On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
theomise
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 4:20 pm

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by theomise »

Leucius Charinus wrote:
theomise wrote:
Interesting, thanks for that.... :scratch:

But how, precisely, do we know any of that empirically?
what, precisely, do you mean by this question? C14 dating dates the carbon isotope ratios in the papyrus when it was harvested (excluding contaminants). C14 dating as another dating methodology and gauge for chronology IMO should be seen as an advance of knowledge.
Agreed. No question.
From: http://www.livescience.com/28506-gospel ... icity.html :
What's more, the Louvre study found that the metal-based inks from this time period contained little sulfur, just like the ink on the Gospel of Judas. The discovery gave the researchers the confidence to declare the document consistent with a date of approximately A.D. 280. (Barabe and his colleagues caution that this finding doesn't prove beyond doubt that the document is authentic, but rather that there are no red flags proving it's a forgery.)
Sure, but is there any actual physical evidence of a circa A.D. 280 origin to this GoJ manuscript, or are we still operating in the realm of speculative sci-fi palaeography?
The evidence consists of a part of a physical ancient codex.

Image
Are we talking exclusively about the evidence presented in this paper:

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Libr ... fJudas.pdf

?
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

theomise wrote:Are we talking exclusively about the evidence presented in this paper:

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Libr ... fJudas.pdf

?
Yes. However in the paper you will see a discussion about dating the Gospel of Judas prior to 180 CE on the basis of its mention by Irenaeus.

The hypothesis being explored in the OP is that this mention was inserted into Irenaeus in the 4th (or subsequent) century in exactly the same manner as mention of the "Clementine literature" was inserted into Origen in the 4th century.
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

The Appearance of SImon Magus c.330 CE

The Clementine literature is today recognised as being most likely authored c.330 CE by an Arian.
I am interested in the appearance of Simon Magus in literature about this date.
The stories seem eminently classifiable as "PULP FICTION"

Simon Magus also also appears in the non canonical Acts of Peter, and Acts of Peter and Paul.
There are very exiting miracle contests between Peter and Simon Magus, some in the presence of Nero.
These Acts are invariably placed earlier, by the attestations of the "Church Fathers".

It seems to me that the Gnostic authors were taking the character of Simon from Acts
and then giving that character far more "airplay" and dynamics in the pulp fiction dimension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magu ... e_Apostles
  • WIKI Article on Simon Magus and the Clementine literature

    Pseudo-Clementine literature

    The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies give an account of Simon Magus and some of his teachings in regards to the Simonians. They are of uncertain date and authorship, and seem to have been worked over by several hands in the interest of diverse forms of belief.

    Simon was a Samaritan, and a native of Gitta. The name of his father was Antonius, that of his mother Rachel. He studied Greek literature in Alexandria, and, having in addition to this great power in magic, became so ambitious that he wished to be considered a highest power, higher even than the God who created the world. And sometimes he "darkly hinted" that he himself was Christ, calling himself the Standing One. Which name he used to indicate that he would stand for ever, and had no cause in him for bodily decay. He did not believe that the God who created the world was the highest, nor that the dead would rise. He denied Jerusalem, and introduced Mount Gerizim in its stead. In place of the Christ of the Christians he proclaimed himself; and the Law he allegorized in accordance with his own preconceptions. He did indeed preach righteousness and judgment to come: but this was merely a bait for the unwary.

    There was one John the Baptist, who was the forerunner of Jesus in accordance with the law of parity; and as Jesus had twelve Apostles, bearing the number of the twelve solar months, so had he thirty leading men, making up the monthly tale of the moon. One of these thirty leading men was a woman called Helen, and the first and most esteemed by John was Simon. But on the death of John he was away in Egypt for the practice of magic, and one Dositheus, by spreading a false report of Simon's death, succeeded in installing himself as head of the sect. Simon on coming back thought it better to dissemble, and, pretending friendship for Dositheus, accepted the second place. Soon, however, he began to hint to the thirty that Dositheus was not as well acquainted as he might be with the doctrines of the school.[16]
    • Dositheus, when he perceived that Simon was depreciating him, fearing lest his reputation among men might be obscured (for he himself was supposed to be the Standing One), moved with rage, when they met as usual at the school, seized a rod, and began to beat Simon; but suddenly the rod seemed to pass through his body, as if it had been smoke. On which Dositheus, being astonished, says to him, ‘Tell me if thou art the Standing One, that I may adore thee.’ And when Simon answered that he was, then Dositheus, perceiving that he himself was not the Standing One, fell down and worshipped him, and gave up his own place as chief to Simon, ordering all the rank of thirty men to obey him; himself taking the inferior place which Simon formerly occupied. Not long after this he died.[17]
    The encounter between both Dositheus and Simon Magus was the beginnings of the sect of Simonians. The narrative goes on to say that Simon, having fallen in love with Helen, took her about with him, saying that she had come down into the world from the highest heavens, and was his mistress, inasmuch as she was Sophia, the Mother of All. It was for her sake, he said, that the Greeks and Barbarians fought the Trojan War, deluding themselves with an image of truth, for the real being was then present with the First God.[18] By such allegories Simon deceived many, while at the same time he astounded them by his magic. A description is given of how he made a familiar spirit for himself by conjuring the soul out of a boy and keeping his image in his bedroom, and many instances of his feats of magic are given.


