On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote:In this whole vein, the psychological research that evidence-based criticism of an (irrational) belief tends to make people more confident in the (irrational) belief comes to mind. Not only does one have the opportunity to rationalize the belief with excuses to overcome the evidence-based criticism, but one also grows contempt for criticism of that belief in general and a stronger attachment to the belief. Evidence against strengthens belief for.
An hypothesis in the field of ancient history is not a belief.
Although it certainly may be in the field of Biblical History.
It is important to differentiate these two fields, as we shall see.

A mainstream hypothesis is one held to be true by a consensus of scholarship.
As such it may behave like a paradigm, and be accepted into a belief system.
Yet technically (at least in the field of ancient history) it remains a hypothesis.

An hypothesis may be considered which is antithetical to the mainstream paradigm.
In historiography this is often achieved by historical revisionism.
This is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations,
and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event.

The hypothesis in the OP is about an historical event: the authorship of the non canonical literature.
It is antithetical to the mainstream hypothesis in one critical aspect: chronology of authorship.

The mainstream hypothesis is that the authorship of at least some of the non canonical books occurred prior to 325 CE.
The hypothesis of the OP is that there was NO authorship of the non canonical books prior to 325 CE,
and that the authorship of the non canonical books was triggered by the political publication of the canonical books and Constantine's "Christian Revolution".

In proposing an hypothesis which is antithetical to the mainstream I completely understand that I have a responsibility to examine all the evidence underpinning the mainstream paradigm and demonstrate that I am aware of why there is a consensus of confidence that the mainstream hypothesis is likely to be closer to the historical truth.

I have done this in this thread. Above, and possibly on more than one occasion for some of the elements, I have provided a list and discussion of detailed evidence items. Here is a summary below.

(4) Evidence in support of mainstream chronology falls into the following categories:

4.1 Literary references in the "church fathers" by which the existence of non canonical books may be inferred.
4.2 Papyri fragments of the text of non canonical books that have been dated [palaeography] prior to 325 CE.
4.3 Papyri fragments of the church fathers that have been dated [palaeography] prior to 325 CE.
4.4 Inscriptions that attest to the existence of non canonical books prior to 325 CE.
4.5 C14 dating evidence (Codex Tchacos).
4.6 Other forms of evidence in support of 3.1
4.7 Literary references after 325 CE by 4th century heresiologists.

All the effort up to this point was to exhaustively list the evidence upon which the mainstream hypothesis is based.

YES. I called if anyone could provide further evidence. And thanks everyone for these contributions.


ADDRESSING THE EVIDENCE

After collecting this evidence I have always been aware that it is also my obligation to explain a different evaluation of each evidence item such that it is admitted by my opponents that:

1) Questioning and re-evaluating the evidence is a critical stage of hypothesis testing and theory formation.
2) That in every case of evidence provided it's evaluation admits a post-Nicene chronology.
3) That the likelihood of a post-Nicene chronology for the entire corpus of the non canonical books is not insignificant.
4) Perhaps that a post-Nicene chronology for the non canonical books is quite possible.


All this process I am obliged to address because I have known it was necessary to do this.




CHALLENGING THE MAINSTREAM HYPOTHESIS

The OP hypothesis (not a belief) challenges not just the mainstream hypothesis, but the entire mainstream worldview which has been generated by implication on the basis that the mainstream hypothesis is true.

One of the implications of the OP is that the "church organsiation" rewrote the history of the conflict it once had with the authors of the non canonical books. This is not novel. Bart Ehrman writes:

"The victors in the struggles
to establish Christian Orthodoxy
not only won their theological battles,
they also rewrote the history of the conflict"

So everyone is generally aware that the church fabricated pseudo-historical narratives.
But the open questions are:

1) how did they rewrite their pseudo-history and
2) what was the historical truth which they passed over?

The answers to these questions I have suggested lies in the political history of the 4th century.
  • "The science of politics is the one science that is deposited by the streams of history,
    like the grains of gold in the sand of a river; and the knowledge of the past, the record
    of truths revealed by experience, is eminently practical, as an instrument of action and a power
    that goes to making the future ...............and remember .....

    where you have a concentration
    of power in a few hands,
    all too frequently
    men with the mentality of gangsters get control.
    History has proven that. Power corrupts,
    and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    John Dalberg-Acton (1834-1902)
(a) LC doesn't do very good, thorough research into the evidence for or against his particular ideas and (b) LC generally gets the disconfirming evidence pointed out to him by others (which is itself an issue) and then quickly dismisses it (which is a worse issue).
If you actually examine the presentation of evidence in this thread, as I have outlined above and summarised, I have been required by the historical method to obtain all the evidence FOR and AGAINST both the mainstream hypothesis (at least some of the non canonical books were authored before 325 CE) because the hypothesis I am exploring is antithetical to it.

