Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 08-24-2011, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Post #1 mentions the writings of Porphyry, not Plato.

Do you or anyone else really think that when Constantine and the other Christian emperors burnt the unlawful writings of Porphyry, they were referring to and burning only those writings concerned with the Christians, while on the other hand preserving Porphyry's more classical academic treatises? According to Epiphanius, Platonism in the later 4th century was a chief heresy, and was listed at in the top 7 of the Top 80 Chart.

From the above essay, relating to the forgery of works in the name of Porphyry.
Certainly some of the works attributed to Porphyry were forged.
Was Porphyry in fact at one stage a christian?
SOme think so, perhaps even including Eusebius ...

Quote:

The Two Porphyrii - Porphyry the Platonist and Porphyry the Christian author

In the 4th century a Christian version of "Philosophy from Oracles" attributed to Porphyry, was accepted by Eusebius and appealed to by apologists like Theodoret. The fact that Augustine was one of the first to reject it, and that Dr Nathaniel Lardner rejected the attribution in the 18th century, does not influence the fact that Eusebius accepted the attribution. Modern treatments such as the following by Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, are providing new insights, and are resurrecting evidence of a 4th Christian identity fraud masquerading in the Academy of Plato in the guise of Porphyry:

"The gravity of Porphyry's criticism of Christianity is evident from the many books and edicts against him. Although he was not the first educated Greek to criticize Christianity, for Celsus and Galen preceded him, he was a distinguished philosopher, one well versed in Christian literature and perhaps an apostate - so his work seemed particularly dangerous
(p.135) Although "The Philosophy from Oracles" appears to be favorably disposed toward the figure of Jesus, O'Meara showed that its attitude toward the contemporary Christian belief and worship.is far from complimentary. Rather, is arguments are such that early Christians could well have seen as a fierce attack on the very foundation of their faith. Noticing Eusebius' and Augustine's hostile attitude to this work, O'Meara observed that "... in both of their lengthy and important works, ... having chosen Porphyry as an opponent worthy of their most serious attention", they gave no more than "passing notice to his "Against the Christians", but concentrated deeply on his "Philosophy from Oracles". Obviously this work seemed more important to them than it has ... to us." Eusebius also suggests its critical tenor by linking it specifically with the "compilation against us". References in the "Philosophy from Oracles" to Jesus as a pious sage, a reader, and a disciple of Plato, once seemed consonant with Porphyry's early regard for or even attachment to Christianity. A more careful reading however shows that this presentation challenged a fundamental aspect of Christian teaching, for it denied the divinity of Christ. ...[ this was serious ] ... Constantine issued imperial edicts charging that the Arians, Christians who denied that Christ had equal divinity with God the Father, have imitated Porphyry (Socr, H# 1.9) - Lactantius, Porphyry, and the Debate over Religious Toleration.

In 2008 Jeremy M. Schott published a 272 page work entitled "Christianity, Empire, and the Making of Religion in Late Antiquity", and a smaller 30 page work the abstract of which appears below. It is interesting to note how in his abstract, the author alludes to "the fluidity and permeability of religious and philosophical identities". This review is in a position to be able to provide a very good reason why we have received what appears to be such a plasticity of identities during this epoch. Simply, the historical record of Eusebius has employed identity theft".

‘Living Like a Christian, but Playing the Greek’: Accounts of Apostasy and Conversion in Porphyry and Eusebius".

Abstract: This study focuses on a set of conversion narratives from the late third and early fourth centuries: Porphyry of Tyre’s and Eusebius of Caesarea’s conflicting accounts of Origen’s reputed apostasy from Hellenism and Ammonius Saccas’s alleged abandonment of Christianity for philosophy, and fourth-century reports of Porphyry’s supposed flirtation with Christianity. It argues that these narratives functioned as a means for Christian scholars and pagan philosophers to establish boundaries between themselves and their opponents and as a way to obfuscate broad dogmatic and practical similarities between Platonists and Christians. This reading of conversion and apostasy narratives opens the door to a more nuanced, if more complex, appreciation of the fluidity and permeability of religious and philosophical identities in Late Antiquity.

