The Biggest Lie in the Study of Earliest Christianity

[Secret Alias]

The problem that I see arguing that John Philoponus is an influence on the text is that Philoponus cites heavily from Alexander of Aphrodisias. I don't see how you are argue that a text which references Alexander could be attributed to Philoponus when Philoponus was heavily influenced by Alexander. Doesn't make sense.

[andrewcriddle]

The problem that I see arguing that John Philoponus is an influence on the text is that Philoponus cites heavily from Alexander of Aphrodisias. I don't see how you are argue that a text which references Alexander could be attributed to Philoponus when Philoponus was heavily influenced by Alexander. Doesn't make sense.

IIUC the issue is that the debate involves arguments against the eternity of the world which seem to have been invented by John Philoponus.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

Unless the Dialogue with Levi existed before the 6th century. The German professor is trained to see things in terms of Islamic philosophy. It's what he does.

[Secret Alias]

To Andrew. I managed to get a copy of Daiber's article. While he suspects that there were a series of rewrites (as is always the case with religious documents) - some Islamic, some Christian - he writes:

Dennoch brauchen wir nicht auszuschliessen, dass cler Bericht einen historischen Kern hat. 50 hat Alexander von Aphrodisias zwar weder ausdrücklich die Ewigkeit der Materie gelehrt noch die Schopfung aus dem Nichts abgelehnt, aber Aristoteles' Standpunkt modifizierend die konstante Kreisbewegung des Himmelsäthers als Versuch einer Annäherung an den Zustand ewiger Unveränderlichkeit gewertet. Ein Echo finden wir in den oben genannten §§8-10 des samaritanischen Berichterstatters. Ferner lief eich der alttestamentliche Gedanke von Gott als Schöpfer yon Himmel und Erde aus dem Zustand der "Leere und öde" it.ohu wa-bohu: Genesis 1,2) in seiner spezifischen Pragung der jüdischen, christlichen (z.B. Johannes Philoponus) und samaritanischen Theologie (s. o. zu Anm.30ff.) ohne Mühe als creatio ex nihilo interpretieren. Warum sollte dies nicht der Fall gewesen sein im Streitgespräch zwischen dem Samaritane

Nevertheless, we do not need to rule out that the report has a historical core. Although Alexander of Aphrodisias did not explicitly teach the eternity of matter, nor did he reject the creation from nothing, Aristotle's point of view considered the constant orbital motion of the ether as an attempt to approach the state of eternal immutability. We find an echo in §§ 8-10 of the Samaritan rapporteur mentioned above. Furthermore, the Old Testament idea of ​​God as the Creator of heaven and earth from the state of "emptiness and desolation" in his specific portrayal of Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan theology, could easily be interpreted as creatio ex nihilo. Why should not this have been the case in the dispute between the Samaritans

I think that just about settles the point. Daiber thinks there are reasons to believe there is an underlying historical core nevertheless despite later additions or modifications.

[andrewcriddle]

To Andrew. I managed to get a copy of Daiber's article. While he suspects that there were a series of rewrites (as is always the case with religious documents) - some Islamic, some Christian - he writes:

Dennoch brauchen wir nicht auszuschliessen, dass cler Bericht einen historischen Kern hat. 50 hat Alexander von Aphrodisias zwar weder ausdrücklich die Ewigkeit der Materie gelehrt noch die Schopfung aus dem Nichts abgelehnt, aber Aristoteles' Standpunkt modifizierend die konstante Kreisbewegung des Himmelsäthers als Versuch einer Annäherung an den Zustand ewiger Unveränderlichkeit gewertet. Ein Echo finden wir in den oben genannten §§8-10 des samaritanischen Berichterstatters. Ferner lief eich der alttestamentliche Gedanke von Gott als Schöpfer yon Himmel und Erde aus dem Zustand der "Leere und öde" it.ohu wa-bohu: Genesis 1,2) in seiner spezifischen Pragung der jüdischen, christlichen (z.B. Johannes Philoponus) und samaritanischen Theologie (s. o. zu Anm.30ff.) ohne Mühe als creatio ex nihilo interpretieren. Warum sollte dies nicht der Fall gewesen sein im Streitgespräch zwischen dem Samaritane

Nevertheless, we do not need to rule out that the report has a historical core. Although Alexander of Aphrodisias did not explicitly teach the eternity of matter, nor did he reject the creation from nothing, Aristotle's point of view considered the constant orbital motion of the ether as an attempt to approach the state of eternal immutability. We find an echo in §§ 8-10 of the Samaritan rapporteur mentioned above. Furthermore, the Old Testament idea of ​​God as the Creator of heaven and earth from the state of "emptiness and desolation" in his specific portrayal of Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan theology, could easily be interpreted as creatio ex nihilo. Why should not this have been the case in the dispute between the Samaritans

I think that just about settles the point. Daiber thinks there are reasons to believe there is an underlying historical core nevertheless despite later additions or modifications.

The fact that Daiber thinks that there is a historical core here is not decisive.

We really need an English translation of the debate between Alexander and the Samaritans. I tried but my German is too poor. I asked an acquaintance who does technical translation from German to English but she was too busy with other things.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

'The point is settled' was not indicative of my willingness to allow any idiot who wrote a monograph to decide the origin of an MS but rather merely to ignore your inference from the point about Islamic influences in the text which was ultimately borrowed from Dauber. Dauber does bringing up the Islamic influence but then limits its effect to essentially superficiality.

Come on, Andrew. The idea that someone would know or care about Samaritans after the Islamic conquest is f-ing ridiculous. They were a marginalized people who suffered greatly at the hands of their Muslim conquerors. If there was a wholly manufactured text it would be surprising to enlist the Samaritans as the main protagonists. While Alexander of Aphrodisias was well known in Islamic literature, why make him the bad guy defeated by a thoroughly marginalized people and moreover why choose an otherwise unknown hero Levi? Even the Samaritans don't know who this guy was.

My bottom line would be no one except a Samaritan would manufacture a fake history about a victorious Samaritan protagonist defeating a revered pagan (in Islamic literature) like Alexander of Aphrodisias and they would have chosen a more famous Samaritan hero than this unknown Levi.

[Secret Alias]

And in case others are interested why this matters. If the core story of this report is historical it helps explain the origin of orthodox Christianity. It was Imperial assisted in a way that would make Allen Brent have an out of body experience. https://brill.com/view/title/6684

[Secret Alias]

The focus of mythicists is misguided. You can't prove that Jesus didn't exist. The more practical argument (IMHO) is that whatever Christianity was in the first century of its existence it was changed and ultimately corrupted by Imperial pressure as Brent notes happened in various other cultures in the period. The Samaritan example is one he misses and one which is much 'closer to home' as it were with respect to Christianity. The Jewish conspiracy between Judah haNasi and 'Antonius' is another he under reports. In the case of the Samaritan report involving Alexander of Aphrodisias the most obvious parallel is the manner in which the earliest Church Fathers identify and enumerate the various 'sects' of Christianity. Of course scholarship acknowledges that the term 'sects' or 'heresies' has to do with philosophy. How couldn't they? But this doesn't mean that all the sects were actual philosophical schools. It only means that whoever was compiling the list of 'species' in effect he was a philosopher, he was influenced by later Aristotelian enumeration efforts. The naming of many of the sects with similarly strange nomenclature (a kind of Latinized Greek) is especially peculiar given the same sorts of traits in the Markan gospel (albeit not identical nomenclature per se only the Latinized part) and also the same Latinized Nomenclature in Acts. The Church Father who named all the heresies was bookish. He was a scholar. He had access to a library and to the various things written about Christianity in the past (hence also the additions to Luke-Acts from Suetonius, Josephus etc). The new Christianity was established in a library or libraries. This information was quickly passed on to pagan critics like Celsus. There was a battle going on in the libraries, among the elite. The changes that took place in Christianity in the late second century were top-down changes. They were guided by this strange philosophical 'sect-book' - look out for these, look out for those. These 'sect-books' were rapidly copied in loose forms similar to a lost original. They were like bird watching notebooks for ancient ornithologists. Or maybe the example is a guide book for various species of plants. Watch out for these, they're poisonous, these cause upset stomach etc.

[Secret Alias]

I think the guide books were warnings to the newly established bishops that arguments made by congregationalists that sounded like this or that species of 'heresy' meant that the person making it was 'one of them.' The overarching reporting about who Marcion is or who Valentinus was wasn't really important. The real purpose was to stigmatize certain arguments as being associated with evil and evil groups.

[lsayre]

I think the guide books were warnings to the newly established bishops that arguments made by congregationalists that sounded like this or that species of 'heresy' meant that the person making it was 'one of them.' The overarching reporting about who Marcion is or who Valentinus was wasn't really important. The real purpose was to stigmatize certain arguments as being associated with evil and evil groups.

I'd say you are firing on all cylinders with this approach. I'm glued to this thread now.