Doug Shaver

Who said that, and why did they say it?

Toto

Deconick and other academics see the gnostics as heretical Christians writing parodies of Christian orthodoxy. You are trying to push the unsupported idea that the noncanonical literature is a pagan parody of Christianity. Please stop quote-mining Deconick.

Why has the claim not been explored? It appears to be your ad hoc attempt to save your main theory on Eusebian fabrication. But you have no evidence and you have not presented a case. You simply keep repeating "what if?" But you haven't explained why this is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, rather than an attempt to force fit it to your theory.

mountainman

Philostorgius - says that before the synod at Nicaea, Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, came to Nicomedia, and after a convention with Hosius of Cordova and the other bishops who were with him, prevailed upon the synod to declare the Son consubstantial with the Father, and to expel Arius from the communion of the church.

Rufinus of Aquileia - says six only there were who suffered themselves to be expelled with Arius

Socrates Scholasticus - says ... Thus hating scoffed at the word consubstantial, they would not subscribe to the deposition of Arius. Upon this the Synod anathematized Arius, and all who adhered to his opinions prohibiting him at the same time from entering into Alexandria. At the same time an edict of the emperor sent Arius himself into exile, together with Eusebius and Theognis and their followers...

Hermias Sozomen - says the emperor punished Arius with exile.

Epiphanius of Salamis - says

And in a word, there was a great deal of controversy then.
But through the blessed Constantine God directed the right
ordering of these things for the sake of peace.

mountainman

It is generally observed to be the situation that a parodist or a satirist of religion X does not necessarily have to be a member of religion X. I am not making any special pleading here. The special pleading of mainstream academics has simply followed the received tradition which I reject.

It has traditionally been ASSUMED that the Gnostic authors were all "Christian" heretics, but analysis of the Nag Hammadi Codices shows that there were certainly some non-christian Gnostics represented in the stories and tracts bound therein.



Deconnick has studied the Coptic and although she follows the traditional chronology and the traditional assumption that the textual parody was authored by christians, she perceives the SIGNATURE of parody and satire against the orthodox church.



How can it be so if I have repeatedly stated that the claim has nothing to do with the canonical books, and that for all intents and purposes of the claim, I am happy to allow the canonical books to have been authored in the earlier centuries, in accordance to dominant consensus of mainstream opinion.

It is a separate theory.


That's simply not the case. I have summarised in two categories the evidence by which the mainstream theory is reliant at post #234 above.

Parody and satire are TO BE EXPECTED with the appearance of the Constantine bible, and the suppression of these most embarrassing responses are TO BE EXPECTED to be removed from the historical record by the victorious orthodox heresiologists. It is openly acknowledged that the non canonical authorship was still operative through the 4th century.

In exploring the Gnostic and non canonical sources, I have set the idea that Constantine invented the canonical books aside. The idea does not require the chronology of the canonical NT to be late --- only the Gnostic (non canonical) response. The political context of Nicaea is the obvious context for the appearance of the parody and satire that has been identified by other academics. The ORTHODOXY did not really appear until Nicaea, and the response to this authodoxy did not therefore really appear until after the appearance of the Nicaean orthodoxy.

When the heresiological victors rewrote the history of the conflict (according to Bart Erman this is what they did) they indulged in providing false information about the history of their opponents. What's new under the sun?

Toto

It is not received tradition. It has at least some rationale behind it. Freke and Gandy spend some time on this issue in the Jesus Mysteries (or via: amazon.co.uk).

If you are going to reject this, you need some reason. You need to at least realize that there is a case based on evidence, not just "received tradition."

I can't make any sense of your theory otherwise. It has no evidence in favor of it. It doesn't explain anything that the more obvious theory does a better job of explaining.

No, you have just tried to attack the manuscript dates. But these manuscripts are not necessarily the originals in any case, so it's not clear what you think you have proven.

You seem to be saying that if there is no absolute and concrete proof that any noncanonical literature predates Constantine, that you are free to argue that it all must have represented pagan opposition to Constantine. This makes no sense in logic or history.

I think it is more the case that the orthodox, or the proto-orthodox, were not connected to state power before Nicaea.

That still doesn't show that your particular scenario is anything more than the product of your your imagination.

You can see what the pagan opposition to Christianity looked like - the satire of Lucian, the opposition of Julian. Not much like the Gospel of Peter or other gnostic works.

Doug Shaver

Nothing there about Constantine exiling anybody.

Nothing there about Constantine exiling anybody.

That's one.

Nothing there about anybody except Arius himself.

Nothing there about Constantine exiling anybody.

You're 1 for 4, Pete. Not too shabby if you were playing baseball. Not too good if you're playing scholarship.

mountainman

The received tradition of the history of the Gnostics is that the Gnostics were "vile Christian heretics" as described by the orthodox heresiologists first in Eusebius's "Church History", and then by his orthodox continuators in the later 4th and subsequent centuries. Until recent centuries the only source for the history of these Gnostics were the writings of the orthodox canon-following heresiologists.

Ostensibly the "received tradition" rests in the "History of Eusebius" and it is to this tradition that the world's scholarship turned on the discovery of the Gnostic "Gospel of Judas". Eusebius cites Irenaeus's mention of this book, and presents Irenaeus as a late 2nd century Gallic bishop who has knowledge of a book by this name. A number of academics however have pointed out that what Irenaeus says about gJudas does not seem to match the text we have in front of us, and that this may not be the same book.


