On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

[Leucius Charinus]

The following from Thalia; Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, Revised Edition, 98-116

He claimed that God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all.

He claimed that this inexpressible essence alone has no equal

He claimed that this inexpressible essence alone has no one similar (homoios)

He claimed that this inexpressible essence alone has no one of the same glory.

He claimed that he and his supporters called this inexpressible essence unbegotten,
in contrast to an essence who by nature is begotten.

He claimed that he and his supporters praised this inexpressible essence as without beginning
in contrast to an essence who has a beginning.

He claimed that he and his supporters worshipped this inexpressible essence as timeless,
in contrast to an essence who in time has come to exist.

How does this differ substantially from other Gnostic themes?

What arguments are there against the possibility that Arius of Alexandria may have been the author of some of the gnostic material?

[Leucius Charinus]

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).

Thanks for your opinion but the OP is not about "Gnosticism" it is about the "Gnostic literature" which you yourself have collated here under the heading of Apocrypha:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocrypha.html

The Apocrypha are documents that were not accepted into the canon of the New Testament by the orthodox church.

The New Testament Apocrypha are those writings that were written by ancient Christians that were not accepted into the New Testament ......

The OP is suggesting that all the evidence in our possession may be best explained by a political scenario in which there was no gnostic literature (you might call it New Testament Apocrypha) until after the year c.325 CE. IOW the sudden and unexpected appearance of the Canonical Bible literature in the Roman Empire as its holy writ, precipitated a massive [political] backlash of controversial Greek writings featuring the Resurrected Jesus and the Intrepid Apostolic Dozen.

[Leucius Charinus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatoni ... Gnosticism

Gnosticism is a term created by modern scholars to describe a collection of religious groups, many of which thought of themselves as Christians, and which were active in the first few centuries AD.[1] There has been considerable scholarly controversy over exactly which sects fall within this grouping.

Sometimes Gnosticism is used narrowly to refer only to religious groups such as Sethians and Archontics who seem to have used the term gnostikoi as a self-designation, even though early Platonists and Ebionites also used the term and are not considered to be Gnostics.

Sometimes it is used a little more broadly to include groups similar to or influenced by Sethians, such as followers of Basilides or Valentinius and later the Paulicians.

Sometimes it is used even more broadly to cover all groups which heavily emphasized gnosis, therefore including Hermetics and Neoplatonists as well.

There is considerable variation in what people are terming Gnosticism.


There is not the same variation in what people are terming the "non canonical" texts ...




"The canon is neither a total nor a random collection of early Christian texts.
It is both deliberate and selective and it excludes just as surely as it includes.
I would even say that you cannot understand what is included in the canon
unless you understand what was excluded from it.

When the [extracanonical] gospels are played over against the four canonical gospels,
both the products and the processes of those latter texts appear in a radically different light."

— John Dominic Crossan, Prof. Religious Studies, DePaul Univ.

[Leucius Charinus]

perseusomega9,

You earlier called crap to a reference I made to part of MacDonald's thesis that the author of the Acts of Andrew uses Homer's Odyssey because MacDonald had other claims about the historical setting of authorship and the chronology for the Acts of Andrew and other texts, including a dependence to the Pastorals. I have pointed out that I can accept and agree with MacDonald's analysis and claims relating to the use of Homer, and yet validly choose to disagree with his other claims. Do you still maintain this practice is crap?

The exercise of identifying the use of Homer, and the exercise of determining the chronology of the text are entirely different and each use an entirely different set of claims. I'd like to hear whether you agree or disagree with this differentiation.

It's funny you mention MacDonald, because he places the pastorals in opposition to Paul/Thecla stories, whether written or oral, and he leans oral. His thesis also places them in 2nd century Rome as the catholic church was making the new religion acceptable to Roman sensibilities with respect to family order, slaves, and moderating the apocalypticism of the early church which shunned sexual (wife=>children) duties or general abstinence along with trying to fund the manumission of slaves, and caring for widows (converts or virgins).

People can present valid arguments and still get the chronology wrong. The hypothesis about chronology does not follow the hypothesis adopted by MacDonald or anyone else in the field. The hypothesis about a post-Nicaean literary reaction is novel and is being explored here.