This is not arguing for some psychological belief as you have inferred.

It is seeking the historical truth via the historical method and the evaluation of ALL the evidence.
  • "But I have good reason to distrust any historian
    who has nothing new to say or who produces novelties,
    either in facts or in interpretations,
    which I discover to be unreliable.

    Historians are supposed to be discoverers of truths.
    No doubt they must turn their research into some
    sort of story before being called historians.
    But their stories must be true stories. [...]
    History is no epic, history is no novel,
    history is no propaganda because in these literary genres
    control of the evidence is optional, not compulsory."

    ~ Arnaldo Momigliano, The rhetoric of history, Comparative Criticism, p. 260

There is no doubt that the hypothesis that the non canonical literature is post-Nicene is a controversial one. There is a world-view already attached to the mainstream hypothesis, which itself is based on various categories of evidence summarised and detailed in the above.

None of this is "irrational belief".

The "church organisation" has simply corrupted the history of its (political) literary opponents. What's new?



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: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:LC has deluded himself on several matters ....
Care to provide some bullet points?
I don't have boundless energy and unlimited time, so no, not really. I can't say that I do.
Peter Kirby wrote:Perhaps you'd just like the examples from this thread.

Evidence-based criticism:
theomise wrote:I haven't read this whole discussion yet, but would you regard early-dated papyri of Irenaeus'

Adversus Haereses as evidence against your thesis?
Evidence dismissed:
However in defence of these papyri not falsifying the hypothesis it might be argued that the margin for a later

dating of these two papyri could easily be extended to c.325 CE without too many complaints from the palaeographers. The

first has an upper estimate of 250 CE, the second an upper estimate of 324 CE. The hypothesis requires a date of around

325 CE. Thanks for your question.

DEFENCE: palaeographic dating upper bound allows a 4th century estimate.



Evidence-based criticism:
PhilospherJay wrote:Let us look at the beginning of your argument regarding the "Gospel of Peter", the first of over

100 works you wish to redate. if you can make a convincing case for this one, then we may examine the second text. You

write, "Eusebius cites Origen, Justin Martyr and Serapion as mentioning this text although in the case of Justin, MR

James comments that “the evidence is not demonstrative”. Eusebius has an unknown Serapion report that he walked into a

Gnostic library and “borrowed” a copy of this text."

The three references in Eusebius is probably strong enough to consider that the Gospel Of Peter was a Second Century

work. The fact that M.R. James commented that the evidence for a single reference "is not demonstrative," does not mean

that the three references are not demonstrative. The "Unknown Serapion" Serapion is almost certainly the Patriarch of

Antioch. Eusebius refers to him three different times also. According to Wikipedia, ["Serapion" - viewed July 30, 2014]

"Eusebius quotes (vi.12.2) from a pamphlet Serapion wrote concerning the Docetic Gospel of Peter, in which Serapion

presents an argument to the Christian community of Rhossus in Syria against this gospel and condemns it." Also it says,

"Eusebius also alludes to a number of personal letters Serapion wrote to Pontius, Caricus, and others about this Gospel

of Peter." Thus Eusebius was aware of at least four different sources which he considered came from the Second Century

that mentions the Gospel of Peter.
Besides this, we have Origen in his "Commentary on Matthew" saying "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." Thus, beside Eusebius, we have a work by Origen, entirely independent of Eusebius vouching for the early

existence of the Gospel of Peter.

Eusebius describes a docetist Gospel of Peter. The archaeological evidence also supports the existence of a docetist

Gospel of Peter.

Under the scenario proposed, of a post Nicea Gospel of Peter, we have to assume that Origen made up a reference to the

Gospel of Peter and Eusebius made up four fake references. Then we have to suppose that people later made up this Gospel

of Peter document that Origen and Eusebius claim to know about.

It seems so much simpler and more reasonable to assume that some dosectic version of the Gospel of Peter, such as the

one we now have was written around 150 C.E. at around the same time as the other gospels and developed popularity along

with them. In simplifying the orthodox canon in the Fourth century, Constantine and his advisers (including Eusebius)

decided to attack the text as heretical. To paraphrase Irenaeus, as there were only four emperors when Constantine

became Emperor. there could only be four gospels, and the Gospel of Peter, despite it being exactly equal to the other

four gospels in nonsense, got arbitrarily cut out of the canon.
Evidence dismissed:
The basic assumption is that the orthodox heresiologists had the means, motive and opportunity to falsely

represent the history of the heretics - their ideological enemies. The means was to fake references in the books of

Origen and Eusebius so that posterity would infer that the battle between orthodoxy and heresy had been running for many

centuries prior to the arrival of orthodoxy and the widespread publication of the canonical Greek Bibles.

