist intentionally clarified elements in an earlier evangelist’s topography (Luke 8:26 and Mark 5:1; Luke 4:31 and Mark 1:21), and added a travel narrative showing a discrete move from Galilee to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51–19:28).

Other tropes include the introduction of eyewitnesses, vivid presentation (enargeia), alternative reports, links of causation, and (in the case of the third gospel) a preface highlighting 'deliberate research'. In using these tropes, the evangelists imitated the historicizing practices of Greco-Roman authors and gave the impression that they wrote historiography.

Litwa, M. David (2019). How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths, Yale University Press


Among these outlines and discussions, Litwa had noted, among other things, -
... an author claiming to be Paul associated mythos with Jewish lore (2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:14) and “old wives’ tales” (1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7).

and
A writer claiming to be the apostle Peter denied that he and his fellow apostles promoted “cleverly devised mythoi” (2 Pet. 1:16).


And said

    "Nevertheless, mythic historiography was still a widespread form of historiography that proved both entertaining and successful."

Litwa, M. David (2019). How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths, Yale University Press



That's a good background to the question as to where the NT fits in.

History, fiction or mythos?

What a can of worms. Its also a good background to question as to where "church history" fits in, Another can of worms.

Vridar has some stuff on Litwa's "How the gospels became history"
https://vridar.org/2020/02/06/review-co ... ory-litwa/

Froom the above: Plato posits an "eikos mythos" — a plausible myth that he intended, in some fashion, to speak the undercurrent of truth. Truth could also be found in mythoi, for the ancients hid their wisdom even in strange and fantastical stories. . Most of the others quoted above say myth is not truth and not true.

Plato seems to be special case by classing certain myths as having an undercurrent of truth.
Maybe he was referring to the construction of politicised myth and the creation of "National Approved Literature"?

"If there exist laws under which men have been reared up and which (by the blessing of Heaven) have remained unaltered for many centuries, so that there exists no recollection or report of their ever having been different from what they now are, then the whole soul is forbidden by reverence and fear to alter any of the things established of old. By hook or by crook, then, the lawgiver must devise a means whereby this shall be true of his State. (Plato, Laws 7.798a-b)" ---- (Gmirkin, 254).
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 843

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43115  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 21, 2020 10:24 am

RealityRules wrote:Tertullian Against Marcion V, 1.1, in part, -
... As then I have now in the ordering of my treatise reached this part of the subject, I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher. For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed without good reason, and that what is believed without good reason is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace. So when I am told that he was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design.
.


Some of Tertullian's earliest known manuscripts were carefully preserved in, or near, Corbie Abbey. A crime scene known as Pseudo-Isidore. Tertullian is planted in Carthage. Here's Whelas' take.

I don't seem to get tired of reading Whelas. He certainly cites his material.

    Whelas on Tertullian

    TERTULLIAN: Bishop of Carthage, in Africa; ex-Pagan born
    about 160, died 220. He was "the first of the Latin theological
    writers; ... and the first witness to the existence of a Latin
    Bible ... Tertullian's canon of the O.T. included the deutero-
    canonical books -- [i.e. the forged apocrypha]. ... He also cites
    the Book of Henoch [Enoch] as inspired, ... also recognizes IV
    Esdras and the Sibyl." (CE. xiv, 525.)

    He was the most violent distribist of them all in promoting
    the Christian religion, but renounced Christianity after 200 and
    became equally violent in propagating the extravagant heresy of
    Montanus. In this recantation of faith he gave evidence that he was
    in error in his former complete acceptance of Christianity as the
    last word and irrevocable posture in revealed truth, -- and
    revealed his own errant credulity. In attacking the heretics --
    before he became one, of the most preposterous sect, -- he thus
    formulates the assurance of the finality of Christian Faith: "One
    has succeeded in finding definite truth, when he belie lies. ...
    After we have believed, search should cease." (Against Heresies,
    ch. xi; ANF. iii, 248.) Tertullian is noted for several
    declamations regarding the assurance of faith which have become
    famous, as they are fatuous: "Credo quia incredibilis est -- I
    believe because it is unbelievable"; and, like Paul's "I am become
    a fool in glorying," he vaunts thus his own folly: "Other matters
    for shame I find none which can prove me to be shameless in a good
    sense, and foolish in a happy one, by my own contempt for shame.
    The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed [to believe it]
    because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died;
    it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was
    buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is
    impossible." (De Carne Christi, ch. v; ANF. iii, 525.) Reasoning
    thus, -- or quite without reason -- Christians yet believe these
    confessed absurdities and impossibilities.

