aa5874

Well, if you don't accept anything then you cannot resolve the matter. Please, don't ask me anything about Athanasius because you don't seem to know what is true or false in sources of antiquity.

If nothing makes sense to you then what will?

Duvduv

You are asking a very meaningful question. We have already established that there were forgeries, interpollations, changes, inventions and lies in the entire panoply of events during that period.

Therefore, it is impossible to resolve certain questions on the side of certainty without relying simply on FAITH.
As I have mentioned, some things do not make sense logically in terms of context, and I do not accept everything stated in the name of writers as the "gospel truth."

Therefore, since there is no outside corroboration for events at Nicea as described by Eusebius, who was the foundation for subsequent "historians" and authors, and since "Eusebius" is hardly an objective source, I cannot rely on the scenario of the Nicene Council or the supposed preparation of 50 bibles as I have described.

I don't know if the Festal Letter is true or not, but according to official Christian history it is, and I simply point out the contradiction of having Athanasius offer a "canon" after Constantine had already gotten 50 "bibles". I also don't understand how "bibles" could have been authorized if there is no evidence as to the establishment of the Christian texts as holy scripture alongside the revered Hebrew scriptures.

As we go along, I cannot understand the phenomenon of three or four simultaneous "creeds" in Antioch that do not correspond to one another. Finally we end up in 381 with evidence that "Christians" believed in the virgin (apparently named Mary) and the crucifixion and a few other things.

Is the Constantinople Creed authentic from 381? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps the creed was now reflecting ideas that had been accepted without official epistles and gospels, perhaps it had. Do I accept all the dating of fragments and codices before the 4th century? I tend to doubt it.

The actual details don't make all that much difference to me one way or the other because I am not a Christian. But overall I tend towards a later time for the emergence of the sect rather than an earlier one.

Was Justin's Apology REALLY written around 150-160? I don't know and it is not an article of faith that it was. The fact that it contains no direct references to any gospels and nothing in relation to Paul and his letters (note that Acts also makes no mention of letters) suggests to me that the Apology came around before the epistles, gospels or Acts. Perhaps in 160 perhaps in 260. I wasn't there so I don't know. I do know there were interpolations, forgeries, changes and inventions, so who knows?

rlogan

It is good scholarship to investigate the scope and degree of forgery in early Christianity. Because the entire Bible is pious fraud.

So you look at who came up with which literature and what their motives were. Who they were competing against. You try to vector in a timeline by anchoring to real historical events.

Carrier's piece is unassailable in the main that canon developled over more than a century, and separate canon, not radically different, existed for centuries beyond the most pivotal events under Constantine.

You have to understand too that there was a lot more going on than just these themes we argue on here too. For example, at the Council of Nicea they debated what kind of Eunochs could fellowship with Christians. They decided the self-mutilated could not be Christians. Someone else had to cut your naughty bits off. So try to imagine you cut off your nuts for your faith, and now they say you can't be a Christian.

There's other stuff in there too, and yes the issues change over time. But the big-picture issues we can hem in pretty well: we do not hear of Christians before the 2nd Century. When we hear of them, they all agree on a Christ conceptually, but don't agree on either the exact nature or the stories they tell about this Christ.

The larger and wealthier of these groups can not only build churches operating in the open, but they can produce their own liturgy. So throughout the 2nd Century the churches are growing and interaction between them across regions results ultimately in these doctrinal literary wars.

By the end of the third century a tipping-point develops: Christianity represents such a large political, economic, and military force that the Roman Empire decides co-option and symbiosis with the Church heirarchy is in the best interests of the Empire.

That point is important because literature can be suppressed or commandeered with the police power of the state behind you. Eusebius or his agents are going to be allowed to march right into any office under the Empire and doctor up texts. Gospels of Thomas, Judas, et al. can be exterminated.

So we try to find what slipped through their fingers, and a lot of it has been put together through digs like Nag Hammadi and whatever. But it is an exciting mystery that reasonable people are going to disagree about for understandable reasons.

mountainman

Authorization must have involved the very rightful Pontifex Maximus who was conducting a "Holy War" against the last of the pagan persecutors of the Christians in the Eastern empire. After winning the war c.324 CE, the purported authorization via ratification and collection of signatures (against Arius) was supposedly conducted at Nicaea c.324/325 CE.

