Casper

Yes, I would like to hear this (perhaps repeated because of my short attention span, sorry). For instance, what I read in the Gospel of Thomas doesn't appear to me like parody or satire. It seems very "freaky" to my modern western senses, but I see no reason to believe it wasn't meant as dogma to be taken seriously, even if that requires some metaphoric rationalization. In fact it makes more sense as dogma to be digested than it does satire. Perigrinus, on the other hand, definitely takes on the air of satire within an overall setting of polemic. You can tell Lucian did not approve of Perigrinus' doctrine and ridiculed him in subtle and not so subtle ways.

bacht

I'm tempted to see mountainman's theory as a kind of conspiracy theory, but as an amateur I can't judge the plausibility vis a vis the technical issues.

As a participant in the arts, I can guess at the difficulty of reproducing sincere-sounding voices and opinions centuries after the fact. These were not modern forgers, with the kinds of resources we have available. OTOH the bar must have been lower as far as declaring certain texts "authentic" by the standards of the day.

mountainman

Dear bacht and casper and others,

My explanation for the non canonical new testament literature is that - in the large - the gospels and the acts - may be considered as seditious polemical reactionary literature authored by ascetic greek speaking academic priests of the ancient temple cults (such as the network of temples associated with Asclepius which have manifest historicity during the period 500 BCE to 500 CE and which Constantine targetted for destruction and calumny.

I have notes on this - treating various non canonical acts - at this page entitled The NON CANONIC as PAGAN POLEMIC .




Thank you for this question.

I should mention that the gospel of thomas is of course, being simply a list of sayings, not a narrative neither a satire, but a list of sayings of ancient wisdom, each of which were prefaced with the phrase "Jesus said". However in actual fact, the name mentioned in the coptic is not Jesus AFAIK but the abbreviated nomina sacra form --- which may also represented something other than Jesus or Joshua, namely the healer.

In this regard, the changing and the christianisation of literature, Robin Lane Fox and others have pointed out that the Nag Hammadi codices (348 CE) display evidence of "the christianisation of literature". One classic example is the tractate relating to Eugnostos the Blessed for which there are Two versions:

3.3 "The first aeon, then, is that of Immortal Man. The second aeon is that of Son of Man, who is called 'First Begetter' (and in Codex 5.1; "who is called 'Savior'" is added - See R.L.Fox)

The list of sayings in gThomas is a simple list to which was prefaced a name, or rather not the name of Jesus, but an abbreviated two letter symbol. So who was Pachomius, the purported supervisor of the monastery near Nag Hammadi at which these codices are thought to have been created?


Pachomius fled civilisation by a vision in the year 324 CE.
I wonder what he saw. Did he see Constantine pulling down
the final huge obelisk in the ancient temple complex at Karnack?


Yes, the gThomas is a list of sayings, not a satire like the acts of ...
Thanks for that question and opportunity to clarify.



IMO Eusebius forged a number of works in the names of extant ancient authors, either in the large or pircemeal via interpolation, such as the famous interpolation into Josephus. Here is a list of these (IMO):


Imperially sponsored Scriptoria of Eusebius
Literature Interpolations and Forgeries Index:

Josephus Flavius - The Testimonium Flavianum, Antiquity of the Jews
Tacitus - Annals 15:44, 15th Century Forgery of Poggio Bracciolini
Suetonius - Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Nero, 16.
Pliny the Younger - Plinius, Ep 10:97; a letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan
Emperor Trajan - Dear Pliny (a rescript)
Marcus Aurelius - The "christian" reference at Meditations 11:3
Hegesippus - The "shadowy Hegesippus" according to Momigliano
Celsus: Fourth Century Eusebian forgery of anti-christian writings
Julius Africanus - Chronologer used by Eusebius, whom Eusebius "corrects" by 300 years.
Lucian of Samosata - Life of Peregrine, Alexander the Prophet
The Vienne/Lyon Martyrs' Letter - Independent analysis of Eusebian forgery.
Origen - Ascetic pythagorean academic; specialist of the (LXX) Hebrew Bible (alone).
Porphyry - Ascetic pythagorean academic; Eusebian forgery of anti-christian writings.


Finally, this is not a conspiracy theory since Constantine is known to have possessed total military supremacy and is perceived as a malevolent despot according to evidence on the table. The ROman emperor also had the title of Pontifex Maximus, a role more than a thousand years old by the time Constantine assumed it c.312 CE when he liberated the city of Rome from its senate.

Best wishes,



Pete

mountainman

Dear Bacht,

The high technology of the epoch was the hand presrved codex. Scriptorums of a collegiate nature apparently were quite popular under Constantine if we are to examine the scholarship on other documents of antiquity, such as one called the Historia Augusta. Fabrication centers. Lavish fraud by a despot. This is not the same thing as publication via a conspiracy.

The word conspiracy FWIW is mentioned in a very critical fashion by the tax exempt bishop of Alexandria Cyril, who is compelled to inform us that any knowledge that the new testament was a fiction, he looked upon as a conspiracy of the Greeks (ie: the Greek academics of the eastern empire) and the formost of course being emperor Julian who in no uncertain terms tells us that the new testament is a fabrication and fiction of wicked men.

