On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

[Leucius Charinus]

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.

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. The motive was to underplay, obscure and eventually erase the history of the massive political and religious controversy over the mass appearance of "unauthorised non canonical books". The opportunity was to be found in the 4th and 5th century (or perhaps even later) since the orthodox heresiologists were responsible for the preservation of "Eusebius" et al.

An example of a fake reference in Origen which, when the fake was identified moved the date of the text from the time of Origen to the period c.330 CE, is given by the history of scholarshiop on the Clementine literature.

Then we have to suppose that people later made up this Gospel of Peter document that Origen and Eusebius claim to know about.

This statement implies that you may not have completely understood the hypothesis - or that I have not explained it clearly enough. It involves the pagans! It is that people (very clever Greek literate academic people) made up this Gospel of Peter (and the rest of the 100+ non canonical material) as a seditious literary reaction to the four canonical gospels after they were first widely published as the "holy writ" of the Roman Empire (irrespective of the provenance and origin of the 4 canonical gospels). The claims made in Eusebius et al are then explained by the later insertion of fake references into these various manuscripts of the "Church Fathers" in order to make posterity think that Origen and Eusebius already knew about the heretics: that there had been centuries of bickering about which books were authoritative and canonical and which were the blasphemous gospels and acts of the heretics. Pious monks and orthodox clergy in the 9th century were still forging documents purporting to be from the 1st to 3rd centuries - eg: "Pseudo-Isidore".

It seems so much simpler and more reasonable to assume that some docetic 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.

Yes. This may seem simpler. And I am not trying to tell people how they must think. If you examine what the academics have to say in ECW about the dependence of the other gospels on gPeter or vice verse you will not see any consensus. Both points of view are championed. The hypothesis of course would be falsified (by consensus) if a consensus of academics found that the 4 gospels were dependent upon gPeter or some other dependency with Acts, etc.

If were were to set aside momentarily the evidence of the appearance of the gnostic gospels etc in the writing of the church fathers, and examine the earliest found physical manuscripts (in Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Manichaean, etc) what would we find. My research has found that these 100 texts have manuscript traditions that stretch back to tendrils in the 4th and 5th century, and first mentions of texts in many instances. This hypothesis can be applied to the Nag Hammadi Codices which are physically dated to the mid 4th century by claiming that the Greek original texts (authored 325-336 CE for example) came down the Nile from Alexandria after they were being search out and destroyed by Constantine's - and then Constantius' - army. They were translated into Coptic for preservation purposes.

The hypothesis is that the "Church Fathers" were interpolated in the 4th and/or 5th century (or later) in order to assist in writing out of political history 325-360 CE the controversy of the gnostic heretics and their blasphemous unauthorised "popular Greek romances" and "wisdom sayings" which made use of the main characters in the NT Bible.

In simplifying the orthodox canon in the Fourth century, Constantine and his advisers (including Eusebius) decided to attack the text as heretical.

Or in exploring the hypothesis, Constantine and his advisers (including Eusebius) widely published the orthodox canon in the Fourth century and only then was the text of gPeter written, as part of a massive explosive reaction of Greek literature - the Gnostic material, written by non Christians - which proceeded forth out of Alexandria (325-336 CE).

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.

Typically the non canonical material rises like Mills and Boon romance narratives above the serious canonical material. Jesus does not laugh in the canon. Deadly serious stuff. The Gospel of Peter appears to exceed the canonical four gospels in nonsense. Pilate is exhonerate, the Jews killed Jesus, the Romans including the centurion witness the resurrection, the cross somehow got inside the tomb and walks and talks to God, and God to it. Lenny Bruce once quipped .... "If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses." So why does God in the Gospel of Peter talk to his instruments of death, and they - usually dumb - talk to him? This is something that Monty Python might write.

What is religious satire? (I made a post in the General Religion forum)

I don't want to waste time on this because I see the all the real evidence as leading to the conclusion that the NT Gospels followed after much of the gnostic materials from the Second century. You simply are putting forward an hypothesis based on pious wishes and not any historical evidence.

I am putting forward an hypothesis in political history (for discussion). It is based on an investigation of as much evidence as I have been able to review since entering the field. I have summarised the evidence upon which the mainstream (and your) hypothesis is based above. There's not too much of it unless I have missed one or two things out. In fact the evidence is quite sparse. It's value is exceedingly dependent upon our belief that the orthodox heresiologists would not lie about their political and ideological enemies, the gnostic heretics.

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.

Needless to say Jay I appreciate your response and the usual attention to detail.

To summarise the defence of this hypothesis, the historical method allows a criteria by which any given source may be hypthetically considered forged and corrupt. This hypothesis allows everything in the source called "Eusebius" to be quite accurate with respect to the canonical books (not that I think that this is the case, but others may), but quite fabricated with respect to the non canonical books.

I will leave you with a question. The name and memory of a certain "Porphyrian" Arius of Alexandria was subject to imperial "memoriae damnatio" by Constantine just after Nicaea, and orders were issued to consign his books to the flames, and for immediate beheading for any found preserving these books.

Is it possible in your mind that some of the books [of Arius] may have been some of the non canonical material?

Best wishes Jay,



Pete

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Leucisu Charinus/Pete,

Thanks for the elucidation and exposition.

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.

