mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

I had read the three small books of John C. Rolfe's translation of Ammianus' Res Gestae some time ago with its facing Latin-English presentation. I know what Ammianus says about the plain and simple religion of the christians of the fourth century.

My hopes relate to his earlier books turning up, specifically an obituary to Constantine. That would be a very interesting find, and a very contraversial one I predict.

Frustrated at not being able to access another JSTOR article I hoped someone might either send it to me to read, or to cite it in entirety here.

It takes a trip to the library. I live in rural Australia. The complete texts of this author are not all ONLINE and accessible (to me - they might be to you) with just a few key strokes. I need petrol, the rivers to subside, and an appropriate window of opportunity.

Many of your questions are rhetorical, while others are tangential and you are neither my thesis advisor nor my Greek and Latin language inquisitor.

Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

You still haven't answered the question I asked you, Pete, about your use of the spelling 'authodox'. Is it intended to make a polemical point, or are you simply unaware of the dictionary spelling?

Jeffrey Gibson

Curious then that you had to be notified that Ammianus wrote in Latin.

Really? What does he say? And what do you make of what he says? Is he saying that Christianity was a Constantinian invention?


You mentioned none of this in the post in which you cited the quote. See here.


Again -- and as Toto's message here demonstrates, you did not mention anything in the message in which you posted the quote about a desire on your part to receive the article or to have it posted here.

Umm, the issue is whether your claim that Pohlsander wrote more than one book on Constantine is true. And this can be determined without you traveling anywhere.

None of the ones I've asked you are.

Never said I was. So this is yet another dodge. What's the tally now?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Curious that you assumed you needed to notify me of this fact.

I suspect his earlier books (1-13 which did not survive) would be quite revealing in regard to the epoch of Constantine. He declares the christian religion to be "plain and simple" according to Rolfe's translation. IMO this is something like "The CHRESTUS RELIGION" --- All aboard the Good State Religion! Nobody needed to know the details in Eusebius then, since most of the population could neither read or write in greek. The Arian controversy rages through this period: "the highways were covered with galloping bishops".


The issue also relates to the detail citation, possibly in one of these books, which formed the source for my note:


Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Of which he does not speak. He says this:

Christianam religionem ab solutam et simplicema nili superstitione confundens, in qua scrutanda perplexius quam componenda gravius excitavit discidia plurima ...

Leaving aside the fact that you've now mitigated your claim that you definitely took the material above "from one of Pohlsander's books, on Constantine", i.e.:

to this now being only a "possibility" that you did so and that in reality it might have been from a translation of Ammianus' Res Gestae(!), the issue is still whether or not your claim that Pohlsander wrote more than one book on Constantine is valid.

The answer is on the internet, Pete (or through a phone call to the library where you say you found the book you refer to). No need to travel to find out.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Further data and analyses in regard to the contention that
Arius of Alexandria and Leucius Charinus are one in the same author

As outlandish as this contention may at first appear,
after gathering together more data from the sources
I have attempted to present a more cohesive account.
Any feedback on this would be welcome.

From the available sources we examine the questions:

(1) What do we really know about Arius of Alexandria?, and
(2) What do we really know about the author who is called Leucius Charinus?


The life, the memory, the books and the very name
of Arius of Alexandria were significantly subject to
Constantinian change and damnation in the fourth century.

At this time, the name of Leucius Charinus
commences to appear in a more unambiguous
historical sense. .

(3) Comparing Arius of Alexandria and Leucius Charinus

ABSTRACT

Arius of Alexandria (AA) was an extremely prominent heretic known by his name and works in the fourth century.
AA was purported to have written a great deal of heretic tractates but "none survive".

Leucius Charinus (LC) was an extremely prominent heretic known by his name and works in the fourth century.
LC was purported to have written a great deal of heretic tractates and much is recoverable.
LC is by some presumed to have written before the fourth century.
This presumption is examined and specified as dependent upon a reference by Tertullian.
The presumption is questioned as to its reliability to the issue of dating LC prior to the fourth century.
The works of LC and the name of LC becomes widespread in the fourth century.

