Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-17-2013, 04:10 PM

Political Background to the forgery of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals

The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the False Decretals:

Quote:

for the present we may be satisfied that the false decretals were forged in the North of France between 847 and 852.

Now, what was the condition of the Church in France at that time? It was but a few brief years after the Treaty of Verdun (843), which had put a definitive close to the Carlovingian empire by founding three distinct kingdoms. Christendom was a prey to the onslaught of Normans and Saracens; but on the whole the era of civil strife was over. In ecclesiastical circles Church reform was still spoken of, but hardly hoped for. It was especially after the death of Charlemagne (814) that reform began to be considered, but the abuses to be corrected dated from long before Charlemagne's time, and went back to the very beginnings of the Frankish church under the Merovingians. The personal government of the king or emperor had many serious drawbacks on religious grounds.

In the mind of the bishops reform and ecclesiastical liberty were identical, and this liberty they required for their persons as well as for the Church. Doubtless Charlemagne's government had been advantageous to the Church, but it was none the less an oppressive protection and dearly bought. The Church was frankly subject to the State. Initiatives which ought to have been the proper function of the spiritual power were usurped by Charlemagne. He summoned synods and confirmed their decisions. He disposed largely of all church benefices. And in matters of importance ecclesiastical tribunals were presided over by him. While the great emperor lived these inconveniences had their compensating advantages and were tolerated.

The Church had a mighty supporter at her back. But as soon as he died the Carlovingian dynasty began to show signs of ever-increasing debility, and the Church, bound up with, and subordinate to, the political power, was dragged into the ensuing civil strife and disunion. Church property excited the cupidity of the various factions, each of them wished to use the bishops as tools, and when defeat came the bishops on the vanquished side were exposed to the vengeance of their adversaries. There were charges brought against them, and sentences passed on them, and not canon law, but political exigencies, ruled in the synods. It was the triumph of The lay element in the Church.

Success, even when it came, had its drawbacks. In order to devote themselves to political questions the bishops had to neglect their spiritual duties. They were to be seen more often on the embassies than on visitations. As supplies in their dioceses they had to call in auxiliaries known as chorepiscopi. What wonder, then, that these abuses gave rise to complaints? Especially after 829 the bishops were clamouring for ecclesiastical liberty, for legal guarantees, for immunity of church property, for regularity of church administration, for the decrease of the number of chorepiscopi and of their privileges.

But all in vain; the Carlovingian nobles, who profited by these abuses, were opposed to reform. Powerless to better itself, could the Frankish Church count on Rome? At this very time the situation of the papacy was by no means inspiring; the Church at Rome was largely subject to the lay power in the hands of the imperial missi. Sergius II (844-847) has not escaped the reproach of Simony. Leo IV (847-855) had to defend his person just like any simple Frankish bishop. In the face of such a wretched situation the juridical prescriptions of Isidore are ideal.

This might be summarised as saying that the Church, previously subject to the State, sought to forge its own legitimacy by creating pseudo-historical manuscripts that purported to be authoritative sources from previous centuries.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 07-21-2013, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCH

What I want to do is challenge the proponents of Constantinian fabrication of Church history to deconstruct the NT and early Church documents with the same thoroughness ... as the researchers who investigated the matter of the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals, and then provide a coherent explanation of the sources and motivations of the author(s).

The following, contained in an email from Eric Knibbs who has blogged on the Pseudo-Isidore for the last 3 years, confirms that the investigator Blondel was the first to systemically prove the forgery by identifying later sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Knibbs

David Blondel is generally viewed as the first to definitively and irrevocably prove that the Pseudo-Isidorian texts were forgeries--among other things, by systematically identifying later sources that the forgers had used to develop their forgery.

In defending the claim that the Christians of the 4th century forged their own pseudo-historical narratives, accounts and documents for the preceeding three hundred years, the following INCOMPLETE list of 3rd, 2nd and 1st century sources is presented for discussion:

3rd century sources used in the 4th century Christian Forgery Mill

* "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana" by Philostratus.
* "The Gospel" of Mani and the "History of Mani" [crucified Holy Man].
* The religious/political persecution of the Manichaeans.
* The "Holy Trinity" of Plato as assembled by Plotinus and Porphyry.
* The apostolic lineage of the 3rd century Platonists and their preservation of the canonical books of Plato.
* The books of the Jewish Platonist Origen (in the library of Caesarea) including Origen's LXX.

2nd century sources used in the 4th century Christian Forgery Mill

* "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius and other wisdom literature of the Stoic philosophers.

1st century sources used in the 4th century Christian Forgery Mill

* The original books and (wisdom) literature of Apollonius of Tyana.
* The Jewish histories of Flavius Josephus.
* The books of the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria

The claim is analogous to the forgery of Pseudo-Isidore who used sources from the 4th to the 9th century, in the 9th century, to fabricate the "False Decretals". In the case of the 4th century Christians, the forgery used sources from the 1st to the late 3rd century.