Philosopher Jay has written a book in which Eusebius is plainly categorised as a "master forger". But then he says above that "Then we have to suppose that people later made up this Gospel of Peter document that Origen and Eusebius claim to know about." I am not sure that Jay understood the hypothesis at that point. Because I had already explained that we have an analysis of the Clementine literature which establishes that church identities in the later 4th century interpolated Origen to make the reader of the text assume that Origen was aware of the Clementines (previously as a result, assumed to be of 3rd century authorship)




Evidence-based criticism:
PhilosopherJay wrote:I tend to think that this is even more problematical than claiming that the New Testament

writings were created in the 4th Century. It makes some logical sense that Constantine's Gang would want to show their

works were old, if they had just produced them. It doesn't make sense for them to portray their opponent's works as old,

if, in fact, they too were brand new. If they were a reaction to the new New Testament, why not just say so and dismiss

them as a new bunch of crazy copycats? Why give them the authority of being 150 to 200 years old.
One could imagine it being done in some bizarre case if it was just one or two texts, but we are talking about hundreds

here. Why make almost all of them old instead of proclaiming the truth that they are new and valueless works?
I really cannot think of any parallel case like this in history. The closest thing that I can find is that during the

Cold War, the Capitalist propaganda institutions would often portray the new communist governments as throwbacks to

medieval times. They would often portray the Soviet Union as a continuation of Czarist institutions instead of a revolt

against them. Even here, they never misdated Communist works to show them as older than they were.
Evidence dismissed (bizarrely):
The idea is that there was a massive controversy as a reaction to the appearance of the "Holy Bible" that the

victors did not want to give any publicity to. They wanted to get rid of the political controversy because it was

inconvenient for posterity. I don't think we can separate out the "Arian controversy" from this hypothetical post 325 CE

literary reaction - and that Arius of Alexandria may have been one of the earliest Gnostic authors.

The victors wanted to present a harmonious acceptance of the Bible by the Roman Empire (325-381 CE), where suddenly

everyone became Christian by the time of Theodosius. So they tried to bury the controversy. What controversy over the

Bible? What books? What heretics? The bible is true etc ...


DEFENCE: The retrojection of a false history for the authorship of the non canonical books has been established in the case of the Clementine literature. It's not as if I am making something up which never happened.

In misdating works to show them older than they were the orthodox never made them older than the canonical books. The canonical books always held focus and priority in history. The non canonical authors were still just upstarts. So I do not see any problem in the victors dressing up a major controversy as though it was old hat.

Evidence-based criticism:
PhilosopherJay wrote:We also have to consider the limited power of Constantine to reshape the past. We should

remember that while he gave state funding to Christian institutions, he did allow freedom of religion. It was not until

Theodosius in 380 that it became the mandatory official religion of Rome. No doubt the 90% of Romans who were still

polytheists were upset that their new Emperor was a trio-theist with a new and bizarre cult, but other emperors had also

preached bizarre cults and they were tolerated. For example Elagabalus (218-222)
Evidence dismissed (well, we can't prove there wasn't a lot more going on than was recorded - somehow evidence on

Constantine is "surprisingly sparse" [compared to which other emperor? not most of them]):
Constantine's freedom of religion included the destruction of ancient and highly revered temples, book burning,

death and torture to his opponents.
By the time of Theodosius it was the end game. What actually happened during Constantine's rule is debatable, because

the evidence is surprisingly sparse.


DEFENCE: Constantine held supreme power in the Roman empire between 324-337 CE. During that period according to Sozimus no one dared to openly challenge his doctrines. During that period the NT Bible was lavishly and widely pubished by Constantine, and "Religious privileges were reserved for Christians". We do not really know how much power Constantine had at that epoch, but most historians admit to some type of "Christian revolution".

The OP is exploring that the production of the non canonical books was part of a massive controversy which ensued during these momentous political and religious changes, especially in the East, and especially in the cities of Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople.


Evidence-based criticism:
PhilosopherJay wrote:The attitude of most Romans of Constantine's day seems to be that Christianity was another crazy

passing fanatical fad of another crazy Emperor. There may have been a need to prove that orthodox Christianity was old

and ancient to make it more acceptable to the public, but no need to prove that gnostic teachings were.
Evidence dismissed (with unspecified "allowance" of interpolations in the very text used elsewhere by LC as evidence):
There may not have been such a need in the rule of Constantine, but I am allowing "Eusebius" to have been

interpolated by his preservers in the later 4th and 5th and subsequent centuries.
DEFENCE: I have cited evidence which estabished a series of late 4th century interpolations into Origen by Basil and Co in order to make it look like Origen know about the Clementine literature.

