mountainman

Thanks aa5874,

While I totally agree with what you write above I believe that it is even more critical that the doctrine and the history of the Gnostics be distinguished from the the doctrine and the history of the Canonical Christians. We all know that the absolute and singular authority for the history of the canonical christians is furnished by Eusebius.

However what remains hidden to most analysts in this field is that the history of the gnostics (ie: the authors of the non canonical gospels and acts, etc) is also being accepted as authoritatively provided by Eusebius, via Irenaeus and Tertullian and others whom Eusebius preserves.

To Eusebius these gnostic authors are vile heretical creatures whose works should be burned and forgotten. Eusebius is a chief heresiologist. Yet he is allowed to be an authority on his vile and capricious enemies. This is an absolutely absurd state of affairs.

Many people here are aware that the historical testimony of Eusebius is better regarded as a fabrication with respect to origins and the history of the tribe of christians. What has not yet truly dawned upon these people is that Eusebius has also performed the exact same underhanded retrojected fabrication with respect to the history of the Gnostic Opposition and the authors of the non canonical tractates -- via Irenaeus et al.

I am almost convinced that Arius of Alexandria was one of these "Gnostic opposition authors" who were utterly shocked at the raising of the New Testament Canonical literature to the status of "Holy Writ" in the Roman empire with effect from the year 324 CE. As a result, he (and possobly others) took up the Greek pen and in opposition to the authority of the NT canon authored and widely published "Other Gospels and Other Acts" in a seditious counter-reaction to the canon.

I have prepared an exhaustive analysis of the (Eusebian claimed) evidence by which we are lead to believe that non canonical literature of the "Gnostic Opposition" was extant prior to the year 324 CE, and submitted it as an entry to the recent Mythicist Essay. As this essay was not successful in the assessment of the judges, I am now offering this research material to you, or to any other person on this discussion board who may wish to read it. Any interested parties should PM me with an email address and I will send the research essay with my compliments.

The title and abstract of this essay is as follows:

Arius Satirized Constantine’s Jesus
The Hidden History of the New Testament Apocryphal Literature

ABSTRACT:

The books of the New Testament Apocrypha (NTA) are currently postulated to have been authored continuously by Christians ‘out of love for the authors and/or books’ of the New Testament Canon (NTC) across the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and perhaps 5th centuries. It is argued that the core series of books of the NTA was largely authored as a political reaction to the “Constantine Codex” between the years of 325 and 336 CE by a non-Christian - Arius of Alexandria. Constantine is sketched as a supreme imperial fascist. Arius is sketched as a Greek Gnostic priest, perhaps one of the therapeutae of Asclepius, whose temples and shrines Constantine had utterly destroyed c.324 CE. Arius as an anti-Christian satirist was so good at his business that the preservation of his books was not only prohibited by the death penalty but was reinforced by Constantine’s pronouncement of “damnatio memoriae” both upon his name and his living memory. Later Christian heresiologists harmonized Arius’ utterly controversial satirical literary reception to Constantine’s NTC and fabricated a “twisted” Hollywood history in which the academic Greek priest appears as one of the cast of “Constantine’s many readily available Christian Bishops”. Arius’ dogmatic sophisms such as “Jesus was made from nothing existing” suggest that the 4th century Arian controversy was not over the theology of Jesus but over the historicity of Jesus.

Toto

This idea is so counter-factual and bizarre that I am splitting this post off, and all further discussion of this alleged satire will be confined to this thread.

J-D

You know, Pete, you never did offer any evidence to disprove the theory that you are Arius.

mountainman

Arius of Alexandria as an anti-Christian Satirist

“And ever since [the Council of Nicaea]
has Arius' error been reckoned for a heresy more than ordinary,
being known as Christ's foe, and harbinger of Antichrist.”

[The Orthodox "Father" Athanasius, Athanasius' Four "Discourses"

Political satire is a significant part of satire that specializes in gaining entertainment from politics; it has also been used with subversive intent where political speech and dissent are forbidden by a regime, as a method of advancing political arguments where such arguments are expressly forbidden. Historically, the public opinion in the Athenian democracy was remarkably influenced by the political satire performed by the comic poets at the theaters.

It is suggested that the Greek satire of the fourth century was a reaction against the appearance of Constantine and his new Christian ideas by which an entire class of the Greek priesthood – the “Pontifices” – was disbanded by Constantine’s destruction of temples and his widespread prohibition of use. Many of this class were academics, and many may have been made “homeless” by this prohibition of practice. The political reality was that Constantine was successfully imposing his will on the empire in a fascist manner. Satire, as a last ditch effort to hit back, was strongly invoked after Nicaea.