    "Simon Magus" as a cipher and Anti-Paulinism

    The Pseudo-Clementine writings were used in the 4th century by members of the Ebionite sect, one characteristic of which was hostility to Paul, whom they refused to recognize as an apostle.[19]

    Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), founder of the Tübingen School, drew attention to the anti-Pauline characteristic in the Pseudo-Clementines, and pointed out that in the disputations between Simon and Peter, some of the claims Simon is represented as making (e.g. that of having seen the Lord, though not in his lifetime, yet subsequently in vision) were really the claims of Paul; and urged that Peter's refutation of Simon was in some places intended as a polemic against Paul. The enmity between Peter and Simon is clearly shown. Simon's magical powers are juxtaposed with Peter's powers in order to express Peter's authority over Simon through the power of prayer, and in the 17th Homily, the identification of Paul with Simon Magus is effected. Simon is there made to maintain that he has a better knowledge of the mind of Jesus than the disciples, who had seen and conversed with Him in person. His reason for this strange assertion is that visions are superior to waking reality, as divine is superior to human.[20] Peter has much to say in reply to this, but the passage which mainly concerns us is as follows:
    • But can any one be educated for teaching by vision? And if you shall say, "It is possible," why did the Teacher remain and converse with waking men for a whole year? And how can we believe you even as to the fact that he appeared to you? And how can he have appeared to you seeing that your sentiments are opposed to his teaching? But if you were seen and taught by him for a single hour, and so became an apostle, then preach his words, expound his meaning, love his apostles, fight not with me who had converse with him. For it is against a solid rock, the foundation-stone of the Church, that you have opposed yourself in opposing me. If you were not an adversary, you would not be slandering me and reviling the preaching that is given through me, in order that, as I heard myself in person from the Lord, when I speak I may not be believed, as though forsooth it were I who was condemned and I who was reprobate. Or, if you call me condemned, you are accusing God who revealed the Christ to me, and are inveighing against Him who called me blessed on the ground of the revelation. But if indeed you truly wish to work along with the truth, learn first from us what we learnt from Him, and when you have become a disciple of truth, become our fellow-workman.
    The anti-Pauline context of the Pseudo-Clementines is recognised, but the association with Simon Magus is surprising since they have little in common.[21] However the majority of scholars accept Baur's identification,[22] though others, including Lightfoot, argued extensively that the "Simon Magus" of the Pseudo-Clementines was not meant to stand for Paul.[23] Recently, Berlin pastor Hermann Detering (1995) has made the case that the veiled anti-Pauline stance of the Pseudo-Clementines has historical roots, that the Acts 8 encounter between Simon the magician and Peter is itself based on the conflict between Peter and Paul.[24] His view has not found general support among scholars but Robert M. Price argues much the same case in The Amazing Colossal Apostle:The Search for the Historical Paul (2012).[25]
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Authorship Date for the Gospel of JAMES:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James
  • Authorship and date

    The document presents itself as written by James: "I, James, wrote this history in Jerusalem."[3] Thus the purported author is James, brother of Jesus, whom the text claims to be a son of Joseph from a prior marriage.

    Scholars have established that the work is pseudepigraphical (not written by the person it is attributed to).[4] That conclusion is based on the style of the language and the fact that the author describes certain activities as contemporary Jewish customs that probably did not exist. For example, the work suggests there were consecrated temple virgins in Judaism, similar to the Vestal Virgins in pagan Rome, this is unlikely to have been a practice in mainstream Judaism, but could possibly have been a practice within the ancient Essene culture.[citation needed] Conversely, Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics argue that the Old Testament shows that consecrated virginity had been practiced in Judaism since the days of the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 2:22),[5] therefore believing that the idea of Mary being a consecrated temple virgin is not far-fetched.

