Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 06-02-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Communism's militant atheism and the suppression of Christianity in the U.S.S.R. sparked strong religiously based anticommunism among both Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, and Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics were aroused in the 1930s by the violent suppression of the church in Spain by a government in which Communists were dominant. Catholics became further mobilized after 1945 by communist persecution of Catholics in Eastern Europe. Catholic lay organizations such as the Knights of Columbus, Catholic Daughters of America, Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation, Catholic War Veterans, and the Association of Catholic Trade Unionists became actively anticommunist. The Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe also aroused hostility among ethnic Americans with forebears from the region. Polish Americans through such organizations as the Polish American Congress played a significant role in shifting the Democratic Party to an anticommunist stance in the post–World War II period.
Political Anticommunism
In the 1940s and 1950s Republicans often used anticommunism as a partisan weapon against Democrats and liberals, seeking to link them to communism. Richard Nixon (R-Calif.) gained national prominence as a member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities investigating Soviet espionage, while Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) used anticommunism in a demagogic fashion to accuse prominent members of the Truman administration of treason.

http://www.answers.com/topic/anticommunism

Sorry, I can guarantee there was a Russian exile in America with a copy of the Soviet Encyclopedia.

There are Russian exile Scout groups!

Clivedurdle · 06-02-2009, 11:54 AM

http://www.lasvegasorthodox.com/libr..._1925-1950.htm

Quote:

Church History - The Twentieth Century 1925 -1950

Church in Russia
At the death of Patriarch Tikhon, the Church in Russia entered its darkest hour. Metropolitan Sergius Stragorodskii served as "deputy locum tenens" of the patriarchate from 1927 to 1943. This was the time of Stalin's purges when literally millions of people, including thousands of clergy, were imprisoned, exiled and killed. The Stalin constitution of 1936 officially called for "freedom of religion and freedom of anti-religious propaganda." Hundreds of churches, monasteries and schools were closed. What little church life remained was limited exclusively to liturgical services. The persecution of the church by the state was fierce and relentless.
Relative Freedom
A period of relative freedom came to the Russian Church during the Second World War. The government needed church support for the war effort. In return for rallying the people to fight for the fatherland, the Russian Church received concessions from the state. Many churches, monasteries and schools were reopened. In 1943, a church council officially elected Sergius as patriarch. Until his death in 1945, Metropolitan Alexei Simanskii was elected to replace him at a second council solemnly conducted in the presence of a host of foreign church dignitaries.
Russian Emigre Disunity
In 1926, Metropolitan Platon of the American Metropolia met with members of the Russian Synod in Exile to discuss the problems of caring for the Russian Orthodox Christians in diaspora. At this time, many Russian immigrants had come to America and joined the American Metropolia and, due to the circumstances, the feelings of Russian nationalism in the American archdiocese were high. When the Synod in Exile attempted to extend its jurisdiction over the American Metropolia, however, Metropolitan Platon objected. Thus, he and his church were "suspended" by the Synod in Exile, which by now had developed the position of considering itself to be the one true Russian Orthodox Church, the successor of the Church of Patriarch Tikhon. At this same time, Metropolitan Eulogius also met with the bishops of the Synod and likewise was "suspended" by them for refusing to recognize their assumed jurisdiction over all Russian Orthodox outside of Russia.
Moscow Pressure
In the nineteen-thirties, pressure was also applied to the American Metropolia and the Western European Exarchate by Moscow. Archbishop Benjamin Fedchenkoff came to America from the USSR demanding the Metropolia's allegiance to the Moscow Patriarchate. The fact that a pledge of allegiance to the Soviet state was also demanded showed that the Russian church was not free and that the American Metropolia could in no way enter into normal relations with it. Thus, in 1934, the Russian Church officially declared the Metropolia to be illegal and opened the Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate in America. In the same year, Metropolitan Platon died and Archbishop Theophilus Pashkovsky was elected primate at the fifth council of the American church in Pittsburgh.
American Destiny
In 1937, the sixth council of the American Metropolia in New York affirmed a "moral" relation with the Russian Synod in Exile, but when the Synod once more demanded to govern the American church, the "moral" relationship was broken. This sobor also blessed the establishment of St. Vladimir's Seminary in New York City as a graduate school of Orthodox theology, and St. Tikhon's Seminary as a pastoral school at St. Tikhon's Monastery in South Canaan, Pennsylvania. Both schools opened in 1938.
In 1945, the seventh council of the American Metropolia in Cleveland decided upon close "spiritual" relations with the Moscow Patriarchate, but when, once again, demands were made from Moscow for loyalty to the Soviet government, the "spiritual" relationship was not realized.
In 1950, upon the death of Metropolitan Theophilus, the eighth council of the American Metropolia in New York elected as primate Archbishop Leonty Turkevich, one of the original leaders of the American missionary diocese. By this time, the Synod in Exile had set up its center in America, and the Moscow Patriarchate was applying its strongest pressures for the reestablishment of jurisdiction over the Russian-American church which it continued to call "illegal." Thus, at this eighth council, before his election as metropolitan, Archbishop Leonty made a speech reaffirming the specifically American destiny of the church which had been planted in the new world by the Church of Russia more than a century and a half earlier: "We will follow our line," the archbishop declared, "the foundation of an administratively self-governing Orthodox Church in America."

