Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 06-07-2011, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I guess you have some sympathy for Pete's theory, but I just can't see how all the canonical, apocryphal and patristic lit could have been produced so quickly in the 4th C by a tiny circle of Constantinians. Can political sharks also be talented enough writers to fake a variety of styles?

Like most conspiracy theories this implies incredible creativity and efficiency, not to mention near-perfect erasure of clues. It's a kind of magical thinking imo.

Yes, I do like Pete's approach. I don't agree that everything was created de novo, but I do agree that much of what we think we know about earliest Christianity has been altered by Eusebius/Constantine.

Those two guys, nah. No, I don't mean those two men physically gathered up all the extant papyrus, burned it, and then issued new papyrus.

Constantine had an army available to do that.

Eusebius had a scriptorium available to issue the new docs.

Ten years, Bacht. Ten years is a long time.

Think back to 2001. Did you have high def television? telephones that gave you access to the internet?

Technology moves quickly. Those new papyrus docs were disseminated throughout the empire by military chain of command, in just a twinkling of the eye. There was no more fooling around. This was now the official government sponsored religion.

We should not underestimate Constantine's ambition. He was a general. He wanted results. Heads rolled if he didn't get what he wanted. If he wanted all the old manuscripts gathered up, and new ones printed, and distributed, then, that's what he got.

For some reason, intellectuals in 2011 imagine that it is terribly difficult for an autocrat to mobilize a few hundred scribes to issue a few thousand copies of a few dozen different publications over a ten year period of time.

Nonsense.

This guy marched on foot, over the whole of Europe, and Asia minor, and he wasn't sleeping in Holiday Inn's. He wasn't watching the television at night.

He was FIGHTING himself, hand to hand combat, with his opponents. Now, we come along and proclaim that it is difficult for him to instruct his minions to gather up some papyrus docs and burn them to keep warm in the winter?

Magical thinking is not the same as envisioning the scope of the problem. Engineers attempt such an endeavor daily. I think you should consider the magnitude of the task of gathering up all the old papyrus, followed by issuance of new, fresh, technology to those possessing the ancient, obsolete versions, versions prepared before his mother, Helen, found the Cross.....Then, compare the magnitude of that task with the Herculean task of fighting three other emperors during a decade of armed struggle, marching with thousands of troops, fighting hunger, disease, loneliness, desertion, and incompetence, all the while avoiding poison, and armed assassins.

Bacht: seen any apple II manuals floating around anywhere? How about books on programming the 6502?

Sometimes documents disappear because new information renders them obsolete. There is no demand for books on programming the cpu found in the old Apple II. We have moved on, beyond that now. Folks back then were not so different. Here's a new, fancier version of xyz document. Yours for only three drachmas. Into the trash bin with the old. Onto the bookshelf with the new.....

avi

Keeping the old was expensive. Documents rot and decay and must be recopied. Copying is expensive. So if the old was not important or was officially discouraged it was not copied.

mountainman · 06-07-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

....but I just can't see how all the canonical, apocryphal and patristic lit could have been produced so quickly in the 4th C by a tiny circle of Constantinians.

Hey bacht,

It is universally accepted that the authors of the canonical and patristic literature were not the same authors of the non canonical and apocryphal literature. The former were the orthodox, the latter were the gnostic heretics.

As I see it, the orthodox literature was published and promoted by the orthodoxy. The mainstream opinion - as the OP - has it that the epoch of first publishing of the new testament books was c.180 CE. You will note that Trobisch and everyone else is foccussed intently on the canonical books, and the history of the gnostic heretics publishing is not mentioned.

I see the non canonical literature as an uncontrollable grass-roots reaction by the academics in the Panhellenic culture of Alexandria against the appearance of the Constantine Bible, and that the authorship of this category of literature did not commence until after Nicaea.

Quote:

Can political sharks also be talented enough writers to fake a variety of styles?

Like most conspiracy theories this implies incredible creativity and efficiency, not to mention near-perfect erasure of clues. It's a kind of magical thinking imo.

I think that you need to understand that the question of the authorship, and the chronology of that authorship, for the books of the new testament canon, and for the non canonical books of the gnostic heretics are separate exercises.

Good questions though.

Best wishes

Pete

bacht · 06-08-2011, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Yes, I do like Pete's approach. I don't agree that everything was created de novo, but I do agree that much of what we think we know about earliest Christianity has been altered by Eusebius/Constantine...

We should not underestimate Constantine's ambition. He was a general. He wanted results. Heads rolled if he didn't get what he wanted. If he wanted all the old manuscripts gathered up, and new ones printed, and distributed, then, that's what he got...

Sometimes documents disappear because new information renders them obsolete...

I don't dispute the ability of 4th C Romans to copy mss. The question to me is the creation ex nihilo of a new religion, including apostolic and patristic texts of varying styles and viewpoints, all within less than one generation.

My background is in the arts. Despite egotistical pronouncements to the contrary, true creativity is fairly rare. Most of what gets produced in music, architecture etc are copies or slight modifications of existing models. My hunch is that the biggest creative burst of catholicism occured in the 2nd C, when social conditions were relatively stable, and gnostics provided an urgent catalyst, plus the memory of Jewish tradedy was still fresh.

Let me see if I understand what you and Pete are proposing: Constantine's staff invented Catholic orthodoxy and then forged supporting documents supposedly dating from the 2nd-4th C, is this the gist of it?

bacht · 06-08-2011, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It is universally accepted that the authors of the canonical and patristic literature were not the same authors of the non canonical and apocryphal literature. The former were the orthodox, the latter were the gnostic heretics.

