On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote:No, I actually mean the "problems" with the negation of your hypothesis, the "problems" with an earlier date, that your hypothesis solves.

Anybody can show up at the table, throw plates and knock over chairs. That is basically what we are doing when we try to undermine the evidence against our position. It has no persuasive power at all, and it is only expected that we will attempt to do it. If we don't want to upset our guests, we should also have something prepared for them, something to sink their teeth into instead.

Thanks for the constructive criticism PK. If I have understood you correctly I have prepared below a list of 9 problems that I see with the mainstream theory which are capable of being explained by the alternative theory. If I have not understood what you mean above, please let me know.


Some problems with the Mainstream Theory & Chronology for the NT non canonical literature

There may be other problems that I did not think of while making this response.



(1) The problem of anonynimity and pseudonymity
(2) The problem of Old Testament non canonical literature
(3) The problem of a satisfactory theory of the universal use of the orthodox "nomina sacra" by heretics.
(4) The problem of the intractable nature of the non canonical texts to textual criticism (satire/parody)
(5) The problem of early unambiguous primary evidence for these texts.
(6) The problem of the existence of religious heresy without religious orthodoxy.
(7) The problem of orthodox and heretical literature together at Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps.
(8) The problem of why 4th century orthodox writers were interpolating Origen with attestation of the Clementine lit.
(9) The problem of finding corroborating evidence for a diversity of "competing Christian schools/cults".



(1) The problem of anonynimity and pseudonymity
  • "The problem of anonymity and pseudonymity in Christian literature
    of the first two centuries is large and very difficult
    ."

    ~ Kurt Arland
There are no names for the "heretical authors" until later in the 4th century when the name of "Leucius" is associated
with various non canonical acts of the apostles. The more complete name is not cited until the 9th century (Photius).
This is unusual, especially in view of the fact that Eusebius specifically informs his reader, at the commencement of
his "Ecclesiatica Historia" that:


Eusebius H.E. Book One, Chapter 1: The Plan of the Work.
  • It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the
    greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called have like fierce wolves
    unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.
We may read through all the books in the church history of Eusebius, but no names are mentioned as authors of any of the
Gnostic Acts or Gospels. The "Testimonium Tertullianum" states that the author of the Acts of Paul was a presbyter in Asia.
But no name is provided.

The alternate hypothesis offers the possibility of a name of a major Greek author from the political history of the 4th
century. This is Arius of Alexandria, who suffered "memoriae damnatio" under Constantine. As a result, his name could
not be used and instead, later in the 4th century, the pseudomym of "Leucius" was employed. It is therefore conjectured
that the books attributed to "Leucius" were in fact authored by Arius. There is a series of additional evidence that may be
adduced to defend this notion that Arius was a key author of some of the key non canonical literature, but I have not
presented it here for the moment.

The mainstream theory offers no authors' names, no fixed chronology, and no political enviromment. Is the mainstream
theory falsifiable? The alternative theory offers a name, a specific chronology and thus political environment. The
alternative hypothesis is certainly falsifiable.




(2) The problem of Old Testament non canonical literature

What are these writings? The alternative hypothesis suggests that most of these were also written after Nicaea as a
literary reaction to the LXX which was bound in the Constantine Bible along with the NT. Enterprising spirits authored
additional stories about events and characters mentioned in the LXX (not just the NT).



(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.




(4) The problem of the intractable nature of the non canonical texts to textual criticism (satire/parody)

The non canonical texts have been described as "a textual critic's nightmare". They are often novelistic fictions but
many of the texts, especially the Acts, employ parody and satire. The apostles are often lampooned, and are made to
perform completely insane miracles, such a resurrecting smoked fish, or commanding bed bugs.




(5) The problem of early unambiguous primary evidence for these texts.

There are no texts that have been securely and unambiguously dated to the early epoch. The C14 results on the Coptic
gJudas have been discussed. The palaeographical dating, and recent calls [Nongbri] to include a 4th century upper bound
for the papyri fragments, suggest that this dating methodology is not as unambiguous as many people think. There is a
great collection of manuscripts in Coptic and Syriac which have been dated by various methods, but none of these are any
earlier than the 4th century. According to the mainstream theory we should expect to be able to discover manuscripts
that are unambiguously dated to the 2nd or 3rd century, but this has not yet happened. The alternative theory suggest
such manuscripts will never be discovered because none of them were authored until the 4th century and after 325 CE.




(6) The problem of the existence of religious heresy without religious orthodoxy.

There was no orthodoxy in Christianity before Constantine. Without orthodoxy, how can one expect there to be heresy? According to most theories of the canonical books, the early christians were essentially "underground" and made very little if any political appearance. The sole exception to this are the so-called "Early Persecutions", which may not even be historical. The mainstream theory accepts the existence of "early orthodoxy" and "early heresy" despite there being no political orthodoxy. The alternative hypothesis uses the political definitions of orthodoxy and heresy as defined during the rule of Constantine.




