mountainman

One source document citable towards the assumption that these statements may be true is the following:

The question becomes would it be true that if you J-D were alive when the above letter was circulated in the fourth century, and you J-D were found in possession (by the agents of Constantine) of any of the writings authored by Arius of Alexandria (whatever these may have been) then would you J-D suffer capital punishment by beheading without delay? Or do you think J-D that Constantine was just bluffing with this preserved and written threat.

Constantine published the new testament and plenty of people think that this series of documents contains what is true. Well Constantine also published this letter concerning the damnation of the memory of Arius. Is this true?

J-D

I have no reason to suppose he was bluffing. So?

mountainman

Let's look then at the history of the appearance of the name "Leucius Charinus":

Chronological index of Ancient Historical Mention
0180 ... Irenaeus' Adversus haereses - no mention of names
0220 ... Hippolytus (disciple of Irenaeus) The Refutation of all Heresies - no mention of names
0220 ... Tertullian The Prescription against Heretics - the author of the Acts of Paul was "a presbyter in Asia" !!
0325 ... Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica - on "Heretical books" - no mention of names, but cites the titles of texts by "Leucius"
0325 ... Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica - and the fiasco over The Forged Acts of Pilate, where "Leucius and Charinus" visit the underworld.
0370 ... Ephraem - "these Acts were written by Bardesanites" - no author name mentioned [Source (1)]
0375 ... Amphilochius of Iconium - certain heretical writings were "not the Acts of the Apostles, but accounts of demons".
0377 *. Epiphanius "Against Heresies" - makes the first explicit reference to the name Leucius - "a disciple of John"
0385 ... Pacian (bishop of Barcelona 365-391 CE) (3 Ep. i. ad Sympr., c. 2.)
0387 ... Philastrius of Brescia - testifies to the use of apocryphal acts among the Manichaeans. (De haeresibus 88)
0399 *. Augustine Contra Faustum Manichaeum (22:79) identified the author "Leucius", a "cobbler of fables".
0??? * Euodius De fide contra Manichaeos (38) identifies the author as "Leucius".
0400 ... Jerome repeats Tertullian, with the addition that the judgment of the priest took place in the presence of the Apostle John, an assertion which is surely erroneous. [Source 3]
0410 *. Pope Innocent I. declared that Leucius was the author of both the Acts of Peter and the Acts of John. [Source 2]
0450 *. Turibius of Astorga - identifies Acts of Andrew, John, Thomas, mentions Leucius, as the author of the Acts of John.
0451 ... Pope Leo I ( Council of Chalcedon) on the "Leucian Acts": "they should be utterly swept away and burned". [History Christian Lit.: G.L. HURST]
0491 *. Decretum Gelasianum (4th century?) - in no uncertain terms states that "Leucius is the disciple of the devil"
0590 ... Gregory of Tours epitomed (and censored) the Acts of Andrew, but does not mention the author.
0787 ... Second Council of Nicaea - "Acts of John" as "this abominable book" - "Let no one read it; and not only so, but we judge it is worthy of being committed to the flames."
0845 *. Photios I of Constantinople - reports that the author is Leucius Charinus, and his books as the "source and mother of all heresy"


The key people associate Leucius Charinus with John:
Epiphanius "Against Heresies" - makes the first explicit reference to the name Leucius - "a disciple of John",
0400 ... Jerome repeats Tertullian, with the addition that the judgment of the priest took place in the presence of the Apostle John, an assertion which is surely erroneous.

This association (to John) cannot be maintained.
They are fabricating more legend.

Additionally, the invectives hurled against the name of "Leucius Charinus" are not your usual garden variety. The orthodox are 100% totally opposed to these writings of this author "Leucius" in the later 4th to the 8th centuries, while at the early 4th century, Eusebius tells us the same thing. Constantine however levels exactly the same string of invectives against the person of Arius of Alexandria, and forbids anyone to mention the name or memory of Arius of Alexandria. I think that it is reasonable to think that everyone followed Constantine's wishes.

J-D

Once again, I don't see that the fact that two people were denounced in the same terms by a third party is evidence for their identity.

Also, it is obvious that the name of Arius of Alexandria was not blotted out, and people did preserve the memory of his name, no matter what Constantine may have said on the subject.

mountainman

We do not have two people. The historicity of Arius of Alexandria is reasonably secure. The historicity of Leucius Charinus, a name which was associated with the authorship of the first apocryphal acts of the apostles, however is exceedingly questionable from its first appearance in the fourth century. The greatest datum element in favor of thinking that LC is a pseudonym (false name) is that the very first mention of the name actually occurs in the apocryphal tractate of the Acts of Pilate, where Pilate tells the Jews that Jesus heals by the power of Asclepius (and not Beezlebub).

