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 »

MrMacSon wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote: I have been attempting to sketch the emergence of a very black and white Centralised Monotheistic Christian State c.325 CE.

Constantine wanted to convert Alexandria to the Christian religious cult which worshipped the canonical books. Before he arrived they were pagans. They had NOT written about Jesus or anything found within the canonical books. The Bible was hardly even read by the pagans until Nicaea.
Who is "they"? (as in "They had NOT written about Jesus or anything found within the canonical books.")
"They" are the Alexandrians. After Constantine delivered his ultimatum about worshipping the Bible and Official Jesus Story, some of these Alexandrians started writing their own Jesus STories. The authors of many of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts were Greek literary academics, perhaps from philosophical schools in Alexandria.



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 »

MrMacSon wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote: .... Constantine was the legal Pontifex Maximus. He had the right to choose his own god and [or] form of his own god.
As Ptolemy I Soter had done?
YES. They all did it well before the Roman Empire.


Extracted from Cambridge Ancient History Volume 12 OFFICIAL RELIGION
  • p.412

    Religion in the Roman Empire was governed
    by the princeps, as "Pontifex Maximus"
    a member of all priestly colleges and
    responsible for all public morals and well being.



    The following is evidenced by coins and temple foundations:

    Claudius: magnified the cult of Cybele.

    Gauis: in Rome introduced Osiris (and other Egyptian deities accepted in Italy)

    Vespasian: favored Isis and Sarapis.

    Domitian: was a benefactor of Isis, Minerva and Jupiter

    Hadrian: built the temple of Venus and restored many temples in Rome.

    Severan Dynasty: sponsored Bacchus, Hercules and Sarapis.

    Illyrian Dynasty: were devoted to Vesta.

    Aurelian: built the temple of Sol Invictus, celebrated 25th December and established priestly colleges.

    Diocletian: supported Sol Invictus, Isis, Sarapis, Jupiter and Hercules.


Leucius Charinus wrote:He chose a sacred name in a sacred codex to be the name of the new god in the Roman Empire - Jesus Christ or Jesus Chrest. At that time OPPOSITION STORIES began to be authored in Alexandria, as set out in the OP. These stories were burnt and prohibited and classed as "the writings of heretics" during the rest of Constantine's rule (325-337 CE).
LC
Ok. You're a bit clearer now.
Thanks.

But I understand parody was a thing, or had been a thing for a while.
Truly. And satire. The Greeks boasted satirical writers. Many of the really weird Gnostic Acts and Gospels have specific literary elements which read like Monty Python scripts. Why would John resurrect a smoked fish for example? Why did the cross walk and talk for example?
  • "Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently ... making fun of traditional biblical beliefs"

    [April Deconick]

One problem is that humour is otherwise absent from Biblical Studies. Which Biblical Historian is conditioned to identify a parody or a satire against traditional biblical beliefs? The parody or satire most likely will go right over their heads.

The political circumstances that I am describing here are momentous. We can expect the Bible to have been parodied and satirised. But not before it was raised a very conspicuous political position.



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: 8015
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 »

Well, have fun. But you're not earnest. You're way too attached to these particular epicycles you've spun, which have nothing at all to commend them and make no sense to someone who is truly earnest about being humble and honest and critical about evaluating the evidence before us.

Consider that you might make a better use of your time and waste less of others if you tried an activity less ridiculous.
"... 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:Well, have fun. But you're not earnest.
If you had knowledge of my life and working career you would know I have been earnest. If we met face to face and discussed the evaluation of the evidence presented in this discussion thread you would know I am earnest.