We might paraphrase this abstract by pointing out that the evidence itself declares that these narratives functioned as a means for Christian heresiologists to establish boundaries between themselves and their opponents and as a way to obfuscate broad dogmatic and practical similarities between what Platonists were and what Platonists would become, and what Christians were, and were to become. That is, as highlghted in the diagram at the top of the page, all the mappings are one way. The narrative is the narrative of a stolen identity" - in any other words, a fabricated narrative.

In the case of Ammonius, the fabricated identity was associated with a small number of documents that the orthodox found useful for their historical narrative. In the case of Origen, the fabricated identity was associated with a large number of important documents. In the case of Anatolius, the fabricated identity was associated with a small number of important documents that the orthodox found useful for their historical narrative.

But in the case of Porphry, the perpertrators simply fabricated additional works in his name which, by openly denouncing the Christian religion, allowed Constantine an excuse to burn the authentic books of Porphyry. Eunapius, in regard to these later books of Porphyry, comments:

At any rate [Porphyry] left behind him many speculations that conflict
with the books that he had previously published; with regard to which
we can only suppose that he changed his opinions as he grew older."

Why did Constantine want to burn the books of the greatest academic author that the Panhellenic civilisation had produced at the opening of the 4th century? These are the actions of an anti-Panhellenic despot. The answer to this question might be answered with another question - why did Constantine want to utterly destroy the most ancient and highly revered temples, libraries, shrines and obelisks of the Panhellenic culture of 324 CE? Arnaldo Momigliano calls it a "revolution", and one which carried with it a new historiography - the "Ecclesiastical History" of Eusebius.

mountainman · 08-24-2011, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

I don’t understand why you seek support in an obscure passage of Ammianus Marcellinus.

I have a copy of The Later Roman Empire (
It is impossible to date this story about Constantine.

It is certainly possible to narrow down the dates as to somewhere between 324/325 CE and 337 CE.

Quote:

As to graffito..,

The reference is here.

Quote:

please continue with your gardening duties and enjoy a cool bear afterwards, ( a Foster?)

Thank you. Cheers!

mountainman · 08-24-2011, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

My opinion of the "provenance, genuineness and authenticity" of the New Testament writings is not exactly friendly to Christian orthodoxy. It's even hostile to a great deal of non-orthodox NT scholarship.

You are entitled to form your own opinions on the evidence. I have followed some of your expositions. I am not disinterested in the position you direct your arguments towards.

Quote:

But I can defend that opinion without any reference to Constantine's political virtues or lack thereof, and if I can, parsimony says I should.

The fact that much (if not all) of the evidence and attestation and references etc etc etc in respect of "The Holy Mystery of Christian Origens" for the period prior to Nicaea is presented ONLY within material published during the rule of Constantine should caution in substituting natural and scientific-skeptical enquiry with parsley. This is not rocket science.

Corrupt and despotic military supremacists have been known by historians to say things like:

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.

It is not truth that matters, but victory.

Did Constantine indulge in fabricating lies?
Did the dove sent out by Noah alight on the Virgin Mary? (Do we have evidence

)
Did Roman poets really echo the prophecy of Jesus in the epoch BCE?
Did Sopater control the winds?

mountainman · 08-24-2011, 10:33 PM

Quite independent from the Christians, were there "readers" who read from the canon of books (Timaeus, the Republic, the Parmenides, the Sophist, the Philebus and other works) - copies of copies of works originally authored by Plato? And who preserved the "Books of Plato" apart from the Platonist lineage?

Quote:

"Plato's dialogues formed a coherent system structured "not in any unwritten doctrine but in an ordering of the corpus which was designed to lead the student from the experimental or tentative stage, a mere testing of his wits, to the communication in which all truth becomes luminous to the intellect" ..... These Platonists regarded themselves as true followers of Plato's teaching, focusing not only on the philological analysis of the dialogues but mainly on the philosophical discussion of the truths within them."