We have to ask oursleves, what are the names Lucius and Karinus doing in this fourth century authored tractate which was discussed by Eusebius by name as being heretical and blashpemous. This is where the name "Leucius Charinus" actually first appears. Do you think then that the Acts of Pilate is a history or a Hellenistic romance version of the new testament canon - an unofficial story about Jesus' life?


The association of the name of Arius as the named author of heretical books was blotted out, because if I were to ask you to cite the works of Arius of Alexandria which survive, you'd field the following index:

The Documents of Arius

(##) YEAR Description of Document .
====================================
0318 Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia
0320 Arius and other Alexandrian clergy to Alexander of Alexandria pleading his cause
0321 Summary of letter of a council in Palestine reinstating Arius
0322 Priest George to the Arians in Alexandria defending Alexander
0324 Emperor Constantine to Alexander of Alexandria and Arius
0327 Emperor Constantine to Arius (Dear Arius, grab the first chariot to Constantinople)
0327 Arius and Euzoius to the Emperor Constantine
0333 Imperial edict against Arius and his followers (The "Porphyrian")
0333 Emperor Constantine to Arius and his followers ("Dear Arius Where Are You"?)
03?? Thalia - The "Long Lost Songs of Arius"?

Which book do we have authored by Arius?
None. Sure he was variously mentioned,
but as an author of a book (extant) he is not identifed (yet).
The Arian controversy was about heresy.

J-D

It is easily possible that the works attributed to 'Leucius Charinus' were not written by a person named Leucius Charinus. That is not grounds for thinking that they were written by Arius of Alexandria.

mountainman

Who was the author hunted by Constantine for over a decade before he was poisoned in the city of Constantine c.336 CE?

Why do the orthodox use the name 'Leucius Charinus' if the most heretical books ever written against the christian canon were not written by a person named Leucius Charinus? Why do Epiphanius, Augustine, Euodius, Jerome, Pope Innocent I, Turibius of Astorga, Decretum Gelasianum (Damasius' input in the 4th century?) and Photios I of Constantinople report that the author is Leucius Charinus if this is a false name?

Why does Jerome repeat Tertullian, with the addition that the judgment of the priest took place in the presence of the Apostle John, an assertion which is surely erroneous?

Why does the first appearance of the false name appear as the two pivotal hebrew scribes Luecius and Karinus in "The Acts of Pilate" which is recognised by all of scholarship to have been composed and authored in the fourth century?

The mainstream hypotheses for the history of christian literature

1) the canonical new testament was authored by unknown authors in an unknown century, perhaps the second? and

2) the non canonical new testament was authored by unknown authors in unknown centuries, but certainly from the fourth and onwards?


An alternative hypotheses for the history of christian literature

1) the canonical new testament was authored by unknown authors in an unknown century, perhaps the second? and

2) the non canonical new testament was authored by Arius of Alexandria aka "Leucius Charinus" in the fourth as a direct literary response to the imperial support and publication of the canonical new testament by Constantine c.325 CE.


[NOTE: Astute readers will immediately notice that the above alternative historical hypothesis is unrelated to the actual history of the canonical new testament .... it concerns the history of the new testament apocryphal literature (alone).]

One does not need or require evidence as such for an hypothesis. All that one requires in order to frame an hypothesis is for the hypothesis to be consistent with all the facts in our possession.

Can anyone think of any facts in our possession which would preclude the hypothesis that the NT apocrypha were fourth century tractates written by Arius of Alexandria, but whose name and memory attracted imperial damnation and erasure as an author and a new name of an author "Leucius Charinus" was somehow substituted as the name of the author of the earliest of the apocryphal acts? Note that the 2 x C14 citations support the chronological aspects of the hypothesis.

The mainstream evidence against the hypothesis is listed in a very well produced tabulated format by Glenn Davis at a page entitled Cross Reference Table: Writings and Authorities as part of The Development of the Canon of the New Testament series. There are perhaps as little as half a dozen references tendered by Eusebius by which we currently presume that "the earliest" new testament apocrypha were authored according to the mainstream conjectures in the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd centuries. Have a look at these references one by one. We have allowed Eusebius to be an authority on the canon. Shall he also be permitted to be an unbiased authority on the unorthodox literature?

Setting aside the "quasi-orthodox" such as The Shepherd, etc and the canon itself, the (heretical and apocryphal) non canonical tractates listed by Davis are

Gospel of Thomas · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Gospel of Truth · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Gospel of the Twelve · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Gospel of Peter · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Gospel of Basilides · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Gospel of the Egyptians · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Gospel of the Hebrews · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Gospel of Matthias · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Traditions of Matthias · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Preaching of Peter · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Acts of Andrew · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Acts of Paul · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Acts of John .......

These count to 13. We do not have texts for some of these.
Have a look at the citations. Some of the citations, such as the
key one of Tertullian's concerning the "Acts of Paul" being written
by a presbyter in Asia who wrote it out of the love he had for Paul,
but who was exposed in his sham and demoted from his place, are
legendary. Does Momigliano question whether Tertullian was an actual person?

