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:Why do these scholars propose 250-350 as the earliest period for Coptic versions of the New Testament, then?
Coptic_versions_of_the_Bible
  • OT:

    Bodmer III — John 1:1-21:25, Genesis 1:1-4:2; 4th century; Bohairic
    Bodmer VI — Proverbs 1:1-21:4; 4th/5th century; Paleo-Theban ("Dialect P")
    Bodmer XVI — Exodus 1:1-15:21; 4th century;
    Bodmer XVIII — Deuteronomium 1:1-10:7; 4th century;
    Bodmer XXI — Joshua 6:16-25; 7:6-11:23; 22:1-2; 22:19-23:7; 23:15-24:2; 4th century;
    Bodmer XXII — Jeremiah 40:3-52:34; Lamentations; Epistle of Jeremiah; Book of Baruch; 4th/5th century;
    Bodmer XXIII — Isaiah 47:1-66:24; 4th century;
    Bodmer XL — Song of Songs
    Bodmer XLIV — Book of Daniel; Bohairic.[2]
    Schøyen Ms 114 — Psalms; Sahidic; ca. A.D. 400.

    MSS

    Some of the more notable manuscripts of the Sahidic are the following.

    The Crosby-Schøyen Codex is a papyrus manuscript of 52 leaves (12x12 cm). It contains the complete text of Book of Jonah and 1 Peter (2 Maccabees 5:27-8:41, Melito of Sardis, Peri Pascha 47-105, unidentified Homily). It is dated to the 3rd or 4th centuries and is held at the University of Mississippi.[17]
    British Library MS. Oriental 7594 contains an unusual combination of books: Deuteronomy, Jonah, and Acts. It is dated paleographically to the late 3rd or early 4th century.[18]
    Michigan MS. Inv 3992, a papyrus codex, has 42 folios (14 by 15 cm). It contains 1 Corinthians, Titus, and the Book of Psalms. It is dated to the 4th century.
    Berlin MS. Or. 408 and British Museum Or. 3518, being parts of the same original document. The Berlin portion contains the Book of Revelation, 1 John, and Philemon (in this order). It is dated to the 4th century.
    Bodmer XIX — Matthew 14:28-28:20; Romans 1:1-2:3; 4th or 5th century.
    Bodmer XLII — 2 Corinthians; dialect unknown; Wolf-Peter Funk suggest Sahidic
Despite this list showing a huge dominance of 4th century Coptic MSS, this WIKI page also states that ...
  • The first translation into the Sahidic dialect was made at the end of the 2nd century in Upper Egypt, where Greek was less well understood. So the Sahidic is famous for being the first major literary development of the Coptic language, though literary work in the other dialects soon followed.
So why do scholars propose a date range commencing 250 CE (rather that 325 CE)? On the basis that (AFAIK) there are no dated MSS or codices, then I would think that this early date has been provided by palaeographical dating. The Bodmer_Papyri include both Greek and Coptic MSS, and the earliest of all these is Papyrus_66 which has seen a great variation in (palaeographical) dating as described:
  • The manuscript contains John 1:1-6:11, 6:35b-14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10-20:20, 22-23; 20:25-21:9, 12, 17. It is one of the oldest well-preserved New Testament manuscripts known to exist. Its original editor assigned the codex to the early third century, or around AD 200, on the basis of the style of handwriting in the codex.[1] Herbert Hunger later claimed that the handwriting should be dated to an earlier period in the middle or early part of the second century.[2] More recently, Brent Nongbri has produced a broader study of the codex and argued that when one takes into consideration the format, construction techniques, and provenance of the codex along with the handwriting, it is more reasonable to conclude that the codex was produced "in the early or middle part of the fourth century.
I would assume the Coptic material has also seen such a range of palaeographical estimates, and that the earliest of these includes the period from 250-325 CE.

I have not yet read the article by Frederik Wisse, ‘The Coptic Versions of the New Testament’, in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes (eds.), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 131-41, in which the 250 CE is mentioned.
Leucius Charinus wrote:Will you accept the possibility that the Letter of Peter to Philip contains a parody or satire?

Namely in Jesus speaking to his apostles from the light and the clouds saying "Why are you asking me"?

That's not likely to make it into the agrapha.
I wouldn't press too hard on that sentence, out of its context, and that translation as you have.

