Possible Historical Allusions in the Nag Hammadi Library

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2842
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Possible Historical Allusions in the Nag Hammadi Library

Post by Leucius Charinus »

I am interested to gather together any academic commentary related to the perception of any possible historical allusions discovered within the texts of the Nag Hammadi Library. Here is an example to start with located in "The Concept of Our Great Power" (NHC 6.4).

Are there any other possible historical allusions within the NHL?


Is Constantine "the archon of the western regions" ?

The Concept of Our Great Power (NHC 6.4)
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/cgp.html

Then the wrath of the archons burned. They were ashamed of their dissolution. And they fumed and were angry at the life. The cities were <overturned>; the mountains dissolve. The archon came, with the archons of the western regions, [1] to the East, i.e., that place where the Logos appeared at first. Then the earth trembled, and the cities were troubled. Moreover, the birds ate and were filled with their dead. [2] The earth mourned together with the inhabited world; they became desolate.

Then when the times were completed, then wickedness arose mightily even until the final end of the Logos. Then the archon of the western regions arose, and from the East he will perform a work, and he will instruct men in his wickedness. [3] And he wants to nullify all teaching [4], the words of true wisdom, while loving the lying wisdom. For he attacked the old, wishing to introduce wickedness and to put on dignity. He was incapable, because the defilement of his garments is great. Then he became angry.

[1] The archon came, with the archons of the western regions to the East

The archon - is this Constantine - conqueror of Rome now heading East? The archons of the western regions - are these the chieftains of the barbarian tribes who led their tribes into battle. Constantine's army largely consisted of barbarian tribes lead by their chieftains.



[2] Background to The Dead = Battles leading up to Constantine's military supremacy

The Battle of Adrianople was fought on July 3, 324,[2] during a Roman civil war, the second to be waged between the two emperors Constantine I and Licinius; Licinius suffered a heavy defeat. What followed, in the words of the historian Zosimus, was "a great massacre": Licinius' army, according to Zosimus, received losses of 34,000 dead. This figure is considered an exaggeration by modern historians.

The Battle of the Hellespont, consisting of two separate naval clashes, was fought in 324 between a Constantinian fleet, led by the eldest son of Constantine I, Crispus; and a larger fleet under Licinius' admiral, Abantus (or Amandus). Despite being outnumbered, Crispus won a very complete victory. All but four of the 200 ships of the Licinian fleet were wrecked, sunk, or captured.

The Battle of Chrysopolis was fought on 18 September 324 at Chrysopolis (modern Üsküdar), near Chalcedon (modern Kadıköy), between the two Roman emperors Constantine I and Licinius. According to the historian Zosimus, "There was great slaughter at Chrysopolis." Zozimus Book 2 reads: “A sharp engagement taking place between Chalcedon and the sacred promontory, Constantine had the superiority; for he fell on the enemy with such resolution, that of a hundred and thirty thousand men, scarcely thirty thousand escaped." - That's 100,000 dead. (Grant states the losses of the Eastern army were exaggerated and were instead between 25,000 to 30,000)


[3] from the East he will perform a work,
and he will instruct men in his wickedness.


Was "The Concept of Our Great Power" (NHC 6.4) written by the "pagan resistance"? Is this work referred to here the publication of the New Testament and LXX Bible Codex and the circulation of this codex by Constantine as a political instrument in the Roman empire?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Bib ... onstantine

The author laments "the final end of the Logos". Which side was he on?


[4] He (the Archon of the West) wants to nullify all teaching

From the perspective of the author, is it that Constantine wants to replace Hellenistic teaching with Christian teaching?


NOTE: Alternative views exist:

Alternative (1):

For example Francis Williams has claimed that the Archon of the West in this work:
  • Then the archon of the western regions arose, and from the East he will perform a work, and he will instruct men in his wickedness. And he wants to nullify all teaching, the words of true wisdom, while loving the lying wisdom. For he attacked the old, wishing to introduce wickedness and to put on dignity.
is actually a veiled reference to Julian the Apostate.

Alternative (2):
StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 8:04 am Some interpret this as a future prediction. For example, Robert J. Daly, Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity, 2009, page 114:

"...a dramatic vision of the coming end of material creation...an age of oppression led by 'the Archon of the Western regions'--a kind of Antichrist figure...."