I understand there are original Russian Orthodox churches in Alaska.

Toto · 06-02-2009, 12:05 PM

Hi Clive - Jiri has already located the entry on Pilate in the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia (post 32 above - thanks Jiri), and it clearly describes a historical Pilate and a historical Jesus. There seems to be no way to pin this particular error on the Communist conspiracy or the Orthodox reaction to it.

Clivedurdle · 06-02-2009, 12:15 PM

Probably starting a new thread - mythicism historicism and 20 th century politics!

lpetrich · 06-02-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Let's be clear about what is going on here. Several people have caught Christian apologists in what appears to be outright fabrication. The origin seems clear - they have constructed a narrative that goes "skeptics refused to believe that X personage in the Bible was historical until Y was found." ...

There's a similar Xian urban legend I've seen about the Hittites, that skeptical scholars had rejected their existence until they were discovered archeologically.

But the ones discovered archeologically are clearly not the ones in the Bible. The Hittite Empire proper was destroyed in the "Sea Peoples" strife and migrations of around 1200 BCE, along with the Mycenaean Greek palace society, and the Egyptians' Levantine empire.

There were some Neo-Hittites or Syro-Hittites after that, though even their connection with the

Biblical Hittites is doubtful.

The Bible's reliable history starts a few centuries after that, in the Dual Monarchy period.

I've seen some Bible-science apologetics that takes the same approach, claiming that "skeptics" rejected various claims in the Bible before scientists discovered their truth.

GakuseiDon · 06-02-2009, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I got the impression that GDon is looking for a mythicist who misunderstood a claim in the Soviet Encyclopedia and stated that Pilate was a myth, rather than a Christian who misread that claim.

Roger Pearse seems to have read GDon the same way.

Either is possible. But Drews comments are enough to explain the origin of such a myth. There are quite a lot of careless readers out there.

Don has done us a great service, by localising an origin for this stuff. I suspect he is right, and this IS the origin.

Actually, it was Andrew Criddle who found the Drews quote, a little while back. I noted it down for reference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

But what we need to see now is the next step down the chain.

Yes, it would be interesting to try to get at the source of this, and find the earliest reference to the idea.

GakuseiDon · 06-02-2009, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You have a list of the Christian apologist sites that claimed that Pilate was thought to be non-historical. Can you show that any of them read Polish or Russian, or read Drews in translation, or that there is any likelihood that they were referring to obscure 19th century writers?

Doesn't the second link I gave in my first post in this thread suggest that? The information was from the "Russian Orthodox Church Abroad", and the source published in the 1970s. It refers to the works of Drews and suggests a late 19th C / early 20th work available in Russia as relevant.

And it doesn't rely on the apologists actually having read the works in Polish or Russian. In fact, quite the opposite. As I mentioned earlier, more likely than not key passages were translated, but without the surrounding context. Or the surrounding context was translated but dropped. Those passages were repeated in apologetic circles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This theory - the Christian wishful thinking theory - posits that the idea that Pilate was not historical originated in 1961, with Christian apologists. It fits the data.

I'm not sure it does. The second link I gave specifically refers to Drews. Why is Drews' name even mentioned IYO? Did Christian apologists make this idea up in 1961 after the discovery of Pilate's name on the stone, and then looked through the available mythicist texts, to find comments by Drews? And yet earlier, weren't you finding it incredible that "American evangelicals" were reading Drews?

I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I suspect what happened was this: apologists had already been floating the notion that skeptics considered that most if not all of the Gospel characters were fictional ("there existed no Jesus Christ, Apostles, Pontius Pilate, no other persons, mentioned in the Gospel" as the second link put it), so when the stone with Pilate's name was found in 1961, the apologists considered that as evidence that the whole theory was invalidated. THAT's why the idea is usually presented along these lines: "People say that there was no historical Jesus". "Yeah? Well, they used to say that there was no historical Pilate".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But you have come up with an alternative theory, that the non-historical Pilate can be traced to the 19th century. (And I'm still not clear on who you think made the original mistake of interpretation, or when, or if you have worked this out.) This theory has no evidence for it, merely speculation. Why do you think this is helpful? What explanatory value does it have?

It helps to suggest a source of the mistake: apologist misreading of the 19th C "astral theory" of the origin of the Gospels.

So, this is my speculation about what happened: Prior to 1961, apologists were well aware of claims by Drews and other early mythicists that the Gospels were fictional, either in part or in whole. When the stone was found in 1961, they claimed this as proof that Drews and others were wrong.

Toto · 06-02-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You have a list of the Christian apologist sites that claimed that Pilate was thought to be non-historical. Can you show that any of them read Polish or Russian, or read Drews in translation, or that there is any likelihood that they were referring to obscure 19th century writers?