- Bryn Mawr Classical Review (2007) of Mark Edwards', "Culture and Philosophy in the Age of Plotinus".

Toto · 08-24-2011, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
Certainly some of the works attributed to Porphyry were forged.
Was Porphyry in fact at one stage a christian?
SOme think so, perhaps even including Eusebius ...

You think so - the quoted passage is from your website

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete's website

...

But in the case of Porphry, the perpetrators simply fabricated additional works in his name which, by openly denouncing the Christian religion, allowed Constantine an excuse to burn the authentic books of Porphyry....

This is just a little too conspiratorial, and lacks any basis in evidence.

mountainman · 08-25-2011, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
Certainly some of the works attributed to Porphyry were forged.
Was Porphyry in fact at one stage a christian?
SOme think so, perhaps even including Eusebius ...

You think so - the quoted passage is from your website

The article at Post #61 cites Elizabeth DePalma Digeser and this summary follows her opinion which does not appear to be alone. For the complete article see Lactantius, Porphyry, and the Debate over Religious Toleration - The Journal of Roman Studies > Vol. 88, 1998 > Lactantius, Porphyry (JSTOR)

Quote:

In the 4th century a Christian version of "Philosophy from Oracles" attributed to Porphyry, was accepted by Eusebius and appealed to by apologists like Theodoret. The fact that Augustine was one of the first to reject it, and that Dr Nathaniel Lardner rejected the attribution in the 18th century, does not influence the fact that Eusebius accepted the attribution. Modern treatments such as the following by Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, are providing new insights, .......

mountainman · 08-25-2011, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete's website

...

But in the case of Porphry, the perpetrators simply fabricated additional works in his name which, by openly denouncing the Christian religion, allowed Constantine an excuse to burn the authentic books of Porphyry....

This is just a little too conspiratorial,

During war and conquest it is a standard power-play to undermine and destroy the opposition in the area of high technology, which was at that time the codex. It is not difficult to imagine that Constantine wished to present the Constantine Bible as the "Codex of Codices", greater than any codex anywhere in the empire or beyond it.

If we took a standard stock-take of the books and codices present in the empire at that precise time, the books of Porphyry must take close to top place in the Greek civilisation. The Bible was to be ceremoniously preserved and copied, but the books of Porphyry, presenting the most modern academic treatments on Plato and Platonism (and Euclid) of the day, were to be unceremoniously burnt.

Quote:

..... and lacks any basis in evidence.

I think there is SOME evidence for my position .....

Eunapius, in regard to these later books of Porphyry, comments:

At any rate [Porphyry] left behind him many speculations that conflict
with the books that he had previously published; with regard to which
we can only suppose that he changed his opinions as he grew older."

I present this as at least SOME evidence for my position.

Iskander · 08-25-2011, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Constantine adopted Christianity as the political party of the empire to strengthen it and make the empire powerful again.

That's what he asserted in the codex publications manufactured during his rule. The question is of course, do we have to necessarily believe him.

YES but CHRONOLOGICALLY his blueprint was the creation of the Persian Sassanid State monotheistic Zoroastrian religion c.222 CE by the military supremacist and "King of Kings" Ardashir. This Persian monotheistic revolution had only occurred a century before Nicaea, and since then the Persians had become very vigorous and successful in their military campaigns and had captured alive a number of Roman Emperors and Roman Legions.

Constantine was well aware that religion to the common people was true, to the wise false and to the ruler useful. All he needed to do was to censor the wise philosophers' reactions to the monstrous tale he published.

Quote:

The nascent Judaic, Christian and Muslim religions were all at the beginning martial fascist parties designed for war and conquest. Regrettably, the Christian party had already a life of its own and too much Plato in it.