If so, then, probably not Constantine.

Also, if 40:7 refers to the heresy of the Anomoeans, that is a heresy that is known only after the time of Constantine.
Mention of the heresy of the Anomoeans (at 40:7 of this same text) places the text after the emergence of the Arian controversy c.325 CE, although some have commented that this could have been interpolated into an older text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomoeanism
lsayre
Posts: 771
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Possible Historical Allusions in the Nag Hammadi Library

Post by lsayre »

'The Concept of Our Great Power' does appear to offer strong allusions to Constantine.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Possible Historical Allusions in the Nag Hammadi Library

Post by andrewcriddle »

The Archon of the West is possibly the Emperor Julian See https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2fg ... ne&f=false

Andrew Criddle
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2611
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Possible Historical Allusions in the Nag Hammadi Library

Post by StephenGoranson »

By inference, depending on your rules, maybe Plato, but most of all Jesus.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2842
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Possible Historical Allusions in the Nag Hammadi Library

Post by Leucius Charinus »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Oct 20, 2022 8:01 am The Archon of the West is possibly the Emperor Julian See https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2fg ... ne&f=false
Thanks for the link Andrew.

Here are some quotes from it.

It is obvious that Frank Williams (and many other biblical scholars) is running with the proposition that the author of this tractate is a Christian. (See further below)

p.154

"Though "instruct folk in his wickedness" might be merely a summary reference to Julian's religious policy, the words would match any of several of Julian's writings: Rescript on Christian Teachers (Letter 36), the Hymn to King Helios, the Hymn to the Mother of the Gods, the lost "Against the Christians"

"Julian desires to eliminate Christian teachings and replace them with pagan"

Julian as we all know was eminently unsuccessful in such a desire. We also know that Julian himself refers to "the fabrication of the Christians as a fiction of men composed by wickedness" If the Christians thought Julian indulged in wickedness so too did the pagans think that the Christians indulged in wickedness.

The reverse proposition that the author was a non Christian allows for the proposition that "Constantine desires to eliminate pagan teachings and replace them with Christian teaching". And the evidence is such that Constantine (and his sons) was eminently successful in such a desire.

Frank Williams comments on the "divine unity" at the climax of the tract as follows. :

p.190

47,19-20: "To him who is in the sole incomprehensible unity"

This emphasis. at the very climax of the tractate, on the divine unity makes it certain that, by "the Great Power", none other than the one, transcendent supreme God is meant. This one God was acknowledged, though not always for the same reasons, by Samaritans, Jews, Catholic Christians, Christian and non-Christian Gnostics, and Platonists. (Parmenides)

The entire tract contains Platonic overtones. Because Frank Williams thinks there must be a Christian authorial contribution somewhere in the tract, he puts forward the theory that -- much like the Ascension of Isaiah and many other NT Apocryphal texts --- the text is a composite product of two or three different editors / redactors.

Here is John Turner explaining the ideas of Frank Williams:

Williams’s GrP (Great Power) is a Christianized version of a strongly encratic and apocalyptic interpretation of Simonian doctrine, with many conceptual resemblances to Hippolytus’s commentary (Ref. 6.9–18) on the Simonian Apophasis Megale. The supreme deity is “Our Great Power” (a name Williams traces to Jewish and Samaritan sources). The possessive in “our” Great Power signifies the potential residence of this transcendent divine Power in human persons; as in the Apophasis Megale, salvation depends on actualizing this divine potential by becoming aware of its inner presence.

///

Numerous grammatical and logical inconsistencies, redundancies, intrusive second-person paraenesis, and abrupt transitions between episodes and shifts from third- to first-person speech cause most scholars, including Williams, to assume GrP to have undergone multiple redactions.