The pseudo-history was not conceived in the time of Constantine. The victors who wrote the history of the Arian controversy for example (ie: 325 onwards) are from the 5th century - three ecclesiatical histories.

Ironic acknowledgement that the whole case up to that point seemed to involve dismissing evidence against (page 4):
So far in this thread I have presented the citations of the literary evidence AGAINST the argument of the OP.

That is I have tediously listed the evidence which people hold up as being sufficient to be comfortable with the

assumption and hypothesis that at least some of the gnostic literature was authored before the bible was first widely

and politically published for all to read in the Roman Empire. This evidence largely consists of a reliance that what

the heresiologists wrote about the heretics was history and not pseudo-history.

DEFENCE: The historical method requires that I list the evidence and evaluate it.


Evidence-based criticism:
Peter Kirby wrote:We can find jibes at Gnosticism even in the New Testament (1 Tim 6:20 if you accept it, 1 John as

well, also the resurrection scenes of the Gospels where they confirm that Jesus has a body).

If this analysis is accepted, then Gnosticism is not purely a reaction to the New Testament (or what you are calling

Constantine's Bible).
Evidence dismissed (more interpolations, no attempt to find out whether the claim used to dismiss the evidence might be

true or not):
Gnostic content in the NT may have been introduced between 325 CE and closure of the canon in later 4th century.
Evidence dismissed again (no intervening reply):
The OP deals with the "Gnostic literature" which I have listed.
The gnostic literature may be typified by the non canonical gospels and acts, and it is the authors of these books who

are being here called "gnostics".
Evidence dismissed again (no reply intervening once again... and now contradicting several other remarks on the

hypothesis):
Thanks for your opinion but the OP is not about "Gnosticism" it is about the "Gnostic literature"

This exchange was about the claim of "gnostic content" in the canonical books. The whole OP also examines the non canonical books and canonical books as objects in history created by different parties for different agendas at different times. This is in addition to the textual criticism of a text by text approach.

YES there could be vague "gnostic elements" common to the minds of both "schools" of authors, but I more concerned about the actual history of the authorship of the non canonical books that any discussion about the canonical books. In the OP the canonical books are a "given". We know Constantine published a set of them.

At this point I am exploring the possibility that no non canonical texts had been authored, and their was a massive explosion of authorship following "The Good News" in Alexandria c.324/325 CE.



Evidence-based criticism:
Dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE also means dating all the anti-Gnostic literature after 325 CE.
I could also of course mention the texts dated after the New Testament but before 325 CE, which would then have

to be considered pseudonymous and assigned another supposed historical context.
Evidence dismissed (forgeries against non-existent second century heretics, to hide the existence of the real fourth-

century pagan parody-makers):
The position being argued here is that this supposed pre-Nicaean anti-gnostic literature of Irenaeus and

Hippolytus represents interpolation and forgeries into the "Church History" made after, perhaps well after, Nicaea and

the widespread publication of the NT Bible. The aim of the forgery was not just "to blacken the names of their

opponents" but to erase the names and memory of their opponents who had caused the controversy by writing (post-Nicaean)

Gnostic literature.


DEFENCE: Irenaeus, Origen, Hippoytus, etc are to be examined with the view to identify to what extent there was orthodoxy and heresy before the Christian State Revolution. The manuscripts are all sourced from the "church organisation". These early heresiologists appear to be well informed about the eventual orthodoxy. I wonder why that is?

I also introduced the "Historia Augusta" into the background evidence of the 4th century. When one compares the Latin Historia Augusta with the Greek Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius, there may be a few parallels.

I am not asking anyone to doubt what these heresiological church fathers said about the "Early Church", or Jesus and the Apostles, or the received One True Canon. I am arguing that there is reason to doubt what these sources wrote about their arch-enemies, the heretical authors of the non canonical books.

Doesn't this mean anything?


Criticism:
perseusomega9 wrote:Go ahead and show that each piece of literature is indeed post Eusebius instead of claiming they

are and making us show otherwise.
Criticism dismissed:
An hypothesis does not require any proof.

I listed the twelve references I found in Eusebius to the existence of non canonical books prior to 325 CE. In fact I listed this at least twice somewhere above. Many of these are questionable in their own right. There are a surprising few explicit references of this type (that I have found to date). The documents of the victors.

The manuscripts themselves explode in the 4th century. It is questionable whether there are indeed any earlier ones. This is the hypothesis. There were not.


Criticism:
Peter Kirby wrote:Pete you like to pretend that you are being objective re: your starting point for investigation.

