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
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.
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