Script Preview: The Wild World of Ancient Christian Propaganda

I thought this video would be MUCH less research-intensive than it turned out to be, but I'm finally prepping this one to be filmed. This video will be released by this weekend, but for now, I hope you enjoy a read-through! I'm expecting this one to get demonetized for a while (if you read to the end you'll see why) so I'm glad you guys are here to make it work regardless.  Thank you for the support this month, everyone!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wild World of Ancient Christian Propaganda

In my last video, one of the subjects I discussed was Marcionism, an early, ditheistic Christian sect. Those who saw it might remember this disclaimer:

3:22-3:46

https://youtu.be/-PgOsslDABo

If you’ve read these writings about Marcion yourself, I’m sure you can agree that this warning of mine was necessary. Just listen to the way Tertullian opens up his work from 208CE, Against Marcion, in describing Marcion’s birthplace, and then Marcion himself.

“The Euxine Sea, as it is called, is self-contradictory in its nature, and deceptive in its name. As you would not account it hospitable from its situation, so is it severed from our more civilised waters by a certain stigma which attaches to its barbarous character. The fiercest nations inhabit it, if indeed it can be called habitation, when life is passed in waggons. They have no fixed abode; their life has no germ of civilization; they indulge their libidinous desires without restraint, and for the most part naked. Moreover, when they gratify secret lust, they hang up their quivers on their car-yokes, to warn off the curious and rash observer. Thus without a blush do they prostitute their weapons of war. The dead bodies of their parents they cut up with their sheep, and devour at their feasts. They who have not died so as to become food for others, are thought to have died an accursed death. Their women are not by their sex softened to modesty. They uncover the breast, from which they suspend their battle-axes, and prefer warfare to marriage. In their climate, too, there is the same rude nature. The day-time is never clear, the sun never cheerful; the sky is uniformly cloudy; the whole year is wintry; the only wind that blows is the angry North. Waters melt only by fires; their rivers flow not by reason of the ice; their mountains are covered with heaps of snow. All things are torpid, all stiff with cold. Nothing there has the glow of life, but that ferocity which has given to scenic plays their stories of the sacrifices of the Taurians, and the loves of the Colchians, and the torments of the Caucasus. Nothing, however, in Pontus is so barbarous and sad as the fact that Marcion was born there, fouler than any Scythian, more roving than the waggon-life of the Sarmatian, more inhuman than the Massagete, more audacious than an Amazon, darker than the cloud, (of Pontus) colder than its winter, more brittle than its ice, more deceitful than the Ister, more craggy than Caucasus. Nay more, the true Prometheus, Almighty God, is mangled by Marcion's blasphemies. Marcion is more savage than even the beasts of that barbarous region.”

This, my friends, is what critical scholars everywhere call a big yikes.

As if we need much more proof of Tertullian’s own bias playing a big part here, he ends the section I was just reading from with this:

“But another brief treatise will maintain this position against heretics, who ought to be refuted even without a consideration of their doctrines, on the ground that they are heretical by reason of the novelty of their opinions. Now, so far as any controversy is to be admitted, I will for the time (lest our compendious principle of novelty, being called in on all occasions to our aid, should be imputed to want of confidence) begin with setting forth our adversary's rule of belief, that it may escape no one what our main contention is to be.”

If I’m understanding Tertullian correctly here, he’s saying that in refuting so-called heresy, we shouldn’t even consider its doctrine, but toss it out simply because its ideas are novel. However, he is going to spell out the doctrine of marcionism this time so everyone understands the problems he has with it.

There is more to the text than insults, but the bias of the author is very apparent from the beginning. Given that we don’t have Marcion’s side of the story, it’s hard to tell how well Tertullian represents Marcion’s views. judging by how Tertullian treats Marcion himself in the text, it’s unlikely that Marcion’s theology is portrayed completely accurately.