    The consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. The first mention of it is by Origen of Alexandria in the early 3rd century, who says the text, like that of a "Gospel of Peter", was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the 'brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph by a former wife.[6]


    Footnote [6]: Origen of Alexandria. "The Brethren of Jesus". Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10.17 in Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume IX. Retrieved 2008-09-18. "But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee," might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity."
The source for the dating of the Gospel of James to before the life of Origen is based on the above mention in Origen's Commentary on Matthew.

Anyone following this discussion will recall that the dating of the Clementine Literature also used to be based on this same work by Origen.
  • Dating of the Clementine Literature

    It was long believed that the early date of the Clementines was proved by the fact that they were twice quoted by Origen. One of these quotations occurs in the Philokalia of Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil (c. 360). Dr. Armitage Robinson showed in his edition of that work (1893) that the citation is an addition to the passage of Origen made by the compilers, or possibly by a later editor. The other citation occurs in the old Latin translation of Origen on Matthew.
Could others have interpolated into Origen's Commentary on Matthew, along with the mentions of the Clementine literature, the mention of the gJames?

What other earliest dates for any of the NT Apocryphal writings (besides the Gospel of James, and the Clementine Literature) are using Origen's Commentary on Matthew (known to have been corrupted in the 4th century).

Any information or comments appreciated.
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

When tempers fray (for one reason or another) some people revert to an abusive, hostile verbal slagging polemic often accompanied with a multitude of sexual references of various persuasions. A recent outburst, now moved to the lounge, is an excellent example. It is actually quite refreshing to be reminded that some other readers (not to mention the subject FFS) find this polemic simply offensive, common and grossly inappropriate for a public discussion. That is why I refrain from responding in kind. The evidence itself, and its various interpretations need to be examined and discussed . PK4.

However the psychological dynamics here are quite instructive, despite their drama. These dynamics appear no different than they appear to have been later in the fourth century if we examine the literary evidence of Epiphanius. Here we are in the 21st century behaving the same way. What is behind these psychological dynamics that would prompt a heretic to write the following material from "The Greater Questions of Mary"?


What motivated the author of "The Greater Questions of Mary"?
Any ideas out there from the lurkers?


"The Greater Questions of Mary": Jesus has explicit sex, eats his semen in the presence of Mary, who faints, is revived and then asked why she doubted

There is a record in the writings of the gnostic heretics that depicts Jesus having explicit sex somewhere up a mountain, in the presence of Mary, with a woman whom he has pulled from his side. According to Bart Ehrman: "When he reached climax, he pulled out of her and consumed his own semen, telling Mary: "Thus must we do, that we may live." Mary, as one might understand, was shocked into unconsciousness."

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QDi ... us&f=false
Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And ... By Bart D. Ehrman
  • "Epiphanius wrote an eighty-chapter book attacking Christian heretics and the Gospels they used. In the course of his discussion he mentions a Gospel about Mary Magdalene that sounds very bizarre indeed. In this account, Epiphanius alleges, Jesus took Mary to the top of a mountain and then in her presence pulled a woman out from his side (much as Eve came forth from Adam) and began having sexual intercourse with her. When he reached climax, he pulled out of her and consumed his own semen, telling Mary: "Thus must we do, that we may live." Mary, as one might understand, was shocked into unconsciousness. Epiphanius called this alleged book "The Greater Questions of Mary".
Another source for Epiphanius discloses that the text continues ...
  • Jesus awakens her, raises her up, and announces: "O person of little faith, why did you doubt?"
Here is a link to the Panarion - http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm#3.
  • Part 26. Epiphanius Against the Gnostics, or Borborites

    8:1 And they too have lots of books. They publish certain 'Questions of Mary'; but others offer many books about the Ialdabaoth we spoke of, and in the name of Seth.34 They call others 'Apocalypses of Adam'35 and have ventured to compose other Gospels in the names of the disciples, and are not ashamed to say that our Saviour and Lord himself, Jesus Christ, revealed this obscenity.

    8:2 For in the so-called 'Greater Questions of Mary'—there are also 'Lesser' ones forged by them—they claim that he reveals it to her after taking her aside on the mountain, praying, producing a woman from his side, beginning to have sex with her, and then partaking of his emission, if you please, to show that 'Thus we must do, that we may live.'