It might even be an interesting exercise to start from this time period and work backwards on a more sure footing,

discarding what doesn't come up with actual evidence.

I would like to think that I have been objective in all this research.

But the truth is that you have a lot invested in the alternative hypotheses you mention and that you seem incapable of

evaluating them in a disinterested manner.

This becomes evident whenever you come across any evidence that could depose your initial hypothesis - you quickly go to

work undermining it if it contradicts it... but, on the other hand, you don't quickly go to work undermining evidence

that doesn't contradict your initial hypothesis. As long as it shows something to be 326 CE possibly and not 324 CE

(since you've got this fascination with this 325 date in relation to certain documents) then you don't really care.

Hence the special treatment bit.

Constantine rule as the supreme military commander of the Roman Empire, and as its lawful and rightful "Pontifex Maximus" commenced at this time. Important summit meetings like Antich and Nicaea were also conducted at this point in history, as was the decision to reserve the Vernal Equinox for the celebration of the resurrection of the Jesus figure. Also at this time there was a massive controversy over the essence of Jesus, who had just been featured in the widespread publication of the NT Bible.

AFAIK we do not have any political history of the 4th century between 325 and 353 CE when Ammianus starts. For this epoch were are largely indebted to the Ecclesiastical Histories of the Victorious 5th century Christian State church.

Charles Freeman wrote about the year "AD 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State".

What's the problem with the year "325 CE: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State"?


Evidence-based criticism:
Patristic Polemical Works Against the Gnostics

Irenaeus of Lyon: (c. 140 – c. 202 AD)

Irenaeus (died c. 202) was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire (and now Lyons, France). His

writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. Irenaeus' best-known book is Adversus Haereses

("The Destruction and Overthrow of Falsely So-called Knowledge," c. 180). It is a detailed attack on Gnosticism and

especially on the theology of the leading Gnostic Christian of his age, Valentinus. He thus unwittingly provided one of

the best historical sources on Valentinian tradition.

http://gnosis.org/library/polem.htm
Evidence dismissed:
Thanks Mac but read the OP. I am testing out the hypothesis that the orthodox Christians of the 4th and later

centuries falsely inserted references to the appearances and mentions of various heretical books into their own "Church

History".

DEFENCE: Clementine literature



Page 11, all evidence to this point dismissed:
I have not yet received any comments related to the evidentiary basis of the mainstream chronology for the

(christian) gnostic literature prior to the 4th century.
Criticism:
Your exclusion of the references to these texts on other sources is completely arbitrary.
Dismissed:
No it is most certainly not arbitrary. One of the key criteria of the historical method is that any given source

may be forged or corrupt. I am totally within the limits of the historical method to treat as corrupt the literary

sources preserved by one specific organisation.

DEFENCE: this specific evaluation of the evidence is not arbitrary.

Ehrman et al write that the church rewrote the history of its conflict with the heretics.
Of course no one gets specific and points out exactly how the church did that.
There are no names and no dates recorded by the church (until much later).

Why? Censorship probably. Surely this is not surprising?


Evidence-based criticism:
A Second-Century Valentinian Inscription from the Via Latina in Rome:

https://www.academia.edu/2702572/A_Seco ... Via_Latina

Funerary Inscription of Flavia Sophe, a 3rd century Gnostic at Rome:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3XxxkESCWz4C&pg=PA212

Papyri:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus_Papyri
http://www.areopage.net/PDF/PapyriFromT ... nEgypt.pdf
188 P.Oxy. 3.405 II/III Oxyrhynchus Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.9, 2-3
213 P.Oxy. 41.2949 II/III Oxyrhynchus Gospel of Peter
214 P.Oxy. 4.654 III Oxyrhynchus Gospel of Thomas, Prologue and logoi 1-7
215 P.Oxy. 50.3525 III Oxyrhynchus Gospel of Mary
217 P.Oxy. 4.655 beg. III Oxyrhynchus Gospel of Thomas, logoi 24, 36-39
224 P.Ryl. 3.463 beg. III Oxyrhynchus Gospel of Mary
225 P.Oxy. 1.1 early III Oxyrhynchus Gospel of Thomas, logoi 26-33, 77a
226 P.Schøyen 1.21 III unknown Acts of Paul and Thecla

Let me guess. All the dates on the latter are wrong, and the identifications of the content of the inscriptions are

insecure.

Oh, and yes, all the references to the Gnostics in the ante-Nicene literature were planted there by their enemies.