The Post-Constantinian orthodox state monotheistic religion wanted a canon that was slightly different from the list of books within the Constantine Bible. (e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas was not required).

Duvduv

What did Pontifex Maximus do that established the NT texts on par with the Hebrew scriptures?
And why does the Festal Letter sound as if it's just some kind of comment rather than some type of official ruling, which I would assume required the agreement of cardinals or whatever. Who did Athanasius think he was to set it up himself according to the Festal Letter?

mountainman

Carrier unassailably outlines and summarizes the church history as found in Eusebius, but then makes the point that "Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous". One of the core principles of historical methodology is that any given source may be forged or corrupted, and this includes Eusebius's "History of the Church". This "Church history" was researched and produced substantially during a massive civil war in the Roman Empire between the Christian commander of the Western forces and the Pagan commander of the eastern forces.

mountainman

Ever since Julius Caesar bribed his way into this prestigous position, the Pontifex Maximus was naturally permitted to subscribe the religious cult of his own preferred choice. There was nothing he had to do but decide which religious cult was to receive his sponsorship and support. Constantine embraced the cult of the Canonical Christians, along with their "Holy Writ" and rejected all the cults previous sponsored by all the preceedinbg Emperor Pontifex Maximi .....


But the problem is that Constantine did not simply reject the old order and the old cults, he took hostile and arguably fascist steps to destroy them. He certainly prohibited their customary day-to-day practices, and he enforced the prohibition by the use of the army.

He actively used his army to search out and destroy any "Prohibited Books" and commenced the practice of BOOK BURNING by the Christian regime. The list of prohibited books commenced immediately after Nicaea, naming Arius of Alexandria and Porphyry as targets. The Vatican "INDEX LIBRORUM PROHIBITORUM" is descendent from Nicaea.

From the Council of Nicaea, the canonical books of the NT survived in the imperial scriptoria, while the noncanonical books of the NT and other heretical books were burnt, and their preservers once apprehended, were executed by beheading, in line with Constantine's decree.

mountainman

Where Eusebius arranged for the manufacture of Christian Bible codices for Constantine, Athanasius apparently performed this role for Constantius.

Following the lead of Eusebius, the Christians were always exceedingly resourceful at retrospectively forging and fabricating letters. The thesis of Charles Freeman's AD 381 is that later in the 4th (or even 5th century) the Christians retrospectively fabricated "Church Council decisions" in order to conceal what was simply imperial legislation.

This same thesis needs to be applied to the year 325 CE.






Athanasius knew himself to be a very useful instrument of the Roman Emperor and Pontifex Maximus Constantius, who ruled (337-360 CE) between Constantine and Julian. The presence of Athanasius in the historical record was in turn very useful for those who knew themselves to be the very useful instruments of the later 4th and 5th century Christian Emperors.

The immense authority which Eusebius gained was well deserved.
He had continuators but no rivals."


"How would the continuators of Eusebius deal with the politics of the emperors,
the plotical intrigues of the bishops?"

See Momigliano, on the continuators of Eusebius here

Duvduv

Who were the personnel of the forgering factory during those years?
Is it possible to detect evidence in the NT texts? And what about discrepancies and contradictions even among so-called histories and apologies?

mountainman

All the imperially connected heresiologists between Eusebius (325 CE) and Cyril of Alexandria (444 CE).

"When Cyril of Alexandria died in 444 CE one person suggested that
a heavy stone be placed on his grave to prevent his soul returning
to the world when it was thrown out of hell as being evil even for there."

IMHO it is possible that some (but certainly not all) of the non canonical NT texts (especially the Gnostic Acts and some Gospels) exhibit the signature of parody and satire against the canonical NT texts and the 4th century imperial version of the monotheistic christian state religious cult.

I think the NEGATIVE evidence of the non canonical texts is being overlooked because scholars and academics of the past did not possess a conceptual framework in which the Christians were the subject of serious academic ridicule. But when some of the Gnostic texts are examined, they are found to contain serious (Greek) academic ridicule of the canon.