On the proposed Hyppolyti

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

On the proposed Hyppolyti

Post by MrMacSon »


.
at present the view prevails that...the Hippolytus corpus was written not by one man, but by two or more Hippolyti, whose identities remain unclear. Was one a ‘schismatic’ bishop, even a bishop of Rome,13 or was he an anonymous unknown?14

John F. Baldovin reflects recent scholarship by Christoph Markschies,15 Allen Brent,16 Manlio Simonetti,17 and John A. Cerrato.18 They agree that ‘there are at least two writers to whom the Hippolytan corpus can be attributed’,19 an idea earlier advanced by Pierre Nautin.20

The problem of Hippolytan authorship is further complicated by two other writings, the attribution of which to Hippolytus has been claimed and disputed: the Contra Noetum21 and the Refutatio omnium haeresium.22 While Luise Abramowski23 advanced reasons why these two works cannot be authored by a single person, Marcel Richard, a Hippolytan scholar for decades, complained that the terrible Greek style and composition of Contra Noetum shows its post-Apollinarianist dating (similarly its editor Robert Butterworth), and concluded that this opusculum could not have been written by Hippolytus.24 Richard’s opinion (supported by Photius25) has been endorsed by Josef Frickel, Caroline Bammel and Reinhard M. Hübner.26 In contrast to this position, Brent and Simonetti opted for Hippolytan authorship of Contra Noetum and attributed the Refutatio to another author, as Brent suggested, a member of the Hippolytan Roman community.27 Even the authorship of a third work, the extensive commentary In Danielem, is not undisputed.28

In his relatively recent monograph, Hippolytus between East and West, Cerrato provides us with valuable insights into the question of Hippolytus’ provenance. Cerrato places the author of the In Danielem and other biblical commentaries, including De benedictionibus Iacobi et Isaaci and the De antichristo, as well as writings of other kinds like De Pascha and the Refutatio,29 into the Asian East, and does not see these works as being derived from Rome.

... Cerrato’s main arguments for placing Hippolytus into the East [include] commentary writing during the second and third centuries is unattested for Rome, but is an activity typical of Asia. In order to make his case, Cerrato lists ‘commentators of the east’,30 before looking at those in the West31 and states: ‘Commentary activity in the west in the second century is sparse, as is the witness to its existence’; however, in his list of Eastern commentators he includes Ptolemy and Heracleon as authors of the earliest known, or preserved in fragmentary form, commentaries on books of the New Testament and, in the case of Heracleon, writings on John,32 yet he does not indicate that these two lived, taught and, therefore most likely also wrote their commentaries, at Rome.


Vinzent, Markus (2019) Writing the History of Early Christianity (pp. 165-166). Cambridge University Press.

13 See the clear outline of the various possibilities, proposed during an extensive history of scholarship in (Cerrato 2002: 4– 5).

14 Litwa, David. 2016. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated with an Introduction and Notes (SBL Press: Atlanta).

15 (Markschies 1999).

16 (Brent, Allen. 1995. Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop (Brill: Leiden).

17 (Simonetti 1989, 1996, 2000: 130– 6, 2004).

18 (Cerrato 2002: 11– 12 (to some extent he follows Brent)). The most recent and most nuanced overview is given by Norelli, 2017 [see below]). See also (Zani 1984).

19 (Baldovin 2003: 524). See now also (Norelli 2017).
  • Baldovin, John F. 2003. ‘Hippolytus and the Apostolic tradition: Recent research and commentary’, Theological Studies, 64: 520– 42.
  • Norelli, Enrico. 2017. ‘Hippolyte et le corpus Hippolytéen’ in Bernard Pouderon (ed.), Histoire de la littérature Grecque Chrétienne des origines à 451 III. De Clément d’Alexandrie à Eusèbe de Césarée (Les Belles Lettres: Paris), 413–82.
20 (Hippolyte, Josipe and Nautin 1947).
  • Nautin, Pierre. 1947. Hippolyte et Josipe, contribution à l’histoire de la littérature chrétienne du troisième siècle (les Éditions du Cerf (Limoges, impr. de Bontemps): Paris).
21 (Hippolytus and Butterworth 1977; Hippolytus and Simonetti 2000).

22 (Hippolytus and Marcovich 1986; Hippolytus and Wendland 1977).

23 (Abramowski, Luise. 1981. Drei chistologische Unterrsuchungen (Walter de Gruyter: Berlin; New York); pp 23– 4).

24 (Hippolytus and Butterworth 1977: 34; Richard 1969: 533).