Eusebius "borrowed" the identities of key 3rd century Platonists to fabricate his 3rd century Christian sources and "Bishops"

Robin Lane Fox
Page 654
This is what Constantine wrote to Arius and his opposing bishop in Alexandria after the council of Antioch April 324:

Quote:

Bishop Alexander, Constantine wrote, had been reaching “unguardedly” into the meaning of an obscure text in the scripture while Arius had answered him “inconsiderably”. Arius’s heresy’ wrote Constantine, was not “new”, nor did it destroy their broad expanse of common ground. It was best kept as a private speculation on a “tiny and insignificant point,” while the central Christian doctrines were not in doubt. Within broad limits, Christians were not obliged to agree: could not the two of them show charity and concord and reopen their Emperor road to Egypt?

Constantine was a tolerant emperor anxious to heal the wounds inflicted on the community by the failure of the pagan policy of the third century.

As Emperor, Constantine still fulfilled the public role of pontifex maximus and allowed the public cults to continue .After his death came a pagan emperor and after him an Arian emperor: the failure of paganism in Rome is the consequence of the senility that afflicted paganism.
The people of Rome chose Christianity as Constantine himself had done.

Iskander · 08-25-2011, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Constantine was a political leader who tried to protect the roman people from chaos and he assessed the political rants of Porphyry as a threat to the stability of the government; the perceived need to ban argumentative questions in critical times is a perennial problem for governments everywhere.

That's what the victors assert but what was the real story?

Pontifex Maximus of Rome, Constantine was a military commander and Roman Emperor who taxed the roman people like the rest of them. He assessed the philosophical and theological schools and academies of Plato described by Porphyry as a threat to the stability of the monotheistic state government and the general acceptance of the canonization of his Constantine Bible; the perceived need to ban argumentative questions in critical times is a perennial problem for governments everywhere and Constantine solved it with the sword.

More recently and with far greater erudition Arnaldo Momigliano explains the triumph of Christianity in Rome and a revolution and a miracle.

This does not explain why Platonism, Pythagoreanism, Stoicism, Hellenism etc are specifically listed as later 4th century Christian heresies.

Here is Russel on the Holy Trinity of Plotinus and Plato ...

Quote:

History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell - 1945
p.289

Chapter 30 - PLOTINUS (204-270 CE)

Plotinus (204-270 CE), the founder of Neoplatonism, is the last of the great philosophers of antiquity.

The metaphysics of Plotinus begins with a Holy Trinity: The One, Spirit and Soul.

These three are not equal, like the Persons of the Holy Trinity;
the One is supreme, Spirit comes next, and Soul last.[2]

THE ONE is somewhat shadowy. It is sometimes called God, sometimes called the Good; it transcends Being.

THE NOUS "SPIRIT" - offspring/reflection of the ONE. includes mind - the intellect.

SOUL - offspring of the Divine Intellect. It is double: there is an inner soul, intent on NOUS, and another, which faces the external.

p.300 [end of chapter]..

Plotinus is both an end and a beginning - an end as regards the Greeks, a beginning as regards Christendom.

To the ancient world, weary with centuries of disappointment, exhausted by despair his doctrine might be acceptable, but could not be stimulating. To the cruder barbarian world, where the superabundant energy needed to be restrained and regulated rather than stimulated, what could penetrate in his teachings was beneficial, since the evil to be combated was not languor but brutality. The work of transmitting what could survive of his philosophy was performed by the Christian philosophers of the last age of Rome.

Constantine burned the writings of Porphyry, who preserved the works of Plotinus. Transmission of these and other heretical writings was largely performed outside the empire.

Also somehow the idea of the Holy Trinity moved from the academy of Plotinus to the academy of Nicaean Christians, yet the Holy Trinity was never mentioned at Nicaea.

About Porphyry:

Porphyry wrote, Against the Christians. In this work he “ branded the Jesus sect treasonous and immoral and called for the execution of its unrepentant members .Others, while not going quite so far, agreed that the dismissal of civil servants was insufficient—the leaders of the Church must be forced to abandon their campaign to convert the entire empire. Anti-Christian officials, no doubt including Caesar Galerius, were particularly angered by the growing number of wealthy aristocrats who had embraced the Cross: traitors to Roman ideals and to their class.”--[When Jesus became God (or via: amazon.co.uk), Richard E. Rubenstein. Harcourt, Inc. 1999- page 32].

