mountainman

Why would I want to acknowledge that? I have nothing personal against anyone at all, and that includes the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope. I would perhaps even congratulate him on his book about Arius of Alexandria and on his long term tenure in the church. Each to their own. The world would be a boring place if we all thought the same way. Kindness, goes a long way, and it doesn't cost much. One of my favorite Woody Allen one liners is .... "I'm very proud of my gold pocket watch. My grandfather, on his deathbed, sold me this watch."


Is't it obvious to even Blind Freddy that Rowan Williams is a church man - a man of the "Church"? In this book about Arius of Alexandria he is trying very hard to see Arius both as a church man, like himself, but also as perhaps undeniably the greatest Christian heretic history has ever recorded. On the other hand, I am not a tenured man of the church. Perhaps, as a result of our separate "conditioning" we are capable of viewing the world and its history from differeing perspectives, in peace.

mountainman

The previously accepted integrity of the accounts and references of orthodox "heresiologists" concerning the religion of the "gnostics".


Since orthodoxy was not established until the 4th century, the appearance of an orthodox "heresiologist" any earlier is somewhat suspicious.

Chili

I like Pete, he reminds me of an opal miner with a stake on a claim and lots of ambition to make it work.

Of course I am untouchable as I end the entire HJ argument with 2 different Jesus characters in a previous post:

avi

Thanks, Toto, always a pleasure to read your submissions to the forum!

Philosopher Jay introduced a very readable initial post, the essence of which, as I recall, was to posit the hypothesis that the canon was created by Constantine, and that a strong force was required to implement such a diktat.

Mountainman has focused his assault on the presumption of first century origin for Christianity, by highlighting Constantine's involvement with the evolution of the religion. Maybe his style of writing offends some, it does not offend me. I think that all homo sapiens ignore some evidence, and grasp other tenaciously, even when such evidence is no longer regarded as viable by many/most. Does Pete do this? I suppose he may, I don't know, but I can believe that he may have. I know that I engage in such behaviour, clinging for DECADES to ideas which may no longer be valid....

This is a forum, a place to exchange ideas, and learn. Not all of us exited the uterus as cognoscenti, some of us have to struggle to learn, and this is a place that emphasizes learning. I have profited from reading Pete's writings, and I certainly do not agree with the idea of "ignore".

Is he myopic. Perhaps. Is that wrong? I don't think so. But, then I am both myopic and presbyopic myself, so who am I to comment!!

Wow, what a great thread topic, itself, i.e. independent of century of origin, and independent of Jay's excellent topic: implementation of the canon.
Your question is meritorious, and deserving of a response by someone with superior educational background. I will simply acknowledge the brilliance of your thought.
With regard to the notion of creating a fourth century tradition de novo, versus accepting an evolutionary approach involving several centuries, I suppose that someone will come along, and offer a synthesis of these two concepts: in fact, that's really what I saw, maybe in error, Jay's initial post on this thread endeavoring to accomplish.

Thanks for pointing out my error, in such a kind hearted fashion. Of course, I was wrong for not referencing my contentious argument.
I will highlight the two opposing arguments, list the three scholars, and leave it at that, unless you seek further info, i.e. page references within AH (but then, which edition, post 163 ????):
Nag Hammadi supports the anti-gnostic arguments of AH: Rodney Stark;
Nag Hammadi refutes the anti-gnostic arguments of AH: Elaine Pagels, and James M. Robinson
May I rephrase your question:
Is there any archaeological evidence to support the notion that "Irenaeus" did, or did not exist? Is there any evidence to suggest that Eusebius, our oldest authority whose documents are considered legitimate, could have fabricated part or all of AH, to suit his political agenda?

To answer your question, honestly, Toto, I don't know the documents well enough to offer an opinion. Did "Irenaeus" exist? Did John the Baptist exist? I don't know. I don't see any credible evidence for the existence of either person, as historical figures.

avi

mountainman

I am committed to following the evidence, and stuff like the C14. What little evidence that is asserted to exist, I do not ignore any item of it, and have always added to an exceptions register.


Never mind anti-Semitic for a moment, in the political and social Graeco-Roman context of that epoch the christian cult was also immediately and highly anti-Hellenistic. That is, it immediately dispensed with Asclepius and Apollo and Zeus, the Graeco-Roman pantheon of gods and all their associated priesthoods, the Academy of Plato and the reverence of Apollonius of Tyana. The cult was "Anti Pagan", and fabricated its roots.

A non Greek religion was despotically invented for the explicit purpose of ruling the literate and non literate Graeco-Romans, with a centralised and imperially controlled monotheistic "Holy Writ", for which Constantine sought "immediate canonization" using very strong [military] force. (e.g. following the model and precedent already set in Persia by Ardashir a century before Nicaea.)

There may have been three stages of implementation - Step 1 was to prohibit the old traditions and destroy a few temples, while step 2 was to legislate "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians" and to build a few score of basilicas around the empire, using the foundations of the pagan temples. Step 3 was to order another 50 super-high-technology-codex bibles for the public pulpit business. It was a high profile PR job, extremely lucrative tax exemptions during an epoch where taxes had tripled in living memory, and it perpetuated itself after 337 CE. After Constantius II "obscured it", Emperor Julian denounced it. But after Julian's death the imperial church eventually became supreme over the "pagan" collective and collegiate milieu of cults and religions, and utterly destroyed them. The controversies over the words of Arius and Julian and the appearance of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" were dealt with by censorship, burning, destruction and the sword.