You're way too attached to these particular epicycles you've spun, which have nothing at all to commend them and make no sense to someone who is truly earnest about being humble and honest and critical about evaluating the evidence before us.
I am attached to the examination and evaluation of the evidence FOR and AGAINST this specific hypothesis in the field of ancient history. I have responded to every item of evidence that you have identified. You must be aware that I have adopted the honest and critical method of maintaining an index of negative evidence against the hypothesis. I am not trying to sweep evidence away. I am following the historical method. I have explained my position on various issues above, but it appears you have decided I have not been humble enough. What do you mean by that?
Consider that you might make a better use of your time and waste less of others if you tried an activity less ridiculous.
All I am doing is trying to discuss a brand new idea in the field: the non canonical literature is a reaction to the Nicaean Bible codex. I do not consider this idea to be ridiculous unless it can be demonstrated to be out of harmony with the evaluation of the ancient historical evidence. In my book all ideas will have evidence FOR and AGAINST them. The focus of discussion IMO is usually over the evaluation of the evidence.

From what you have written it seems to me that your greatest objection against the hypothesis is that it would imply a mass forgery and fabrication of documents for the pre-Nicene heresiolgists. In addition to what I have replied above, I'd like to add one further clarification on this issue. The forgery of all this material need not have ALL taken place in the 4th century. All this secondary evidence was preserved by the imperially appointed church organisation as the "History of the Victors".

I do not see it as ridiculous to suspect that this church organisation has simply fabricated its own pseudo-history. As to what the historical truth may have been, that is the task of ancient historians. One thing I am sure about is that the history of Nicaea and the Arian controversy which is before us, which was written in the 5th century, is remote from the truth of events. It is just propaganda.

From my perspective, the fragments of the history of Philip of Side, which were published by Roger in recent years, paint a more accurate "propaganda" picture of the Nicaean council. It was populated by pagan philosophers, ready to hear what Constantine's religious agenda was going to be ....


http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/phili ... nts.htm#Fr. 5.1 - 5.7
  • Fr. 5.6 = [Supporters of Arius at the Council of Nicaea]
    Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.12.8-10 [p. 47, lines 5-19 Hansen][160]

    (8) When these things were expressed by them—or rather, through them, by the Holy Spirit—those who endorsed Arius' impiety were wearing themselves out with murmuring (these were the circles of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, whom I have already pointed out earlier), and yet they were looking with favor on the "hirelings" of Arius, certain philosophers who were indeed very good with words; Arius had hired them as supporters of his own wickedness, and arrived with them at that holy and ecumenical council.

    (9) For there were present very many philosophers; and having put their hopes in them, as I have said just now, the enemies of the truth were reasonably caught, along with the one who actually taught them their blasphemy. The Holy Scripture was fulfilled in him and in them, which says, "Cursed is everyone who has his hope in a mortal man, and whose heart has departed from the Lord."[161]

    (10) For truly, the blasphemous heart of the fighter against God, Arius, and of those who shared in his impiety, departed from the Lord—they dared to say that the Son of God, the creator of the universe and the craftsman of both visible and invisible created natures, is something created and something made.

The hypothesis is that the authors of the non canonical texts may have been in this crowd of pagan philosophers. They took one look at the Jesus Story in the Official Codex and thought that they would author some better stories - better Gospels, better Acts of the Apostles, better apocalypses and better letters. They wrote what would become very popular stories, full of exciting and wonderful events, miracle contests, and the strange and awesome power of the apostles of Jesus who commanded powerful angels, and who cast lots to decide who would convert which nation to the Christian State.

In the Acts of Titus Christianity is spread by the Roman State. This was the political reality.



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: 8015
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 »

http://98.131.162.170/tynbul/library/Ty ... fJudas.pdf
"Combining the four other samples suggested a 95% statistical probability that the codex was created between 220 and 340 AD, with a statistical mean of 280 AD."

No doubt based on a normal distribution with a width of two standard deviations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9 ... 399.7_rule

There is only a 13.5% chance that the actual date lies between the first and second standard deviation on one side, and there is a 2.5% chance that it is even earlier than 220 CE, so that leaves an 84% chance that the date of the Codex Tchachos, based on the interpretation of the C-14 results conducted by the experts themselves, is sometime before 310 CE.

That's an 84% chance for the date of the codex to be before 310 CE.

