Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter Kirby wrote:

There is also the pagan inscription about the Christian Alexamenos from the 3rd c.:
http://www.textexcavation.com/alexamenos.html

Not the only missing inscription. There's only one inscription right now on the site. There's a good collection of inscriptions linked in the stickied thread at this forum (which I compiled), which I should eventually import into the website also.

Where?
I couldn't find it.

Catacomb art is the 1st thing that comes to mind.

Interesting how some of these collections of writings can be traced to modern groups.
The E.Orthodox church is like the extracanonical works, it even has the Slavic 3 Esdras in its Bible as apocryphal. The EO Church includes especially the Antiochian Church and Church of Jerusalem. Besides that, the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic, as well as the E.O. and O. Orthodox Coptic Churches in Egypt are still around, and count these kinds of extracanonical books in their traditions.

About the Fragments, well, you have to ask the scholars and archeologists about that.

Docetism - does it have any modern traces? Muslims would agree that Christ didn't suffer crucifixion, and the O.Orthodox Syriacs and Copts could have few tangential monophysite traces (ie. Jesus as divine but not human in nature). G.Peter was found on the face of a Coptic Egyptian monk centuries after Serapion Antiochene rejected it and after the split with Chalcedon.

Encratitic / Celibate anti-marriage teachings could be traced to the monastics of today, except the monastics just choose monasticism for themselves instead of making celibacy and avoiding marriage itself a teaching.

Nazoreans and Ebionites could be like the Messianic Jews of today, in that they follow the Torah rules and some even follow Adoptionism or don't accept some of the supernatural teachings.

Gnostics? There are a few modern gnostic Christian oriented groups, although how similar are they to the 1st c. ones? Charismatic Christians seem a bit like them in having visions and prophetic utterances, and their theology is often mainstream.

There are Freethinking groups, skeptics and pagans, who could have some similarity to the 1st-2nd c. critics and observers of Christianity like Celsus or Mara Bar Serapion.

There are still Jewish opponents and somewhat neutral Jewish commentators on Christianity today.

And also there are modern forgers similar to the likely forger of Secret Mark.

Anybody I missed?

rakovsky wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:

There is also the pagan inscription about the Christian Alexamenos from the 3rd c.:
http://www.textexcavation.com/alexamenos.html

Not the only missing inscription. There's only one inscription right now on the site. There's a good collection of inscriptions linked in the stickied thread at this forum (which I compiled), which I should eventually import into the website also.

Where?
I couldn't find it.

He has the inscription of Abercius posted.

rakovsky wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:

There is also the pagan inscription about the Christian Alexamenos from the 3rd c.:
http://www.textexcavation.com/alexamenos.html

Not the only missing inscription. There's only one inscription right now on the site. There's a good collection of inscriptions linked in the stickied thread at this forum (which I compiled), which I should eventually import into the website also.

Where?
I couldn't find it.

If you meant the sticky, though, it is here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=129.

Thanks for the inscription list. It would be most helpful for me if approximate dates were assigned, in the way that the main literary list has dates.
Do you think any of them are first c. inscriptions?
I saw Pompei as listed but considered doubtful. I remember reading about a 1st c. inscription of an anchor in a Christian site. One of the first examples of Christian art.

The Apocalypse of Peter exists partly in Greek in the "Ahmim fragment", and there is a later Arabic copy and an even later Ethiopic copy of the Arabic one.

The Early Writings site has the Ahmim fragment and quotes from the relevant portions of the Ethiopic one. The editor, M. James, wrote in 1924 that he is awaiting the publication of the Arabic copy to clear up issues about the original, especially the question of whether the core section included a text on universal salvation that he thinks the Ethiopic copy may have moved into its late ending portion. Has a translation been made of the Arabic copy of the Apocalypse of Peter?

M. James writes (as cited on the EW site):

My impression is that the maker of the Ethiopic version (or of its Arabic parent, or of another ancestor) has designedly omitted or slurred over some clauses in the passage beginning: 'Then will I give unto mine elect', and that in his very diffuse and obscure appendix to the Apocalypse, he has tried to break the dangerous doctrine of the ultimate salvation of sinners gently to his readers. But when the Arabic version of the Apocalypse is before us in the promised edition of MM. Griveau and Grebaut, we shall have better means of deciding.