Welcome to the R-rated rollercoaster ride that is ancient Christian heresyology. This was the field of ancient “scholarship” wherein proto-orthodox church fathers wrote against those who held to Christian theology other than their own. Here are a few things to know as we get into this. One: When I say proto-orthodox, I’m using the term as New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman does:

2:05-2:26

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iETyYsTUCD8

Two: Keep in mind that in the case of many ancient Christian sects, all the information we have is that which was penned by the proto-orthodox, their fiercest detractors. For some, however, we do have some of their writings. In the case of those within the gnostic school of thought, we have the Nag Hammadi library, a collection of gnostic writings uncovered in the Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi in the relatively recent year of 1945.

Finally, three: I’m not arguing for any particular theology here, as I’m not religious. This is just an examination of some of the wackier parts of ancient theological discourse which contributed to the religious landscape we see today.

Alright, so, if you thought Tertullian’s introduction to Against Marcion was wild, you’re in for a bit of a shock. His writings, in my opinion, are relatively mild compared to other texts of this kind. The writings of Heresyologists often included extensive diatribes about the moral failures of the sects they sought to refute. Many of the moral transgressions discussed, though, are so extreme as to strain credulity among any cautious reader.

Simply put, these church fathers accused other Christians with which they had theological differences of doing things that were so abusive and disgusting that, well, it’s kind of unbelievable. Literally.

A very popular work of heresiology is titled what may be translated to ‘Against Heresies,’ authored by Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum, in about 180CE. It’s a lengthy piece of work, so I’ll hardly scratch the surface here, but let’s take a look at a few instances where Irenaeus makes some...interesting claims.

In this work’s preface, Irenaeus says this:

“Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith, and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation”

Irenaeus indicates that he sees Christians of other sects, or what he calls heretics, as men who have purposely set the truth aside in order to concoct false but deceptively convincing theologies. Why? To trick less knowledgeable people into following them. It’s vital to recognize that, Carried into the discussion of each sect in this text is Irenaeus’ assumption that christians outside of Proto-orthodoxy are at best, willfully deceptive, and at worst evil. Hopefully I don’t have to explain why this assumption does not bode well for the accuracy of Irenaeus’ representations of so-called heretics from here on.

Now, on to Book 1, chapter 13, Irenaeus’ account of a religious leader named Marcus.

“But there is another among these heretics, Marcus by name, who boasts himself as having improved upon his master. He is a perfect adept in magical impostures, and by this means drawing away a great number of men, and not a few women, he has induced them to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection, and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above. Thus it appears as if he really were the precursor of Antichrist. For, joining the buffooneries of Anaxilaus to the craftiness of the magi, as they are called, he is regarded by his senseless and cracked-brain followers as working miracles by these means.”

Irenaeus then goes on to describe Marcus’ practice of luring rich, beautiful women into his presence, convincing them that they can draw on his magical powers to become prophetesses, and then urging them to reward him “also by yielding up to him her person, desiring in every way to be united to him, that she may become altogether one with him.”

Scandalous.

Of course, Marcus’ ability to do this can only have one explanation.

“It appears probable enough that this man possesses a demon as his familiar spirit, by means of whom he seems able to prophesy, and also enables as many as he counts worthy to be partakers of his Charis themselves to prophesy.”

I wonder how Irenaeus determined this. Did he devise some kind of test capable of detecting demonic activity and then perform that test on Marcus? Given that even today we have no reliable, repeatable method of detecting or measuring demonic activity, I doubt it. It’s difficult to tell how much of this account we should accept at all, really. While we can’t definitely conclude one way or the other, it is quite convenient that this non-orthodox religious leader would be nothing but a sexually deviant, demonically influenced con man, just as Irenaeus assumes of all so-called heretics.

Our last stop in Against Heresies will be book 1, chapter 25, a discussion of the Carpoctatians. According to Irenaeus, this group had some gnostic features, such as the view that the material world was created by lesser divinities, not god, and that Jesus gave some of his disciples secret teachings which would be passed along to those deemed worthy. A few paragraphs into his description of this sect, he writes this:

“They practise also magical arts and incantations; philters, also, and love-potions; and have recourse to familiar spirits, dream-sending demons, and other abominations, declaring that they possess power to rule over, even now, the princes and formers of this world; and not only them, but also all things that are in it. These men, even as the Gentiles, have been sent forth by Satan to bring dishonour upon the Church, so that, in one way or another, men hearing the things which they speak, and imagining that we all are such as they, may turn away their ears from the preaching of the truth; or, again, seeing the things they practise, may speak evil of us all, who have in fact no fellowship with them, either in doctrine or in morals, or in our daily conduct. But they lead a licentious life, and, to conceal their impious doctrines, they abuse the name [of Christ], as a means of hiding their wickedness; so that their condemnation is just, Romans 3:8 when they receive from God a recompense suited to their works.”