Doesn't the second link I gave in my first post in this thread suggest that? The information was from the "Russian Orthodox Church Abroad", and the source published in the 1970s. It refers to the works of Drews and suggests a late 19th C / early 20th work available in Russia as relevant.

My experience has been that Christian apologists come out of a Protestant evangelical tradition. Up until fairly recently, there has been very little dialog between them and the Eastern Orthodox - there are language differences, theological differences, and vast cultural differences, especially with recent immigrants.

Your link is a translation of a work written in Russian, and badly translated at some time - probably after the death of the Russian author in the 1980's. So, no, I see no suggestion here that Christian apologists learned about Drews from Russian immigrants.

Quote:

And it doesn't rely on the apologists actually having read the works in Polish or Russian. In fact, quite the opposite. As I mentioned earlier, more likely than not key passages were translated, but without the surrounding context. Or the surrounding context was translated but dropped. Those passages were repeated in apologetic circles.

There is no evidence for this at all, is there?

Quote:

I'm not sure it does. The second link I gave specifically refers to Drews. Why is Drews' name even mentioned IYO? Did Christian apologists make this idea up in 1961 after the discovery of Pilate's name on the stone, and then looked through the available mythicist texts, to find comments by Drews? And yet earlier, weren't you finding it incredible that "American evangelicals" were reading Drews?

In 1923, the Soviet government set up a publishing house to print anti-Christian literature, and published a Russian translation of Drews. That is why the Russian source mentions him - he is part of their heritage. He is not part of the anglophone Christian apologist heritage.

Quote:

I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I suspect what happened was this: apologists had already been floating the notion that skeptics considered that most if not all of the Gospel characters were fictional ("there existed no Jesus Christ, Apostles, Pontius Pilate, no other persons, mentioned in the Gospel" as the second link put it), so when the stone with Pilate's name was found in 1961, the apologists considered that as evidence that the whole theory was invalidated. THAT's why the idea is usually presented along these lines: "People say that there was no historical Jesus". "Yeah? Well, they used to say that there was no historical Pilate".

Can you find apologists who were floating that notion? Mythicism was an obscure and insignificant theory in 1961. The Christian apologists of the mid-20th century primarily did battle with Humanists who believed in a human Jesus. A purely human Jesus is as much a refutation of Christianity as a non-existent Jesus, and the apologists adopted CS Lewis' trilemma to argue that this human Jesus was not just a good man, but must be God incarnate.

I was around in the 60's, and I don't recall anyone seriously arguing that Jesus never existed, and I don't recall any Christian feeling the need to rebut that argument. The theological debates of the day were issues such as whether Christians should follow Jesus into pacifism and socialism, or whether Jesus would be an anti-Communist. There were also fights over whether full immersion baptism was required for salvation, or whether sprinkling was enough. But the idea that Jesus might never have existed was just not part of the culture at that time.

I think you are imagining potential scenarios of facts that would make your theory relevant, but I see no evidence that those facts exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But you have come up with an alternative theory, that the non-historical Pilate can be traced to the 19th century. (And I'm still not clear on who you think made the original mistake of interpretation, or when, or if you have worked this out.) This theory has no evidence for it, merely speculation. Why do you think this is helpful? What explanatory value does it have?

It helps to suggest a source of the mistake: apologist misreading of the 19th C "astral theory" of the origin of the Gospels.

And what does this explanation illuminate? What difficulty does it solve, compared with the difficulties that it raises?

Quote:

So, this is my speculation about what happened: Prior to 1961, apologists were well aware of claims by Drews and other early mythicists that the Gospels were fictional, either in part or in whole. When the stone was found in 1961, they claimed this as proof that Drews and others were wrong.

Now all you have to do is find any evidence to support this theory.

The previous thread on the Pilate myth dates to 2003. You might want to reread it - Roger Pearse even back then kept saying that there might be some skeptic somewhere who claimed that Pilate was not historical. Now you are saying that there were apologists who misinterpreted Drews to be saying that.

I say there's no there there.

GakuseiDon · 06-02-2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

So, this is my speculation about what happened: Prior to 1961, apologists were well aware of claims by Drews and other early mythicists that the Gospels were fictional, either in part or in whole. When the stone was found in 1961, they claimed this as proof that Drews and others were wrong.

Now all you have to do is find any evidence to support this theory.

The previous thread on the Pilate myth dates to 2003. You might want to reread it - Roger Pearse even back then kept saying that there might be some skeptic somewhere who claimed that Pilate was not historical. Now you are saying that there were apologists who misinterpreted Drews to be saying that.

I say there's no there there.

Yes, that could be. Thanks for your time, Toto, I'll bow out of this thread now.

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

06-02-2009, 12:05 PM	#53
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Clive - Jiri has already located the entry on Pilate in the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia (post 32 above - thanks Jiri), and it clearly describes a historical Pilate and a historical Jesus. There seems to be no way to pin this particular error on the Communist conspiracy or the Orthodox reaction to it.

06-02-2009, 12:15 PM	#54
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Probably starting a new thread - mythicism historicism and 20 th century politics!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.