As I see it, the orthodox literature was published and promoted by the orthodoxy. The mainstream opinion - as the OP - has it that the epoch of first publishing of the new testament books was c.180 CE. You will note that Trobisch and everyone else is focussed intently on the canonical books, and the history of the gnostic heretics publishing is not mentioned.

I see the non canonical literature as an uncontrollable grass-roots reaction by the academics in the Panhellenic culture of Alexandria against the appearance of the Constantine Bible, and that the authorship of this category of literature did not commence until after Nicaea.

I don't see how you've proven that the non-canonical material dates to the 4th C. If it did start in the 2nd C then the theories of Trobisch and others make sense as reactions to Marcion and the gnostics.

Do we even know how many gnostics were left by Constantine's time? They seem to have gradually disappeared in the 3rd C.

stephan huller · 06-08-2011, 12:27 PM

Julian mentions the persecutions of Valentinians in the previous administration but this theory is stupid that it isn't even worth arguing against bacht. The question as always is why would the orthodox have developed counter-traditions to the Catholic faith while trying to edify their new faith (which would have been no mean task to begin with). It's absurd and is typical of conspiracy theories generally. Isn't it strange though that avi always appears as a 'set up' man for the re-emergence of Pete in this forum? A study of avi's co-operation (i.e. the quasi-reasonable 'I'll only go this far' guy) with the promotion of this nonsense would be far more interesting.

I will go so far as to pay $20 for avi to send me his telephone number in the US via email to determine if he is a real person. This has gone on far enough. No one could be so daft to continue to adhere to this conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theorists are always themselves involved in conspiracy to promote their conspiracy theories or so experience has taught me.

hjalti · 06-08-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote:

I will go so far as to pay $20 for avi to send me his telephone number in the US via email to determine if he is a real person.

Are you willing to extend this offer to other users on this forum? :Cheeky:

DCHindley · 06-08-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I will go so far as to pay $20 for avi to send me his telephone number in the US via email to determine if he is a real person. This has gone on far enough. No one could be so daft to continue to adhere to this conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theorists are always themselves involved in conspiracy to promote their conspiracy theories or so experience has taught me.

Well, unless Pete has super secret contacts able to mail me a copy of Earl's book from Florida (the postage sticker and cancellation stamp was purchased from a post office there), I'm pretty sure avi exists.

DCH

stephan huller · 06-08-2011, 04:26 PM

Well maybe I'm looking for a reason to waste $20. The only caveat is that I want to interview avi for my blog. I am interested in finding out what makes him tick. This may be the single stupidest theory in the history of Biblical scholarship. He's deserves some attention.

stephan huller · 06-08-2011, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Are you willing to extend this offer to other users on this forum?

Yes, I have the strange uncontrolled desire to pick up guys who waste as much time discussing the Bible as I do. It's a real turn on.

PhilosopherJay · 06-09-2011, 09:12 AM

Hi bacht,

I agree. It seems an important key that answers a great many questions. Only this hypothesis really answers significant questions about the origin of the New Testament. It was by a single powerful person in the late second or early third century fighting primarily against the Marcion Church who put the massive tome together. In the second century, Christianity is a hoard of different cults with quite different theories and text regarding the Jesus mysteries. Essentially, nobody until Irenaeus mentions a New Testament either to be for or against it. It is only in the Third Century the text becomes a rallying cry for a new Christian Orthodoxy battling the hoards of expanding Christian cults.

Once we accept this hypothesis, we can propose a corollary hypothesis that the editor of the new testament was the writer of Luke and Acts. Writing Luke was a way of getting over the contradictions between Mark and Matthew which would be necessary in the fight against Marcionism. Adding John seems to have been an afterthought. It was probably a book that he found after his Luke work was done. After editing Mark and Matthew and writing Luke, he just cut the direct contradictions he found in John. He was pretty exhausted from working with all this material and that's why he ended John by writing, "Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ ἃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἅτινα ἐὰν γράφηται καθ’ ἓν, οὐδ’ αὐτὸν οἶμαι τὸν κόσμον χωρήσειν τὰ γραφόμενα βιβλία. ὅτι" (so many books, so little time - or something like that)

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

So, for me, saying that Irenaeus or Tertullian edited the New Testament, is the same thing. It is clearly an anti-Marcion prooftext, designed to unite different Christian sects against Marcionism. Even the Catholic Church admitted partly to this 100 years ago: (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/m.htm):

I don't understand why this isn't the default starting point for contemporary NT studies.

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

06-08-2011, 12:27 PM	#75
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Julian mentions the persecutions of Valentinians in the previous administration but this theory is stupid that it isn't even worth arguing against bacht. The question as always is why would the orthodox have developed counter-traditions to the Catholic faith while trying to edify their new faith (which would have been no mean task to begin with). It's absurd and is typical of conspiracy theories generally. Isn't it strange though that avi always appears as a 'set up' man for the re-emergence of Pete in this forum? A study of avi's co-operation (i.e. the quasi-reasonable 'I'll only go this far' guy) with the promotion of this nonsense would be far more interesting. I will go so far as to pay $20 for avi to send me his telephone number in the US via email to determine if he is a real person. This has gone on far enough. No one could be so daft to continue to adhere to this conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theorists are always themselves involved in conspiracy to promote their conspiracy theories or so experience has taught me.

06-08-2011, 04:26 PM	#78
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Well maybe I'm looking for a reason to waste $20. The only caveat is that I want to interview avi for my blog. I am interested in finding out what makes him tick. This may be the single stupidest theory in the history of Biblical scholarship. He's deserves some attention.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.