Again, Irenaeus claims that a non-orthodox sect is morally perverse, demonic, and bent on destroying the truth for their own gain.

Because, you know, it just isn’t fathomable that other Christians might have honestly reached different theological views than the orthodox.

If you’ve seen my video on the founding attitudes of heresiology, you’re seeing a familiar pattern here. The orthodox evidently believed that the truth of their doctrine was so evident that everyone knew it was true. Some people want to lead a morally repugnant life, though, so they choose to become heretics who lead the simple astray with their crafty lies and magical powers.

What’s a bit more likely, in my opinion, is that people honestly disagreed over the interpretation of literature back then just as they do today, and Irenaeus, being as superstitious as anyone else in those days, personally rationalized their disagreement with him in concluding that non-orthodox Christians must be in league with satan.

Alright, if you’ve made it this far, then you’re about to be rewarded for your patience. Or maybe punished depending on how you look at it. The last text we’ll look at is shocking to say the least.

Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, was a heresiologist best known for his Panarion, a book issued around 378CE which addressed 80 so-called heretical sects. In opening the text, he explains,

“Since I am going to tell you the names of the sects and expose their unlawful deeds like poisons and toxic substances, and at the same time match the antidotes with them as cures for those already bitten and preventatives for those who will have this misfortune, I am drafting this Preface for the scholarly to explain the “Panarion,” or chest of remedies for those whom savage beasts have bitten. It is composed in three Books containing eighty Sects, symbolically represented by wild beasts or snakes”

Starting off by comparing non-orthodox Christians to dangerous animals, alright then.

Thank you, Epiphanius. Very cool.

He also goes on to justify the insults he frequently makes within the text to follow.

“And I further beg your < pardon > if you should find—though it is certainly not my way to mock or ridicule people—but if, from zeal against the sects and for the readers’ dissuasion, I may speak in anger or call certain persons “frauds,” or “tramps” or “wretches.”The very necessity for the words of the controversy is putting me in such a sweat, for the readers’ dissuasion and to show that these persons’ practices, rites and doctrines are the furthest thing from my mind, and thus prove my independence of them with the words and the bitterness of my opposition, and turn people away from them precisely by the words that appear too harsh.”

So, he’s purposely harsh in order to show that one, he’s in no way involved with these sects, and two, that the reader should stay far away from the non-orthodox. Got it.

Let’s take a look at Panarion part 26, Epiphanius’ take on a gnostic sect called the Phibionites. Again, this is a long piece of text, so I’m just hitting some highlights here. This is about to get a bit graphic...and kinky, so just a heads up. We’ll start in panarion 26:4,1.

“But I shall get right down to the worst part of the deadly description of them—for they vary in their wicked teaching of what they please—which is, first of all, that they hold their wives in common. And if a guest who is of their persuasion arrives, they have a sign that men give women and women give men, a tickling of the palm as they clasp hands in sup- posed greeting, to show that the visitor is of their religion.

4,3 And once they recognize each other from this they start feasting right away—and they set the table with lavish provisions for eating meat and drinking wine even if they are poor. But then, after a drinking bout and, let us say, stuffing their overstuffed veins, they get hot for each other next. And the husband will move away from his wife and tell her—speaking to his own wife!—“Get up, perform the Agape with the brother.” …

“For after having made love with the passion of fornication in addition, to lift their blasphemy up to heaven, the woman and man receive the man’s emission on their own hands. And they stand with their eyes raised heavenward but the filth on their hands and pray, if you please— the ones they call Stratiotics and Gnostics—and offer that stuff on their hands to the true Father of all, and say, “We offer thee this gift, the body of Christ.” And then they eat it partaking of their own dirt, and say, “This is the body of Christ; and this is the Pascha, because of which our bodies suffer and are compelled to acknowledge the passion of Christ.” And so with the woman’s emission when she happens to be having her period—they likewise take the unclean menstrual blood they gather from her, and eat it in common. And “This,” they say, “is the blood of Christ.”

