Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-18-2009, 05:16 PM

Here is Momigliano on "The Lineage of Bishops" ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century A.D.
* This essay first appeared in A. Momigliano, ed.,
The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century,
The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, pp. 79—99 (1)

[IRONY]

The spade-work in Christian chronology was done long before the fourth century (13).

[/IRONY]

The greatest names involved in this work, Clemens Alexandrinus, Julius Africanus and Hippolytus of Rome, belong to the second and third centuries. They created the frame for the divine administration of the world; they transformed Hellenistic chronography into a Christian science and added the lists of the bishops of the most important sees to the lists of kings and magistrates of the pagan world. They presented history in such a way that the scheme of redemption was easy to perceive. They showed with particular care the priority of the Jews over the pagans — in which point their debt to Jewish apologetic is obvious.

They established criteria of orthodoxy by the simple device of introducing lists of bishops who represented the apostolic succession.

Calculations about the return of Christ amid the ultimate end had never been extraneous to the Church. Since the Apocalypse attributed to St John had established itself as authoritative in the Church, millennial reckonings had multiplied. Universal chronology in the Christian sense was bound to take into account not only the beginning, hut also the end; it had either to accept or else to fight the belief in the millennium. Chronology and eschatology were conflated. Both Julius Africanus and Hippolytus were firm believers in the millennium, without, however, believing in its imminence. But the higher purpose of philosophy of history was never separated from the immediate task of informing and edifying the faithful. Hippolytus’ introduction to his Chronicon is explicit. To quote a sentence from one of its Latin translations (another was incorporated in the Chronographer of 354), it was his purpose to show ‘quae divisio et quae perditio facta sit, quo autem modo generatio seminis Israel de patribus in Christo completa sit.’

At the beginning of the fourth century Christian chronology had already passed its creative stage. What Eusebius did was to correct and to improve the work of his predecessors, among whom he relied especially on Julius Africanus (14). He corrected details which seemed to him wrong even to the extent of reducing the priority of the Biblical heroes over the pagan ones. Moses, a contemporary of Ogyges according to Julius Africanus, was made a contemporary of Kekrops with a loss of 300 years. Eusebius was not afraid of attacking St Paul’s guesses about the chronology of the Book of Judges. He freely used Jewish and anti-Christian sources such as Porphyrios. He introduced a reckoning from Abraham which allowed him to avoid the pitfalls of a chronology according to the first chapters of Genesis. He seems to have been the first to use the convenient method of presenting the chronology of the various nations in parallel columns. None of the earlier chronographers seems to have used this scheme, though it has often been attributed to Castor or to Julius Africanus. He made many mistakes, but they do not surprise us any longer.

Fifty years ago Eduard Schwartz, to save Eusebius’ reputation as a competent chronographer, conjectured that the two extant representatives of the lost original of Eusebius’ Chronicon — the Latin adaptation by St Jerome and the anonymous Armenian translation — were based on an interpolated text which passed for pure Eusebius. This conjecture is perhaps unnecessary; nor are we certain that the Armenian version is closer to the original than St Jerome’s Latin translation.

Both versions reflect the inevitable vagaries of Eusebius’ mind to whom chronology was something between an exact science and an instrument of propaganda.

But we recognize the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine in the absence of millenarian dreams.

aa5874 · 07-18-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

HI AA,

Proto-orthodox doctrine evolved over two centuries. We can easily see this development when we read the church fathers.

There was no proto-orthodox doctrine in the first century with respect to a character called Jesus. Jesus did not exist, you must have forgotten.

The church writer called Eusebius used forgery to fabricate a history for Jesus and his disciples.

Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger all appear to indicate that there was neither Jesus nor any of his doctrine in the first century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The writings of Ireneaus fit the second century.

You are already off by a century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Irenaeus wrote during the time of Eleutherius and COMPILED A LIST containing just the right number of early bishops of Rome (people not having certain knowledge more than a few previous) to have the his current bishop to come out to twelve from the aposltes. Fourth century forgers would not give a flip if a non-existent Irenaues lived in the time of the alleged twelfth bishop or not. This is something the real Ireneaus would concoct.

You have already stated that Irenaeus fabricated twelve mythical popes. Only an idiot would fabricate mythical characters and then claim to be their contemporaries while he is alive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

You say that Ireneuas and Tertullian were forged by fourth century conspirators. Why then, did they disagree on the early bishops of Rome? Couldn't they get the story straight?