If we consider that they are translations of Greek originals, and if we consider that over 80% (because I do not have exact figures at hand, I am being generous) of Greek originals translated into Coptic were done so after a minimum of 30 years, then even within the 13.5% chance that the date of this codex is between 310 CE and 340 CE, there is only a 2.7% chance that the Greek originals date after 310 CE. And I will be generous again and treat all of the five different texts together here as one.

As a result, and purely on the two facts of the C-14 dating of the codex and the Coptic translation from the Greek, simple scientific and common sense observations lead to this conclusion:

There is, therefore, a 92.3% chance that the Greek originals date before 310 CE, even before factoring in other evidence.*

If we then add the evidence of the Nag Hammadi codices, which have some texts in common, in Coptic, and which is dated ca. 350 CE, then there is a 50% chance that this codex dates 350 CE or before, and at least a 40% chance that the Greek originals date before 320CE, thus giving us at least a 95.38% chance that the Greek originals date before 320 CE, when combined to the above.

* (Such as the reference to the Gospel of Judas in Irenaeus of Lyons, a text that we did not even have before its recent discovery.)
"... 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:http://98.131.162.170/tynbul/library/Ty ... fJudas.pdf
"Combining the four other samples suggested a 95% statistical probability that the codex was created between 220 and 340 AD, with a statistical mean of 280 AD."
I studied Peter Head's report some time ago. That citation immediately follows mention of a 5th sample (supposedly a loose piece of papyrus) which was tested, and a test result obtained of 333 CE. This 5th test result was rejected from the final results as described in your quote.
No doubt based on a normal distribution with a width of two standard deviations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9 ... 399.7_rule
There should be no doubt however Timothy Jull's final paper has not yet been published. Peter Head mentions this in that article. The final report has not issued and it is ten years after the tests were performed. I have written to Jull recently. The final paper has not yet been published.
There is only a 13.5% chance that the actual date lies between the first and second standard deviation on one side, and there is a 2.5% chance that it is even earlier than 220 CE, so that leaves an 84% chance that the date of the Codex Tchachos, based on the interpretation of the C-14 results conducted by the experts themselves, is sometime before 310 CE.

That's an 84% chance for the date of the codex to be before 310 CE.

The consensus of the team of translators and other scholars who worked on the Coptic codex suggested a 4th century date. Many scholars see a great similarity between this Codex Tchacos and the Nag Hammadi Codices which are reasonably securely dated to c.350 CE. Coptic codices seem to point to the Pachomian era (see below)

If we consider that they are translations of Greek originals, and if we consider that over 80% (because I do not have exact figures at hand, I am being generous) of Greek originals translated into Coptic were done so after a minimum of 30 years, then even within the 13.5% chance that the date of this codex is between 310 CE and 340 CE, there is only a 2.7% chance that the Greek originals date after 310 CE. And I will be generous again and treat all of the five different texts together here as one.
I am suggesting for discussion that the Greek originals were authored between 325-336 CE, and the Coptic translations manufactured 336-348 CE. I have addressed the size of this translation window above. Everything relies on the political context. Much can be accomplished in a shorter time when the need is pressing. The hypothesis suggests a reason that the Alexandrian Greek texts were not preserved. Constantine's agents searched all these prohibited texts out and burnt them. Nothing was left. The penalty for preserving prohibited texts was death. By immediate beheading. We can read this in a latter written by Constantine about the books of Arius just after the Council of Nicaea.

I am further suggesting that the project to translate these to Coptic was an attempt to preserve the writings of Constantine's (heretical) opponents. This project involves Pachomius and his monastic system in Upper Egypt, near where the NHC were discovered. The last of the Greek writings must have been transported many hundreds of miles up the Nile in order to be translated to the Coptic. Things might have become too dangerous after the death of Pachomius c.348 CE, and a decision was made to hide the books from agents of the Christian state. This last bit is generally accepted by scholarship.