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)

Elagabalus brought with him many low-born Syrians who were granted positions in high office. The sun was worshiped at Emesa and during his early youth Elagabalus served as a priest of the god El-Gabal (Baal) referred to as Elagabalus by the Romans and from where the emperor took his name. Once proclaimed emperor Elagabalus at once plunged into every vice. Elagabalus introduced the lascivious rites of the Syrian god into the capital of the world. A magnificent temple of the god El-Gabal was raised on the Palatine Mount and the grave and dignified nobles of Rome were forced to take part in the ceremonies clothed in long Phoenician tunics. Elagabalus also decreed that the god El-Gabal should be worshipped as the only god by the Romans.

(http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roma ... abalus.htm)

Also note this from Wikipedia on Elagabalus:

Since the reign of Septimius Severus, sun worship had increased throughout the Empire.[35] Elagabalus saw this as an opportunity to install Elagabal as the chief deity of the Roman pantheon. The god was renamed Deus Sol Invictus, meaning God the Undefeated Sun, and honored above Jupiter.[36]

As a token of respect for Roman religion, however, Elagabalus joined either Astarte, Minerva, Urania, or some combination of the three to Elagabal as wife.[37] Before constructing a temple in dedication to Elagabal, Elagabalus placed the meteorite of Elagabal next to the throne of Jupiter at the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.

He stirred further discontent when he himself married the Vestal Virgin Aquilia Severa, claiming the marriage would produce "godlike children".[38] This was a flagrant breach of Roman law and tradition, which held that any Vestal found to have engaged in sexual intercourse was to be buried alive.[39]

A lavish temple called the Elagabalium was built on the east face of the Palatine Hill to house Elagabal, who was represented by a black conical meteorite from Emesa.[22] Herodian wrote "this stone is worshipped as though it were sent from heaven; on it there are some small projecting pieces and markings that are pointed out, which the people would like to believe are a rough picture of the sun, because this is how they see them".[8]

In order to become the high priest of his new religion, Elagabalus had himself circumcised.[36] He forced senators to watch while he danced around the altar of Deus Sol Invictus to the accompaniment of drums and cymbals.[22] Each summer solstice he held a festival dedicated to the god, which became popular with the masses because of the free food distributed on such occasions.[37] During this festival, Elagabalus placed the Emesa stone on a chariot adorned with gold and jewels, which he paraded through the city:

A six horse chariot carried the divinity, the horses huge and flawlessly white, with expensive gold fittings and rich ornaments. No one held the reins, and no one rode in the chariot; the vehicle was escorted as if the god himself were the charioteer. Elagabalus ran backward in front of the chariot, facing the god and holding the horses' reins. He made the whole journey in this reverse fashion, looking up into the face of his god.[37]

The most sacred relics from the Roman religion were transferred from their respective shrines to the Elagabalium, including the emblem of the Great Mother, the fire of Vesta, the Shields of the Salii and the Palladium, so that no other god could be worshipped except in company with Elagabal.[40]

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.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

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.

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. The motive was to underplay, obscure and eventually erase the history of the massive political and religious controversy over the mass appearance of "unauthorised non canonical books". The opportunity was to be found in the 4th and 5th century (or perhaps even later) since the orthodox heresiologists were responsible for the preservation of "Eusebius" et al.

An example of a fake reference in Origen which, when the fake was identified moved the date of the text from the time of Origen to the period c.330 CE, is given by the history of scholarshiop on the Clementine literature.

Then we have to suppose that people later made up this Gospel of Peter document that Origen and Eusebius claim to know about.

This statement implies that you may not have completely understood the hypothesis - or that I have not explained it clearly enough. It involves the pagans! It is that people (very clever Greek literate academic people) made up this Gospel of Peter (and the rest of the 100+ non canonical material) as a seditious literary reaction to the four canonical gospels after they were first widely published as the "holy writ" of the Roman Empire (irrespective of the provenance and origin of the 4 canonical gospels). The claims made in Eusebius et al are then explained by the later insertion of fake references into these various manuscripts of the "Church Fathers" in order to make posterity think that Origen and Eusebius already knew about the heretics: that there had been centuries of bickering about which books were authoritative and canonical and which were the blasphemous gospels and acts of the heretics. Pious monks and orthodox clergy in the 9th century were still forging documents purporting to be from the 1st to 3rd centuries - eg: "Pseudo-Isidore".

It seems so much simpler and more reasonable to assume that some docetic 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.

Yes. This may seem simpler. And I am not trying to tell people how they must think. If you examine what the academics have to say in ECW about the dependence of the other gospels on gPeter or vice verse you will not see any consensus. Both points of view are championed. The hypothesis of course would be falsified (by consensus) if a consensus of academics found that the 4 gospels were dependent upon gPeter or some other dependency with Acts, etc.

If were were to set aside momentarily the evidence of the appearance of the gnostic gospels etc in the writing of the church fathers, and examine the earliest found physical manuscripts (in Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Manichaean, etc) what would we find. My research has found that these 100 texts have manuscript traditions that stretch back to tendrils in the 4th and 5th century, and first mentions of texts in many instances. This hypothesis can be applied to the Nag Hammadi Codices which are physically dated to the mid 4th century by claiming that the Greek original texts (authored 325-336 CE for example) came down the Nile from Alexandria after they were being search out and destroyed by Constantine's - and then Constantius' - army. They were translated into Coptic for preservation purposes.

