The NON CANONIC and PAGAN POLEMIC
mountain man
The entire set of new testament apocypha can be best understood
as the seditious polemic and parody of the non-christian ascetic pagan
academic priesthood following the prohibition of temple services by
Constantine, and his destruction of many of these temples (specifically
the temple of Asclepius at Aegae) and his public execution of the
chief priests (ie: PHYSICIANS).
When will ancient historians take Constantine to task?
The apocrypha was written in opposition to the Constantine Canon,
first published LAVISHLY from "The City of Constantine" c.330 CE.
The Acts of Thomas present your man Jesus H as a SLAVE MASTER.
The Apostles cast lots for the nations.
Wake up world! Ancient history awaits!
Larry Swain
> http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/non_canonical_literature.htm
>
> The entire set of new testament apocypha can be best understood
> as the seditious polemic and parody of the non-christian ascetic pagan
> academic priesthood following the prohibition of temple services by
> Constantine,
Except that the texts predate Constantine, have contradictory views of
the world, universe, God, the role of the emperor, etc, oh well, t'was a
nice try.
> When will ancient historians take Constantine to task?
It isn't the role of historians to take to task ancient figures, and
even if it were, we'd take you to task first for misrepresenting history
deliberately before describing the activities of a man attempting to
bring peace and unify an empire all too willing to fall apart in civil
strife, regardless of what we might think of his methods.
>
> The apocrypha was written in opposition to the Constantine Canon,
So contrary to your earlier theory that Eusebius wrote or was in charge
of having produced everything, now we have an opposing group writing
material against Eusebius/Constantine? Your theory changes.....
> first published LAVISHLY from "The City of Constantine" c.330 CE.
> The Acts of Thomas present your man Jesus H as a SLAVE MASTER.
> The Apostles cast lots for the nations.
>
> Wake up world! Ancient history awaits!
Woudld that you followed your own advice.
mountain man
"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:d4Odnchug_6fyETa...@rcn.net...
> mountain man wrote:
>> http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/non_canonical_literature.htm
>>
>> The entire set of new testament apocypha can be best understood
>> as the seditious polemic and parody of the non-christian ascetic pagan
>> academic priesthood following the prohibition of temple services by
>> Constantine,
>
> Except that the texts predate Constantine, have contradictory views of the
> world, universe, God, the role of the emperor, etc, oh well, t'was a nice
> try.
The chronology of the apocrypha is nowhere certain. Noone has a clue.
Everyone is clutching the certfications of paleographers and nobody has
a C14 date preceeding Constantine. There are two C14 citations for the
NT literature, both being in respect of the apocrypha, no C14 citation for
the canonical NT. The C14 data says this:
gThomas - 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years)
gJudas - 290 CE (plus or minus 60 years)
The nature of the apocyrpha suggest sedition and polemic against
the favorite characters that appeared in the fiction of the Constantine
Bible. A totally docetic Jesus who never leaves a footprint.
Also, the dating of the Acts of Thomas is currently 150-250 CE, the upper
bound being preferred because of the Manichaean influence that
scholars have perceived in its text. Mani was executed 272 CE,
and the persecutions in Rome started c.292 CE, and thus the
chronology may well be fourth century.
Certainly, the g Thomas, in which the phrase "Jesus says" was prefaced
against each of the gnostic (pagan) ascetic wisdom sayings, is C14 dated
to the mid-fourth century, at which time the pagan literature was still in
the process of "christianisation".
See Robert Lane-Fox on the Nag Hammadi codices.
Arnaldo Momigliano on the process of "christianisation" of literature
in the 4h century:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Arnaldo%20Momigliano.htm
>> When will ancient historians take Constantine to task?
>
> It isn't the role of historians to take to task ancient figures, and even
> if it were, we'd take you to task first for misrepresenting history
> deliberately before describing the activities of a man attempting to bring
> peace and unify an empire all too willing to fall apart in civil strife,
> regardless of what we might think of his methods.
Constantine was nothing but a thug. He murdered stacks
of people, including a large number of physicians - ascetic
priests of the healing god Asclepius, and his own son and
wife. He destroyed the surviving obelisk at the temple of
Karnack, and he destroyed many ancient temples.
He ordered that the writings of the most learned and chief
neopythagorean academic of the fourth century burnt by
fire, and the death penalty, for anyone found concealing the
academic (mathematical included [Euclid]) writings of Porphyry.
He was nothing but a cunning military mind and a robber
and a brigand, and he openly robbed the ancient temples
for their gold and treasure and art and sculpture, in order
to stock a brand new city - the city of Constantine.
Read what Zosimus says about the malevolent despot.
And the history of Sextus Aurelius Victor, who describes
Constantine, in his last decade, as a ward irresponsible
for his own actions.
>> The apocrypha was written in opposition to the Constantine Canon,
>
> So contrary to your earlier theory that Eusebius wrote or was in charge of
> having produced everything, now we have an opposing group writing material
> against Eusebius/Constantine? Your theory changes.....
No it does not, You have not yet understood the thesis:
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes
EUSEBIUS edited and prepared the NT Canon for publication.
The NON CANONIC was reactionary sedition by pagans.
These pagansa were ascetic and academic priests. SOme of them
from the cult of Asclepius, whom had been persecuted by the Boss.
The sword was useless against the Boss. They took up the pen.
Constantine publishes the CANON (less the Shepherd) c.330 CE.
The NON CANONIC as PAGAN POLEMIC begins against it!
If you thought the stories in the new testament were weird, wait
till you read the really weird stories presented in the apocrypha.
The NON CANONIC is SEDITIOUS WRITINGS against the
CANON, and they were immediately identified as "heretical" which
is simply a euphemism for "seditious" (ie: against Constantine).
Take the Acts of Philip, categorically dated by all scholars to the
late fourth century, as an example. It was regarded as heretical
at the end of the fifth century.
At the conclusion of the Acts of Philip, its author narrates how
a christian angel, appointed by Jesus to Philip, executes forty
Jewish Priests, and as a result, many are converted to christianity.
Think about it. It was set in Carthage.
JTEM
mountain man
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7a9042d-e18f-4d92...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>> Except that the texts predate Constantine,
>
> Cites, please.
What's the betting he tries to use gJudas
at 290 +/- 60 years in his favor?
There is nothing earlier other than
PALEOGRAPHER's CERTIFICATES
and Dear Eusebius' assertions.
roger....@googlemail.com
Um, are you disputing this? If so, on what basis?
You can consult Schneemelcher "NT apocrypha" for a few dates, if you
feel the urge.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
mountain man
><roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:d278776d-cd7d-4fe3...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>On 14 Mar, 04:34, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Except that the texts predate Constantine,
>>
>> Cites, please.
>Um, are you disputing this? If so, on what basis?
All you have are mainstream scholar's CONJECTURE
added to a few Paleographers Certficates. There is
NO HARD EVIDENCE before Constantine.
The CANONICAL are CONSTANTINIAN.
The NON-CANONICAL are NON CONSTANTINIAN.
Its very simple really.
1) Bullneck publishes his canonical NT bullshit c.330 CE.
2) Pagan ascetic priesthood writes seditious polemic in response.
No christians existed before Constantine invented them.
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:d4Odnchug_6fyETa...@rcn.net...
>
>>mountain man wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/non_canonical_literature.htm
>>>
>>>The entire set of new testament apocypha can be best understood
>>>as the seditious polemic and parody of the non-christian ascetic pagan
>>>academic priesthood following the prohibition of temple services by
>>>Constantine,
>>
>>Except that the texts predate Constantine, have contradictory views of the
>>world, universe, God, the role of the emperor, etc, oh well, t'was a nice
>>try.
>
>
>
> The chronology of the apocrypha is nowhere certain.
More certain than you think it is.
Noone has a clue.
Wrong again. We have many clues, and in the case of specific texts,
more than clues, real, actual facts, none of which support your
conjectures.
> Everyone is clutching the certfications of paleographers
And the problem with that is? You've been asked to provide evidence of
the problems, if any, with palaeographic dating before, and have failed
to offer anything substantive. Again, we want facts and evidence, not
innuendo and non sequitur.
and nobody has
> a C14 date preceeding Constantine.
True, but in the cases where C14 dating has been done, whether on
Christian documents, pagan documents, Buddhist documents, etc, the C14
test has in every case CONFIRMED the palaeographic dating ranges. Every
time. Rather suggests that those palaeographers know what they're about.
There are two C14 citations for the
> NT literature, both being in respect of the apocrypha, no C14 citation for
> the canonical NT. The C14 data says this:
>
> gThomas - 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years)
One manuscript of.....
> gJudas - 290 CE (plus or minus 60 years)
And again in both cases confirming the palaeographic dating.
> The nature of the apocyrpha suggest sedition and polemic against
> the favorite characters that appeared in the fiction of the Constantine
> Bible.
Depends. There are apocryphal texts that arguably predate the canonical
bible, others that take no notice of those texts that came into the
canon. Others seem, as you say, to suggest a polemical reaction against
that canon while still other apocryphal texts accept and build on
those canonical texts or try to fill in gaps in those texts and are
quite orthodox in character.
A totally docetic Jesus who never leaves a footprint.
Indeed, but most of the apocrypha is not docetic in nature. Some are,
but not all.
>
> Also, the dating of the Acts of Thomas is currently 150-250 CE, the upper
> bound being preferred because of the Manichaean influence that
> scholars have perceived in its text. Mani was executed 272 CE,
> and the persecutions in Rome started c.292 CE, and thus the
> chronology may well be fourth century.
Non sequitur. Besides, the AAT displays a great number of details that
locate it in time and place, and it can not really be after 250 (and no,
the upper bound is NOT preferred because of Mani, but preferred because
the text does not display the reign of Shapur I, but does display a
number of political and linguistic details that fit just before Shapur,
including the Manichaean influences. So no, a fourth century chronology
may well not be, it can not be based upon the evidence.
>
> Certainly, the g Thomas, in which the phrase "Jesus says" was prefaced
> against each of the gnostic (pagan) ascetic wisdom sayings, is C14 dated
> to the mid-fourth century, at which time the pagan literature was still in
> the process of "christianisation".
>
> See Robert Lane-Fox on the Nag Hammadi codices.
> Arnaldo Momigliano on the process of "christianisation" of literature
> in the 4h century:
> http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Arnaldo%20Momigliano.htm
And again we note that the conclusion you draw from this and the
conclusion Lane-Fox draws from this are worlds apart and terribly
different. I agree with Lane-Fox.
>
>
>
>
>>>When will ancient historians take Constantine to task?
>>
>>It isn't the role of historians to take to task ancient figures, and even
>>if it were, we'd take you to task first for misrepresenting history
>>deliberately before describing the activities of a man attempting to bring
>>peace and unify an empire all too willing to fall apart in civil strife,
>>regardless of what we might think of his methods.
>
>
> Constantine was nothing but a thug.
No, he was much more complex than that.
He murdered stacks> of people,
As did every emperor before him.....
including a large number of physicians - ascetic
> priests of the healing god Asclepius, and his own son and
> wife.
See above.
He destroyed the surviving obelisk at the temple of
> Karnack, and he destroyed many ancient temples.
Yep. Sure did. And you lie about history, lie about historians, lie
about historical events....and that is a form of destruction and murder
every bit as heinous as anything Constantine did.
>
> He ordered that the writings of the most learned and chief
> neopythagorean academic of the fourth century burnt by
> fire, and the death penalty, for anyone found concealing the
> academic (mathematical included [Euclid]) writings of Porphyry.
>
> He was nothing but a cunning military mind and a robber
> and a brigand, and he openly robbed the ancient temples
> for their gold and treasure and art and sculpture, in order
> to stock a brand new city - the city of Constantine.
>
> Read what Zosimus says about the malevolent despot.
> And the history of Sextus Aurelius Victor, who describes
> Constantine, in his last decade, as a ward irresponsible
> for his own actions.
None of which is relevant to the matter in hand....
>
>
>>>The apocrypha was written in opposition to the Constantine Canon,
>>
>>So contrary to your earlier theory that Eusebius wrote or was in charge of
>>having produced everything, now we have an opposing group writing material
>>against Eusebius/Constantine? Your theory changes.....
>
>
>
> No it does not, You have not yet understood the thesis:
> www.mountainman.com.au/essenes
Yes it does. Every time I've pointed you to the apocrypha, you've
claimed it was all written by Eusebius or those working for Eusebius
just to deceive everyone.
> EUSEBIUS edited and prepared the NT Canon for publication.
Both of which are different than creating it.
> The NON CANONIC was reactionary sedition by pagans.
So the pagans worshipped Jesus? Who knew?
> These pagansa were ascetic and academic priests. SOme of them
> from the cult of Asclepius, whom had been persecuted by the Boss.
> The sword was useless against the Boss. They took up the pen.
But you just said that Constantine killed them all....oh, some
survived....so they're writing seditious tracts that disagree with
Constantine's new religion, but he let these live, did he? Wow, how
ineffective...he can cook a whole new religion, foist it upon an entire
empire so that not a whisper of what he has done leaks out, but can't
get to a few pagan priests writing rebellious tracts....huh.
>
>
Larry Swain
>><roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>news:d278776d-cd7d-4fe3...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>On 14 Mar, 04:34, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Except that the texts predate Constantine,
>>>
>>>Cites, please.
>
>
>>Um, are you disputing this? If so, on what basis?
>
>
> All you have are mainstream scholar's CONJECTURE
> added to a few Paleographers Certficates. There is
> NO HARD EVIDENCE before Constantine.
Fraid there is. YOu just keep closing your eyes and saying "no sir no
sir no sir no sir no sir no evidence no siree no sir no sir hoping that
repeating the mantra will make it true.
Hey, we're still waiting for your analysis of that third century
Phrygian inscription I told you about and why it isn't proof of
Christianity....been waiting a long time on that one. See previous
posts about palaeographers.
>
> The CANONICAL are CONSTANTINIAN.
> The NON-CANONICAL are NON CONSTANTINIAN.
> Its very simple really.
And utterly wrong.
>
> 1) Bullneck publishes his canonical NT bullshit c.330 CE.
> 2) Pagan ascetic priesthood writes seditious polemic in response.
>
> No christians existed before Constantine invented them.
And you claim to be interested in history.
Larry Swain
Easy enough: the earliest manuscript of the Protoevangelium of James is
c. 250. P. Oxy 840, an unknown apocryphal gospel. The Dura Europos
harmony, no later than 256. P. Oxy 210 another apocryphal gospel, c.
200, P. Oxy 4009, Gospel of Peter, c. 150, P Oxy 655, 200 CE. P. Oxy
4706, part of the Shepherd of Hermas, 250. P. Oxy 4403, Matthew 13-14,
150 CE. Just to give you a range of apocyrphal, orthodox, and canonical
texts that all predate ol' Pete's claims.
And as long as I've brought up Oxyrynchus, how about the arrest warrant
from CE 256 for a Christian P. Oxy 3035 or the libelli one of which is
658 specifically dated for us by the text itself which has a date of
250. Both disprove Pete's thesis entirely.
JTEM
> Easy enough: the earliest manuscript of the Protoevangelium
> of James is c. 250.
You're cherry picking... not to mention practicing a little
selective blindness.
Other sources date it to the 4th century.
> The Dura Europos harmony, no later than 256.
Fill in those blanks any way you want. Instead of
a "Christian" document you can have a Jewish
document if you'd like.
> P. Oxy 210 another apocryphal gospel, c.
> 200, P. Oxy 4009, Gospel of Peter, c. 150,
What?!?!
The oldest known copy is, maybe, 1200 years old...
The point -- which you have once again made, though
you'll deny it -- is that you're identifying interpretations
and NOT evidence.
Sure, it's easy to INTERPRET many texts as existing
prior to a certain date, and it is just as easy to
INTERPRET a different date.
Now, the REASONABLE and SCIENTIFIC thing to do
would be to accept the ambiguity. You, however, refuse
to do this.
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Easy enough: the earliest manuscript of the Protoevangelium
>>of James is c. 250.
>
>
> You're cherry picking... not to mention practicing a little
> selective blindness.
Was not the question for examples of papyri or manuscripts of Christian
apocryphal texts that predated Constantine? If so, I gave you examples.
If not, clarify the question.
>
> Other sources date it to the 4th century.
Date what to the fourth century? The Protoevangeliuum of James?
Citations of such sources that date the text that late? Or are you
speaking of the manuscript? Again, give me sources that date that
manuscript that late.
>
>> The Dura Europos harmony, no later than 256.
>
>
> Fill in those blanks any way you want. Instead of
> a "Christian" document you can have a Jewish
> document if you'd like.
Not really, not if you've read the text it contains.
>
>
>> P. Oxy 210 another apocryphal gospel, c.
>>200, P. Oxy 4009, Gospel of Peter, c. 150,
>
>
> What?!?!
>
> The oldest known copy is, maybe, 1200 years old...
Not anymore, child. NOt anymore.
>
> The point -- which you have once again made, though
> you'll deny it -- is that you're identifying interpretations
> and NOT evidence.
You wouldn't know evidence if it bit you, jumped up and down proclaiming
its name, and held your hand. What you'll never admit but make the
point again and again is that you've no idea what you're talking about,
insist others give citations and yet yourself somehow never make any
citations save to questionable and incomplete web sites. Wonder why
that is?
>
> Sure, it's easy to INTERPRET many texts as existing
> prior to a certain date, and it is just as easy to
> INTERPRET a different date.
So prove the dating wrong. Go ahead.
>
> Now, the REASONABLE and SCIENTIFIC thing to do
> would be to accept the ambiguity. You, however, refuse
> to do this.
There isn't a lot of ambiguity to admit. You have a scrap of papyri,
there are definitive ways to identify it and date it. Simple as that.
All above board and scientifically based. You think those methods
wanting? Ok, prove it. If you can't prove it,then accept it.
JTEM
> Was not the question for examples of papyri or manuscripts
> of Christian apocryphal texts that predated Constantine?
Did I not point out that the dating was ambiguous, and certainly
under dispute?
Yes. Yes I did.
Larry Swain
people to support your allegations, even when politely asked to do so.
mountain man
> JTEM wrote:
>> Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Except that the texts predate Constantine,
>>
>>
>> Cites, please.
>>
>>
>
> Easy enough: the earliest manuscript of the Protoevangelium of James is c.
> 250. P. Oxy 840, an unknown apocryphal gospel.
Also suspected to be an AMULET.
Very popular in the fourth century.
Conjectural dating.
> The Dura Europos harmony, no later than 256.
Tenditious dating reliant upon a number of conjectures
about a rubbish tip, and cracks in a wall, and the fall
of the walls of Dura.
P. Oxy 210 another apocryphal gospel, c.
> 200, P. Oxy 4009, Gospel of Peter, c. 150, P Oxy 655, 200 CE. P. Oxy 4706,
> part of the Shepherd of Hermas, 250. P. Oxy 4403, Matthew 13-14, 150 CE.
> Just to give you a range of apocyrphal, orthodox, and canonical texts that
> all predate ol' Pete's claims.
Please subtract PALEOGRAPHICALLY dates papyri!
An ancient historian need not have to work with the
art of handwriting analysis as a backbone chronology
which is which christian historians have been doing
for quite enought time now.
> And as long as I've brought up Oxyrynchus, how about the arrest warrant
> from CE 256 for a Christian P. Oxy 3035
This fragment states CHRESTOS. This is not christian.
Please remove it from your life support system forthwith.
Who wrote the WIKI article for the CHRISTIAN-WEB
in WIKI is making giant leaps of faith, like you Larry.
P.Oxy.3035 refers to a "chrestian".
>or the libelli one of which is 658 specifically dated for us by the text
>itself which has a date of 250. Both disprove Pete's thesis entirely.
None of the libelli are deemed unambiguously christian.
Many scholars make this admission.
Why cant you?
mountain man
> And as long as I've brought up Oxyrynchus, how about the arrest warrant
> from CE 256 for a Christian P. Oxy 3035
The arrest was not for a christian.
The fragment says "CHRESTOS"
Christians have been misattributing P. Oxy 3035
for a long time without getting checked. Please
remove this citations from your list of support
Larry, and tell all your associates.
P. Oxy 3035, despite the christian supported WIKI
articles, does not refer to a Christian, but Chrestos.
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> The nature of the apocyrpha suggest sedition and polemic against
>> the favorite characters that appeared in the fiction of the Constantine
>> Bible.
>
> Depends. There are apocryphal texts that arguably predate the canonical
> bible, others that take no notice of those texts that came into the canon.
All the apocrypha deal with the characters published
in the canon of Constantine. Think of seditious parody.
They are a reaction to the Constantine Bible.
Very simple explanation.
>> Also, the dating of the Acts of Thomas is currently 150-250 CE, the upper
>> bound being preferred because of the Manichaean influence that
>> scholars have perceived in its text. Mani was executed 272 CE,
>> and the persecutions in Rome started c.292 CE, and thus the
>> chronology may well be fourth century.
>
> Non sequitur. Besides, the AAT displays a great number of details that
> locate it in time and place, and it can not really be after 250 (and no,
> the upper bound is NOT preferred because of Mani, but preferred because
> the text does not display the reign of Shapur I, but does display a number
> of political and linguistic details that fit just before Shapur,
The Hymn of the Pearl embedded in The Acts of Thomas and placed
into the mouth of Thomas is agreed by most scholars to be far earlier
than the text of the Acts of Thomas. If this is what you are referring to
then this does not effect the dating of the Acts of Thomas.
> including the Manichaean influences.
Mani came to power under Shapur.
> So no, a fourth century chronology may well not be, it can not be based
> upon the evidence.
Take away the embedded "Hymn of the Pearl" and it
fits easily into the fourth century -- and again is easily
explained as pagan polemic against Constantine's
canonical characters of Jesus and the apostles.
Jesus is depicted as a SLAVE MASTER.
The apostles cast lots for the nations.
Thomas gets India but spits the dummy.
He refuses to go to India.
He is ORDERED to go by Jesus.
He REFUSES the command!
Jesus sells him as a SLAVE in th market
to a travelling Indian merchant.
The christian conquest of India is a joke.
We have a clever pagan seditionist pretending
to write a christian story like "The Boss".
>> Certainly, the g Thomas, in which the phrase "Jesus says" was prefaced
>> against each of the gnostic (pagan) ascetic wisdom sayings, is C14 dated
>> to the mid-fourth century, at which time the pagan literature was still
>> in
>> the process of "christianisation".
>>
>> See Robert Lane-Fox on the Nag Hammadi codices.
>> Arnaldo Momigliano on the process of "christianisation" of literature
>> in the 4h century:
>> http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Arnaldo%20Momigliano.htm
>
> And again we note that the conclusion you draw from this and the
> conclusion Lane-Fox draws from this are worlds apart and terribly
> different. I agree with Lane-Fox.
In his analysis of Constantine's "Oration to the Saints"
Lane-Fox says Constantine shows himself to be a fraud.
>>>>When will ancient historians take Constantine to task?
>>>
>>>It isn't the role of historians to take to task ancient figures, and even
>>>if it were, we'd take you to task first for misrepresenting history
>>>deliberately before describing the activities of a man attempting to
>>>bring peace and unify an empire all too willing to fall apart in civil
>>>strife, regardless of what we might think of his methods.
>>
>>
>> Constantine was nothing but a thug.
>
> No, he was much more complex than that.
Deal with the evidence he was a thug.
Complexify a little later.
> He murdered stacks> of people,
>
> As did every emperor before him.....
No emperor before him was christian.
> including a large number of physicians - ascetic
>> priests of the healing god Asclepius, and his own son and
>> wife.
>
> See above.
Constantine was a brutal thug.
Deal with the evidence.
> He destroyed the surviving obelisk at the temple of
>> Karnack, and he destroyed many ancient temples.
>
> Yep. Sure did. And you lie about history, lie about historians, lie
> about historical events....and that is a form of destruction and murder
> every bit as heinous as anything Constantine did.
Take some more medication Larry.
Your breaking up into Apologetics.
>> He ordered that the writings of the most learned and chief
>> neopythagorean academic of the fourth century burnt by
>> fire, and the death penalty, for anyone found concealing the
>> academic (mathematical included [Euclid]) writings of Porphyry.
>>
>> He was nothing but a cunning military mind and a robber
>> and a brigand, and he openly robbed the ancient temples
>> for their gold and treasure and art and sculpture, in order
>> to stock a brand new city - the city of Constantine.
>>
>> Read what Zosimus says about the malevolent despot.
>> And the history of Sextus Aurelius Victor, who describes
>> Constantine, in his last decade, as a ward irresponsible
>> for his own actions.