Each of the above sources may need to be discussed in depth, but at present I am merely presenting a list of such sources in order to demonstrate that the existence of a 4th century Christian forgery mill may provide an explanation for the surviving evidence as it is seen today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor of Religion Gregory J. Riley

The early Christians imitated and copied the fundamental values found in the literature and stories of its wider culture as it formed its self-image and presented itself to the world.

From an earlier discussion thread Subversion of the Greek "daimon" [δαίμων] in the Gospels it has been demonstrated that the precedent for a "Holy Man" wandering around the Roman Empire with a command over "evil daimons" is to be found in "Vita Apollonius". The 4th century Christians sought a monopoly over this story in order to pave the way towards a political acceptance of the centralised monotheistic state "Holy Spirit". See Matthew 8:31.

The philosophical concept of the Platonists and Stoic philosophers of the "Individual Guardian Spirit", which was integral in the formulation of the Platonic Trinity ("ONE SPIRIT SOUL") was essentially corporatized. References to the Christian "Holy Trinity" which remained undiscussed openly until after Nicaea, were summarily retrojected into earlier pseudo-sources, such as Tertullian.

Finally, the 4th century Latin bogus mockumentary and collegiate forgery known as the "Historia Augusta" is to be identified as part of the forgery mill. In an earlier post (#16 above) I have already discussed 4th century motivation for the forgery of pre-Constantinian heresiological writings.

The Christian forgery mill (of literature and relics) continued during the 4th century with the invention c.360 CE (via Athanasius) of Christian hagiography (the Lives of the Saints and the Martyrs), and in all subsequent centuries from the 5th to the present (with cases such as the Holy Grail and Joseph Smith's Golden tablets)

Motivation for the 4th century Christian forgery mill

I will deal with this separately.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 07-29-2013, 05:06 PM

In addition to the sources used by the compilers of the "canonical" New Testament and the "Church History" (replete with heretics) we may add the Tripiṭaka

Quote:

Tripiṭaka (Pali: Tipitaka) is a Sanskrit word meaning Three Baskets. It is the traditional term used by Buddhist traditions to describe their various canons of scriptures.

The Buddhist canon of literature would have been available in the Roman Empire from at least the first century of the common era, and the history of its propagation (including his rock edicts) by the Indian King Ashoka (including its status among later centuries by the Hindu Brahmins as "heretical writings") would have been known to the Roman empire.

The existence of very early Greek translations of the Buddhist canon cannot be disregarded, since the Indians themselves were able to prepare Greek transcripts.

"The kingdom of heaven is within you" is a Buddhist precept.

Buddhism and Christianity

Quote:

Although the philosophical systems of Buddhism and Christianity have evolved in rather different ways, the moral precepts advocated by Buddhism from the time of Ashoka through his edicts do have some similarities with the Christian moral precepts developed more than two centuries later: respect for life, respect for the weak, rejection of violence, pardon to sinners, tolerance.

One theory is that these similarities may indicate the propagation of Buddhist ideals into the Western World, with the Greeks acting as intermediaries and religious syncretists.

"Scholars have often considered the possibility that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity. They have drawn attention to many parallels concerning the births, lives, doctrines, and deaths of the Buddha and Jesus" (Bentley, "Old World Encounters").

The story of the birth of the Buddha was well known in the West, and possibly influenced the story of the birth of Jesus: Saint Jerome (4th century CE) mentions the birth of the Buddha, who he says "was born from the side of a virgin.

For a youtube presentation see Greek Buddhism Pt. 1 of 4 etc.

For a book see Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism (Studies in Comparative Philosophy and Religion) (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Adrian Kuzminski.

Also see Menander I

Quote:

Menander I Soter "The Saviour" (known as Milinda in Indian Pali sources) was the Indo-Greek king (165/[2]/155[2] BC-130 BC) who established a large empire in the South Asia and became a patron of Buddhism.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 08-16-2013, 08:52 PM

I am taking the liberty of discussing DCH's response to Duvduv here rather than in the thread about whether Cassius Dio makes reference to the Christians in his "Roman History" books 1 to 80.

This business about Constantine "conspired to nefariously pull the wool over the eyes of his subjects" is trivial because Constantine was the incoming warlord in a barbaric depraved and savage antiquity. The stories and histories of monotheistic religions include mention of warlords such as some of the Egyptian Pharaohs, Moses, (maybe even Ashoka), Ardashir, Constantine, Muhammad. Did these people all "conspired to nefariously pull the wool over the eyes of their subjects"?

Could it be said that they thought they had the divine right to do so?

What do people think?