The hypothesis is that the "Church Fathers" were interpolated in the 4th and/or 5th century (or later) in order to assist in writing out of political history 325-360 CE the controversy of the gnostic heretics and their blasphemous unauthorised "popular Greek romances" and "wisdom sayings" which made use of the main characters in the NT Bible.

In simplifying the orthodox canon in the Fourth century, Constantine and his advisers (including Eusebius) decided to attack the text as heretical.

Or in exploring the hypothesis, Constantine and his advisers (including Eusebius) widely published the orthodox canon in the Fourth century and only then was the text of gPeter written, as part of a massive explosive reaction of Greek literature - the Gnostic material, written by non Christians - which proceeded forth out of Alexandria (325-336 CE).

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.

Typically the non canonical material rises like Mills and Boon romance narratives above the serious canonical material. Jesus does not laugh in the canon. Deadly serious stuff. The Gospel of Peter appears to exceed the canonical four gospels in nonsense. Pilate is exhonerate, the Jews killed Jesus, the Romans including the centurion witness the resurrection, the cross somehow got inside the tomb and walks and talks to God, and God to it. Lenny Bruce once quipped .... "If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses." So why does God in the Gospel of Peter talk to his instruments of death, and they - usually dumb - talk to him? This is something that Monty Python might write.

What is religious satire? (I made a post in the General Religion forum)

I don't want to waste time on this because I see the all the real evidence as leading to the conclusion that the NT Gospels followed after much of the gnostic materials from the Second century. You simply are putting forward an hypothesis based on pious wishes and not any historical evidence.

I am putting forward an hypothesis in political history (for discussion). It is based on an investigation of as much evidence as I have been able to review since entering the field. I have summarised the evidence upon which the mainstream (and your) hypothesis is based above. There's not too much of it unless I have missed one or two things out. In fact the evidence is quite sparse. It's value is exceedingly dependent upon our belief that the orthodox heresiologists would not lie about their political and ideological enemies, the gnostic heretics.

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.

Needless to say Jay I appreciate your response and the usual attention to detail.

To summarise the defence of this hypothesis, the historical method allows a criteria by which any given source may be hypthetically considered forged and corrupt. This hypothesis allows everything in the source called "Eusebius" to be quite accurate with respect to the canonical books (not that I think that this is the case, but others may), but quite fabricated with respect to the non canonical books.

I will leave you with a question. The name and memory of a certain "Porphyrian" Arius of Alexandria was subject to imperial "memoriae damnatio" by Constantine just after Nicaea, and orders were issued to consign his books to the flames, and for immediate beheading for any found preserving these books.

Is it possible in your mind that some of the books [of Arius] may have been some of the non canonical material?

Best wishes Jay,



Pete

[Leucius Charinus]

Examining the dating of the Ascension of Isaiah [AoI]

Here are some further comments on the dating of AoI currently dated to the 1st or 2nd century.
According to the OP I need to explain why it isn't dated after Nicaea.
I have taken the liberty of copy a recent response on the evidence which is being used to date the authorship of AoI to the 1st or 2nd century

At Vridar we read: http://vridar.org/2011/02/12/the-date-o ... -isaiah-1/

Earl Doherty discusses the Ascension of Isaiah’s relevance for his case that some early Christians thought of the Christ’s activity occurring entirely in a non-earthly realm. So the date of the document is significant.

My case would be that it was written by non Christian Greek literate academics after 325 CE.

The following from Vridar:

In Charles we read that the martyrdom is quoted by ..... the following 7 are listed

These are the quotes are their sources ....

1.the Opus Imperfectum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Imperfectum -- is a late Arian work

2.Ambrose - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose .... Saint Ambrose (c. 340 – 4 April 397),

3.Jerome .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome - Saint Jerome c.  347 – 30 September 420)

******************** Are these the first explicit references, with the full complete manuscript?




the evidence from the "Church Fathers" used to date their enemies (the gnostic heretics) books ....




4.Origen ◦3.”8-9. These verses are referred to by Origen, In Iesaiam Homil. i. 5” — (See page 17 for the reference to 3.8-9, also xii-xiii, xlvi-xlvii)

5.Tertullian ◦“Cf. also Tertullian, De Patientia, 14 ‘ His patientiae viribus secatur Esaias et de domino non tacet ‘ ; also Scorpiace, 8 ; Ps. — Tertullian, Adv. Marc. iii. 177.” — (This refers to 5.11. See page 41 of Cornell’s pdf.),

6.and it can hardly be denied by Justin Martyr ◦5.”11. With a wooden saw. Greek Legend, iii. 16. . . . Hence the passage in Justin Mart. cum Tryph. cxx. 14, 15 . . . . is all but certainly derived from our text.” — (See page 41 for the Greek text of Justin on 5.11)


****

Origen again? Tertullian, Justin? I will return with a more explicit reference for these unless someone already has this summarised somewhere out there.





7.It was probably known to the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 37) ◦They were stoned, they were sawn asunder . . . .

Could it not be possible that the Epistle to the Hebrews was probably known to the author of AoI ?






From the thread: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah viewtopic.php?f=3&t=750

The 2nd century date of AoI is one of the things that most mythicists and most historicists agree on. I admit the direct evidence is not conclusive.

Thanks for the honest admission that the direct evidence in inconclusive. The earliest manuscript evidence seem to be Sahidic fragments.
This earliest direct evidence is dated around 350 to 375 CE.