25 Bibliotheca, cod. 121 (II 95– 96 Henry).

26 (Bammel 1990: 198; Frickel 1993: 101– 19; Hübner 1999: 3).

27 (Brent 1995). 28 (Baldovin 2003: 524; Cerrato 2002). See the response to Baldovin and Cerrato by (Brent 2004). Brent sees as problematic that Cerrato equates cultural with geographical distance. Communities, according to Brent, can live spatially next door to one another and yet be at variance in their perspectives, as the case of the Quartodecimans at Rome, excommunicated there by Victor in the second century shows. Victor was no fourth-century pope, he was unable to excommunicate distant dioceses, let alone impose a monepiscopacy on Roman Christians.

29 He seems to exclude him from having authored the so-called Traditio Apostolica.

30 (Cerrato 2002: 16– 23).

31 (Ibid.: 23– 4).

32 Ptolemy wrote only a commentary on John’s Prologue, while Heracleon, a little later, wrote on the entire Gospel; see (Vinzent 2011: 102– 3).
----------------

Abramowski, Luise. 1981. Drei chistologische Unterrsuchungen (Walter de Gruyter: Berlin; New York).

Baldovin, John F. 2003. ‘Hippolytus and the Apostolic tradition: Recent research and commentary’, Theological Studies, 64: 520– 42.

Bammel, Caroline P. 1990. ‘The state of play with regard to Hippolytus and the Contra Noetum’, Heythrop Journal, 31: 195– 8.

Brent, Allen. 1995. Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop (E.J.Brill: Leiden).

Brent, Allen. 2004. ‘St Hippolytus, biblical exegete, Roman bishop, and martyr’, St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 48: 207– 31.

Cerrato, J.A. 2002. Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus (Oxford University Press: Oxford).

Frickel, Josef. 1988. Das Dunkel um Hippolyt von Rom: ein Lösungsversuch: die Schriften Elenchos und contra Noetum, (Universität Graz: Graz).

Frickel, Josef. 1993. ‘Hippolyts Schrift Contra Noetum: Ein Pseudo-Hippolyt’ in Hanns Christoph Brennecke (ed.), Logos. Festschrift für Luise Abramowski (De Gruyter: Berlin), 87– 123.

Hübner, Reinhard M. 1999. ‘Melito von Sardes und Noet von Smyrna’, in Reinhard M. Hübner and Markus Vinzent (eds.), Der paradox Eine. Antignostischer Monarchianismus im zweiten Jahrhundert (Brill: Leiden), 1– 32.

Litwa, David. 2016. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated with an Introduction and Notes (SBL Press: Atlanta).

Nautin, Pierre. 1947. Hippolyte et Josipe, contribution à l’histoire de la littérature chrétienne du troisième siècle (les Éditions du Cerf (Limoges, impr. de Bontemps): Paris).

Norelli, Enrico. 2017. ‘Hippolyte et le corpus Hippolytéen’ in Bernard Pouderon (ed.), Histoire de la littérature Grecque Chrétienne des origines à 451 III. De Clément d’Alexandrie à Eusèbe de Césarée (Les Belles Lettres: Paris), 413–82.

Simonetti, Manlio. 1989. ‘Aggiornamento su Ippolito’, in Ricerche su Ippolito (Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum: Roma).

Simonetti, Manlio. 1995. ‘Tra Noeto, Ippolito e Melitone’, RSLR, 31: 393– 414.

Simonetti, Manlio. 1996. ‘Una nuova proposta su Ippolito’, Augustinianum, 36: 13– 45.

Simonetti, Manlio. 2000. Ippolito. Contra Noeto (Dehoniana: Bologna).

Simonetti, Manlio. 2004. ‘Margherita Guarducci tra san Pietro e sant’Ippolito’, Vetera Christianorum, 41: 191– 206.
.

Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: On the proposed Hyppolyti

Post by andrewcriddle »

Alistair Stewart (Stewart-Sykes) argues in Hippolytus On the Apostolic Tradition that there were two authors, both Roman. An early 3rd century author who wrote Against All Heresies and a mid 3rd century author who wrote Against Noetus.

The original version of the Apostolic Tradition was prepared by the early 3rd century author but all our manuscript evidence goes back to a revised and expanded edition prepared by the mid 3rd century author.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: On the proposed Hyppolyti

Post by MrMacSon »

andrewcriddle wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:56 am Alistair Stewart (Stewart-Sykes) argues in Hippolytus On the Apostolic Tradition that there were two authors, both Roman. An early 3rd century author who wrote Against All Heresies and a mid 3rd century author who wrote Against Noetus.