>
> None of which is relevant to the matter in hand....
The opinions of ancient historians who wrote within a century
of the life of Constantine are not important evidence, or relevant
to the one true christian account which requires no evidence?
>>>>The apocrypha was written in opposition to the Constantine Canon,
>>>
>>>So contrary to your earlier theory that Eusebius wrote or was in charge
>>>of having produced everything, now we have an opposing group writing
>>>material against Eusebius/Constantine? Your theory changes.....
>>
>>
>>
>> No it does not, You have not yet understood the thesis:
>> www.mountainman.com.au/essenes
>
> Yes it does. Every time I've pointed you to the apocrypha, you've claimed
> it was all written by Eusebius or those working for Eusebius just to
> deceive everyone.
The NON CANONIC is PAGAN POLEMIC.
EUSEBIUS was ordered by the Boss to organise editorship
of the CANONICAL bullshit. When this was published, the
pagans started their own stories about Jesus and the Apostles.
>> EUSEBIUS edited and prepared the NT Canon for publication.
>
> Both of which are different than creating it.
>> The NON CANONIC was reactionary sedition by pagans.
>
> So the pagans worshipped Jesus? Who knew?
Do people worship SLAVE MASTERS?
The pagan who wrote the Acts of Thomas
says Jesus was a slave master.
No, the pagans were nowhere stupid enough to worship
the Bullneck's bullshit god Jesus. They made jokes.
>> These pagansa were ascetic and academic priests. SOme of them
>> from the cult of Asclepius, whom had been persecuted by the Boss.
>> The sword was useless against the Boss. They took up the pen.
>
> But you just said that Constantine killed them all....
Eusebius tells us the gory details of Aegaea.
See your mate Robin Lane-Fox.
Public execution of chief physician and priest.
>oh, some survived....so they're writing seditious tracts that disagree with
>Constantine's new religion, but he let these live, did he?
They went into hiding in the deserts of Syria with Arius.
See the very nasty "Dear Arius Where Are You" Letter
of Constantine 333CE. He could not find them. He was
too busy robbing gold from pagan temples in towns.
> Wow, how ineffective...he can cook a whole new religion, foist it upon an
> entire empire so that not a whisper of what he has done leaks out, but
> can't get to a few pagan priests writing rebellious tracts....huh.
A malevolent despot and military supremacist cannot get to
everyone in the land. There was resistance against the Boss.
Arius had a great deal of support, but it did not include the army.
The Boss had his army.
Constantine reveals that Arius
"reproaches, grieves, wounds and pains the Church".
A very nasty letter by a very nasty despot. Eventually Constantine manages
to poison Arius, but before that time when Arius was no longer, he had
composed a number of texts against the Pontifex Maximus' preferred and
sponsored cult. These heretical writings were sought out by the authodox
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/constantine_to_ARIUS.htm
Have a look at Constantine's column:
Constantine's Column [Left]: Provided to gain perspective on the very uneven
battle between the successful military supremacist Constantine and the
ascetic priest and logician, Arius of Alexandria, is the Column of
Constantine (shown left).It could have been easily seen from the Sea of
Marmara and the Bosphorus, and was completed at the dedication of "The City
of Constantine", 11 May 330. It was constructed of nine drums of porphyry
each 2.9 m in diameter, topped by a Corinth Capital. Its total height was
more than thirty-six meters. The column was crowned with colossal bronze
statue of Constantine, depicted wearing a crown of seven rays. (It may have
been Pheidas' sculpture of Apollo Paropius from the Acropolis of Athens,
recycled with bullneck's head. Some accounts describe Constantine holding a
spear in the left hand, and a globe in the right hand. Data from The Emperor
Constantine, by Hans A. Pohlsander. Historian John Julius Norwich writes
that in the Column of Constantine, "Apollo, Sol Invictus and Jesus Christ
all seem subordinated to a new supreme being-the Emperor Constantine." When
"The Boss" writes the following letter to Arius, this column has already
been standing in "The City of Constantine" for some years. Enormously
successful and despotic military man Constantine, and small wise and clever
ascetic man Arius.
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:st6dneMQGpkpdUDa...@rcn.net...
>
>
>>And as long as I've brought up Oxyrynchus, how about the arrest warrant
>>from CE 256 for a Christian P. Oxy 3035
>
>
> The arrest was not for a christian.
> The fragment says "CHRESTOS"
A typical spelling of Greek "christos" in both Latin and Greek texts
outside Greece in the late Hellenistic period.
>
> Christians have been misattributing P. Oxy 3035
> for a long time without getting checked. Please
> remove this citations from your list of support
> Larry, and tell all your associates.
How about first you go and learn a bit of something so that you can
converse on level ground, and then we'll see if there are grounds for
your contention. Your ignorance of the Greek language in the period in
question and its orthographic conventions demonstrated again and again
in NONCHRISTIAN contexts is appalling and quite a bore.
>
> P. Oxy 3035, despite the christian supported WIKI
> articles, does not refer to a Christian, but Chrestos.
Even if you were right, this is but ONE of the items I
mentioned..............
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:st6dneMQGpkpdUDa...@rcn.net...
>>
>>
>>>And as long as I've brought up Oxyrynchus, how about the arrest warrant
>>>from CE 256 for a Christian P. Oxy 3035
>>
>>
>> The arrest was not for a christian.
>> The fragment says "CHRESTOS"
> A typical spelling of Greek "christos" in both Latin and Greek texts
> outside Greece in the late Hellenistic period.
Total BULLSHIT.
CHRISTOS (annointed)
CHRESTOS (good)
are distinct Greek words.
>> P. Oxy 3035, despite the christian supported WIKI
>> articles, does not refer to a Christian, but Chrestos.
>
> Even if you were right, this is but ONE of the items I
> mentioned..............
Dont worry, I'll get to the rest of your TOTAL BULLSHIT
in the next little while. Just to help you out, in the Greek,
the difference in the two words will be found in the
third place.
Chrestos has an ETA, christos has an IOTA.
Christians erroneous attempt conflation.
They need all the citations they can find.
JTEM
> > Did I not point out that the dating was ambiguous,
> > and certainly under dispute?
>
> > Yes. Yes I did.
>
> You pointed it out but failed to provide any citations by
> qualified people to support your allegations,
They're not allegations.
Secondly, you're holding me to a higher standard than
you can survive.
....or are you intentionally misrepresenting yourself?
Because your "cite" doesn't provide the information you're
asking for me.
Even if I actually dug it up -- because you offered no
quotes, no URL to verify that someone actually says
what you claim it says -- it would only prove that it
did not AND COULD NOT live up to your own damn
standard of proof.
Your so-called "cite" DOES NOT claim that your
Dura Europa text isn't filled with a bunch of strategic
blanks, which could easily be interpreted in such a
way as to turn it into a Jewish text... at least.
And, no, your so-called "Cite" never claimed that a
1,100 to 1,200 year old manuscript dates to the
2nd century, either.
So live up to your own goddamn standards -- and
provide actual quotes & URLs to cites that support
your claims -- or ram it up your ass.
Enjoy.
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:st6dneMQGpkpdUDa...@rcn.net...
>
>>JTEM wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Except that the texts predate Constantine,
>>>
>>>
>>>Cites, please.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Easy enough: the earliest manuscript of the Protoevangelium of James is c.
>>250. P. Oxy 840, an unknown apocryphal gospel.
>
>
> Also suspected to be an AMULET.
Uh, they aren't different things, there sonny. The page P OXy 840 was
part of a book that is believed to have served as an amulet.
> Very popular in the fourth century.
And in the third.
> Conjectural dating.
Palaeographical dating, as solid as it gets, your constant foot stamping
notwithstanding.
>
>>The Dura Europos harmony, no later than 256.
>
>
> Tenditious dating reliant upon a number of conjectures
> about a rubbish tip, and cracks in a wall, and the fall
> of the walls of Dura.
Not really. Dating based on palaeography, a science you reject but have
never give good reason for, and we know from many different angles when
the walls of Dura were built and when the city fell, and we know that
the fragment wasn't in a "rubbish heap" but was in the wall itself,
covered in stone, in the interior rubble. Your model of how it got
there asks us to believe that some Christian soldier in Julian's army
decided for some inexplicable reason to go the wall, dig into it, plant
his book of which only a fragment survives, and cover it up again, all
without leaving a trace or a marker...and you have no evidence for this,
but dare call the archaeology report tendentious? Wow.
>
>
>
> P. Oxy 210 another apocryphal gospel, c.
>
>>200, P. Oxy 4009, Gospel of Peter, c. 150, P Oxy 655, 200 CE. P. Oxy 4706,
>>part of the Shepherd of Hermas, 250. P. Oxy 4403, Matthew 13-14, 150 CE.
>>Just to give you a range of apocyrphal, orthodox, and canonical texts that
>>all predate ol' Pete's claims.
>
>
>
> Please subtract PALEOGRAPHICALLY dates papyri!
Never. Why would I subtract scientifically established dated artefacts?
Yes, i know you reject palaeography, but I have corrected you on that
score many times and have even more times requested that you give us
information as to why palaeography should be rejected: the silence has
been deafening. And when I point out that C14 dating of papyri, like
Gospel of Judas, have every time borne out the palaeographic dating
ranges, well, somehow you keep ignoring that. So we have a
scientifically based method of dating papyri, confirmed to be accurate
by C14 methods, and you want us to toss the method out because you don't
like it? Give us something solid to go on.....
>>And as long as I've brought up Oxyrynchus, how about the arrest warrant
>>from CE 256 for a Christian P. Oxy 3035
>
>
>
> This fragment states CHRESTOS
Uh, no, it calls him "chrestianos".
. This is not christian.
There is no word "chrestianos", but there is "christianos" for whith the
former is a misspelling.
> Please remove it from your life support system forthwith.
Toss out evidence because your ignorance demands it? Please....
> Who wrote the WIKI article for the CHRISTIAN-WEB
> in WIKI is making giant leaps of faith, like you Larry.
I don't know about the Wiki article, but I'm not making leaps of faith.
I can not imagine why Egyptian officials would make up a word
>
> P.Oxy.3035 refers to a "chrestian".
Indeed. Now please explain to us why this "chrestianos" is being
arrested if he isn't a member of an interdicted cult. He would after
all be a "good" man then, correct? Now why would they be arresting a
man they think good?
>
>
>
>
>>or the libelli one of which is 658 specifically dated for us by the text
>>itself which has a date of 250. Both disprove Pete's thesis entirely.
>
>
> None of the libelli are deemed unambiguously christian.
By you, but every scholar in the world who has studied them concludes
differently. Give us evidence, or be laughed at.
> Many scholars make this admission.
Citations? Whom in particular in what publications?
> Why cant you?
Because I follow the evidence.
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:OaWdnXtkqKPLfEDa...@rcn.net...
>
>>mountain man wrote:
>
>
>>>The nature of the apocyrpha suggest sedition and polemic against
>>>the favorite characters that appeared in the fiction of the Constantine
>>>Bible.
>>
>>Depends. There are apocryphal texts that arguably predate the canonical
>>bible, others that take no notice of those texts that came into the canon.
>
>
> All the apocrypha deal with the characters published
> in the canon of Constantine.
Well, first, it isn't the "canon of Constantine", you as usual are
placing the conclusion as if it were part of the evidence (called
circular reasoning). And all the apocrypha don't deal with characters
in the Christian NT canon. The Hymn of the Pearl for example or the
Three Tablets of Seth mention no one in the Christian NT at all.
Think of seditious parody.
Horse before the cart again. You need to establish that they all were
parody (some of them clearly were intended to be parodies or inversions,
but that's a different story and everyone dates them centuries earlier
than you want to claim)
> They are a reaction to the Constantine Bible.
Maybe, reactions to nascent Christianity certainly, some written before
many of the Christian texts, some written after.
> Very simple explanation.
And wrong.
>
>
>
>
>>>Also, the dating of the Acts of Thomas is currently 150-250 CE, the upper
>>>bound being preferred because of the Manichaean influence that
>>>scholars have perceived in its text. Mani was executed 272 CE,
>>>and the persecutions in Rome started c.292 CE, and thus the
>>>chronology may well be fourth century.
>>
>>Non sequitur. Besides, the AAT displays a great number of details that
>>locate it in time and place, and it can not really be after 250 (and no,
>>the upper bound is NOT preferred because of Mani, but preferred because
>>the text does not display the reign of Shapur I, but does display a number
>>of political and linguistic details that fit just before Shapur,
>
>
> The Hymn of the Pearl embedded in The Acts of Thomas and placed
> into the mouth of Thomas is agreed by most scholars to be far earlier
> than the text of the Acts of Thomas.
Indeed.
If this is what you are referring to
> then this does not effect the dating of the Acts of Thomas.
No, it wasn't what I was referring to.
>
>
>
>>including the Manichaean influences.
>
>
> Mani came to power under Shapur.
Ah, but McFly, the point that the influence of Mani reached the area in
the east where the Acts of Thomas was written before Shapur did,
narrowing its date significantly since the AAT betrays the political
situation before Shapur took over that region, and has obvious
Manichaean influences--among other indications, this points to a date
before 251 when Shapur moved into the area.
>
>
>>So no, a fourth century chronology may well not be, it can not be based
>>upon the evidence.
>
>
> Take away the embedded "Hymn of the Pearl" and it
> fits easily into the fourth century --
ONly if you're ignorant of the details.....
and again is easily
> explained as pagan polemic against Constantine's
> canonical characters of Jesus and the apostles.
Not really.
> Jesus is depicted as a SLAVE MASTER.
That's not polemic! It might interest you to know that it wasn't until
the 11th century that Christians began to call for an end to slave
ownership! It simply portrays Jesus as a man of his times.
> The apostles cast lots for the nations.
How is that polemic? That occurs in orthodox belief!
> Thomas gets India but spits the dummy.
hmmm, don't recall Thomas spitting on any dummies in that text.
> He refuses to go to India.
Huh, just like Jonah in the Hebrew Bible, which Christians all read.
> He is ORDERED to go by Jesus.
And? Acts chapter 1 has Jesus giving them orders to go into all the
world, as does Matthew 28:19ff
> He REFUSES the command!
Yep, sure does, just like the apostles in Acts and Jonah in the Hebrew bible
> Jesus sells him as a SLAVE in th market
> to a travelling Indian merchant.
Indeed. This is polemic why? Oh....I know why, because it doesn't fit
what you *think* Christianity should be about in the 21st century,
therefore it doesn't fit what you *believe* about Christianity in the
third....yes, that makes sense of history all right.
>
> The christian conquest of India is a joke.
What conquest? The only Christian conquest I know of is the British in
the 19th century. Don't think AAT is talking about that.
> We have a clever pagan seditionist pretending
> to write a christian story like "The Boss".
Naw, we have a fool trotting out ancient conspiracy theories because he
feels betrayed by his believing parents.
>
>
>
>
>>>Certainly, the g Thomas, in which the phrase "Jesus says" was prefaced
>>>against each of the gnostic (pagan) ascetic wisdom sayings, is C14 dated
>>>to the mid-fourth century, at which time the pagan literature was still
>>>in
>>>the process of "christianisation".
>>>
>>>See Robert Lane-Fox on the Nag Hammadi codices.
>>>Arnaldo Momigliano on the process of "christianisation" of literature
>>>in the 4h century:
>>>http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Arnaldo%20Momigliano.htm
>>
>>And again we note that the conclusion you draw from this and the
>>conclusion Lane-Fox draws from this are worlds apart and terribly
>>different. I agree with Lane-Fox.
>
>
>
> In his analysis of Constantine's "Oration to the Saints"
> Lane-Fox says Constantine shows himself to be a fraud.
Indeed, ol' Constantine was way out of his element and didn't know what
he was talking about. But that hardly means that he made Christianity
up out of whole cloth. And once again, Lane-Fox whom you often quote
explicitly states many times over the existence of Christianity before
Constantine.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>When will ancient historians take Constantine to task?
>>>>
>>>>It isn't the role of historians to take to task ancient figures, and even
>>>>if it were, we'd take you to task first for misrepresenting history
>>>>deliberately before describing the activities of a man attempting to
>>>>bring peace and unify an empire all too willing to fall apart in civil
>>>>strife, regardless of what we might think of his methods.
>>>
>>>
>>>Constantine was nothing but a thug.
>>
>>No, he was much more complex than that.
>
>
>
> Deal with the evidence he was a thug.
Oh, child, you amuse me! I invited you to deal with ALL the evidence,
not just the evidence that pleases you.
> Complexify a little later.
I prefer to look at ALL the evidence in its simplicity and complexity
rather than have a priori conclusions and cherry pick what I like.
>
>
>
>>He murdered stacks> of people,
>>
>>As did every emperor before him.....
>
>
>
> No emperor before him was christian.
True, but every emperor before him murdered stacks of people, he was
hardly extraordinary on that front.
>
>
>
>>including a large number of physicians - ascetic
>>
>>>priests of the healing god Asclepius, and his own son and
>>>wife.
>>
>>See above.
>
>
>
> Constantine was a brutal thug.
> Deal with the evidence.
See above.
>
>
>
>
>> He destroyed the surviving obelisk at the temple of
>>
>>>Karnack, and he destroyed many ancient temples.
>>
>>Yep. Sure did. And you lie about history, lie about historians, lie
>>about historical events....and that is a form of destruction and murder
>>every bit as heinous as anything Constantine did.
>
>
>
> Take some more medication Larry.
> Your breaking up into Apologetics.
Hypocrite: you're entire thesis is an apologetic. When requested for
evidence, the best you can give is a string of nonsequiturs repeated
over and over and over and over again.
>
>
>
>
>>>He ordered that the writings of the most learned and chief
>>>neopythagorean academic of the fourth century burnt by
>>>fire, and the death penalty, for anyone found concealing the
>>>academic (mathematical included [Euclid]) writings of Porphyry.
>>>
>>>He was nothing but a cunning military mind and a robber
>>>and a brigand, and he openly robbed the ancient temples
>>>for their gold and treasure and art and sculpture, in order
>>>to stock a brand new city - the city of Constantine.
>>>
>>>Read what Zosimus says about the malevolent despot.
>>>And the history of Sextus Aurelius Victor, who describes
>>>Constantine, in his last decade, as a ward irresponsible
>>>for his own actions.
>>
>>None of which is relevant to the matter in hand....
>
>
>
> The opinions of ancient historians who wrote within a century
> of the life of Constantine are not important evidence, or relevant
> to the one true christian account which requires no evidence?
*YAWN* Didn't say that did I? Or has your medication warped your
reading comprehension? You can assassinate his character all you like,
it still doesn't follow that he invented Christianity out of whole
clothe and had Eusebius create texts and plant them around the empire
and then pretend to have a completely different theology than Constantine.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>The apocrypha was written in opposition to the Constantine Canon,
>>>>
>>>>So contrary to your earlier theory that Eusebius wrote or was in charge
>>>>of having produced everything, now we have an opposing group writing
>>>>material against Eusebius/Constantine? Your theory changes.....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No it does not, You have not yet understood the thesis:
>>>www.mountainman.com.au/essenes
>>
>>Yes it does. Every time I've pointed you to the apocrypha, you've claimed
>>it was all written by Eusebius or those working for Eusebius just to
>>deceive everyone.
>
>
>
> The NON CANONIC is PAGAN POLEMIC.
That's what you're shouting now, t'wasn't what you've been shouting all
along.
>
> EUSEBIUS was ordered by the Boss to organise editorship
> of the CANONICAL bullshit. When this was published, the
> pagans started their own stories about Jesus and the Apostles.
Your polemic is showing.....but no evidence.
>
>
>
>
>>>EUSEBIUS edited and prepared the NT Canon for publication.
>>
>>Both of which are different than creating it.
>
>
>>>The NON CANONIC was reactionary sedition by pagans.
>>
>>So the pagans worshipped Jesus? Who knew?
>
>
>
> Do people worship SLAVE MASTERS?
Oh yes! Read some history! Hell, read the NT where the chief writer
refers to himself as a slave of CHRIST!
> The pagan who wrote the Acts of Thomas
> says Jesus was a slave master.
>
> No, the pagans were nowhere stupid enough to worship
> the Bullneck's bullshit god Jesus. They made jokes.
>
>
>
>>>These pagansa were ascetic and academic priests. SOme of them
>>>from the cult of Asclepius, whom had been persecuted by the Boss.
>>>The sword was useless against the Boss. They took up the pen.
>>
>>But you just said that Constantine killed them all....
>
>
>
> Eusebius tells us the gory details of Aegaea.
> See your mate Robin Lane-Fox.
> Public execution of chief physician and priest.
Not the point again.....
>
>
>
>>oh, some survived....so they're writing seditious tracts that disagree with
>>Constantine's new religion, but he let these live, did he?
>
>
> They went into hiding in the deserts of Syria with Arius.
Resurrected no doubt after Constantine killed them....
> See the very nasty "Dear Arius Where Are You" Letter
> of Constantine 333CE. He could not find them. He was
> too busy robbing gold from pagan temples in towns.
Ah, those poor pagans....
>
>
>
>>Wow, how ineffective...he can cook a whole new religion, foist it upon an
>>entire empire so that not a whisper of what he has done leaks out, but
>>can't get to a few pagan priests writing rebellious tracts....huh.
>
>
> A malevolent despot and military supremacist cannot get to
> everyone in the land.
Really? So he can force a religion down people's throats to the extent
that no one peeps that he just made the whole thing up and all, but
isn't powerful enough to get to people he himself exiled in his own
empire? This makes sense to you?
There was resistance against the Boss.
Not what you've said before. When it was pointed out to you that we'd
expect resistance and people piping up, you said that Constantine was
such a thug and such a master of things that no one dared say a word.
Now we find that there's all sorts of resistance and tracts being
written against him! The story keeps changing.....
Which actually contradicts your entire theory.....wow.
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:OaWdnXtkqKPLfEDa...@rcn.net...
>>
>>>mountain man wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The nature of the apocyrpha suggest sedition and polemic against
>>>>the favorite characters that appeared in the fiction of the Constantine
>>>>Bible.
>>>
>>>Depends. There are apocryphal texts that arguably predate the canonical
>>>bible, others that take no notice of those texts that came into the
>>>canon.
>>
>>
>> All the apocrypha deal with the characters published
>> in the canon of Constantine.
>
> Well, first, it isn't the "canon of Constantine", you as usual are placing
> the conclusion as if it were part of the evidence (called circular
> reasoning).
The Constantine Bible which was published by Constantine
in the City of Constantine c.331 CE under the admirable
editorship of that wretched Eusebius forger contained the
Constantine Canon, which was not substantially altered
other than giving "The Shepherd of Hermas" the axe.
Most scholars entertain the notion that some, or one,
of the surviving greek codices - Alexandrinus, Vaticanus
or Sainaticus - are either one of, or a copy, of these 50
Constantine Bibles which is documented as then published.
> And all the apocrypha don't deal with characters in the Christian NT
> canon. The Hymn of the Pearl for example
As I had already advised, this was inserted by the author
of the Acts of Thomas (who was a pagan) in an attempt
to preserve it. We all know it predates its host text.
> or the Three Tablets of Seth mention no one in the Christian NT at all.
Some pagans attempted to preserve pagan texts.
You'll note that NHC is C14 dated to the mid-fourth century.
So that citation helps me substantially.
Nag Hammad is a mixed bag of books.
Each book is a mixed bag of tractates.
Not wholly christian, nor pagan.
IMO it evidences the "christianisation" of literature
> Think of seditious parody.
>
> Horse before the cart again. You need to establish that they all were
> parody (some of them clearly were intended to be parodies or inversions,
> but that's a different story and everyone dates them centuries earlier
> than you want to claim)
Everyone dates "The Acts of Philip" to the fourth century.
Noone has a clue about the dating of the either the canon
or the non canon --- these could have been written anytime
in the first two centuries according to the bulk of assessments
--- but there is no firm archaeological underpinning chronology
to assist in the matter of christian origins.
Hence my postulate is eligible for examination.
>> They are a reaction to the Constantine Bible.
>
> Maybe, reactions to nascent Christianity certainly, some written before
> many of the Christian texts, some written after.
>
>> Very simple explanation.
>
> And wrong.
We will see.
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:GrCdndnMoJZPAH3a...@rcn.net...
>
>>mountain man wrote:
>>
>>>"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>news:st6dneMQGpkpdUDa...@rcn.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And as long as I've brought up Oxyrynchus, how about the arrest warrant
>>>
>>>>from CE 256 for a Christian P. Oxy 3035
>>>
>>>
>>>The arrest was not for a christian.