Thus I do not follow MacDonalds chronology, but I do follow his thesis that the Acts of Andrew etc were authored by an author who had an expert knowledge of Homer.

I hope this makes sense.

Christianizing Homer : The Odyssey, Plato, and the Acts of Andrew: The Odyssey, Plato, and the Acts of Andrew

by Dennis R. MacDonald Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins Iliff School of Theology
Oxford University Press, 22 Mar 1994



This study focuses on the apocryphal Acts of Andrew (c. 200 CE), which purports to tell the story of the travels, miracles, and martyrdom of the apostle Andrew. Traditional scholarship has looked for the background of such writings in Jewish and Christian scriptures. MacDonald, however, breaks with that model and looks to classic literature for the sources of this story.

Specifically, he argues that the Acts represent an attempt to transform Greco-Roman myth into Christian narrative categories by telling the story of Andrew in terms of Homeric epic, in particular the Odyssey. MacDonald presents a point-by-point comparison of the two works, finding the resemblances so strong, numerous, and tendentious that they virtually compel the reader to consider the Acts a transformative "rewriting" of the epic. This discovery not only sheds valuable light on the uses of Homer in the early church but also significantly contributes to our understanding of the reception of Homer in the empire as a whole.

[Stephan Huller]

Do you still maintain this practice is crap?

If you, Pete, are making a claim we can absolutely certain that:

1) a single point has been cherry picked out of a wealth of other points made by the author which contradict your thesis and
2) you are incapable of seeing that your consistent selective use of evidence compromises the integrity of your underlying point

No one in the history of the study of the Bible has ever sanctioned anything resembling your idiotic theory. But more importantly you can't just take out one point from a particular author's examination of a given text without having to deal with all the related observations, most or many of which demonstrate quite clearly that the text is to be dated before the fourth century for the texts you've been 'examining' - nay, raping - in this thread.

[Leucius Charinus]

Do you still maintain this practice is crap?

But more importantly you can't just take out one point from a particular author's examination of a given text without having to deal with all the related observations, most or many of which demonstrate quite clearly that the text is to be dated before the fourth century for the texts you've been 'examining' - nay, raping - in this thread.

The author makes multiple claims and I am happy to deal with them one at a time, and I am not obliged to agree with any or all of them.
One is that the author of the acts of Andrew uses Homer, and I agree with his assessment.
Another claim is that the date of the text is before Eusebius, and I don't agree with this.
The first witness to the existence of the Acts of Andrew is Eusebius.

I am quite within the bounds of reasonable logic to accept the claim about the use of Homer and still reject the claim about chronology.
Now if you want to argue about the chronology of the acts of Andrew then now is your chance.
What evidence do you wish to present that the Acts of Andrew was authored before the 4th century?

No one in the history of the study of the Bible has ever sanctioned anything resembling your idiotic theory.

Yes I understand it is a new idea - namely that the heretics only appeared (in political history) after Nicaea.
But that does not make the idea wrong.

Again, what evidence do you wish to present that the Acts of Andrew was authored before Nicaea?
The text actually mentions Nicaea ....

• *
  
  Extract from the Acts of Andrew ....
  
  "At the gate of Nicomedia he met a dead man borne on a bier, and his old father supported by slaves, hardly able to walk, and his old mother with hair torn, bewailing.
  
  'How has it happened ?' he asked.
  
  'He was alone in his chamber and seven dogs rushed on him and killed him.'
  
  Andrew sighed and said: 'This is an ambush of the demons I banished from Nicaea. What will you do, father, if I restore your son ?'
  
  'I have nothing more precious than him, I will give him.'
  
  He prayed: 'Let the spirit of this lad return.' The faithful responded, 'Amen'. Andrew bade the lad rise, and he rose, and all cried: 'Great is the God of Andrew.'
  
  The parents offered great gifts which he refused, but took the lad to Macedonia, instructing him."

[perseusomega9]

Yes, your thesis is still fucking crap. Go ahead and show that each piece of literature is indeed post Eusebius instead of claiming they are and making us show otherwise. We all know this gnostic literature post 325 crap is nothing more than a rectal smuggling of your previous bible invented in 325 fantasy.

[Leucius Charinus]

Looks like we're back in the school yard or school room ....

Yes, your thesis is still fucking crap.