The excessively long description (39, 16–43, 2 p 117 lines) of the psychic aeon compared with those of the first fleshly aeon (38, 9–39, 5 p 41 lines) and the final beautiful aeon (46, 33–47, 6 p 49 lines) prompts Williams to regard the specifically Christian material —
  • on Christ’s ministry, victory over death, promise of salvation, the Church’s final apostasy in 40, 24–43, 2, the revenge of the Rulers (for Williams a reference to the Jewish war, 66–70 c.e.) in 43, 11–44, 10, and the advent of the Antichrist prefacing the end in 44, 32–45, 27
— as interpolations into an originally non-Christian didactic work (36, 3–40, 23 43, 3–11 44, 10–13 45, 27–48, 13) accomplished by late second-century secondary Egyptian Christians.
In 44, 13–31 the reference to the forerunner—whom Williams identifies as Emperor Julian the Apostate (reigned 361–63 c.e.)—of the Antichrist derives from a third and final late fourth-century redaction. In all respects except this third redaction, Williams’s analysis of GrP is quite plausible.


Reviewed Work(s): : A Commentary on NHC VI, 4: The Concept of Our
Great Power by Francis E Williams,
Review by: John D. Turner
Source: The Journal of Religion , Vol. 84, No. 1 (January 2004), pp. 88-90
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/382289

Christ does not appear in the tractate but this does not prevent the confirmation bias of Christian scholars to see Christian elements in it, and deduce that somewhere or other there must have been a Christian hand at work. The proposition that a fore-runner to the Anti-Christ is needed to explain any of this stuff is beyond my understanding.

These are all unwarranted assumptions.

OTOH the proposition that we are dealing with a non-Christian author allows the text to be viewed as a single cohesive product. The non Christian author is certainly responding to Christian issues. And we know for an absolute fact that Constantine pushed Christian issues during his supreme rule (324-337 CE) and that his son Constantius (337-360 CE) continued these agendas and doctrines

IMO the historical allusion to Constantine rather than Julian has far more explanatory power. As does the proposition that the author is a non Christian.

The “immeasurable, the universal one” and the “incomprehensible unity” are Platonic concepts. The people act “according to the creation of the archons and its other rulers.” is indicative of the political process of the Christianisation in the Eastern empire. The implementation of these new Christian doctrines resulted in “the great Power” of the Hellenic world being “turned on its head”.

One last observation. We read this in the tractate:

"Then he will come to destroy all of them. And they will be chastised until they become pure. Moreover their period, which was given to them to have power, which was apportioned to them, (is) fourteen hundred and sixty years.

What could this possibly mean? The author is lamenting the end of, the final days of the Logos - of the Hellenic civilisation. The apocalypse is happening to the "Old pagan culture".

Fourteen hundred and sixty years.

A period of Fourteen hundred and sixty years prior to the epoch 325-348 CE is the epoch from 1135-1112 BCE. This roughly equates to the epoch of Homeric Myth, post Trojan war, legendary Athenian kings, post Bronze Age collapse. This is the mythical epoch referred to in Homer describing the beginning / prelude of the Greek civilisation.

The Trojan war was considered among the ancient Greeks as either the last event of the mythical age or the first event of the historical age, several dates are given for the fall of Troy. They usually derive from genealogies of kings. Ephorus gives 1135 BCE.

The author is therefore saying (IMHO) that the power of the Hellenic civilisation is coming to an end – during the rule of Constantine (and Son) - after 1460 years. (Although I note other translators give 1468 years).

How satisfactory is this interpretation?
Last edited by Leucius Charinus on Sun Oct 23, 2022 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2842
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Possible Historical Allusions in the Nag Hammadi Library

Post by Leucius Charinus »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:20 am By inference, depending on your rules, maybe Plato, but most of all Jesus.
Here is the opening statement of (NHC 7.3) The Apocalypse of Peter as translated by James Brashler and Roger A. Bullard.
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html

As the Savior was sitting in the temple
in the three hundredth (year) of the covenant
...

How are we to interpret this?

Was the Savior sitting in the temple sometime between 330-336 CE? The Covenant is associated with the last supper and is explicitly mentioned at Mark 14:22–24, Matthew 26:26–28, 1 Corinthians 11:23–25 and Luke 22:19–20. Historians estimate that the date of the last supper and the crucifixion fell in the range 30–36 CE. This implies that a date 300 years later would fall in a range 330-336 CE – during the rule of Constantine.

Why was the Savior sitting in a temple and not in a basilica?

Once again is the author a non-Christian?

Here are some other rather strange things in this tractate:


The (Hellenic?) Savior says:
  • "And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals."
Then there is this account of the crucifixion (which seems to have been echoed in the Quran) as follows:
  • When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

    The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.
    "

Shades of the docetae.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2611
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Possible Historical Allusions in the Nag Hammadi Library

Post by StephenGoranson »

NHL Gospel of Thomas refers to Jesus, historically.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2842
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Possible Historical Allusions in the Nag Hammadi Library

Post by Leucius Charinus »

StephenGoranson wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 4:54 am NHL Gospel of Thomas refers to Jesus, historically.
Perhaps I have not been clear enough about what I am seeking as possible Historical Allusions in the Nag Hammadi Library.

Consider the following:

The latest possible dates of composition (terminus ad quem) is fixed by the earliest proof of existence of the texts, such as (rarely) the earliest physical copy, or (commonly) the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work.

The earliest possible date of composition (terminus a quo) is usually fixed by the latest datable work the text in question quotes or utilises, or by the latest historical allusion within the text.

As an example of what I am seeking here are two possible historical allusions in the Gospel of Thomas (NHC 2.1) :


(1) The Greek noun μοναχός (“single one/monk”)

The Greek noun μοναχός (“single one/monk”) is not attested before 4th century CE. Yet it emerges in the Gospel of Thomas, usually dated to 2nd century.

//

Besides the three occurrences of ⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ in Thomas, the Nag Hammadi codices attest it four more times. Twice, in the spelling ⲙⲟⲛⲟⲭⲟⲥ, in the Dialogue of the Saviour (NHC III 120.26; 121.18; cf. n. 60 below), and twice in the cartonnage of NHC VII.

///

Significantly, this word is not employed as a noun by Classical Greek authors, Philo of Alexandria, the Septuagint, Greek and Latin Christian literature of the first three centuries, any Gnostic writings, nor, according to G. Quispel, any of the sources that the author of Thomas used when writing his gospel.35 The employment of monachos by the author of the Dialogue in the same context as we find in Thomas, the only other text to use this word at this time in history, may signal that the author of the Dialogue was familar with the actual text of Thomas rather than the sayings tradition behind it.


For details see:
https://www.academia.edu/49567245/The_S ... erspective

As a second example of a possible historical allusion in Thomas -

(2) Jesus and the GOLD COIN in Logion 100

LAYTON

(100) They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, "Caesar's agents are exacting taxes from us." He said to them, "Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, give unto god the things that are god's, and give unto me that which is mine."

Stephan Witetschek has argued that the presence of the ⲛⲟⲩⲃ indicates that Gospel of Thomas 100 was only incorporated into the text very late, in Egypt, after the Diocletianic reform of 305 CE, which saw gold currency established across the Empire, and taxes raised in an attempt to remedy economic crisis.

Also see:
Reading Gospel of Thomas 100 in the Fourth Century
Author(s): Kimberley A. Fowler
Source: Vigiliae Christianae , 2018, Vol. 72, No. 4 (2018), pp. 421-446
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26567151
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2611
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Possible Historical Allusions in the Nag Hammadi Library

Post by StephenGoranson »

Yes, when I read "possible historical allusions" I did not know that you were interested only in the limited subset of allusions that might help date the texts or translations, or one of them.
Possibly, I may have been misled by some history-rejecting tendency that could be called son of "all Cretans are liars"-- your "all Christians are liars" version.
For example, your dismissal of Origen quoting at length and commenting on the criticism of Christianity by Celsus as a Constantine-era forgery seems amazingly, improbably, obtuse.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8892
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Possible Historical Allusions in the Nag Hammadi Library

Post by MrMacSon »

StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:28 am dismissal of Origen quoting at length and commenting on the criticism of Christianity by Celsus as a Constantine-era forgery seems amazingly, improbably, obtuse.
  • I agree

    ('though one might wonder
    1. to what extent Celsus is a real interlocutor, in part of in full (as one might wonder for Justin Martyr's Trypho); and
    2. to what extent Origen were a repository for more commentary than he really produced (and thus embellished / padded out)
Post Reply