A brief search by me didn't turn up anything.

rakovsky wrote:The Apocalypse of Peter exists partly in Greek in the "Ahmim fragment", and there is a later Arabic copy and an even later Ethiopic copy of the Arabic one.

The Early Writings site has the Ahmim fragment and quotes from the relevant portions of the Ethiopic one. The editor, M. James, wrote in 1924 that he is awaiting the publication of the Arabic copy to clear up issues about the original, especially the question of whether the core section included a text on universal salvation that he thinks the Ethiopic copy may have moved into its late ending portion. Has a translation been made of the Arabic copy of the Apocalypse of Peter?

M. James writes (as cited on the EW site):

My impression is that the maker of the Ethiopic version (or of its Arabic parent, or of another ancestor) has designedly omitted or slurred over some clauses in the passage beginning: 'Then will I give unto mine elect', and that in his very diffuse and obscure appendix to the Apocalypse, he has tried to break the dangerous doctrine of the ultimate salvation of sinners gently to his readers. But when the Arabic version of the Apocalypse is before us in the promised edition of MM. Griveau and Grebaut, we shall have better means of deciding.

A brief search by me didn't turn up anything.

Apparently the Griveau and Grebaut translation never appeared https://www.google.co.uk/#tbm=bks&q=Gri ... n+print%22

An Arabic version is extant; but, though it was being prepared for publication as long as fifty years ago, by Griveau and Grebaut, it has not yet seen print.

(There are various Arabic Apocalypses of Peter with little or no relation to the Greek/Ethiopic text. I'm doubtful whether a surviving Arabic precursor of the Ethiopic text genuinely exists.)

Andrew Criddle

Testament of Jacob is online for free here below, but no text is in the EJW database.

https://archive.org/details/TheTestamentOfJacob

Some scholars claim that Innocent I listed another book by Matthias besides the Gospel of Matthias and/or Traditions of Matthias, but if you check Innocent I's letter ( of 405 AD), he doesn't distinguish this book from them. He writes that besides the canonical NT books:

the rest of the books, which appear under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, or under the name of Peter and John (which were written by a certain Leucius), or under the name of Andrew (which were written by the philosophers Xenocharides and Leonidas), or under the name of Thomas, and whatever others there may be, you should know they are not only to be rejected but also condemned.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/innocent.html

Some Information on Questions of Bartholomew:

The Coptic Book of the resurrection of Jesus Christ took on its present basic form in the fifth or sixth c. It is difficult to date the Questions of Bartholomew; dates from the second to the 6th c. have been proposed. At any rate, the version of the harrowing of hell in this text is probably older than in Ev Nic, indicating that it was composed in the 2nd c, on the other hand this text borrows from Protev 8:1 at 2:15, and from IGTh 2 at 2:11 and this suggests a third c date. The mariology in the QUestions reflects a phase of dogmatic development anterior to the Council of EPhesus, but it is improbable that it should be dated earlier than parallel statements in Ephiphanius (4th c.)

...
Chapter 5 is a brief discussion of detailed questions about various categories of sin; it is obviously a subsequent addition.

The Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction, By Hans-Josef Klauck

One modern Russian writing proposes that the Coptic "Resurrection of J.C." is a reworked Questions of Bartholomew. That makes sense, considering how Apocalypse of Peter in its Coptic form is a reworked version of the Greek one, and there are basic similarities between these two extant Bartholomew writings.
(http://откровенные.рф/dialogi-iisusa-hrista-nekanonicheskie)

Here is another one who says that this is a reworked version:

Book of the Resurrection of J.C. of the apostle Bartholomew in Coptic is a homiletic reworking of Questions of Bartholomew. Preserved lists, the oldest dated to the 5th to 7th c. reflect various editions

https://www.sedmitza.ru/text/717232.html