There is enough knowledge of and translations of the AoI dating from the 4th century to make a date after 300 CE unlikely on external evidence.

The evidence for a 2nd century rather than a 3rd century date is not as clear. However Origen knows of a presumablt 2nd century Isaiah apocryphon that has at least some relation to our AoI and the type of material in AoI (Nero as Antichrist its peculiar angelology its legendary account of the birth of Jesus) has better parallels with 2nd century than with 3rd century material.

Neil Godfrey has posted a few articles on various "theories" about the dating of AoI:

The Date of the Ascension of Isaiah (1: R. H. Charles) ... http://vridar.org/2011/02/12/the-date-o ... -isaiah-1/

For Charles this Martyrdom document should be dated to the first century c.e.
When the above parts were stitched together ... it is probable that the work of editing goes back to early in the third century, or even to the second

Date of the Ascension of Isaiah (2: H.F.D. Sparks) ... http://vridar.org/2011/02/13/date-of-th ... -isaiah-2/

Sahidic fragments dated around 350 to 375 preserve two leaves from opposite ends of a single codex, assuring us that the Ascension from chapters 1 to 11 was known at this time. If we are prepared to allow a reasonable margin for the circulation of the work in Sahidic before our particular MS was copied, for its translation into Sahidic from Greek, and for its circulation in Greek after final editing, we are taken back to AD 350 as the latest possible date. Sparks continues:

And the actual date is in all probability very much earlier. Indeed Charles committed himself to a date in ‘the latter half of the second century’ and went on to claim that the three ‘constituents . . . circulated independently as early as the first century’. Charles may very well be right. (pp. 780-1)

Date of Ascension of Isaiah (3: M.A. Knibb) .... http://vridar.org/2011/02/13/date-of-as ... -isaiah-3/

Date of the Vision of Isaiah (the Ascension) chapters 6 to 11

Jerome refers to 11:34
Epiphanius quotes 9:35f
Hence “this part of the Ascension was in existence, at the latest, by the end of the third century A.D. But it is probably much older than the third century.” (p. 150)

Acts of Peter 24 (dated to second half of second century) appears to quote Ascension 11:14.
Protoevangelium of James (dated around A.D. 150) contains similarities to the narrative of the miraculous birth in the Ascension 11:2-16.

It thus seems likely that the Vision comes from the second century A.D.

[Leucius Charinus]

Hi Leucisu Charinus/Pete,

Thanks for the elucidation and exposition.

I tend to think that this is even more problematical than claiming that the New Testament writings were created in the 4th Century.

Thanks for the observations and response Philosopater Jay.

Well it may be even more problematical than claiming that the New Testament writings were created in the 4th Century but it certainly should get rid of a whole swag of emotional reactions to the claim, because we are dealing with the political history of the vile Gnostic heretics and their books and not that of the mild mannered Orthodox members of the "Divine Institution". Also, the evidence base is far less, because far less is recorded by victors of the heretics. Until recent times with few exceptions all we ever knew about the heretics and their books was by way of the orthodox victorious heresiologists, and quotations of the heretics preserved by the victors in this struggle.

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.

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 ...

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?

A number of reasons spring to mind ....

1) The Gnostic Books were entertaining for the masses, and enjoyed great popular appeal. The orthodox didn't like that.
2) The gnostic authors were very very clever. They took bits and pieces out of the canonical books and the LXX and their own gnostic books and then interweaved them all together, sometimes adding novelties. They were good story tellers. They wrote extremely creative works.
3) The literary reaction was a grass roots reaction against Constantine's political and religious agenda, and had support in Alexandria.
4) From Constantine's persective, the new books were political dissidence and subject to military backed suppression.
5) The reaction described by Eusebius to the appearance of the "Acts of Pilate" supports this grass roots political activism against the Bible agenda. Note that Eusebius puts these events under the rule of Diocletian, but the hypothesis being explored here is that he lied, and these events actually happened after Nicaea, and the lip service Constantine received as Nicaea while trying to obtain "canonisation" of the Holy Writ:

Chapter V."The Forged Acts"

"Having forged, to be sure, Memoirs of Pilate and Our Saviour, full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ, with the approval of their chief they sent them round to every part of his dominions, with edicts that they should be exhibited openly for everyone to see in every place, both town and country, and that the primary teachers should give them to the children, instead of lessons, for study and committal to memory"


Chapter VII. The Decree Against Us Which Was Engraved on Pillars
.
1. The memorials against us and copies of the imperial edicts issued in reply to them were engraved and set up on brazen pillars in the midst of the cities, - a course which had never been followed elsewhere. The children in the schools had daily in their mouths the names of Jesus and Pilate, and the Acts which had been forged in wanton insolence.

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I
Church History of Eusebius/Book IX/Chapter 5 & 7

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?

Thanks for asking these questions. One answer is that the number of gnostic books conjectured to have been authored before Nicaea is not in the hundreds - far less. Further the number of gnostic books conjectured to have been authored after Nicaea is greater than the total written before Nicaea. Biblical Historians have a noticeable habit of trying to push the dates of Christian related literature earlier than later - closer to the big bang.

There are only a few - perhaps a dozen or so - books which are attested by "Church Father Witnesses" and perhaps another half dozen books for which Eusebius himself is our earliest witness. So we are not dealing with hundreds, although the numbers increase every time an academic wants to find an earlier original for the 50 odd books within the Nag Hammadi codices for example.