As a result, and purely on the two facts of the C-14 dating of the codex and the Coptic translation from the Greek, simple scientific and common sense observations lead to this conclusion:

There is, therefore, a 92.3% chance that the Greek originals date before 310 CE, even before factoring in other evidence.*

If we then add the evidence of the Nag Hammadi codices, which have some texts in common, in Coptic, and which is dated ca. 350 CE, then there is a 50% chance that this codex dates 350 CE or before, and at least a 40% chance that the Greek originals date before 320CE, thus giving us at least a 95.38% chance that the Greek originals date before 320 CE, when combined to the above.

* (Such as the reference to the Gospel of Judas in Irenaeus of Lyons, a text that we did not even have before its recent discovery.)

I appreciate this treatment of the C14 analysis PK. But as Peter Head noted, there are some problems with these test results:

1) No final report has been issued by Tim Jull at UA is now outstanding ten years (2005 to 2015 CE)
2) A fifth papyrus fragment selected and tested, with a result of 333 CE, was rejected from the final result.

I can add a third problem ....

3) Has the final C14 calibration step been included in the results?



3) Has the final C14 calibration step been included in the results?

Your analysis has been conducted on what is termed the radiocarbon age which is given as a mean with a standard deviation. However there is usually one further step conducted and that is to apply to this radiocarbon age curve a calibration which has been independently assessed. The final result of a C14 test is not a smooth curve at all, and is skewed because it has been calibrated against what is known about C14 in the epoch in question.

Here is the result for the test before calibration (please excuse the shape of the curve - it is not really accurate, but it indicates symmetry)

Image

The final step is to introduce C14 calibration to this (symmetric) radiocarbon age result. As you can see the end result is asymmetric.

Image

This curve shows the result of applying C14 calibration to the radiocarbon age. The wiggly line from top left to lower right is the calibration applied to the red curve of radiocarbon age. The end result is totally asymmetric.

Which of course is why I have never understood whether the results published by National Geographic are the final results after calibration.
If they are the final calibrated results then I cant see how they could be described in symmetric terms. (See the diagram above)


SUMMARY

There are some problems (mentioned in Peter Head's report) with the C14 test conducted on the Tchacos Codex containing the Gospel of Judas, and I have listed and discussed them above. Until these problems are resolved the analysis which you have assembled here in record time has to be questioned. I am not one to deny scientific results on dating. I have elsewhere stated that I think C14 dating should be mandatory for all manuscripts.

Therefore while I am appreciative of your analysis I must still defend my position on the hypothesis of post Nicaean dating, until such problems that are known and reported to exist are resolved by the experts.




LC
Last edited by Leucius Charinus on Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:23 am, 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: 8015
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:Therefore while I am appreciative of your analysis I must still defend my position on the hypothesis of post Nicaean dating until such problems that are known and reported to exist are resolved by the experts.
I assume you mean your "problems" with the C-14 dating above.

I'm still waiting for any of the "problems" or actual evidence regarding your own hypothesis, which arises out of precisely nothing.

What I meant regarding being "humble" above is precisely that we should be going to the data and evidence first, before coming up with crazy schemes. Our hypotheses should attend to a close reading of the particulars of the evidence. They should not come from thine own glorious bunghole.

I suggest making your case, starting from whatever you can find that actually can be interpreted as supporting it positively.

(Although, yes, I cannot understand how any earnest person investigating the matter intelligently and competently would have struck upon this hypothesis as being of great interest or even any plausibility.)
"... 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: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
Last edited by Leucius Charinus on Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:03 am, 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
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 still waiting for any of the "problems" or actual evidence regarding your own hypothesis, which arises out of precisely nothing.
I will try and make a summary of all the objections I have already received from yourself and others in discussing the OP.

I take it you mean these "problems" (which I have already in part defended?)

EG: Your big objection to a "large scale literary fabrication of "Early heretics".




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: 8015
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 still waiting for any of the "problems" or actual evidence regarding your own hypothesis, which arises out of precisely nothing.
I will try and make a summary of all the objections I have already received from yourself and others in discussing the OP.

I take it you mean these "problems" (which I have already in part defended?)

EG: Your big objection to a "large scale literary fabrication of "Early heretics".
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.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply