Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 05-20-2006, 06:33 AM

In another thread Vorkosigan provided a reference to tacit knowledge:
http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindD...knowledge.html
which lead to the Gettier Problem here:
http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindD...erproblem.html

This Gettier problem is expressed in terms of examples in which
the (formalised) three conditions of truth (truth, justification
and belief) of knowledge have been met, but that there is no
knowledge.

In relation to BC&H I pose the following example:

Practically everyone here has been taught to believe that there
were christians on the planet with effect from the first century,
and consequently the great hunt for the true history of the tribe
of christians scrutinises the first three centuries.

As an aside, do you consider the above statement correct
or incorrect?

But what if christians did not exist until the fourth century?
We have no literature carbon dated before Nicaea.
We have nothing archeological before Constantine.
We have nothing christian on the planet before 312 CE.
(Exceptions will be gratefully received)

Is there is no knowledge of the history of christianity
because it was a literary invention out of whole cloth
under Constantine in the fourth century?

Has the last 300 years of research into BC&H produced
nothing definite because of a Gettier-like problem, in
which the entire body of BC&H source material is a fourth
century fiction, as claimed by the Emperor Julian (c.362 CE)?

Pete Brown

S.C.Carlson · 05-20-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

This Gettier problem is expressed in terms of examples in which
the (formalised) three conditions of truth (truth, justification
and belief) of knowledge have been met, but that there is no
knowledge.

...

Is there is no knowledge of the history of christianity
because it was a literary invention out of whole cloth
under Constantine in the fourth century?

Has the last 300 years of research into BC&H produced
nothing definite because of a Gettier-like problem, in
which the entire body of BC&H source material is a fourth
century fiction, as claimed by the Emperor Julian (c.362 CE)?

It would not be a Gettier problem, because a Gettier problem requires truth without knowledge. Here, you're having the "no knowledge" yet with no truth to boot (i.e., "literary invention out of whole cloth").

Stephen

mountainman · 05-21-2006, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

It would not be a Gettier problem, because a Gettier problem requires truth without knowledge. Here, you're having the "no knowledge" yet with no truth to boot (i.e., "literary invention out of whole cloth").

Here is Heroditus speaking about calumny. I can just imagine Eusebius
taking notes as fast as he can ...

Quote:

"Calumny is a monstrous vice: for, where parties indulge in it,
there are always two that are actively engaged in doing wrong,
and one who is subject to injury.

The calumniator inflicts wrong by slandering the absent;
he who gives credit to the calumny
before he has investigated the truth is equally implicated.
The person traduced is doubly injured
--first by him who propagates, and
secondly by him who credits the calumny."

Eusebius and Constantine calumnified Apollonius of Tyana.
His writings, his biographies and his living memory.

There may be no truth whatsoever in the NT, aside from that
incorporated from extant writings and wisdoms by the author
of the fiction in the fourth century.

However there has to be a truth to history, and as far as I see it
at the moment, the perhaps radical hypothesis that christianity
is a 4th century fiction, deliberately anachronised by supreme
imperial perversion of the patristic literature appears to be
consistent with all the evidence available.

The Gettier problem is that everyone believes that the truth exists
in the fiction, and that there is no other reality behind the scenes.

In such a sense, the world of scholarship to date has swallowed
this literary calumny of Eusebius as a history in which some
semblance of truth is presumed to exist.

The truth does exist (IMO) but one must see through its calumny.
That is why I think the Gettier problem is relevant to BC&H.

Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

andrewcriddle · 05-21-2006, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Eusebius and Constantine calumnified Apollonius of Tyana.
His writings, his biographies and his living memory.

FWIW Eusebius draws a distinction between a/ the historical Apollonius and b/ Apollonius according to Philostratus.

He is quite ready to accept that his attack on Apollonius may well apply to b/ rather than a/

Andrew Criddle

The Bishop · 05-22-2006, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

However there has to be a truth to history, and as far as I see it
at the moment, the perhaps radical hypothesis that christianity
is a 4th century fiction, deliberately anachronised by supreme
imperial perversion of the patristic literature appears to be
consistent with all the evidence available.

The Gettier problem is that everyone believes that the truth exists
in the fiction, and that there is no other reality behind the scenes.

I think that puts it very well. I'm not even sure if Gettier is as far as we need go. Every single element of knowledge is deduced from evidence, but there are an infinity more possible explanations for every one of them. Only one of them is the correct one, and Occam's Razor tells us to go to the one that requires the least external intervention. Even that doesn't give us the explanation, and there is no way of proving which one is. Mythological Jesus is consistent with the evidence, such as it is. So is a Historical Jesus. But the Mythological Jesus requires that an additional actor, the creator of the Jesus figure himself, which the HJ obviously does not require, since all it requires is that someone lived and died.

As to the Gettier problem (which I had not previously heard of), is it just me or is it expressed very badly in that Ferrari story? If someone says he owns a Ferrari, has the paperwork to prove it, and more than anything else, is seen to drive one, then, well, that person de facto owns a Ferrari. Isn't there a case where the presumption is based on slightly less compelling evidence? In Decoding DaVinci the other day on More4 (UK digital channel) the reporter was trying to get to the bottom of conspiracy theories, and found a Liverpool University researcher whose experiment seemed to prove that we are all conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately, the experiment seemed perfectly designed to come to that conclusion, since it apparently derived significance from the fact that the testee, upon being told that "a 28 year old investigative reporter is found dead in the bath" - and subsequently that they had been murdered, immediately asked questions about whether the death involved the investigative reporting, and was disappointed when the answer given was "no". This was a completely nonsensical test, because I submit that a person who has been outright murdered and is an investigative reporter is not really to be considered in the same light as Princess Diana, who died in a car accident, being thought of as having been murdered by the British Government.

mountainman · 05-23-2006, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

FWIW Eusebius draws a distinction between a/ the historical Apollonius and b/ Apollonius according to Philostratus.

He is quite ready to accept that his attack on Apollonius may well apply to b/ rather than a/

Andrew Criddle

Your distinction is worth noting, alongside Eusebius' distinction between
those who believed Apollonius was a "god" (which Apollonius a la Philostratus
emphatically denies) and those who believe Apollonius to be a wise man
or a philosopher. Again, in this distinction is the classic Eusebian "Tell" of
literary calumny!

Any follower of the re-emergent philosophy of the Pythagoreans would have
used the term "divine" in association with Apollonius in the first 3 centuries
in precisely the same manner that Iamblicus was known as the "divine" to
Emperor Julian (and others) --- because of his teachings.

This Eusebius calumnifies this attribution of the appearance of (some form
of) divinity, by having a ignorant belief that Apollonius "was a god" being
raised for literary discussion.

This calumny itself allows Eusebius to move on to the key reasons why
the new and strange appearance of Constantine's new god called Jesus
(in the fourth century only mind you) must be considered instead
"as THE god".

Eusebian literature is one calumny after another, until only the "tribe
of christians" are left standing in the dirt dusty arena of his fiction.
Has any scholar to date specifically treated the use of calumny in the
literature of Eusebius? Or is everyone still running around trapped
inside the Eusebian calumnic literature?

Heroditus' description of calumny is directly relevant here.
Eusebius would have read this word for word. He uses the
device of culumny to establish christianity anachronistically
four centuries before its first appearance under Constantine.

They had a big problem with the followers and the philosophy
and the anti-imperial antics of Apollonius, and wanted it removed
seeing it could not be either geographically controlled or taxed
by imperial rule. They deleted A and added J. It was all about
control, with the usual dose of supreme imperial megalomania.

Elsewhere you mentioned Hitler. He was in the mould of Constantine,
not vice verse. Book burning is cited by most of the surviving
historian accounts during the period following Nicaea.

The precedent for burning opinions was set by Constantine himself
at the opening of the Council of Nicaea. The council reports filed by

Article 053 ... Nicaean Council, by Philostorgius (Arian, fragments via Photius)
Article 054 ... Minutes of the Nicaean Council, by Rufinius of Aqueila
Article 055 ... Minutes of the Nicaean Council, by Socrates Scholasticus
Article 056 ... Minutes of the Nicaean Council, by Hermias Sozomen
Article 057 ... Minutes of the Nicaean Council, by Theodoret of Cyrus

are assembled here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/

Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

andrewcriddle · 05-24-2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The precedent for burning opinions was set by Constantine himself
at the opening of the Council of Nicaea.

IIUC what Constantine burnt at the opening of Nicaea were the previous denunciations of each other by the delegates.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 05-26-2006, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IIUC what Constantine burnt at the opening of Nicaea were the previous denunciations of each other by the delegates.

Eusebius Pamphilus of Ceasarea makes no reference to this issue
but documents the controversy ...

Quote:

"Chapter XIII. How He Led the Dissentient Bishops to Harmony of Sentiment.
[OPENING ADDRESS]
As soon as the emperor had spoken these words
in the Latin tongue, which another interpreted,
he gave permission to those who presided
in the council to deliver their opinions.
On this some began to accuse their neighbors,
who defended themselves, and recriminated in their turn.
In this manner numberless assertions were put forth by each party,
and a violent controversy arose at the very commencement.