>>>The fragment says "CHRESTOS"
>
>
>
>>A typical spelling of Greek "christos" in both Latin and Greek texts
>>outside Greece in the late Hellenistic period.
>
>
>
> Total BULLSHIT.
>
> CHRISTOS (annointed)
> CHRESTOS (good)
> are distinct Greek words.
Yep, sure are, and as many texts tell us "Chrestos" was often used to
designate "Christos", both words often associated with the highly
influential mystery cults, a system with which Hellenistic Christianity
has many points of contact. Many texts tell us that Marcion and others
distancing themselves from Judaism referred to Jesus as "Chrestos" the
good one rather than Christos, the anointed one, and so it passes into
general usage. So widespread that even Sinaiticus has "Chrestos" in its
original text.
On your model then we have Eusebius inventing a problem, confusion
between Chrestos and Christos, retrojecting it into the past into the
mouths of others, and then attempting to resolve the problem, also
retrojecting it into the past into the mouths of others. Quite
inventive: seriously, modern novel writers should take lessons....oh the
evidence for this is? Ah yes, your conclusion that Eusebius wrote the
texts! Delightfully circular....illogical, fallacious, and untrue, but
delightfully circular nonetheless for that.
> Dont worry, I'll get to the rest of your TOTAL BULLSHIT
> in the next little while. Just to help you out, in the Greek,
> the difference in the two words will be found in the
> third place.
>
> Chrestos has an ETA, christos has an IOTA.
> Christians erroneous attempt conflation.
> They need all the citations they can find.
Yes, except that there's no word "chrestianos" independent of
"christianos"....ah well, you need all the total bullshit you can get to
help you out.
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Did I not point out that the dating was ambiguous,
>>>and certainly under dispute?
>>
>>>Yes. Yes I did.
>>
>>You pointed it out but failed to provide any citations by
>>qualified people to support your allegations,
>
>
> They're not allegations.
Then prove them. You who demand citations, provide some of your own.
>
> Secondly, you're holding me to a higher standard than
> you can survive.
>
Perhaps, but let's remember that you often ask people for citations to
prove their statements. So even if, as you say, I'm holding you to a
higher standard, it is simply the same standard to which you are holding
me and others whom you ask for citations. You're lack of citations in
this response simply demonstrates that you can not survive, interesting
use of that word, or live up to the very standard you yourself set for
others in the discussion.
>
> Because your "cite" doesn't provide the information you're
> asking for me.
Wait, my citation doesn't provide the information I'm asking you? Well,
no kidding, that's why I'm asking *YOU* to provide the citations to back
up your allegations: my citations say something completely different. Duh.
>
> Even if I actually dug it up -- because you offered no
> quotes, no URL to verify that someone actually says
> what you claim it says -- it would only prove that it
> did not AND COULD NOT live up to your own damn
> standard of proof.
Actually, its your standard of proof, I just borrowed it.....and you're
failing to live up to your own standard and engaging in a whole bunch of
hot air along the way.
>
> Your so-called "cite" DOES NOT claim that your
> Dura Europa text isn't filled with a bunch of strategic
> blanks, which could easily be interpreted in such a
> way as to turn it into a Jewish text... at least.
Indeed it doesn't claim that at all. My citations regarding Dura
Europos is quite satisfied at the identification of the images and the
building and finds no "bunch of strategic blanks."
>
> And, no, your so-called "Cite" never claimed that a
> 1,100 to 1,200 year old manuscript dates to the
> 2nd century, either.
Dear boy, you're a century out of date. The Gospel of Peter you're on
about was found in 1886 and is from the 9th century. 2 other papyrus
fragments possibly of this gospel dated to the second and third
centuries have since been discovered. Oh, so sad for you. Here, you
can look at one of them:
http://163.1.169.40/cgi-bin/library?e=q-000-00---0POxy--00-0-0--0prompt-10---4----ded--0-1l--1-en-50---20-about-4009--00031-001-1-0utfZz-8-00&a=d&c=POxy&cl=search&d=HASHbb02a1f5a5af81f65974e0
Even if some question that this is the Gospel of Peter, it nonetheless
is a an apocyrphal gospel dating to the 2nd or 3rd century, and so
answers the question you asked of me.
> So live up to your own goddamn standards
Follow your own advice.
-- and
> provide actual quotes & URLs to cites that support
> your claims -- or ram it up your ass.
My, such language from a person representing himself as rational....
Christopher Ingham
>
> - Show quoted text -
You make your case very nicely here and elsewhere, Larry -- not
that it was really necessary to do so. The problem is that Pete
will be back in a month making his same litany of assertions, as
if he has "learned" or conceded nothing at all.
Christopher Ingham
Larry Swain
Christopher,
Thanks very much! Yes, that's his way: disappear for a time and come
back as if nothing was discussed and repeat the same nonsense all over.
Have you noted though that he's changed his tune a little? NOt that
he'd ever actually admit to it.
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:cvudnf7UP6u4XXza...@rcn.net...
>
>>mountain man wrote:
>>
>>>"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>news:OaWdnXtkqKPLfEDa...@rcn.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>mountain man wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The nature of the apocyrpha suggest sedition and polemic against
>>>>>the favorite characters that appeared in the fiction of the Constantine
>>>>>Bible.
>>>>
>>>>Depends. There are apocryphal texts that arguably predate the canonical
>>>>bible, others that take no notice of those texts that came into the
>>>>canon.
>>>
>>>
>>>All the apocrypha deal with the characters published
>>>in the canon of Constantine.
>>
>>Well, first, it isn't the "canon of Constantine", you as usual are placing
>>the conclusion as if it were part of the evidence (called circular
>>reasoning).
>
>
> The Constantine Bible which was published by Constantine
> in the City of Constantine c.331 CE
All false. There is no "Constantine Bible", Constantine asked Eusebius
to compose 50 copies of the entire scriptures in 331. That's the only
thing Constantine had to with it. Eusebius was in Caesurea at the time,
so it wasn't done in the City of Constantine, and it isn't even known
whether Eusebius was able to accomplish the task, since the first
pandect seems to have first appeared c. 365-70, well after both
Constantine and Eusebius had died. So much for that.
under the admirable
> editorship of that wretched Eusebius forger
Maligning the man and proving he forged anything are two different
things. You continue to engage in the former and ignore the evidence.
contained the
> Constantine Canon,
Except there's no such thing. And interestingly enough, all the fourth
century pandects and lists differ from Eusebius' list of 325....huh,
guess ol Constantine wasn't even powerful to get the Bible right. How
incompetent, one wonders how he was successful at foisting this
conspiracy religion on everyone without a trace at all. In fact,
Eusebius' list is a bit short of what became the Christian NT, so again,
not terribly successful on your model.
> Most scholars entertain the notion that some, or one,
> of the surviving greek codices - Alexandrinus, Vaticanus
> or Sainaticus - are either one of, or a copy, of these 50
> Constantine Bibles which is documented as then published.
Oh, this has been suggested in the past. But no longer. Alexandrinus
is too late and too Alexandrian, Sinaiticus is also too Alexandrian and
has interesting little features like "Chrestos" and other such things.
>
>
>
>
>>And all the apocrypha don't deal with characters in the Christian NT
>>canon. The Hymn of the Pearl for example
>
>
> As I had already advised, this was inserted by the author
> of the Acts of Thomas (who was a pagan) in an attempt
> to preserve it.
You advised us of this did you? Did it occur to you that we already
knew? Anyway, the point is that there is nothing in the Hymn of the
Pearl that indicates that is dealing with characters in the Christian NT
canon, a document you supposedly know that clearly disproves your statement.
>
>
>>or the Three Tablets of Seth mention no one in the Christian NT at all.
>
>
> Some pagans attempted to preserve pagan texts.
So now you're saying that Three Tablets of Seth and Gospel of Thomas are
not Christian texts, but pagan ones and not part of the apocrypha?
>> Think of seditious parody.
>>
>>Horse before the cart again. You need to establish that they all were
>>parody (some of them clearly were intended to be parodies or inversions,
>>but that's a different story and everyone dates them centuries earlier
>>than you want to claim)
>
>
>
> Everyone dates "The Acts of Philip" to the fourth century.
So?
> Noone has a clue about the dating of the either the canon
> or the non canon ---
Many clues. Ignoring them doesn't mean they don't exist.
these could have been written anytime
Well, if this were true, then you'd agree that Acts of Philip could be
second century, and Gospel of THomas first century and so on....
> in the first two centuries according to the bulk of assessments
> --- but there is no firm archaeological underpinning chronology
> to assist in the matter of christian origins.
of the canon? well of course not since its not an archaeological
artefact. But there is archaeological underpinning for many of the
documents that talk about canon.
>
> Hence my postulate is eligible for examination.
We have examined it and found it to be false and baseless.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>They are a reaction to the Constantine Bible.
>>
>>Maybe, reactions to nascent Christianity certainly, some written before
>>many of the Christian texts, some written after.
>>
>>
>>>Very simple explanation.
>>
>>And wrong.
>
>
>
> We will see.
Well, Pete, you should have already seen if your making this a part of
yoru thesis....i. e. proving it comes before making it a part of the
theory rather than taking it as an a priori assumption and then hoping
to find proof. Your procedure is clear from you statements above.
>
>
JTEM
> Then prove them. You who demand citations, provide
> some of your own.
Okay. No problem.
New Testament Apocrypha By Wilhelm Schneemelcher,
Robert McLachlan Wilson, which dates the oldest known
copy to the 4th century.
Now...
That's your style. Here's what I demand, and expect from
real scholars & serious amatures:
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/81684/sample/9780521581684web.pdf
Which is to say, produce a cite that actually dates said
book, instead of simply repeats a claim.
You do know the difference, right?
Assuming you don't (and that's a safe bet), all you did was
repeat a claim. What you should have done is produced a
cite detailing the oldest known copy, which of course
should date to the period you claim.
Failing that, some explanation on how the date was arrived
at would do quite nicely.
Because I'll tell you how it's almost always done. They find
references to books -- which, as any bible thumper knows,
can't possibly be a forgery -- dating back to... well... that's
not important. It's believed to date back to the second or
even first centurary, and that's good enough.
NEXT...
They dig up a book that's hundreds upon hundreds of years
younger, and pronounce it as the aforementioned book of
great age. A newer copy, sure, but a copy of a pre-existing
book that is wicked old & stuff.
In reality though, forgeries are common -- not rare -- hardly
is there a copy of any such book dated within 200 years
of it's alleged origins.
> > Secondly, you're holding me to a higher standard than
> > you can survive.
>
> Perhaps,
No, not perhaps.
Your "cites" to not establish what you're claiming that they
establish. They simply repeat a claim.
> > Because your "cite" doesn't provide the information you're
> > asking for me.
>
> Wait, my citation doesn't provide the information I'm asking
> you?
Exactly.
Your cites merely repeat claims.
'such-and-such book dates to the second century' is a claim,
one not originating with your cite. Your cite is literally repeating
a claim, not establishing one.
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Then prove them. You who demand citations, provide
>>some of your own.
>
>
> Okay. No problem.
>
> New Testament Apocrypha By Wilhelm Schneemelcher,
> Robert McLachlan Wilson, which dates the oldest known
> copy to the 4th century.
Very good, except that the English translation of Schneemelcher by
Wilson was published in 1964 and 1968, more than a decade before the
Oxyrynchus papyri I mentioned were found (and the German edition was a
decade before the English translation). So far as I know they haven't
done a thorough revision in subsequent printings and editions to take
account of all the discoveries being made.
> Now...
>
> That's your style. Here's what I demand, and expect from
> real scholars & serious amatures:
>
> http://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/81684/sample/9780521581684web.pdf
That's fine, except a) you haven't produced that level of material, so
itsn't it rather hypocritical to demand it of others and b) I really
don't see what Mary's book on the Marian gospels in Anglo-Saxon England
have to do with the question in hand: the dates of apocryphal material
prior to Constantine.
>
> Which is to say, produce a cite that actually dates said
> book, instead of simply repeats a claim.
I already provided a direct reference to the Oxyrynchus Papyrus catalog
of the papyrus in question that has a firm date on it. You can't get
much more authoritative than that. Here it is again:
http://163.1.169.40/cgi-bin/library?e=q-000-00---0POxy--00-0-0--0prompt-10---4----ded--0-1l--1-en-50---20-about-4009--00031-001-1-0utfZz-8-00&a=d&c=POxy&cl=search&d=HASHbb02a1f5a5af81f65974e0
You might also be interested in _The Written Gospel_ edited by Marcus
Bockmuehl. Therein is an article by Christopher Tuckett titled "Forty
Other Gospels". He discusses this fragment on page 244.
Chris Tuckett is also co-editor of a volume titled _Trajectories Through
the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers_ in which there is an
article by Helmut Koester revisiting what for him is old territory: the
state of the gospels (all gospels) in the second century. He refers to
the Gospel of Peter and the 2 second and third century papyri I've
referred you to on page 34.
The editio princeps of the papyri is in Die apokryph gewordenen
Evangelien by Luhrman, who argues if your German is up to snuff that
this papyrus fragment is of the Gospel of Peter and is as early as the
mid second century. You'll find this discussion on pp. 60-7 of the text.
Are three references written in the last 13 years enough or do you need
additional citations?
> You do know the difference, right?
>
> Assuming you don't (and that's a safe bet), all you did was
> repeat a claim. What you should have done is produced a
> cite detailing the oldest known copy, which of course
> should date to the period you claim.
A claim I can substantiate, as I have above.
>
> Failing that, some explanation on how the date was arrived
> at would do quite nicely.
Ok, but that's a little detailed and will involve images. I'll see if
someone has already done the basics online so I don't have to, and if
so, I'll just add the rest and give you URLs...good enough?
> Because I'll tell you how it's almost always done. They find
> references to books -- which, as any bible thumper knows,
> can't possibly be a forgery -- dating back to... well... that's
> not important. It's believed to date back to the second or
> even first centurary, and that's good enough.
That actually isn't how its dated, that is an inaccurate attempt to
describe how a text from a fragment might be identified.
> NEXT...
>
> They dig up a book that's hundreds upon hundreds of years
> younger, and pronounce it as the aforementioned book of
> great age. A newer copy, sure, but a copy of a pre-existing
> book that is wicked old & stuff.
>
> In reality though, forgeries are common -- not rare -- hardly
> is there a copy of any such book dated within 200 years
> of it's alleged origins.
Even if true, and it isn't, this would be a case of arguing from a
general proposition to a specific....which since you're up on your logic
fallacies, you know that this is a classic fallacy. And I know you
wouldn't want that.
>
>
>>>Secondly, you're holding me to a higher standard than
>>>you can survive.
>>
>>Perhaps,
>
>
> No, not perhaps.
>
> Your "cites" to not establish what you're claiming that they
> establish. They simply repeat a claim.
I don't believe so.
>
>>>Because your "cite" doesn't provide the information you're
>>>asking for me.
>>
>>Wait, my citation doesn't provide the information I'm asking
>>you?
>
>
> Exactly.
Really? You want my citation to provide me with information I'm asking
you to provide? Really?
>
> Your cites merely repeat claims.
And yours does what? As I recall the introductions in Schneemelcher,
they summarize the state of scholarship and esentially "repeat claims"
rather than demonstrate the date of each text in the volume. How is
this different?
>
JTEM
> Very good, except that the English translation of
> Schneemelcher by Wilson was published in 1964
> and 1968, more than a decade before the
> Oxyrynchus papyri I mentioned
Standard problems apply.
Take your pick. They're fragmentory... the age range
is huge, about a thousand years... conclusions are
interlaced with many assumptions...
> > That's your style. Here's what I demand, and expect from
> > real scholars & serious amatures:
>
> >http://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/81684/sample/9780521581684web.pdf
>
> That's fine, except a) you haven't produced that level of material,
It's actually right above. You even quoted it.
You, on the other hand, seem to believe that bold-faced
denial of the obvious constitutes an argument...
> > Which is to say, produce a cite that actually dates said
> > book, instead of simply repeats a claim.
>
> I already provided a direct reference to the Oxyrynchus
> Papyrus catalog of the papyrus in question that has a
> firm date on it.
You not only didn't, you still haven't!
All you did was claim that someone else places a date on
texts that you agree with.
Where were the URLs?
HINT: They're STILL missing!
How were dates established? On what basis?
No word...
> You can't get much more authoritative than that.
Surprisingly enough, you could have gotten a great
deal more authorative than THAT...
One. More. Time.
Your URL merely repeats the claim. That's all.
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:GrCdndnMoJZPAH3a...@rcn.net...
>>
>>>mountain man wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:st6dneMQGpkpdUDa...@rcn.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And as long as I've brought up Oxyrynchus, how about the arrest warrant
>>>>
>>>>>from CE 256 for a Christian P. Oxy 3035
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The arrest was not for a christian.
>>>>The fragment says "CHRESTOS"
>>
>>
>>
>>>A typical spelling of Greek "christos" in both Latin and Greek texts
>>>outside Greece in the late Hellenistic period.
>>
>>
>>
>> Total BULLSHIT.
>>
>> CHRISTOS (annointed)
>> CHRESTOS (good)
>> are distinct Greek words.
>
> Yep, sure are, and as many texts tell us "Chrestos" was often used to
> designate "Christos", both words often associated with the highly
> influential mystery cults, a system with which Hellenistic Christianity
> has many points of contact.
Both words existed and were separately
used in the period BCE.
> Many texts tell us that Marcion and others distancing themselves from
> Judaism referred to Jesus as "Chrestos" the good one rather than Christos,
> the anointed one, and so it passes into general usage. So widespread that
> even Sinaiticus has "Chrestos" in its original text.
> On your model then we have Eusebius inventing a problem, confusion between
> Chrestos and Christos, retrojecting it into the past into the mouths of
> others, and then attempting to resolve the problem, also retrojecting it
> into the past into the mouths of others.
The words sound the same when pronounced.
Followers of "THE GOOD" religion were easily
conflated with followers of "THE ANNOINTED"
religion.
> Quite inventive: seriously, modern novel writers should take lessons....oh
> the evidence for this is? Ah yes, your conclusion that Eusebius wrote the
> texts! Delightfully circular....illogical, fallacious, and untrue, but
> delightfully circular nonetheless for that.
The confusion in the two words stem from separate
source words sounding similar in the Greek.
>> Dont worry, I'll get to the rest of your TOTAL BULLSHIT
>> in the next little while. Just to help you out, in the Greek,
>> the difference in the two words will be found in the
>> third place.
>>
>> Chrestos has an ETA, christos has an IOTA.
>> Christians erroneous attempt conflation.
>> They need all the citations they can find.
>
> Yes, except that there's no word "chrestianos" independent of
> "christianos"....ah well, you need all the total bullshit you can get to
> help you out.
On the contrary, the evidence indicates that the word is certainly
there and we do not yet know what it means precisely. It has
something to do with "the good", and it is used in antiquity in a
completely separate sense from "the annointed" synonym.
Your position, that CHRESTOS is a MISSPELLING of
what the evidence was supposed to say (ie: CHRISTOS)
is reading christianity into tea-leaves. Your major problem
is that alot of people made the same spelling mistake all
over the ROman empre at different eras.
How do you respond to this?
mountain man
> Dear boy, you're a century out of date. The Gospel of Peter you're on
> about was found in 1886 and is from the 9th century. 2 other papyrus
> fragments possibly of this gospel dated to the second and third centuries
> have since been discovered.
In correct, since between the time they were discovered and the
time they were dated they made the trip to the paleographer's office,
where a great deal of analysis was applied to the handwriting on the
papyri fragment, after which a CERTIFCATE was issued by the
paleographer's office, recommending a preferred dating.
There is absolutely no *FIRM_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_EVIDENCE*
by which the dating of all of the non canonical NT literature cannot be
considered as totally bound within the fourth century, appearing from
the year 324 CE. If you know of any evidence to refute the hypothesis
that the non canonic is fourth century pagan polemic in opposition to the
Constantine canonical cast of Jesus and the Apostles, what is it?
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> The Constantine Bible which was published by Constantine
>> in the City of Constantine c.331 CE
>
> All false. There is no "Constantine Bible",
Results 1 - 100 of about 1,050 for "Constantine Bible". (0.28 seconds)
BULLSHIT Larry.
Christopher Ingham
>
> - Show quoted text -
Explain why almost all words in Middle English are dissimilarly
spelled among the various dialects in England. Do "Jesus,"
"Iesus," and "Ihesu," or "Christ" and "Crist" refer to different
persons? No, they are variant spellings reflecting the lack of
standardization of the language prior to the printing press.
Christopher Ingham
Larry Swain
Indeed. Now how about dealing with the period we're talking about
instead of supplying information that isn't germane and that everyone
knows anyway?
>
>
>>Many texts tell us that Marcion and others distancing themselves from
>>Judaism referred to Jesus as "Chrestos" the good one rather than Christos,
>>the anointed one, and so it passes into general usage. So widespread that
>>even Sinaiticus has "Chrestos" in its original text.
>
>
>>On your model then we have Eusebius inventing a problem, confusion between
>>Chrestos and Christos, retrojecting it into the past into the mouths of
>>others, and then attempting to resolve the problem, also retrojecting it
>>into the past into the mouths of others.
>
>
> The words sound the same when pronounced.
Indeed. The point is that according to teh Christian documents usually
dated to the second century and the third century, that many
non-Christians confused "chrestos" and "christos", your claim is that
that is bullshit. You offer no proof, but instead offer proof that it
is possible if not probable that those Christian documents were telling
the truth.
> Followers of "THE GOOD" religion were easily
> conflated with followers of "THE ANNOINTED"
> religion.
Indeed, exactly the point. Except that there's no evidence that the
"followers of the good religion (whatever that might be) were ever
called "chrestianoi" whereas we do have evidence of followers of the
anointed religion being called "christianoi" and "chrestianoi".
>
>
>
>
>>Quite inventive: seriously, modern novel writers should take lessons....oh
>>the evidence for this is? Ah yes, your conclusion that Eusebius wrote the
>>texts! Delightfully circular....illogical, fallacious, and untrue, but
>>delightfully circular nonetheless for that.
>
>
>
> The confusion in the two words stem from separate
> source words sounding similar in the Greek.
Well, different roots certainly, though the different roots have nothing
to do with the confusion of the two words. The confusion stems from
phonology.
>
>
>>>Dont worry, I'll get to the rest of your TOTAL BULLSHIT
>>>in the next little while. Just to help you out, in the Greek,
>>>the difference in the two words will be found in the
>>>third place.
>>>
>>>Chrestos has an ETA, christos has an IOTA.
>>>Christians erroneous attempt conflation.
>>>They need all the citations they can find.
>>
>>Yes, except that there's no word "chrestianos" independent of
>>"christianos"....ah well, you need all the total bullshit you can get to
>>help you out.
>
>
> On the contrary, the evidence indicates that the word is certainly
> there
Oh? What evidence is that?
and we do not yet know what it means precisely.
Evidence?
It has
> something to do with "the good", and it is used in antiquity in a
> completely separate sense from "the annointed" synonym.
Evidence?
>
> Your position, that CHRESTOS is a MISSPELLING
Nope. Not what I said.
of
> what the evidence was supposed to say (ie: CHRISTOS)
> is reading christianity into tea-leaves.
Straw man.
Your major problem
> is that alot of people made the same spelling mistake all
> over the ROman empre at different eras.
Evidence?
>
> How do you respond to this?
That you make claims you haven't backed up with any evidence and you do
so consistently.
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Very good, except that the English translation of
>>Schneemelcher by Wilson was published in 1964
>>and 1968, more than a decade before the
>>Oxyrynchus papyri I mentioned
>
>
> Standard problems apply.
>
> Take your pick. They're fragmentory... the age range
> is huge, about a thousand years... conclusions are
> interlaced with many assumptions...
>
>
>>>That's your style. Here's what I demand, and expect from
>>>real scholars & serious amatures:
>>
>>>http://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/81684/sample/9780521581684web.pdf
>>
>>That's fine, except a) you haven't produced that level of material,
>
>
> It's actually right above. You even quoted it.
>
> You, on the other hand, seem to believe that bold-faced
> denial of the obvious constitutes an argument...
>
>
>
>>>Which is to say, produce a cite that actually dates said
>>>book, instead of simply repeats a claim.
>>
>>I already provided a direct reference to the Oxyrynchus
>>Papyrus catalog of the papyrus in question that has a
>>firm date on it.