(1) Arius's satire is cited by Athanasius

Of course the parties who were the object of that Greek satire were often horrified, and such a reaction is clearly evident in Athanasius’ refutation of Arius. In the following extract the satire of Arius is cited (in bold) and is to the effect that the sun turned away from Jesus’ passion and “recalling his rays make that day sunless.”

“Who is there that hears all this, nay, the tune of the Thalia, but must hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting on such matters as on a stage who but must regard him, when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as the serpent counseling the woman? who, on reading what follows in his work, but must discern in his irreligious doctrine that error, into which by his sophistries the serpent in the sequel seduced the woman? who at such blasphemies is not transported?

‘The heaven,’ as the Prophet says, ‘was astonished, and the earth shuddered’ at the transgression of the Law. But the sun, with greater horror, impatient of the bodily contumelies, which the common Lord of all voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his rays made that day sunless.

[Comments: Arius's satirical comments about the passion of Christ, cited by Athanasius, are bolded above.
The passion of Jesus takes second place to a fit of passion by the Sun himself.]

And shall not all human kind at Arius’ blasphemies be struck speechless, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, to escape hearing them or seeing their author?

Athanasius' Four Discourses ... Chapter II.—Extracts from the Thalia of Arius

(2) Arius is compared thrice by Athanasius to the satirist Sotades

In this text Athanasius effectively tells us that Arius was a satirist
since three times Athanasius compares the writing of Arius to that of
Sotades - a famous Greek political satirist. Here are the relevant mentions:

(i) But neither can a Christian bear to hear this, nor can he consider the man who dared to say it sane in his understanding. For with them for Christ is Arius, as with the Manichees Manichus; and for Moses and the other saints they have made the discovery of one Sotades.

(ii) Arius, taking no grave pattern, and ignorant even of what is respectable, while he stole largely from other heresies, would be original in the ludicrous, with none but Sotades for his rival.

(iii) And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean Arius, feigns to speak of God, introducing Scripture language, but is on all sides recognized as godless Arius, denying the Son, and reckoning Him among the creatures [Ibid]

Sotades was the chief representative of the writers of obscene satirical poems, called Kinaidoi, composed in the Ionic dialect and in the "sotadic" metre named after him. The sotadic metre or sotadic verse has also been called palindromic.

(3) Eusebius’ Final Word about theatrical performances of Arius's Greek Satire

Eusebius tells us that the new testament canon was being exposed to ridicule in the Greek theatres, by unbelievers. It is very reasonable to suspect it was being satired ...

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

[Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria through Matters relating to Arius.]

(4) Emperor Julian's Greek Satire against Constantine and Jesus

Arius's satire was not alone during this epoch in the 4th century. Others also satired the church and Jesus and Constantine. It needs to be acknowledged that we do have other substantial evidence of Greek satire against Jesus, Constantine and Christianity --- it is openly perceived that the Emperor Julian satired Constantine and Jesus. If there is anyone here who disagrees with this perception, speak up now.


The above 4 items of evidence should serve to open any discussion on this subject.

J-D

How about the theory that Arius never existed? Do you have any evidence to disprove that theory?

Toto

Pete is forced into this theory to sustain the idea the Eusebius wrote the entire canon. There seems to be no reason for Eusebius to forge gnostic or heretic works that had to be denounced and suppressed, so to prop up his primary theory, Pete must contend that the heretical works were written after Eusebius by anti-Christian subversives.

Is there any other reason for this?

J-D

Come to think of it, Pete, do you have any evidence to disprove the theory that Eusebius never existed?

mountainman

Try dealing with the OP and the evidence cited above 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Athanasius clearly presents Arius of Alxandria as a filthy vile despicable anti-christian satirist.
This is precisely what the evidence cited above discloses.
The othodox followers of "Constantine's christianity" are shocked and horrified by Arius.

The "problem" is simply that the "mainstream christian theory" is a nieve veneer which authoritatively refuses to countenance the obvious political reality that christianity and the new testament canon were not received harmoniously c.324 CE , that the Greeks did not take this "medicine" lying down, that there were in fact subversive and seditionary reactions to Constantine's "Christianization Program", that all this resulted in a great and tumultuous controversy (which was later "harmonised") ---- Arius of Alexandria appears to be a focal point for such resistance, and he, and his books, and writings and memory were "written out of history" -- as instructed by Constantine's politically oriented memoriae damnatio against him.

mountainman

Why does everyone think that the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" and much of the new testament apocryphal literature was authored "early" --- before the Council of Nicaea? In the following I have outlined the evidence at the basis of this commonly accepted "belief". Note that in the following the abbreviation NTC represents the "New Testament Canon" while thre abbreviation NTA represents the "New Testament Apocrypha" (ie: the Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc)

Defining the literary evidence supporting the Mainstream chronology

A process of categorization is employed to focus on the key literary evidence supporting generally accepted mainstream theory of “Pre-Nicaean” authorship. The twenty-odd books which are presumed to have been authored “Early” (i.e. before Nicaea 325 CE) have been classified according to six Category Codes.