    Tertullian denounces the sin of theater-going, and in this
    awful illustration he invokes his God to witness of one of his lies
    to God's glory: "We have the case of the woman -- the Lord Himself
    is witness -- who went to the theater, and came back possessed. In
    the outcasting (exorcism), accordingly, when the unclean creature
    was upbraided with having dared to attack a believer, he firmly
    replied: 'And in truth I did most righteously, for I found her in
    my domain.'" (De Spectaculis, ch. xxvi; ANF. iii, 90.) In one of
    his sumptuary diatribes on woman's dress -- yet a favorite theme of
    the Vicars of God, though nowadays the complaint is of nether
    brevity -- he warns and assures: "to us the Lord has, even by
    revelations, measured the space for the veil to extend over. For a
    certain sister of ours was thus addressed by an angel, beating her
    neck," and telling her that she had as well be "bare down to your
    loins" as any elsewhere below the neck. (On the Veiling of Virgins,
    ch. xvii; ANF. iv, 37.) And he expresses the clerical concept of
    women, saying that "females, subjected as they are throughout to
    men, bear in their front an honorable mark of their virginity."
    (Ib. ch. x, p. 33.) The celibate Fathers all glorified the
    suppression of sex: "Marriage replenishes the earth, virginity
    fills Paradise," says St. Jerome. (Adv. Jovianum, I, 17; N&PNF. vi,
    360.) The Fathers regarded Woman as did St. Chrysostom: "a
    necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a
    domestic peril, a deadly fascination, and a painted ill!" Good
    Father Tertullian, in his Exhortation to Chastity, has chapters
    captioned: "Second Marriage a Species of Adultery," and "Marriage
    Itself Impugned as akin to Adultery." (On Chastity, chs. ix, x;
    ANF. iv, 55.)

    Strongly, and upon what seems good physiological reason, he
    "denies the virginity of Mary, the mother of Christ, in part,
    though he affirms it [oddly] ante partum." (CE. xiv, 523.) Father
    Tertullian was strong in advocacy of virginity not alone feminine,
    but of the men, exclaiming, "So many men-virgins, so many voluntary




    128



    eunuchs" (Ib.). He commends with marked approval the fanatical
    incitation of the Christ to self-mutilation "for the kingdom of
    heaven's sake" (Mt. xix, 11), and avers that to this same cause was
    due Paul's much-complained-of "thorn in the flesh," saying: "The
    Lord Himself opens the kingdoms of heaven to eunuchs, as being
    Himself a virgin; to whom looking, the apostle [Paul] also -- for
    this reason -- gives the preference to continence (I Cor. vii, 1,
    7, 37, 40). ... 'Good,' he says, 'it is for a man not to have
    contact with her, for nothing is contrary to good except evil."'
    (On Monogamy, ch. iii; ANF. iv, 60.) For like reason it was, he
    assures, that Noah was ordered to take two of each animal into the
    ark, "for fear that even beasts should be born of adultery. ...
    Even unclean birds were not allowed to enter with two females
    each." (Ib. ch. iv; p. 62.) Father Tertullian shares the fantastic
    notions of natural history stated by Bishop St. Barnabas; in proof
    of the eternal renovation of all things, Tertullian says: "The
    serpent crawls into a cave and out of his skin, and uncoils himself
    in a new youth; with his scales, his years, too, are repudiated.
    The hyena, if you observe, is of annual sex, alternately masculine
    and feminine. ... The stag, feeding on the serpent, languishes --
    from the effects of the poison -- into youth." (On the Pallium, ch.
    iii; ANF. iv, 7.) Magic admirably supplements nature and medical
    remedies as cure for the scorpion's sting, assures Father
    Tertullian: "Among cures certain substances supplied by nature have
    very great efficacy; magic also puts on some bandages." (Scorpiace,
    ch. i; ANF. iii, 633.)

    Like all the credulous ex-Pagan Fathers of Christianity,
    Tertullian is a confirmed Sibyllist, and believes the forged Pagan
    oracles as inspired truth of God. Citing several of her
    "prophecies," he assures with confidence: "And the Sibyl is thus
    proved no liar." (Pallium, ch. ii; ANF. iv, 6.)