However in addition to these, unmentioned by this cross reference table
(because the apocryphal texts are largely unmentioned in Eusebius' "sources")
we have many other new testament apocryphal tractates in our possession
the majority of which have a document tradition sources from Coptic
and Syriac of the fourth century. (Remote places - greeks preserving
Hellenistic Gnostic knowledge from hidden locations like Nag Hammadi).


C.324 CE the Greeks became the outlaws: it was too late for Julian's attempt.
The damage had been done by Constantine and with a dotard's superstition
the plain and simple religion of the christians was obscured by Constantius.
The highways became covered with galloping bishops.
The graveyards became filled with the dead Hellenistic priesthood.

The popular literature during these times was not the canon.
The popular literature during this epoch of the 4th century
were "The Songs of Arius" - these were sung while the
Arian controversy raged - in a politically resistive mode.


I am deeply shocked and embarrassed that there is apparently
no other person on this planet who can read NHC 6.1 TAOPATTA
"The Acts of Peter and the 11,12 or 13 Apostles" without seeing
that the gnostic Hellenistic Asclepian author sets a hidden trap
by which christians automatically identify Lithargoel - the Pearl Man
who carried a book similar to Peter's book - with the Jesus of the
new testament canon.

All I am trying to say is that it seems possible that these
"Songs of Arius" are a Hellenistic romantic mimicry of the canon assembled
by Arius of Alexandria - a book read by Photius perhaps
in Babylon in the 9th century entitled "The Travels of
the Apostles". We now call these "Songs of Arius" the
new testament apocryphal acts and gospels. They (then)
provided comic relief to the greeks from the oppression
of the christian canon over the preservation of the literature
relating to Pythagoras, Plato, Apollonius of Tyana, Ammonias Saccas,
Plotinus, Porphyry, Euclid, Archimedes, Ptolemy, Hermes,
Asclepius,Apollo, Zeu$,
etc, etc, etc.

Am I on the money with the BCE Hellenistic trinity?

J-D

It is possible that the works attributed to 'Leucius Charinus' were not written by a person named Leucius Charinus. If that is the case, I don't know why. There are many examples of works falsely or pseudonymously attributed, for a diversity of reasons. You have still given no grounds for supposing that those works were written by Arius of Alexandria.

mountainman

One simple explanation is that the name of the historical author of the apocryphal "Leucian Acts" was forbidden to be named by the orthodox. The "Leucian Acts" are as follows:

The Acts of John
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Andrew
The Acts of Thomas

I have provided an analysis of chronological grounds. Time and place.

I have provided details of strong political grounds - motivations by which the name of Arius of Alexandria was subject to extreme imperial damnatio memoriae by the person who would loose the most over the popularity of the non canonical tractates of the new testament literature - Constantine.

What else would you suggest is required?

What did Arius truly think and/or write?

We have next to nothing since the orthodox were in total control.
There are certainly forged letters in the name of Arius expressing "orthodoxy".
There following may be truly Arius ...

The Five Arian Aphorisms

We can be reasonable sure he supplied the source of the aphorisms found on the earliest historical forms of the original Nicaean Creed (or Oath to Constantine) in the following:

There was time when He was not.
Before He was born He was not.
He was made out of nothing existing.
He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
He is subject to alteration or change

Thalia; Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition

Revised Edition, 98-116

He claimed that God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all.
He claimed that this inexpressible essence alone has no equal
He claimed that this inexpressible essence alone has no one similar (homoios)
He claimed that this inexpressible essence alone has no one of the same glory.
He Claimed that he and his supporters called this inexpressible essence unbegotten, in contrast to an essence who by nature is begotten.
He claimed that he and his supporters praised this inexpressible essence as without beginning in contrast to an essence who has a beginning.
He claimed that he and his supporters worshipped this inexpressible essence as timeless, in contrast to an essence who in time has come to exist.

Arius was called a "Porphyrian" because his basic philosophy was Hellenistic just like Porphyry, and Plotinus, and he whom Arius calls his father - Ammonias.

Arius of Alexandria was no "christian" greek academic.
He may have been an academic priest of Asclepius.
It was simply bad luck that he lost his ancient network of collegiate temples.

How many centuries did the Arian controversy last?
From the Council of Nicaea until when?
Nag Hammadi and the C14 suggest the controversy is not yet resolved.
That the apocrypha are exaggerated Hellenistic romance narratives cannot be denied.
That the apocrypha were not authored by the plain and simple authors of the canon cannot be denied.
That the apocrypha were presented as being authored by a pseudonymous person "Leucius Charinus" cannot be denied.
That the apocrypha were authored before the council of Nicaea can be arguably denied - see above.
That the apocrypha were authored by an extremely clever academic pagan gnostic priest in mimicry of the canon seems likely to me.

