Who are the 12 disciples in the Gospel of Nicodemus?

[TedM]

Is anyone familiar with what scholars have to say about the 12 named disciples in the Gospel of Nicodemus -- ch 3 -- the part that some think may be derived from the early 'Act of Pilate' referenced by Justin?:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... berts.html

Some of the bystanders, pious men of the Jews, say: we deny that he was born of fornication; for we know that Joseph espoused Mary, and he was not born of fornication. Pilate says to the Jews who said that he was of fornication: This story of yours is not true, because they were betrothed, as also these fellow-countrymen of yours say. Annas and Caiaphas say to Pilate: All the multitude of us cry out that he was born of fornication, and are not believed; these are proselytes, and his disciples. And Pilate, calling Annas and Caiaphas, says to them: What are proselytes? They say to him: They are by birth children of the Greeks, and have now become Jews. And those that said that He was not born of fornication, viz.-Lazarus, Asterius, Antonius, James, Atones, Zeras, Samuel, Isaac, Phinees, Crispus, Agrippas, and Judas -say: We are not proselytes, but are children of the Jews, and speak of the truth; for we were present at the betrothal of Joseph and Mary.

[Leucius Charinus]

M.R. James - 1924
THE GOSPEL OF NICODEMUS, OR ACTS OF PILATE
From "The Apocryphal New Testament"
M.R. James-Translation and Notes
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924


Introduction

• The first part of the book, containing the story of the Passion and Resurrection, is not earlier
  than the fourth century. Its object in the main is to furnish irrefragable testimony to the
  resurrection. Attempts have been made to show that it is of early date-that it is, for instance,
  the writing which Justin Martyr meant when in his Apology he referred his heathen readers to the
  'Acts' of Christ's trial preserved among the archives of Rome. The truth of that matter is that
  he simply assumed that such records must exist. False 'acts' of the trial were written in the
  Pagan interest under Maximin, and introduced into schools early in the fourth century. It is
  imagined by some that our book was a counterblast to these.

[TedM]

Thanks. I am aware of this view, but I'm not convinced without evidence. Does he present any evidence?

The truth of that matter is that
he simply assumed that such records must exist.

sounds too dogmatic -- how could he possibly know such a thing? He can't.

[Leucius Charinus]

M.R. James knows that "False 'acts' of the trial were written in the Pagan interest under Maximin, and introduced into schools early in the fourth century" because of Eusebius. What I don't understand is how it is "imagined by some" that the text of this pagan story was lost and another version written by Christians "in counterblast" was then written.

Also, according to the text, these "12 apostles" were "present at the betrothal of Joseph and Mary". Isn't that a novel claim?


.

[TedM]

yes, and it is highly questionable.

[Leucius Charinus]

yes, and it is highly questionable.

What do you expect from a blasphemous and heretical author? It is well known that the authors of the heretical gospels cobbled together bits and pieces of the canonical story and then added their own novel embellishments.

The early 'Act of Pilate'


Two Eusebian sources, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, make reference to the existence of some "Acts of Pilate" in the second and early third century. However we cannot be sure precisely what it was they were making reference to, especially in the case of Tertullian, who tries to assure us that Pontius Pilate became "christian". We do not have any documentary evidence that either Justin or Tertullian witnessed the same "Acts of Pilate" which has survived to the 21st century. The earliest "Acts of Pilate" appear as apologetic assertions. Eusebius makes no reference to these earlier references when he is discussing the sudden appearance of the "Pagan Acts of Pilate". We might consider that the "Early Christian Acts of Pilate" are wishful thinking.

In their book Apocryphal gospels Hans-Josef Klauck and Brian McNeil (2003) write:

• "This is most likely not evidence that Christian documents in the name of Pilate already existed; rather,
  these texts have inspired the composition of the Acts of Pilate."

In their book The Apocryphal New Testament James Keith Elliott and Montague Rhodes James write (p.164):

• "It is unlikely that Justin was referring to the present work;
  either he knew another treatise of this name or else merely
  assumed such a document must have existed."

[/i]



Justin Martyr's Apology

Justin Martyr [c.150-155] remarks in his first Apology (35)
(to the emperors Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus.)
after he has mentioned the passion and crucifixion of Jesus:
'And that these things happened you can ascertain
from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.'
A similar statement occurs in chapter 48.


CHAPTER XXXV -- OTHER FULFILLED PROPHECIES.

• And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture,
  and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that
  things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.

CHAPTER XLVIII -- CHRIST'S WORK AND DEATH FORE- TOLD.

• And that it was predicted that our Christ should heal all diseases
  and raise the dead, hear what was said. There are these words:
  "At His coming the lame shall leap as an hart,
  and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear speaking:
  the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed;
  and the dead shall rise, and walk about."
  And that He did those things, you can learn
  from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.

Tertullian's Apology

Tertullian refers twice to a report made by Pilate to Tiberius. According to him, Pontius Pilate informed
the Emperor of the unjust sentence of death which he had pronounced against an innocent and divine person;
the Emperor was so moved by his report of the miracles of Christ and his resurrection, that he proposed
the reception of Christ among the gods of Rome. But the Senate refused (Apologeticum 5).


TERTULLIAN , APOLOGY.[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. S. THELWALL]

CHAPTER. V.

• Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world,
  having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown
  the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate,
  with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given
  the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion,
  threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians.

In another place Tertullian [200-205 CE] says that the 'whole story of Christ
was reported to Caesar at that time it was Tiberius by Pilate,
himself in his secret heart already a Christian' (Apol. 21, 24).


CHAP. XXI.

• Thereafter, having given them commission to preach the gospel through the world,
  He was encompassed with a cloud and taken up to heaven, - a fact more certain
  far than the assertions of your Proculi concerning Romulus.
  All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions,
  he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius.
  Yes, and the Caesars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars
  had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars.

SUMMARY: "EARLY ACTS OF PILATE"

(1) How can anyone possibly believe these sources when they simultaneously claim Pilate and the Caesars were "secretly Christians in their heart"?

(2) Even granted that such a document existed in the official archives of Rome, the document itself was supposed to be some official document which the Roman government kept and maintained which attested to one out of tens of thousands of crucifixions. One out of tens of thousands. If it existed it probably just said the following were crucified today, and then listed a few dozen name. Perhaps the name of Jesus was on this document? I don't think such speculation is evidence.

(3) Finally the text referred to in the OP was not just some Roman government "Court Document". It is a long and well written story and must be totally different to the hypothetical "Early Acts of Pilate" referred to above.


.

[Leucius Charinus]

The Late Christian "Acts of Pilate"

Scholarship seems to have convinced itself that the manuscripts in our possession, for the text referred to in the OP, were authored by christians in response to the "Pagan Acts of Pilate", presented above as reported by Eusebius. The text itself in its current form has the date of 425 CE written in the text. It's quite remarkable that this date is precisely 100 years after the Council of Nicaea. A number of scholars allow that this date could have been altered, from an earlier date, but most scholars provided as estimated chronology for the "Late Christian Acts of Pilate" as being within the fourth century. In their book Apocryphal gospels Hans-Josef Klauck and Brian McNeil (2003) write:

• "By c.378 CE, Epiphanius of Salamis clearly knows Christian Acts of Pilate,
  which existed in a variety of different versions (Panarion 50.1.5-8).
  This allows us to date the composition of the Acts of Pilate to the first decades
  of the fourth century; the author will have drawn on older material."

[/i]

I have asked the following question many times but have to date received no satisfactory evidence ....


What is the evidence or the logic by which the majority of scholarship conjecture that the text of the "Acts of Pilate" aka "The Gospel of Nicodemus" was NOT the pagan "Acts of Pilate" which Eusebius describes, that this pagan version was "LOST", and that the version we have was written by Christians in "counterblast" to the earlier (Eusebius attested) pagan version?

If anyone can answer this question I would be really impressed. All I can think is that it may have something to do with what Epiphanius writes about it. Has anyone got an online source for Panarion 50? The following online source only extends to Panarion 46:
http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm


Thanks,



LC.

[TedM]

All I can say to all of that is that there may have been an earlier work either the heretical work suggested or something documenting actual events and written prior to Justin, and I am curious as to how closely it has been studied. You have to examine the Gospel of Nicodemus word for word in order to proclaim that NONE of it came from an earlier source. My understanding is that nobody has done the scholarship necessary to make such judgements. As such all of these statements are speculation...perhaps very true and generally reasonable given what we know but nonetheless not meaningful.

[Leucius Charinus]

All I can say to all of that is that there may have been an earlier work either the heretical work suggested or something documenting actual events and written prior to Justin, and I am curious as to how closely it has been studied.

I'd expect that many people have searched high and low for some such record on the basis of their expectations to find some such record. The result of this centuries long search AFAIK is that nobody has found any such document. It is a hypothetical document. It *could* exist, but so could an infinite amount of hypothetical documents.

You have to examine the Gospel of Nicodemus word for word in order to proclaim that NONE of it came from an earlier source.

That's true. But it is also true that when one examines the manuscript tradition of the Gospel of Nicodemus, taking into account the earliest witnesses for the story (and other things) the text looks to have been authored in the 4th century and no earlier, and this is the current consensus. The relationship of the Gospel of Nicodemus to the hypothetical existence of some "Court Document" is always hypothetically possible, but that is not going to alter the authorship date for the Gospel of Nicodemus.

My understanding is that nobody has done the scholarship necessary to make such judgements.

Judgements made on hypothetical manuscripts are hypothetical judgements. OTOH judgements made on physical manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts are in a different category of hypothetical judgements. There might be an appropriate term or two to describe the difference but I cant think of it at the moment. The term PHYSICAL EVIDENCE might suffice. There is nothing wrong exploring the scholarship on the existence of hypothetical manuscripts. And also yes, there is everything right exploring the scholarship on physical (evidenced) manuscripts. Both are required.

As such all of these statements are speculation...perhaps very true and generally reasonable given what we know but nonetheless not meaningful.

These statements are very reasonable and meaningful with respect to the known and discovered physical manuscript located in some library or museum somewhere on the planet Earth. They are the product of an analysis of all the known evidence associated with the manuscript.

What you are talking about, and its not necessarily wrong to do so, is the scholarship and judgements which seek out hypothetical manuscripts which may or may not exist. We don't know. If you think we do know about the reality of a hypothetical document, I think you need to provide strong reasons why you would expect this document to exist.

The way I see it is that we must proceed in parallel down two roads - one for the discovered physical existing manuscripts, and another for the undiscovered hypothetically existing manuscripts (such as the "Roman Court Document" mentioned by the Church Fathers). All statements from both roads are speculation. History is not certain it is hypothetical.

Traditional Christian origins is based on the hypothetical existence of first century original documents for the canonical books of the NT. We may never find these documents. And there may be a very good reason why some hypothetical first century documents will never be found. Namely, that these autograph documents may never have existed until the second century or, heaven forbid, even later.

Be well,


LC

[TedM]

thanks for your response. I really am mainly interested in how carefully what we do have has been studied with respect to its origins. You said

that when one examines the manuscript tradition of the Gospel of Nicodemus, taking into account the earliest witnesses for the story (and other things) the text looks to have been authored in the 4th century and no earlier, and this is the current consensus.

Since all we have are brief statements prior to the 4th century that don't shed light on the Gospel of Nicodemus, all we have to go on is a close examination of the text. I'm wondering who has examined it and how closely because it does contain some interesting things -- some apologetic (like the discussion about whether the birth was from fornication), and some a bit strange -- ie 12 'disciples' that weren't the 12 we know from the gospels, names of people not given previously, the naming of a mountain presumably in Galilee on which the ascension occurred, in contradiction to known tradition from Acts that it didn't happen in Galilee..

I just found this, which is along the lines just mentioned above:

Scheidweiler, however, notes that the book (a) presupposes the earlier form of the Panthera story, (b) adheres solely to Matthew in its account of the resurrection and ascension; and (c) disregards the forty days of Acts 1:3. Accordingly he argues for an earlier Grundschrift, and claims that “the possibility that apocryphal Acts of Pilate were already available to Justin cannot seriously be disputed” (NTAp. I. 447).

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... ilate-5181