Are Arius of Alexandria and Leucius Charinus the one
and the same historical author of heretical works?
Monstrous fictions best described as Hellenistic romance
narratives based on stories associated with the new testament
which was supported and published by Constantine c.325
The extra canonical tractates were extremely popular with the resistance.

The memory of Arius of Alexandria was damned by Constantine.
His memory was to be erased with effect commencing perhaps 325 CE
The name of Leucius Charinus commenced in the mid fourth century.
It does not appear unreasonable that Leucius Charinus was the non-de-plume
associated with the heretical works of Arius of Alexandria
after the memory of Arius was politically banned from mention.

The banned "Apocryphal tractates" were ultimately preserved in remote areas (eg: Nag Hammadi, Syria)
The banned "Apocryphal tractates" were ultimately preserved in remote languages (eg: Coptic and Syriac)

There is also the question of Arius' Hellenistic (non christian) gnosticism.

(4) Examining A "Trinity" of "The Acts of Pilate"

(1) The document tradition
(2) A collation of scholarly commentary
(3) Examining the "Three Acts of Pilate

(3.1) The very early christian "Acts of Pilate"
(3.2) The early fourth century pagan "Acts of Pilate"
(3.3) The late fourth century christian "Acts of Pilate"

(4) Extracts from the Text (M.R. James)

(5) Are the "Christian" Acts of Pilate in fact "Pagan"?

J-D

Arius of Alexandria and Leucius Charinus are both alleged to have written works which were considered by the Church to be heretical. This is insufficient evidence for the suggestion that they were the same person. We know that there has been more than one person who wrote works which were considered by the church to be heretical.

You still haven't answered the question I asked you, Pete, about your use of the spelling 'authodox'. Is it intended to make a polemical point, or are you simply unaware of the dictionary spelling?

mountainman

You are probably not aware that the dating of the works of Leucius Charinus to the second century is entirely and completely reliant upon an outlandish assertion found in Tertullian. (See below) This unsupported assertion by Tertullian is the basis of the traditional reliance of the "Leucian Acts", and could well be spurious. Jerome apparently added to the legend by assertion that the disciple John was present when Leucius wrote. This is regarded as plainly and entirely false by scholarship.

The carbon dating citations in our possession are both for the apocryphal corpus and point to the fourth century, both of them. This new information enables me to question the integrity of this reference in Tertullian. And finally, which is more reasonable? That additional tractates of Hellenistic romance are written to expland the popular conception of "Jesus and the Apostles" in an epoch when christianity was essentually "underground" and "unknown"? Or that additional tractates of Hellenistic romance are written to expland the popular conception of "Jesus and the Apostles" in an epoch when christianity was thrust into the prominence of an official state religion, and the new testament canon as its "Holy Writ"? The second option is far more likely.

Thus I think there are good grounds to date the "Leucian Acts" to when all the action happened in the fourth century (C14) as it explains the situation in simple political terms. Constantine publishes and supports the canon. The greek academics and priests of the cults he had banned , prohibited and destriyed, write seditious additional unauthorised Hellenistic romance narratives which mimic the canon. The writings of Arius are in front of our eyes, with the name of Leucius Charinus on them because Constantine had damned the memory and name and writings and books of Arius. The church could not use his name (Arius).


Main Argument


If we presume we are dealing with historical figures
then their common traits are:

1) AA and LC were authors of books
2) AA and LC wrote their books in greek.
3) AA and LC wrote books which were deemed heretical in the fourth century

If we presume we are dealing with historical figures
then their differences are:

1) When they lived - on the basis of the names AA and LC

When AA lived is reasonably securely dates to between c.260 to 336 CE
When LC lived is problematic: there is no mention of a name before mid-fourth century
To make the issue even more intriguing the first mention of the name
may have been in the tractate The Acts of Pilate", as "Karinus"
and "Leucius", the two Hebrew scribes who disappeared in a blinding flash
after each writing "The Gospel of Nicodemus" in equal letters under inspiration..


