TedM

just saw your post. I gotta clear some things up with you..

That's faith, against the evidence and against reasonable sense IMO.

I think you have forgotten how this conversation progressed. You indicated first that you would have expected a response 'in spades' in opposition to a widespread historical movement, had it existed. I first gave reasons as to why I don't think there would have been an 'in spades' non-historical response had there been a widespread historical movement.
I then also said why IF your are right (with hundreds of documents circulated after 200 years of being 'in spades') I think it would not have been successfully suppressed.


There is plenty of evidence that by mid 2nd century a significant percentage of believers believed in a historical Jesus. Ignatius was a BISHOP on his way to being martyred. He was a historicist. The opponents of Christianity surely would have been aware that this was a widespread belief within that community.

I'm starting to suspect that you are letting emotion guide your views on this, and not evidence.

It SHOULD only exist if your premise --that an anti-historical movement would have existed 'in spades'. is correct. Perhaps lack of evidence is not evidence of a cover-up. That truly is a conspiracy oriented mindset. Perhaps lack of evidence is really just evidence of a lack of support for the idea that people were opposing the idea that Jesus ever walked the earth..


Perhaps, but I just don't believe in large cover-ups. Do you believe in Roswell? The Illuminatti? Freemasons? I don't.


I don't think Paul ever used the term and he was the greatest ambassador to the Gentiles, so I reject this view.

Yet, the number of copies of 200 years of those who could not stand the idea of their coveted Logos being desecrated by a false claim about a mere human would not have been circulated as much?

Bottom line: You are speculating and there is no evidence to support this theory that there was a major 'in spades' anti-historicist movement at ANY time prior to the burning of books.

I think we've both mostly exhausted our views on this. Thanks for playing along. Maybe Earl will feel inclined to give some of his thoughts on this issue.

mountainman

Well it was used in retrospect, and the non canonical legends seeped into the canonical legends and have never been extricated because we do not yet know the names and dates for any of the canonical or gnostic authors, and have thus never unravelled the two canon and noncanonical literature in any solid chronological sense, other than conjecturing "early". However I guess my point is that the genre of the gnostic gospels is radically removed from history, and has been termed "wildly romantic and popular fiction". Grant says the non canonical authors present "severely conditoned responses to Jesus ... usually these authors deny his humanity". This imo represents negative historicity, not positive historicity. Peter passes a camel through the eye of a needle twice.


I have suggested that the five sophisms at the basis of the Arian controversy may be interpretted, not as a theological thesis about the HJ, but a non historical thesis about the HJ. This was a real threat to orthodoxy. Also it is possible that Julian's thesis involved non historicity, and Cyril saw "these lies" of Julian as a very real threat. There is also the case of Cyril against Nestorius, who made these comments:

I see many who strongly insist
on these [theories of fiction]
as something [based] on
the truth and ancient opinion.

But we do have plenty of evidence of censorship and destruction.
I agree with Shesh, that the historical accounts have been censored.
Swept clean by the Vatican like Zen monks in a pebble garden.
Business is business. Authenticity problems can be and have been eliminated.


The distorted view of the church records was conspiratorial and still is IMO. If the church had not been kicked out of holding on to the Dead Sea Scrolls, they would still have those manuscripts in their possession. They would perhaps have presented a distorted version of the evidence. In the past it cannot be denied as a fact that they suppressed the evidence, they prohibited the evidence, they burnt and destroyed the evidence, and then they represented the evidence as a "Refutation. How how many centuries since the 4th century have manuscript discoveries been swept into the vatican archives prior to the DSS discovery? We may never know or even be acquainted with "the evidence itself" because of censorship.

Only since the DSS were liberated from the church, has any evidence been flowing freely to the academics and thus the public. We would not have seen the Nag Hammadi Codices or the Gospel of Judas if they had been discovered a century earlier. Do you appreciate this change?

I know conspiracy theories are not pleasant things, and I dont particularly like them myself, but the fact remains that if a conspiracy has happened in the earliest publications of the new testament and its historical transmission to the 4th century and to the closure of the NT canon, then we need to be prepared to unravel it. I do not trust the authority of church - why should I? In fact, I suggest that the evidence is such that it is almost mandatory that one should approach the authority of the 4th century (and after) church with a healthy degree of suspicion.