As late as 341 the bishops of the Dedication Council at Antioch declared:

"We are not followers of Arius;
for how could we, who are bishops,
be disciples of a priest?"

Addenda ...

DICTIONARY and THESAURUS SECTIONS

PART THE FIRST: for the MIMIC

MIMIC:

Ape,
copy,
feign,
imitate,
mime,
mock,
represent,
satire,
ridicule,
spoof,
parody,
characiture,
lampoon,
impersonate,
simulate,
duplicate,
replicate,
resemble,
tongue-in-cheek


IMITATE

Emulate,
parallel,
mirror,
reflect,
echo,
pattern oneself on or after,
model oneself on or after,
take a leaf out of someone's book,
affect,
parot,
impersonate,
simulate,
do an impression of,
clone,
countefeit,
fake

[NB: This is what the author of the new testament apocrypha did to the new testament canon]


PART THE SECOND: for the MIMICEE -
those who have been imitated and mocked


libel - 1(a) A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures,
that damages a person's reputation.
1(b) The act of presenting such material to the public.
2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action
at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.


slander - 1. Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.


malign - To make evil, harmful, and often untrue statements about;
speak evil of; speak unfavorably about;


calumny - 1. A false statement maliciously made to injure another's reputation.
2. The utterance of maliciously false statements; slander.


accurse,
anathematise,
anathematize,
anathemize,
asperse,
attack the good name and reputation of someone;
badmouth,
bedamn,
beshrew,
besmirch,
calumniate,
character assassination,
comminate,
curse,
damn,

Damnatio memoriae - the Latin phrase literally meaning "damnation of memory",
in the sense of removed from the remembrance. It was a form
of dishonor that could be passed by the Roman Senate upon traitors
or others who brought discredit to the Roman State.

declare to be evil or anathema,
defame,
deplore,
depreciate,
denigrate,
derogate,
disparage,
drag through the mud,
execrate,
hatchet job,
imprecate,
impugn - to attack as false or questionable;
invoke evil upon,
libel,
maledict,
malign,
name calling,
sedition ****,
slander,
smear - charge falsely or with malicious intent,
smirch,
subvert,
sully,
threaten with divine punishment,
traduce
vilify,
wish harm upon,
obloquy - a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions


[NB: This is how the "wronged" orthodox preservers of the new testament canon felt after the new testament apocrypha had been authored and distributed in the empire by those unspeakable heretics and followers of that unmentionable mother and source of all heresies that unnameable "iron-hearted man" whom everyone agreed was the disciple of the Devil, and who was to be forever destined to be associated with the Anti-Christ and the history of anti-christian thinking.]

The New Testament Apocrypha at a Glance

An Index of Summary Comments


"insipid and puerile amplifications" [Ernest Renan]
"excluded by their later and radical light" [John Dominic Crossan]

"severely conditoned responses to Jesus ... usually these authors deny his humanity" [Robert M. Grant]

"they exclude themselves" [M.R. James]

"The practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history" [Bart Ehrman]

"The Leucian Acts are Hellenistic romances, which were written to appeal to the masses" [Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard]

"The key point ... [NT Apocrypha] have all been long ago considered and rejected by the Church.

"The names of apostles ... were used by obscure writers to palm off their productions; partly to embellish and add to ... partly to invent ... partly to support false doctrines; decidedly pernicious, ... nevertheless contain much that is interesting and curious ... they were given a place which they did not deserve." [Tischendorf]

"Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently ... making fun of traditional biblical beliefs"[April Deconick]

"heretics ... who were chiefly Gnostics ... imitated the books of the New Testament" [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

"enterprising spirits ... pretended Gospels full of romantic fables and fantastic and striking details, their fabrications were eagerly read and largely accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity." "the heretical apocryphists, composed spurious Gospels in order to trace backward their beliefs and peculiarities to Christ Himself." [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

"the fabrication of spurious Acts of the Apostles was, in general, to give Apostolic support to heretical systems, especially those of the many sects which are comprised under the term Gnosticism. The Gnostic Acts of Peter, Andrew, John, Thomas, and perhaps Matthew, abound in extravagant and highly coloured marvels, and were interspersed by long pretended discourses of the Apostles which served as vehicles for the Gnostic predications. The originally Gnostic apocryphal Acts were gathered into collections which bore the name of the periodoi (Circuits) or praxeis (Acts) of the Apostles, and to which was attached the name of a Leucius Charinus, who may have formed the compilation." [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

For the details see this page

J-D

I am not an expert on the methods by which ancient historians draw conclusions about the authorship of anonymous or pseudonymous works. I expect there is expert literature on the subject which you could consult. I don't need to be an expert to see that the evidence you have presented for your conclusion is inadequate to support it, for reasons I have already outlined in earlier posts.