Can you name any straight story in the NT or any straight story by a church writer? Even after interpolations, redactions and harmonisation there is practically no straight story in the history of the Church with respect to Jesus, his disciples and Saul/Paul. This is so because they were all fabricated by error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejones

Here is Ireneus list from AH 3.3.3:

Quote:

3. The blessed apostles [PETER and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of LINUS the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded ANACLETUS; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, CLEMENT was allotted the bishopric. ... To this Clement there succeeded EVARISTUS. ALEXANDER followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, SIXTUS was appointed; after him, TELEPHORUS, who was gloriously martyred; then HYGINUS; after him, PIUS; then after him, ANICETUS. SOTER having succeeded Anicetus, ELEUTHERIUS does now, in the TWELFTH place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate.

Peter and Paul founded nothing but fiction in the first century. Peter was a fictitious character in the Jesus stories and there is no evidence that there was a character called Paul even up to the middle of the 2nd century.

But, it it is almost certain that there were no persons who died during Nero that preached that Jesus was crucified, died, resurrected and ascended to heaven. The character Jesus was fabricated after the death of Nero.

Ireneus would have been an idiot to claim Paul existed and preached about Jesus in the 1st century.

What forged document would Irenaeus use to historicise Peter and Paul? Eusebius used forgeries in Josephus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

So, to recapitulate, according to Irenaeus we have
PETER and Paul (mythical founders)
1. LINUS
2. ANACLETUS
3. CLEMENT
4. EVARISTUS
5. ALEXANDER
6. SIXTUS
7. TELEPHORUS
8. HYGINUS
9. PIUS
10. ANICETUS
11. SOTER
12. ELEUTHERIUS

Irenaeus would have been an idiot to make a list of mythical popes,SOME of them would have been his contemporaries. What sane person would fabricate blatant fiction and still claim to be truthful. Irenaeus list is full of myths.

I think the real Irenaeus was long dead, if there was one, when some writer used his name and made the mythical list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Yet Tertullian clearly contradicted the above list. I am not going to provide the reference to you, because you need to do learn to do some research on your own. So look it up and explain it.

Tertullian contradited what list? Tertullian's list starts with the same fiction or myth, the fictitious character called Peter.

Now, why in the world do you think that I do no research? You can't be serious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

If the catholic church forged Tertullian, why did they create him as a heretic, a Montanist heretic who clashed with Callistus, who subsequently died out of communion? Tertullian also subordinated the Son to Father, and thus was not in accordance with Nicene Trinity doctrine. Now why would a fourth century forger do that?

To understand the unscrupulous art of forgery, please read Rufinus. And tell me then why do you think that Paul was a heretic before he was modified by the Church?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

What about Origen? I haven't discussed him much, but he likewise blows your theories to smithereens. Do you think Origen was forged by the same fourth century conspirators? Be careful how you answer this question. Origen died excommunicated.

What about Origen that blows my theory to smithereens? What?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

What about Cyprian? Was he created by forgery also?

What about Cyprian? I cannot recall making mention of Cyprian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

If your theories are true, the alleged forgers of the fourth century were idiots.

How could that be when people today are still claiming Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies in the 2nd century and made himself a contemporary of fictitious characters?

People today, even after realising that virtually all the information supplied by the Church about the NT, i.e the name of the authors, the date of writing, and the order of writing are false or erroneous still depend on the Church writers for the history of Jesus believers when the evidence denies them credibilty and veracity.

jakejonesiv · 07-19-2009, 05:09 AM

Hi AA,

In your opinion, did Eusebius exist? How do you know?
Which writings of Eusbius, if any, are authentic?
Did Eusebius have any part in the forgery of Tertullian, Ireneaus, and any other church father (please specify which).

If you cannot answer, why not? Aren't you an expert on 4th century Christianity?

Jake

jakejonesiv · 07-19-2009, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Tertullian contradited what list?

I knew you would not be able to answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv
HI AA,

Proto-orthodox doctrine evolved over two centuries. We can easily see this development when we read the church fathers.

There was no proto-orthodox doctrine in the first century with respect to a character called Jesus. Jesus did not exist, you must have forgotten.

You can't do math either. Two centuries before the fourth century is the second century not the first.

jakejonesiv · 07-19-2009, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv
If the catholic church forged Tertullian, why did they create him as a heretic, a Montanist heretic who clashed with Callistus, who subsequently died out of communion? Tertullian also subordinated the Son to Father, and thus was not in accordance with Nicene Trinity doctrine. Now why would a fourth century forger do that?

To understand the unscrupulous art of forgery, please read Rufinus.

More evasion. It is your theory, so it is your responsibility to explain it.

Why was Tertullian declared a heretic?

Jake

jakejonesiv · 07-19-2009, 05:34 AM

Hi AA,

How do you know the church writer called Eusebius existed in the 4th century?