The more recent translation from Marvin Meyer reads:

"Listen to my words that I may speak to you. Why are you looking for me? I am Jesus Christ, who is with you forever." (p. 590)

This translation and interpretation makes more sense, in context, reading the second sentence with reference to the third.
Thanks very much for the alternate translation. It is different, but the oddness of it still stands. So here Jesus, in speaking to his apostles from the light and the clouds says "Why are you looking for me"? This is also not likely to make it into the agrapha. The setting here is that the apostles have trekked to the top of a mountain in order to pray and petition for the appearance of (the resurrected) Jesus. (Which should probably be understood as a fictional entity: resurrections do not happen). Jesus speaks to them out of the "bright clouds". In other gnostic Acts the Apostles travel hither and thither by means of a "bright cloud". All this still appears to include the possibility that these authors in antiquity are creating a parody or a satire, just like Monty Python in the 20th century.



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 »

I was not sure whether to respond to the following issues raised in the thread Nomina Sacra: Their Origin and Usefulness viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1405 in that thread or in this thread. As you are responding to claims made in this thread, rather than tangentiate the above thread on nomina sacra, I have responded here ...

Peter Kirby wrote: Image
Nomina sacra were used not only in Scriptures,
but also in inscriptions such as this one, from
a mosaic in Megiddo which was part of
the floor of a building used for
Christian gatherings in the late 200's:
“Akeptous, she who loves God,
has offered the table to God Jesus Christ
as a memorial.”
Oh hush, James. Everyone knows the real explanation is, "Constantine did it." :lol:
[wiki]Megiddo_church_(Israel)[/wiki]: "The archaeological evidence may point to a later, date placing the church in the last quarter of the 3rd or first quarter of the 4th century". Everyone knows that Constantine supported "Christian gatherings" by imperial decree c.326 CE .... "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians". Besides this there is no reason to suspect that Akeptous was a heretic. (See below)
No surprise, of course, but nomina sacra are also found in the Dura Parchment 24 ('the crucified', Jesus, and God, respectively).

It looks like this piece of paper is not done haunting LC. ;)
The Diatessaron (c. 160–175) is the most prominent early Gospel harmony; and was created by Tatian, an early Christian Assyrian apologist and ascetic. It was never assailed by the orthodoxy to have been authored by heretics, as were the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".
You can also find it (applied to the word God) in an early fourth century letter from a Christian sent during the Great Persecution (probably from Alexandria).
The author is claimed to be an orthodox Christian, not a heretical author of non canonical books.


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.
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 519#p30507
As such we only need a very small timeframe to generate a mass of diverse literature related to the SACRED CODEX manufactured by Constantine. This small timeframe elegantly explains the history of the use of the nomina sacra in the non canonical literature, and its almost universal consistency. The one generation which wrote and produced the "Christian gnostic literature" simply copied the nomina sacra convention employed in Constantine's Bible (think Vaticanus, Sinaticus, Alexandrinus).
Nonsense.

Naturally, "There Is No Evidence" of which Leucius Charinus is aware that contradicts his ideas. He doesn't look very hard, and, then, if someone points it out, he tries very hard to work around it.
These items of evidence furnished above do not demonstrate the use of the orthodox "nomina sacra" by heretical authors, which was what my quoted statements above were addressing.



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: 8025
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:Unless I state otherwise you may assume I have made great steps to enlighten my ignorance of the ancient historical evidence and have not been lazy to spend hours, days, seasons and years investigating the existence and evaluation of whatever evidence has been discussed within the peer-reviewed literature and the ancient sources themselves. That is not to say I know everything far from it. Many there are in this and other discussion forums who participate to ask and answer questions related to the field of investigation. When I say I know of no evidence you may assume I have looked for it long and hard.
Leucius Charinus wrote:I have not yet read the article by Frederik Wisse, ‘The Coptic Versions of the New Testament’, in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes (eds.), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 131-41, in which the 250 CE is mentioned.
So we should not have assumed all due diligence, after all? Good to know.

(Lest someone think that I am being too harsh, anyone's minimum definition of due diligence would include reading the very article where you can find the thing under contention being originally stated. Not reading this article, at the very minimum, proves the protestations above to be bluster.)
Peter Kirby wrote:I wouldn't press too hard on that sentence, out of its context, and that translation as you have.

The more recent translation from Marvin Meyer reads:

"Listen to my words that I may speak to you. Why are you looking for me? I am Jesus Christ, who is with you forever." (p. 590)

This translation and interpretation makes more sense, in context, reading the second sentence with reference to the third.
Leucius Charinus wrote:... the oddness of it still stands.
Not really.
Leucius Charinus wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:Naturally, "There Is No Evidence" of which Leucius Charinus is aware that contradicts his ideas. He doesn't look very hard, and, then, if someone points it out, he tries very hard to work around it.
These items of evidence furnished above do not demonstrate the use of the orthodox "nomina sacra" by heretical authors, which was what my quoted statements above were addressing.
Completely irrelevant reply. These facts disprove the idea that the nomina sacra convention can be taken to demonstrate the influence of Constantine. The references don't need to be from "heretical authors" in order to do that; it's sufficient that they are outside any influence from Constantine.