The original version of the Apostolic Tradition was prepared by the early 3rd century author but all our manuscript evidence goes back to a revised and expanded edition prepared by the mid 3rd century author.

Andrew Criddle
Cheers Andrew.

Much of Alaistair Stewart-Sykes commentary is available as a look inside preview of the Introduction of Amazon's 2011 version of On The Apostolic Tradition (Popular Patristics Series Book 22) -

Vinzent also addressed the Apostolic Tradition. In fact, the full version of the first sentence of the excerpt quoted above is

.
"Hence, at present the view prevails that the Apostolic Tradition should not be attributed to Hippolytus,12 and that the Hippolytus corpus was written not by one man, but by two or more Hippolyti, whose identities remain unclear."

12 (Baldovin 2003; Bausi 2009: 302– 3; Bradshaw 2004; Bradshaw, Johnson and Phillips 2002; Brent 2004; Cerrato 2004; Hippolytus and Simonetti 2000; Hippolytus and Stewart 2001; Markschies 1999; Stewart-Sykes 2004). In a forthcoming study on ‘Jesus Christ in the Traditio Apostolica’ I will show that ]the Christology of the Traditio Apostolica (in the main text with the exceptions of later additions in some prayers and the baptismal questions) is very different from that of Hippolytus and rather similar to that of Hippolytus’ opponent Callistus (or Zephyrinus).

Hippolytus and Alistair C. Stewart. 2001. On Spiritual Gifts: The Apostolic Tradition (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press: Crestwood, NY).

Stewart-Sykes, Alistair. 2004. ‘Traditio Apostolica: The liturgy of third-century Rome and the Hippolytean School or Quomodo Historia Liturgica Conscribenda Sit’, St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 48: 233– 48.

.


Immediately previously, Vinzent wrote, -


... Hippolytus remains a scholarly riddle and an enigmatic author.6 One Hippolytus scholar, Josef Frickel, in his Das Dunkel um Hippolyt von Rom (The Darkness Surrounding Hippolytus of Rome), published in 1988, stated:

It is a daring, almost overambitious venture to write today about the early Christian writer Hippolytus of Rome. Because almost everything that the learned world of the past hundred years thought to know for certain about Origen and Tertullian has been questioned again in most recent scholarship, yet with the doubts surrounding Hippolytus of Rome it is not, as with many other church writers (for example Athanasius, Chrysostom or Augustine), to do with certain works … but with the existence of his person as such; the man and the writer Hippolytus of Rome is questioned.7

How challenging the study of Hippolytus is Frickel himself shows by the fact that he had to revoke some of his earlier views on Hippolytus,8 soon after Enrico dal Covolo spoke of ‘an exhausting’ or perhaps better ‘tiring search for authorship’, 9 and then Christoph Markschies called the debate about Hippolytus’ authorship of the Apostolic Tradition an ‘almost irresolvable question’.10 In the meantime, the multiplication of options ranging from one to several Hippolyti has not made this field any more certain, although the prevailing tendency of scholarship is towards a two- or three-Hippolyti solution. 11

Vinzent, Markus. Writing the History of Early Christianity (pp. 164-165). Cambridge University Press.

6 ‘L’ énigme d’Hippolyte’, see (Norelli 2017: 419).

7 (Frickel 1988: 1) (own translation). In this work he suggested a single-author theory, whereas five years later he retracted it and no longer holds to Hippolytus’ authorship of the Contra Noëtum; see (Frickel 1993).

8 (Frickel 1988). Very similar (Scholten 1991a).

9 (Covolo 1992: 53: ‘faticosa ricerca di paternità’).

10 (Markschies 1999). John F. Baldovin summarises the critical position: ‘The title of the document in question is not the Apostolic Tradition. It cannot be attributed to Hippolytus, an author whose corpus of biblical commentaries and anti-heretical treatises is somewhat well known. As a matter of fact, it is even doubtful whether the corpus of that writer can actually be attributed to a single writer. Finally, the document does not give us certain information about the liturgical practice of the early-third-century Roman Church’ (Baldovin 2003: 521).

11 See the survey in (Bracht 2014: 30– 3; Norelli 2017). She mentions the suggestion of two Hippolyti, a solution supported by (Brent 2004; Simonetti 1989, 1996). There is also the suggestion of three different Hippolyti, proposed by (Castelli 2012). Scholarship becomes even more complex, as on the basis of ‘at least two authors’ by the name of Hippolyt, the attribution of works like that of the Synagoge between the two is disputed; see the debate with this quote here by (Castelli 2009). Castelli refers to (Andrei 2006, 2007).
.

schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: On the proposed Hyppolyti

Post by schillingklaus »

Another Hippolytan text not referenced is his comment on Daniel.