Gradually this rabidly anti-Christian group persuaded Diocletian and Galerius to follow their inclinations and from 303 a full-scale attack was launched on the Christians, beginning with clergy. Churches were torn down, sacrifices ordered and Christian sacred texts confiscated...

The important Neo-Platonist teacher was Plotinus (204-270) and Porphyry was the somewhat self-important biographer and editor who published his woks. But as Bertrand Russell observes, “The life of Plotinus is known, so far as it is known, through the biography written by his friend and disciple Porphyry, a Semite whose real name was Malchus. There are, however, miraculous elements in this account, which make it difficult to place a complete reliance upon its more credible portions.”.
Russell says that Bacon considered the philosophical writings of porphyry to be “childish” “Not that he [Bacon] has much respect for Porphyry, whose doctrine on universals he calls "childish."-- The history of Western Philosophy (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Christians did not ban the works of Porphyry and treated them on merit. Again, I am citing Russell:” Apart from The Prior Analytics, which deals with the syllogism, there are other writings of Aristotle which have considerable importance in the history of philosophy. One of these is the short work on The Categories. Porphyry the Neoplatonist wrote a commentary on this book, which had a very notable influence on medieval philosophy.”

mountainman · 08-26-2011, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Christians did not ban the works of Porphyry and treated them on merit. Again, I am citing Russell:” Apart from The Prior Analytics, which deals with the syllogism, there are other writings of Aristotle which have considerable importance in the history of philosophy. One of these is the short work on The Categories. Porphyry the Neoplatonist wrote a commentary on this book, which had a very notable influence on medieval philosophy.”

Roger has a very informative page on this last work here.

You will see a carefully prepared table of manuscripts.
Where did they come from?

See Transmission of the Classics

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Early Medieval period

As knowledge of Greek declined with the fall of the Roman Empire, so did knowledge of the Greek texts, many of which had remained untranslated.[3] The fragile nature of papyrus, as a writing medium, meant that older texts not copied onto expensive parchment would eventually crumble and be lost. The Byzantines, for whom Greek was the dominant language, made use of only parts of their classical Greek heritage, and were more interested in preserving Christian writings.

Thus, for a long time in Europe after the execution of Boethius (one of the last writers with a good understanding of both Latin and Greek philosophy) in 524/525 CE/AD, there was a disregard for Greek ideas.

Emperor Justinian c.529 CE closes the Academy of Plato down.

Justinian confiscated all the funds devoted to philosophic instruction at Athens, closed the schools, and seized the endowments of the academy of Plato, which had maintained an uninterrupted succession of teachers for nearly 900 years. According to the historian Agathias, after the closure, Damascius and several other Academy members fled to Persia where they obtained protection from the Sassanid king Chosroes I at his capital, Ctesiphon. The refugees took with them many important scrolls of philosophy and science. Unfortunately these last few Platonists found that their life remained difficult in Persia due to the hostility of the local Zoroastrian clergy.

Quote:

Scribes often recycled old books, scraping off old, philosophical texts in order to create religious books, for example.[4] After a while, only a few monasteries had Greek works, and even fewer of them copied these works (mainly the Irish).[5] Irish monks had been taught by Greek and Latin missionaries who probably had brought Greek texts with them.[6] However, Irish preservation of these ideas, though valuable, did not introduce nearly as much Greek philosophy and science, to the West, as did the work of translators of Arabic from 1100–1300 CE. Arab logicians had inherited Greek ideas after their invasion of southern portions of the Byzantine Empire. Their translations and commentaries on these ideas worked their way through the Arab West into Spain and Sicily, which became important centers for this transmission of ideas. This work of translation from Islamic culture, though largely unplanned and disorganized, constituted one of the greatest transmissions of ideas in history.[1]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.