Sheshbazzar

There wouldn't be much in the way of opposition documents during those 200 years, for the reasons set forth above; There were actually few 'Jesus believing' Christians at all, (although admittedly the ranks of so called 'Christians' were growing, knowledge of the presence of any 'Jesus' in their religion was yet lacking for most)
As these had not yet 'put together' their specific invented 'Jebus' figure with its Gospel lies, there was during this interval no concentrated effort to commandeer the term for the exclusive use of their newly invented idol.
It took till late in the 2nd CE for them to (more or less) sort out what Christianity ought to be (in the orthodox view) Only then did the invented Jesus figure begin to take on prominence and the devotees begin to demand that everyone accept 'him', their idol, as being the exclusive embodiment of THE LOGOS.

(Which would have been an absolutely ridiculous and foolish claim to the likes of Heraclitus, Aristotle, Plato, and Zeno, and all who had been teaching and refining the doctrine of The Logos since 600 BC!. )

There would have been little to no reason to write or circulate anything contrary to the fragmented and confused Christianity of the first 200 years, they themselves hadn't even figured out what the hell it was that they believed, And apparently the Marcionites were the largest, most organised, and most influential during the last half of the 2nd c.
It was only once the 'orthodoxy' was able to get in cahoots and make 'deals' with Constantine that any serious opposition to their bogus claims, would have became perceived as necessary, and by then it was much too late. Legalised censorship and murder was in power.

Bottom line. You have bought into one hell of a lot of Christian mafia lying testimony.

TedM

I'm not suggesting we trust the authority of the Church. I more am questioning to what extent the church was willing or able to carry out suppression of all materials arguing against a historical Jesus. There is nothing to betray such a specific mandate. I do agree that wherever there is authority there is suppression. I do not agree that it is particularly effective at keeping the suppression a secret. The DDS suppression was not a secret. I think it would be surprising that they could keep secret the existence of a heresy that was far more powerful than the ones they tried to suppress that we do know about. As I said before, the more widespread knowledge of something is, the less likely it can be successfully suppressed.



Yet, there were writings for and against the eventual orthodox views in those first 200 years. Marcion was one of them. I think the fact that there was such diversity around 150 AD argues strongly for their being an anti-historcist movement within 'Christianity' itself ONLY IF there wasn't already wide agreement within Christianity that Jesus had walked the earth. We have enough records of the various disagreements within the faith that surely there would have remained some hint of contrary views within the faith had it existed.

Then you have another 150 years during which the historicist/orthodox view would have gotten larger and larger and -- according to you would have created opposition 'in spades' among the 'pagans, yet there is not evidence of any existence or attempts to suppress this opposition.

So, I just can't see this movement existing because I would expect 2 kinds of evidence that doesn't exist:

1. within the 'Jesus-God-Logos' community's own writings in both 1st and 2nd century
2. within the wider Roman community, and reflected in Christian documents during the 3rd and 4th centuries.

I don't doubt the existence of conspiracies. I do doubt how successfully they can be kept a secret.

Sheshbazzar

Then you -Don't THINK- and you are wrong, and not familiar with the alleged words of Paul;
There are many, many more, and Paul's Word in writing to the Gentiles -was- λόγος "Logos" and so I reject your view.

TedM

I'm very familiar with Paul's NT writings, but had never come across the word Logos, as it is not used in the versions I've read and I certainly don't know Greek, so thanks for the correction.

Does Paul actually apply the term to Jesus though? I didn't see it in the examples you provided. Isn't that what is relevant? I readily admit that I haven't studied the whole Logos concept much to date.

It's late. Will check in tomorrow.

mountainman

In order to earnestly question this imo for expediency's sake one may provisionally and hypothetically assume the HJ was fabricated by a revolutionary group of people who were to lead the church, and the best provisional and hypothetical historical scenario that I can suggest to start with is the revolution which occurred from the year 312 and then blossomed 324/325 CE.

To what extent was Constantine and the church (and the army) willing to destroy pagan architecture in the midst of the eastern pagan society and culture that was at that time ancient and highly revered? At that time we are talking about an absolute control of the empire, which assumed despotic degrees in Constantine's 3rd decade of rule.