There is no such thing as an original version of the Apostolic Tradition, it is all piecemeal collected from many generations and regions of the Roman empire.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: On the proposed Hyppolyti

Post by andrewcriddle »

schillingklaus wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:20 pm Another Hippolytan text not referenced is his comment on Daniel.

There is no such thing as an original version of the Apostolic Tradition, it is all piecemeal collected from many generations and regions of the Roman empire.
There clearly was in the early 4th century CE a Greek version of the Apostolic Tradition which was modified edited translated etc by later writers. What is less clear is whether this goes back to an earlier 3rd century text and whether if so this 3rd century text is of Roman origin. IMO the answer to both questions is yes but many scholars would disagree.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On the proposed Hyppolyti

Post by Leucius Charinus »

https://archive.org/stream/philosophume ... t_djvu.txt

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V
Translated by the Rev. J. H. Macmahon, M.a


ARCHIVE:

Full text of "Philosophumena; or, The refutation of all heresies, formerly attributed to Origen, but now to Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, who flourished about 220 A.D. Translated from the text of Cruice"

Publication date 1921

NOTES

The MS., written as appears from the colophon by one
Michael in an extremely crabbed hand of the fourteenth
century, is full of erasures and interlineations, and has
several serious lacunae.


Forgery:
Dr. George Salmon, Provost of Trinity College, Dublin
Heinrich Stahelin


Jacobi, its first critic, was so struck by the
number of " Latinisms " that he found in it as to conjecture
that it is nothing but a Greek translation of a Latin original.



He further accuses Callistus of leaning towards
the heresy of Noetus who refused to admit any
difference between the First and Second Persons of the
Trinity...


Authorship:

Jacobi in a German theological journal was
the first to declare that it must have been written by
Hippolytus, a contemporary of Callistus, 2 and this proved
to be like the letting out of waters. The dogma of Papal
Infallibility was already in the air, and the opportunity was
at once seized by the Baron von Bunsen, then Prussian
Ambassador at the Court of St. James', to do what he could
to defeat its promulgation. In his Hippolytus and his Age \
(1852), he asserted his belief in Jacobi's theory, and drew
from the abuse of Callistus in Book IX of the newly dis-
covered text, the conclusion that even in the third century
the Primacy of the Bishops of Rome was effectively denied.
The celebrated Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln,
followed with a scholarly study in which, while rejecting
von Bunsen's conclusion, he admitted his main premises ;
and Dr. Dollinger, who was later to prove the chief
opponent of Papal claims, appeared a little later with a
work on the same side. Against these were to be found
none who ventured to defend the supposed authorship of
Origen, but many who did not believe that the work was
rightly attributed to Hippolytus. Among the Germans,
Fessler and Baur pronounced for Caius, a presbyter to
whom Photius in the ninth century gave the curious title
of " Bishop of Gentiles, " as author ; of the Italians, de
Rossi assigned it to Tertullian and Armellini to Novatian ;
of the French, the Abbe Jallabert in a doctoral thesis voted
for Tertullian ; while Cruice, who was afterwards to translate
the work, thought its author must be either Caius or Ter-
tullian.


PHILOSOPHUMENA

INTRODUCTION

i. The Text, its Discovery, Publication and Editions

The story of the discovery of the book here translated so
resembles a romance as to appear like a flower in the dry
and dusty field of patristic lore. A short treatise called
Phiiosop/iumena, or " Philosophizings, " had long been
known, four early copies of it being in existence in the
Papal and other libraries of Rome, Florence and Turin.
The superscriptions of these texts and a note in the margin
of one of them caused the treatise to be attributed to Origen,
and its Editio princeps is that published in 1701 at Leipzig
by Fabricius with notes by the learned Gronovius. As will
be seen later, it is by itself of no great importance to
modern scholars, as it throws no new light on the history
or nature of Greek philosophy, while it is mainly com-
piled from some of those epitomes of philosophic opinion
current in the early centuries of our era, of which the
works of Diogenes Laertius and Aetius are the best known.

In the year 1840, however, Mynoides Mynas, a learned
Greek, was sent by Abel Villemain, then Minister of Public
Instruction in the Government of Louis Philippe, on a
voyage of discovery to the monasteries of Mt. Athos,
whence he returned with, among other things, the MS. of
the last seven books contained in these volumes.

Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: On the proposed Hyppolyti

Post by Secret Alias »

Come on. It's not a fucking 'forgery' in YOUR sense of the word. He's saying that it was wrongly attributed to Origen. Surely the WORST POSSIBLE explanation for the Philosophumena is that it was created in a fourth century 'forgery factory' as you would suggest. The author knows Irenaeus but for some reason doesn't know the account of the Marcionites which makes its way into edition of Against Heresies. More importantly, as we read in Book Three of Against Heresies quite clearly Irenaeus has decided to respond to some prompting by some Christian to explain certain things. Irenaeus decides to answer with Book One of Against Heresies which is specifically written against the Valentinians and then it is subsequently argued at chapter 22 how the various Valentinians sprung from Simon using Justin's Syntagma. The Philosophumena doesn't use the same material that appears in the first seven or so chapters of Against Heresies. What is shared in common is the transition from this material on 'Valentinus' or 'Valentinians' to Secundus and then Marcus. But even here the author of the Philosophumena knew Irenaeus's original account on the Marcosians and admits Irenaeus got some things wrong (as the Marcosians complained). But he necessarily assumes that Irenaeus's account of the 'Valentinians' is correct (even though it is not the same as what now appears in the Philosophumena). It's hard to know what happened. Did the Philosophumena also revise the account of the Valentinians as we see with respect to the Marcosians? Here are the two references:
For also the blessed presbyter Irenaeus, having approached the subject of a refutation in a more unconstrained spirit, has explained such washings and redemptions, stating more in the way of a rough digest what are their practices. (And it appears that some of the Marcosians,) on meeting with (Irenaeus' work), deny that they have so received (the secret word just alluded to), but they have learned that always they should deny. Wherefore our anxiety has been more accurately to investigate, and to discover minutely what are the (instructions) which they deliver in the case of the first bath, styling it by some such name; and in the case of the second, which they denominate Redemption. But not even has this secret of theirs escaped (our scrutiny). For these opinions, however, we consent to pardon Valentinus and his school.
and then at the end of Book Six:
These assertions, then, those who are of the school of Valentinus advance concerning both the creation and the universe, in each case propagating opinions still more empty. And they suppose this to constitute productiveness (in their system), if any one in like manner, making some greater discovery, will appear to work wonders. And finding, (as they insinuate,) each of the particulars of Scripture to accord with the aforesaid numbers, they (attempt to) criminate Moses and the prophets, alleging that these speak allegorically of the measures of the Aeons. And inasmuch as these statements are trifling and unstable, it does not appear to me expedient to bring them before (the reader. This, however, is the less requisite,) as now the blessed presbyter Irenaeus has powerfully and elaborately refuted the opinions of these (heretics). And to him we are indebted for a knowledge of their inventions, (and have thereby succeeded in) proving that these heretics, appropriating these opinions from the Pythagorean philosophy, and from over-spun theories of the astrologers, cast an imputation upon Christ, as though He had delivered these (doctrines). But since I suppose that the worthless opinions of these men have been sufficiently explained, and that it has been clearly proved whose disciples are Marcus and Colarbasus, who were successors of the school of Valentinus, let us see what statement likewise Basilides advances.
The Philosophumena's account of Basilides is also a wholesale revision from what we have in Against Heresies. So too Marcion. Does this mean that the author threw out all that we preserve in Against Heresies because Irenaeus was known to be factually wrong or is there a more complex relationship. Who knows. Much thought is needed (rather than your ignorant ramblings). My guess is that Irenaeus is more complicated than has previously been acknowledged.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On the proposed Hyppolyti

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:14 pm Come on. It's not a fucking 'forgery' in YOUR sense of the word. He's saying that it was wrongly attributed to Origen. Surely the WORST POSSIBLE explanation for the Philosophumena is that it was created in a fourth century 'forgery factory' as you would suggest.
The Philosophumena manuscript is supposedly a 14th century copy of an Ante Nicene text written by <<INSERT NAME HERE>>, and discovered in 1840. I would strongly suggest that it be subject to C14 dating. The Latin forgery mill Pseudo-Isidore has been openly classified as a 9th century 'forgery factory'. Let the C14 be given voice in the dogma stakes. C14 might reveal a 17th/18th century result. We dont know unless we trust the church industry. Why trust it? I'd prefer to trust the science industry.

