On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

[Leucius Charinus]

About the nomina sacra issue ...

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 140#p30627

(3) The problem of a satisfactory theory of the universal use of the orthodox "nomina sacra" by heretics.

Why did the heretical authors consistently used the orthodox nomina sacra? The alternative theory offers the
explanation that Constantine, as the rightful Pontifex Maximus, had the right to nominate and patronise the god of his
choice. Constantine's god was an encrypted name in a sacred codex. The heretics were responding to the emperor's agenda
and they used his explicit literary forms for these sacred name.

The universal use is explained on account of the small time frame of a decade or so,
rather than two or more centuries required under the mainstream theory. The longer the
timeframe, the lesser is the possibility of universal consistency.

Moreover, you will need to prove the special connection that you find where "heresy" cuts against the use of nomina sacra but "orthodoxy," separately, specially promotes it.

///

Here the reply above falls silent, when it really should have been just getting started.

I have bolded above the main claim. I need to explain it a bit better.

Start with the canon first. Let's say it was authored between 50-150 CE and that the ns (nomina sacra) were (independently?) introduced sometime between 50-200 (probably by an editor of the collection). Copy's are then made of this final form of the canon - undertaken from somewhere between 50 and 200 CE through to 325 CE - when the Official imperial publication happens. The great consistency (without too many errors) of use of the ns in the canonical literature can be understood. The Canonical "school" had relatively small period of early authorship, followed by centuries of copyists. So the almost universal use of the ns in the canonical material can be understood to be largely a result of a) the actions of an editor who introduced the ns standard after which b) copyists simply replicated the texts.

The non canonical stuff is entirely different. Let's say it was authored between 100-400 CE. The upper bound of 400 CE is nominal because it is AFAIK unknown precisely when the collection of non canonical texts stopped being added to by further authorship. IDK if we have such an end-date, but if we do, AFAIK it will be quite late and probably towards the end of the 4th century. This situation represents almost 300 years of gradual and continuous authorship. This is entirely different from the situation with the canonical texts.

The question then is as follows: How did these "heretical" authors who were writing continuously throughout three centuries maintain an almost universal use of the ns over this period? This issue is compounded when we take into account that there was most likely not one "school" (as may be assumed for the canon) but multiple (non canonical) "schools". For example, the Valentinians and the Sethians and even the "Leucian school" which produced a mass of Hellenistic romance narratives, especially the "Acts" of a large number of apostles and other identities (eg: Pilate). To summarise the non canonical situation we have two or three or possibly more groups or "schools" authoring literary material over perhaps as much as three centuries - without an editor of any entire collection until possibly the 4th century - in which there is an almost universal use of the ns.

How do we explain this almost universal consistency of use of the ns for the (many schools of) non canonical authors over a 300 year period? The longer the timeframe the greater is the likelihood that there will NOT be any universal consistence of use - especially seeing that authorship was continuous. (We are NOT dealing with the accuracy of copyists, but the accuracy of multiple groups of authors). This is the main claim that I made above. How can it be evaluated?

There are at least two possibilities ...

1) The 300 years of authorship of non canonical texts by various "schools" of authors was being meticulously governed by these authors actually having a copy of the canonical books (including the nomina sacra) before them as they authored their own various novel "Jesus and Apostle Stories" and other texts. This would explain an almost universal use of the ns in the non canonical texts. But is this hypothesis actually falsifiable? It implies that those who would be labelled as "heretical authors" by the canonical heresiologists were actually highly focussed upon the text of the canon, for 300 years, underground and alongside the canonical Christian "school". I guess this is possible.

2) We are not dealing with 300 years of NC authorship, but a much smaller time frame. This possibility explains the almost universal consistency of use of the ns because there were not many schools over many centuries and generations producing new stories, but rather a number of different schools responding to the canonical text over as little as one generation producing these stories.


SUMMARY

I have attempted to outline the logic behind my comments related to an explanation for what is "an almost universal consistency" of use of the ns by the non canonical authors. I should probably define this a little better. The use of the ns in both the canonical and non canonical texts do exhibit a small degree of variance. This suggests that nobody made (too many) mistakes in copying and using these codes, but there were some mistakes and variations made. This is to be expected anytime. Scribes make mistakes, authors may get INVENTIVE, and other reasons. However the longer the timeframe of copying, and especially new authorship of material, the greater is the likelihood that scribal mistakes and authorial invention will produce exceptions to "an almost universal consistency" of use for the ns.

This summarises a discussion and support of my original comment ..... The universal use is explained on account of the small time frame of a decade or so, rather than two or more centuries required under the mainstream theory. The longer the timeframe, the lesser is the possibility of universal consistency. The OP is suggesting that instead of the non canonical material being authored over a 300 year period (100-400 CE) it was produced over a 30 year period (or less) between 325-355 CE. The authors of the NC texts were responding to the literary material and ns in the canonical books.