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.

What about George Orwell's ......

"Who controls the past controls the future;
who controls the present controls the past."

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.

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.

But one of the known things is the appearance of the Arian controversy, and that the Arians preserved non canonical books.
My contention is that part of the Arian controversy is connected to the authorship and preservation of "gnostic gospels and acts",
and that it is reasonable to investigate the figure of Arius of Alexander as an author of some or these non canonical books.

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)

Elagabalus brought with him many low-born Syrians who were granted positions in high office. The sun was worshiped at Emesa and during his early youth Elagabalus served as a priest of the god El-Gabal (Baal) referred to as Elagabalus by the Romans and from where the emperor took his name. Once proclaimed emperor Elagabalus at once plunged into every vice. Elagabalus introduced the lascivious rites of the Syrian god into the capital of the world. A magnificent temple of the god El-Gabal was raised on the Palatine Mount and the grave and dignified nobles of Rome were forced to take part in the ceremonies clothed in long Phoenician tunics. Elagabalus also decreed that the god El-Gabal should be worshipped as the only god by the Romans.

(http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roma ... abalus.htm)

Also note this from Wikipedia on Elagabalus:

Since the reign of Septimius Severus, sun worship had increased throughout the Empire.[35] Elagabalus saw this as an opportunity to install Elagabal as the chief deity of the Roman pantheon. The god was renamed Deus Sol Invictus, meaning God the Undefeated Sun, and honored above Jupiter.[36]

As a token of respect for Roman religion, however, Elagabalus joined either Astarte, Minerva, Urania, or some combination of the three to Elagabal as wife.[37] Before constructing a temple in dedication to Elagabal, Elagabalus placed the meteorite of Elagabal next to the throne of Jupiter at the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.

He stirred further discontent when he himself married the Vestal Virgin Aquilia Severa, claiming the marriage would produce "godlike children".[38] This was a flagrant breach of Roman law and tradition, which held that any Vestal found to have engaged in sexual intercourse was to be buried alive.[39]

A lavish temple called the Elagabalium was built on the east face of the Palatine Hill to house Elagabal, who was represented by a black conical meteorite from Emesa.[22] Herodian wrote "this stone is worshipped as though it were sent from heaven; on it there are some small projecting pieces and markings that are pointed out, which the people would like to believe are a rough picture of the sun, because this is how they see them".[8]

In order to become the high priest of his new religion, Elagabalus had himself circumcised.[36] He forced senators to watch while he danced around the altar of Deus Sol Invictus to the accompaniment of drums and cymbals.[22] Each summer solstice he held a festival dedicated to the god, which became popular with the masses because of the free food distributed on such occasions.[37] During this festival, Elagabalus placed the Emesa stone on a chariot adorned with gold and jewels, which he paraded through the city:

A six horse chariot carried the divinity, the horses huge and flawlessly white, with expensive gold fittings and rich ornaments. No one held the reins, and no one rode in the chariot; the vehicle was escorted as if the god himself were the charioteer. Elagabalus ran backward in front of the chariot, facing the god and holding the horses' reins. He made the whole journey in this reverse fashion, looking up into the face of his god.[37]

The most sacred relics from the Roman religion were transferred from their respective shrines to the Elagabalium, including the emblem of the Great Mother, the fire of Vesta, the Shields of the Salii and the Palladium, so that no other god could be worshipped except in company with Elagabal.[40]

The attitude of most Romans of Constantine's day seems to be that Christianity was another crazy passing fanatical fad of another crazy Emperor.

YEs ..... Nero dabbled in the stage, Constantine dabbled in literature. Most Romans might have been summarised by Senecca ...

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful"

But Christianity offered new taxation breaks for clever and rich pagans and Constantine had to make laws to stop these people becoming bishops. There was a great revolution in progress, and the old religions were falling away (temple by temple) and the One True Centralised Monotheistic State religion was being ramped up.

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.

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. The idea is that there was an influx of many great new "heretical stories" just after Nicaea, which became very popular and were preserved despite the burning of some books. These stories were part of the cultural memory and some of these stories were so well contrived, even the orthodox admired them (in some cases only, in other cases some books were hated). The orthodox needed to explain where they came from and why they were not part of the canon and where they diverged and what was their history. Therefore the victors, already having a history of the conflict between the orthodoxy and the heretics before the political appearance of the bible, inserted mentions of these heretical books in order to avoid mentioning any conflict under Constantine, who like Moses brought the Christian canonical books to the promised land, and dealt severely with the heretics and their books and their preservers.


Best wishes,



Pete

[Leucius Charinus]

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.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION for the TRUTH of the historical proposition

Using Socrates critical thinking let us provisionally allow the hypothesis to be true, and examine the consequences ...


1) Arius of Alexandria was the very first "Gnostic Heretic"

Is this unthinkable? Arius is the greatest of heretics. Arius is the "Arch-Heretic" of the saga of Christian origins. Arius has been demonised for centuries and centuries. We have letters from Constantine to Arius. "Dear Arius. Where are you my dear Arius? Catch a chariot to see me, and I'll pay the driver Arius".