Jake

aa5874 · 07-19-2009, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi AA,

How do you know the church writer called Eusebius existed in the 4th century?

Jake

You must understand that it was the Church that presented Eusebius as a 4th century writer, but whether that is true or not, the writer using the name Eusebius wrote what appears to be deliberate fiction.

Now, the whole history of the Church was based on a character called Jesus with twelve disciples, and Eusebius, as found in writings attributed to him, used forged passages in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 to CONFIRM the historicity of Jesus.

Now, the writings of Josephus were known and circulated throughout the Roman Empire for over 200 years. It would appear that Emperors, Kings and other writers did read the works of Flavius Josephus.

It is extremely critical that you understand that for centuries the "TF" AJ 18.3.3 and AJ 20.9.1 were not known to have been in the writings of Josephus, yet when the forgeries were introduced by a writer called Eusebius in Church History, no church writer castigated Eusebius or wrote about the error.

Now, if the Church writers can produce forgeries of well-kown and circulated writings without fear of contradiction or that their errors would be exposed, then it will be realised that all or any writings attributed to anyone in antiquity that was in possession of the Church may have been wholly or partially forged to produce the most fraudulent history perhaps of all the time, "the history of the Church".

The writings of Josephus were corrupted and no-one said a word in the Roman Empire.

Peter did not exist, the Roman Church claimed he was the 1st bishop of Rome.

The writings of Tertullian and Irenaeus were used to confirm the existence of Peter as the 1st bishop in Church History by Eusebius.

And no-church writer said a word in opposition.

Now, Jesus and Peter did not exist but the Church claimed Paul met Peter and that Jesus from heaven revealed his activities on earth to Paul.

The writings attributed to Tertullian and Irenaeus were used to confirm Peter and Paul in Church History.

It must become obvious that the Church had back-dated forged writings, Josephus being one, and that these forged back-dated writings would be become the foundation of their "glorious history" which no Roman dare contradict.

Now, tell me who absolutely needed to fabricate the 12 mythical popes? Tertullian, Irenaeus or the Roman Church?

It was the Roman Church absolutely needed the lineage of bishops, and was likely to have inserted the 12 mythical popes in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian.

jakejonesiv · 07-20-2009, 08:02 AM

Hi AA,

Origen wrote that Josephus didn’t believe that Jesus was the Christ. Contra Celsum 1:47. This was of course a contradiction to the “fourth century church writer known as Eusebius.” EH 1.11.7. But you stated that “the Church writers produced forgeries of well-known and circulated writings without fear of contradiction or that their errors would be exposed.” Origen blows that argument to smithereens. You stated that “that all writings attributed to anyone in antiquity that were in possession of the Church were wholly or partially forged.” That is not correct because Origen and Eusebius contradict on Josephus' opinion of Jesus. Origen was telling the truth on this point!

Best,
Jake

P.S. Why was Tertullian declared a heretic?

aa5874 · 07-20-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi AA,

Origen wrote that Josephus didn’t believe that Jesus was the Christ. Contra Celsum 1:47. This was of course a contradiction to the “fourth century church writer known as Eusebius.” EH 1.11.7. But you stated that “the Church writers produced forgeries of well-known and circulated writings without fear of contradiction or that their errors would be exposed.” Origen blows that argument to smithereens. You stated that “that all writings attributed to anyone in antiquity that were in possession of the Church were wholly or partially forged.” That is not correct because Origen and Eusebius contradict on Josephus' opinion of Jesus. Origen was telling the truth on this point!

Jerome, Rufinus and even Origen himself appear to have already destroyed the credibilty of any writings attributed to Origen.

Jerome wrote an Apology Against Rufinus and discussed the falsifications of the writings of Origen.

Aopology Against Rufinus 2.18

Quote:

18. After this preface as to the falsification by heretics of the apostles, of both the Clements, and of Dionysius, he at last comes to Origen; and these are his words:

“I have shown from his own words and writings how he himself complains of this and deplores it: He explains clearly in the letter which he wrote to some of his intimate friends at Alexandria what he suffered while living here in the flesh and in the full enjoyment of his senses, by the corruption of his books and treatises, or by spurious editions of them.”

He subjoins a copy of this letter; and he who implores to the heretics the falsification of Origen's writings himself begins by falsifying them, for he does not translate the letter as he finds it in the Greek, and does not convey to the Latins what Origen states in his letter...

Even Origen based on Rufinus was aware that his writings were falsified.

And when the writing of the Emperor Julian is taken into consideration, the one entitled "Against the Galilleans", it would appear that Josephus did not write anything about Jesus or Paul, so Origen was not likely to have made any claims that Josephus did not believe Jesus was Christ.