Aside from a small number of non canonical papyri fragments, the EVIDENCE being used by all scholars and the RECEIVED TRADITION inherent in the "Church History" of Eusebius, amplified and embellished (often falsely) by later 4th century heresiologists, are one and the same.

I have listed this evidence - citations from Eusebius - EXPLICITLY as follows:


The above citation from Tertullian should be called the "Testimonium Tertullianum" because of its central place in the evidence that is available to all investigators in relation to the question of the chronology of the Gnostics, since it is the only citation from Eusebius (and the "Fathers") in which a Gnostic author is explicitly discussed. The obvious TWIST is the statement that the "author wrote out of love for Paul". When we read the Acts of Paul we see that the author compares Paul to the mouse in Aesop's fable "The Lion and the Mouse".




It explains the political context of the chronology of the authorship of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts". Political context is EVERYTHING. The heretics only appeared after the Constantine Bible appeared in a WIDESPREAD political context.



My argument is that this alternative actually makes perfect sense in both logic and history. The physical manuscript evidence (aside from the palaeographically dated non canonical papyri which I have listed and briefly discussed) that we have is late. Although the Greek manuscripts were most likely entirely burnt and destroyed, the manuscript tradition for all the Coptic and Syriac physical sources commence from the later 4th century. Therefore the logic is the original Greek sources are all early 4th century but immediately after Nicaea when the controversy first ensured.

In terms of history, the post-Nicaean date provides the most appropriate political context for the controversy of the canonical and non canonical books. At which point did the canon first receive MAJOR ATTENTION by Greek reading academics and other religious cults in the Roman Empire other than when Constantine widely disseminated the 50 Constantine Bibles as "Official Holy Writ" of the monotheistic STATE christian church?

In terms of the appearance of a literary genre, the political context of Nicaea was one of war and oppression on the one hand by Constantine against the Eastern states, and the coming to terms with a Christian State on the other hand by all those who were at that time totally unfamiliar with the Bible and what Constantine was respresenting it as - the empire's "Official Holy Greek Writ".



My point is that the history of the proto-orthodox and the proto-gnostic heretics is presently being defined with implicit reliance upon the history of Eusebius which was largely written and assembled 312-324 CE, and revised and adjusted afterwards to accomodate the all-important Nicaean "council" (See Carrier on this).

Whatever the proto-orthodox and the proto-gnostic-heretics were before Nicaea, they were vastly different from the orthodox and heretics after Nicaea, because the entire Roman Empire was thrown into a turbulent chaotic controversy for many generations as a result of Nicaea.




The scenario I put forward is a revisionist history of the Gnostic authors that commenced in reaction to the appearance of the first widespread publication of the Christian Canonical Bible around Nicaea. The Constantine Bible appeared as a product of his "Holy War" against the pagans, and it was published to a captive political state. The remnants of the captive political state managed to manufacture the Nag Hammadi codices before they were finally destroyed, and the empire became "orthodox" canon-followers.



These authors need to be examined with care. Both used satire. There are a number of forged books in the name of Lucian, and although there are no forged books in the name of Julian that I know of, Julian's original books against the Christian State were destroyed and burnt. Nevertheless SATIRE and PARODY are key responses.


The walkin' talkin' cross following Jesus out of the tomb, to whom God above was in direct communication, is a classic SATIRE of the crucifixion. That one thousand souls were baptised by Peter and Andrew because these people wanted to have the magical power of commanding a camel to physically go through the eye of a needle is SATIRE.

These texts were designed to be performed in the Greek theatres in a resistance made to the authority of the NT canon. They were designed to make people LOL because of their impossible scenarios, all of which were purposefully designed and related to the stories found in the canon.

In "Life of Constantine" Eusebius states ...

"the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.


How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius
Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", Ch. LXI

mountainman

I am playing ancient history Doug, and listed some of the sources for the claim of political exile (as opposed to execution) for Arius and those who at that time OPENLY (not COVERTLY) followed him. I could have cited the ANATHEMA CLAUSE on the earliest Nicaean Creed.

The last citation had nothing to do with exile. It instead related to the general controversy as described by all parties that ensued across the Roman Empire for many generations after Nicaea. The words of Arius that are made explicit in the anathema clause of the earliest Nicaean "creed" were ECHOED down through these generations in one form or another until all the heretics were REMOVED.

We do not have a political history of the 4th century from Nicaea to, say, AD 381, other than the history of Ammianus Marcellinus and a few fragments. What we have in its place are a cobbled together corpus of "Ecclesiastical Histories" (Church "councils" etc etc etc) which were authored by the continuators of Eusebius a century after Nicaea. You may not agree with this claim, but I would argue that it is basically true and correct.

What really happened in the Roman Empire, particularly in Antioch, Alexandria and "The City of Bullneck", between 324/325 and 381 CE has IMO yet to be revealed.

Doug Shaver

Yeah, like kids used to play cowboys and Indians.

mountainman

You're only a thousand years out of bounds. The original monotheistic game in the 4th century was called christians and pagans, and its still being enacted today in a basilica near you. The object of the game for the christians is to beat the pagans about the head with the canon until they were either believers or the subject of anathemetization. As history would have it, the object of the game for the pagans was to survive the onslaught of the ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS, and perhaps - in resistance mode from remote refuges - to beat the christians about the head with the non canonical books of vile Gnostic heretics.