>
>
> You not only didn't, you still haven't!
But I did, you snipped for some reason. Here's what I sent last night:
I already provided a direct reference to the Oxyrynchus Papyrus catalog
of the papyrus in question that has a firm date on it. You can't get
much more authoritative than that. Here it is again:
http://163.1.169.40/cgi-bin/library?e=q-000-00---0POxy--00-0-0--0prompt-10---4----ded--0-1l--1-en-50---20-about-4009--00031-001-1-0utfZz-8-00&a=d&c=POxy&cl=search&d=HASHbb02a1f5a5af81f65974e0
This is the third time now.
> All you did was claim that someone else places a date on
> texts that you agree with.
>
> Where were the URLs?
See above.
>
> HINT: They're STILL missing!
Never were.
>
> How were dates established? On what basis?
>
> No word...
Not true. Again from the post you're responding to: "Ok, but that's a
little detailed and will involve images. I'll see if someone has
already done the basics online so I don't have to, and if so, I'll just
add the rest and give you URLs...good enough" Apparently that isn't
good enough for you, and frankly I don't have the time to give a primer
in palaeography, codicology, archaeology, and the dating of texts. So
suffice it to say:
Dates were established by:
1) archaeological strata comparison
2) palaeographical examination comparing the scripts of these texts to
the every growing database of Greek and Latin papyri from the ancient
world, many of which have dates that locate the script and style
somewhat precisely. So if a known script is date 150 CE, and we have an
undated papyri whose script matches the pagan dated one, then we have a
good case that the undated was made somewhere around 150, give or take.
3) internal evidence of text, where applicable and possible
4) codicological features consistent with the proposed date range
5) is it dated? if so, do all the features above match the date?
That's a very short description of the method.
>
>
>> You can't get much more authoritative than that.
>
>
> Surprisingly enough, you could have gotten a great
> deal more authorative than THAT...
Who is more authoritative on the Oxyrynchus papyri than the Oxyrynchus
project at Oxford?
>
> One. More. Time.
>
> Your URL merely repeats the claim. That's all.
Oh, so contrary to your claim above, you did see the URL and did follow it.
And actually, the URL is the source of the "claim". You disagree with
them? Fine, present some evidence that the dating is wrong.
>
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:JOCdndEWY4etFn_a...@rcn.net...
>
>
>>Dear boy, you're a century out of date. The Gospel of Peter you're on
>>about was found in 1886 and is from the 9th century. 2 other papyrus
>>fragments possibly of this gospel dated to the second and third centuries
>>have since been discovered.
>
>
> In correct, since between the time they were discovered and the
> time they were dated they made the trip to the paleographer's office,
> where a great deal of analysis was applied to the handwriting on the
> papyri fragment, after which a CERTIFCATE was issued by the
> paleographer's office, recommending a preferred dating.
Leaving aside the mischaracterization for a moment, you've been
challenged several times to present EVIDENCE for your rejection of
palaeographical dating. None has been forthcoming. The only thing
you've said has been a serious mischaracterization of the discipline.
So frankly Pete, until you present some evidence that the
palaeographers, whose work has been confirmed by C14 dating in some
cases, are wrong, your objections will simply fall on deaf ears because
they are quite frankly groundless.
>
> There is absolutely no *FIRM_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_EVIDENCE*
Yes, there is.
> by which the dating of all of the non canonical NT literature
Poppycock. Evidence is against it. Even the "contents" is against it.
cannot be
> considered as totally bound within the fourth century, appearing from
> the year 324 CE. If you know of any evidence to refute the hypothesis
> that the non canonic is fourth century pagan polemic in opposition to the
> Constantine canonical cast of Jesus and the Apostles, what is it?
The contents of the texts.
The dates of some of the papyri
That authors writing long before Constantine cite or refer to these
texts (and it is up to you to PROVE that these authors wrote in the
fourth century, not the second, or that they were invented in the fourth
century....no evidence, no dice.
Larry Swain
Ah how funny! When evidence is needed such as producing a manuscript,
or even a contemporary discussion or mention, instead we get the results
of a Google search! Yes, that's evidence that is! Oh how rich!!!
Too bad you didn't think to look at your results. The first URL to come
up does so becuase the file is named "Constantine-Bible.html" and the
file asks the question: Question: "Did Constantine decide what books
belonged in the Bible?" Their answer is no, btw: "Constantine (and the
Council of Nicea, for that matter) had virtually nothing to do with the
forming of the canon."
The second link that comes up is to a book titled "Constantine's Bible"
and which argues that the forces that shape the canon started in the
first century, not the fourth, and dispenses with any notion of
"Constantine's Bible" or that Constantine had anything to do with it, as
influential as he was in many other aspects.
The third link is to Ramsay McMullen's "Voting About God" which talks
about early church councils....it comes up because the book in the
second link above appears on the page a couple of times. The book
itself makes no mention of "Constantine's Bible".
The fourth link is to a blog on which the question is asked about
Constaintine's Bible. The blogger assumes the question is at least in
part born out of The Davinci Code and answers that there was no
Constantine Bible and Brown's characters are off historical base.
The fifth link is to a Christian book clearing house that is selling the
book in link 2. The sixth link is to another book at this place where
they suggest getting a deal on this book and the book in link 2.
The seventh link is to a Christian book store in England. See above.
The eighth link is to Highbeam Encyclopedia which publishes online a
review of the book in link 2 from Christian Century. The ninth link is
Highbeam's publishing of the book review from Midwest Book Review of the
same.
The tenth link is to the RBL online reviews of the book, there are 2
downloadable PDFs.
I don' thave time to go through all 100. A quick review of the first 10
reveals that most of these have to do with a book with the title
"Constantine's Bible", but which says that Constantine didn't have a
bible, though his recognition of the church may have influenced what we
call the NT. The others answer the issue rather more explicitly: there
is no Constantine's Bible.
If we look at the next 10 quickly we find that 9 of them all refer to
this book. The 1 that doesn't is "answering_islam.com" which is giving
points about how to convert a Christian to Islam, but regrettably gives
no references for its mention of "constantine's bible", a text it admits
is lost.
So the top 20 links of your search disprove your thesis, well, ok, to be
fair, the top 19, the one that might be read supporting your thesis is
the one that has no evidence supporting its contentions....hey just like
you!
>
> BULLSHIT Larry.
Oh, bullshit indeed Pete to google a search-string and claim that the
results support a thesis when in fact a brief examination demonstrates
the opposite. Bullshit indeed, Pete, and a few other kinds of shit too
and we'd take it kindly if you stopped throwing your varying shit
flavors at us as if they were a steak dinner and get down to showing us
some evidence or shutting up==we'll be more happy with the former, but
we'll take the latter if you can't get the evidence together.
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:ssudnYPMEdoUG3_a...@rcn.net...
>>
>>>mountain man wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:GrCdndnMoJZPAH3a...@rcn.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>mountain man wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:st6dneMQGpkpdUDa...@rcn.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And as long as I've brought up Oxyrynchus, how about the arrest
>>>>>>>warrant
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>from CE 256 for a Christian P. Oxy 3035
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The arrest was not for a christian.
>>>>>>The fragment says "CHRESTOS"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A typical spelling of Greek "christos" in both Latin and Greek texts
>>>>>outside Greece in the late Hellenistic period.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Total BULLSHIT.
>>>>
>>>>CHRISTOS (annointed)
>>>>CHRESTOS (good)
>>>>are distinct Greek words.
>>>
>>>Yep, sure are, and as many texts tell us "Chrestos" was often used to
>>>designate "Christos", both words often associated with the highly
>>>influential mystery cults, a system with which Hellenistic Christianity
>>>has many points of contact.
The origins of the two DISTINCT words predate christianity.
P.Oxy 3035 refers to the "CHRESTOS" not the "CHRISTOS" root.
The CHRESTOS root is not "christian".
it existed well BCE ....
The sources of CHRESTOS
and CHRISTOS in Antiquity
XXX BCE Homer's use of "chriso" ....
Christian theology has chosen and decreed that the name Christos
should be taken as derived from [chrio, chriso], "anointed with
scented unguents or oil." But this word has several significances.
It is used by Homer as applied to the rubbing with oil of the body
after bathing (Il. 23, 186; also in Od., 4, 252). Yet the word
Christes means rather a white-washer, while the word Chrestes
means priest and prophet, a term which on the surface may appear
to be far more applicable to Jesus, than that of the "Anointed,"
since, he never was anointed, either as king or priest.
XXX BCE
Erythrean Sybil. [IESOUS CHREISTOS THEOU HUIOS SOTER STAUROS].
The prophecy relates to the coming down upon the Earth of the Spirit
of Truth (Christos), after which advent will begin the Golden Age;
the verse refers to the necessity before reaching that blessed condition
of inner (or subjective) theophany and theopneusty, to pass through the
crucifixion of flesh or matter. (NB: This IMO refers to ASCETICISM)
The words meaning literally "Iesus, Christos, God, Son, Savior, Cross,"
are most excellent handles to hang a Christian prophecy on, but they
are pagan, not Christian.
470 BCE
Aeschylus (Cho. 901) we read of pythochresta
the "oracles delivered by a Pythian God"
460 BCE
Pindar (pp. 4-10) The words [chresen oikistera]
mean "the oracle proclaimed him the colonizer."
In this case the genius of the Greek language permits
that the man so proclaimed should be called Chrestos.
Hence this term was applied to every Disciple recognized by a Master,
as also to every good man.
420 BCE
Euripides (Ion. 1320) (Eurip. Ion, 1218)
Pythochrestos is the nominative singular
of an adjective derived from chrao .
420 BCE
Herodotus - The word [chreon] is explained by Herodotus (7,11,7,)
as that which an oracle declares, and See also Vide Herodotus, 7, 215; 5,
108;
420 BCE
Sophocles, Phil. 437.
350 BCE
Plato (in Phaed. 264 B) has [chrestos ei hoti hegei] --
"you are an excellent fellow to think . . ."
333 BCE
Demosthenes saying [o Chreste] (330, 27),
means by it simply "you nice fellow";
Demosthenes, De Corona, 313, declares that
the candidates for initiation
into the Greek mysteries were anointed with oil.
So they are now in India, even in the
initiation the Yogi mysteries, various
ointments or unguents being used.
XXX BCE
Pagan classics expressed more than one idea
by the verb [chraomai] "consulting an oracle";
for it also means "fated," doomed by an oracle,
in the sense of a sacrificial victim to its decree, or --
"to the WORD"; as chresterion is not only "the seat of an oracle"
but also "an offering to, or for, the oracle.'' (18)
Chrestes is one who expounds or explains oracles,
"a prophet, a soothsayer;" (19) and
chresterios is one who belongs to, or is in the service of,
an oracle, a god, or a "Master" (20);
010 CE
Philo Judaeus speaks of theochrestos "God-declared,"
or one who is declared by god, and of
logia theochresta "sayings delivered by God" --
which proves that he wrote at a time
when neither Christians nor Chrestians were yet known
under these names, but still called themselves the Nazarenes.
090 CE
[to chreon] is given by Plutarch (Nich. 14.) as "fate," "necessity."
Plutarch (V. Phocion), wonders how such a rough
and dull fellow as Phocion could be surnamed Chrestos.
XXX BCE/CE?
In the Travels of Dr. Clarke, inscription
[CHRESTOS PROTOS THESSALOS LARISSAIOS PELASGIOTES ETON IH];
or, "Chrestos, the first, a Thessalonian from Larissa,
Pelasgiot 18 years old Hero."
Dr. Clarke shows, the word Chrestos is found on the epitaphs of almost all
the ancient Larissians; but it is preceded always by a proper name.
=================
134 CE
Hadrian to Servianus, (Quoted by Giles, ii p86) :
"Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus,
I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent,
and continually wafted about by every breath of fame.
The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called 'Christians',
and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find),
call themselves 'Bishops of Christ'. "
The notable difference between the two words [chrao] --
"consulting or obtaining response from a god or oracle"
(chreo being the Ionic earlier form of it), and chrio
"to rub, to anoint" (from which the name Christos),
has not prevented the ecclesiastical adoption and coinage
from Philo's expression [Theochrestos]
of that other term [Theochristos] "anointed by God."
Thus the quiet substitution of the letter, [i] for [e]
for dogmatic purposes, was achieved in the easiest way,
as we now see.
In the esoteric phraseology of the temples "chrestos," (23)
a word which, like the participle chrestheis,
is formed under the same rule, and conveys the same sense --
from the verb [chraomai] ("to consult a god") --
answers to what we would call an adept, also a high chela,
a disciple. It is in this sense that it is used by
====================
some selections taken from Blavatsky.
====================
CHRISTI
Christian theology has chosen and decreed that the name Christos
should be taken as derived from [chrio, chriso],
"anointed with scented unguents or oil."
But this word has several significances.
It is used by Homer, certainly, as applied
to the rubbing with oil of the body after bathing
(Il. 23, 186; also in Od., 4, 252)
as other ancient writers do.
Yet the word Christes means rather a white-washer,
while the word Chrestes means priest and prophet,
a term far more applicable to Jesus, than that
of the "Anointed," since, as Nork shows on the authority
of the Gospels, he never was anointed, either as king or priest.
In short, there is a deep mystery underlying all this scheme,
which, as I maintain, only a thorough knowledge
of the Pagan mysteries is capable of unveiling. (24)
It is not what the early Fathers, who had an object to achieve,
may affirm or deny, that is the important point,
but rather what is now the evidence for the real significance
given to the two terms Chrestos and Christos
by the ancients in the pre-Christian ages.
For the latter had no object to achieve,
therefore nothing to conceal or disfigure,
and their evidence is naturally the more reliable of the two.
This evidence can be obtained by first studying
the meaning given to these words by the classics,
and then their correct significance
searched for in mystic symbology.
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/chj-chz.htm
TG Chrestos (Gr.).
The early Gnostic form of Christ.
It was used in the fifth century B.C.
by Aeschylus, Herodotus, and others.
The Manteumata pythochresta, or the "oracles
delivered by a Pythian god" through a pythoness,
are mentioned by the former (Choeph. 901).
Chresterion is not only "the seat of an oracle",
but an offering to, or for, the oracle.
Chrestes is one who explains oracles, "a prophet and soothsayer",
and Chresterios one who serves an oracle or a god.
The terms Christ and Christians,
spelt originally Chrest and Chrestians,
were borrowed from the Temple vocabulary of the Pagans.
Chrestos meant in that vocabulary
a disciple on probation,
a candidate for hierophantship.
When he had attained to this through initiation,
long trials, and suffering,
and had been "anointed"
(i.e., "rubbed with oil", as were Initiates
and even idols of the gods,
as the last touch
of ritualistic observance),
But the profane who knew only that Chrestes was
in some way connected with priest and prophet,
and knew nothing about the hidden meaning of Christos,
insisted, as did Lactantius and Justin Martyr,
on being called Chrestians instead of Christians.
Kenneth Mackenzie seemed to think
that the word Chrestos was a synonym of Soter,
"an appellation assigned to deities,
great kings and heroes," indicating "Saviour,"
-- and he was right.
Great divinities among all nations,
who are represented as expiatory or self-sacrificing,
have been designated by the same title." (R. M. Cyclop.)
The Asklepios (or Aesculapius) of the Greeks
had the title of Soter.
OG Christos -- (Greek) Christos or "Christ"
is a word literally signifying one who has been "anointed."
This is a direct reference, a direct allusion,
to what happened during the celebration of the ancient Mysteries.
Unction or anointing was one of the acts performed
during the working of the rites of those ancient Mysteries
in the countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea.
The Hebrew word for an anointed one is mashiahh --
"messiah" is a common way of misspelling the Hebrew word --
meaning exactly the same thing as the Greek word Christos.
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:bfKdnSdQbM-VNX_a...@rcn.net...
>>
>>>mountain man wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>The Constantine Bible which was published by Constantine
>>>>in the City of Constantine c.331 CE
>>>
>>>All false. There is no "Constantine Bible",
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Constantine+Bible&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
>>
>>
>> Results 1 - 100 of about 1,050 for "Constantine Bible". (0.28 seconds)
>
>
> Ah how funny!
The CONSTANTINE BIBLE:
The letter of Constantine via Socrates Scholistisus' History:
==============[QUOTE = Socrates Scholasticus]==============
Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to Eusebius of Caesarea.
In the city which derives its name from us, a very great multitude of
persons, through the assisting providence of our Saviour God, have united
themselves to the most holy Church, so that it has received much increase
there. It is therefore requisite that more churches should have conceived.
I have thought fit to intimate this to your prudence, that you should order
to be transcribed on well-prepared parchment, by competent writers
accurately acquainted with their art, fifty copies of the Sacred Scriptures
***, both legibly described, and of a portable size, the provision and use
of which you know to be needful for the instruction of the Church.
Letters have also been despatched from our clemency, to the financial agent
of the diocese that he be careful to provide all things necessary for the
preparation of them.
That these copies may be got ready as quickly as possible, let it be a task
for your diligence: and you are authorized, on the warrant of this our
letter, to use two of the public carriages for their conveyance: for thus
the copies which are most satisfactorily transcribed, may be early conveyed
for our inspection, one of the deacons of your church fulfilling this
commission; who when he has reached us shall experience our bounty.
============[end]====================
****
The CONSTANTINE BIBLE:
Are you about to make the claim that there are no academic treatments of
this above letter in which the **** fifty copies of the sacred scripture are
openly recognised as "the Constantine Bible"?
********************
The same mention in the History of Theodore:
===========[quote = Theodore]=========================
CONSTANTINUS AUGUSTUS, the great and the victorious, to Eusebius.
"In the city which bears our name, a great number of persons have, through
the providential care of God the Saviour, united themselves to the holy
Church. As all things there are in a state of rapid improvement, we deemed
it most important that an additional number of churches should be built.
Adopt joyfully the mode of procedure determined upon by us, which we have
thought expedient to make known to your prudence, namely, that you should
get written, on fine parchment, fifty volumes , easily legible and handy for
use; these you must have transcribed by skilled calligraphers, accurately
acquainted with their art. I mean, of course, copies of the Holy
Scriptures****, which, as you know, it is most necessary that the
congregation of the Church should both have and use. A letter has been sent
from our clemency to the catholicus of the diocese, in order that he may be
careful that everything necessary for the undertaking is supplied. The duty
devolving upon you is to take measures to ensure the completion of these
manuscripts within a short space of time. When they are finished, you are
authorised by this letter to order two public carriages for the purpose of
transmitting them to us; and thus the fair manuscripts will be easily
submitted to our inspection. Appoint one of the deacons of your church to
take charge of this part of the business; when he comes to us, he shall
receive proofs of our benevolence.
==========================
***** THE CONSTANTINE BIBLE.
These things Larry were PHYSICALLY PRODUCED.
Are you denying these fifty publications DID NOT HAPPEN?
mountain man
> I already provided a direct reference to the Oxyrynchus Papyrus catalog of
> the papyrus in question that has a firm date on it. You can't get much
> more authoritative than that. Here it is again:
> http://163.1.169.40/cgi-bin/library?e=q-000-00---0POxy--00-0-0--0prompt-10---4----ded--0-1l--1-en-50---20-about-4009--00031-001-1-0utfZz-8-00&a=d&c=POxy&cl=search&d=HASHbb02a1f5a5af81f65974e0
Who signed the PALEOGRAPHER's CERTIFICATE?
Who was the handwriting expert who provided the dating?
Only APOLOGISTS use paleography as FIRM dating.
The entire structure of early christianity rests on paleographical
assertions such as this. The thesis that the NT was written in
the fourth century, and that the NT apocrypha were written
immediately after the Constantine Canon by ascetic pagan
priests as sedition, polemic and parody is consistent with the
evidence that it before us.
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
> cannot be
>> considered as totally bound within the fourth century, appearing from
>> the year 324 CE. If you know of any evidence to refute the hypothesis
>> that the non canonic is fourth century pagan polemic in opposition to the
>> Constantine canonical cast of Jesus and the Apostles, what is it?
>
> The contents of the texts.
> The dates of some of the papyri
> That authors writing long before Constantine cite or refer to these
> texts (and it is up to you to PROVE that these authors wrote in the
> fourth century, not the second, or that they were invented in the fourth
> century....no evidence, no dice.
Who is the shadowy apocyphal author Leucius Charinus ?
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/non_canonical_literature.htm
"The canon is neither a total nor a random collection of early
Christian texts.
It is both deliberate and selective and it excludes just as surely as
it includes.
I would even say that you cannot understand what is included in the
canon
unless you understand what was excluded from it.
When the [extracanonical] gospels are played over against the four
canonical gospels,
both the products and the processes of those latter texts appear in a
radically different light."
- John Dominic Crossan, Prof. Religious Studies, DePaul Univ.
Contents of this Article
a.. Editorial Comments and Introduction
b.. Background Overviews of the Apocryphal New Testament literature
c.. The shadowy author Leucius Charinus (via Tertullian, via Eusebius, via
Photius)
d.. Comparitive review of scholarship on the "Leucian Acts"
e.. New Testament Non Canonical Christian Literature Index
f.. Eusebius on the Non Canonical Literature (H.E. 3.25)
g.. Old Testament Non Canonical Literature Index
Editorial Comments
Introduction
In other papers related to the thesis that Constantine invented
christianity in the fourth century, and implemented it in the Roman Empire
with effect from his military supremacist council of Nicaea, we have
emphasised that the field of this thesis is ancient history. An alternative
theory of the history of antiquity is being explored in which the christian
"Biblical History" was inserted into the political history of the Roman
Empire no earlier than the rise of Constantine.
As outlined in earlier articles, this thesis in the field of ancient
history is founded on one hypothesis - the Eusebian fiction postulate. In
this we postulate that Eusebius fraudulently misrepresented the natural
course of ancient history under instructions from Constantine. The Council
of Antioch and Nicaea represented turbulent boundary events in the history
of the Graeco-Roman civilisation. The priest and the philosophers at these
councils, and at The Assembly of the Saints, were non-christian saints and
priests of the Graeco-Roman traditions, notably among the milieu, the
priesthood of the temples of "The Healing god Asclepius (/Imhotep). Our
thesis is that the only "christian" saints and bishops in attendance at
these councils, were part of Constantine's retinue. As Smedley Butler keenly
perceived, "War is Racket". Constantine, Pontifex Maximus, Warlord,
Commander of the Armies of the West, and the Armies of the North, and the
Armies of the South, and finally Commander of the East. Supreme imperial
mafia thug.
The Place of the New Testament Apocrypha
In this article is presented an index of the so-called "Non Canonical"
Christian literature. The term "Non Canonical" means that the texts were not
considered "Canonical". The "Canonical Texts" were published for the first
time by Constantine, sometime near 330 CE. At this stage they were published
lavishly and without expense. Our contention here is to suggest that the
"Non Canonical Texts" (especially the Acts) are non-christian polemic and
reaction to the authority of the Constantine Bible.
In fact, it is appropriate to use the term "Constantinian" instead of
the term "Canonical", and the term "Non Constantinian" instead of the term
"Non Canonical". Constantine published the canonical. There is immediate
reaction, polemic, satire and parody then published, or perhaps sung ---
such as the "Songs of Arius". It is presently conjectured that the authors
of the "Non Constantinian" christian texts were ascetic priests, possibly of
Asclepius, whom were dispossessed of their temples, shrines and asclepia by
the initiative of Constantine, under the guise of his 324 CE edict for the
prohibition of sacrifice.
Our thesis is that there will not be found any christian text older that
the year 312 CE. Implicate in the thesis is that the dating of the christian
"non-canonical texts" rests between 325-390 CE, on the basis that much of
the entire genre of non-canonical "Acts" is simply a polemical reaction to
the authority of the Constantine Bible.
Commonly referred to as a textual critics' nightmare, it would appear
that non canonical evidence is sitting in the too hard basket of all the
parties involved, especially the mainstream, and inclusive of the radicals.
Everyone has been wearing the "Canon Blinkers" since that is the area to
which the scholarship, tenure, and big bucks have traditionally been
applied. The non canonical christian literature is like a poor and distant
relative, waiting in the wings for a small and brief mention in the grand
scheme of the illumination of Constantine's Canon.
For the politically minded think "SEDITION"
My explanation of the non canonical is again very simple. The
Egypto-Hellenic priesthoods of the Eastern Empire objected to the new god of
the Pontifex Maximus: Arius of Alexander was the focal point of the
resistance. He wrote bitter and stinging polemic against Constantine's
initiatives. When we read the christian ecclesiastical histories written by
the christian regime victors, the pagans are presented as "christian
heretics". The pagans need to be understood as Gnostic seditionists. These
guys were invariably ascetic priests, in the same sense as the Indian
ascetic adepts and masters. Their "Gnosis" was the ascetic gnosis -- based
on the notion of the embodied soul and independent of any worldly religion
or creed.