    8:3 And when Mary was alarmed and fell to the ground, he raised her up and said to her, 'O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

How well does the overall genre of the corpus of gnostic literature (i.e. Acts and Gospels; NT apocrypha; non canonical texts, etc) fit into the genre of fan fiction?

The core Gnostic "fan fiction" was spawned only as a reaction to the political publication of the NT Bible,

The OP makes the claim that this did not occur until c.325 CE.


FAN FICTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_fiction
  • Fan fiction, or fanfiction (often abbreviated as fan fic, fanfic, or simply fic), is a broadly defined fan labor term for stories about characters or settings written by fans of the original work, rather than by the original creator. Works of fan fiction are rarely commissioned or authorized by the original work's owner, creator, or publisher; also, they are almost never professionally published. Due to these works' not being published, stories often contain a disclaimer stating that the creator of the work owns none of the original characters. Fan fiction is defined by being both related to its subject's canonical fictional universe and simultaneously existing outside the canon of that universe.[1] Most fan fiction writers assume that their work is read primarily by other fans, and therefore tend to presume that their readers have knowledge of the canon universe (created by a professional writer) in which their works are based.

    • Fan fiction is what literature might look like if it were reinvented from scratch after a nuclear apocalypse by a band of brilliant pop-culture junkies trapped in a sealed bunker. They don't do it for money. That's not what it's about. The writers write it and put it up online just for the satisfaction. They're fans, but they're not silent, couch-bound consumers of media. The culture talks to them, and they talk back to the culture in its own language.

      —Lev Grossman, TIME, July 07, 2011
    Media scholar Henry Jenkins explains the correlation between transmedia storytelling and fan fiction:[2]
    • The encyclopedic ambitions of transmedia texts often results in what might be seen as gaps or excesses in the unfolding of the story: that is, they introduce potential plots which can not be fully told or extra details which hint at more than can be revealed. Readers, thus, have a strong incentive to continue to elaborate on these story elements, working them over through their speculations, until they take on a life of their own. Fan fiction can be seen as an unauthorized expansion of these media franchises into new directions which reflect the reader's desire to "fill in the gaps" they have discovered in the commercially produced material.

GNOSTIC FAN FICTION of Jesus and the Apostles

The Gnostic authors had the NT Bible before them, and they exploited it as would clever and resourceful authors of fan fiction would do. When would such a consistent reaction producing hundreds of non canonical texts be expected to have appeared in the political history of Christian origins? The first choice is Nicaea when the Bible became politically topical in the schools of Alexandria. Before that time Ammonius of Alexandria may have analysed the agreements between the Gospels, and Celsus made a few written statements against the canonical story. But these were exceptions. The average educated pagan would not have read the Bible. Until it was made an official instrument in the Roman Empire c.325 CE.
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

A recent article by Brent Nongbri reinforces the notion that Christian related papyri of Egyptian provenance should include a 4th century date. This will have an impact upon the very small number of "EARLY" fragments of the Gnostic literature, which have been listed in the OP. (i.e. held to be evidence of a pre-4th century non canonical text). As a consequence of this relaxation in the date ranges of palaeographical dating, the hypothesis that the Gnostics authored their [non canonical] Acts and Gospels prior to Nicaea is only supported by "literary attestations" in the writings of the "Church Fathers" (eg: via Eusebius)

This thread argues that these sources are corrupt, and were interpolated or fabricated in the 4th and subsequent centuries in order to support the pseudo-history of the conflict between the orthodoxy and the Gnostic heretics prior to Nicaea. They were trying to completely downplay the political controversies which ensued with the Bible becoming the holy writ of the Roman [PAGAN] Empire.

This thread argues that it is more reasonable that the Gnostics wrote their stuff as a political reaction to the appearance of the Bible.


This following article also discusses the theory that the Bodmer Papyri were, like the Nag Hammadi codices, a product of a Pachomian monastery.


https://www.academia.edu/6755662/The_Li ... mer_II_P66_
The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P.Bodmer II (P66)
By Brent Nongbri, Macquarie University [2014]

Abstract
  • Palaeographic estimates of the date of P.Bodmer II, the well-preserved Greek papyrus codex of the Gospel of John, have ranged from the early second century to the first half of the third century. There are, however, equally con- vincing palaeographic parallels among papyri securely dated to as late as the fourth century. This article surveys the palaeographic evidence and argues that the range of possible dates assigned to P.Bodmer II on the basis of palaeography needs to be broadened to include the fourth century. Furthermore, a serious con- sideration of a date at the later end of that broadened spectrum of palaeographic possibilities helps to explain both the place of P.Bodmer lI in relation to other Bodmer papyri and several aspects of the codicology of P.Bodmer II.

NOTES:

p.19/20


.... Such a wide span is perfectly reasonable, and this point needs to be emphasized.
We should not be assigning narrow dates to literary papyri strictly on the basis of
palaeography. Four kinds of evidence support this contention -

1. The first type of evidence comes in the form of papyri that demonstrate at least
some scribes were capable of writing in multiple different styles generally assigned
to different time periods. P.Oxy. 31.2604 provides an example, in which a scribe puts
on a show of skills by copying the same poetic line in different styles, twice in a
narrowly spaced hand at home in the third century and once in a spacious uncial typical
of the first century.

2 The second type of evidence is the phenomenon sometimes called "archaism". [36]
The classic case is P.Oxy. 50.3529, a papyrus scrap written in a textbook example of a
first century Roman hand. The editor of P.Oxy. 50.3529 noted its palaeographic affinities
with the hand of P.Oxy. 2.246, a registration of livestock dated to the year 66 CE.
P.Oxy. 50.3529 is, however, a copy of the Martyrdom of Dioscorus, so this writing can be
no earlier than the year 307 CE. The span for this hand is therefore at least two and a
half centuries

3. Third, the active working life of a scribe could be remarkably long. Revel Coles has
suggested that the same scribe could be responsible for copying parts of P.Oxy. 64.4441
(315 CE) and P.Oxy. 67.4611 (363 CE), which "would result in a working life not less than
49 years". [37]

4. Finally, similarities in hands were passed from teachers to students, so that a given hand
could last through multiple generations. [38]

All of these factors suggest that we should be very wary of assigning palaeographic dates
within narrow margins (and we should certainly end the highly dubious practice of palaeographically
dating pieces "circa" a particular year). [39] A reasonable palaeographic date range for P.Bodmer lI
would be mid-second to mid-fourth century. [40].
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

The hypothesis of the OP suggests that the Greek texts of the Coptic Nag Hammadi Codices were all originally authored between 325 and 348 CE.

Here is a table of the currently presumed dates of authorship. (I have not removed the duplicate texts)

NHC #Est. Authorship DATE RANGENag Hammadi Texts [Sorted via Estimated Dates of Authorship]
5.5BCE-3rdThe Apocalypse of Adam
12.1BCE-BCEThe Sentences of Sextus
2.2040-140The Gospel of Thomas a sayings gospel
2.6040-350The Exegesis on the Soul
11.2100-160A Valentinian Exposition, On the Anointing, On Baptism (A and B) and On the Eucharist (A and B)
7.3100-200Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
1.3140-180The Gospel of Truth
12.2140-180The Gospel of Truth
1.1150-300The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
2.3150-350The Gospel of Philip
2.1200-300The Apocryphon of John
1.2250-290The Apocryphon of James (also known as the Secret Book of James)
3.12nd-2ndThe Apocryphon of John
42nd-2ndThe Apocryphon of John
5.42nd-2ndThe Second Apocalypse of James
6.12nd-2ndCodex VI: The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
6.62nd-2ndThe Eighth Reveals the Ninth - Discourse and Hermetic treatise
7.42nd-2ndThe Teachings of Silvanus
13.12nd-2ndTrimorphic Protennoia
13.22nd-2ndOn the Origin of the World
1.42nd-3rdThe Treatise on the Resurrection
6.22nd-3rdThe Thunder, Perfect Mind
8.22nd-3rdThe Letter of Peter to Philip
11.12nd-3rdThe Interpretation of Knowledge
2.43rd-3rdThe Hypostasis of the Archons
2.53rd-3rdOn the Origin of the World
7.23rd-3rdThe Second Treatise of the Great Seth
7.53rd-3rdThe Three Steles of Seth
8.13rd-3rdZostrianos
11.33rd-3rdAllogenes
1.53rd-4thThe Tripartite Tractate
2.7unknownThe Book of Thomas the Contender
3.2unknownThe Gospel of the Egyptians
3.3unknownEugnostos the Blessed
3.4unknownThe Sophia of Jesus Christ
3.5unknownThe Dialogue of the Savior
4.1unknownHoly Book of the Great Invisible Spirit (The Gospel of the Egyptians)
5.1unknownEugnostos the Blessed
5.2unknownCoptic Apocalypse of Paul
5.3unknownThe First Apocalypse of James
6.3unknownAuthoritative Teaching
6.4unknownThe Concept of Our Great Power
6.5unknownRepublic by Plato
6.7unknownThe Prayer of Thanksgiving (with a hand-written note) - a Hermetic prayer
6.8unknownAsclepius 21-29 - another Hermetic treatise
7.1unknownThe Paraphrase of Shem
9.1unknownMelchizedek
9.2unknownThe Thought of Norea
9.3unknownThe Testimony of truth
10unknownMarsanes
11.4unknownHypsiphrone