Julian also writes satire against Constantine and jesus. Have you happened yet to have read his work called The Caesars?

Best wishes,


Pete

bacht

Constantine may have had the "means, motive and opportunity" but I still don't see a smoking gun [nothing personal Pete, just being argumentative]

We know that pseudonymity was well established before the Christian era.
We know that sectarianism was common in 2nd temple Judaism.
We know that Hellenism was an important cultural intrusion in Jewish life.
We know that the Jewish revolt was a disaster for the Judean community.
We know that the 3rd C was a time of economic and military decline for Rome.
We know that Constantine imposed an official interpretation of Christianity on the empire in the 4th C.

What else can be said with certainty?

Casper

Thanks for that clarification, Pete. I can see the possibility of an older source for gThomas becoming "christianized" into the gThomas we have today from NH.

I only brought up Lucian's alleged work as an example, and I assume you posit that Eusebius created this under the name or pseudonym (whichever you prefer) of Lucian, in order to fabricate a college of support. I can entertain that without any problem as well.

It is just that this seems to me, in my amateurish anglophonic subjectivity, to be a good example of satire which, if it were repeated in theme, would not stand out as uniquely as it does.

mountainman

Dear bacht,

Thanks for the argument. What would you accept as a "smoking gun"? Some sort of signed confession from Eusebius that he was coerced by Constantine to fraudulently misprespresent the ancient history of the fourth century to the Roman empire of that epoch? How about if Ammianus' account and obituary to Constantine somehow turns up? Apart from conjectural evidence, I see the following as pointing in the direction of Constantinian fiction:

1) The words of Arius of Alexandria. (fiction)
2) The words of Emperor Julian (fiction)
3) The words of Nestorius of Constantinople (fiction).
4) The words of Cyril of Alexandria ("Lies of Julian")

Additionally the principle of political fiction explains quite adequately in profane historio-political terms the following major controversies of christian ecclesiatical history:

1) The Arian controversy.
2) The Origenist controversy.
3) The Nestorian controversy.
4) Emperor Julian's invectives against the Galilaeans.

Just this .... we have not one skerrick of archaeological evidence which is worth a visit on this planet which will unambiguously substantiate he Eusebian and Constantinian claim that there were christians on the planet Earth prior to the appearance of Constantine.

We certainly have zero pre-Nicene christian evidence.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Casper,

Here is some background on Lucian:

Notably Lucian was not writing stories about Jesus or any other characters who make their famous appearance in the new testament canon stories. This is a major difference. Whoever authored the new testament non canonical texts (particularly the apochryphal acts and gospels) used the major characters in their stories and narratives. Now my claim is that the entire set of these non canonical texts were authored as a polemical and essentially seditious reaction to the authority of Constantine's canonical literature, which he published lavishly etc etc etc. Note that this includes the Nag Hammadi material, and especially the tract NHC 6.1 entitled "The Acts of Peter and the 12 apostles", which is bound into a pagan spiritual handbook, and which although containing an exposition on the allegory of the pearl of great price, IMO is additionally a satire against the practices of the new state religion of that epoch (C14 = 348 CE).

Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

One of the apparent implications of Pete's theory is that the doctrines of the Arian church of the fifth and sixth centuries, which were denounced as heretical by the contemporary Nicene church, were fabrications of the founders of that same Nicene church and had nothing to do with the actual views of the original Arius.

Is there anybody who finds this plausible?

mountainman

Dear J-D,

Arius was expelled from the Nicaean council. His views, in the form of a series of short and dogmatic assertions, were recorded by a number of ecclesiastical historians within a hundred years of the council, and are appended to what is now referred to as the Nicene Creed, but which in a strict legal sense is nothing but an oath to Constantine, as a disclaimer clause as follows:


These very same sayings are recorded down the course of the fourth and fifth centuries as being strongly associated with what it termed as the Arian controversy, and which were deemed heretical not only in the time of Constantine (See the letter sent by Constantine to Arius for example) but for the next few hundred years.

What are the meanings of these sayings? Why were they regarded as heretical to the authodoxy of christianity as the history of the period clearly indicates? Why did Julian legislate that the christians should be known as Galilaeans? Why did Julian find it necessary to write a treatise on the appearance of this new state religion under Constantine, in a work entitled Against the Galilaeans, in which he commences with the following set of invectives against these Galilaeans ....



There exists a very simple solution to all this. Constantine fabricated the new testament and foisted it upon a captive empire at the time he obtained supreme military supremacy over the civilians of the eastern Roman empire c.324 CE. Arius of Alexandria and the Hellenic academics needed to flee and seek refuge from the utter destruction. They had no swords. They took up the pen and wrote cutting satire and parody against the Constantinian canon. These documents are now represented among us as the new testament apochrypha, which were not written in the second and third centuries as is claimed by Eusebius, but in fact were written during the epoch 324 to perhaps 400 CE. The Nag Hammadi codices C14 dated to 348 CE are the prime evidence of this political situation.


Best wishes,



Pete