The non canonical christian literature is a minefield waiting to explode
in the field of ancient history. The single and prime cause of all our
problems is the chronology. We have been led astray (since 325 CE) by a
Eusebian pseudo-history. When it finally occurs to textual critics of the
non canonical literature (and especially the Apocryphal Acts) they they are
looking at a seditious polemic against Constantine's Canon, they will begin
to understand the "big picture" and the political nature of the new
testament literature. The explosion of archaeological and literary evidence
for christianity in the fourth century has always assumed that the fuse to
this explosion was in fact lit in the first century. However it is the
thesis here that in fact the fuse was lit in the fourth century.
In the following section a selection of summaries are presented on the
nature of the non canonical NT literature by a range of different authors,
and their respective source copyright is here duly acknowledged. It should
be noted by readers that I have preserved these comments intact below, even
though the chronology supplied in all instances does not correspond the
chronology that this thesis is suggesting. The comments have been collated
and summarised in order to perceive the common patterns evident in this
genre of literature. It should therefore be clearly noted by readers that
the thesis will be arguing for a basis of the chronology of the authorship
of the new testament Apocrypha to the period from 324 CE for the next one
hundred years (ie: the apocryphal chronology is between 325-425 CE) as a
political seditious action triggered by the Constantine Canon. Consequently,
all references to the chronology supplied below by other authors should be
treated as their opinion.
Constantine Fights the Sedition of Arius
Constantine sent to Arius c.333 CE: A VERY NASTY "Dear Arius Where Are
you?" Letter. One cannot understand the political tension extant between
Constantine and Arius without having examined this particularly nasty letter
issued by the former.
The apocypha is pagan fiction, written by an ascetic priesthood
dispossed of and prohibited from its ancient temple heritage. The chronology
of the two sets (Canon and Non Canon) are related by the event of
Constantine's (Pontifex Maximus') publication of Canon. The writings of the
new God were now subject to polemic. It was sedition! The majesty of the
emperor was furious.
Arius! Dear Arius! Where are you Arius?
Come out! Come out! Wherever you are!
Why do you write such bitter and twisted
truly weird stories about my man Jesus?
Arius! Catch the nearest chariot!
Come to me. Come to The City of Constantine
so that we can talk face to face.
You wasted and bitterly stinging ascetic
and academic priest of the people.
Arius, in hiding, and his followers generations after maintained the
following polemic, previously regarded as theologically heretical, but here
regarded as politically seditious against Constantine's man Jesus, whom they
had never before heard of, and whom they opposed by following the lead
provided by the words of Arius - that Constantine's New Testament was an
historical fiction:
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.
But what else did the ascetic (pagan) "Gnostic" priesthood write, before
the state religion of christianity at the end of the fourth century
destroyed its opposition by means of extreme intolerance and the persecution
of non christians? (See 1: a summary of Vlasis Rassias; and 2: Knowledge
Burning)
Background Overview comments on the
NON-CANONICAL New Testament Literature
Article (1): THE NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA - Richard Bauckham
Terminology and definition
There are two traditional terms for this body of literature: the
Apocryphal NT, the title of English collections (Hone 1820, James 1924,
Elliott 1993; cf. Sparks' Apocryphal OT), and the NT Apocrypha, title of the
German collections and their English translations (since the first edition
of Hennecke, 1904).There are several problems with this terminology:
(1) The term 'NT Apocrypha' might suggest a fixed collection of texts,
like the OT apocrypha (= deutero-canonical works), whereas in fact we are
dealing with a very open category, potentially inclusive of a very large
number of works.
(2) Either term might suggest that the works in question were in some
sense candidates for inclusion in the NT canon and at some point in the
process of the formation of the NT canon were excluded. This would be very
misleading. Only three of these works (Apocalypse of Peter, Acts of Paul,
Gospel of the Hebrews) were ever listed among the 'disputed' books
(antilegomena) which some treated as canonical (reading them as
authoritative Scripture in Christian worship). Many which were written
before and during the process of canonization are treated by later authors
as 'rejected' (apocryphal) works, but for various reasons were complete
non-starters, never seriously considered candidates for canonical status.
Many more were written during and after the completion of the canon, not as
potentially canonical works or as rivals to the canonical books, but as
works functioning to supplement the canon.
(3) The term 'apocrypha,' which came to be used by the Fathers in the
sense of 'spurious' or 'rejected' books, suggests literature that was
rejected and suppressed in mainstream Christianity. This is true only of
some of these works, to a greater or lesser degree, and differently in
different periods. The Gnostic works were those first called 'apocrypha' and
were vehemently rejected in mainstream Christianity from the second century.
But many of the so-called NT apocrypha were not doctrinally unorthodox. Some
of these were officially rejected but remained popular in practice. Such
works continued to be written by orthodox Chtristians into the early middle
ages, and some of the NT apocrypha were extremely popular throughout the
middle ages, not suppressed, but not treated as authoritative in the
canonical sense (e.g. the infancy Gospels and the apocalypses that revealed
the fate of the dead in the afterlife). So the status of these works varies
enormously, from those used only by heretics to those used widely by the
orthodox, and with varying kinds of authority or usefulness for those who
read them.
(4) If the terms 'Apocryphal NT' and 'NT Apocrypha' should not be
understood as implying candidature for and exclusion from the NT canon, what
kind of relationship to the NT is envisaged? By classifying the apocryphal
literature as Gospels, Acts, Epistles, Apocalypses, the collections suggest
that these are works in the same genres as those of the NT texts, and that
we are dealing with the same kind of literature that we find in the NT. In
fact, this is the case with only quite a small minority of the texts called
NT Apocrypha. Most of the apocryphal Gospels are not comparable in literary
genre with the canonical Gospels; the apocryphal Acts of Apostles resemble
the canonical Acts in some ways, but also differ sufficiently to constitute
a different literary genre; by contrast with the NT, there are very few
apocryphal Epistles; and the apocryphal Apocalypses are mostly more like
Jewish apocalypses than like the NT Apocalypse of John. Literary genre is
not a satisfactory way of defining the way these texts relate to the NT. I
suggest rather: the works in question are either attributed to or about NT
characters.
(5) The terms 'Apocryphal NT' and 'NT Apocrypha' cannot, of course,
cover works which are either attributed to or about *OT* characters.
Christians did write such works (mostly apocalypses, but also narrative
works), as well as editing Jewish works of this kind. Such works are
included, if anywhere, in editions of the OT Pseudepigrapha. This is
potentially misleading, because it suggests that the OT Pseudepigrapha are
Jewish and the NT Apocrypha Christian. It is especially misleading if a
collection of OT Pseudepigrapha takes (Charlesworth's OTP does) as a
criterion of inclusion that a work must preserve Jewish traditions, even if
in Christian redaction. This means that Christian OT Pseudepigrapha fall
between the two stools, and that the examples that do occur, e.g., in
Charlesworth's OTP are usually studied only for the sake of their possible
Jewish substratum or contents. (Moreover, if we are looking for early Jewish
traditions in Christian works, I think we are as likely to find them in the
Apocalypse of Peter or the Apocalypse of Paul, as we are in the Ascension of
Isaiah or the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah.) Most scholarship on the OT
Pseudepigrapha has been interested in them as Jewish literature, so that
those which are originally Christian or the Christian redaction of others
have been seriously neglected. Responding to these problems the CCSA
includes both 'NT Apocrypha' and 'Christian OT Pseudepigrapha,' refusing
artificial distinctions between them, and prefers the term 'Christian
apocrypha' for the whole corpus of literature.
(Summary of a Lecture by Richard Bauckham (Professor of New Testament at
the University of St. Andrews) on 5 May 1999)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article (2a): The Thirteenth Apostle - the Gospel of Judas as a PARODY -
by April DeConick
The Gospel of Judas as a parody
In The Thirteenth Apostle April DeConick offers a new translation of the
Gospel of Judas which seriously challenges the National Geographic
interpretation of a good Judas. April DeConick contends that the Gospel of
Judas is not about a "good" Judas, or even a "poor old" Judas. It is a
gospel parody about a "demon" Judas written by a particular group of Gnostic
Christians - the Sethians. Whilst many other leading scholars have toed the
National Geographic line, Professor DeConick is the first leading scholar to
challenge this 'official' version. In doing so, she is sure to inspire the
fresh debate around this most infamous of biblical figures.
Article (2b): Do non-canonical texts make you uneasy? - Tony
Chartand-Burke, via April DeConick
Why non-canonical texts are useful according to Tony Chartrand-Burke
Tony Chartrand-Burke of Apocryphicity has put up a terrific post on the
questions we have been discussing the last couple of days. His post is
called, Do non-canonical texts make you uneasy? I am in 100% agreement with
what he says. If you want to read the entire post (and it is worthwhile to
do so) click here. I copy some of his main (and well articulated) points
below as an applause and a "second." Tony Chartand-Burke says:
My approach to the CA in my research and teaching is guided by
several principles:
a.. All Christian literature, canonical and noncanonical, are
created equal-i.e., they are all expressions of Christian thought of one
flavour or another. Whether the group that values the text is in the
majority or the minority at any given time is irrelevant.
b.. All Christian literature, canonical and noncanonical, and all
Christian groups, orthodox or heretical, are similarly equal. As scholars
and historians we should not favor one or the other simply because we find
their theology, practices, etc. attractive to us.
c.. All Christian literature, canonical and noncanonical, are the
products of authors who felt no hesitation in altering the facts (or better:
their sources) to suit their needs (be they theological, christological,
social, or political). A text's canonical status is no guarantee of
historical accuracy.
d.. All that said, Christian texts do not have the same utility. The
Synoptic Gospels and the letters of Paul remain our best sources for the
Historical Jesus and the emerging Jesus movement. Simply put, they are
earlier and closer in perspective to the Palestinian Jewish milieu from
which the group emerged. Certain later texts may contain echoes of the
interests of first century groups (e.g., Ps.-Clement and the Ebionites) but
one must use these with caution when trying to reconstruct the views of
their ancestors. I suspect these principles are not particularly radical.
Nevertheless, they might be a useful corrective to the portrayal of CA
scholars by Christian apologetic writers. In their view we are all modern
Gnostics attempting to replace canonical gospels with noncanonical texts,
texts that we all believe to be earlier and better than the "Big Four." Some
even say we are influenced by the "powers of darkness." The apologists may
find such invective useful for warning naďve Christians away from the CA,
but it has no place in scholarly debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article (3): NT Apocryphal Acts - notes of Dr. Cranford, Gardner-Webb
University
Interpreting the New Testament documents
In the canonical New Testament one finds the Acts of the Apostles as the
lone example of the early history of the Christian movement. Additional
writings in this genre intended to supplement and expand the information
found in the canonical NT document. These documents include the Acts of
Peter, the Acts of John, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Andrew, the Acts of
Thomas, and the Acts of Pilate, which are generally considered as the more
important of these documents. For the English translation texts of 25 of
these documents see the Non-Canonical homepage. Many of the early church
traditions about the activities of the original twelve apostles have their
origin in these documents.
The historical reliability of the data in these documents is not very
great, and thus what is said about the activities of the apostles is seldom
to be taken seriously. But, they do serve to help the modern Bible student
better understand how these first century Christian leaders were viewed in
subsequent centuries. Encyclopedia Britannica article states the questions
well:
"The various acts, close in form and content to the contemporary
Hellenistic romances, turned the apostolic drama into melodrama and
satisfied the popular taste for stories of travel and adventure, as well as
for a kind of asceticism that was generally rejected by Christian leaders:
a.. Andrew (including the Acts of Andrew and Matthias Among the
Cannibals),
b.. Barnabas (a companion of St. Paul),
c.. Bartholomew,
d.. John (with semi-Gnostic traits),
e.. Paul (including the Acts of Paul and Thecla, with a Christian
version of the story of Androcles and the lion),
f.. Peter-with the apostle's question to the risen Lord, "Lord, where
are you going?" ("Domine, quo vadis?") and Peter's crucifixion upside down,
g.. Philip,
h.. Thaddaeus (his conversion of a king of Edessa), and
i.. Thomas (with the Gnostic "Hymn of the Pearl")."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article (4): Apocryphal Acts Homepage - István Czachesz, Helsinki
Collegium for Advanced Studies
Introduction (and Online Resources to the Apocyphal Acts
The Apocryphal Acts are anonymous works that report the deeds and
teachings of individual apostles. The so-called five "major" acts are the
Acts of Paul, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of John, the Acts of Andrew, and
the Acts of Thomas. Most of them were written in the second century. The
later Acts date from the third to fifth centuries, when the genre gradually
merged with hagiography. Although biblical scholars and church historians
have paid attention to the Apocryphal Acts since the nineteenth century,
many important issues are still open to discussion. They include the
reconstruction of the texts, the dating of many Acts, their relation to the
canonical Acts, the ancient novels, and the philosophers' biographies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article (5): The Revolt of the Widows: The Social World of the Apocryphal
Acts - by Stevan L. Davies
Editorial Review No child of this century, women's liberation existed as
a Christian movement in the 2nd century. In this first study of the social
context that produced the Apocryphal Acts, Stevan L. Davies contends that
women wrote the Acts and that the "Acts appear to have been a striving by
Christian women for both a mode of self-expression and a way to preach
rebellion for the sake of sexual continence." These early rebels-called
widows because they left their husbands for the church-refused absolute
subservience to the male hierarchy of the church. The three parts of
Davies's
study include an investigation of the magical world view of late
2nd-century Christendom; a close look at the people the Acts describe as
new Christian converts; and a summary and analysis of the nature of the
authors of the Acts. These women, like their sisters today, were seeking
equal standing with men in the Christian church. (Stevan L. Davies is in the
Department of Religious Studies at College Misericordia, Dallas,
Pennsylvania.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article (6): A selection of brief quotations on the NT Apocrypha
Robert M. Grant: Historian ... Aside from the twenty-seven books in the
canon, no other literature has anything of value to say about Christian
origins and the earliest Christian movement." A Historical Introduction to
the New Testament (1963)
J. Quasten: scholar of early Christian literature (Patrology, 1990)
quotes M.R. James saying: "People may still be heard to say, 'After all,
these Apocryphal Gospels and Acts, as you call them, are just as interesting
as the old ones. It was only by accident or caprice that they were not put
into the New Testament'. The best answer (...) has always been, and is now,
to produce the writings and let them tell their own story. It will very
quickly be seen that there is no question of anyone's having excluded them
from the New Testament: they have done that for themselves.
Bart Ehrman: "The victors in the struggles to establish Christian
Orthodoxy not only won their theological battles, they also rewrote the
history of the conflict; later readers then naturally assumed that the
victorious views had been embraced by the vast majority of Christians from
the very beginning ... The practice of Christian forgery has a long and
distinguished history ... the debate lasted three hundred years ... even
within "orthodox" circles there was considerable debate concerning which
books to include." - Lost Christianities, Bart Ehrman.
The Shadowy Leucius Charinus and his "Leucian Acts"
The Shadowy Leucius Charinus
Leucius, called Leucius Charinus by the Patriarch Photios I of
Constantinople in the ninth century, is the name applied to a cycle of what
M. R. James termed "Apostolic romances"[1] that seem to have had wide
currency long before a selection were read aloud at the Second Council of
Nicaea (787) and rejected. Leucius is not among the early heretical teachers
mentioned by name in Irenaeus' Adversus haereses (ca. 180), but wonder tales
of miraculous Acts in some form were already in circulation in the second
century.[2] None of the surviving manuscripts are as early as that.
The fullest account of Leucius is that given by Photius (Codex 114), who
describes a book, called The Circuits of the Apostles, which contained the
Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, that was purported to have
been written by "Leucius Charinus" which he judged full of folly,
self-contradiction, falsehood, and impiety (Wace); Photius is the only
source to give his second name, "Charinus". Epiphanius (Haer. 51.427) made
of Leucius a disciple of John who joined his master in opposing the
Ebionites, a characterization that appears unlikely, since other patristic
writers agree that the cycle attributed to him was Docetist, denying the
humanity of Christ. Augustine knew the cycle, which he attributed to
"Leutius", which his adversary Faustus thought had been wrongly excluded
from the New Testament canon by the Catholics. Gregory of Tours found a copy
of the Acts of Andrew from the cycle and made an epitome of it, omitting the
"tiresome" elaborations of detail he found in it.
The "Leucian Acts" are as follows:
a.. The Acts of John
b.. The Acts of Peter
c.. The Acts of Paul
d.. The Acts of Andrew
e.. The Acts of Thomas
The Leucian Acts were most likely redacted at a later date to express a
more orthodox view. Of the five, the Acts of John and Thomas have the most
remaining Gnostic content.
Notes: [1] M.R. James, introduction to the Acts of Andrew,
The Apocryphal New Testament Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924.
[2] See Acts of Paul and Thecla.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of the "Leucian Acts" - Paul N. Tobin (Rejection of Pascal's
Wager).
Brief Overview Summary of the "Leucian Acts"
During the period spanning roughly 150-250 CE, five apocryphal acts were
written. These were The Acts of Peter, The Acts of John, The Acts of Andrew,
The Acts of Thomas and The Acts of Paul. These are all works written chiefly
to entertain, to instruct and to spread Christian propaganda. Very little in
these works can be considered historical. [21]
The Acts of Peter is preserved today only in scattered fragments in
various languages. That the work is largely a fictional invention can be
seen from its obsession with virginity and morbid hatred of sex-a trend that
was developing during the time it was written. However it does seem to
preserve some authentic tradition of Peter's martyrdom in Rome. According to
this work, Peter was crucified on an upside down cross during the
persecution of Nero. [22]
The Acts of John is of little historical value since it confused the
John the seer of Revelation with the apostle John. [23] John the son of
Zebedee is some sort of an enigma. Tradition from late second century
(Ireneaus [c130-c200] and Clement of Alexandria [c150-c215]) asserted that
John died in Ephesus during the reign of Trajan which would put his death
around the year 98 to 117. [24] There is an alternate tradition however,
that placed his death very early; stating that he was martyred, together
with his brother James, in 44 CE. [25]
The Acts of Andrew is another work of Christian fiction. It story of
Andrew's martyrdom in Patras Greece is generally considered unhistorical.
The tradition that he was crucified on an X-shaped cross (St. Andrew's
Cross) is based on an even later tradition; around the thirteenth century.
[26]
The Acts of Thomas narrates the story of Thomas' mission to India. Some
scholars, about a century ago, argued for this historicity of this Acts due
to mention of an actual Indian King, Gundaphorus in the work. [27] However
this view is no longer held today. The presence of the reference to actual
historical personae is due to the fact that during the time the Acts of
Thomas was written, there was a lively commercial and cultural exchange
between Edessa, where the Acts was composed, and India. Thus there was ample
opportunity for the author to pick up historical details to weave into his
narrative. [28] One of the main reason why the Acts of Thomas is considered
unhistorical is due to the presence of late Gnostic, Mandean and Manichean
influence in the work. [29] [e]
Eusebius: It should be recalled that Eusebius (c260-c340) was the
ecclesiastical historian of early Christianity. He had access to the vast
library of early Christian works at Caesarea which he cited and quoted
extensively in this book. Yet when it comes to the subsequent career of the
apostles, all he could muster was the same four names as the apocryphal
Acts: Thomas, Andrew, John and Peter! Furthermore he gave no indication that
his list was incomplete or that it was merely an excerpt. [30]
Subsequent Apocryphal literature: After the publication of these five
apocryphal Acts, the next generations of Christian hagiographers concocted
even more grotesque and less believable Acts. There were Acts of Philip,
Acts of Peter and Andrew, The Martyrdom of Matthew, The Acts of Andrew and
Bartholomew and so on. Schneelmacher's New Testament Apocrypha Volume II l
isted forty of such works. These works were mainly expansions of the
original five apocryphal Acts with no historical value. [31] Needless to
say, the traditions regarding the later ministries of the "shadowy" apostles
are late and extremely unreliable. For instance, the apostle Matthew was
supposed to have been martyred (according to different traditions) in
Ethiopia, Persia and Pontus! [32] Like Matthew, Bartholomew also managed to
die multiple deaths of martyrdom. He was supposed to have been martyred in
India and in Armenia. Contradictory, late and unreliable traditions exist
about all the apostles. [33] History knows nothing about them.
NOTES:
21. Goodspeed, op. cit: p146, 163 Scneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha Vol
II: p78-83
22. Goodspeed, op. cit.: p157 Perkins, Peter, Apostle for the Whole Church:
p141-144
Riedel et.al., The Book of the Bible: p431
23. Goodspeed, op. cit.: p152
24. Eusebius: History of the Church: 3:23 & notes p380
25. Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p152
26. Eusebius: History of the Church: notes p344
Livingstone, Dictionary of the Christian Church: p20
Riedel et.al., The Book of the Bible: p433
27. Streeter, The Primitive Church: p29-30
28. Scneemelcher, op. cit: p325
29. Goodspeed, op. cit.: p158
30. Scneemelcher, op. cit.: p19
31. Goodspeed, op. cit.: p163-164 Scneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha Vol
II: p426
32. Riedel, op. cit.: p437
33. Brownrigg op. cit: 42 Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity: p168
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparitive review of scholarship on the "Leucian Acts"
Acts of John
István Czachesz: Recent opinions about the date and provenance of the
Acts of John largely differ. Junod and Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, pp. 692ff and
Histoire, p. 4, suggest the second half of the second century in Egypt;
Schäferdiek, "Acts of John", pp. 166f, the first half of the third century
in East Syria; Lalleman, Acts of John, pp. 244-70, the second quarter of the
second century in Asia Minor. Recently Bremmer,"Apocryphal Acts" (Printed
Resources ), pp. 158f, confirmed Asia Minor as a place of origin and
suggested c. 150 as the date of writing (pp. 153f). Cf. Czachesz, Apostolic
Commission, pp. 117f. Chapters 94-102 and 109 probably were added later, cf.
Junod and Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, pp. 700ff and Histoire , p. 4; Lalleman,
Acts of John, pp. 59-66 and 266ff; Luttikhuizen, "Gnostic Reading". For the
reconstruction of the text, see Czachesz, Apostolic Commission, pp. 91-96.
Geoff Trowbridge: The Acts of John (c. 150-200 C.E.) were once believed
to be the earliest of the Apocryphal Acts, though much of its gnostic
idealogy is not found in the other acts (except Thomas). Many scholars
believe the blatantly gnostic and/or docetic chapters (94-102 and 109) are a
later addition. The original author is traditionally believed to be Leucius
Charinus, a companion of John who was later associated with the Manichaeans.
The book tells of John's two journeys to Ephesus, during which he performs
several ressurections and converts the followers of Artemis after destroying
their temple. The book also includes the "Hymn of Christ," used in a modern
musical work by Gustav Holst. Like the Johannine gospel, the Christology of
the Acts shows some Hellenistic influence. Because the Acts of John were
condemned particularly early in their history, all the surviving texts are
fragmentary. The earliest manuscripts are Greek, though many Latin texts
show later developments and may have suffered from Catholic attempts to
purge the unorthodox passages.
Glenn Davis: Acts of John (Ephesus, 150-200 CE) purports to give an
eyewitness account of the missionary work of the apostle John in and around
Ephesus; it may therefore be of Ephesian provenance. It probably dates to
the 2nd half of the 2nd century. Although no complete text is extant, we
have considerable portions in Greek and in Latin. The Stichometry of
Nicephorus gives its length as 2500 lines, the same number as for the Gospel
according to Matthew. An English translation is in [Schneemelcher] v. 2 pp.
172-212. The author of the Acts of John, said to be Leucius, a real or
fictitious companion of the apostle John, narrates his miracles, sermons,
and death. The sermons display unmistakable Docetic tendencies, especially
in the description of Jesus and the immateriality of his body:
.... Sometimes when I meant to touch him [Jesus], I met with a
material and solid body; but at other times when I felt him, his substance
was immaterial and incorporeal, as if it did not exist at all ... And I
often wished, as I walked with him, to see his footprint, whether it
appeared on the ground (for I saw him as it were raised up from the earth),
and I never saw it. (§ 93)
The author also relates that Jesus was constantly changing shape,
appearing sometimes as a small boy, sometimes as a beautiful man; sometimes
bald-headed with a long beard, sometimes as a youth with a pubescent beard
(§ 87-89). The book includes a long hymn (§ 94-96), which no doubt was once
used as a liturgical song (with response) in some Johannine communities.