There is the turbulent centuries of the "Arian Controversy". If you are still following the provisional hypothesis, immediately the "Historical Jesus" is floated in public to the eastern empire, there is a massive controversy. Yes of course the church tells us this was just a minor theological quibble, but provisionally I reserve the right to reject this explanation.


The greater the authority the greater the suppression. If the authority is absolute, the people have no alternative but to bury time capsules and try and ride it out. The Nag Hammadi codices are such a time capsule - buried for their preservation in an epoch of prohibition where, according to Ammianus "the highways were covered in galloping bishops", and where day by day the inheritor of Christendom, Constantine's son Constantius II "obscured the plain and simple religion of the christians with a dotard's superstition." We are dealing with the barbaric slave mentality 4th century where being literate was the exception.

This obviously depends upon the control over time of the "evidence" by an organisation which is committed to the prosperity of the idea of the historical jesus. The control that the church possessed was associated with the emperor, until the role of Pontifex Maximus moved to Pope Damasius.


No it wasn't of course, but who had access to the manuscripts? And how long would the church have maintained control and possession of the mss had not other powers intervened?

I think it would be surprising to discover how much the early church material are common lies, fraudulent misrepresentation and perversion of the extant literature.

How was the Arian controversy eventually suppressed? Hundreds of years after the event, the 5th century christians like Cyril took out and refuted heresies of Julian and Nestorius. Censorship and power over an illiterate world
.

Sheshbazzar

The term occurs hundreds of times within the Greek texts, both in the general sense of 'word(s)' or 'sayings' as well as the higher and abstract conception of an existing and living 'WORD' (Logos) of God.
Yes this is what is relavant to Paul's writings, but demonstrating the fact is a bit trickier than that heavily nuanced stress that is applied to the Logos as it is in John 1:1-5

Throughout The Bible (in the Greek texts) is the recurrent phrase 'The WORD of God' and 'The WORD of The LORD' (I am here taking the liberty of stressing 'WORD') that 'word' in the Greek text is the (root) word Logos.

Now as the texts develop, this 'WORD of God' 'WORD of the LORD' takes on an individuality and personality distinct from that of the God YHWH Himself.
I'll quote a few verses that illustrate this (pardon me if I do not quote them all, as this could become quite ponderous)
HE and HIM referring to The WORD, The LOGIA.
The highest form; 'O' LOGOS' THE LOGOS, "THE WORD".
John 1:1-3s takeoff, The WORD which made all things.
When taken in conjunction with other verses usually accepted as a Messianic promise.
Compare this with Rev 19:11-16
This is all evidence, that to the Christian Church and its writers the term LOGOS was integral and indispensable to their form of thought and teaching.
I should not need to argue the point.

This ought to give some indication of how and why the term LOGOS was so essential to capture, and to retain it exclusively to 'Christ Jesus', for the success and spread of Christianity.
The WORD LOGOS, had been associated with Messianic expectations for at least 300 years before the 'birth' of Christ.

'Pagan' Philosophers would not have been at all pleased with a requirement of surrendering the highest term of their Hellenic philosophy and theology to a 'new' Jewish religion.

It now after 5 am. I believe I have expended enough effort on this for the time.
Although you may not be persuaded regarding anything I have presented, my integrity is intact.

TedM

Shesh, thanks for the added info about Logos. I think our disagreement comes down to expectations about what people would have done given certain conditions so we've taken this as far as it can go between us, I think.

take care. I look forward to Earl's further comments on Don's review and perhaps some of the issues raised here.


I looked up this controversy but didn't learn much. Agree though that the greater the power the greater the ability to suppress. It was widespread enough to result in several councils so this may give an indication of how great the Church power had become to suppress it for 200-300 years. Not sure how to know how much the knowledge of it was suppressed also though.. Anyway, thanks for the comments. Hopefully Earl will come back and continue despite the tendency of threads to take on a life of their own. At least the subject was mostly related..


ted

show_no_mercy

It's interesting that in the Torah (i.e. the first five books) the translators prefered ρημα κυριου/θεου. Assuming that the Torah was the first of the sacred Jewish writings to be translated into Greek and the Nevi'im and Ketuvim translated later, it looks like subsequent Hellenized Jews made a deliberate effort to move from ρημα κυριου to λογος κυριου. As though they had been further influenced by the Greeks and the status they gave the "logos".