Reading the Philosophumena is not the same as reading texts in the Nag Hammadi Library for example. The latter represent a time capsule from the mid 4th century. The former represents a text "discovered" in the archives of the utterly corrupt church industry for which provenance is being defined by the church industry. Mainstream scholarship is directly dependent upon the notion of "The Immaculate transmission of church industry manuscripts" from antiquity. Texts such attributed to Hippolytus and/or Irenaeus are uncritically accepted as time capsules from Ante Nicene authors. Buyer beware. The fact is these hypotheses are NOT proven and uncertainty must be granted a seat at the table. You and the mainstream wheel barrow can trust the church industry sources. I choose not to.
My guess is that Irenaeus is more complicated than has previously been acknowledged.
My guess is that Irenaeus is a forgery of the Latin Nicene church industry which was kick-started by Damasus and his pupil Jerome. There never were any Greek manuscripts for Irenaeus underpinning the truckloads of Latin manuscripts. The notion that P. Oxy 405 is a Greek ante Nicene Irenaeus fragment is the product of confirmation bias and another example of modern church industry "group think". Irenaeus has knowledge of some of the texts in the Nag Hammadi library because Irenaeus was fabricated after these texts had been circulating. This guess does not require Constantine or Eusebius or Aliens or Qanon. It only requires that the utterly corrupt Nicene church industry (preservers of the NT Canonical Jesus Story Books) of antiquity (and the middle ages) conspired to fabricated the history of their conflict with the heretical authors of the NT apocrypha and NHL. My guess is that we are not dealing with the church industry as a divine institute. But don't let me spoil your delusion.
Last edited by Leucius Charinus on Fri Jun 03, 2022 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: On the proposed Hyppolyti

Post by Secret Alias »

I would strongly suggest that it be subject to C14 dating.
Why would this help? How can you consistently suffer from mental retardation like this? Surely you understand the concept of scribal copying. The idea that our copies of this or that ancient author isn't the original edition of that ancient author. It is shameful the way you have a mental block when coming upon any piece of evidence out there and only see the way it can be used to further your argument. It's so shameful. But then again you have to have shame to be subject to shame.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On the proposed Hyppolyti

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 6:35 am
I would strongly suggest that it be subject to C14 dating.
Why would this help?
After its discovery in 19th century the manuscript was dated by paleography to the 14th century. C14 dating would produce an independent and scientific assessment of its true age. What sort of a problem do you have with this? As far as I am concerned C14 dating should be a standard and professional practice in anything to do with the origins of Christian literature.
How can you consistently suffer from mental retardation like this? Surely you understand the concept of scribal copying.
I also understand the concept of the forgery of manuscripts by the utterly corrupt church industry in any century. For example what if the C14 dating produces results in the 18th or early 19th century? How would one view such a late result?

For example prior to the discovery of this heresiological manuscript which is to be attributed to an ancient Ante Nicene author <<INSERT NAME OF ANTE NICENE HERESIOLOGIST HERE>> there were earlier manuscript discoveries from the original heretics themselves. These include the Bruce Codex in 1769 and the Askew Codex in 1795. Both of these were more or less immediately acquired by the British Museum. Perhaps the church industry considered it necessary to "discover" further heresiological material in order to counter the discovery of the original writing of the so-called gnostic heretics. A scientific C14 test result would either confirm the Philosophumena manuscript is from the 14th century. Conversely it could suggest the manuscript was actually produced in a much later century.
The idea that our copies of this or that ancient author isn't the original edition of that ancient author.
You are free to make all sorts of assumptions. Just remember that at the start of this great epoch of Christian literature Eusebius "discovered" a hand-written letter by Jesus H. Christ in the archives.
It is shameful the way you have a mental block when coming upon any piece of evidence out there and only see the way it can be used to further your argument. It's so shameful. But then again you have to have shame to be subject to shame.
My argument is that the church industry was a) utterly corrupt and b) shamelessly fabricated and/or forged manuscripts which would then be used to construct its own pseudo-historical narratives. This argument is supported by the vast collections of forged and fabricated documents tendered by the church industry. You cannot deny the evidence for forgery and fabrication exists. So the problem is how to account for it.

The heresiological material is IMO pseudo-historical fabrication which was assembled by the same church industry which at the same time (later 4th century or afterwards) fabricated Christian Hagiography, Christian Martyrology, the Cult of the Saints and the Martyrs and the pseudo-history associated with the fabulously successful Holy Relic trade. If you cannot perceive these fabrications to be shameless inventions of the later Nicene church industry then you are engaged in theology and not history.
Post Reply