Before he goes to die, Jesus gathers his apostles in a circle, and, while
holding one another's hands as they circle in a dance around him, he sings a
hymn to the Father. The terminology of the hymn is closely related to that
of the Johannine Gospel, especially its prologue. At the same time, the
author gives the whole a Docetic cast. Besides presenting
theologically-oriented teaching, the author knows how to spin strange and
entertaining stories. There is for example, the lengthy account of the
devout Drusiana and her ardent lover Callimachus in a sepulchre (§ 63-86),
which was no doubt intended to provide Christians with an alternative to the
widely-read libidinous story of the Ephesian widow and the guard at her late
husband's tomb. For a lighter touch the author entertains his readers with
the droll incident of the bedbugs (§ 60-61). Although the Acts of John is
without importance for the historical Jesus and the apostle John, it is
nevertheless valuable for tracing the development of popular Christianity.
It is, for example, the oldest source recording the celebration of the
Eucharist for the dead (§ 72). The Acts of John may have been composed by a
member of the Hellenistic cultivated classes, who drew upon various literary
genuses and in so doing, without any specific attachment to a concrete
community, sought to propagate a Christianity as he understood it, as the
expression of certain aspirations of a philosophical attitude to the world
which he had held even before his conversion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts of Peter
Geoff Trowbridge: The Acts Of Peter (c. 150-200 C.E.) are generally
regarded as the first of the apocryphal Acts, though scholars have
previously argued for priority of John's or occasionally Paul's Acts. Modern
scholarship tends to agree that Paul uses Peter, while Peter and John share
a common origin. Authorship has thus been credited to Leucius, the companion
of John who is also credited with the Acts of John. The surviving
manuscripts are a long Latin text from Vercelli dating to the sixth century
which comprises most of the Acts, and an earlier Greek text containing only
the martyrdom, from which we derive the tradition that Peter was crucified
upside-down. There are also secondary texts which contain parallel stories
on the rather unpleasant theme of women welcoming paralysis rather than
defiling their bodies with sexual relations. In a Coptic text included with
the Nag Hammadi library, the female in question is Peter's daughter.
Ironically, despite these encratite views of sex and marriage, much of the
Acts of Peter are spent denouncing the gnostic teacher Simon Magus who
undoubtedly shared the same views. The Acts of Peter were judged as
heretical by Eusebius and the Gelasian Decree. Peter performs many miracles
in the Acts, from talking dogs and infants to the resurrection of both
people and smoked fish. Rome is the primary setting, and possibly the place
of authorship.
M.R. James: From "The Apocryphal New Testament", Translation and Notes,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924. Written, probably by a resident in Asia Minor
(he does not know much about Rome), not later than A. D. 200, in Greek. The
author has read the Acts of John very carefully, and modelled his language
upon them. However, he was not so unorthodox as Leucius, though his language
about the Person of our Lord (ch. xx) has rather suspicious resemblances to
that of the Acts of John. The length of the book as given by the Stichometry
of Nicephorus was 2,750 lines-fifty lines less than the canonical Acts. The
portions we have may be about the length of St. Mark's Gospel; and about
1,000 lines may be wanting. Such is Zaha's estimate. We have:
a.. 1. A short episode in Coptic. - This is preserved separately in an
early papyrus manuscript (fourth-fifth century) now at Berlin; the other
contents of it are Gnostic writings which have not yet been published. I
follow C. Schmidt's rendering of it. It has a title at the end: The Act of
Peter. See the separate article The Act of Peter.
b.. 2. A large portion in Latin preserved in a single manuscript of
the seventh century at Vercelli: often called the Vercelli Acts. It includes
the martyrdom.
c.. 3. The martyrdom, preserved separately, in two good Greek copies,
in Latin, and in many versions-Coptic, Slavonic, Syriac, Armenian, Arabic,
Ethiopic.
d.. 4. One or two important quotations from lost portions; a small
fragment of the original in a papyrus; certain passages-speeches of Peter-
transferred by an unscrupulous writer to the Life of St. Abercius of
Hierapolis.
e.. 5. A Latin paraphrase of the martyrdom, attributed to Linus,
Peter's successor in the bishopric of Rome, was made from the Greek, and is
occasionally useful.
Robert F. Stoops: writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 267):
One of the earliest of the apocryphal acts of the apostles, the Acts of
Peter reports a miracle contest between Simon Magus and the apostle Peter in
Rome. It concludes with Peter's martyrdom. The Acts of Peter was originally
composed in Greek during the second half of the 2d century, probably in Asia
Minor. The majority of the text has survived only in the Latin translation
of the Vercelli manuscript. The concluding chapters are preserved separately
as the Martyrdom of Peter in three Greek manuscripts and in Coptic
(fragmentary), Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian, and Slavonic versions.
Wikipedia: One of the earliest of the apocryphal acts of the apostles,
the Acts of Peter reports a miracle contest between Simon Magus and the
apostle Simon Peter in Rome. The majority of the text has survived only in
the Latin translation of the Vercelli manuscript. The Acts of Peter was
originally composed in Greek during the second half of the 2nd century,
probably in Asia Minor. Consensus amongst academics points to it being based
on the Acts of John, and traditionally both that and this work were said to
be written by Leucius Charinus, whom Epiphanius identifies as the companion
of John. In the text Peter performs miracles such as resurrecting smoked
fish, and making dogs talk. The text condemns Simon Magus, a senior figure
associated with gnosticism, who appears to have concerned the writer of the
text greatly. Some versions give accounts of stories on the theme of a
woman/women who prefer paralysis to sex, sometimes, including in a version
from the Berlin Codex, the woman is the daughter of Peter. It concludes
describing Peter's martyrdom as upside-down crucifixion, a tradition that is
first attested in this work. These concluding chapters are preserved
separately as the Martyrdom of Peter in three Greek manuscripts and in
Coptic (fragmentary), Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian, and Slavonic
versions. Because of this, it is sometimes proposed that the martyrdom
account was the original text to which the preceding chapters were affixed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts of Paul
Glenn Davis: The Acts of Paul (Asia Minor, 185-195 CE) is a romance that
makes arbitrary use of the canonical Acts and the Pauline Epistles. Many
manuscripts have survived, there is an English translation in
[Schneemelcher] v. 2 pp. 237-265, but there is not yet a critical edition.
The canon list in the 6th century codex Claromontanus includes it with an
indication that it contains 3560 lines, somewhat longer than the canonical
Acts with 2600 lines. The author, so Tertullian tells us, was a cleric who
lived in the Roman province of Asia in the western part of Asia Minor, and
who composed the book about 170 CE with the avowed intent of doing honor to
the Apostle Paul. Although well-intentioned, the author was brought up for
trial by his peers and, being convicted of falsifying the facts, was
dismissed from his office. But his book, though condemned by ecclesiastical
leaders, achieved considerable popularity among the laity. Certain episodes
in the Acts of Paul, such as the 'Journeys of Paul and Thecla', exist in a
number of Greek manuscripts and in half a dozen ancient versions. Thecla was
a noble-born virgin from Iconium and an enthusiastic follower of the
Apostle; she preached like a missionary and administered baptism. It was the
administration of baptism by a woman that scandalized Tertullian and led him
to condemn the entire book. In this section we find a description of the
physical appearance of Paul:
A man small in size, with a bald head and crooked legs; in good
health; with eyebrows that met and a rather prominent nose; full of grace,
for sometimes he looked like a man and sometimes he looked like an angel.
Another episode concerns the Apostle and the baptized lion. Although
previously known from allusions to it in patristic writers, it was not until
1936 that the complete text was made available from a recently discovered
Greek papyrus. Probably the imaginative writer had read Paul's rhetorical
question: 'What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with the wild
beasts at Ephesus?' (I Cor. 15:32). Wishing to supply details to supplement
this allusion, the author supplies a thrilling account of the intrepid
apostle's experience at Ephesus. Interest is added when the reader learns
that some time earlier in the wilds of the countryside Paul had preached to
that very lion and, on its profession of faith, had baptized it. It is not
surprising that the outcome of the confrontation in the amphitheater was the
miraculous release of the apostle.
Geoff Trowbridge: The Acts Of Paul (c. 150-200 C.E.) were by far the
most popular of the apocryphal acts, spawning a great deal of Christian art
and secondary literature, as well as a cult which venerated Thecla, the
young girl who accompanies Paul on his missionary journeys. The Acts were
considered orthodox by Hippolytus, as well as other writers as late as the
mid-fourth century, but were eventually rejected by the church when
heretical groups like the Manichaeans began to adopt them. Still, some late
Greek texts of the Epistles to Timothy contain alternate passages that
appear to be derived from the Acts. The Acts of Paul were often coupled with
the Third Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, which was regarded as
authentically Pauline by the Syrian and Armenian churches. Originally a
separate work, it was likely written around the time of the pastoral
epistles and conjoined with the later Acts only after it had been excluded
from most Pauline collections. The letter was written primarily to combat
Gnostic and Marcionite doctrine which utilized other Pauline works for
anti-semitic means. This epistle has survived in several extant manuscripts,
as have the stories of Thecla and the account of Paul's beheading in Rome;
the remainder of the Acts exist only in fragmentary Greek texts from the
third century, and Coptic texts from the fifth. The author, who is unknown,
does not appear to show any dependence upon the canonical Acts, instead
utilizing other oral traditions of Paul's preaching and missionary work. He
likely wrote in Asia Minor near the end of the second century.
Philip Sellew (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 202) writes: A
2nd-century Christian writing recounting the missionary career and death of
the apostle Paul and classed among the NT Apocrypha. In this work Paul is
pictured as traveling from city to city, converting gentiles and proclaiming
the need for a life of sexual abstinence and other encratite practices.
Though ancient evidence suggests that the Acts of Paul was a relatively
lengthy work (3600 lines according to the Stichometry of Nicephorus), only
about two-thirds of that amount still survives. Individual sections were
transmitted separately by the medieval manuscript tradition (Lipsius 1891),
most importantly by the Acts of Paul and Thekla and the Martyrdom of Paul,
both extant in the original Greek and several ancient translations.
Manuscript discoveries in the last century have added considerable
additional material. The most important of these include a Greek papyrus of
the late 3d century, now at Hamburg (10 pages), a Coptic papyrus of the 4th
or 5th century, now at Heidelberg (about 80 pages), and a Greek papyrus of
correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians (3 Corinthians = Testuz
1959), now at Geneva. These finds have confirmed that the Thekla cycle and
story of Paul's martyrdom were originally part of the larger Acts of Paul
(details in Bovon 1981 or NTApocr.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts of Andrew
Glenn Davis: The oldest direct mention of the Acts of Andrew (150-200
CE) is by Eusebius who lists it among the writings that are written by
heretics and are absurd and impious. The Coptic Papyrus Utrecht I, which
contains a translation of a section from the Acts of Andrew, confirms that
it was known in Egypt in the 4th century (the papyrus is dated to this
period). In his Panarion Epiphanius reports that the writing was used by the
Encratites, the Apostolici, and the Origenists. The Acts of Andrew was
probably written in the second half of the 2nd century. The place of origin
is unknown. Between the 3rd and the 9th century it became known and read
everywhere, in Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Armenia, Asia Minor, Greece,
Italy, Gaul, and Spain. It was particularly successful in circles of a
dualistic and ascetic tendency, especially among the Manicheans and
Priscillianists. It was condemned in the Decretum Gelasianum, but this did
not result in its disappearance. Rather it lived on in the form of revisions
and extracts. The trail vanishes in the West in the 6th century, in the East
in the 9th. The Acts of Andrew has not come down to us in the primary form
of their original Greek text. The English translation in [Schneemelcher] v.
2 pp. 118-151 is taken from these witnesses: Liber de miraculis by Gregory
of Tours complete except for suppressed speeches; P. Utrech 1 (Coptic)
corresponds to c. 18 of the previous work; Armenian Martyrdom final part; 5
Greek recensions final part; Extracts handed down in Greek various
fragments.
Geoff Trowbridge: The Acts of Andrew (c. 200-225 C.E.) continue the
encratite traditions begun in the Acts of Peter and John, and might well be
by the same author, though scholars tend to date Andrew slightly later.
However, these Acts are not as clearly Gnostic as, for example, the Acts of
John; The importance of martyrdom is stressed throughout, which is not in
line with Gnostic philosophy. The Greek proconsul Aegeates sentences Andrew
to be crucified after his wife refuses his sexual advances following her
conversion to Christianity. Andrew survives on the cross for four days, all
the while refusing the attempts by his followers to rescue him. Surviving
texts range from a Coptic fragment as early as the fourth century to Greek
and Latin texts from the twelfth, and it is difficult to determine which
represent the original Acts. Some secondary texts claim Andrew to have
evangelized Scythia rather than Greece.
Jean-Marc Prieur: (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, p. 246): writes
... The Manichean Psalter, which contains some allusions to the content of
Acts Andr. (Allberry 1938: 142, 143, 192), establishes the 3d century as the
terminus ad quem for the redaction of the apocryphon, but the Acts had to
have originated earlier, between 150 and 200, closer to 150 than to 200. The
distinctive christology of the text, its silence concerning the historical
and biblical Jesus, and its distance from later institutional organization
and ecclesiastical rites militate for an early dating. Moreover, its serene
tone and unawareness of any polemic against some of its ideas as heterodox,
particularly in the area of christology, show that it derived from a period
when the christology of the Great Church had not yet taken firm shape. One
might repeat here the line of argumentation employed by Junod and Kaestli
for locating the Acts of John in the same period (1983: 695). Moreover, Acts
John displays several affinities with Acts Andr., such as the literary
genre, structure, and theological orientations.
Robert Lamberton (Washington University) reviewing the book by D. R.
Macdonald, Christianizing Homer, the Odyssey, Plato, and The Acts of Andrew.
New York: Oxford, University Press, 1994. ISBN 0-19-508722-4. Extracted from
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 94.10.19:
The Christian appropriation of Greek polytheist culture in the second
century of the common era was, on the whole, not a pretty sight. The
principal players were ham-fisted, self-styled philosophers of the order of
Justin Martyr and Tertullian, whose claims to teach philosophy amounted to
little more than the eviction of the traditions of Greek philosophy from
what they defined as the search for truth, and their replacement by a
monotonous, scriptural rhetoric, professions of faith, and such inane and
ultimately useless equations as "Christ is the logos". Few and far between
are the Christian texts that bear witness to any depth of knowledge of
polytheist texts, whether philosophical or literary. All in all, the century
and a half between the day Paul quoted Aratus to the Areopagites and the
time of the confrontations with Greek tradition of the scholarly
Alexandrians Clement and Origen offer little to suggest that the nascent
Church found time to read the classics or put on a veneer of culture. It
appropriated what it could and trampled the rest -- the bulk of the
demon-ridden culture of its paranoid vision -- into the mire. The texts of
the period are grim and shrill, and even when we reach the richer cultural
atmosphere of Alexandria and the higher intellectual standards of Clement
and Origen, we search in vain for genuinely protreptic texts, seductive
texts that attract rather than proselytize, invite imaginative and
intellectual engagement, rather than belabor the all-too-familiar threats,
warnings, and injunctions. There is little to give the lie to Lucian's
description of his Christian contemporaries: benighted, gullible "poor
bastards (kakodaimones) who've convinced themselves that they're going to
live forever" (Peregrinus 13). They seem to have been the sworn enemies of
any possible pleasure of the text. They generated what is surely the most
unsympathetic, in-your-face literature in the Western tradition.
Dennis Ronald MacDonald has been working for some years on a text that
goes far to counteract this picture. If the lost original of the apocryphal
Acts of Andrew was anything like what he claims it was, and if it was in
fact composed in late-second-century Alexandria, then we will simply have to
acknowledge that a second-century Christian could and did produce a tale of
wit, fantasy, and sophistication, weaving into it themes, motifs, and whole
episodes from Homer and Plato and "transvaluing" them into a Christian
romance, a deliberate and self-proclaiming fiction of a richly rewarding
sort. In his new book, MacDonald presents his reasons for believing that the
Acts of Andrew was such a text. I have serious doubts about a great deal of
what he claims, but beyond the range of my scepticism enough remains in his
arguments to make this an important book that anyone concerned with the
literature of the high Empire should read.
Let us first be clear about what we are dealing with here. The New
Testament apocrypha as a whole are a textual critic's nightmare, and the
text known as the Acts of Andrew (the brother of Paul, an obscure figure in
the canonical NT, but in the apocrypha designated apostle to Achaea) has not
been seen intact since the ninth century. By that time, versions of it were
in circulation in Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Latin, representing states
of Andrew's story that predate the surviving Byzantine Greek versions.
Especially important to all reconstructions of the original is the Latin
epitome composed ca. 593 by St. Gregory of Tours (Miracula sancti Andreae).
The task of collating all of this material was undertaken by Joseph Flamion
early in this century (Les Actes apocryphes de l'apôtre André. Louvain,
1911), and two reconstructions of the "original" Acts of Andrew, presenting
the relevant sources and providing translations, have appeared almost
simultaneously in the past few years: MacDonald's own (The Acts of Andrew
and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Cannibals. Atlanta,
1990), and that of Jean-Marc Prieur in the Corpus Christianorum, Series
Apocryphorum (Acta Andreae. 2 vol., Turnhout, 1989).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts of Thomas
M. R. James (translator): From "The Apocryphal New Testament"; Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1924: This is the only one of the five primary romances
which we possess in its entirety. It is of great length and considerable
interest. The Stichometry (see p. 24) gives it only 1,600 lines: this is far
too little: it may probably apply only to a portion of the Acts, single
episodes of which, in addition to the Martyrdom, may have been current
separately. We do, in fact, find some separate miracles in some of the
oriental versions. There is a consensus of opinion among Syriac scholars
that our Greek text of these Acts is a version from Syriac. The Syriac
original was edited and translated by Wright in his Apocryphal Acts, and
older fragments have since been published by Mrs. Lewis (Horae Semiticae IV,
1904. Mythological Acts of the Apostles). Certain hymns occur in the Syriac
which were undoubtedly composed in that language: most notable is the Hymn
of the Soul (edited separately by A. A. Bevan, and others) which is not
relevant to the context. It has been ascribed to Bardaisan the famous Syrian
heretic. Only one Greek MS. of the Acts (the Vallicellian, at Rome, Bonnet's
MS. U, of the eleventh century) contains it; it is paraphrased by Nicetas of
Thessalonica in his Greek rechauffe of the Acts. There is, in fact, no room
to doubt that the whole text of the Acts, as preserved complete in MS. U and
partially in other manuscripts, is a translation from the Syriac. But in the
Martyrdom four manuscripts (including a very important Paris copy-Gr. 1510,
of eleventh century, and another of ninth century) present a quite
different, and superior. text, indubitably superior in one striking point:
that whereas Syr. places the great prayer of Thomas in the twelfth Act, some
little time before the Martyrdom (ch. 144 sqq.), the four manuscripts place
it immediately before, after ch. 167, and this is certainly the proper place
for it. It is, I believe, still arguable (though denied by the Syriacists)
that here is a relic of the original Greek text: in other words, the Acts
were composed in Greek, and early rendered into Syriac. Becoming scarce or
being wholly lost in Greek they were retranslated out of Syriac into Greek.
But meanwhile the original Greek of the Martyrdom had survived separately,
and we have it here. This was M. Bonnet's view, and it is one which I should
like to adopt.
Geoff Trowbridge: Aside from the section of the Acts of John known as
the "Preaching of the Gospel," the Acts of Thomas (c. 200-225 C.E.) are
probably the most overtly Gnostic of the apocryphal Acts, portraying Christ
as the "Heavenly Redeemer" who can free souls from the darkness of the
physical world. Surprisingly, Thomas is the only one of the five primary
Acts to have survived in its entirety-in a Syriac text from the seventh
century and a Greek text from the eleventh, as well as scores of fragments.
While the Syriac texts are earlier and likely represent the original
language of the work, they appear to have been purged of the unorthodox
passages. Thus the Greek, though often poorly translated, represents the
earlier tradition. Thomas is also the only book of Acts claiming apostolic
authorship, though it is difficult to fathom how Thomas could have recorded
his own martyrdom. Most believe the author wrote in the early third century,
though links to the Gospel of Thomas may place it earlier. The book tells
how the apostles drew lots to divide up the world for their missionary work,
and India fell to Thomas. He gains Indian followers by performing exorcisms
and ressurections, but is eventually sentenced to death after converting the
wives of King Misdaeus and his kinsman Charisius. While in prison, Thomas
sings the "Hymn of the Pearl," a poem that gained a great deal of popularity
in orthodox circles.
Harold W. Attridge: (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 6, p. 531):
Pseudepigraphic text which relates the adventures of the apostle Judas
Thomas as he preaches an ascetical or encratite form of Christianity on the
way to and from India. Like other apocryphal acts combining popular legend
and religious propaganda, the work attempts to entertain and instruct. In
addition to narratives of Thomas' adventures, its poetic and liturgical
elements provide important evidence for early Syrian Christian traditions.
Attridge writes about the attestation to the Acts of Thomas (op. cit., p.
531): The major Syriac witnesses (B.M. add. 14.645) dates to 936 C.E. the
earliest Syriac witnesses to the text, a fragmentary palimpset (Sinai 30),
dates from the 5th or 6th century. The major Greek witnesses (Paris. gr.
1510 and Vallicel. B 35) date to the 11th century, although there are
partial Grek witnesses dating from the 10th. Some form of the work was
clearly in circulation by the end of the 4th century when testimonies begin.
Epiphanius (Anac. 47.1 and 60.1.5) records its use by Encratites. Augustine
(de serm. dom. in monte 1.20.65; c. Adiamantium 17; c. Faustum 14 and 22.79)
attests its use by Manicheans, and allusions are found in the Manichean
Psalms. Attestations continue sporadically until the 9th-century Byzantine
patriarch Photius (Cod. 114) and the 11th-century archbishop, Nicetas of
Thessalonica, who paraphrased the work. The original composition is probably
to be dated in the first half of the 3d century, slightly later than the
Acts of Peter, John, and Paul, which are attested in the 2d century. Some
sections, particularly the originally independent Hymn of the Pearl,
presuppose conditions in the Parthian period, which ended with the
establishment of the Sassanian Empire in 226 C.E. It is likely that Acts
Thom. underwent redactional development, including adaptation by Manicheans,
in the late 3d or 4th centuries.
Wikipedia: The early 3rd century text called Acts of Thomas is arguably
the most Gnostic of the New Testament apocrypha, portraying Christ as the
"Heavenly Redeemer", independent of and beyond creation, who can free souls
from the darkness of the world. References to the work by Epiphanius show
that it was in circulation in the 4th century. The complete versions that
survive are Syriac and Greek. There are many surviving fragments of the
text. Scholars detect from the Greek that its original was written in
Syriac, which places the Acts of Thomas in Syria. The surviving Syriac
manuscripts, however, have been edited to purge them of the most unorthodox
overtly gnostic passages, so that the Greek versions reflect the earlier
tradition. Fragments of four other cycles of romances round the figure of
the apostle Thomas survive, but this is the only complete one. It should not
be confused with the early "sayings" Gospel of Thomas. "Like other
apocryphal acts combining popular legend and religious propaganda, the work
attempts to entertain and instruct. In addition to narratives of Thomas'
adventures, its poetic and liturgical elements provide important evidence
for early Syrian Christian traditions," according to the Anchor Bible
Dictionary. Acts of Thomas is a series of episodic Acts (Latin passio) that
occurred during the evangelistic mission of Judas Thomas ("Judas the Twin")
to India.
Embedded in the Acts of Thomas at different places according to
differing manuscript traditions is a Syriac hymn, The Hymn of the Pearl
(WIKI Article), (or Hymn of the Soul), a poem that gained a great deal of
popularity in mainstream Christian circles. The Hymn is older than the Acts
into which it has been inserted, and is worth appreciating on its own. For
interested readers see further a series of various translations of The Hymn
of the Pearl, and an Explication of The Hymn of the Pearl as an Ascetic
Allegory, and ancient Ode to Indian ascetism.