The above dates for "earlier authorship" are totally and completely reliant upon the information supplied by the heresiologists (e.g. Eusebius, Irenaeus, etc)

IMO there is sufficient cause to claim and test for the condition that these sources are corrupt and pseudo-historical.

If we did not have the "unimpeachable testimony" of the "Church Fathers" then what dates would be ascribed to these texts of the NHC?



LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

There is probably no one here who does not believe that the Gospel of Thomas is an early "Church document" perhaps even as early as the 1st century Apostolic Age. The consensus of scholarship dates the authorship of this text in the 1st or 2nd centuries because it is cool. They do not have any evidence.

My argument is that the Gospel of Thomas was authored after Nicaea as a literary reaction to the appearance of the Constantine Bible. It was intended as an attempt to preserve the wisdom of the Greek philosophical schools - a wisdom which was also related to ascetic practices. In the great Christian revolution of the 4th century there appeared the political reality of the "Sacred Book". The emperors manufactured "Sacred Books" in their imperial scriptoria under the direction of managing editors. Such as Eusebius and Athanasius.

The Grass Roots resistance started manufacturing their own "Jesus STories". It was an "underground press". The Gospel of Thomas is a Jesus story which simply preserves the supposed sayings of the Jesus Figure. Jesus said .... Jesus said .... Jesus said ... etc etc etc etc.

Why does everyone believe it was written in the 1st or 2nd century? They are cool sayings. They are Q like. They must be early. Therefore gT is early. Wrong. There is no evidence for this hypothesis. The earliest text is that of the mid 4th century in the NHC. Any papyri fragments are now subject to extended date ranges which will probably include the 4th century. Thus we only have the utterances of the "Church Industry Fathers".

Whatever the wisdom in the sayings of gT IMO it is pagan wisdom placed into the mouth of the sacred name of "IS".
They had to use the sacred name "IS" because their Pontifex Maximus had commanded them to do so, and no one openly rejected Constantine's doctrines while he was alive. Constantine set enough examples to make sure that the people knew the fear of god.



LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

I hope you don't mind me taking these comments to this thread Mac ...

MrMacSon wrote:
Ferdinand Christian Baur, the founder of the "Tübingen School" of New Testament criticism, rested his ideas about the New Testament on the Clementines, and his ideas about the Clementines on St. Epiphanius, who found the writings used by an Ebionite sect in the 4th century .... <snip (the above passage)> ....

The Clementine literature had its first origin in the Apostolic Age, and belonged to the original Jewish, Petrine, legal Church. It is directed wholly against St. Paul and his sect. Simon Magus never existed; it is a nickname for St. Paul. The Acts of the Apostles, compiled in the 2nd century, have borrowed their mention of Simon from the earliest form of the Clementines. Catholicism under the presidency of Rome was the result of the adjustment between the Petrine and Pauline sections of the Church in the second half of the 2nd century. The Fourth Gospel is a monument of this reconciliation, in which Rome took a leading part, having invented the fiction that both Peter and Paul were the founders of her Church, both having been martyred at Rome, and on the same day, in perfect union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_ ... s_and_Paul
Ferdinand and most other scholarship were running with the hypothesis of an early date for the Clementines.
The literary work itself is brilliant and exceedingly clever. It weaves a great deal of Greek literary material within it.
The problem is the early dating hypothesis was shown to be wrong.

I pointed out in another earlier thread that one should look at the contemporary chronology for the Clementine literature

The long and the short of it is that the Clementine literature was not authored early at all.

It was authored by an Arian c.330 CE.

I have tried to point this out to other posters here and there but have not yet seen any acknowledgement of the implications.

If the Clementines were authored c.330 CE, then the text is a clear example of post Nicaean literary genre written in response to Constantine's Bible.

The question in my mind is whether the author was a non Christian satirist.





LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
Post Reply