Alright yeah, that’s one way to perform the Eucharist I guess. Apparently, though, this group had an even more...special way of doing that. Skipping ahead to 5,4.

“But even though one of them should accidentally implant the seed of his natural emission prematurely and the woman becomes pregnant, listen to a more dreadful thing that such people venture to do.% They extract the fetus at the stage which is appropriate for their enterprise, take this aborted infant, and cut it up in a trough with a pestle. And they mix honey, pepper, and certain other perfumes and spices with it to keep from getting sick, and then all the revellers in this <herd> of swine and dogs assemble, and each eats a piece of the child with his fingers. And now, after this cannibalism, they pray to God and say, “We were not mocked by the archon of lust, but have gathered the brother’s blunder up!” And this, if you please, is their idea of the “perfect Passover.”

Epiphanius, how did you know about all this again?

Really, though, how exactly he came to know about this ritual is important to consider. Later in the text, he explains.

17,4

“For I happened on this sect myself, beloved, and was actually taught these things in person, out of the mouths of people who really undertook them. Not only did women under this delusion offer me this line of talk, and divulge this sort of thing to me. With impudent boldness moreover, they even tried to seduce me themselves…”

17,8

“Now the women who taught this dirty myth were very lovely in their outward appearance but in their wicked minds they had all the devil’s ugliness. But the merciful God rescued me from their wickedness, so that after reading their books, understanding their real intent and not being carried away with it, and after escaping without taking the bait, (9) I lost no time reporting them to the bishops who were there, and finding out which ones were hidden in the church. <Thus> they were expelled from the city, about 80 persons, and the city was cleared of their tare-like, thorny growth.”

By his account, Epiphanius learned all of this from women of this sect who once tried to seduce him, and by reading their books. A cautious reader has to ask, though, if these people performed a secret handshake to identify each other before this ritual, and outsiders’ knowledge of their practices could lead to their complete banishment from the city, does it make any sense that Epiphanius, as an outsider, just was taught about this one day?

This definitely seems like a ritual that would be kept secret from the uninitiated. There are a lot more rituals of this kind described here which I’ve left out, too, which presents yet another problem with the account. Gnostic sects, from their own writings, are actually known to often encourage a highly ascetic lifestyle, meaning that they encouraged abstaining from bodily pleasures and indulgences, preferring instead to focus on spiritual matters. This is the opposite of what Epiphanius describes.

What does make sense, though, is that yet another ancient heresiologist would characterize a Christian sect apart from their own as shockingly sexually deviant, animalistic, evil, and predatory. We can’t definitively say whether these practices ever took place or not, but we have to consider the very real possibility that this is an extreme example of the proto-orthodox once again, simply maligning those who disagree with them.

When I’ve discussed early, non-orthodox Christian theology on my channel, I’ve never failed to receive comments offering supposed corrections. “Oh, those groups weren’t true Christians. They were heretics. Just read the work of Tertullian or Irenaeus or Epiphanius and it will clear it right up for you. Orthodoxy was proven against all these heresies from the beginning.”

The reality of the situation, though, is that the arguments these heresiologists levied at these groups are heavily interspersed with, if not dominated by smears of moral character. The extreme bias evident within these texts severely undermines the reliability of their accounts. I don’t care to make any theological arguments surrounding Christian orthodoxy, but if you are interested in doing so, recognize the nature of the texts you’re dealing with. Defending one's claim to theological superiority by citing heresiological texts as if they’re fully historical and accurate is an uncritical move. If your source is biased, especially to this extreme extent, that’s a weakness to your case that, at the very least, must be acknowledged.

All of this raises the question: How much did the popularity of the views which came to dominate the Christian world, the views of the proto orthodox, owe to their supposed “theological superiority,” and how much is owed the proto-orthodox’s successful propaganda campaign which focused on smearing detractors rather than honestly representing and engaging them?

Thanks for watching