Because that totally makes sense.
DISMISSSED:
Leucius Charinus wrote:According to "The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Date/Provenance P.Bodmer

II (P66): Brent Nongbri [2014]" an upper bound to all these dates should include the 4th century.
What's the point of LC asking for evidence, when we already know that it will be dismissed?
[/quote]


DEFENCE: It is erroneous to state that I am dismissing evidence. I am certainly questioning it. And I am certainly arguing for a re-evaluation of the evidence, and in many cases in terms of its chronology.

I certainly do not see it as irrational or irresponsible to relegate the earliest palaeographical upper bound estimates to the 4th century. This does not dismiss the palaeographic estimates. Likewise for the epigraphy.

The idea that the authorship of non canonical books was a post-Nicene literary reaction to "The Good News" published by Constantine might not be correct. At the moment I am willing to be persuaded either way by an objective evaluation of the evidence. This is proving difficult because the idea is antithetical to the mainstream paradigm.



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: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Responding to an edit ...
Peter Kirby wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:According to "The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Date/Provenance P.Bodmer II (P66): Brent Nongbri [2014]" an upper bound to all these dates should include the 4th century.
Is that a fact? The abstract (article here):
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 pa laeography 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.
Even if this writer, Brent Nongbri, were somehow right or reliable in all his conclusions or in these particular ones, I have not found where he or anyone else makes the sweeping claim attributed to him by LC, who needs every single one of the papyri listed above to be dated to the mid-fourth century or later.
Nongbri states the following ...
  • 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].
Another article: https://www.academia.edu/3667498/Early_ ... laeography

Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography
Pasquale Orsini & Willy Clarysse
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88 (2012): 443-474.
  • Abstract

    The date of the earliest New Testament papyri is nearly always
    based on palaeographical criteria. A consensus among papyrologists,
    palaeographers and New Testament scholars is presented in the edition
    of Nestle-Aland, 1994. In the last twenty years several New Testament
    scholars (Thiede, Comfort-Barrett, 1999, 2001 and Jaroš, 2006) have
    argued for an earlier date of most of these texts. The present article
    analyzes the date of the earliest New Testament papyri on the basis of
    comparative palaeography and a clear distinction between different
    types of literary scripts. There are no first-century New Testament
    papyri and only very few papyri can be attributed to the (second half
    of the) second century. It is only in the third and fourth centuries
    that New Testament manuscripts become more common, but here too the
    dates proposed by Comfort-Barrett, 1999, 2001, and Jaroš, 2006 are
    often too early.

    ///

    The authors present a table showing ranges of dating (earliest-latest) in
    which only the following papyri are dated (at latest) before 300 CE:


    P# Authors [Alt-Date] Source Early? Grenfell/Hunt Date?

    P30 175-225 [275-350] 1st Edn
    P45 200-250 [200-300] Comfort
    P46 200-225 [200-250] 1st Edn P46
    P52 125-175 **** P52
    P64+P67+P4 175-200 [P4:300-400] 1st Edn 4th century
    P66 200-250 **** P66
    P75 200-250 **** P75
    P87 200-250 [200-300] Nestle-Aland
    P90 150-200 **** P90
    P95 200-225 [200-300] Nestle-Aland
    P98 200-250 **** P98
    P104 100-200 **** P104
    0171 175-225 [300-350] Nestle-Aland
    0212 175-225 [200-300] Nestle-Aland
    ______________________________________________________________________________________
    TOTAL: 007 papyri
In this second article (published before Nongbri) you can see that the latest dates are quite late. I reject the notion that I am engaged in special pleading here. In the 20th century there was a great surge of papers written to date papyri fragments early and to specific date periods which were inordinately small. These two 21st century reviewers of these claims are now pointing out problems with 1) the early estimates and 2) the upper bounds of the early estimates.

You state that "I need these to be ... late". Yes, that's true, after 325 CE. [And don't forget only the non canonical papyri fragments are relevant here]. It's true that if the gnostic [non canonical] literature is post-Nicene then these fragments have to be post-Nicene.

The hypothesis needs this condition. Not me. We are supposed to be dealing with ideas not people. The implications of the two papers referred to above is that an upper bound for the palaeographical dating of [non canonical] papyri of the 4th century is not out of the question. No one has argued for a late date before. So what? Such a late date is not completely irrational given the evidence and the above two reviews of it.



