Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 05-16-2010, 08:20 PM

Eusebius's "Historical Christian Corruption" of the Apostolic Lineage of the Academy of Plato (and Pythagoras)

SUMMARY

Those who have studied the ancient history of the lineage of the Neoplatonic philosophers from the persepctive of Classical History (and not "Biblical History") appear quite adamant that there are three historical figures - namely Ammonias Sacas, Origen and Anatolius of Laodicea - who have been mistakenly asserted by Eusebius to have been "Christians".

The Classical historians have therefore had to revert to the only possible condition short of calling Eusebius a "fabricator of Christianisation of History", by making the assumption that there were in history, two Ammonias Saccas' (one a christian and one a Platonist), two Origens (one a christian and one a Platonist) and two Anatolius of Laodicea (one a Christian and the other a Platonist).

The simple resolution of the reality of this historical situation is that Eusebius has fabricated his claims that these important philosopher/sages/authors were in fact Christians. Eusebius needed to substantiate the "Apostolic Lineage of the Christian philosophy" and simply appropriated his historical sources in a fraudulent fashion to achieve his ends.

At the end of the day we have these two facts:

(1) Zero evidence for any archaeological "Christian lineage" independent of Eusebius (despite his claims).

(2) Three solid citations by which we can see Eusebius has simply asserted fraudulent historical information concerning the following three members of the "Apostolic Lineage of the Academy of Plato" - Ammonias Sacas, Origen and Anatolius of Laodicea.

For details concerning the "Classicist estimation" of these three "non Christian" historical figures please refer to the link provided above.

The Greek literary lineages were corrupted by Eusebius' pseudo-histories.
The Greek monumental architecture was destroyed by Constantine's army.
The Christian pseudo-history of Eusebius is a fairy-story.

The trouble with a good many of us
is that we come to a conclusion
before we arrive at the end.

The large part of history is pretty ugly,
and alot of people dont want to face that.

mountainman · 05-17-2010, 09:47 PM

Origen (disambiguation)

Origen (that Eusebius would have us know) was a third-century Christian theologian.

Origen may also refer to:

Origen the Pagan, a third-century Platonist philosopher

The question is really whether Eusebius either conflated the two or invented the "Christianization" of the existing Neoplatonist Origen.

This question may be repeated with the teacher of the Neoplatonist Origen the founder of the Neoplatonist lineage - the figure of Ammonias Saccas.

Ammonius of Alexandria (Christian)

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Ammonius of Alexandria was a Christian philosopher who lived in the 3rd century. He is not to be confused with Ammonius Saccas, the Neoplatonist philosopher, also from Alexandria.

Until the 19th century Ammonius was credited with devising the early medieval divisions of the text of the Four Gospels, still usually known as the Ammonian Sections. These are now usually ascribed to Eusebius of Caesarea instead. Eusebius (Church History, vi. 19), who is followed by Jerome, asserts that Ammonius was born a Christian, remained faithful to Christianity throughout his life, and produced two works, The Harmony of Moses and Jesus and a Diatessaron, or The Harmony of the Four Gospels. There is an extant Latin translation by the sixth century bishop Victor of Capua of an anonymous Diatessaron, it is generally ascribed it to Tatian, but it could have been written by Ammonius.

Eusebius attacks Porphyry for saying that Ammonius apostatized early in his life and left no writings behind him, but Eusebius was presumably confusing Ammonius with the Neoplatonist

Ammonias Saccas

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Ammonius Saccas (3rd century AD) (Ancient Greek: Ἀμμώνιος Σακκᾶς) was a Greek philosopher from Alexandria who was often referred to as one of the founders of Neoplatonism. He is mainly known as the teacher of Plotinus, whom he taught for eleven years from 232 to 243. He was undoubtably the biggest influence on Plotinus in his development of Neoplatonism, although little is known about his own philosophical views. Later Christian writers stated that Ammonius was a Christian, but it is now generally assumed that there was a different Ammonius of Alexandria who wrote biblical texts.

mountainman · 05-17-2010, 10:03 PM

Anatolius of Laodicea currently does not have a separate entry in a disambiguation page for the Neoplatonic and the "Christian" or perhaps "CHRISTIANIZED" Anatolius. WIKI currently displays the "christian dogma".

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Anatolius of Laodicea, (early 3rd century - July 3, 283[1]), also known as Anatolius of Alexandria, was Bishop of Laodicea in Syria, and was one of the foremost scholars of his day in the physical sciences as well as in Aristotelean philosophy. He is considered a saint by the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches

However we can expect that to shortly be changed.

Here is what Rowan Williams has concluded ...