When would the greatest response be expected? IMO obviously at the point the canonical books became the political instruments of the Christian state. Before that time, if we are to accept the received history of the Christians, they were an underground minority group famous for their martyrdoms and persecution. Who would be interested in such a group (for centuries?), or have the inclination to read and study their "Holy Text"? (We may rest assured the NC authors studied the canonical texts well). IMO the greatest response to the bible would have occurred during the rule of Constantine, when the Bible became a political instrument and religious privileges were reserved for the Christians [alone].




LC

[Peter Kirby]

There are a lot of questions/variables that we need to approach first, before we get carried away with speculation and expectations (a problem with the latter, I think, will be that your expectations appear to be idiosyncratic--or this issue would already be considered an issue--and in any case are not really relevant, as they are the expectations of a 20th-21st century individual who may or may not be right in his expectations). Let's be charitable and assume that we can form reasonable expectations about these phenomena in the first place. There are still important matters to settle definitively first, which can be settled definitively.

1) Which texts are "noncanonical texts"? Do you have a complete list? This would seem to be the first step, along with an explanation of why this list was made (so that we know what is supposed to be common among these texts).

2) Which nomina sacra? Which are and are not considered relevant (are all of these considered relevant, or just a subset)? If just a subset, why? In any case, we want a list here too.

3) Which manuscripts of these texts use the nomina sacra that are being mentioned?

4) Which manuscripts of these texts use the form of the word that does not make a nomina sacra (spelling out savior or cross or Jesus or lord, for example)? Just how "almost universal" is this "almost universal" phenomena?

5) What languages are the originals in?

6) Do we believe that the originals may have contained nomina sacra? Do we believe they may have contained the spelled-out form of the words? Why or why not?

7) Are the manuscripts in a different language than the originals?

8) If so, when could the translations have been made?

9) When could the originals have been written?

10) When were the manuscripts written, or when could have the manuscripts been written?

11) To what degree does the manuscript tradition regarding nomina sacra change in the transmission, or could it?

12) To what degree does the manuscript tradition regarding nomina sacra change in the translation, or could it?

And, can we create an experiment? Are there any analogous phenomena that are better-documented, that could be argued to be the subject of a valid experiment to confirm or disconfirm any particular "expectations" (hunches) here? Or are the phenomena themselves documented well enough that we could do an experiment on them, using a subset of texts where the situations are known (the experiment involving hiding that knowledge and using the data of the nomina sacra similarly to test the hunch)?

As a tentative suggestion of analogous phenomenon, where it might be easier to construct an experiment due to the availability of data, I might suggest the abbreviation of the Latin "id est," "et cetera," and "exempli gratia" into "i.e." and "etc."/"&c."/"et c." and "e.g." in the English language, respectively. Also the abbreviation of English phrases, such as "Random Access Memory" and "Central Processing Unit," into acronyms, such as "RAM" and "CPU." There are obviously differences, since none of these terms are sacred, nor are their writers interested in treating them as sacrosanct as a result, so perhaps there's some way to control/adjust for that (for example, using various different comparands to set an upper or lower bound of expectation, to some degree of confidence?), or some better alternative. If you have any better ideas, or any ideas for clarifying the basis and strength of your hunches (beyond the idea that it's "possible" that they're wrong but you have no real idea why you can dismiss that possibility), I'm listening.

We also still need the raw data, such as it is (list of texts, list of manuscripts, categorization of manuscripts on the use of the nomina sacra or otherwise, categorization of text/manuscript pairs by language, etc.).

[One obvious takeaway of clarifying these problems is (and not the only one... but...): The simplest, stupidest problem seems to be that even your hunch, even if fully accepted, has no way to distinguish between texts written earlier, without "almost universal" usage of nomina sacra, with manuscripts of those texts being consistent due to scribal copying obeying the supposed imperial decree regarding the same... and texts written later, with "almost universal" usage of nomina sacra... either scenario produces exactly the same data, even accepting all your assumptions. The only thing that your assumptions contradict would be the "almost universal" use of nomina sacra before the so-called imperial decree, but we don't have the known originals of any of these texts, and nomina sacra would be or would seem to be one of the very easiest things to change, and not only change but change consistently, especially because we know that some scribes would actually skip over these parts of the texts and insert the nomina sacra later, and also because we observe large textual variations in manuscripts specifically in the location of nomina sacra, presumed to be copying errors of just such processes. That's even if we accept your hunch, which I see no reason to do.]