Can Arius be perceived as a "Gnostic". Yes easily. Contemporary academic analysis has show Arius to be a follower of Platonist philosophy - a follower of Plotinus to be specific. Examine the fragments of literature attributed to Arius. Are the translations of this material capable of being viewed as "Gnostic". I think they are.

We seem to have been inside a box looking up at a cardboard sky. Within the orthodox history of the reception of the bible in the Roman Empire we find an Arian controversy which has been written up as a theological dispute by the victors (in the 5th century no less). What was the political reality? Open the box and step out and examine all the options. One option for discussion, entertainment or god-forbid - insight - is that the political reality was also a massive dispute. The Greek speaking and literate "Colleges of Philosophers and Proto-scientists" of c.325 CE must have had an opinion about this "Christian Revolution". What was it?

Can anyone reading this believe for one second these people said "It's all true what we read in Constantine's Bible, we will now refrain from our pagan ways and become unquestioningly devoted "canonical book" Christians?

If the hypothesis is true, then it logically follows that Arius of Alexandria was the first gnostic heretic.
Please discuss.

Here is something substantial to examine in support of the above ....

Recent appearance of different evidence ....


Philip of Side, 5th century History writes about ...
The Council of Nicaea of c.325 CE.

For more info see Roger's site:

FRAGMENT 5.6


Fr. 5.6
[Supporters of Arius at the Council of Nicaea]
Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.12.8-10 [p. 47, lines 5-19 Hansen][160]

(8) When these things were expressed by them
or rather, through them, by the Holy Spirit
those who endorsed Arius' impiety
were wearing themselves out with murmuring

(these were the circles of Eusebius of Nicomedia
and Theognis of Nicaea, whom I have already pointed out earlier),

and yet they were looking with favor on the "hirelings" of Arius,
certain philosophers who were indeed very good with words;
Arius had hired them as supporters of his own wickedness,
and arrived with them at that holy and ecumenical council.

(9) For there were present very many philosophers;
and having put their hopes in them, as I have said just now,
the enemies of the truth were reasonably caught,
along with the one who actually taught them their blasphemy.

The Holy Scripture was fulfilled in him and in them, which says,
"Cursed is everyone who has his hope in a mortal man,
and whose heart has departed from the Lord."[161]

(10) For truly, the blasphemous heart of the fighter against God, Arius,
and of those who shared in his impiety, departed from the Lord
they dared to say that the Son of God, the creator of the universe
and the craftsman of both visible and invisible created natures,
is something created and something made.



COMMENTS

The text asserts the presence at Nicaea of a large number of philosophers.
Are we about to presume these philosophers were "Christian"?
The following text Fr. 5.7 [The Arian Philosopher and the Simple Old Man]
provides graphic examples of how such philosophers were miraculously converted
to the christian faith, at Nicaea.


FRAGMENT 5,7


Fr. 5.7
[The Arian Philosopher and the Simple Old Man]
Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.13 [p. 47, line 20 - p. 50, line 5 Hansen][162]

2.13
(1) A certain one of the hirelings of Arius, a philosopher, who was marveled at much more than all the others, contended much, indeed very much, on Arius' behalf with our bishops for very many days, with the result that there was a great lecture every day arising from their verbal encounters: the crowd of those who were gathering would rush together, and the philosopherwould put forward the impious blasphemies of Arius against what was said by the holy council, saying about the Son that "there was a time when he was not," and that "he is a created being, made from nothing, and from a different substance[163] and existence[164] [than the Father]."

(2) On behalf of these abominable doctrines of Arius, he had a great struggle, and [sent forth] his "showers" of arguments, as he raved against the Son of God and attacked the chorus of those holy priests[165]--the enemy of human salvation was speaking in him and through him.

(3) But the defenders of the truth, our bishops, calmly brought to bear against him the necessary and appropriate counter-arguments, on behalf of the Apostolic doctrines, imitating the great prophet and king, David, who said, "I was made ready, and I was not disturbed."[166] For they burned through the philosopher's convoluted propositions by means of the divine word, as though with fire through hempen fibers.

(4) But even so, the philosopher continued to be confident in his diabolical facility with arguments, and began to shoot his arrows against the truth proclaimed by the bishops, applying good and glib responses to all the considerations advanced against him—so he thought—and, slippery as an eel, he struggled to solve the issues raised. For in the midst of what he thought he was contriving for his own benefit, slipping out of the logical arguments that were being brought quite powerfully against him, he was caught, on the basis of is own words, and collapsed along with them.

(5) But even so, in an arrogant frenzy, he moved against the most peaceful council, hoping to defeat the invincible power of the unconquerable Spirit of Christ that was in them.

(6) But God, "who catches the wise in their cunning,"[167] in order to demonstrate that his kingdom does not stand "on talk but on power,"[168] not only powerfully silenced the wicked demon that was speaking in the philosopher, but even cast it out, through one of his servants who was there.

(7) For a certain man, one of the holy confessors who was present at the council, with as simple a nature as any other of the saints [has had], and one who knew nothing "except Jesus Christ, and him crucified"[169] in the flesh according to the Scriptures, was with the bishops and saw the philosopher swooping down to attack our holy bishops, and arrogantly engaged in his malicious disputation; he asked the bishops, the priests of God, to give him an opportunity for discussion with the philosopher.

(8) Then, the holy bishops on our side, perceiving the man's simplicity and his lack of experience with letters, tried to persuade him not to put himself into the fray, for fear that it would provoke laughter among the malicious enemies of the truth.