Category (1) consists of books for which Eusebius presents literary sources that would have us infer that these books were cited by authors in the 2nd or 3rd century. These key citations will be briefly examined further below.

For books in Category (2) Eusebius himself is the earliest witness. (The Acts of Andrew and John, The Acts of Andrew and Matthew, The Acts of Peter and Andrew, The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of John, The Teaching of the Apostles)

Category (3) lists books cited but for which there are no extant texts. (The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion], The Gospel of the Egyptians, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Gospel of the Nazoreans)

Category (4) lists books for which there is no “early” mention. (The Acts of Thomas, The Acts of Peter, The Acts of John the Theologian, The Pistis Sophia [nb: this is misnamed and is actually entitled "A Portion of the Books of the Savior"], The Didache [Teaching of the Apostles], The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]

Category (5) is reserved for the books of the Nag Hammadi Codices (NHC). The publication of the NHC has been C14 dated to 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years). This C14 dating "superficially" supports 4th century authorship.

Finally in the last Category (6) The Acts of Pilate heads a large list of over 30 books of the NTA currently conjectured to have been authored after the Council of Nicaea. Fourth century (or later) authorship of this large group of NTA books is of course very much in line with the arguments presented here.

Summary of Literary Citation Evidence for Mainstream chronology

It should therefore be clear from the above categorization that the historical evidence concerning some early authorship of the books of the NTA arises only in the first two categories. Books listed in Categories 3, 4, 5 and 6 are either already known to have been authored after Nicaea, or there are no early witnesses to suggest this postulate. Books listed in Category 2 are first evidenced by Eusebius himself, but there is no guarantee that these did not appear during the period Eusebius was writing.

This just leaves the literary evidence associated with books listed in Category 1 as the basis of the mainstream postulate for early authorship. This literary evidence may be briefly summarized as follows:

The Gospel of Peter:
Eusebius cites Origen, Justin Martyr and Serapion as mentioning this text although in the case of Justin, MR James comments that “the evidence is not demonstrative”. Eusebius has an unknown Serapion report that he walked into a Gnostic library and “borrowed” a copy of this text.

The Gospel of Thomas:
Eusebius cites Hippolytus (155-235), Refutation of all Heresies, v. 1-6., as mentioning something similar to the received text, and cites Origen as mentioning some text of Thomas. Eusebius cites saying (No. 2 in the gThomas) as quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Miscellenies ii. 45. 5; v. 96.3), as coming from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There is certainly some ambiguity here.

The Gospel of Judas:
Eusebius cites a mention of this text in Irenaeus’ “Adversus Haereses” [I.31.1] however some integrity issues have been noted with it. For example, the text is described by Irenaeus as being linked with such villainous persons as Cain, Esau, Korah, and the Sodomites, rather than with the traditionally respected person of Seth. One commentator writes “Perhaps Irenaeus was simply misinformed or deliberately confused the two as a rhetorical strategy. At any rate, it is a strange divergence that demands clarification.” [Review of Deconick, Arie Zwiep] There is further ambiguity here

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
Eusebius preserves a citation from Irenaeus who quotes a non-canonical story that circulated about the childhood of Jesus. Many but not all scholars consider that it is possible that the apocryphal writing cited by Irenaeus is, in fact, what is now known as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. There is room for doubt

The Infancy Gospel of James:
Early knowledge of the “Protevangelium of James” is inferred from the preservation in Eusebius of mention by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. An inference is not the same thing as unambiguous evidence.

The Acts of Paul:
The chief and final literary citation is from Eusebius’ often cited Latin author Tertullian, in his De baptismo 17.5. This appears as the only “early” instance in which information is provided concerning an author of apocryphal writings. Note that the manuscripts which preserve Tertullian's De baptismo are quite late, the earliest being the 12th century Codex Trecensis.

As for those (women) who appeal to the falsely written Acts of Paul in order to defend the right of women to teach and to baptize, let them know that the presbyter in Asia who produced this document, as if he could add something of his own to the prestige of Paul, was removed from his office after he had been convicted and had confessed that he had done it out of love for Paul.

The 4th century interpolation into Josephus, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum”, is regarded by many as a critically positioned forgery, with respect to the history of the NTC. Likewise the “Testimonium Tertullianum”, it is suggested, should be regarded as a critically positioned forgery, with respect to the history of the NTA.

Rejection of the “conclusive evidence” via the “Church preserved literature”

Jerome’s novel addition to the Christian tradition - that the author of the Acts of Paul wrote in the presence of the apostle John in the 1st century - is a plainly fraudulent misrepresentation, and has been soundly rejected by many academics.