Honestly, I don't know why I bother.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by DCHindley »

Peter Kirby wrote:Why do these scholars propose 250-350 as the earliest period for Coptic versions of the New Testament, then?
Coptic is actually the alphabetic writing used by Egyptians to write their language (the most common dialects are Sahidic or Bohairic) starting about then. Up to the end of the 1st and into the 2nd century CE, they wrote in Demotic script, which is a condensed cursive form of the old hieroglyphs, and not really an alphabet like Coptic script, although some glyphs could be used to represent specific sounds.

If one wanted to see the difference between Hieroglyphs, Demotic script and Greek, find an image of the Rosetta Stone (190s BCE), a stele inscribed with a decree written in three scripts: Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, Demotic script, and Ancient Greek. Coptic script had not yet been invented.

For instance, some of the Magical Papyri, most all of which date to the 3rd century (the 200s CE), are written in Demotic script. The Coptic alphabet was really just Greek letters interspersed with Demotic glyphs used to represent sounds that Greek does not have but the Egyptian language did.

I believe it is the opinion of most experts in texts written in the Coptic alphabet that the NT was not translated into the Egyptian language until the mid 3rd century, and of course that was when folks were using the Coptic alphabet. I do not believe that there are any translations of the NT that used the Demotic script.

DCH (on break, boss)
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:
These items of evidence furnished above do not demonstrate the use of the orthodox "nomina sacra" by heretical authors, which was what my quoted statements above were addressing.
Completely irrelevant reply. These facts disprove the idea that the nomina sacra convention can be taken to demonstrate the influence of Constantine. The references don't need to be from "heretical authors" in order to do that; it's sufficient that they are outside any influence from Constantine.
My claim was not that Constantine influenced the use of the nomina sacra in the canonical books. How many times need I make the disclaimer that I am allowing the canonical books to have been authored (along with the nomina sacra) in the 1st or 2nd century <<insert your favourite Christian Origin theory here>>> and that these were then transmitted to the 4th century and fell into the hands of Constantine who widely and lavishly published them.

The claim is related to the question why did the authors of the non canonical material (specifically the Gnostoc gospels and acts) use the same orthodox nomina sacra? The claim is that these authors wrote as a reaction to the NT Bible, and were as a result considered to be (seditious) heretics of the Christian state. They found these codes in the NT Bible codices which Constantine published c.325 CE. They used these same codes for Jesus, Christ, God etc in their own gnostic texts, because that is what they found in Constantine's Bible. Constantine was their rightful and lawful "Pontifex Maximus". They were obliged to address the new god (Jesus Christ) of the Roman Empire as they had received it.

I do not presume that there was any widespread knowledge of the NT Bible among the Alexandrian Greeks until c.325 CE, and that the Alexandrian Greeks then authored the gnostic literature (using the same nomina sacra) as a literary reaction against the NT Bible.





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 »

DCHindley wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:Why do these scholars propose 250-350 as the earliest period for Coptic versions of the New Testament, then?
Coptic is actually the alphabetic writing used by Egyptians to write their language (the most common dialects are Sahidic or Bohairic) starting about then. Up to the end of the 1st and into the 2nd century CE, they wrote in Demotic script, which is a condensed cursive form of the old hieroglyphs, and not really an alphabet like Coptic script, although some glyphs could be used to represent specific sounds.

If one wanted to see the difference between Hieroglyphs, Demotic script and Greek, find an image of the Rosetta Stone (190s BCE), a stele inscribed with a decree written in three scripts: Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, Demotic script, and Ancient Greek. Coptic script had not yet been invented.

For instance, some of the Magical Papyri, most all of which date to the 3rd century (the 200s CE), are written in Demotic script. The Coptic alphabet was really just Greek letters interspersed with Demotic glyphs used to represent sounds that Greek does not have but the Egyptian language did.

I believe it is the opinion of most experts in texts written in the Coptic alphabet that the NT was not translated into the Egyptian language until the mid 3rd century, and of course that was when folks were using the Coptic alphabet. I do not believe that there are any translations of the NT that used the Demotic script.

DCH (on break, boss)

Thanks DCH.




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: 8025
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:The claim is related to the question why did the authors of the non canonical material (specifically the Gnostoc gospels and acts) use the same orthodox nomina sacra?
Why the hell not? :scratch:

The fact is that the nomina sacra pre-date any possible "NT Bible codices which Constantine published c 325 CE" that you're making claims about.