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
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Peter Kirby »

Leucius Charinus wrote:Responding to an edit ...
Peter Kirby wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:According to "The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Date/Provenance P.Bodmer II (P66): Brent Nongbri [2014]" an upper bound to all these dates should include the 4th century.
Is that a fact? The abstract (article here):
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 pa laeography 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.
Even if this writer, Brent Nongbri, were somehow right or reliable in all his conclusions or in these particular ones, I have not found where he or anyone else makes the sweeping claim attributed to him by LC, who needs every single one of the papyri listed above to be dated to the mid-fourth century or later.
Nongbri states the following ...
  • 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].
Another article: https://www.academia.edu/3667498/Early_ ... laeography

Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography
Pasquale Orsini & Willy Clarysse
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88 (2012): 443-474.
  • Abstract

    The date of the earliest New Testament papyri is nearly always
    based on palaeographical criteria. A consensus among papyrologists,
    palaeographers and New Testament scholars is presented in the edition
    of Nestle-Aland, 1994. In the last twenty years several New Testament
    scholars (Thiede, Comfort-Barrett, 1999, 2001 and Jaroš, 2006) have
    argued for an earlier date of most of these texts. The present article
    analyzes the date of the earliest New Testament papyri on the basis of
    comparative palaeography and a clear distinction between different
    types of literary scripts. There are no first-century New Testament
    papyri and only very few papyri can be attributed to the (second half
    of the) second century. It is only in the third and fourth centuries
    that New Testament manuscripts become more common, but here too the
    dates proposed by Comfort-Barrett, 1999, 2001, and Jaroš, 2006 are
    often too early.

    ///

    The authors present a table showing ranges of dating (earliest-latest) in
    which only the following papyri are dated (at latest) before 300 CE:


    P# Authors [Alt-Date] Source Early? Grenfell/Hunt Date?

    P30 175-225 [275-350] 1st Edn
    P45 200-250 [200-300] Comfort
    P46 200-225 [200-250] 1st Edn P46
    P52 125-175 **** P52
    P64+P67+P4 175-200 [P4:300-400] 1st Edn 4th century
    P66 200-250 **** P66
    P75 200-250 **** P75
    P87 200-250 [200-300] Nestle-Aland
    P90 150-200 **** P90
    P95 200-225 [200-300] Nestle-Aland
    P98 200-250 **** P98
    P104 100-200 **** P104
    0171 175-225 [300-350] Nestle-Aland
    0212 175-225 [200-300] Nestle-Aland
    ______________________________________________________________________________________
    TOTAL: 007 papyri
In this second article (published before Nongbri) you can see that the latest dates are quite late. I reject the notion that I am engaged in special pleading here. In the 20th century there was a great surge of papers written to date papyri fragments early and to specific date periods which were inordinately small. These two 21st century reviewers of these claims are now pointing out problems with 1) the early estimates and 2) the upper bounds of the early estimates.

You state that "I need these to be ... late". Yes, that's true, after 325 CE. [And don't forget only the non canonical papyri fragments are relevant here]. It's true that if the gnostic [non canonical] literature is post-Nicene then these fragments have to be post-Nicene.

The hypothesis needs this condition. Not me. We are supposed to be dealing with ideas not people. The implications of the two papers referred to above is that an upper bound for the palaeographical dating of [non canonical] papyri of the 4th century is not out of the question. No one has argued for a late date before. So what? Such a late date is not completely irrational given the evidence and the above two reviews of it.



LC
I wasn't completely sure before, but now that you've made your quotations, it's completely clear that you have cited this article inaccurately.
According to "The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Date/Provenance P.Bodmer II (P66): Brent Nongbri [2014]" an upper bound to all these dates should include the 4th century.
That's a lie.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote:I wasn't completely sure before, but now that you've made your quotations, it's completely clear that you have cited this article inaccurately.
According to "The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Date/Provenance P.Bodmer II (P66): Brent Nongbri [2014]" an upper bound to all these dates should include the 4th century.
That's a lie.
IDK - it's not clear to me at the moment what mistake I have made in citing this.

Happy Easter :)




Barabbas
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]
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Stephan Huller »

I think you have made some fundamental errors in your judgment Leucius. It wasn't Constantine that forged the New Testament but my neighbor Adam Greenwald.

Image

In the coming weeks I will develop a counter-argument to your wonderful theory disproving that the manufacture of the New Testament and Patristic texts in the fourth century. You see what you haven't factored in your analysis is the invention of time machine twenty seven years from now. This was a critical date in the history of the world, finally explaining something your rather amateur conspiracy theory could not - why it is that we have so many document from the second and third centuries. I will be citing extensively over the coming weeks from my neighbor's experience in the aforementioned 'chronomobile' (this will the trademarked term that was used to sell these devices). Indeed I am trying to get him to come over to my house and sign up to join this forum so we can finally 'correct' many of your wonderful but ultimately incorrect theories about the manufacture of the New Testament canon. Over the coming weeks and months and years Adam will hopefully respond to every single post where you bring up your clever but ultimately inaccurate theories about a conspiracy in the age of Constantine and Adam will explain how he actually carried out what you are suggesting IN THE FUTURE with photos, documents from his experience both in the future and in the past.