Notwithstanding this, the emperor gave patient audience to all alike,
and received every proposition with steadfast attention,
and by occasionally assisting the argument of each party in turn,
he gradually disposed even the most vehement disputants to a reconciliation.
At the same time, by the affability of his address to all,
and his use of the Greek language,
with which he was not altogether unacquainted,
he appeared in a truly attractive and amiable light,
persuading some, convincing others by his reasonings,
praising those who spoke well, and urging all to unity of sentiment,
until at last he succeeded in bringing them to one mind and judgment
respecting every disputed question.

Chapter XIV. Unanimous Declaration of the Council Concerning Faith, the Celebration of Easter.
Chapter XV. How Constantine Entertained the Bishops on the Occasion of His Vicennalia.
Chapter XVI. Presents to the Bishops, and Letters to the People Generally.

The above is not part of any formalised Ecclesiastical History
by part of Eusebius' "Life of the Blessed Emperor Thug". It appears
that there were some form of severe problems in Ecclesiastical
Histories following on from Eusebius.

The christian ecclesiastical history was continued after Eusebius
by at least the following four authors, whom cannot tell us the
context of Constantine burning written opinions, because their
entire works are lost....

Hesychius of Jerusalem (Apollinorian?, lost?)
Timeotheus of Betrytus (lost?)
Sabinas of Heraclea (lost?)
Philippes Sidetes (Philip of Side) (lost?)

Then we have Rufinius of Aqueila

Quote:

Book 10, Part 2
Now I do not think it right to omit the marvelous thing
which the sovereign did in the council.
For when the bishops had come together from almost everywhere and,
as usually happens, were submitting complaints against each other
arising from various causes, he was constantly being importuned
by each of them, petitions were being offered,
wrongdoings were being brought up,
and they were giving their attention to these matters
rather than to the purpose of their gathering.

But he, seeing that these quarrels were hindering
the most important business at hand, set a certain day
on which any bishop who thought he had a complaint to make might submit it.

And when he had taken his seat, he accepted the petitions of each.
Holding all the petitions together in his lap, and not opening them
to see what they contained, he said to the bishops,

“God has appointed you priests
and given you power to judge even concerning us,
and therefore we are rightly judged by you,
while you cannot be judged by men.

For this reason, wait for God alone to judge among you,
and whatever your quarrels may be,
let them be saved for that divine scrutiny.

For you have been given to us by God as gods,
and it is not fitting that a man should judge gods,
but only he of whom it is written:

“God has stood in the assembly of the gods,
in the midst he has judged between gods.
And therefore put aside these matters
and without contention examine those things
which belong to the faith of God.”

Having spoken thus,
he ordered all the petitions
containing complaints
to be burned together,
lest the dissension between priests
become known to anyone.

Then we have Socrates Scholasticus:

Quote:

On the following day all the bishops were assembled together in one place; the emperor arrived soon after and on his entrance stood in their midst, and would not take his place, until the bishops by bowing intimated their desire that he should be seated: such was the respect and reverence which the emperor entertained for these men.

When a silence suitable to the occasion had been observed, the emperor from his seat began to address them words of exhortation to harmony and unity, and entreated each to lay aside all private pique. For several of them had brought accusations against one another and many had even presented petitions to the emperor the day before.

But he, directing their attention
to the matter before them,
and on account of which they were assembled,
ordered these petitions to be burnt;

Philostorgius (Arian, fragments via Photius)
No reference.

And then we have Hermias Sozomen:

Quote:

CHAP. XVII. -- OF THE COUNCIL CONVENED AT NICAEA ON ACCOUNT OF ARIUS.
WHEN it was found that the event did not answer the expectations of the emperor, but that on the contrary, the contention was too great for reconciliation, so that he who had been sent to make peace returned without having accomplished his mission, Constantine convened a synod at Nicaea, in Bithynia, and wrote to the most eminent men of the churches in every country, directing them to be there on an appointed day. Of those who occupied the apostolic sees, the following participated in this conference: Macarius of Jerusalem, Eustathius, who already presided over the church of Antioch on the Orontes; and Alexander of Alexandria near Lake Mareotis. Julius, bishop of Rome, was unable to attend on account of extreme old age; but his place was supplied by Vito and Vicentius, presbyters of his church. Many other excellent and good men from different nations were congregated together, of whom some were celebrated for their learning, their eloquence, and their knowledge of the sacred books, and other discipline; some for the virtuous tenor of their life, and others for the combination of all these qualifications. About three hundred and twenty bishops were present, accompanied by a multitude of presbyters and deacons. There were, likewise, men present who were skilled in dialectics, and ready to assist in the discussions. And as was usually the case on such occasions, many priests resorted to the council for the purpose of transacting their own private affairs; for they considered this a favorable opportunity for rectifying their grievances, and in what points each found fault with the rest, he presented a document to the emperor, wherein he noted the offenses committed against himself. As this course was pursued day after day, the emperor set apart one certain day on which all complaints were to be brought before him. When the appointed time arrived, he took the memorials which had been presented to him, and said,

"All these accusations will be brought forward in their own season at the great day of judgment, and will there be judged by the Great Judge of all men; as to me, I am but a man, and it would be evil in me to take cognizance of such matters, seeing that the accuser and the accused are priests; and the priests ought so to act as never to become amenable to the judgment of others. Imitate, therefore, the divine love and mercy of God, and be ye reconciled to one another; withdraw your accusations against each other; let us be persuaded, and let us devote our attention to those subjects connected with the faith on account of which we are assembled."

After this address, in order to make the document of each man nugatory, the emperor commanded the memorials to be burnt, and then appointed a day for solving the doubtful points. But before the appointed time arrived, the bishops assembled together, and having summoned Arius to attend, began to examine the disputed topics, each one amongst them advancing his own opinion. As might have been expected, however, many different questions started out of the investigation: some of the bishops spoke against the introduction of novelties contrary to the faith which had been delivered to them from the beginning ...[etc, etc, etc]

And then finally we have Theodoret of Cyrus, who had access to most of
the foregoing (and presumeably perhaps some of the lost works) and who
makes no reference to the issue of burning opinions .. but insists:

Quote:

"The excellent emperor [...] exhorted the Bishops to unanimity and concord"

We have three "historians" saying three different things about
the burning of these memorials by Constantine at the opening
of the Council of Nicaea, and another set of "historians" making
no specific reference to the act.

It is clear that the burning happened at the opening of the
council, after the triumphant entry of the supreme commander
Constantine and after his major opening speach. At the point
when he opens the meeting to general discussion we are informed
there is great controversy and noisy voices.

He calls for petitions, and then publically burns them.
He was the supreme Roman emperor of the day.
His barbarian battle troops were just outside and encircled
the council, they did not stray far from Constantine (by order).

Constantine had called the council "on account of certain
words of Arius.. It is our thesis that Constantine implemented
christianity "out of whole cloth" at Nicaea, and part of the process
involved in the the arrival of harmony was the burning of written
petitions (Rufinus and Socrates) or memorials (Sozomen).

Constantine wanted to win an intellectual battle over the empire.
He wanted to implement a new religion in the empire to replace
the Hellenic traditions and beliefs embraced for a millennia by the
Romans. He could not tax Hellenism, but he could tax the new and
strange christianity, and at the same time calumnify Hellenism
in the name of christianity, and thereby loot the treasures and
the lands of the ancient Hellenic traditions.

I do not think that the council of Nicaea was attended by bishops
of christianity except those whom Constantine had hand-bred in
Rome during the period from 312-324 CE, and whom Constantine
brought with him to the council as INQUISITORS.

The rest of the council IMO would have consisted of the patrician
level land holders of the empire, and particularly the eastern empire
which Constantine had only just acquired less than a year before the
council. It was these summoned by Constantine, because until then
christian bishops (outside of Rome) only existed as fiction in the
literature of Eusebius.

Pete Brown

05-20-2006, 06:33 AM	#1
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Is the Gettier Problem relevant to BC&H? In another thread Vorkosigan provided a reference to tacit knowledge: http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindD...knowledge.html which lead to the Gettier Problem here: http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindD...erproblem.html This Gettier problem is expressed in terms of examples in which the (formalised) three conditions of truth (truth, justification and belief) of knowledge have been met, but that there is no knowledge. In relation to BC&H I pose the following example: Practically everyone here has been taught to believe that there were christians on the planet with effect from the first century, and consequently the great hunt for the true history of the tribe of christians scrutinises the first three centuries. As an aside, do you consider the above statement correct or incorrect? But what if christians did not exist until the fourth century? We have no literature carbon dated before Nicaea. We have nothing archeological before Constantine. We have nothing christian on the planet before 312 CE. (Exceptions will be gratefully received) Is there is no knowledge of the history of christianity because it was a literary invention out of whole cloth under Constantine in the fourth century? Has the last 300 years of research into BC&H produced nothing definite because of a Gettier-like problem, in which the entire body of BC&H source material is a fourth century fiction, as claimed by the Emperor Julian (c.362 CE)? Pete Brown

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.