It is suggested that all the above “literary evidence” in the writings of the “Fathers” may be either ambiguous or false interpolations either by Eusebius, or his orthodox continuators who preserved both Eusebius and Tertullian.

Rejection of the “conclusive evidence” of Greek NTA papyri fragments

A number of Greek papyri fragments related to the NTA are postulated to be dated earlier than the 4th century, but the evidence is not conclusive.

For the Gospel of Peter P.Oxy.2949, P.Oxy.4008 and P.Vinbob G 2325 are often cited as “early”, whereas P.Oxy.849 is dated to 325 CE. “They are possibly but not conclusively from the Gospel of Peter.” [p,258, FN:11; "Fabricating Jesus" - Craig A Evans].

Likewise P.Oxy.654, P.Oxy.655 and P.Oxy.1 cited for the Gospel of Thomas,
P.Oxy 2525, P.Oxy 3525 and P.Rylands cited for the Gospel of Mary,
and P.Oxy 3524 and p.Bodmer cited in respect of the Infancy Gospel of James cannot be regarded as conclusively certain.

Additionally, there exists a great preponderance of Greek papyri fragments of the NTA which have been dated to the 4th or 5th centuries. Finally it is worth noting in passing that few commentators note that the population demographics for the city of Oxyrhynchus is known to have hit a massive peak in the mid 4th century. The analysis of coins found at the fifteen Oxyrhynchus tip sites also suggests the same thing. (See Milne, J.G.)

The corroboration of the 4th century evidence via the Manuscript Tradition

The collective dating of all available earliest manuscript copies of the NTA produce a profile which itself suggests a fourth century origin. A glance down the column marked “Earliest Manuscript” in Appendix (C) shows dates no earlier that the 4th century. Thus the manuscript tradition itself supports the postulate that the books of the NTA were authored in the 4th century. The source manuscripts are invariably Coptic and Syriac translations, and not Greek as intimated by Eusebius.

SUMMARY

The above evidence is far from conclusive in establishing that the Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored before the epoch of Nicaea and Eusebius. In addition it has not yet been argued that Eusebius himself cannot be regarded as a fair and accurate witness, since he himself must be classified as an Heresiologist with respect to the Gnostics, and is thus a hostile witness.

People may trust Eusebius as an integrous witness for the orthodox history of the canon following Christians, but they should not expect Eusebius to be an integrous witness for the opposing Gnostic history. Retrojection of material in the Eusebian "Ecclesiatical History" and other sources has had the effect that we are compelled to believe that ***some** of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored -- following Eusebius alone -- before Nicaea. I have dealt with the details above, and the evidence is far from conclusive.

The conjecture that the Gnostic Gospels and Acts and the NT Apocryphal literature in general were all actually authored after Nicaea, as a reaction to the NT canon has therefore been put forward as an alternative. As I have attempted to outline in the above, it may be argued that this conjecture is not contrary to the available evidence in our possession.

mountainman

A recent post on another thread brings attention to Robert Price's article entitled Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion dated February 5, 2007. Here Price introduces a range of views about Jesus presented on a spectrum of "belief". As the last entry we find the option that the belief that Jesus was just a pious forgery. Price expands this alternative belief (without subscribing to it) as follows:

The Gospels are completely fabricated stories that were intentionally crafted to deceive people, and there is no historical person at their core. The Gospels were really written anywhere from the 2nd century to the 4th century and much of early Christian history has been fabricated. The writers of the Gospels knew that there was no Jesus and the whole crafting of the religion was part of a political tool by Roman Emperors or others of a similar kind.

Also in this article he cites Remsberg who differentiates between various forms of myth in terms of a falsehood or a fable or a myth.

Jesus Christ is a myth. But what do we understand by the term myth? Falsehood, fable, and myth, are usually considered synonymous terms. But a falsehood, a fable, and a myth, while they may all be fictions and equally untrue, are not the same.

A falsehood is the expression of an untruth intended to deceive.

A fable is an avowed or implied fiction usually intended to instruct or entertain.

A myth is a falsehood, a fable, or an erroneous opinion, which eventually becomes an established belief.

While a falsehood and a fable are intentional and immediate expressions of fiction, a myth is, in most cases, an unconscious and gradual development of one.

The idea that Eusebius was instructed to compile what Emperor Julian later refers to as "the fabrication of the Christians" is thus not a new idea. It is simply an idea which has not yet been fully explored by analysts in the field of ancient history. Obviously there is a great deal of resistance by those who have vested interests in the status quo to even consider this idea as a viable alternative in the reconstruction of "Christian Origins". This resistance does not make the idea unfeasible.

Surely we need to follow the evidence wheresoever it may lead us. I have presented above citations to hard literary evidence that Arius of Alexandria was perceived by Athanasius (and Eusebius) as an anti-Christian satirist. You have not yet addressed that evidence, or offered any alternative idea how we are to treat that evidence.