I hope you and the rest of the forum will listen carefully to his important contribution to many of the questions you raise in your wonderful posts. Incidentally Adam tells me that in the future you are actually recognized as a genius. Your ideas about a 'post-Nicene invention of Christianity' caused a revolution in the study of early Christianity. But I will leave Adam to discuss all this in due course.

Good to have you back 'Leucius' (incidentally you actually change your name to Leucius in the 2018 in case you were wondering why I don't call you 'Pete' any more).
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

PK I would like to know why you assert that this article been cited inaccurately? If I have made an error I do not want to repeat it. I would like to see an explanation (of my error).
Peter Kirby wrote:I wasn't completely sure before, but now that you've made your quotations, it's completely clear that you have cited this article inaccurately.
According to "The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Date/Provenance P.Bodmer II (P66): Brent Nongbri [2014]" an upper bound to all these dates should include the 4th century.
That's a lie.
Don't you think it is fair that you substantiate such an assertion?





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
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Peter Kirby »

The misrepresentation is the implication that Nongbri even discusses any of the papyri that I mentioned in that article. There may be a purpose in citing Nongbri, but it was cited inaccurately above. You may have meant something different than what you said, of course, but that's also inaccuracy.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote:The misrepresentation is the implication that Nongbri even discusses any of the papyri that I mentioned in that article.
Specifically which article did you mention? I thought you re-cited Nongbri's article. Sure Nongbri discusses the canonical papyri fragments, and not the non canonical fragments. I understand that.
There may be a purpose in citing Nongbri, but it was cited inaccurately above. You may have meant something different than what you said, of course, but that's also inaccuracy.
From reading Nongbri's article I get the impression he is saying that the current way of citing palaeographical dates (eg: mid 2nd century to late 2nd century) is not realistic because the error range stated is too small. I read him saying that any of these early (canonical) papyri could also be dated to the 4th century because there exists securely dated comparanda that is dated to the 4th century. The summary position (as I read Nongbri) is that the upper bound of palaeographical estimates, as a result of this comparanda, should be inclusive of the 4th century.

Yes, he is the only one I know so far who has made such a dramatic variation in the error bounds of palaeographical dating. However I did cite another article above, Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography in which the authors also argue for a relaxation of the focus of "early" date ranges.

So I really don't understand your criticism, unless it is the fact that I am applying Nongbri's 4th century upper bound palaeographical estimates (for canonical papyri) to the non canonical papyri. But I do not see this application as irrational, since the point is being made on the actual estimation of palaeographical dates (with upper and lower bounds) - and should apply to both canonical and non canonical papyri across the board.



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
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Peter Kirby »

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:The misrepresentation is the implication that Nongbri even discusses any of the papyri that I mentioned in that article.
Specifically which article did you mention? I thought you re-cited Nongbri's article. Sure Nongbri discusses the canonical papyri fragments, and not the non canonical fragments. I understand that.
There may be a purpose in citing Nongbri, but it was cited inaccurately above. You may have meant something different than what you said, of course, but that's also inaccuracy.
From reading Nongbri's article I get the impression he is saying that the current way of citing palaeographical dates (eg: mid 2nd century to late 2nd century) is not realistic because the error range stated is too small. I read him saying that any of these early (canonical) papyri could also be dated to the 4th century because there exists securely dated comparanda that is dated to the 4th century. The summary position (as I read Nongbri) is that the upper bound of palaeographical estimates, as a result of this comparanda, should be inclusive of the 4th century.

Yes, he is the only one I know so far who has made such a dramatic variation in the error bounds of palaeographical dating. However I did cite another article above, Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography in which the authors also argue for a relaxation of the focus of "early" date ranges.

So I really don't understand your criticism, unless it is the fact that I am applying Nongbri's 4th century upper bound palaeographical estimates (for canonical papyri) to the non canonical papyri. But I do not see this application as irrational, since the point is being made on the actual estimation of palaeographical dates (with upper and lower bounds) - and should apply to both canonical and non canonical papyri across the board.



LC
That's an opinion, but it's your opinion, not Nongbri's in that article.
Peter Kirby wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:The misrepresentation is the implication that Nongbri even discusses any of the papyri that I mentioned in that article.
Specifically which article did you mention?
Rephrase: The misrepresentation is the implication that Nongbri even discusses, in that article, any of the papyri that I mentioned.

At this point I'd advise that if you really want to be taken seriously, you should become first hand familiar with the techniques of paleography. All of this is too fundamental to your whole endeavor for you to be citing someone here or there (who are exceptions in the world of paleography) for your conclusions, especially when you are extrapolating even more (inexpertly) from there.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply