Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Lundhaug and Jenott make their case for a monastic origin by surveying a wide breadth of material and discussing the question from a multitude of angles. They set the stage with a discussion of the nature of monasticism in late antique Upper Egypt. Using a variety of sources, including biographies of saints, monastic rules, documentary papyri and archaeological evidence, they demonstrate that monasticism at this period was more diverse than has often been often recognised, both in terms of organization and theology.

... Two important chapters in the book deal with the production techniques used in the making and writing of the codices and the relationship of the Nag Hammadi Codices to other Christian books produced at around the same period. “The Nag Hammadi Codices are not unique in their make-up and scribal practices,” Lundhaug tells us. “In fact they closely resemble other books, including biblical manuscripts, which are likely to have come from a monastic milieu. One example is a manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew held in the Schøyen collection close to Oslo.”

Lundhaug and Jenott pay particular attention to the “cartonnage” material used to stiffen the leather covers of the Nag Hammadi Codices. Cartonnage was traditionally made up of scraps of discarded papyrus from personal letters, account books, and so on. It therefore provides invaluable evidence for everyday life and the social context in which the codices were produced.

... One highly significant letter is in fact addressed to a certain ‘Father Pachomius,’ whom Lundhaug and Jenott maintain is the famous abbot Pachomius himself. If so, then this letter demonstrates a close connection between the makers of the codices and the nearby Pachomian monks.

Roger Pearse wrote:That was my take ... a "jazzed up" article.

What I'd like access to is the works of Shenouda which discuss the holding of apocrypha in monasteries. Sadly offline

Peter Kirby wrote:It feels a bit like the authors have created a 'controversy' in order to make the conclusion seem new or significant. Lots of people have said this and noted the same things.

While the Gospel of Philip has traditionally be considered a Christian writing from before the Council of Nicaea, Lundhaug argues that it reflects post-Nicene theology and discusses its context in later Christian theological controversies over baptism, Eucharist and resurrection.

andrewcriddle wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:It feels a bit like the authors have created a 'controversy' in order to make the conclusion seem new or significant. Lots of people have said this and noted the same things.

What does seem new and controversial is the late dating of some of the Nag Hammadi texts. e.g.

While the Gospel of Philip has traditionally be considered a Christian writing from before the Council of Nicaea, Lundhaug argues that it reflects post-Nicene theology and discusses its context in later Christian theological controversies over baptism, Eucharist and resurrection.

andrewcriddle wrote: What does seem new and controversial is the late dating of some of the Nag Hammadi texts. e.g.

While the Gospel of Philip has traditionally be considered a Christian writing from before the Council of Nicaea, Lundhaug argues that it reflects post-Nicene theology and discusses its context in later Christian theological controversies over baptism, Eucharist and resurrection.

andrewcriddle wrote:

Roger Pearse wrote: What I'd like access to is the works of Shenouda which discuss the holding of apocrypha in monasteries. Sadly offline

This may be relevant
https://www.academia.edu/1167504/Shenou ... Context_s_
(you need to sign up to Academia but that should be straightforward)

Roger Pearse wrote:

andrewcriddle wrote: What does seem new and controversial is the late dating of some of the Nag Hammadi texts. e.g.

While the Gospel of Philip has traditionally be considered a Christian writing from before the Council of Nicaea, Lundhaug argues that it reflects post-Nicene theology and discusses its context in later Christian theological controversies over baptism, Eucharist and resurrection.

That's interesting. But we know that these texts could be altered in transmission, because the Greek fragments of the Gospel of Thomas (2nd c.) do not contain some of the more overtly gnostic statements in the Nag Hammadi Coptic versions (4th c.). So is it possible that these elements are a later revision?