(7) The problem of orthodox and heretical literature together at Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps.

The mainstream theory implies that orthodox and heretical communities lived together at Oxyrychus and shared some of the city's rubbush dumps in the pre-Nicene epoch. While this is not impossible, it certainly raises an eyebrow. The alternative theory suggests that rubbish dumps at Oxyrynchus were only commissioned during the mid 4th century when the city underwent a massive population explosion. And that the (Christian related) papyri found there are from the mid 4th century. The alternative theory also suggests that the population explosition of Oxyrynchus was as a result of people leaving the city of Alexandria. These people were trying to come to terms with the NT Bible, since the Emperor had commanded them to do so. They practiced writing it and understanding it, because it had become a sacred codex.




(8) The problem of why 4th century orthodox writers were interpolating Origen with attestation of the Clementine lit.

This has been discussed. What possible motive could important and well know orthodox Christian writers of the 4th century have had in order to interpolate into Origen some attestations to a 3rd century appearance of the Clementine literature when they knew (as modern scholars do today) that it only appeared in the 4th century?



(9) The problem of finding corroborating evidence for a diversity of "competing heretical Christian schools/cults".

There is enough of a problem finding corroborating evidence (ie: securely dated manuscripts, inscriptions, archaeoligical relics, etc) for the orthodox Christians. The mainstream hypothesis for the chronology of the diverse groups of Christian heretics (i.e. authors and preservers of heretical non canonical books) requires there to be a likelihood of still further evidence. The alternative theory requires no such evidence.





LC
Last edited by Leucius Charinus on Fri Feb 27, 2015 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8018
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Peter Kirby »

In other words, you don't have anything.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

IOW there are no problems with the mainstream theory and alternative theories are not required?


LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Charles Wilson »

What happened in the mid 300s?

Uzi Leibner, Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee, p 397, ISBN-13: 978-3161498718:

"The vast majority of amoraim mentioned in this Talmud were Galileans, as were the bulk of settlement or place names where events described took place. Scholars have shown that most of the Y was compiled in Tiberias (Herr 1985: 169; Moscovitz 2006: 665). A large portion of the traditions in the Y belong to the generation of R. Yohanon and the generation of his students (roughly middle to the end of the third century). There was a marked decline in the number of sages, traditions and discussions during the last two generations of Palestinian sages from the fourth century onward (Levine 1989: 67 - 68). The processes of editing and compilation ceased rather suddenly after the mid fourth century. Y Sussman's observation is instructive: "It is as if the creation of the Talmud Yerushalmi came to a sudden end as if cut with a sharp knife." A period of unprecedented and vibrant cultural activity in the Galilee that lasted for over 200 years came to a sudden end. The decline of the sages and their creative work in the last two generations of the Y, up to the abrupt cessation of its creation around the 360s, surprisingly parallels the severe settlement crisis discussed in the previous chapter..."

"Something Happened", as Joseph Heller once opined, and the dog didn't bark as well. LC has given an alternative that is consistent and explanatory. It is not limited to guessing the state of mind of someone in the Roman Court because there are other events that occurred in the empire after this Council and the question becomes, "Are the events related?" We still haven't unpacked the meanings found is the statement, "Constantine did __________". 'N I'm still waiting for someone to explain how everyone who had fallen down and bared their necks to be slit open if a statue of an emperor were displayed in the Temple would suddenly exclaim, "OHHH!!...THAT Son of God! Well, that's DIFFERENT..."

The epistemological problem is to see if there is evidence that something goes back earlier than the Council and the overwhelming finality of the empire flexing its muscles at the expense of different Cultures such as that of the Jews (and Israel...).

Keep Posting LC. I don't have to agree with all that you state but I do find - and give - support in the facts you present.

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

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Charles Wilson wrote:What happened in the mid 300s?
Land tax had tripled in living memory. "The highways were covered with galloping bishops". "Numbers without end" were being dragged from Alexandria and Antioch for torture and execution at the hands of an Imperial Christian Tribunal at Skythopolis, on account of their alleged religious beliefs. It was a dark and oppressive epoch. Tens of thousands of people flocked to remote desert monastic communities in Egypt and Syria. The Imperial Christian regime had a throttle hold on the cities. The Nag Hammadi Codices were being buried in earthen jars probably because the possession of such literature would mean instant execution by the agents of the Canonical Emperor.



This is interesting stuff thanks Charles.