    Tertullian admits, in a tu quoque argument, that the
    Christians are sun-worshippers: "You [Pagans] say we worship the
    sun; so do you." (CE. xiv, 525; Ad. Nationes, xiii; ANF. iii, 123.)
    He is in common with the Fathers in the belief in magic and
    astrology, which since Christ, however, are turned into holier
    channels in token of His divinity: "But Magi and astrologers came
    from the East (Matt. ii). We know the mutual reliance of magic and
    astrology. The interpreters of the stars, then, were the first to
    announce Christ's birth, the first to present gifts. ... Astrology
    now-a-days, forsooth, treats of Christ -- is the science of the
    stars of Christ; not of Saturn, or of Mars. But, however, that
    science has been allowed until the Gospel, in order that after
    Christ's birth no one should thenceforward interpret anyone's
    nativity by the heaven." (On Idolatry, ch. ix; ANF. iii, 65.)

    In common with all the Fathers, Tertullian appeals to the
    Phoenix as proof supreme of the resurrection of the body. It will
    be noticed, that the modern false translators of our Bibles have
    slipped in another bit of falsification by suppressing the word
    "phoenix" in the passage quoted by Tertullian, and have substituted
    the word "palm-tree" to express the flourishing state of the
    righteous, as there depicted:






    129



    "Then take a most complete and unassailable symbol of our
    hope [of resurrection], subject alike to life and death. I
    refer to the bird which is peculiar to the East, famous for
    its singularity, marvelous from its posthumous life, which
    renews its life in a voluntary death; its dying day is its
    birthday, for on it it departs and returns: once more a
    phoenix where just now there was none; once more himself, but
    just now out of existence; another, yet the same. What can be
    more express and more significant for our subject; or to what
    other thing can such a phenomenon bear witness? God even in
    His own Scripture says: 'The righteous shall flourish like the
    phoenix' [Greek Septuagint: Dikaios os phoenix anthesei; Ps.
    xcii, 12]. Must men die once for all, while birds in Arabia
    are sure of a resurrection?" (Tert., On the Resurrection of
    the Flesh, ch. xiii; ANF. iii, 554.)

    Father Tertullian vouches, too, with the other Fathers, for
    the bogus official Report of Pilate to Caesar, and for Pilate's
    conversion to Christianity, saying: "All these things Pilate did to
    Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent
    word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius.
    Yes, and even the Caesars would have believed on Christ, if either
    the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians
    could have been Caesars." (Apol. ch. xxi; ANF. iii,. 35.) Father
    Tertullian gives fall credence to the fable of the Septuagint, and
    assures the Emperors: "To this day, at the temple of Serapis, the
    librariis of Ptolemy are to be seen, with the identical Hebrew
    originals in them." (Apology, to the Rulers of the Roman Empire, I,
    xviii; ANF. iii, 32.) And, as all the other Fathers, he gives full
    faith and credit to the Pagan gods, as "effective witnesses for
    Christ"; -- "Yes, and we shall prove that your own gods are
    effective witnesses for Christ ... "Yes, and we shall prove that
    your own gods are effective witnesses for Christ. ... Against the
    Greeks we urge that Orpheus, at Piera, Musaeus at Athens, (etc.)
    imposed religious rites. ... Numa Pompilius laid on the Romans a
    heavy load of costly superstitions. Surely Christ, then, had a
    right to reveal Deity." (Apol. ch. xxi; ANF. iii, 36.) Like the
    other Fathers, Tertullian is also in the ranks of patristic forgers
    of holy fables, being either the author or the publisher of "The
    Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas," the fabulous
    Martyrdom of two of the Church's most celebrated bogus Saints,
    annexed to his accredited works. (ANF. iii, 699-706.)




    -- extracted from Joseph Wheless,
    "FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY", 1930
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 843

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#43116  Postby RealityRules » Jun 21, 2020 11:27 pm

RealityRules wrote:Tertullian Against Marcion V, 1.1, in part, -
... I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher .... I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace.

So when I am told that he was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight* in 'the fact' that Christ did not know beforehand* that he would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design.
.
( * chiding The Lord and Christ is an interesting approach)

Tertullian goes on -
will you please tell us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle; who had stamped him with that mark of distinction; who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge?
.

Then Tertullian shifts -
Only so may you with confidence disembark him: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who has put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship.