2) When they lived - on the basis of the names of the
"books purported to have been written by AA and LC"

When AA lived is reasonably securely dates to between c.260 to 336 CE
When LC lived may be presumed to be late second century if and only if
we can accept Tertullian's statement that:

"The falsely written Acts of Paul was authored by a presbyter in Asia
who added something of his own to the prestige of Paul and was removed
from his office after he had been convicted and had confessed that he
had done it out of love for Paul."

3) Aside from Tertullian, the five "Leucian Acts" are not mentioned before Eusebius.
Hegesippus may have had knowledge of a Gospel of the Nazoreans.
Hippolytus may have had knowledge of a Gospel of Thomas..
Irenaeus may have had knowledge of a Gospel of Judas.
Origen may have had knowledge of three "apocryphal sources"
aGospel of Thomas (but was it the Infancy Gospel of Thomas?),
a Gospel of Peter, and a Gospel of the Nazoreans.
Clement of Alexandria may have had knowledge of a Gospel of James.
Commodius the poet may have had knowledge of an Epistle of the Apostles.

4) Before Eusebius we do not appear to have an unambiguous citation to any
of the books purported to have been written by LC.
As we should expect him to have, Eusebius explicitly names
at least three of the "Leucian Acts" as follows:

an Acts of Peter and Andrew,
an Acts of John,
an Acts of Andrew and John,
an Acts of Andrew and Matthew,
an Acts of Andrew.

5) Without disclosing a name Eusebius informs us about the author.

He was a heretic
He was unworthy of mention
He was completely out of accord with true orthoxy
He was the author of fictions
He was the author of fictions of which the character of the style was at variance from apostolic useage.
He was the author of fictions, where the thoughts of things were at variance from apostolic useage.
He was the author of fictions, where the purpose of things was at variance from apostolic useage.
He was clearly the heretical author of anti-apostolic fictions.
He was the author of books which were not just to be considered rejected.
He was the author books which were to be cast aside.
He was the author of books which were absurd
He was the author of books which were impious


Eusebius withholds to us the name of the author (perhaps for political purposes)
Photius 500 years later cites the authors name as LC "as the book itself shows"


6) Eusebius also informs us that other books were extant which he deemed heretical.
These other heretical books included
a Gospel of Peter,
a Gospel of Thomas,
a Gospel of Matthias,
and a number of Gospel of (any others besides them).


Eusebius had utter control of the canon but had no control whatsoever over the apocrypha.
The apocrypha were wild and chaotic and the bane of the state religion.
The Arian controversy is related to this literature.
It is puzzling that we do not have any works of Arius.
He was heavily suppoorted for over 200 years.

My thesis explains that we in fact do have the works of Arius of Alexandria, the Hellenistic priest and Porphyrian. Constantine calls him a Porphyrian before he damns his memory and changes his name. That Arius of Alexandria authored the Leucian Acts makes a great deal of sense of the political turmoil of the 4th century, and reconciles the missing literature of Arius, with the missing persona of the mysterious author who was given the name of Leucius Charinus from the mid-fourth century.

mountainman

Constantine's edicts of Damnatio memoriae list Fausta and Crispus but omit (I think in error) both Porphyry and Arius of Alexandria.

J-D

Arius of Alexandria and Leucius Charinus are both alleged to have written works which were considered by the Church to be heretical. This is insufficient evidence for the suggestion that they were the same person. We know that there has been more than one person who wrote works which were considered by the church to be heretical.

Dating makes no difference. Even if Arius of Alexandria and Leucius Charinus lived and wrote at the same time, the evidence is still insufficient for the suggestion that they were the same person. We know that there has been more than one person at the same time who wrote works which were considered by the church to be heretical.

You still haven't answered the question I asked you, Pete, about your use of the spelling 'authodox'. Is it intended to make a polemical point, or are you simply unaware of the dictionary spelling?