"The suggestion that Anatolius, Iamblichus' teacher, is to identified
with the Christian Bishop Anatolius of Laodicaea ... is a conjecture
regarded very skeptically indeed by several well qualified judges."

p.262 Rowan Williams, "Arius: Heresy & Tradition" (Revised Ed 2002)

Any comments so far? Is this all coincidental or is the Apostolic Lineage of Plato being targetted by a deliberate process of "Christianisation" by the extremely influential "Christian Historian" Eusebius of the Caesars? Eusebius was looking around for extremely well informed authors who were known perhaps as little as a generation or two earlier from whom he could draw well respected information concerning the history of the "Apostolic Lineage of the Academy of the Christians". It seems that he sought the source of this information from well respected information which was already part of the "Apostolic Lineage of the Academy of Plato". Is this the usual modus operandi of Eusebius?

mountainman · 05-19-2010, 11:01 PM

Eusebius claims that the "Harmony of the Four Gospels" has been earlier provided by one Ammonias.

Here is what Eusebius says about Ammonias in
"Historia Ecclesiastica", Book 6, Chapter XIX. Circumstances Related of Origen.

Quote:

9 These things are said by Porphyry in the third book of his work against the Christians.152 He speaks truly of the industry and learning of the man, but plainly utters a falsehood (for what will not an opposer of Christians do?) when he says that he went over from the Greeks,153 and that Ammonius fell from a life of piety into heathen customs.

10 For the doctrine of Christ was taught to Origen by his parents, as we have shown above. And Ammonius held the divine philosophy unshaken and unadulterated to the end of his life.154 His works yet extant show this, as he is celebrated among many for the writings which he has left. For example, the work entitled The Harmony of Moses and Jesus, and such others as are in the possession of the learned.

Epistula ad Carpianum

Quote:

The Epistula ad Carpianum (Epistle to Carpian) is the title traditionally given to a letter on the Gospel canons from Eusebius of Caesarea to a Christian named Carpianus.

In the text, Eusebius explains his ingenious system of Gospel harmony, the Eusebian Canons that divide the four Gospels, and describes the purpose of his canons, ten in number. According to this letter the Ammonian Sections were made by Ammonius the Alexandrian (Matthew 355, Mark 236, Luke 342, John 232 - together 1165 sections). Under each of the 1165 Ammonian Sections, in its proper place in the margin of a manuscript, is put in coloured ink the number of that Eusebian canon to which it referes.[1]

Here is the text where Eusebius mentions Ammonius the Alexandrian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EUSEBIUS

Eusebius to Carpianus his beloved brother in the Lord: greetings.

Ammonius the Alexandrian, having exerted a great deal of energy and effort as was necessary, bequeaths to us a harmonized account of the four gospels. Alongside the Gospel according to Matthew, he placed the corresponding sections of the other gospels. But this had the inevitable result of ruining the sequential order of the other three gospels,3as far as a continuous reading of the text was concerned. Keeping, however, both the body and sequence of the other gospels completely intact, in order that you may be able to know where each evangelist wrote passages in which they were led by love of truth to speak about the same things, I drew up a total of ten tables according to another system, acquiring the raw data from the work of the man mentioned above.

This Ammonius the Alexandrian cannot be identified with the father of neoplatonism Ammonias Saccas the Alexandrian, whom Plotinus claimed to be his teacher.

Readers should understand that the leaders of the Greek philosophical schools had apostles, and thus an apostolic lineage which is just as (if not far more so) valid than the hypothetical - perhaps even transcendental - "apostolic lineage" of the "Early Christian church". For example, it may be claimed that the apostle of Ammonias Saccas, Plotinus, himself had twelve apostles. See The Apostles of Plotinus

Also see Neoplatonism

Quote:

Neoplatonism (also Neo-Platonism) is the modern term for a school of religious and mystical philosophy that took shape in the 3rd century AD, founded by Plotinus and based on the teachings of Plato and earlier Platonists. The term - neuplatonisch - was coined by a German historian[1]. Neoplatonists would have considered themselves simply "Platonists", and the modern distinction is due to the perception that their philosophy contained enough unique interpretations of Plato to make it substantially different from what Plato wrote and believed. The Neoplatonism of Plotinus and Porphyry has been referred to as really being orthodox Platonic philosophy by scholars like John D. Turner. This distinction provides a contrast with later movements of Neoplatonism, such as those of Iamblichus and Proclus, which embraced magical practices or theurgy as part of the soul's development in the process of the soul's return to the Source. This could also be due to one possible motive of Plotinus, being to clarify some of the traditions in the teachings of Plato that had been misrepresented before Iamblichus (see Neoplatonism and Gnosticism).