Based on Julian, all claims that well-known writers or Josephus mentioned Jesus was probably done after 363/364 CE or after Against the Galilleans was written.

The passage in Against Celsus may have been written after 363/364 CE.

Julian, Jerome, Rufinus and Origen himself have destroyed your argument for the veracity of Origen's writings.

Smithereens!

jakejonesiv · 07-20-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi AA,

Origen wrote that Josephus didn’t believe that Jesus was the Christ. Contra Celsum 1:47. This was of course a contradiction to the “fourth century church writer known as Eusebius.” EH 1.11.7. But you stated that “the Church writers produced forgeries of well-known and circulated writings without fear of contradiction or that their errors would be exposed.” Origen blows that argument to smithereens. You stated that “that all writings attributed to anyone in antiquity that were in possession of the Church were wholly or partially forged.” That is not correct because Origen and Eusebius contradict on Josephus' opinion of Jesus. Origen was telling the truth on this point!

Jerome, Rufinus and even Origen himself appear to have already destroyed the credibilty of any writings attributed to Origen.

Jerome wrote an Apology Against Rufinus and discussed the falsifications of the writings of Origen.

Aopology Against Rufinus 2.18

Quote:

18. After this preface as to the falsification by heretics of the apostles, of both the Clements, and of Dionysius, he at last comes to Origen; and these are his words:

“I have shown from his own words and writings how he himself complains of this and deplores it: He explains clearly in the letter which he wrote to some of his intimate friends at Alexandria what he suffered while living here in the flesh and in the full enjoyment of his senses, by the corruption of his books and treatises, or by spurious editions of them.”

He subjoins a copy of this letter; and he who implores to the heretics the falsification of Origen's writings himself begins by falsifying them, for he does not translate the letter as he finds it in the Greek, and does not convey to the Latins what Origen states in his letter...

Even Origen based on Rufinus was aware that his writings were falsified.

And when the writing of the Emperor Julian is taken into consideration, the one entitled "Against the Galilleans", it would appear that Josephus did not write anything about Jesus or Paul, so Origen was not likely to have made any claims that Josephus did not believe Jesus was Christ.

Based on Julian, all claims that well-known writers or Josephus mentioned Jesus was probably done after 363/364 CE or after Against the Galilleans was written.

The passage in Against Celsus may have been written after 363/364 CE.

Smithereens

OK, if the passage attributed to Origen in Against Celsus was written after 363/364, why did it contradict the “fourth century church writer known as Eusebius” concerning Josephus' views Jesus, i.e. that Jesus was the Christ?

AA, who was telling the truth? Did Josephus believe that Jesus was the Christ according to Eusebius EH 1.11.7.

Or did Josephus not believe that Jesus was the Christ according to Origen, Contra Celsum 1:47?

Obviously, Eusebius lied about this point. But Eusebius was contradicted by Origien (or whoever wrote in his name). Whoever wrote in Origen's name told the truth on this point. :lol:

Yet you wrote,
'It is extremely critical that you understand that for centuries the "TF" AJ 18.3.3 and AJ 20.9.1 were not known to have been in the writings of Josephus, yet when the forgeries were introduced by a writer called Eusebius in Church History, no church writer contradicted Eusebius ... about the error ... the Church writers produced ... forgeries of well-kown and circulated writings without fear of contradiction or that their errors would be exposed.'

But Contra Celsum 1:47 does contradict AJ 18.3.3. You even declare it to have been writtten "after 363/364 CE."

Why did you get this point so wrong?

07-19-2009, 05:34 AM	#46
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	A question on AA's methodology Hi AA, How do you know the church writer called Eusebius existed in the 4th century? Jake

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

07-19-2009, 05:09 AM	#43
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Hi AA, In your opinion, did Eusebius exist? How do you know? Which writings of Eusbius, if any, are authentic? Did Eusebius have any part in the forgery of Tertullian, Ireneaus, and any other church father (please specify which). If you cannot answer, why not? Aren't you an expert on 4th century Christianity? Jake

07-20-2009, 08:02 AM	#48
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Hi AA, Origen wrote that Josephus didn’t believe that Jesus was the Christ. Contra Celsum 1:47. This was of course a contradiction to the “fourth century church writer known as Eusebius.” EH 1.11.7. But you stated that “the Church writers produced forgeries of well-known and circulated writings without fear of contradiction or that their errors would be exposed.” Origen blows that argument to smithereens. You stated that “that all writings attributed to anyone in antiquity that were in possession of the Church were wholly or partially forged.” That is not correct because Origen and Eusebius contradict on Josephus' opinion of Jesus. Origen was telling the truth on this point! Best, Jake P.S. Why was Tertullian declared a heretic?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.