Uzi Leibner, Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee, p 397, ISBN-13: 978-3161498718:

"The vast majority of amoraim mentioned in this Talmud were Galileans, as were the bulk of settlement or place names where events described took place. Scholars have shown that most of the Y was compiled in Tiberias (Herr 1985: 169; Moscovitz 2006: 665). A large portion of the traditions in the Y belong to the generation of R. Yohanon and the generation of his students (roughly middle to the end of the third century). There was a marked decline in the number of sages, traditions and discussions during the last two generations of Palestinian sages from the fourth century onward (Levine 1989: 67 - 68). The processes of editing and compilation ceased rather suddenly after the mid fourth century. Y Sussman's observation is instructive: "It is as if the creation of the Talmud Yerushalmi came to a sudden end as if cut with a sharp knife." A period of unprecedented and vibrant cultural activity in the Galilee that lasted for over 200 years came to a sudden end. The decline of the sages and their creative work in the last two generations of the Y, up to the abrupt cessation of its creation around the 360s, surprisingly parallels the severe settlement crisis discussed in the previous chapter..."

"Something Happened", as Joseph Heller once opined, and the dog didn't bark as well. LC has given an alternative that is consistent and explanatory. It is not limited to guessing the state of mind of someone in the Roman Court because there are other events that occurred in the empire after this Council and the question becomes, "Are the events related?" We still haven't unpacked the meanings found is the statement, "Constantine did __________". 'N I'm still waiting for someone to explain how everyone who had fallen down and bared their necks to be slit open if a statue of an emperor were displayed in the Temple would suddenly exclaim, "OHHH!!...THAT Son of God! Well, that's DIFFERENT..."

Nero dabbled on the stage, Constantine in literature. Nero brought forward the Olympic Games competed in all events and won them all. Constantine brought forward technology by featuring his new god not as a statue, not as a celestial object, but as a Sacred Name in a Sacred Codex. Brilliant strategy. Very successful.

The epistemological problem is to see if there is evidence that something goes back earlier than the Council and the overwhelming finality of the empire flexing its muscles at the expense of different Cultures such as that of the Jews (and Israel...).
And the Greeks and Romans. The Hebrews suffered a great loss with the loss of their temple. The Greeks and Romans also suffered under the Christian emperors, and they had a great many ancient and highly revered temples.

Keep Posting LC. I don't have to agree with all that you state but I do find - and give - support in the facts you present.

CW

Thanks for your comments Charles.

The history of the Talmud through these times is interesting. So thanks again for that reference. There is some other evidence on the plight of the Jews during the period in question here. This is derived from the Theodosian Codex compiled in the 5th century but containing supposedly law codes enacted from the time of Constantine.
  • Extracted from http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/c ... sianus.htm

    Year (CE), Reference, Decree

    315 16.8.1 "Any Jew who stones a Jewish convert to Christianity shall be burned, and no one is allowed to join Judaism. [Pharr also gives 339, but we give 315 because it is listed by Pharr as in the “fourth consulship” of Constantine.] "

    321 16.8.3 Jews are allowed to serve on municipal councils


    330 16.8.2 Jewish priests shall be exempt from public service.

    331 16.8.4 Priests (Jewish priests) and synagogue rulers are exempt from public service.

    336 16.8.5 Jews are not allowed to harass Jewish converts to Christianity.

    336 16.9.1 Circumcised slaves are to be freed.

    337 Title 4 "Jews may not own circumcised slaves. Also, Jews may not harass Jewish converts to Christianity. [Two posted years are given, 336 and 337. We elected to use the later year because it also gives a date.]"

    339 16.8.6 Women employed by the government as weavers who were lead away by Jews may return to weaving.

    339 16.9.2 Jews may not hold Christian slaves. Jews who circumcise slaves shall be executed.
Other references exist towards the end of the 4th century. In regard to your article above, I imagine that these laws would have applied to the community who were preserving/editing the Talmud Yerushalmi.



LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote:
I'm sure your theory will find some kind of reception among those who already want to place the Gnostics as late as possible.
Thanks. Who might these people be?

The authors of the NHC - Coptic translations of Greek gnostic texts - did their gig at Nag Hammadi, probably in the decade that lead up to 348 CE. These people must be included into the category of historical gnostics. They operated late and after Nicaea. It would be a gross oversight to exclude the Christian revolution following Nicaea from possible influences that motivated these people. The Pachomian monastic settlements were managed by a Greek code system devised by Pachomius, and there is good and sufficient evidence to suspect that the manufacture of these Coptic copies was known to Pachomius. This is late.




LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8018
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Peter Kirby »

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:
I'm sure your theory will find some kind of reception among those who already want to place the Gnostics as late as possible.
Thanks. Who might these people be?
Apologists for orthodoxy and conservative Christians, mostly.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:
I'm sure your theory will find some kind of reception among those who already want to place the Gnostics as late as possible.
Thanks. Who might these people be?
Apologists for orthodoxy and conservative Christians, mostly.
My theory is defined as being in the field of ancient history. It is based on an evaluation of all the evidence which holds that it is expedient to view and assess the church organisation (which has been historically responsible for the preservation of literary sources) as a corrupt source. This is new in the sense that it is an over-riding hypothesis (rather than an insinuation like Gibbon). I don't think it is wrong. I think it an overdue exploration of a proper evaluation of "church documents".

You made no response at all to the list of evidence which I have posted above, which underpins the mainstream theory (that there were Gnostics before 325 CE). There are two chief categories:

Category (1): Eusebius's "Research" discloses earlier "witnesses". (12 texts)
Category (1) consists of books for which Eusebius presents literary sources that would have us infer that these books were cited by authors in the 2nd or 3rd century.

Category (2): Eusebius's himself is the earliest "witness". (5 texts)
In Category (2) Eusebius himself is the earliest witness. (The Acts of Andrew and John, The Acts of Andrew and Matthew, The Acts of Peter and Andrew, The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of John, The Teaching of the Apostles)

This is the total extent of it PK as far as I have been able to research the matter. Obviously the critical evidence are the attestations to the 12 texts I have listed.

Neil Godfrey (and also - possibly - yourself) made reference in another thread about the Hypothetico-deductive_model
  • One example of an algorithmic statement of the hypothetico-deductive method is as follows:[1]

    1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Gather data and look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.

    2. Form a conjecture (hypothesis): When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

    3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis: if you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

    4. Test (or Experiment): Look for evidence (observations) that conflict with these predictions in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This formal fallacy is called affirming the consequent.[2]


    One possible sequence in this model would be 1, 2, 3, 4. If the outcome of 4 holds, and 3 is not yet disproven, you may continue with 3, 4, 1, and so forth; but if the outcome of 4 shows 3 to be false, you will have to go back to 2 and try to invent a new 2, deduce a new 3, look for 4, and so forth.

    Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[3] (This is what Einstein meant when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."[4])
I believe that I have followed this methodology. Ignoring the texts attested by Eusebius, do you agree that there are only twelve literary references to the existence of gnostic (more generally non canonical) texts in the "Church Fathers"? I would be happy to find more if they exist.

But I feel I am quite within my rights to challenge these 12 or more texts (and have done so above). Some of these 12 references are not very secure at all, and yet as far as I can ascertain (after much research) these 12 texts are really all the "hard evidence" mainstream has (aside from the separate consideration of paleographical dating of papyri fragments).

If indeed there are only these twelve references, it follows that the dating of dozens and dozens and scores of other (non canonical) texts "Early" by the mainstream theory is based upon association and inference alone.


The "Queen of All Citations" must be the "Testimonium Tertullianum" (relating to the Acts of Paul). This I see as directly analogous to the TF - a later forgery by the church (perpetrated very late - as late as or later than Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus a la the Clementine literature and Origen) to lay a completely false trail for the history of their greatest political enemies, the gnostic authors of so-called "heretical books".




LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

SIMON MAGUS as the 4th century "source and root" of the Gnostics?

From a blog on the gnostics ...
  • Our earliest systematic survey of Gnostic schools and teachings is Irenaeus’s Against the Heresies, written around 175 AD (Book I, 22-31). He avowedly aims “to give an account of their source and root, in order that … you may understand the nature of the tree which has produced such fruits.” Despite that assertion, he is rarely concerned about dating his subjects too precisely. At best, we hear that a given thinker taught under a particular Roman emperor, or came to Rome during the time of a certain bishop.

    The earliest heretical thinker he mentions is Simon Magus, who emerges as the “source and root.” Irenaeus identifies this man with the Simon mentioned in Acts 8, who claimed divine or messianic status. Simon’s “successor” was Menander of Antioch, another Samaritan


    Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousben ... z3TNRllJ88

The Clementine literature has been discussed briefly in this thread.

It might be argued that it was the Clementine literature which made Simon Magus "famous".

This literature is from the 4th century.

Go figure.

YES. Irenaeus may have been interpolated and/or forged by the late 4th century (or later) victors within the "church organisation".

See for a good (Latin) example the "Church Organisation Forgery Mill" of Pseudo-Isidorian_Decretals.

It's all about 2 things ..... the evidence and the evaluation of the evidence. The evidence itself is mute. I cannot talk. We evaluate it and make hypotheses about how it is to be interpreted.



LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by MrMacSon »

and a good point is noted here http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 981#p30981
Peter Kirby wrote:Apparently the Christianity Seminar, in fall 2014, takes a diametrically opposite position
  • (to "automatically marginalizing their relevance", on account of their "gnosticism" and therefore "heresy or second-rate theology," and to treating "Gnosticism" as any kind of coherent group)
in calling for the abandonment of "Gnosticism" as an unhelpful and unworkable category, something suggested also by Michael Williams and Karen King.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects ... ng-report/
Post Reply