But the major response is to this (extracted from below):

At might be possible BUT .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCH

Sure it might be possible in theory, but the degree of collusion between parties that the theory would require (e.g., Eusebius could probably not have written all of the Christian literature alone) is staggering.

1) "Eusebius" may have been the supervisor of many professional scribes

2) "Eusebius"s writings may have been corrected after his death by the regime.

Quote:

.... have to assume that the common people were mere sheep waiting to be led to slaughter, and would eat up this literature without question.

There did arise a massive controversy. We know this.

But precisely what was it in a political sense?

Quote:

Even when the winner re-writes history, the winner cannot cover up every trace of the deception.

The Christians of the 4th century burned a lot of books.

They had the army at their disposal.

Does this make a difference?

Quote:

Not every elite, especially among the pagans, would be so quick to jump into bed with "Con" Constantine and not leave a trace of their resistance in literature or archeological remains.

DCH the years between 325 and 350 odd represent a "black hole" of evidence with a Christian veneer.

Out of this epoch have suddenly emerged the Nag Hammadi Codices.

What do we know about the NHC?

A generation was fleeing ..... to the desert.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I suppose it depends what one refers to by "conspiracy"? By definition, it refers to any collusions among parties to effect something illegal or nefarious. Did the American colonists conspire to declare independence from the king of England and establish self rule? Yes. Did they conspire to deceive people about their intention in order to gain and consolidate power? I doubt it.

When someone says that Constantine "conspired" with Eusebius and perhaps others to fabricate from pretty much whole cloth an entire religion, including all of its literature in a multitude of languages and styles, for the purpose of aggrandizing his power by using it to control the ignorant masses who yearn for salvation from their miserable lives if imperial oppression, they mean he conspired to nefariously pull the wool over the eyes of his subjects.

Sure it might be possible in theory, but the degree of collusion between parties that the theory would require (e.g., Eusebius could probably not have written all of the Christian literature alone) is staggering. We'd also have to assume that the common people were mere sheep waiting to be led to slaughter, and would eat up this literature without question. Even when the winner re-writes history, the winner cannot cover up every trace of the deception. Not every elite, especially among the pagans, would be so quick to jump into bed with "Con" Constantine and not leave a trace of their resistance in literature or archeological remains.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Why is the idea that Christianity emerged in the fourth century under the sponsorship of the new regime a "conspiracy"? Was the establishment of the United States with its official constitution in 1789 a "conspiracy"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Why is the idea that Christianity emerged in the fourth century under the sponsorship of the new regime a "conspiracy"? Was the establishment of the United States with its official constitution in 1789 a "conspiracy"?

Was the very possible emergence of Islam under the Abbasid caliphate to unify the Arabs in the 9th century a "conspiracy"?

Does every cooperative activity to establish a system have to be a "conspiracy" with everything negative that it entails?

Was an alleged pre-4th century canonization of the NT a "conspiracy" from such a perspective?

It looks to me as if the term is abused and misused.
Heck, these days the idea of an "inside job" for 9/11 is called a "conspiracy," but the idea that 19 kids and their handlers got together an pulled off the whole shebang is NOT a conspiracy?

stephan huller · 08-16-2013, 09:34 PM

Everyone should take notice that Pete has not done any of the things David asked of him at the beginning of this thread. All Pete wanted from 'the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals' is to find a universally acknowledged forgery. Ok so now what? There are many others. I remember back when I was much younger coming across the forged works of Dionysius Aeropagite. There are many, many more. What on earth does any of this prove?

Does the fact that there many actors are gay prove that all actors are homosexual? Does the fact that some men are 'jerks' prove that all men are bad? That your brother got divorced so you are destined to the same fate? I have never understood where the 'there there' is any of any of Pete's stuff. But the fact that no one else seems to care is comforting.

Watching Pete run around trying to rescue this stupid theory is like watching a mouse drown trying to scale the slippery surface of the inside of a barrel. [deleted comment]

mountainman · 08-19-2013, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Everyone should take notice that Pete has not done any of the things David asked of him at the beginning of this thread.
.....

More BS.

See the beginning of post #52 as a summary to date.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCH

What I want to do is challenge the proponents of Constantinian fabrication of Church history to deconstruct the NT and early Church documents with the same thoroughness ... as the researchers who investigated the matter of the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals, and then provide a coherent explanation of the sources and motivations of the author(s).

The following, contained in an email from Eric Knibbs who has blogged on the Pseudo-Isidore for the last 3 years, confirms that the investigator Blondel was the first to systemically prove the forgery by identifying later sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Knibbs

David Blondel is generally viewed as the first to definitively and irrevocably prove that the Pseudo-Isidorian texts were forgeries--among other things, by systematically identifying later sources that the forgers had used to develop their forgery.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Grog · 08-19-2013, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I am taking the liberty of discussing DCH's response to Duvduv here rather than in the thread about whether Cassius Dio makes reference to the Christians in his "Roman History" books 1 to 80.