Neoplatonism took definitive shape with the philosopher Plotinus, who claimed to have received his teachings from Ammonius Saccas, a philosopher in Alexandria.[2] Plotinus was also influenced by Alexander of Aphrodisias and Numenius of Apamea. Plotinus's student Porphyry assembled his teachings into the six sets of nine tractates, or Enneads. Subsequent Neoplatonic philosophers included Iamblichus, Hypatia of Alexandria, Hierocles of Alexandria, Proclus (by far the most influential of later Neoplatonists), Damascius (last head of Neoplatonist School at Athens), Olympiodorus the Younger, and Simplicius of Cilicia.

mountainman · 06-01-2010, 05:34 PM

Where's Jeffrey Gibson? Doesn't anyone even dimly perceive the possibility that the historical reality of the academies of the Greek Gnostic Philosophers -- including their well known and influential leaders -- was the subject of false statements by the 4th century "Church historian and chronographer" Eusebius, who then asserts the existence of a parallel academy and its succession of "Christian Bishops and Deacons". With how much "christian preconception" is this evidence being examined?

arnoldo · 06-02-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Where's Jeffrey Gibson? Doesn't anyone even dimly perceive the possibility that the historical reality of the academies of the Greek Gnostic Philosophers -- including their well known and influential leaders -- was the subject of false statements by the 4th century "Church historian and chronographer" Eusebius, who then asserts the existence of a parallel academy and its succession of "Christian Bishops and Deacons". With how much "christian preconception" is this evidence being examined?

I dunno where he is. However, do you think the following statement allegedly made by Porphry sometime in the third century is bogus?

Quote:

"The evangelists were fiction-writers - not observers or eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus" (p.32; Apocrit. II.12 - Hoffmann).
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/porphyry/hoffmann.htm

mountainman · 06-02-2010, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...do you think the following statement allegedly made by Porphry sometime in the third century is bogus?

Quote:

"The evangelists were fiction-writers - not observers or eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus" (p.32; Apocrit. II.12 - Hoffmann).
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/porphyry/hoffmann.htm

Yes I do. Here is what Eunapius writes about Porphyry:

Quote:

It seems that he attained to an advanced old age.
At any rate he 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 think it is reasonable to suspect that Eusebius forged additional opinions of Porphyry which were unrelated to the philosophy of the neoplatonic and neopythagorean lineage of philosophers and sages -- additional opinions about "The Christians" whom I think Porphyry had never heard of. I think it is reasonable to suspect that Eusebius simply forged the fragments of Porphyry against the Christians so that his imperial sponsor Constantine, who seems to have seen himself as the fighting servant of Jesus and who had selected the christian cult as his own, could be righteously indignant at the books of Porphyry, and therefore order that the books of Porphyry were to be burnt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constantines_Letter

Porphyry,
who was an enemy of the fear of God,
and wrote wicked and unlawful writings
against the religion of Christians,
found the reward which befitted him,
that he might be a reproach to all generations after,
because he fully and insatiably used base fame;
so that on this account his writings
were righteously destroyed;

mountainman · 06-03-2010, 08:51 PM

QUESTION: Why did Eusebius invent "Origen the Christian" using the blueprint of "Origen the Platonist"?

ANSWER: Christian Doctrine needed a cosmic drama of the soul. Plato's was handy, and extremely well known to
the Greek audience of the epoch. It was promptly ripped off by Eusebius using the non de-plume of "Origen".

"The most important fact in the history of Christian Doctrine was that
the father of Christian Theology, Origen, was a Platonic philosopher at
the school of Alexandria. He built into Christian Doctrine the whole
cosmic drama of the soul, which he took from Plato."

--- Harvard Theological Review (1959)

Here were have the Harvard Theological Review (of 1959) expressing the previously unexamined mainstream opinion that Origen the Christian is to be identified with Origen the Platonist, an indentity which is no longer to be maintained, according to at least some well respected classicial scholars.

The Christian Origen could not have been the one who "built into Christian Doctrine the whole cosmic drama of the soul." Christian Theology has been well and truly Doctored" but not by either of these two Origens. Christian Theology appears to have been well and truly doctored by the false misrepresentations and assertions fabricated by the most thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity, Eusebius of Caesarea.

Toto · 06-03-2010, 09:58 PM

Your quote comes from Werner Jaeger "The Greek Ideas of Immortality," HTR 52, 3 (July 1959) available online at http://www.jstor.org/pss/1508497

Do you think it was impossible for a 2nd or 3rd century Christian to also be a Platonist or neo-Platonists?

mountainman · 06-03-2010, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Your quote comes from Werner Jaeger "The Greek Ideas of Immortality," HTR 52, 3 (July 1959) available online at http://www.jstor.org/pss/1508497

Do you think it was impossible for a 2nd or 3rd century Christian to also be a Platonist or neo-Platonists?

It's not that I think it is impossible, rather that a number of classicial academics and scholars appear to be determined that the possibility is actually rather remote. The WIKI site already disambiguates two different Origens --- (1) Origen the Christian theologian and (2) Origen the Platonist philosopher .