Why should the authenticity of the origins of the christian state cult which first overtly appeared, and with strong force, immediately Constantine became the supreme [military] ruler, not be questioned?

stephan huller

By your bad historical methodology the argument that organized anti-Semitism began "with strong force, immediately Hitler became the supreme [military] ruler, [should] not be questioned."

You're mistaking cause for consequence and its not worthy of consideration by serious scholars. Your arguments are unreasonably being led by an anti-Christian agenda whose conclusions are laughable.

Toto

No, it is just argumentum ad absurdum. Pete's thesis involves an absurd implication that he has not been able to explain.

There is no synthesis possible between A and not A. Everyone except Pete recognizes that Christianity has changed more or less over time. Pete could join numerous other scholars and commentators in recognizing that Constantine made a big difference in Christianity, or even that he changed it to something that almost deserves to be called a different religion. But no - he has to argue that it was invented de novo.

I do no have time here to go through your arguments on Nag Hammadi. I will try to get back to them.

It is quite conceivable that Eusebius interpolated passages attributed to Irenaeus. But this admits that there was such a person.

Toto

You add it to your list of apparent exceptions and then find some specious reason to dismiss it.


No, pay attention to the anti-Semitic problem. Why would a religion be invented that was anti-Semitic, but based on Jewish documents?

And you will find that Christians were not totally anti-Hellenistic. They rejected the old gods (unless they turned them into saints), they rejected the priesthood, but they adopted Platonic or neo-Platonic thinking patterns.

The second part of this sentence does not follow from the first.

You can question all you want, but at some point you need to come up with a coherent argument that makes sense.

I've been on these boards for the past decade. I haven't seen you grow in understanding in the time that you have been here. You just keep repeating the same arguments, the same mistakes, the same obsessions. What's the point?

Transient

I agree with your sentiments here entirely.
The bigger the melting pot at the moment the more chances there are of sifting thru and getting closer to the "truth" of what actually happened in those first few centuries AD.
I like your diplomatic manner Avi - much better than mine
I wonder if there are still more interesting documents in the vatican libraries that are not released or have the RCC opened their libraries totally?

stephan huller

I don't understand how any rational person can argue that Christianity was fabricated in the fourth century. As I noted earlier it is the intellectual equivalent of supposing that every woman that didn't sleep with you is a lesbian.

In fact, I am absolutely certain that holding such a belief is nothing more than the product of:

a) being ignorant of the all the material
b) having a brain that doesn't like to or is incapable of seeing problems from more than one angle
c) allowing one's desire to discredit Christianity get in the way of actually seeing the tradition for what it is - a legitimate and ultimately reasonable outgrowth of first century messianic speculation.

I am not saying that I believe any or all of the doctrines of the Church. Nevertheless I owe it to truthfulness to at least attempt to develop a theory that isn't entirely self-serving.

I don't normally like to do this but I would like to share with the mental cases at this forum a confession of how stupid I used to (and still might be - once a jackass probably always a jackass). Let me tell you how much my opinions about Christianity have changed since my university days.

I was taking a graduate course on Hegel believe it or not when I first got my interest in Christianity. Before that I really only knew what I wanted to believe.

I was convinced that I could use Hegelian arguments to prove that Christianity developed from the Greek religion of Dionysus. I wrote a paper for the class, got a 'B.' But then I started to realize how my theory couldn't explain certain things - and then ultimately how theory didn't accomplish anything other than let me get a course credit.

In due course I picked up an interest in Against Celsus. I graduated to the Ignatian corpus and was certain that Polycarp forged the Ignatian letters. I must have worked on that paper five times and each time I rewrote that thesis I realized how imperfect the time before was.

The point I am trying to make is that I am not trying to hold myself up as a paragon of virtue. The bottom line is though that I had and still have many foolish notions which ultimately will be refined in the fire of engaging other scholars. You learn amazing things when you actually hear what other people are saying, what they have learned and written about.

I am not saying that the majority of scholars are always right about everything. But if you hold a view that is completely at odds with accomplished men of letters (i.e. people who have published an academic paper or a doctorate thesis in your field of study) there is a high probability that your opinion is wrong.

It really doesn't matter whether people at this forum necessarily agree with you or those of other chat groups and the like.

I certainly don't believe everything that everyone tells me. But there are certain arguments that are non-starters and the idea that Christianity was wholly invented in the fourth century by a diabolical conspiracy associated with Constantine. The evidence just can't support those claims especially the evidence that lies under this building at Chatby Beach in Alexandria:





The destroyed building you see was built on the foundation of a twelfth century Basilica which itself is built on top of the original site of the Martyrium of St. Mark described in the Passio Petri Sancti and the Martyrium Marci. There is no doubt about that.

If you really want to see evidence for a pre-Nicene Christian tradition, help me raise $50,000 by next April when we plan on clearing the sand from this site - and you will definitely see the location described in the Passio Petri Sancti where the Patriarch Peter was martyred in 311 CE.

Nicaea = 325 CE Martyrdom of Peter = 311 CE

Therefore there was a Christian community at Alexandria in the name of Mark before Constantine's control of the Church. This is the original context of the expulsion of Arius from the Church (who after all was the presbyter of the very same Martyrium of St. Mark buried here in the sand and the sea). We certainly have the physical evidence to back this up already (I will publish photos here in a few weeks from our expedition which ended October 19). But there is so much more here. Indeed an entire complex is buried in the sand.

Forget Vatican conspiracy myths and come to Alexandria put on a dive suit and look in the shallow waters all around here. This is holy ground for anyone who really wants to uncover the truth about Christian origins.