(9) But he, not content with this, approached the philosopher and said to him, "In the name of Jesus Christ, the Word of God who is always with the Father, listen to the doctrines of truth, O philosopher." And the other said to him, "Go ahead and speak." And the saint said to him, "There is one God, who created the heavens and the earth and the sea, and all things that are in them, who also formed man from the earth and subjected everything to his Logos and to the Holy Spirit.[170]

(10) This Logos, O philosopher, we know and worship as the Son of God, believing that for the sake of our redemption he was made fleshand was born and became a man, and that through the suffering of his flesh on the cross and his death he freed us from eternal condemnation, and that through his resurrection he procured eternal life for us; and we have hope that as he went up into the heavens he will come back and will judge us concerning all that we have accomplished. Do you believe in these things, O philosopher?"

(11) And the philosopher, as though he had never had experience of words spoken in opposition to him, was dumbfounded and fell silent just like that, as though he were mute and speechless, after saying to him, in a most pitiable voice, only the following: "I too think this is so, and I think no differently that as you have just said."

(12) And the old man said to him, "If you believe that this is so, O philosopher, stand up and follow me, and let us hurry to the church, in which you will receive the sign of this faith."

(13) And the philosopher, transforming his whole self toward the true reverence for the God of the universe, stood up and followed the old man and, turning around, said to his disciples and to all those who had gathered to hear [the discussion], "Listen, men. As long as I was enthusiastic for arguments, I would place words in opposition to words and would overturn the matters presented to me by my skill in speaking; (14) but now that instead of words, some divine power has come forth from the mouth of my interlocutor, my words no longer had the strength to resist this power. For neither is a human being able to stand in opposition to God. Therefore, if any of you is able to understand, as I have now come to think, he shall believe in Christ—and let him follow this old man, in whom God spoke.

(15) In this way, the philosopher recovered and, being illuminated and becoming a Christian, rejoiced to have been beaten by the old man. And when this philosopher had been baptized and was joined to the Church of God and found relief and exulted, the council rejoiced over the mighty acts of God.


COMMENTS: Was the old man one of Constantine's centurions?

[Peter Kirby]

Dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE also means dating all the anti-Gnostic literature after 325 CE.

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).

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.

[Leucius Charinus]

Dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE also means dating all the anti-Gnostic literature after 325 CE.

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).

If we are allowing the hypothesis to be true, then further analysis must acknowledge there are the following phases:

0) 1st/2nd century to 325 CE: Canonical texts existed but the non canonical texts did not.
1) 325 CE: Constantine's Bible and Gnostic reactionary literature
2) 325-XXX CE: Controversy over books
3) XXX CE: Closure of the NT Canon (we may presume XXX = later 4th century, perhaps by at least c.381 CE

During period 2 - the closure of the NT canon we might expect books to be dropped from Constantine's Bible, books to be added to Constantine's Bible, and at least some editing of some material would probably have occurred. FOr the purposes of the discussion the oldest Greek codices might be viewed as exemplars or copies of "Constantine's Bible". This hypothesis is often and reasonably entertained by many people. The Long Ending of Mark is not found in some of this oldest physical evidence.

So with this in mind, to return to your questions:

a) I am not entirely sure what you mean by anti-Gnostic literature after 325 CE? Can you provide an example text?

b) Gnostic content in the NT may have been introduced between 325 CE and closure of the canon in later 4th century.

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 another supposed historical context.

Could you give an example text?

[Leucius Charinus]

Dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE also means dating all the anti-Gnostic literature after 325 CE.

I misread this comment because I have attempted to provide an answer to the question in the OP and in my responses so far. I searched for "anti-Gnostic literature" and see what examples you are referring to.

Anti-gnostic literature - Cambridge Books Online: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf ... me=Chapter

Until the mid twentieth century, gnostic studies focused almost exclusively on the information found in anti-gnostic authors. This was understandable, because only a few direct sources were available, and some of these were quite late. After the discovery of a large number of authentic writings, scholarly interest has shifted almost completely to these new sources. This, too, is understandable, but not correct, since the reports of anti-gnostic authors form an indispensable addition to what we know from the authentic sources. Moreover, they provide a wealth of information about gnostic views for which there are no parallels in the authentic works.

Needless to say, their reports should be read with a critical eye, as it was obviously in their interest to blacken the names of their opponents. They discuss gnostic views not with the aim of understanding their deeper intentions, but in order to reject them in the light of their own positions. Even when they represent gnostic conceptions fairly, which is by no means always the case, it is clear that these conceptions were not always properly understood.

In Antiquity, opposition to gnostics came from two sides: from Christian theologians and non-Christian philosophers. The main representatives of both groups will be discussed here: Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Epiphanius among the theologians, and Plotinus and his direct pupils among the philosophers.

RE: Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Epiphanius and the theologians.

We may exclude Epiphanius because he writes from the later 4th century.

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.

The names of their opponents have been erased! Eusebius starts his "Church History" by stating his intended plan of presentation of the history of the church:

Eusebius H.E. Book One, Chapter 1: The Plan of the Work.

It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.

It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.

We may read through all the books in the church history of Eusebius, but no names are mentioned as authors of any of the Gnostic Acts or Gospels. We have seen the "Testimonium Tertullianum" where Tertullian states that the author of the Acts of Paul was a presbyter in Asia. But no name is provided. Why?

The object of this anti-Gnostic literature was not only to "blacken names" it was to eradicate names - to eradicate the political history of the conflict. Until recently all we have had in order to reconstruct the political history of the gnostic heretics were these treatises of the "Christian theologians" - a better and more appropriate term would be "Christian heresiologists".

The supposed anti-Gnostic literature of Plotinus

Direct reference to this seems to only be contained in a chapter heading. The Ninth Tractate of the Second Ennead by Plotinus is often generally quoted and cited with the description "Against the Gnostics". The actual title of this tractate is: AGAINST THOSE THAT AFFIRM THE CREATOR OF THE KOSMOS AND THE KOSMOS ITSELF TO BE EVIL:


SUMMARY:

Given all the above, the various hypotheses about the political history (and chronology) of the authorship of the books of the heretics must give a great regard to the dating of the manuscript evidence itself. What are the earliest manuscripts? Invariably, for the moment excluding the papyri fragments, the earliest manuscripts are being dated in large numbers to the 4th and 5th centuries. For example, the earliest "Ascension of Isiah" is from the mid 4th century. The "Clementine Literature: is from an Arian of the 330's CE. When the claims (contained within the anti-Gnostic literature) of the "Christian heresiologists" are momentarily ignored, all the evidence starts pointing to a post-Nicaean appearance of the Gnostic literature.

The first list or index of Prohibited Books is mentioned by Eusebius in the 4th century. Why is it so? Were the early Christians who we may presume preserved the canon from the 1st or 2nd century incapable of making a catalogue of books which were not in their care, custody and control? Of course someone might cite Origen's writings on this situation, but as we have already seen, we already know Origen was corrupted with respect to the Clementine literature, and that Origen's work are unknown outside of Eusebius.

This leads to the hypothesis that the political history of the reception of the NT Bible was marked by a massive controversy from Greek authors, and that this controversy is directly related to the Arian controversy, and that the victors have erased the controversy from their own "4th century Church Histories" by making it appear that there was a political controversy over orthodoxy and heresy before the earliest widespread publication of the canonical bible entered political history in c.325 CE in the form of the Constantine Bible.

Viewed as a 4th or 5th later century's polemic, the appearance of orthodox anti-gnostic literature (Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc) may represent common forgery or interpolation. The hypothesis being considered here allows these Christian writings to have existed without the mention of the non canonical books.

Does that answer your first question?

The 4th and 5th (and/or subsequent) century CE heresiologists lied about the age in which the earliest heretics wrote.
They fabricated pseudo-historical accounts about their arch enemies and removed the real names of their enemies from political history.

[Leucius Charinus]

Dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE also means dating all the anti-Gnostic literature after 325 CE.

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).

Responding to the last enlarged question.
Gnosticism is a broad term. Plato and Buddha and Confucius may as well be seen as gnostic, but not Christian ones.

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".

As such, to restate the hypothesis ....

the NT in Constantine's Bible came first, and then in response to the political situation of the pagans of the eastern empire c.325 CE the authorship of the non canonical books followed.

This hypothesis helps to understand why the heretics used the Imperial "Nomina Sacra" codes in their writings.
Constantine was also by law their Pontifex Maximus and they were required to acknowledge his wishes and agenda.

[Leucius Charinus]

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.

What about George Orwell's ......

"Who controls the past controls the future;
who controls the present controls the past."

Every time some government is elected it demonises its outgoing opposition.
In today's world with independent reporting facts are still distorted for political purposes.
The further back into the past we go, the more the distortion is possible.

The hypothesis that the Gnostic literature may be authored after Nicaea involves the victors of the "Christian State Revolution" writing pseudo-historical references for their political enemies - the gnostic heretics. What exactly is pseudo-history?

The following from WIKI about "pseudohistory"

According to writers Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, pseudohistory is "the rewriting of the past for present personal or political purposes".

Characteristics of Pseudo-History:

Robert Todd Carroll suggests that a work which is pseudohistoric will meet at least one of the following criteria:

the work uncritically accepts myths and anecdotal evidence without skepticism.
it has a political, religious, or other ideological agenda.
it is not published in an academic journal or is otherwise not adequately peer reviewed.
the evidence for key facts supporting the work's thesis is: selective and ignores contrary evidence or explains it away; or
speculative; or
controversial; or
not correctly or adequately sourced; or
interpreted in an unjustifiable way; or
given undue weight; or
taken out of context; or
distorted, either accidentally or fraudulently.

competing (and perhaps simpler) explanations or interpretations for the same set of facts, which have been peer reviewed and have been adequately sourced, are rejected or not addressed, contrary to the principle of Occam's razor which favours a simpler and more prosaic explanation of the same facts. For example, the work may rely on one or more conspiracy theories or "hidden-hand" explanations.

I am not suggesting the 4th/5th century Christians wrote pseudo-historical accounts of the early Christians.
I am suggesting that these 4th/5th century Christians wrote pseudo-historical accounts of their political enemies.

I don't see a problem in exploring this assumption.

FALSIFIABILITY

I am not proposing that the Gnostic literature was authored by aliens, although I think the orthodox viewed the heretics as aliens.

Is the current theory of the authorship of Gnostic literature falsifiable? The current theory provides no fixed dates, places or names in political history.

The alternative theory proposed is definitely falsifiable because it provides fixed dates, places and names in political history.