The Acts of Thomas as a "ascetic pagan" parody: Separate article
associated with the thesis Constantine invented Christianity. An explication
of the Acts of Thomas as a parody written by an author who was an ascetic
pagan priest. It is proposed that the ascetic pagan priesthood, having been
prohibited the traditional use and utility of their temple structure (eg:
The Healing Temples of Asclepius, destroyed by Constantine) took up the pen
of sedition against the Constantinian Canon. The chronology of the Acts of
Thomas is thus presented in exact accord with the carbon dating citation 348
CE (+/- 60 years) associated with the Nag Hammadi Codices for the Gospel of
Thomas, in which it is proposed, the phrase "Jesus said" was written by law
of the Pontifex Maximus (Constantine) as the new god, against the ancient
gnostic Egypto-Hellenic wisdom sayings of the ascetic traditions.
New Testament Non Canonical Christian Literature Index
New Testament Acts
NOTE: (1) (*R) denotes Eusebius says the text is REJECTED.
(*H) denotes Eusebius says the text is HERETICAL.
(2) The term "heretical" is a euphemism for "seditious".
(3) The hyperlinked non-canonical "Acts of the Apostles"
are explicated as polemical fourth century parodies
of the Constantinian New Testament Bible of c.331 CE
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew (*H)
The Acts of Andrew (*H)
The Acts of Barnabas (*R)
The Acts of John the Theologian
The Acts of John (*H)
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Acts of Paul (*R)
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles (*H)
The Act of Peter
The Acts of Philip
The Acts of Thaddaeus
The Acts of Thomas
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Consummation of Thomas
The Death of Pilate
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
The Martyrdom of Matthew
The Mystery of the Cross-Excerpt from the Acts of John
The Passing of Mary
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
New Testament Apocryphal / Apocalypse
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Apocalypse of James - First
The Apocalypse of James - Second
The Apocalypse of Paul - and fragments
The Apocalypse of Peter - and fragments (*R)
The Revelation of Esdras
The Revelation of John the Theologian
The Revelation of Moses
The Revelation of Paul
The Revelation of Peter
The Vision of Paul
New Testament Gospels
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
The Gospel of Bartholomew (*H)
The Gospel of James (*H)
The Gospel of Judas (*H)
The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]
The Gospel of Nicodemus [Acts of Pilate]
The Gospel of Peter (*H)
The Gospel of Philip (*H)
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (*H)
The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion]
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Thomas (*H)
The Gospel of Thomas - A 5th Century Compilation
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text A]
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text B]
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Latin Text]
The Secret Gospel of Mark - Now recognized as a 20th century hoax
by Stephen C. Carlson in The Gospel Hoax:
Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark
(Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005).
Other New Testament related Non Canonical Writings
Community Rule
John the Evangelist
Nag Hammadi Codices
The Apocryphon of James
The Apocryphon of John
The Avenging of the Saviour
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
The Epistle of the Apostles
The Epistle to the Laodiceans
The Letter of Peter to Philip
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
The Pistis Sophia - Excerpts
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle
The Three Steles of Seth
Nag Hammadi Codices
See this INDEX article.
Eusebius on the Non Canonical Literature
Chapter XXV.
The Divine Scriptures
that are Accept and
Those that are Not.
1 Since we are dealing with this subject
it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament
which have been already mentioned. First then must be put
the holy quaternion of the Gospels;
following them the Acts of the Apostles.
2 After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul;
next in order the extant former epistle of John,
and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained.
After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper,
the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give
the different opinions at the proper time.
These then belong among the accepted writings.
3 Among the disputed writings,
which are nevertheless recognized by many,
are extant the so-called epistle of James
and that of Jude,
also the second epistle of Peter,
and those that are called the second and third of John,
whether they belong to the evangelist
or to another person of the same name.
4 Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also
* the Acts of Paul, and
* the so-called Shepherd, and
* the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these
* the extant epistle of Barnabas, and
* the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said,
* the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper,
which some, as I said, reject,
but which others class with the accepted books.
5 And among these some have placed also
the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
with which those of the Hebrews that
have accepted Christ are especially delighted.
And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.
6 But we have nevertheless felt compelled
to give a catalogue of these also,
distinguishing those works which according
to ecclesiastical tradition are
true and genuine and commonly accepted,
from those others which,
although not canonical but disputed,
are yet at the same time known
to most ecclesiastical writers-
we have felt compelled to give this catalogue
in order that we might be able to know both
these works and those that are cited
by the heretics under the name of the apostles,
including, for instance, such books as
* the Gospels of Peter,
* of Thomas,
* of Matthias,
* or of any others besides them, and
* the Acts of Andrew and John and
* (John) and
* the other apostles,
which no one belonging to the succession
of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy
of mention in his writings.
7 And further, the character of the style
is at variance with apostolic usage,
and both the thoughts and the purpose
of the things that are related in them
are so completely out of accord
with true orthodoxy that they
clearly show themselves to be
the fictions of heretics.
Wherefore they are not to be placed
even among the rejected writings,but are all of them to be cast aside
as absurd and impious.
Let us now proceed with our history.
Chapter XXVI. Menander the Sorcerer.
Old Testament Non Canonical Literature Index
Old Testament Apocrypha
1 Esdras
1 Maccabees
2 Esdras (a.k.a 4 Ezra)
2 Maccabees
3 Maccabees
4 Ezra (a.ka. 2 Esdras)
4 Maccabees
Baruch
Bel and the Dragon (addition to Daniel)
Daniel and Susanna (addition to Daniel)
Esther,
Judith
Letter of Jeremiah
Prayer of Azariah (addition to Daniel)
Prayer of Manasseh,
Psalm 151
Sirach
Tobit
Wisdom of Solomon,
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch)
2 Enoch (Slavonic Book of the Secrets of Enoch)
2 Baruch (The Book of The Apocalypse of Baruch The Son of Neriah)
3 Baruch (The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch)
4 Baruch (a.k.a Paraleipomena Jeremiou)
Adam and Eve, The Books of -- translation of the Latin version
Adam and Eve, Life of -- translation of the Slavonic version
Adam and Eve, Life of -- translation of the Greek version (a.k.a. The
Apocalypse of Moses)
Adam and Eve Homepage
Ahikar, The Story of
Apocalypse of Abraham
Apocalypse of Adam, The
Apocalypse of Moses, A fragment of the
Enoch (another version)
Joseph and Aseneth another, more modern English translation
Jubilees, The Book of
Letter of Aristeas, The
Martyrdom of Isaiah, The
Paraleipomena Jeremiou (a.k.a. 4 Baruch)
Psalms of Solomon
Pseudo-Phoclides
Revelation of Esdras, The
Second Treatise of the Great Seth, The
Sibylline Oracles
Testament of Abraham, The
Testament of Job
Testament of Solomon
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Larry Swain
Yep, but that wasn't the issue. As usual, you're missing the point and
spouting information that is immaterial.
> P.Oxy 3035 refers to the "CHRESTOS" not the "CHRISTOS" root.
How do you know? You yourself admitted that they were often confused.
You yourself provided evidence that the words were confused because
their phonology was similar. You were asked to provide evidence of an
independent use of "chrestianos" where it clearly could not refer to
Christians or "christianos", that evidence has not been forthcoming.
Both of us pointed to literature that tells us that in fact the
Christians were often called "chrestianos". You were also asked to
provide a rational why a "chrestianos", according to you a follower of
the good religion, would be being arrested for following the "good
religion." That too has not been forthcoming.
>
> The sources of CHRESTOS
> and CHRISTOS in Antiquity
All entirely beside the point since the issue is the use of the terms in
the SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH centuries CE. Let me quote you:
The words sound the same when pronounced.
The confusion in the two words stem from separate
source words sounding similar in the Greek.
>
> 134 CE
> Hadrian to Servianus, (Quoted by Giles, ii p86) :
> "Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus,
> I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent,
> and continually wafted about by every breath of fame.
> The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called 'Christians',
> and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find),
> call themselves 'Bishops of Christ'. "
Well, now we're at least in the same period. But you do realize that
this demonstrates the existence of Christians?
More to the point in hand, you didn't cite the entire text--probably
because you don't know there's more:
"Those who worship Serapis are likewise Christians; even those who style
themselves the bishops of Christ are devoted to Serapis. The very
Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to adore
Serapis, by others to worship Christ. There is but one God for them all,
Him do the Christians, Him do the Jews, Him do the Gentiles, all alike
worship."
Typical Hellenistic "all gods are really one" theology, we find it all
over the place, and certainly demonstrates exactly what I've been
saying: there were Christians, not "Chrestians". Here's the Latin
original of the text:
Aegyptum, quam mihi laudabas, Serviane carissime, totam didici levem,
pendulam et ad omnia famae momenta volitantem. illic qui Serapem colunt
Christiani sunt, et devoti sunt Serapi qui se Christi episcopos dicunt.
nemo illic archisynagogus Iudaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo
Christianorum presbyter non mathematicus, non haruspex, non aliptes.
ipse ille patriarcha cum Aegyptum venerit, ab aliis Serapidem adorare,
ab aliis cogitur Christum.
You'll note of course that it tells us that that we have a consistent
use of "christiani" nor "chrestiani" and "Christi" (episopus
Christi--bishop of Christ, not bishop of Chrest, and the worship of
Christum, Christ, not Chrestum". Thank you for taking the trouble to
prove your immediage point wrong for us, but your entire thesis, since
we have here a letter from a second century emperor that demonstrates
the presence of CHRISTIANS and the worship of CHRIST in Alexandria in
the second century...200 years before Constantine.
>
> The notable difference between the two words [chrao] --
> "consulting or obtaining response from a god or oracle"
> (chreo being the Ionic earlier form of it), and chrio
> "to rub, to anoint" (from which the name Christos),
> has not prevented the ecclesiastical adoption and coinage
> from Philo's expression [Theochrestos]
> of that other term [Theochristos] "anointed by God."
>
> Thus the quiet substitution of the letter, [i] for [e]
> for dogmatic purposes, was achieved in the easiest way,
> as we now see.
Indeed. And such is exactly what we have. Not sure why you're debating it.
> ====================
>
>
> some selections taken from Blavatsky.
>
> ====================
Madame Blavatsky? The Theosophist? You're pretending to present a
scholarly discussion basing your side of things on theosophy? HILARIOUS!!
>
> It is not what the early Fathers, who had an object to achieve,
> may affirm or deny, that is the important point,
> but rather what is now the evidence for the real significance
> given to the two terms Chrestos and Christos
> by the ancients in the pre-Christian ages.
And of course the theosophists have no object to achieve save the truth,
right? Therefore what they say must be true! Further though, uh, did
you notice that the good Madam Blavatsky believes that there was a
pre-Constanian Christian church? She thinks it was all wrong, but she
thinks it was there!! Once again your very sources disagree with you!
>
> For the latter had no object to achieve,
Yes they did.
> therefore nothing to conceal or disfigure,
No, fraid they did that too, they had a very keen interest in a
particular religious point of view being the accepted one, and Judaism
and Christianity with their exclusionary stand points were inimical to
that.
> and their evidence is naturally the more reliable of the two.
Nope, it is evidence just as the other is evidece, but each piece is to
be weighed, not just trusted because of its source.
> http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/chj-chz.htm
Well, Pete, now we know we can safely ignore you. You're one of those!
Oh, how funny, this has nothing to do with history, it has to with
your personal faith!
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:29GdnahkMr1IuXna...@rcn.net...
>
>
>>I already provided a direct reference to the Oxyrynchus Papyrus catalog of
>>the papyrus in question that has a firm date on it. You can't get much
>>more authoritative than that. Here it is again:
>>http://163.1.169.40/cgi-bin/library?e=q-000-00---0POxy--00-0-0--0prompt-10---4----ded--0-1l--1-en-50---20-about-4009--00031-001-1-0utfZz-8-00&a=d&c=POxy&cl=search&d=HASHbb02a1f5a5af81f65974e0
>
>
>
> Who signed the PALEOGRAPHER's CERTIFICATE?
I did.
> Who was the handwriting expert who provided the dating?
Don't know what you mean by "handwriting expert". I provided other
references, read them.
> Only APOLOGISTS use paleography as FIRM dating.
So, hmmm, those palaeographers dating papyri of Homer to the 3rd century
BCE are apologists of what exactly? Or those who note the date of
epigraphical Latin inscriptions with "k" from the sixth century BCE,
just what are they apologizing for? Or those who study modern scripts
and typography--they're apologists for....?
On the other hand, do you have evidence that palaeographical dating is
wrong? You've been asked DOZENS of times now, and no evidence has ever
been forthcoming. So, no, you don't have any evidence, yours is a
baseless claim.
> The entire structure of early christianity rests on paleographical
> assertions such as this.
Nope, first palaeography doesn't assert, it establishes a date range
based on comparison across a wide spectrum of texts diachronically and
synchronically. Dated texts are especially valueable.
The thesis that the NT was written in
> the fourth century, and that the NT apocrypha were written
> immediately after the Constantine Canon by ascetic pagan
> priests as sedition, polemic and parody is consistent with the
> evidence that it before us.
No it isn't, not unless we just brush facts under the rug and pretend.
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:5ZKdnRIFypyxoXna...@rcn.net...
>
>>mountain man wrote:
>>
>>>"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>news:bfKdnSdQbM-VNX_a...@rcn.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>mountain man wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The Constantine Bible which was published by Constantine
>>>>>in the City of Constantine c.331 CE
>>>>
>>>>All false. There is no "Constantine Bible",
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Constantine+Bible&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
>>>
>>>
>>>Results 1 - 100 of about 1,050 for "Constantine Bible". (0.28 seconds)
>>
>>
>>Ah how funny!
>
>
> The CONSTANTINE BIBLE:
>
> The letter of Constantine via Socrates Scholistisus' History:
Yep, Constantine ordered 50 Bibles from Eusebius.
> ============[end]====================
>
> ****
> The CONSTANTINE BIBLE:
>
> Are you about to make the claim that there are no academic treatments of
> this above letter in which the **** fifty copies of the sacred scripture are
> openly recognised as "the Constantine Bible"?
No, I made the claim that a) nothing of them exists and b) if they did
exist as Eusebius claims, they'd be Eusebius' Bible, not Constantine's
and c) they had no effect since canon lists and pandects produced in the
rest of the century after 331 differ markedly from Eusebius' list of 325
and the majority of those do not have a "Caesarian" text type, which one
would expect from Eusebius of Caesarea and d) while Constantine's order
of 50 bibles from Eusebius is well known and oft discussed, it is not
known openly or in any other way as "Constantine's Bible". So much for
"The Constantine Bible". Once again to review: not by Constantine, not
produced by Constantine, not produced in Deutera Roma aka
Constantinople, you're wrong on all 3 counts.
Christopher Ingham
> mountain man wrote:
If you look at the thread topics currently on this NG, you may
be tempted to conclude that many, many people suffer from
an endlessly prolonged, infantile separation anxiety from their
mythological belief systems acquired in childhood. Some
renounce their superstition and others attempt to justify their
retention of illogical beliefs. In either case profuse
rationalization
seems to be involved, probably stemming from a subconscious
fear of a retributive ogre.
Christopher Ingham
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:EpCdnWI50I0Mtnna...@rcn.net...
>
>>mountain man wrote:
>
>
>
>> cannot be
>>
>>>considered as totally bound within the fourth century, appearing from
>>>the year 324 CE. If you know of any evidence to refute the hypothesis
>>>that the non canonic is fourth century pagan polemic in opposition to the
>>>Constantine canonical cast of Jesus and the Apostles, what is it?
>>
>>The contents of the texts.
>>The dates of some of the papyri
>>That authors writing long before Constantine cite or refer to these
>>texts (and it is up to you to PROVE that these authors wrote in the
>>fourth century, not the second, or that they were invented in the fourth
>>century....no evidence, no dice.
>
>
>
> Who is the shadowy apocyphal author Leucius Charinus ?
> http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/non_canonical_literature.htm
Your ancestor? If he ever existed, he was a second century writer. So
what?
Larry Swain
Sadly, Christopher, you are too right. Makes one long for the days when
the only people on Usenet were university types....just as rancorous but
at least on topic and thoughtful!
mountain man
Indeed, it is the issue.
> As usual, you're missing the point and spouting information that is
> immaterial.
>
>> P.Oxy 3035 refers to the "CHRESTOS" not the "CHRISTOS" root.
>
> How do you know? You yourself admitted that they were often confused. You
> yourself provided evidence that the words were confused because their
> phonology was similar. You were asked to provide evidence of an
> independent use of "chrestianos" where it clearly could not refer to
> Christians or "christianos", that evidence has not been forthcoming.
You are joking.
Are you claiming this P.Oxy 3035 "christian" on the basis
that it refers to "chrestos"?
Trajan's letter was first mentioned by whom?
>> The notable difference between the two words [chrao] --
>> "consulting or obtaining response from a god or oracle"
>> (chreo being the Ionic earlier form of it), and chrio
>> "to rub, to anoint" (from which the name Christos),
>> has not prevented the ecclesiastical adoption and coinage
>> from Philo's expression [Theochrestos]
>> of that other term [Theochristos] "anointed by God."
>>
>> Thus the quiet substitution of the letter, [i] for [e]
>> for dogmatic purposes, was achieved in the easiest way,
>> as we now see.
>
> Indeed. And such is exactly what we have. Not sure why you're debating
> it.
>
>> ====================
>>
>>
>> some selections taken from Blavatsky.
>>
>> ====================
>
> Madame Blavatsky? The Theosophist? You're pretending to present a
> scholarly discussion basing your side of things on theosophy? HILARIOUS!!
You are now engaged in ad hominem. The data you deleted
from the Blavastki article contained valid citations to the ancient
historical sources. Citations to the use of CHRESTOS in the
period BCE which have nothing to do with CE period christians.
References to theuse of CHRISTOS in the BCE period.
>> It is not what the early Fathers, who had an object to achieve,
>> may affirm or deny, that is the important point,
>> but rather what is now the evidence for the real significance
>> given to the two terms Chrestos and Christos
>> by the ancients in the pre-Christian ages.
>
> And of course the theosophists have no object to achieve save the truth,
> right? Therefore what they say must be true! Further though, uh, did
> you notice that the good Madam Blavatsky believes that there was a
> pre-Constanian Christian church? She thinks it was all wrong, but she
> thinks it was there!! Once again your very sources disagree with you!
>
>>
>> For the latter had no object to achieve,
>
> Yes they did.
>> therefore nothing to conceal or disfigure,
>
> No, fraid they did that too, they had a very keen interest in a particular
> religious point of view being the accepted one, and Judaism and
> Christianity with their exclusionary stand points were inimical to that.
>
>> and their evidence is naturally the more reliable of the two.
>
> Nope, it is evidence just as the other is evidece, but each piece is to be
> weighed, not just trusted because of its source.
>
>> http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/chj-chz.htm
>
> Well, Pete, now we know we can safely ignore you. You're one of those!
> Oh, how funny, this has nothing to do with history, it has to with your
> personal faith!
Deal with P.Oxy 3035 being a citation for CHRESTOS.
You have absolutely no idea of any personal faith I may
have, and no matter what it may be, it is irrelevant to the data.
Deal with the data Larry. Blavatski has nothing todo with
your man Jesus H being a fourth century imperial fiction.
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:5ZKdnRIFypyxoXna...@rcn.net...
>>
>>>mountain man wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:bfKdnSdQbM-VNX_a...@rcn.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>mountain man wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>The Constantine Bible which was published by Constantine
>>>>>>in the City of Constantine c.331 CE
>>>>>
>>>>>All false. There is no "Constantine Bible",
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Constantine+Bible&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Results 1 - 100 of about 1,050 for "Constantine Bible". (0.28 seconds)
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah how funny!
>>
>>
>> The CONSTANTINE BIBLE:
>>
>> The letter of Constantine via Socrates Scholistisus' History:
>
> Yep, Constantine ordered 50 Bibles from Eusebius.
>> ============[end]====================
>>
>> ****
>> The CONSTANTINE BIBLE:
>>
>> Are you about to make the claim that there are no academic treatments of
>> this above letter in which the **** fifty copies of the sacred scripture
>> are openly recognised as "the Constantine Bible"?
>
> No, I made the claim that a) nothing of them exists and b) if they did
> exist as Eusebius claims, they'd be Eusebius' Bible, not Constantine's
Constantine ordered them.
why do NT scholars refer to them as "Constantine Bibles"?
> and c) they had no effect since canon lists and pandects produced in the
> rest of the century after 331 differ markedly from Eusebius' list of 325
> and the majority of those do not have a "Caesarian" text type, which one
> would expect from Eusebius of Caesarea and d) while Constantine's order of
> 50 bibles from Eusebius is well known and oft discussed, it is not known
> openly or in any other way as "Constantine's Bible".
Results 1 - 100 of about 3,270 for "Constantine's Bible". (0.27 seconds
Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament
http://www.amazon.de/Constantines-Bible-Politics-Making-Testament/dp/images/0800637909
mountain man
Settle down with your off-hand apologetics. Leucius Charinus was supposedly
the author of the Acts of Thomas, which has third century Manichaean
influences.
Doesn't this sound odd?
A better explanation is that the apocrypha was written in opposition to
the canon when it was first published by Constantine, in the Constantne
\Biblc.331 CE --- the 50 lavish copies - you know them.
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
Of course, we all know that the Hadrian letter is
an extract from the Historia Augusta, written at least in
the time of Constantine in the fourth century, and as such
is treated as part of that well recognised LAVISH FORGERY
that the Historia Augusta is known to be.
Who are you trying to fool Larry?
> Well, Pete, now we know we can safely ignore you. You're one of those!
> Oh, how funny, this has nothing to do with history, it has to with your
> personal faith!
Mirror mirror on the wall.
Apologetics had a fall.
Christian history monopolises on MISSPELLINGS of CHESTOS.
Christian history monopolises on letters of KNOWN FRAUD.
The modus operandi is typical.
Why is this?
BECAUSE of the totally embarrassingly minute amout of archaeological
evidence for the existence of the christian religion before Constantine.
You need to try and nail down anything you can Larry. Otherwise
people will start to see there is an authenticity problem.
Why are the followers of the healing god Ascelpius found abundantly
in the archaeological record, while the followers of christianity are not?
See my recent post concerning the book "Ascelpius: God of Medicine"
by Hart. How do you explain the GREAT SILENCE from the ground
with respect to christianity, when Asclepius is abundant?
Larry Swain
I'm sorry, you apparently don't understand the issue at all, but I'm not
surprised. The issue is not that they are two different words from 2
different roots, but that the two words were often confused, as you
yourself admitted, because of a similar sound. You can point out that
they are different words until the next blue moon and still won't have
addressed the issue.
>
>
>
>
>>As usual, you're missing the point and spouting information that is
>>immaterial.
>>
>>
>>>P.Oxy 3035 refers to the "CHRESTOS" not the "CHRISTOS" root.
>>
>>How do you know? You yourself admitted that they were often confused. You
>>yourself provided evidence that the words were confused because their
>>phonology was similar. You were asked to provide evidence of an
>>independent use of "chrestianos" where it clearly could not refer to
>>Christians or "christianos", that evidence has not been forthcoming.
>
>
>
> You are joking.
No, I wish I were. But in spite of everything, you've shown that you
don't know the text of P. Oxy 3035, you yourself did admit that the
words were often confused, you yourself provided evidence of that
confusion, and you were asked to support your claim of use of
"chrestianos" as an independent word from "christianos"--and no evidence
has been forthcoming. And that still hasn't changed.
>
> Are you claiming this P.Oxy 3035 "christian" on the basis
> that it refers to "chrestos"?
Why not provide some evidence and answer the question? I'm beginning to
think its because you can not. I've been quite clear what I'm
"claiming", is it too difficult for you? Need I dumb it down for you to
grasp? "Chrestos and Christos" are often confused, there is no word
"chrestianos", there is a word "christianos", there is no known reason
why a "chrestianos" would be arrested in the mid-third century, there is
a known reason why a "christianos" would be arrested in the mid-third
century; based on those things the "chrestianos" of P. Oxy 3035 must
refer to a "christianos". Not difficult.
Did you even read what you were busy cutting and pasting? The letter in
question is from Hadrian.
Second, let's point out that it was *YOU* who provided citation of the
letter, did you not think about what it said? And of course we get to
the problem of citations again: are you suggesting that because this
letter was imbedded in the Augustan history that the letter is a
fabrication? And if so, what is your evidence? Not your whim, dear
boy, but evidence?
>
>
>
>>> The notable difference between the two words [chrao] --
>>> "consulting or obtaining response from a god or oracle"
>>> (chreo being the Ionic earlier form of it), and chrio
>>> "to rub, to anoint" (from which the name Christos),
>>> has not prevented the ecclesiastical adoption and coinage
>>> from Philo's expression [Theochrestos]
>>> of that other term [Theochristos] "anointed by God."