[Peter Kirby]

IMO the greatest response to the bible would have occurred during the rule of Constantine, when the Bible became a political instrument and religious privileges were reserved for the Christians [alone].

To what extent were "religious privileges" reserved for Christians alone during the periods of the rule of Constantine? What does that statement mean--what does the exercise of "religious privilege" mean, and how and for whom was it being restricted?--and what are the ancient supports (i.e., evidence) for that statement?

[Peter Kirby]

Before that time, if we are to accept the received history of the Christians, they were an underground minority group famous for their martyrdoms and persecution. Who would be interested in such a group (for centuries?), or have the inclination to read and study their "Holy Text"? (We may rest assured the NC authors studied the canonical texts well).

On what basis can you claim (and with what evidence) that the authors of the non-canonical texts (all is implied here, but any will be of interest) did not consider themselves to be part of the group known as Christians and instead considered themselves to be outsiders to that movement, studying "their" texts and producing the noncanonical texts as the result of such "inclinations" as outsiders? Inquiring minds want to know....

There are of course a few such real examples to my knowledge--the Tol'doth Yeshu which is a Jewish text, the medieval form of the Gospel of Barnabas which seems Muslim, and the "lost" Acta Pilati (attributed to the Romans) supposedly discrediting Christ during the early fourth century--but the distinguishing characteristic here is that they are clearly by outsiders (relatively clear, anyway), not believers in Jesus as the Christ or any such same thing, both from the internal evidence and the reception history.

[Leucius Charinus]

There are a lot of questions/variables that we need to approach first, before we get carried away with speculation and expectations (a problem with the latter, I think, will be that your expectations appear to be idiosyncratic--or this issue would already be considered an issue--and in any case are not really relevant, as they are the expectations of a 20th-21st century individual who may or may not be right in his expectations). Let's be charitable and assume that we can form reasonable expectations about these phenomena in the first place. There are still important matters to settle definitively first, which can be settled definitively.

1) Which texts are "noncanonical texts"? Do you have a complete list? This would seem to be the first step, along with an explanation of why this list was made (so that we know what is supposed to be common among these texts).

The most complete list I have prepared is tabulated here: http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... _Index.htm
There is a less complete text list here: http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... Detail.htm

• The major unanswered questions arising from the discovery of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts and other New Testament Apocyrphal texts, over the last few centuries are: when, and by whom, and why, were the Greek originals authored. Over one hundred separate texts have been categorised into the following six categories ....
  The Gnostic Gospels (23),
  The Gnostic Acts (29),
  The Gnostic Wisdom Sayings (10),
  Letters and Correspondence (8),
  Gnostic Apocalypses/Revelations , (12) and
  Gnostic Treatises (25).

I have used one categorisation code but other categories would obviously also be useful. [If we had an SQL database online I could contribute my SQL skills]

I also take on board your comments about defining this set of texts. I admit that the application of the term "Gnostic" to all these texts may be a "little over the top" but my intention was to make an overview "MAP" of everything about these texts.

[quote="PK]The trouble is with the two different elements, "gnostic" AND "non-canonical authorship" (specifically, writings alleged to be of the apostles excluded from the New Testament). One is a definition based on a later classification of literature, in the fourth century, which can then be inferred as a (quite possibly -very- heterogeneous) group of authors (and, presumably, receivers) of non-canonical works attributed to apostles. The other is a definition based on a term, "gnostic," that whatever else it does, implies a certain homogeneity to the group. These two stand in tension; one or the other wants to drop out, to ensure a consistent definition that does not import (quite possibly false, if not demonstrably false) historical assumptions.[/quote]


Many of them are considered "gnostic", although the developments referred to by the recent "councils of academics" are suggesting the term "gnostic" to be inappropriate. Time will tell on this question. FWIW under the model proposed in the OP the term "gnostics" is simply another attribute of the one generation of authors 325-348 CE. They were educated as literary philosophers and demonstrate a great knowledge of Plotinic Platonism. [See also the Philip of Side fragment about the many philosophers present at the Nicene council.] But back to the set of texts ....

I also agree that there are terminological problems defining the "non canonical" set of texts. The term apocrypha may or may or help, but needs to be addressed. The way I look at the whole picture was to start with the definition of the canonical set of texts. This is relatively easy. Christianity as we know it has been constructed using these texts. There are two subsets:

1) The texts in the oldest Greek NT Bibles (Vaticanus; Sinaticus) including "The Shepherd of Hermas" etc. (texts which got "axed")
2) The texts which became canonical in the last half of the 4th century as per Athanasius, Damasius and Theodosius. (

There is certainly need for a "Grey Area" of texts such as those you mentioned earlier .....

And it's easy to provide a single example to controvert it. The Epistula Apostolorum is ascribed to the apostles. It takes on the topic of revelation dialogues, cast in the rubric of a letter of the apostles. It clearly identifies, twice in its opening, opponents who were spreading lies, including "Cerinthus" (and "Simon"), a known identity of a so-called docetist, so-called heretic, and so-called gnostic. It is thus, essentially, anti-"gnostic" in outlook. At the same time, however, it is also quite clearly among the noncanonical literature attributed to the apostles, but outside of the New Testament.

I have foreseen these questions and agree a temporary "grey area" may be required. However I don't think that you will find too many texts having to be placed into this category. After excluding the canonical books, the rest of the books/texts (with the temporary exception of a small "grey area") become the non canonical set.

This is the area of study I have addressed myself to for some time.





RE: Nomina sacra ...

2) Which nomina sacra? Which are and are not considered relevant (are all of these considered relevant, or just a subset)? If just a subset, why? In any case, we want a list here too.

All are relevant. They are a strange phenomena. I have asked a few more questions in the NS origins thread.

3) Which manuscripts of these texts use the nomina sacra that are being mentioned?

AFAIK all manuscripts that mention "Jesus" actually only mention the nomina sacra code for "Jesus" ("IS"). The full names "Jesus", "Christ"", are NEVER found in their expanded explicit form in any manuscript. The only exception I have found to this is the Greek word for "antichrist".

4) Which manuscripts of these texts use the form of the word that does not make a nomina sacra (spelling out savior or cross or Jesus or lord, for example)? Just how "almost universal" is this "almost universal" phenomena?

AFAIK it pretty universal. I know of no instance where the nomina sacra codes for "Jesus" "Christ" are NOT used. Not sure about "Lord" (which is a can of worms because of the LXX).

5) What languages are the originals in?

Greek. (The LXX and the canonical NT and the original non canonical texts are all Greek). It seems to be Greek all the way down.

6) Do we believe that the originals may have contained nomina sacra? Do we believe they may have contained the spelled-out form of the words? Why or why not?

See your ns origins thread. (I don't think we have any physical evidence which demonstrates that the name of Jesus was ever spelled out before the 5th or later century. There was a thread about this some time ago. No evidence was forthcoming. Jesus is never a name, he is a code in the beginning. The same code as that shared by "Joshua" in the LXX. This may have been a marketing ploy - antiquity counts.


I take it that these questions refer to the non canonical texts .....

7) Are the manuscripts in a different language than the originals?

Coptic and (AFAIK) Syriac manuscripts use Coptic and Syriac nomina sacra codes.

I have not actually looked at the canonical Vulgate Latin or non canonical Latin copies. (Do these use Latin nomina sacra ?????)

8) If so, when could the translations have been made?

It seems that the first translations of the non canonical material was to Coptic which, as pointed out by DCH didn't really exist until c.250 CE.

Latin translations I see as often being controlled by the Roman Church. Say no more. These are often highly edited.

9) When could the originals have been written?

10) When were the manuscripts written, or when could have the manuscripts been written?

And, can we create an experiment? Are there any analogous phenomena that are better-documented, that could be argued to be the subject of a valid experiment to confirm or disconfirm any particular "expectations" (hunches) here? Or are the phenomena themselves documented well enough that we could do an experiment on them, using a subset of texts where the situations are known (the experiment involving hiding that knowledge and using the data of the nomina sacra similarly to test the hunch)?

Any early data is severely lacking. I am not sure I understand this experiment atm....

As a tentative suggestion of analogous phenomenon, where it might be easier to construct an experiment due to the availability of data, I might suggest the abbreviation of the Latin "id est," "et cetera," and "exempli gratia" into "i.e." and "etc."/"&c."/"et c." and "e.g." in the English language, respectively. Also the abbreviation of English phrases, such as "Random Access Memory" and "Central Processing Unit," into acronyms, such as "RAM" and "CPU." There are obviously differences, since none of these terms are sacred, nor are their writers interested in treating them as sacrosanct as a result, so perhaps there's some way to control/adjust for that (for example, using various different comparands to set an upper or lower bound of expectation, to some degree of confidence?), or some better alternative. If you have any better ideas, or any ideas for clarifying the basis and strength of your hunches (beyond the idea that it's "possible" that they're wrong but you have no real idea why you can dismiss that possibility), I'm listening.

See comments in your general thread on the origin of the nomina sacra.

The use of such codes seems unique in antiquity. Did any other "school" do this sort of thing?

A Greek literate academic reading the NT Bible would not know who "IS" was. He would have to ask the "Christian School".




LC

[Peter Kirby]

AFAIK all manuscripts that mention "Jesus" actually only mention the nomina sacra code for "Jesus" ("IS"). The full names "Jesus", "Christ"", are NEVER found in their expanded explicit form in any manuscript. The only exception I have found to this is the Greek word for "antichrist".

The full names "Jesus", "Christ"", are NEVER found in their expanded explicit form in any manuscript.

This is wrong, but it also highlights the need for a careful, fresh, and thorough evaluation of the original manuscripts for even starting on these questions.

Even the critical editions of texts frequently get things like this wrong (the Nestle-Aland/UBS "standard text" forgets to note all the variants here, as highlighted recently on the Facebook group for textual criticism--you should be on it!); moreover, there is havoc in critical editions between conventions regarding the use of nomina sacra or not in the critical text and regarding whether they note variations in manuscripts. The text critic has an especially long, hard battle if he wants to be worthy of receiving his crown of glory for researching the question of the nomina sacra accurately.

That Facebook conversation:

Can anyone find any Ancient Greek texts with the full name iesou or iesous in it ?
I seen many with the Nomina sacra In them but I would like to know if there are any with the full iesou / iesous in them .
Thanks .
'Can anyone find any Ancient Greek texts with the full name iesou or iesous in it ?
I seen many with the Nomina sacra In them but I would like to know if there are any with the full iesou / iesous in them .
Thanks .'
Like · Comment · Share
2 people like this.

Stanley N. Helton James, do you have access to the CNTTS Critical Apparatus? It will tell you every place the full name is used. If not, I could send a few samples from it.
January 28 at 5:51am · Like · 3

Peter Head Mark 16.6 in Sinaiticus
January 28 at 5:53am · Like · 3

Stanley N. Helton
January 28 at 5:54am · Like · 1

Stanley N. Helton Or Peter could just give you one.
January 28 at 5:54am · Like · 2

James Owens Thank you both ,

Stanley, where do I get this CNTTS ?
January 28 at 5:57am · Like · 1

Stanley N. Helton Logos, Bibleworks, or Accordance
January 28 at 5:59am · Like · 1

James Owens I am sure there must be full iesous's there .
Thanks Stanley . Do I need to buy it ?
January 28 at 6:03am · Like

Stanley N. Helton James, it is only a digital resource. With Accordance, you can buy the module, with the others, it comes in bundles/packages.
January 28 at 6:45am · Like · 2

Stanley N. Helton Using Peter's text, Mark 16:6, here is the type of data you would find in the CNTTS apparatus:
January 28 at 6:47am · Like

Stanley N. Helton Ιησουν 69 MT SBL TR
ι̅ν̅ 02 03 04 07 011 017 019 021 028 030 032 034 037 038 041 044 045 1 2 13 28 33 35 118 124 157 346 565 579 700 788 1005 1071 1424 1582 2358 2372 ƒ1 ƒ13
τον ι̅ν̅ 01...See More
January 28 at 6:47am · Like

Stanley N. Helton Only MS 69 and edited texts have the full spelling.
January 28 at 6:48am · Like · 1

James Owens I have the facsimile of the Sinaiticus
at home , I must look this up when I get home & I can post a pic of it here . ...See More
January 28 at 6:56am · Like

Peter Head Sadly, that would be 1-0 to me against CNTTS
Peter Head's photo.
January 28 at 7:14am · Like · 2

Peter Head Although may Stanley N. Helton got the wrong passage (since 01 also does not have an article here).
January 28 at 7:16am · Like

Peter Head The other places to look (slightly cheating perhaps?) would be the places where IHSOUS doesn't refer to Jesus. I.e. Acts 7.45; Heb 4.8; Col. 4.11
January 28 at 7:19am · Like · 2

Peter Head Col 4.11
Peter Head's photo.
January 28 at 7:21am · Like · 2

Stanley N. Helton Peter, I could have gotten the wrong one, I will have to look but it still illustrates what CNTTS can do. And if it is a mistake, which does happen, we can always correct. I will see if this is case.
January 28 at 7:22am · Like

James Owens Here is the full name Jesus in Ancient Greek letters in Mark 16:6 just above the tip of my finger .
It looks like "IHCOYN" .
Codex Sinaiticus approx 325 ad text . ...See More
James Owens's photo.
January 28 at 8:09am · Like · 3

James Owens Col 4:11
James Owens's photo.
January 28 at 3:03pm · Like · 1

Tom Torbeyns The original Name is Jesus and not Yeshua
January 28 at 7:22pm · Like · 3

Eli Kittim That's correct, Tom Torbeyns! The name "Yeshua" is likely derived from the Septuagint in which the name "Joshua" was translated as “Ιησους”:

“Kαι απεστειλεν ιησους υιος ναυη εκ σαττιν δυο νεανισκους κατασκοπευσαι λεγων αναβητε και ιδετε την γην και τη...See More
March 17 at 8:58pm · Edited · Like

Tom Torbeyns but that is the Greek Eli Kittim...
March 17 at 11:33pm · Like

Eli Kittim Nevertheless, I agree that the correct English translation is Jesus, not Yeshua, Tom Torbeyns...
March 17 at 11:57pm · Like · 1

James Owens Any comments on this
James Owens's photo.
March 18 at 12:10am · Like

James Owens Yeshua

Ancient remains of Messianic Synagogue in ancient Susya Israel has the name Yeshua written in the ancient mosaic . ...See More

Messianic Synagogue in ancient Susya Israel
Proof that there were believers in Yeshua (Jesus) the...
YOUTUBE.COM
March 18 at 12:11am · Like

Tom Torbeyns We all know Joshua is the same as Jesus but for not making confusion, translaters kept a difference
March 18 at 12:38am · Like

James Owens Tom Torbeyns
We all know Joshua is the same as Jesus but for not making confusion, translaters kept a difference
Like · More · Just now...See More
James Owens's photo.
March 18 at 12:41am · Like

Tim Dooley //It's not Joshua here , it's jeshua >>

Even the latin has Jesua//...See More
March 18 at 6:00am · Like · 1

Utna Pishtim
Utna Pishtim's photo.
March 18 at 8:23am · Like · 3

Utna Pishtim Image above are names taken from 1st century ossuaries.
"Yehoshua", "Yeshua" and even "Yeshu", were common names at that time.
March 18 at 8:24am · Like · 1

Brice C. Jones These are several scriptio plena spellings of Ἰησοῦς in Christian amulets...start with the PGM.
March 18 at 12:43pm · Like

Matt Solomon Stanley N. Helton & Peter Head we've fixed that spelling out of ιησουν in 01 in the apparatus, we just need to wait for a batch of updates for the software companies. Also, GA 69 consistently spells out ιησους while using nomina sacra elsewhere.
March 18 at 12:57pm · Like · 2

James Owens Please excuse the short video ,I am just wondering what you men think >>

Yeshua ...See More

Messianic Synagogue in ancient Susya Israel
Proof that there were believers in Yeshua (Jesus) the...
YOUTUBE.COM
March 18 at 1:15pm · Like

Utna Pishtim The synagogue in Susya has been dated between s.IV - VII CE, and probably existed until s.X CE. It is difficult to find further details, since Susya was completely unknown. There are no historical records of this town, and we know about it only bec...See More
March 18 at 1:43pm · Edited · Like

James Owens Did it not say

" the comforter yeshua .." ? ...See More
March 18 at 1:47pm · Like

Utna Pishtim Well, yes, "comforter" is also applied in the inscription.
March 18 at 1:48pm · Edited · Like · 1

James Owens But the word "the" in front of it kinda makes it stand out to me .
March 18 at 1:49pm · Like

James Owens
James Owens's photo.
March 18 at 1:50pm · Like

James Owens
James Owens's photo.
March 18 at 1:51pm · Like

Utna Pishtim It is correct. It is "haMenachem"...."the comforter".
March 18 at 1:51pm · Like · 1

Utna Pishtim
Utna Pishtim's photo.
March 18 at 1:53pm · Like · 1

Utna Pishtim however "menachama" (haMenachem, "the comforter") appears twice, but the last word/name is incomplete.
March 18 at 1:58pm · Like

James Owens I see
March 18 at 1:59pm · Like

Timothy Neumann Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition has them all over the place. So does the Greek New Testament, 4th edition.
March 18 at 2:22pm · Like

Timothy Neumann Perhaps in the manuscripts they have abbreviations. I don't know of any fully written Jesus.
March 18 at 2:24pm · Like

James Owens Timothy,

Here is the full name Jesus in Ancient Greek letters in Mark 16:6 just above the tip of my finger . ...See More
James Owens's photo.
March 18 at 2:27pm · Like

Utna Pishtim Regarding name "Jesus" in greek, here is another ossuary with that name, dated for 1st century:
Utna Pishtim's photo.
March 18 at 3:17pm · Like · 3

James Owens Thank you Utna Pishtim, where do you get these ?

is there a book ?
March 18 at 3:24pm · Like

Utna Pishtim Yes. For this case of the greek inscription see:
"American Journal of Archaeology, Vol.51, No.4 (Oct-Dec 1947, pp.351-365 "The Earliest Records of Christianity" Author: E.L Sukenik.
March 18 at 3:26pm · Like · 2

The photos:



















Completely and undeniably relevant, in this regard, is the text of the Codex Sinaiticus at Mark 16:6.

Nobody can know everything, but we should at least strive for comprehensive knowledge and accuracy of the particular basis of our own academic thesis... I am being completely frank when I say I've noticed that (a) you frequently don't come close to meeting such a standard and (b) you stumble on evidence presented by others of which you had no knowledge (which doesn't suit you) and then dismiss it as irrelevant with a disturbing level of comfort and ease. Something to worry about, I think, since you are pursuing this on a serious level and thinking of writing a book.

[Leucius Charinus]

IMO the greatest response to the bible would have occurred during the rule of Constantine, when the Bible became a political instrument and religious privileges were reserved for the Christians [alone].

To what extent were "religious privileges" reserved for Christians alone during the periods of the rule of Constantine? What does that statement mean--what does the exercise of "religious privilege" mean, and how and for whom was it being restricted?--and what are the ancient supports (i.e., evidence) for that statement?

The ancient support is partly from the Codex Theodosianus: http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/c ... sianus.htm

Decree of Constantine 326 CE (Ref. 16.5.1) ..... "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians".

The ancient support for the [alone] qualifier needs to be supported by an evaluation of the actions taken by Constantine against the competing pagan religions. He destroyed ancient and highly revered pagan temples and in some cases ordered for the public execution of their chief priests. Constantine was setting public examples. If you were a "Chief Priest" of one of the pagan religions at that time, just how comfortable would you be feeling?

He indulged in some form of prohibition against the "business as usual" of the pagan religions.


◦ Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72

• On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate, it may be argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

LC

[Peter Kirby]

IMO the greatest response to the bible would have occurred during the rule of Constantine, when the Bible became a political instrument and religious privileges were reserved for the Christians [alone].

To what extent were "religious privileges" reserved for Christians alone during the periods of the rule of Constantine? What does that statement mean--what does the exercise of "religious privilege" mean, and how and for whom was it being restricted?--and what are the ancient supports (i.e., evidence) for that statement?

The ancient support is partly from the Codex Theodosianus: http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/c ... sianus.htm

Decree of Constantine 326 CE (Ref. 16.5.1) ..... "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians".

The ancient support for the [alone] qualifier needs to be supported by an evaluation of the actions taken by Constantine against the competing pagan religions. He destroyed ancient and highly revered pagan temples and in some cases ordered for the public execution of their chief priests. Constantine was setting public examples. If you were a "Chief Priest" of one of the pagan religions at that time, just how comfortable would you be feeling?

He indulged in some form of prohibition against the "business as usual" of the pagan religions.


◦ Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72

• On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate, it may be argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

In the interests of accuracy, though, Rome was not built in a day, and Christianity likewise did not become "the official religion of the Roman Empire" all at once. The sources here say as much here; what they don't say is as important as what they say (as is what happened later).

And, no, I would not be very comfortable as a high priest of some of the ancient religions of the Roman Empire. I quite like all my parts to be firmly attached.

It's an interesting question what would happen if you took a straw poll of the man on the street in the year 325 about what the "official religion of the Roman Empire" was supposed to be. Do you think that you'd get the answer "Christianity"? I'd imagine quite a few would be shocked at that suggestion, and they might laugh if you thought it was true just because their emperor decided to chop some heads and rededicate/destroy some temples. It's certainly not the first time that high priests had been executed or temples had been destroyed or repurposed. I suppose it would depend on where exactly you were, of course, when you took this straw poll, as it also depends on what we think of Eusebius' testimony here. (Yes, laugh if you want, but my reading of the orations for the emperors has led me to wonder when, exactly, Constantine himself could even be considered a Christian at heart. I should have made some notes... it's interesting for its own sake.)

Not that I have too much time to be caught up in this side circus... but do let me know what else you know.

[Leucius Charinus]

We have only the victors side (The Emperors of the Christian State) of the story before us.

Not so fast, LC.

There is something momentous left in the record by some other people. By the time of the Roman Christian Takeover, some of this material is known but ignored, read but not corrected. Quoting the end of the Uzi Leibner book again (with a nod to Shulamit Elizur), we find this:

"Instead of a sound of weeping/ a Devine voice was heard in Malchijah (the fifth course)/"the youngsters gained victory in Antioch" /
The four heads of the Tiger (a symbol for the Greeks)/ were shattered by the youngsters of Immer (the sixteenth course)/ in the command of the guard (God)
To announce in the streets of Jabnit that the spear has slashed/ every Greek tongue."

Now, as far as I know, there was never a battle in Antioch between the Mishmarot Course Immer and any Greek forces. What did this Piyyutim celebrate? It obviously looks back a few centuries to a great victory BY IMMER. Would someone PLEASE look at this stuff!