Image

Image

Image
Leucius Charinus wrote:My claim was not that Constantine influenced the use of the nomina sacra in the canonical books.
Leucius Charinus wrote:The claim is that these authors wrote as a reaction to the NT Bible, and were as a result considered to be (seditious) heretics of the Christian state. They found these codes in the NT Bible codices which Constantine published c.325 CE. They used these same codes for Jesus, Christ, God etc in their own gnostic texts, because that is what they found in Constantine's Bible. Constantine was their rightful and lawful "Pontifex Maximus". They were obliged to address the new god (Jesus Christ) of the Roman Empire as they had received it.
At this point, you really are going to need to define and defend your use of "orthodox" and "heretical" as somehow being very useful categories for historical analysis, since you've gone well beyond using them as categories for understanding the opinions of ancient writers. 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. This appears to be another fantasy of yours, as contained in your distinction that Constantine didn't influence the use of the nomina sacra in the canonical books (sure, you can't get any argument there!) ... but did influence it just in the heretics that would have otherwise resisted it. Such an imagination you have, but I'm afraid you've built fancy upon fancy.

It's certainly not evidence. The evidence has already been clearly shown that these nomina sacra existed before the special 325 CE date that you hold to be so very, very important for all kinds of things (without evidence of these things) in your mythic imagination. Morton Smith's famous turn of phrase (about Wells), is even more apt here: while we might not trust everything we find in the ancient texts (and, naturally, we already don't!), what you have presented in their place is "a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."
Leucius Charinus wrote:The claim is that these authors, who were then considered to be heretics of the Christian state, found these in the NT Bible codices which Constantine published c.325 CE.
Why dress up the claim with fallacies? You could just make the bare naked, unsupported claim and be done with it, with less travesty to logic.

They can't be taken as internal evidence suggesting a post-325 date. Period. End of story. This fallacy is dead in the water. It won't float. It's dead as a doornail. It holds no water. You can put a fork in it, because it's done. It's time to pack it in. Say your last goodbyes. I'll see you at the funeral, etc.

On the other hand, for anyone who has followed your claims over the years with half an eye open, it is plain that your inability to recognize when a cause is lost, combined with your penchant for lost causes, is just par for the course.
"... 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:
The claim is that these authors wrote as a reaction to the NT Bible, and were as a result considered to be (seditious) heretics of the Christian state. They found these codes in the NT Bible codices which Constantine published c.325 CE. They used these same codes for Jesus, Christ, God etc in their own gnostic texts, because that is what they found in Constantine's Bible. Constantine was their rightful and lawful "Pontifex Maximus". They were obliged to address the new god (Jesus Christ) of the Roman Empire as they had received it.
At this point, you really are going to need to define and defend your use of "orthodox" and "heretical" as somehow being very useful categories for historical analysis ...
The orthodox (for the period 325-337 CE) may be defined as the Constantinian military, political and religious regime.

The heretics (who resisted this regime by publishing "Alternative Jesus Stories") may be defined by Eusebius as follows:
  • "We have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

    And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."

    Historia Ecclesiastica (Book 3, 25, 6-7)
From the perspective of the imperial orthodoxy, these authors were guilty of sedition - writing books which were not approved or included in the Emperor's "Official Bible Codex". (which at that time contained the Shepherd of Hermas among others things). The conflict between Constantine and such authors (which included Arius of Alexandria) is clearly seen in Constantine's letter issued "to all bishops" immediately after the Nicene council. (Such writings are to be burnt, preservers are to be immediately executed by beheading). SEE: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=y1 ... od&f=false


.... since you've gone well beyond using them as categories for understanding the opinions of ancient writers.
The opinions of the ancient heretical writers and their texts were preserved by the orthodoxy. The writings of the heretics - the "uncononical writings" were prohibited to be read in the churches during the mid 4th century. Like Eusebius they (the heresiologists) were all shocked by these non canonical stories authored by these heretics. This orthodoxy was cemented by Theodosius c.381 CE when the Nicene orthodoxy was decreed as the orthodoxy. The victors in all the struggles to establish this Christian Orthodoxy (in the 5th century) rewrote the history of the conflict.

We have only the victors side (The Emperors of the Christian State) of the story before us. I am trying to reconstruct the heretics' side of the story. Where "heretics" as defined above in Eusebius are the authors of the gnostic (and non canonical so-called Christian) literature.




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: 8025
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:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
The claim is that these authors wrote as a reaction to the NT Bible, and were as a result considered to be (seditious) heretics of the Christian state. They found these codes in the NT Bible codices which Constantine published c.325 CE. They used these same codes for Jesus, Christ, God etc in their own gnostic texts, because that is what they found in Constantine's Bible. Constantine was their rightful and lawful "Pontifex Maximus". They were obliged to address the new god (Jesus Christ) of the Roman Empire as they had received it.
At this point, you really are going to need to define and defend your use of "orthodox" and "heretical" as somehow being very useful categories for historical analysis ...
The orthodox (for the period 325-337 CE) may be defined as the Constantinian military, political and religious regime.
I'm not completely confident in the "orthodox" definition as a helpful category of historical analysis (partly because it hinges on hypotheses regarding the extent of direct or indirect control exerted by Constantine over the Christian churches at various periods during his regime [a changing factor, perhaps even within the narrow range of a decade as above] and the significance/meaning/intent of such actions in their original context of the time [a subject of scholarly disagreement, with a different Peter Brown (which is fun, isn't it?) having an opposing opinion here]). But that may be quibbling, so I'll leave it to one side.
Leucius Charinus wrote:The heretics (who resisted this regime by publishing "Alternative Jesus Stories") may be defined by Eusebius as follows:
  • "We have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

    And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."

    Historia Ecclesiastica (Book 3, 25, 6-7)
These authors were guilty of sedition - writing books which were not approved or included in the Emperor's "Official Bible Codex". (which at that time contained the Shepherd of Hermas among others things).

.... since you've gone well beyond using them as categories for understanding the opinions of ancient writers.
The opinions of the ancient heretical writers and their texts were preserved by the orthodoxy. The writings of the heretics - the "uncononical writings" were prohibited to be read in the churches during the mid 4th century. Like Eusebius they (the heresiologists) were all shocked by these non canonical stories authored by these heretics. This orthodoxy was cemented by Theodosius c.381 CE when the Nicene orthodoxy was decreed as the orthodoxy. The victors in all the struggles to establish this Christian Orthodoxy (in the 5th century) rewrote the history of the conflict.

We have only the victors side (The Emperors of the Christian State) of the story before us. I am trying to reconstruct the heretics' side of the story. Where "heretics" as defined above in Eusebius are the authors of the gnostic (and non canonical so-called Christian) literature.
Well, I guess it's time for more quibbling. The definition, in this kind of wording, also imports assumptions that are controversial if not simply easy to controvert. 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.

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. (One could proceed to show the total range of the heterogeneity, by moving on through other texts like this, such as 3 Corinthians, or texts that have no clearly identifiable tendency either way, such as Laodiceans and some of the Acts or Gospels, etc., on through such as the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which seem only 'tinged' or 'taken' in certain directions, or at the shallow end of 'trajectories', and on through full-blown speculation about theogony found in works such as the Apocryphon of John, recognized by those who do find "Gnostic" to be a helpful category of analysis as the "locus classicus" for describing this category of thought.)

But perhaps all of this is quibbling too. Because all of this is mere prologue to the next and most critical task, which is absolutely foundational to this attempt (your attempt) to use the nomina sacra as evidence for the internal dating of any texts.
Peter Kirby wrote: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. This appears to be another fantasy of yours, as contained in your distinction that Constantine didn't influence the use of the nomina sacra in the canonical books (sure, you can't get any argument there!) ... but did influence it just in the heretics that would have otherwise resisted it. Such an imagination you have, but I'm afraid you've built fancy upon fancy
Here the reply above falls silent, when it really should have been just getting started.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Charles Wilson »

Leucius Charinus wrote: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! Most of us here acknowledge Source Documents, "...that Scripture must be fulfilled..." and the like and it never occurs that the Subject of these Source Documents or Scripture Fulfilled might be from a different Subject entirely.

Mark denigrates the Disciples. Why? Maybe in the Original, these Disciples are children. Maybe the Scripture Fulfilled is something like Leviticus 26, which reads like a Document that provides a Template for the Golden Eagle Affair at the death of Herod.

I agree that the Victors wrote the History and, despite some problems in the Thesis, there is ample evidence to conclude that Something Happened when the Romans took over the religion in the 320s. There is something else left, however. The Romans did not make it all up. They were able to take a LITERARY Story of the House of Eleazar with Jehoiarib and the Lamb which was Immer, the Hasmoneans who were assigned to Jehoiarib but claimed by Immer and the Triumph of the Priesthood. The Romans were able to turn it all around into a Story of a Roman Loving Messiah, who was murdered by the Romans and still blame it all on the Jews.

That part, anyway, was what the Victors did. The others still found a way to tell the Story of the Priesthood, through the Lists of Priestly Settlements and the Stories that came from them. The exploration of this set of ideas is what is left.

CW
Post Reply