>>>
>>> Thus the quiet substitution of the letter, [i] for [e]
>>> for dogmatic purposes, was achieved in the easiest way,
>>> as we now see.
>>
>>Indeed. And such is exactly what we have. Not sure why you're debating
>>it.
>>
>>
>>>====================
>>>
>>>
>>>some selections taken from Blavatsky.
>>>
>>>====================
>>
>>Madame Blavatsky? The Theosophist? You're pretending to present a
>>scholarly discussion basing your side of things on theosophy? HILARIOUS!!
>
>
>
> You are now engaged in ad hominem.
Nope. I merely noted the humor in it. I will note here that the source
is questionable and was involved in proving a particular point of
religious faith, not doing history. As such, citations from Theosophy
are really not useful in the discussion in hand.
The data you deleted
> from the Blavastki article contained valid citations to the ancient
> historical sources. Citations to the use of CHRESTOS in the
> period BCE which have nothing to do with CE period christians.
Indeed, no debate there.
> References to theuse of CHRISTOS in the BCE period.
Again, no debate there, as stated above this isn't the issue. I'm sorry
you're not comprehending that and I do not know how to make it clearer
to you. It is a kindness to suggest that you are out of your depth and
perhaps should stop trying.
>
>
>
>
>>>It is not what the early Fathers, who had an object to achieve,
>>>may affirm or deny, that is the important point,
>>>but rather what is now the evidence for the real significance
>>>given to the two terms Chrestos and Christos
>>> by the ancients in the pre-Christian ages.
>>
>>And of course the theosophists have no object to achieve save the truth,
>>right? Therefore what they say must be true! Further though, uh, did
>>you notice that the good Madam Blavatsky believes that there was a
>>pre-Constanian Christian church? She thinks it was all wrong, but she
>>thinks it was there!! Once again your very sources disagree with you!
>>
>>
>>>For the latter had no object to achieve,
>>
>>Yes they did.
>>
>>>therefore nothing to conceal or disfigure,
>>
>>No, fraid they did that too, they had a very keen interest in a particular
>>religious point of view being the accepted one, and Judaism and
>>Christianity with their exclusionary stand points were inimical to that.
>>
>>
>>>and their evidence is naturally the more reliable of the two.
>>
>>Nope, it is evidence just as the other is evidece, but each piece is to be
>>weighed, not just trusted because of its source.
>>
>>
>>>http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/chj-chz.htm
>>
>>Well, Pete, now we know we can safely ignore you. You're one of those!
>>Oh, how funny, this has nothing to do with history, it has to with your
>>personal faith!
>
>
>
> Deal with P.Oxy 3035 being a citation for CHRESTOS.
Well, no, because it doesn't cite "Chrestos", why would I want to say
that the papyrus says or cites something it doesn't?
> You have absolutely no idea of any personal faith I may
> have,
I think you've made that quite plain. Have you read some of the stuff
you've put up on your website? If not, I'd suggest you do so...your
personal faith is quite clear.
and no matter what it may be, it is irrelevant to the data.
It is irrelevant to the data, but you don't deal in data: look at how
many times I've asked you for data and you gloss over it with polemical
claims unsupported by data! Look at how often you simply get the data
wrong! Look at how often you select certain data to support your a
priori conclusions and ignore the rest, undoubtedly fueled by your
personal faith! And look at how often you've accused anyone who
disagrees with you of operating out of their faith rather than
fact....not so comfie when the shoe is on your foot is it, o hypocrite?
> Deal with the data Larry. Blavatski has nothing todo with
> your man Jesus H being a fourth century imperial fiction.
Don't know who Jesus H is, and you've never actually proven your thesis
regarding Jesus Christ, much less the history of the Christian church.
Deal with ALL THE DATA there Pete, not just the 2 bits you can twist to
support your air castles.
Larry Swain
And it is interesting that the very source you cite says that the letter
was written in 134 CE. HMMMM, so now your own source that you yourself
are citing is wrong? Based on what evidence is your own source of
information in error?
> Who are you trying to fool Larry?
Certainly not you Pete, just wondering why your telling me that the
letter is 134 CE out of one side of your mouth and then telling me its
really fourth century fabrication out of the other side of your mouth.....
>
>
>>Well, Pete, now we know we can safely ignore you. You're one of those!
>>Oh, how funny, this has nothing to do with history, it has to with your
>>personal faith!
>
>
>
> Mirror mirror on the wall.
> Apologetics had a fall.
Indeed, your apology for your personal faith has fallen many times, but
like a hydra, there's always a new head that appears.
>
> Christian history monopolises on MISSPELLINGS of CHESTOS.
Nope. How does it feel to be consistently wrong on the basic facts?
> Christian history monopolises on letters of KNOWN FRAUD.
Well, that sounds more like your procedure than anything else.
> The modus operandi is typical.
> Why is this?
Well, I think its because you were raised in a religious household and
haven't gotten over the strictness of your parents, probably your
father, maybe he was even a minister. In any case, you have a
pathological need to disprove his faith and belief system and are
willing to ignore historical facts to hold your own belief that dear ol'
mom and dad's belief system was an utter fraud. That's why I think you
perpetrate a known fraud, but that's only a guess.
> BECAUSE of the totally embarrassingly minute amout of archaeological
> evidence for the existence of the christian religion before Constantine.
Enough to prove it existed.....hey, how are you coming on the third
century stone from c. 220 we were talking about? Solved that little
puzzle yet? Provided a better context for teh Dura Europos paintings
yet? Still waiting for you to provide some evidence. I know, I know,
I'll be waiting till the next millenium, but I keep hoping.
> You need to try and nail down anything you can Larry.
Isn't this an ad hominem? More hypocrisy. Anyway, no, the evidence
proves pre-Constantinian Christianity, and making claims like "it need
not be interpreted that way" as if that were an authoritative, evidence
supported assessment is well, an attempt to nail down anything you can,
Pete. Seems to me that you engage in the very thing you project onto
others.
Otherwise
> people will start to see there is an authenticity problem.
Well, historians aren't interested in proving or disproving
Christianity, but in the nature of the evidence. You reject evidence,
like palaeographic dating of manuscripts, without ever telling us why,
even though palaeographic dating has been tested by C14 analysis and
been proven right every time so far. That's one example, and just the
existence of CHristian papyri and manuscripts proves that it existed
before Constantine--and all the stamping of y our wee foot doesn't
affect that. Deal with the data, Pete, deal with the data.
>
> Why are the followers of the healing god Ascelpius found abundantly
> in the archaeological record, while the followers of christianity are not?
Numbers, govt recognition vs govt interdiction, length of time (let's
remember that Ascelpius and followers could build temples in every city,
Christians couldn't and seem to have converted houses and other
buildings....
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:as2dnfoC_8APEXja...@rcn.net...
>
>>mountain man wrote:
>>
>>>"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>news:EpCdnWI50I0Mtnna...@rcn.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>mountain man wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>cannot be
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>considered as totally bound within the fourth century, appearing from
>>>>>the year 324 CE. If you know of any evidence to refute the hypothesis
>>>>>that the non canonic is fourth century pagan polemic in opposition to
>>>>>the
>>>>>Constantine canonical cast of Jesus and the Apostles, what is it?
>>>>
>>>>The contents of the texts.
>>>>The dates of some of the papyri
>>>>That authors writing long before Constantine cite or refer to these
>>>>texts (and it is up to you to PROVE that these authors wrote in the
>>>>fourth century, not the second, or that they were invented in the fourth
>>>>century....no evidence, no dice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Who is the shadowy apocyphal author Leucius Charinus ?
>>>http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/non_canonical_literature.htm
>>
>>Your ancestor? If he ever existed, he was a second century writer. So
>>what?
>
>
>
> Settle down with your off-hand apologetics.
What apologetics? I simply answered a dumb question with an answer
suitable to it.
Leucius Charinus was supposedly
> the author of the Acts of Thomas, which has third century Manichaean
> influences.
> Doesn't this sound odd?
No. For one thing you're confusing and creatng a tension between what
modern scholarship knows and what the ancient world knew, and finding
the ancient world wanting. That's hardly fair or accurate. Second, the
Greco-Roman world liked things very orderly. There was no author
"anonymous", every anonymous text was supplied with an author or authors
and a date. Hence there are many texts known to us as "pseudo-X" where
X is the name of the falsely attributed author. Similarly with
ethnogenesis: every people had to have a founder and a foundation myth,
a false construct historically from the modern point of view, and where
such were wanting, the Greco-Romans were happy to supply such a myth and
founder. Supplying an author for a group of otherwise anonymous acts of
Christian heroes from the Christian past is simply one more example of
this cultural practice. Nothing to see here.
>
>
> A better explanation is that the apocrypha was written in opposition to
> the canon when it was first published by Constantine,
Except that the evidence is against it.
in the Constantne
> \Biblc.331 CE --- the 50 lavish copies - you know them.
See previous comments on this.
Larry Swain
So? Because I order a case of wine it doesn't mean I created the wine!
> why do NT scholars refer to them as "Constantine Bibles"?
We don't.
>
>
>
>
>
>>and c) they had no effect since canon lists and pandects produced in the
>>rest of the century after 331 differ markedly from Eusebius' list of 325
>>and the majority of those do not have a "Caesarian" text type, which one
>>would expect from Eusebius of Caesarea and d) while Constantine's order of
>>50 bibles from Eusebius is well known and oft discussed, it is not known
>>openly or in any other way as "Constantine's Bible".
>
>
> http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Constantine%27s+Bible&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
You might have bothered to read my previous comments on your google
search. Typical of you Pete, ignore everything everybody says except
what you want to hear. NO wonder no amount of evidence will ever
convince you.
> Results 1 - 100 of about 3,270 for "Constantine's Bible". (0.27 seconds
>
>
> Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament
> http://www.amazon.de/Constantines-Bible-Politics-Making-Testament/dp/images/0800637909
You might have read my previous comments on the book too, but oh well.
Repeat away, Pete, repeat away.
>
>
>
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> A better explanation is that the apocrypha was written in opposition to
>> the canon when it was first published by Constantine,
>
> Except that the evidence is against it.
Paleography is not EVIDENCE. Why dont you try again?
I'd like to know the hard evidence which precludes the possibility
that the non canonical NT literature was written after 324 CE as
the seditious polemic against the emperor Constantine. Hard
evidence Larry.
The entire genre of the apocrypha is truly weird stroies of your
man Jesus H doing all sorts of strange things, and the apostles
depicted in strange ROMANCE FICTION. Pagan polemic
against the canonical characters. Do you have any evidence
that is not a PAELEOPGRAPHER's CERTFICATE by which
you can demonstrate that the apocrypha were written earlier?
I dont think so Larry.
It is a neat solution to the phenomenom of christian NT literature.
Constantine Pontifex Maximus invents the CANON.
The ascetic pagan priesthood generate seditious polemical
romance literature from Syria, and Egypt, in the east where
the full front of Constantine's brigandry was focussed.
mountain man
Apologists dont like the term CONSTANTINE BIBLE because it implies
that Eusebius as editor-in-chief of this publication worked out his own set
of NT canonical books well before the later councils argued over canon.
What Constantine had published remains in place as the NT christian CANON
to this day, with the exception of the Shepherd of Hermas.
Authority flows from the MAFIA BOSS to his new Roman religion.
The top-down emperor cult started in the imperial court, and thus this
is why christianity was so successful ---- it was imperially inspired.
mountain man
Dont play dumb: the Historia Augusta was written in the fourth century.
The letter was FORGED. The Historia Augusta is a known forgery.
It was probably written under the sponsorship of Constantine in the
same manner as the fiction contained in the Historia Ecclesiastica was
sponsored under Constantine.
>> Who are you trying to fool Larry?
>
> Certainly not you Pete, just wondering why your telling me that the letter
> is 134 CE out of one side of your mouth and then telling me its really
> fourth century fabrication out of the other side of your mouth.....
Notably, you are ill equipped to discern between these two.
Christianity is a massive imperial fiction of the fourth century.
You will believe whatever it takes to avoid facing this option.
>> Why are the followers of the healing god Ascelpius found abundantly
>> in the archaeological record, while the followers of christianity are
>> not?
>
> Numbers, govt recognition vs govt interdiction, length of time (let's
> remember that Ascelpius and followers could build temples in every city,
> Christians couldn't and seem to have converted houses and other
> buildings....
You have one solitary HOUSE-CHURCH as a conjecture towards the
acceptance of one item of evidence for a christian place before Constantine.
Nothing in Rome. Nothing in Alexandria. Nothing anywhere else. Why?
Why no evidence of earlier things christian, evidence of the followers of
christianity? TOTAL ABSOLUTE DEAFENING SILENCE.
The data seems to be saying Christianity did not exist before 312 CE.
Larry Swain
Yes, and it cites a letter that the very source you quoted for us says
was written in 134 CE.....are you saying your source was wrong? And if
so, why would we take it as evidence of anything?
> The letter was FORGED.
Ah, so your source was wrong not only in the date, but also in accepting
the authenticity of the letter from Hadrian!! Do you have any notion
why the letter is presumed to be a forgery? And yet it is this forgery,
that you found in a source that doesn't know its a forgery, that you
cite.....huh.
> It was probably written under the sponsorship of Constantine in the
> same manner as the fiction contained in the Historia Ecclesiastica was
> sponsored under Constantine.
Evidence?
>
>
>
>
>>>Who are you trying to fool Larry?
>>
>>Certainly not you Pete, just wondering why your telling me that the letter
>>is 134 CE out of one side of your mouth and then telling me its really
>>fourth century fabrication out of the other side of your mouth.....
>
>
>
> Notably, you are ill equipped to discern between these two.
Perhaps, but you didn't address the issue: you cite a source telling us
its genuine and dating it to 134, and then turn around and claim it a
forgery of the fourth century. I'd say the problem of discernment is on
the side of the man claiming two different things about that letter.
> Christianity is a massive imperial fiction of the fourth century.
Evidence? You've never presented any.
> You will believe whatever it takes to avoid facing this option.
No, I follow the evidence and refuse to believe in cheap magic tricks.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>Why are the followers of the healing god Ascelpius found abundantly
>>>in the archaeological record, while the followers of christianity are
>>>not?
>>
>>Numbers, govt recognition vs govt interdiction, length of time (let's
>>remember that Ascelpius and followers could build temples in every city,
>>Christians couldn't and seem to have converted houses and other
>>buildings....
>
>
> You have one solitary HOUSE-CHURCH as a conjecture towards the
> acceptance of one item of evidence for a christian place before Constantine.
Well, no, actually there are several
> Nothing in Rome. Nothing in Alexandria. Nothing anywhere else. Why?
> Why no evidence of earlier things christian, evidence of the followers of
> christianity? TOTAL ABSOLUTE DEAFENING SILENCE.
Answered already. Many times in many ways. You're lieing, you know
you're lieing.
>
> The data seems to be saying Christianity did not exist before 312 CE.
Only if you ignore the data....
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:HPadnbTOA5UaGHfa...@rcn.net...
>
>>mountain man wrote:
>
>
>>>A better explanation is that the apocrypha was written in opposition to
>>>the canon when it was first published by Constantine,
>>
>>Except that the evidence is against it.
>
>
> Paleography is not EVIDENCE.
Yes it is. You've been asked many times to provide evidence to
substantiate your claim that it isn't, and mysteriously none has ever
appeared: just the repeated claim over and over and over and over.
Why dont you try again?
I will, when you present some of the oft requested evidence that I should.
> I'd like to know the hard evidence which precludes the possibility
> that the non canonical NT literature was written after 324 CE as
> the seditious polemic against the emperor Constantine. Hard
> evidence Larry.
What can be harder than a papyrus fragment of the text from before 324?
> The entire genre of the apocrypha is truly weird stroies of your
> man Jesus H doing all sorts of strange things,
Not sure who Jesus H is, but if you mean Jesus bar Joseph, called by his
followers the Christ, yes, some of the apocrypha indeed have some pretty
whacked stories. So what?
and the apostles
> depicted in strange ROMANCE FICTION.
Yep, some of them are that.
Pagan polemic
> against the canonical characters.
Or even different kinds and varieties of Christianity being given
expression.
Do you have any evidence
> that is not a PAELEOPGRAPHER's CERTFICATE by which
> you can demonstrate that the apocrypha were written earlier?
I've already answered this many times, I grow weary of repetition.
> I dont think so Larry.
Then you should have read my previous posts on teh subject.
>
> It is a neat solution to the phenomenom of christian NT literature.
It may be "neat", but it isn't factual.
> Constantine Pontifex Maximus invents the CANON.
> The ascetic pagan priesthood generate seditious polemical
> romance literature from Syria, and Egypt, in the east where
> the full front of Constantine's brigandry was focussed.
Funny how Constantine is so powerful as to foist this utterly on his
empire but even on kingdoms who fought against him, and not one explicit
peep that it was a fake, but he can't control some pagan priests and
keep them from publishing weird stories about his religion....how very
contradictory.
Larry Swain
I don't know any apologists and so can't say. I do know that Dan Brown
used this term in his historically inaccurate pot boiler.
because it implies
> that Eusebius as editor-in-chief of this publication worked out his own set
> of NT canonical books well before the later councils argued over canon.
But the historian knows that Eusebius worked out his own set of NT
canonical books well before the later councils argued over canon and
whats more that his set differs from what was later decided to be canonical.
> What Constantine had published remains in place as the NT christian CANON
> to this day,
Evidence? Esp. since Eusebius' list of what is canonical does not match
the canon as it was developed after his death?
mountain man
I dumped a whole lot of text supporting the evidence for the use of the
two words CHRESTOS and CHRISTOS in the period BCE, and in
the prenicene epoch, within which was this note about the letter.
>> The letter was FORGED.
>
> Ah, so your source was wrong not only in the date, but also in accepting
> the authenticity of the letter from Hadrian!! Do you have any notion why
> the letter is presumed to be a forgery? And yet it is this forgery, that
> you found in a source that doesn't know its a forgery, that you
> cite.....huh.
Stick to the basics. Leave Hadrian's letter out of it.
We have two words CHRESTOS and CHRISTOS
and their derivatives and the derivatives of the former
are found on P.Oxy 3035.
Here are the citations again, with the letter from Hadrian removed,
which I think you need to deal with.
mountain man
>> The ascetic pagan priesthood generate seditious polemical
>> romance literature from Syria, and Egypt, in the east where
>> the full front of Constantine's brigandry was focussed.
> Funny how Constantine is so powerful as to foist this utterly on his
> empire but even on kingdoms who fought against him,
What kingdom (except India).
> and not one explicit peep that it was a fake, but he can't control some
> pagan priests and keep them from publishing weird stories about his
> religion....how very contradictory.
Arius went underground in Syria.
As for Constantine, he could not discover among the gods
the model of his own career, but when he caught sight of
Pleasure, who was not far off, he ran to her. She received
him tenderly and embraced him, then after dressing him in
raiment of many colours and otherwise making him beautiful,
she led him away to Incontinence.
There too he found Jesus, who had taken up his abode with
her and cried aloud to all comers:
"He that is a seducer, he that is a murderer,
he that is sacrilegious and infamous,
let him approach without fear!
For with this water will I wash him
and will straightway make him clean.
And though he should be guilty
of those same sins a second time,
let him but smite his breast and beat his head
and I will make him clean again."
To him Constantine came gladly, when he had conducted his
sons forth from the assembly of the gods. But the avenging
deities none the less punished both him and them for their
impiety, and extracted the penalty for the shedding of the
blood of their kindred, [96] until Zeus granted them a respite
for the sake of Claudius and Constantius. [97]
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Julian_Caesares_Symposium_Kronia.htm
Larry Swain
>>>Constantine Pontifex Maximus invents the CANON.
>>>The ascetic pagan priesthood generate seditious polemical
>>>romance literature from Syria, and Egypt, in the east where
>>>the full front of Constantine's brigandry was focussed.
>
>
>
>>Funny how Constantine is so powerful as to foist this utterly on his
>>empire but even on kingdoms who fought against him,
>
>
>
> What kingdom (except India).
We've covered this already. I think I'm beginning to see the problem:
you can't remember facts.
>
>
>
>>and not one explicit peep that it was a fake, but he can't control some
>>pagan priests and keep them from publishing weird stories about his
>>religion....how very contradictory.
>
>
>
> Arius went underground in Syria.
Nonsense below snipped: air castles aren't evidence. Also, requested
evidence from Pete snipped.
Larry Swain
See, problems remembering.....I'd check into that Pete. Anyway, already
addressed and dealt with.
and in
> the prenicene epoch, within which was this note about the letter.
So the letter is now prenicene? If so, it can hardly be done by
Constantine, can it?
>
>
>
>
>
>>>The letter was FORGED.
>>
>>Ah, so your source was wrong not only in the date, but also in accepting
>>the authenticity of the letter from Hadrian!! Do you have any notion why
>>the letter is presumed to be a forgery? And yet it is this forgery, that
>>you found in a source that doesn't know its a forgery, that you
>>cite.....huh.
>
>
>
> Stick to the basics. Leave Hadrian's letter out of it.
You brought it in! Now I'm supposed to ignore it? Please, you're
confused. First you say two things about the letter, now you bring it
in as evidnece but want me to ignore it. Do make up your mind!
> We have two words CHRESTOS and CHRISTOS
> and their derivatives and the derivatives of the former
> are found on P.Oxy 3035.
Already addressed and dealth with. Merely repeating your beliefs and
not dealing with evidence presented to the contrary doesn't do anything
other than convince me that you can not deal with the evidence.
>
> Here are the citations again, with the letter from Hadrian removed,
> which I think you need to deal with.
Already did. Thanks. NOting again that evidence requested from you not
forthcoming, just mere repetition of material already dealt with.
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> P.Oxy 3035 refers to the "CHRESTOS" not the "CHRISTOS" root.
>
> How do you know? You yourself admitted that they were often confused. You
> yourself provided evidence that the words were confused because their
> phonology was similar. You were asked to provide evidence of an
> independent use of "chrestianos" where it clearly could not refer to
> Christians or "christianos", that evidence has not been forthcoming.
The evidence suggests CHESTOS was used in antiquity.
> Both of us pointed to literature that tells us that in fact the Christians
> were often called "chrestianos".
Firstly the literature is Eusebian.
Secondly, your explanation is reliant upon a consistent spelling
mistake. Do you understand your position?
> You were also asked to provide a rational why a "chrestianos", according
> to you a follower of the good religion, would be being arrested for
> following the "good religion." That too has not been forthcoming.
I do not answer stupid questions like that.
mountain man
> d) while Constantine's order of 50 bibles from Eusebius is well known and
> oft discussed, it is not known openly or in any other way as
> "Constantine's Bible".
Results 1 - 100 of about 3,200 for "constantine's bible". (0.31 seconds)
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> Who is the shadowy apocyphal author Leucius Charinus ?
>> http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/non_canonical_literature.htm
>
> Your ancestor? If he ever existed, he was a second century writer. So
> what?
He was the supposed author of "The Acts of Thomas" that has been assessed
as having distinct third century Manichaean influences in it.
Larry Swain
Covered in detail twice already, Pete. You're repeating yourself again.
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:SaudnVWEVLw66Hja...@rcn.net...
>
>>mountain man wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>P.Oxy 3035 refers to the "CHRESTOS" not the "CHRISTOS" root.
>>
>>How do you know? You yourself admitted that they were often confused. You
>>yourself provided evidence that the words were confused because their
>>phonology was similar. You were asked to provide evidence of an
>>independent use of "chrestianos" where it clearly could not refer to
>>Christians or "christianos", that evidence has not been forthcoming.
>
>
> The evidence suggests CHESTOS was used in antiquity.
Mere repetition of material already addressed. Are you simply incapable
of moving the discussion forward?
>
>
>
>>Both of us pointed to literature that tells us that in fact the Christians
>>were often called "chrestianos".
>
>
> Firstly the literature is Eusebian.
Actually, no, it isn't. Except if we put the cart before the horse.
>
> Secondly, your explanation is reliant upon a consistent spelling
> mistake. Do you understand your position?
No, it depends on far more than that.
>
>
>>You were also asked to provide a rational why a "chrestianos", according
>>to you a follower of the good religion, would be being arrested for
>>following the "good religion." That too has not been forthcoming.
>
>
> I do not answer stupid questions like that.
In other words, you can not provide any historical basis for your
reading, and therefore we can dismiss your reading as being without basis.
Larry Swain
Covered several times already, and you again are merely repeating yourself.