Not so fast Charles :)

Antioch has a great significance for Constantine. There was a very important [supposedly] "church council" at Antioch immediately prior to the all-important Nicene Council. At this council Constantine supposedly gave a great Oration to the Saints. I am not sure whether they were Christian saints or simply pagan saints, but I would suspect and defend the latter alternative. Constantine's Oration is the very first Imperial PR Oratory Exercise on behalf of Christianity. It is a very interesting statement and it has been analysed by Robin Lane-Fox. My notes are here: http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/C ... ntioch.htm Fox makes the comment that there are some "frauds" in this oration ....

As mentioned by Fox evidence exists to suggest that after the council Constantine ordered for the torture of [pagan] magistrates and philosophers of Antioch so they admitted to religious fraud. This was the first major council after Constantine's military victory. He was the supreme commander of the Roman EMpire. The question is how much of a (malevolent) dictator was he?

Your quote is interesting .....

• "Instead of a sound of weeping/ a Devine voice was heard in Malchijah (the fifth course)/"the youngsters gained victory in Antioch" /
  The four heads of the Tiger (a symbol for the Greeks)/ were shattered by the youngsters of Immer (the sixteenth course)/ in the command of the guard (God)
  To announce in the streets of Jabnit that the spear has slashed/ every Greek tongue."

Constantine and his barbarian chieftains had celebrated their victory at Antioch c.325 CE. They shattered the Greek [pagan] religious traditions by prohibiting them and in place of them raising the Christian religion to the official religion of the Emperor, and the Empire. Are the barbarian forces of Constantine these "youngsters"? Looked at in retrospect, the Greek NT Bible was a political manifesto against the traditional pagan (largely Greek influenced religions. The old traditions were the gentiles, and they were about to be converted by the "Good News". Torture was part of the conversion process.




LC

[Leucius Charinus]

Before that time, if we are to accept the received history of the Christians, they were an underground minority group famous for their martyrdoms and persecution. Who would be interested in such a group (for centuries?), or have the inclination to read and study their "Holy Text"? (We may rest assured the NC authors studied the canonical texts well).

On what basis can you claim (and with what evidence) that the authors of the non-canonical texts (all is implied here, but any will be of interest) did not consider themselves to be part of the group known as Christians and instead considered themselves to be outsiders to that movement, studying "their" texts and producing the noncanonical texts as the result of such "inclinations" as outsiders? Inquiring minds want to know....

There are of course a few such real examples to my knowledge--the Tol'doth Yeshu which is a Jewish text, the medieval form of the Gospel of Barnabas which seems Muslim, and the "lost" Acta Pilati (attributed to the Romans) supposedly discrediting Christ during the early fourth century--but the distinguishing characteristic here is that they are clearly by outsiders (relatively clear, anyway), not believers in Jesus as the Christ or any such same thing, both from the internal evidence and the reception history.

I think it may be better to view this conflict from the point of view and definitions of the orthodoxy. It was the orthodoxy who exhibit invectives against the authors of the non canonical texts. They are stigmatised as blasphemers, heretics, "wolves", insane, etc, etc. The "Uncononical Books" are the one's prohibited to be read according to the church councils of the mid 4th century. The orthodoxy had imperial support and it was in the process of defining orthodoxy.

It is interesting to note that if we accept Constantine published codices containing the Shepherd of Hermas etc, then he did not actually achieve orthodoxy of the canon which had to wait until the 2nd half of the 4th century. So there is a separate story required for this aspect.

Consequently I see the non canonical authors as people who authored additional Jesus Stories and as a result were "outlawed" - they found themselves in a political situation in which they were very much on the outside. They were up against the Emperor Constantine and their time was very much limited. They had very little chance to win. In the end all they could do was to bury their books.

FWIW we could also bring in the Clementine literature into your examples. This is very clever literature. I think that some of this non canonical literature was so good, that it was given a special place by some of the orthodoxy before it became "hard-line". Some evidence for this has been discussed. There are sarcophagi reliefs which depict scenes from the "Acts of Linus" (Processes and Martialiis?) showing the arrest of Peter. This is important because it raises the profile of the actual influence of some non canonical texts in the culture of the epoch.

Also FWIW I think there is reason to suspect that the Tol'doth Yeshu was originally a Greek text, and a hard hitting satire against Jesus - sired by a Roman soldier by the rape of the Jewish Mary (while she had her periods). It fits in to other stories of the 4th century, such as that reported by Epiphanius in the "Greater Questions of Mary" where Jesus has explicit sex in the presence of Mary half way up a mountain, by pulling a woman out of his side.

I think that many aspects of the public reception to the Christian state and the Jesus Story in the 4th century have been "passed over" and as a result largely "airbrushed" out of the historical record. Understandably in some cases. The victors got to choose their own pseudo-historical narratives.





LC