Tertullian then noted Marcion had said Paul himself claims to be an apostle, and then quoted Paul's Galatians 1:1, "not of/from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ" [Gal 1:1].

Tertullian's next sentence is -
Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person's attestation.

- ie. rather than dissing Marcion as he usually does, Tertullian gives Marcion credibility, albeit briefly, before resuming his rhetorical attack -

If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ. Thus far my converse has been in the guise of a disciple and an inquirer: from now on I propose to shatter your confidence, for you have no means of proving its validity, and to shame your presumption, since you make claims but reject the means of establishing them. Let Christ, let the apostle, belong to your other god: yet you have no proof of it except from the Creator's archives.

But then, -
Even Genesis long ago promised Paul to me.

Among those figures and prophetical blessings over his sons, when Jacob had got to Benjamin he said,

    Benjamin is a ravening wolf: until morning he will still devour,
    and in the evening will distribute food [Genesis 49:27]

He foresaw that Paul would arise of the tribe of Benjamin, a ravening wolf devouring until the morning, that is, one who in
his early life would harass the Lord's flock as a persecutor of the churches, and then at evening would distribute food,
that is, in declining age would feed Christ's sheep as the doctor of the gentiles.

Also the harshness at first of Saul's pursuit of David, and afterwards his repentance and contentment on receiving good for evil, had nothing else in view except Paul in Saul according to tribal descent, and Jesus in David by the Virgin's descent from him. If these figurative mysteries do not please you, certainly the Acts of the Apostles have handed down to me this history of Paul, nor can you deny it.

From them I 'prove' that the persecutor became 'an apostle, not from men, nor by a man' [Gal 1:1, again] - from them I am led even to believe him: by their means I dislodge you from your claim to him, and have no fear of you when you ask, And do you then deny that Paul is an apostle? I speak no evil against him whom I retain for myself. If I deny, it is to force you to prove. If I deny, it is to enforce my claim that he is mine.

Otherwise, if you have your eye on our belief, accept the evidence on which it depends. If you challenge us to adopt yours, tell us the facts on which it is founded. Either prove that the things you believe really are so: or else, if you have no proof, how can you believe? Or who are you, to believe in despite of him from whom alone there is proof of what you believe? So then accept the apostle on my evidence, as you do Christ: he is my apostle, as also Christ is mine.
.
Last edited by RealityRules on Jun 22, 2020 4:18 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43117  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 22, 2020 1:08 am

RealityRules wrote:
RealityRules wrote:
Tertullian Against Marcion V, 1.1, in part, -

... ///

If these figurative mysteries do not please you, certainly the Acts of the Apostles have handed down to me this history of Paul, nor can you deny it.

From them I 'prove' that the persecutor became 'an apostle, not from men, nor by a man' [Gal 1:1, again] - from them I am led even to believe him: by their means I dislodge you from your claim to him, and have no fear of you when you ask, And do you then deny that Paul is an apostle? I speak no evil against him whom I retain for myself. If I deny, it is to force you to prove. If I deny, it is to enforce my claim that he is mine.

Otherwise, if you have your eye on our belief, accept the evidence on which it depends. If you challenge us to adopt yours, tell us the facts on which it is founded. Either prove that the things you believe really are so: or else, if you have no proof, how can you believe? Or who are you, to believe in despite of him from whom alone there is proof of what you believe? So then accept the apostle on my evidence, as you do Christ: he is my apostle, as also Christ is mine.
.


From the Christian news reporter on the ground and broadcasting from the backwater of Carthage:

* Genesis long ago promised Paul to me
* the Acts of the Apostles have handed down to me this history of Paul
* accept Paul and accept Christ
* accept this [church forged nonsense] as evidence of the truth of claims by the church

And so it is that generation after generation of biblical scholars treat this literary source Tertullian (and a host of others) as legitimate historical literary sources. The tertiary industry branch of the church is decidedly Orwellian. It controls the narrative of the past by means of forged manuscripts and has done so ever since the very beginning with the Greek sources, and then afterwards, with the Latin sources.

The big question in my mind is how they managed to get away with it (other than inquisitions, executions, censorship, book-burning, book prohibition and the "discovery" of more pious forgeries).

Christian origins IMO involves back-to-back forgery mills.
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 843

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43118  Postby RealityRules » Jun 22, 2020 1:29 am


If these figurative mysteries do not please you, certainly the Acts of the Apostles have handed down to me this 'history' of Paul
.

lol, in focusing on Tertullian's spin about Paul I missed that phrase, 'these figurative mysteries'.