An article authored on the subject of neoplatonism-and-gnosticism at the hypotyposeis web blog (Andrew Criddle?) states the following:

"Origen the Platonist is almost (but not quite) certainly a different person than Origen the Christian"

The problem is that this ambiguity does not rest with Origen, but is applicable to other leaders of the lineage of the neoplatonic philosophers such as Ammonias Saccas (there is a christian Ammonias and a Neoplatonist Ammonias) and Anatolius of Laodicea (of whom there now appear to be also two different people --- one a christian the other a neoplatonist). This appears to be the remnants of a systematic attempt (by Eusebius) to infiltrate the respectable academies of Plato by Bogus Christians. The same modus operandi is observable in the Eusebian treatment of the Persian sage Mani (who is "painted as a christian").

05-16-2010, 08:20 PM	#1
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Eusebius's "Historical Christian Corruption" of the Apostolic Lineage of Plato Eusebius's "Historical Christian Corruption" of the Apostolic Lineage of the Academy of Plato (and Pythagoras) SUMMARY Those who have studied the ancient history of the lineage of the Neoplatonic philosophers from the persepctive of Classical History (and not "Biblical History") appear quite adamant that there are three historical figures - namely Ammonias Sacas, Origen and Anatolius of Laodicea - who have been mistakenly asserted by Eusebius to have been "Christians". The Classical historians have therefore had to revert to the only possible condition short of calling Eusebius a "fabricator of Christianisation of History", by making the assumption that there were in history, two Ammonias Saccas' (one a christian and one a Platonist), two Origens (one a christian and one a Platonist) and two Anatolius of Laodicea (one a Christian and the other a Platonist). The simple resolution of the reality of this historical situation is that Eusebius has fabricated his claims that these important philosopher/sages/authors were in fact Christians. Eusebius needed to substantiate the "Apostolic Lineage of the Christian philosophy" and simply appropriated his historical sources in a fraudulent fashion to achieve his ends. At the end of the day we have these two facts: (1) Zero evidence for any archaeological "Christian lineage" independent of Eusebius (despite his claims). (2) Three solid citations by which we can see Eusebius has simply asserted fraudulent historical information concerning the following three members of the "Apostolic Lineage of the Academy of Plato" - Ammonias Sacas, Origen and Anatolius of Laodicea. For details concerning the "Classicist estimation" of these three "non Christian" historical figures please refer to the link provided above. The Greek literary lineages were corrupted by Eusebius' pseudo-histories. The Greek monumental architecture was destroyed by Constantine's army. The Christian pseudo-history of Eusebius is a fairy-story. The trouble with a good many of us is that we come to a conclusion before we arrive at the end. The large part of history is pretty ugly, and alot of people dont want to face that.

06-03-2010, 08:51 PM	#8
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	The One Mainstream Origen - Harvard Theological Review (1959) QUESTION: Why did Eusebius invent "Origen the Christian" using the blueprint of "Origen the Platonist"? ANSWER: Christian Doctrine needed a cosmic drama of the soul. Plato's was handy, and extremely well known to the Greek audience of the epoch. It was promptly ripped off by Eusebius using the non de-plume of "Origen". "The most important fact in the history of Christian Doctrine was that the father of Christian Theology, Origen, was a Platonic philosopher at the school of Alexandria. He built into Christian Doctrine the whole cosmic drama of the soul, which he took from Plato." --- Harvard Theological Review (1959) Here were have the Harvard Theological Review (of 1959) expressing the previously unexamined mainstream opinion that Origen the Christian is to be identified with Origen the Platonist, an indentity which is no longer to be maintained, according to at least some well respected classicial scholars. The Christian Origen could not have been the one who "built into Christian Doctrine the whole cosmic drama of the soul." Christian Theology has been well and truly Doctored" but not by either of these two Origens. Christian Theology appears to have been well and truly doctored by the false misrepresentations and assertions fabricated by the most thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity, Eusebius of Caesarea.

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

06-01-2010, 05:34 PM	#5
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Where's Jeffrey Gibson? Doesn't anyone even dimly perceive the possibility that the historical reality of the academies of the Greek Gnostic Philosophers -- including their well known and influential leaders -- was the subject of false statements by the 4th century "Church historian and chronographer" Eusebius, who then asserts the existence of a parallel academy and its succession of "Christian Bishops and Deacons". With how much "christian preconception" is this evidence being examined?

06-03-2010, 09:58 PM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Your quote comes from Werner Jaeger "The Greek Ideas of Immortality," HTR 52, 3 (July 1959) available online at http://www.jstor.org/pss/1508497 Do you think it was impossible for a 2nd or 3rd century Christian to also be a Platonist or neo-Platonists?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.