Did you even read the first sentence in the OP?
It went like this ..... "I would like to discuss the idea and hypothesis that ...."

Do you happen to know what a hypothesis is, and how it differs from a theory or a thesis?

Let's find a really basic primer. Here's one:
http://schools.yrdsb.ca/markville.ss/hi ... hesis.html

Developing a Hypothesis



What is a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is defined as “a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without the assumption of its truth, a supposition made as a starting-point for further investigation from known facts”. (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1990)



Does your hypothesis have to be true?

You don’t have to be certain that your hypothesis is correct. It is a starting point, a statement that you hope to prove true after more research and investigation. That said, after more research you might find you have to modify your hypothesis.



Why do you need a hypothesis?

A good hypothesis will help you to focus your investigation. It will keep you from “losing the forest for the trees”. As you progress through your investigation you might notice that more and more information comes out. Your hypothesis will ensure that you stay on course in your investigation.

You should note that an hypothesis does not have to have any proof, neither is it required to be immediately proved.

It is just a starting point for further investigation.

Go ahead and show that each piece of literature is indeed post Eusebius instead of claiming they are and making us show otherwise.

An hypothesis does not require any proof. See above FFS.

We all know this gnostic literature post 325 crap is nothing more than a rectal smuggling of your previous bible invented in 325 fantasy.

If you know this then you have no idea of the historical method and its implicit reliance upon addressing the underlying set of evidence. The hypothesis being discussed here is about the evidence associated with the authorship of the non canonical books. The earlier hypothesis concerned the evidence associated with the authorship of the canonical books. The two separate data sets of evidence are entirely different with only a little overlap. But this is probably sailing right over your head ....

[Stephan Huller]

No this is totally stupid but it is stupidity that you have been so involved with for so many years you can't see the forest from the trees. The gnostic literature clearly pre-dated Nicaea. You just keep developing distractions for yourself to keep from admitting you've been defeated on so many levels. Another example: the Diatessaron has been discovered at Dura Europos long before Nicaea. You've been defeated on that front. But clearly texts like the Acts of John which have a gnostic shape to them are dependent on the Diatessaron no less than individuals like Tatian all of whom are pre-Nicaean. But you will keep shifting from one stupid point to the next to avoid admitting that you're theory is stupid. And that's even a greater stupidity than simply admitting such.

[perseusomega9]

Looks like we're back in the school yard or school room ....

Yes, your thesis is still fucking crap.

Did you even read the first sentence in the OP?
It went like this ..... "I would like to discuss the idea and hypothesis that ...."

Do you happen to know what a hypothesis is, and how it differs from a theory or a thesis?

Let's find a really basic primer. Here's one:
http://schools.yrdsb.ca/markville.ss/hi ... hesis.html

Developing a Hypothesis



What is a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is defined as “a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without the assumption of its truth, a supposition made as a starting-point for further investigation from known facts”. (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1990)



Does your hypothesis have to be true?

You don’t have to be certain that your hypothesis is correct. It is a starting point, a statement that you hope to prove true after more research and investigation. That said, after more research you might find you have to modify your hypothesis.



Why do you need a hypothesis?

A good hypothesis will help you to focus your investigation. It will keep you from “losing the forest for the trees”. As you progress through your investigation you might notice that more and more information comes out. Your hypothesis will ensure that you stay on course in your investigation.

You should note that an hypothesis does not have to have any proof, neither is it required to be immediately proved.

It is just a starting point for further investigation.

Go ahead and show that each piece of literature is indeed post Eusebius instead of claiming they are and making us show otherwise.

An hypothesis does not require any proof. See above FFS.

We all know this gnostic literature post 325 crap is nothing more than a rectal smuggling of your previous bible invented in 325 fantasy.

If you know this then you have no idea of the historical method and its implicit reliance upon addressing the underlying set of evidence. The hypothesis being discussed here is about the evidence associated with the authorship of the non canonical books. The earlier hypothesis concerned the evidence associated with the authorship of the canonical books. The two separate data sets of evidence are entirely different with only a little overlap. But this is probably sailing right over your head ....

Please, tell us more how this isn't really about your constantine invented the NT hobby horse

edit: or start doing some actual work to support "test" your "hypothesis"