----------------------------------------------------------------
eta: those quotes of Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem are from Canon Ernest Evans' 1972 translation.

eta.2: for references to mysteries in the Pauline epistles see this post in this thread (two pages ago)
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43119  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 22, 2020 4:37 am

RealityRules wrote:

If these figurative mysteries do not please you, certainly the Acts of the Apostles have handed down to me this 'history' of Paul
.

lol, in focusing on Tertullian's spin about Paul I missed that phrase, 'these figurative mysteries'.

----------------------------------------------------------------
eta: those quotes of Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem are from Canon Ernest Evans' 1972 translation.


https://www.roger-pearse.com/tertullian ... k4_eng.htm
Roger Pearse's site is a great resource for Tertullian.

Tertullian's spin indicates his, or his forger's rhetoric. If the reader is not swayed by mythos prepared to be swayed by the logos of the ethical historical accounts preserved in Acts. Propaganda by the wagon load.

Tertullian, or his forger(s), are without many doubts educated in rhetorical exposition. They have studied the three basic elements of the "Trivium" -- Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric. Rhetoric was further sub-classified into Ethos, Pathos and Logos. .

    Aristotle's Three Modes of Persuasion in Rhetoric

    Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration,
    since we are most fully persuaded when we
    consider a thing to have been demonstrated
    Of the modes of persuasion furnished
    by the spoken word there are three kinds.

    Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character
    when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. [ethos]

    Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers,
    when the speech stirs their emotions. [pathos]

    Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself
    when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means
    of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question. [logos]

    ---- ARISTOTLE, "Rhetoric", 350 BCE

The reader of Tertullian and other church sources should be prepared to be persuaded by the "spin" of Ethos, Pathos or Logos, or a combination. Our man on the ground in Carthage has been given a great ethical standing by the church - first of the Latin writers, preceding even Jerome and his translation of the Vulgate in the scriptorium of Damasus.

Did Jerome stand on the shoulders of Tertullian? Or did Jerome fabricate the shoulders of Tertullian? How can we tell? What does the evidence have to say?

Tertullian of Carthage (c.155 – c. 240) earliest manuscript: Codex Petropolitanus Latinus I (Q v. 40).
From the 9th century, and the Abbey of Corbie.

Eric Knibbs has blogged about this Abbey of Corbie for a very long time:
https://pseudo-isidore.com/
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 843

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43120  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 23, 2020 2:31 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:Eric Knibbs has blogged about this Abbey of Corbie for a very long time:
https://pseudo-isidore.com/


The following is a very primitive basic sketch of how 9th century Latin forgery mill known as Pseudo-Isidore went about its business. Or "HOW THE FORGERY WAS CONDUCTED""

It is fascinating to pay attention to Eric Knibbs and at the same time ask "How did Christian Forgery Mills" operate?

    How the forgery was done

    Isidore was too clever to invent these documents in toto out of his own head.
    For the most part he plagiarized them in substance, and often in form.
    For the background he made use of certain data such as the "Liber Pontificalis",
    a chronicle of the popes from St. Peter onward, which was begun at Rome
    during the first twenty years of the sixth century.

    For instance, in the "Liber" it is recorded that such a pope issued such a decree
    that had been lost or mislaid, or perhaps had never existed at all.
    Isidore seized the opportunity to supply a pontifical letter suitable for the occasion,
    attributing it to the pope whose name was mentioned in the "Liber".
    Thus his work had a shadow of historical sanction to back it up.
    But it was especially in the form of the letters that the forger played the plagiarist.
    His work is a regular mosaic of phrases stolen from various works written either by clerics or laymen.
    This network of quotations is computed to number more than 10,000 borrowed phrases,
    and Isidore succeeded in stringing them together by that loose, easy style of his,
    in such a way that the many forgeries perpetrated either by him or his assistants
    have an undeniable family resemblance. Without doubt he was one of the most learned men of his day.

It is more likely than not the literary sources known as "Tertullian" and "Irenaeus" and "Justin Martyr" et al are the forged vehicles of dogma assembled during a much later age. Jesus, the Apostles, Paul, the "Early Church Fathers" and even the "Early Christians" themselves are IMHO are attested only by extremely dubious literary sources. The "Immaculate Transmission" of church related manuscripts from antiquity to the tertiary institutions that study them today is a myth.
"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. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 843

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 7 guests