Peter Kirby wrote:Leucius Charinus wrote:I suggest making your case, starting from whatever you can find that actually can be interpreted as supporting it positively.
My best case was stated somewhere above but unfortunately not in the OP. It involves an analysis of the evidence underpinning the mainstream theory of the history of the authorship of the non canonical literature. I will provide the analysis and see if you or others think it is reasonable ....
I have invented a series of categories. You may object to these. I've had little feedback.
The purpose of this is simply to enumerate the mainstream evidence and highlight some statistics. Note that the stats were compiled some time ago, but unless you or others can provide citations in the categories 1 and 2, the stats will never change for these because they come from the ancient sources.
Step (2) - Categorizing the literary evidence supporting the Mainstream chronology
A process of categorization is employed to focus on the key literary evidence supporting the generally accepted mainstream theory of "Pre-Nicaean" authorship. The texts have been classified according to six Category Codes as follows.
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. These key citations will be briefly examined further below.
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)
Category (3): There are no extant texts. (9 texts)
Category (3) lists books cited but for which there are no extant texts. (The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion], The Gospel of the Egyptians, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Gospel of the Nazoreans)
Category (4): There are no "Early Witnesses". (27 texts)
Category (4) lists books for which there is no “early” mention. (The Acts of Thomas, The Acts of Peter, The Acts of John the Theologian, The Pistis Sophia [nb: this is misnamed and is actually entitled "A Portion of the Books of the Savior"], The Didache [Teaching of the Apostles], The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]
Category (5): Known 4th Century (or Later) Authorship (55 texts)
Finally in the last Category (5) The Acts of Pilate heads a large list of over 77 books currently conjectured to have been authored after the Council of Nicaea. Fourth century (or later) authorship of this large group of books is in line with the arguments to be presented here.
Step (3) - Examining the key citations by Eusebius for "Early Witnesses"
The Gospel of Peter:
Eusebius cites Origen, Justin Martyr and Serapion as mentioning this text although in the case of Justin, MR James comments that “the evidence is not demonstrative”. Eusebius has an unknown Serapion report that he walked into a Gnostic library and “borrowed” a copy of this text.
The Gospel of Thomas:
Eusebius cites Hippolytus (155-235), Refutation of all Heresies, v. 1-6., as mentioning something similar to the received text, and cites Origen as mentioning some text of Thomas. Eusebius cites saying (No. 2 in the gThomas) as quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Miscellenies ii. 45. 5; v. 96.3), as coming from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There is certainly some ambiguity here.
The Gospel of Judas:
Eusebius cites a mention of this text in Irenaeus’ “Adversus Haereses” [I.31.1] however some integrity issues have been noted with it. For example, the text is described by Irenaeus as being linked with such villainous persons as Cain, Esau, Korah, and the Sodomites, rather than with the traditionally respected person of Seth. One commentator writes “Perhaps Irenaeus was simply misinformed or deliberately confused the two as a rhetorical strategy. At any rate, it is a strange divergence that demands clarification.” [Review of Deconick, Arie Zwiep] There is further ambiguity here
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
Eusebius preserves a citation from Irenaeus who quotes a non-canonical story that circulated about the childhood of Jesus. Many but not all scholars consider that it is possible that the apocryphal writing cited by Irenaeus is, in fact, what is now known as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. There is room for doubt
The Infancy Gospel of James:
Early knowledge of the “Protevangelium of James” is inferred from the preservation in Eusebius of mention by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. An inference is not the same thing as unambiguous evidence.
The Vision of Isiah
Mentioned by Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr ?
The Apocalypse of Peter
This is not the Gnostic text! Mentioned by Clement (Eclogues 41,48,49) - but there is no extant text
The Gospel of Truth
This is the NHC text; some consider it to be mentioned by Irenaeus ?
The Apocyphon of John
Mentioned by Irenaeus ?
The Sentences of Sextus
Sextus appears to have been a Pythagorean. Some think it is quoted by Origen, Contra Celsum, viii. 30; Commentary on Matthew, xv. 3)
The Acts of Peter
Attributed to Leucius Charinus, along with the Acts of Paul. The other books attributed to "Leucius" are: The Acts of John, The Acts of Andrew, the Acts of Thomas, and possibly also The Acts of Andrew and John, The Acts of Andrew and Matthew and The Acts of Peter and Andrew. Notably, most of these are first witnessed by Eusebius, with the exception of the Acts of Paul.
The Acts of Paul:
The chief and final literary citation is from Eusebius’ often cited Latin author Tertullian, in his De baptismo 17.5. This appears as the only early instance in which information is provided concerning an author of apocryphal writings. Note that the manuscripts which preserve Tertullian's De baptismo are quite late, the earliest being the 12th century Codex Trecensis.
As for those (women) who appeal to the falsely written Acts of Paul in order to defend the right of women to teach and to baptize,
let them know that the presbyter in Asia who produced this document, as if he could add something of his own to the prestige of Paul,
was removed from his office after he had been convicted and had confessed that he had done it out of love for Paul.
The above is what I have researched in response to the question "What evidence underpins the mainstream hypothesis"?
IE: that at least some of the non canonical texts were authored prior to Nicaea"
Would you agree with this analysis?
LC