This business about Constantine "conspired to nefariously pull the wool over the eyes of his subjects" is trivial because Constantine was the incoming warlord in a barbaric depraved and savage antiquity. The stories and histories of monotheistic religions include mention of warlords such as some of the Egyptian Pharaohs, Moses, (maybe even Ashoka), Ardashir, Constantine, Muhammad. Did these people all "conspired to nefariously pull the wool over the eyes of their subjects"?

Could it be said that they thought they had the divine right to do so?

What do people think?

But the major response is to this (extracted from below):

At might be possible BUT .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCH

Sure it might be possible in theory, but the degree of collusion between parties that the theory would require (e.g., Eusebius could probably not have written all of the Christian literature alone) is staggering.

1) "Eusebius" may have been the supervisor of many professional scribes

2) "Eusebius"s writings may have been corrected after his death by the regime.

There did arise a massive controversy. We know this.

But precisely what was it in a political sense?

The Christians of the 4th century burned a lot of books.

They had the army at their disposal.

Does this make a difference?

DCH the years between 325 and 350 odd represent a "black hole" of evidence with a Christian veneer.

Out of this epoch have suddenly emerged the Nag Hammadi Codices.

What do we know about the NHC?

A generation was fleeing ..... to the desert.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Why is the idea that Christianity emerged in the fourth century under the sponsorship of the new regime a "conspiracy"? Was the establishment of the United States with its official constitution in 1789 a "conspiracy"?

Was the very possible emergence of Islam under the Abbasid caliphate to unify the Arabs in the 9th century a "conspiracy"?

Does every cooperative activity to establish a system have to be a "conspiracy" with everything negative that it entails?

Was an alleged pre-4th century canonization of the NT a "conspiracy" from such a perspective?

It looks to me as if the term is abused and misused.
Heck, these days the idea of an "inside job" for 9/11 is called a "conspiracy," but the idea that 19 kids and their handlers got together an pulled off the whole shebang is NOT a conspiracy?

I am not endorsing Pete's view but I do think it is a mistake to underestimate the ability of authority to erase evidence of unwanted cultures. For example, the Spanish managed to utterly eradicate Mayan literary culture, with only a literal handful of codices escaping the flames.

aa5874 · 08-19-2013, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I am not endorsing Pete's view but I do think it is a mistake to underestimate the ability of authority to erase evidence of unwanted cultures. For example, the Spanish managed to utterly eradicate Mayan literary culture, with only a literal handful of codices escaping the flames.

Your post actually confirms that the Spanish did not utterly eradicate Mayan literature as soon as you admit codices survived.

It is near impossible or extremely difficult to eradicate all literary culture.

The Pseudo-Isidorian (False) Decretals are extremely significant writings. They expose the literary culture of the Roman Church.

Examine the NT Canon, is it not a compilation of forgeries and false attributed writings?

Who was Isidore??

Who was Matthew, Mark, Luke John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude??

The literary culture of the Church has been exposed. The have a culture of forgery and false attribution which cannot be eradicated.

Roger Pearse · 08-19-2013, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Watching Pete run around trying to rescue this stupid theory is like watching a mouse drown trying to scale the slippery surface of the inside of a barrel. [deleted comment]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by FRDB Staff; August 17, 2013 at 05:36 PM. Reason: Remove inappropriate wish

I don't know what the "inappropriate wish" was, but I hope it involved Cameron Diaz.

DCHindley · 08-19-2013, 05:23 PM

Hmmm,

Uh ... sure! :redface:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Watching Pete run around trying to rescue this stupid theory is like watching a mouse drown trying to scale the slippery surface of the inside of a barrel. [deleted comment]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by FRDB Staff; August 17, 2013 at 05:36 PM. Reason: Remove inappropriate wish

I don't know what the "inappropriate wish" was, but I hope it involved Cameron Diaz.

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

08-16-2013, 09:34 PM	#55
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Everyone should take notice that Pete has not done any of the things David asked of him at the beginning of this thread. All Pete wanted from 'the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals' is to find a universally acknowledged forgery. Ok so now what? There are many others. I remember back when I was much younger coming across the forged works of Dionysius Aeropagite. There are many, many more. What on earth does any of this prove? Does the fact that there many actors are gay prove that all actors are homosexual? Does the fact that some men are 'jerks' prove that all men are bad? That your brother got divorced so you are destined to the same fate? I have never understood where the 'there there' is any of any of Pete's stuff. But the fact that no one else seems to care is comforting. Watching Pete run around trying to rescue this stupid theory is like watching a mouse drown trying to scale the slippery surface of the inside of a barrel. [deleted comment]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.