On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

[bcedaifu]

the Diatessaron has been discovered at Dura Europos long before Nicaea.

Nonsense.

What Mrs. Clark Hopkins "discovered" was a piece of papyrus, upon which appears Greek text, of UNKNOWN origin, initially claimed to represent Tatian's Diatessaron, a view that has, in recent years, been DISCARDED. It is not known, at this point in time, exactly which ancient text, this tiny fragment represents. It is dishonest to assert, contrarily, an interpretation from forty years ago, that has been rejected in recent years.

This papyrus scrap had been "found", conveniently, by a workman, in a bucket of dirt. One notes, as has been previously acknowledged on this forum, that NO OTHER bucket had been examined by the Hopkins' crew, a curious behaviour, given the weight attributed to this fragment of text. According to Hopkins, himself, there would have been no way possible to claim that the "house church" had been of Christian origin, absent that scrap of papyrus.

The utterly preposterous notion, that Dura Europos lay "undisturbed" after the sack of the Roman fortress by the Persian army, in the third century CE, is refuted by numerous studies:
https://isaw.nyu.edu/.../trading-at-the-edge-pottery-...
This link, from New York University, contains the following quote:

A single coin of the Roman emperor Constantius II also indicates fourth-century or later activity.

Suggestion: less high handedness, and more data, would be useful, in a dialogue.

Pete asked if either of you have some data to illustrate existence prior to Nicea, I am eager to encounter your links....

The silence here, is deafening. The name calling and vulgarity is just offensive.

[perseusomega9]

If Darwin had a bulldog then Pete apparently has a chihuahua, and no, Pete needs to do his own work, namely demonstrate that all the gnostic apocrypha is post nicea (which he is only doing because he knows there is overlap in canon and non-canon literature and thus the NT was invented by Constantine ca 325ish)

[Peter Kirby]

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.

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.

While you might be able to claim that your hypothesis is one of many physically possible options for interpreting the historical evidence, you cannot pretend that your fascination with this one alternative out of many alternatives, all similarly (un)likely, is anything other than your own favorite hobby horse (which phrase, though frequently applied and no doubt tiresome to you, is chosen because it fits).

[Stephan Huller]

This papyrus scrap had been "found", conveniently, by a workman, in a bucket of dirt ...

We've gone over and over and over this over. No one but the terminally demented sees this discovery as anything other than the final proof (as if it was needed) that Pete's theory is unworkable. If you won't accept the irrefutability of the testimony there's nothing more to say.

[Leucius Charinus]

The gnostic literature clearly pre-dated Nicaea.

Evidence please. In the first few posts I summarised the evidence underpinning the mainstream theory that at least some of the gnostic literature (defined as gospels and acts) existed before Nicaea. The majority of the evidence is represented by literary citations to the existence of such texts written by, or purportedly written by early "Church Fathers". Which of these references impresses you the most for integrity?

But clearly texts like the Acts of John which have a gnostic shape to them are dependent on the Diatessaron ......

What's your reference or support for this claim?

The gnostic texts have a main dependence upon the canonical texts.

...individuals like Tatian all of whom are pre-Nicaean.

You're another one who does not read what I write.

I have already outlined a sketch of my argument is that the canonical victors wrote pseudo-history for their worst enemies the gnostic heretics.

And I provided an example of how such a pseudo-history has been exposed .... Origen was pre-Nicaean. Until 100 years ago all of scholarship ran under the hypothesis that the mentions of the Clementine literature in Origen implied a date for the authorship of the Clementine literature during or before the life of Origen. Scholarship now suggests that the Origen references were effectively interpolated into the works of Origen by 4th century orthodoxy, and that the Clementine stuff was authored by an Arian writing c.330 CE.

SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine ... references

[Stephan Huller]

Evidence? We've gone through this stuff time and time again. Manuscripts get copied over and over again. You want to date all copied texts which contradict your theory to the date of the copies. Why? Because they make it plain that Christianity and Gnosticism pre-date the age of Constantine. And then there is this - Plotinus's Against the Gnostics:

http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Plotinus5.html

Of course you have a stupid explanation for this. But your explanation would not seem natural to anyone who didn't share your passion to prove that Christianity was only as old as Constantine - which means complete idiots. Plotinus clearly lived in the third century. His manuscripts testify to his knowledge of gnostic sects. There is no way to make this go away.

[Leucius Charinus]

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

:lol:

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

The set of the canonical books and the set of the non canonical books are more or less totally mutually exclusive sets.
The history of the bible and the church involves the authorship of the canonical books.
The history of the non canonical books and the gnostic heretics involves the authorship of the gnostic gospels and acts.
Underpinning these two essentially mutually exclusive sets are further detailed categories of evidence items related to the history of each set.


Besides I have made it quite clear in the OP ....

• we may variously assume that the Canonical NT Bible was originally authored in either the 1st or 2nd centuries of the common era. Let me repeat, I am perfectly happy to run with anyone's theory for the canonical books.
  
  ///
  
  REMEMBER
  
  This discussion is about the chronology of the authorship of the non canonical books of the heretics, not about the chronology of the authorship of the canonical books of the orthodoxy.

Say someone in this discussion group happens to suddenly solve the mystery of the authorship of the canonical bible.
There is another related mystery to be solved, and that is that of the gnostic gospels and acts.

About 99.99% of the interest of scholarship has been focussed firmly upon the canonical books.

The (political) history of the heretics has been in a relative sense overlooked.

While its not yet illegal, I try not to follow the herd.

[Leucius Charinus]

Suggestion: less high handedness, and more data, would be useful, in a dialogue.

Pete asked if either of you have some data to illustrate existence prior to Nicea, I am eager to encounter your links....

The silence here, is deafening. The name calling and vulgarity is just offensive.

They appear to be very busy defending their faith in the current hypothesis (about the Gnostic heretics and their books) which has been handed down unexamined from generation to generation from the "Early Church Fathers"

Hats off please.

[Leucius Charinus]

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.

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.

There is the matter of Popperian falsifiability. There is no requirement that an hypothesis have direct evidence or proof, since it is provisionally accepted as true for the purpose of further research. However a hypothesis cannot long be entertained if there is hard evidence against the truth of the hypothesis which cannot otherwise be explained by a further re-evaluation of that evidence.

Therefore if someone proposes a hypothesis and discovers that other people are evaluating certain items of evidence such that this evaluation implies the hypothesis may be falsified then IMO it is the responsibility of the proposer of the hypothesis to gather and index and catalog any of the exceptions, and to provide an alternative explanation. This is the principle that has guided me to maintain exception registers.

And FWIW I have actively sought out evidence by which various hypotheses *may* be refuted, because I would rather find the "silver bullet" if I am able. I do understand the principles of falsifiability.

[Leucius Charinus]

This papyrus scrap had been "found", conveniently, by a workman, in a bucket of dirt ...

We've gone over and over and over this over. No one but the terminally demented sees this discovery as anything other than the final proof (as if it was needed) that Pete's theory is unworkable. If you won't accept the irrefutability of the testimony there's nothing more to say.

I don't accept 100% probabilities. Period. See Bayes Theory and 100% probabilities.

I have accepted 60% probabilities for the Dura Fragment. But I don't see the Dura fragment as *necessarily* non canonical.

There are people like you who think in black and white, and wrong and right and who have no comprehension of the uncertainties associated with the historical method. There's nothing more to say about this. History is always hypothetical and if you don't understand that you're involved in doing something else.