Interesting, maybe, but you nowhere answer the question.Leucius Charinus wrote:I think it may be better to view this conflict from the point of view and definitions of the orthodoxy. It was the orthodoxy who exhibit invectives against the authors of the non canonical texts. They are stigmatised as blasphemers, heretics, "wolves", insane, etc, etc. The "Uncononical Books" are the one's prohibited to be read according to the church councils of the mid 4th century. The orthodoxy had imperial support and it was in the process of defining orthodoxy.Peter Kirby wrote:On what basis can you claim (and with what evidence) that the authors of the non-canonical texts (all is implied here, but any will be of interest) did not consider themselves to be part of the group known as Christians and instead considered themselves to be outsiders to that movement, studying "their" texts and producing the noncanonical texts as the result of such "inclinations" as outsiders? Inquiring minds want to know....Leucius Charinus wrote:Before that time, if we are to accept the received history of the Christians, they were an underground minority group famous for their martyrdoms and persecution. Who would be interested in such a group (for centuries?), or have the inclination to read and study their "Holy Text"? (We may rest assured the NC authors studied the canonical texts well).
There are of course a few such real examples to my knowledge--the Tol'doth Yeshu which is a Jewish text, the medieval form of the Gospel of Barnabas which seems Muslim, and the "lost" Acta Pilati (attributed to the Romans) supposedly discrediting Christ during the early fourth century--but the distinguishing characteristic here is that they are clearly by outsiders (relatively clear, anyway), not believers in Jesus as the Christ or any such same thing, both from the internal evidence and the reception history.
It is interesting to note that if we accept Constantine published codices containing the Shepherd of Hermas etc, then he did not actually achieve orthodoxy of the canon which had to wait until the 2nd half of the 4th century. So there is a separate story required for this aspect.
Consequently I see the non canonical authors as people who authored additional Jesus Stories and as a result were "outlawed" - they found themselves in a political situation in which they were very much on the outside. They were up against the Emperor Constantine and their time was very much limited. They had very little chance to win. In the end all they could do was to bury their books.
FWIW we could also bring in the Clementine literature into your examples. This is very clever literature. I think that some of this non canonical literature was so good, that it was given a special place by some of the orthodoxy before it became "hard-line". Some evidence for this has been discussed. There are sarcophagi reliefs which depict scenes from the "Acts of Linus" (Processes and Martialiis?) showing the arrest of Peter. This is important because it raises the profile of the actual influence of some non canonical texts in the culture of the epoch.
Also FWIW I think there is reason to suspect that the Tol'doth Yeshu was originally a Greek text, and a hard hitting satire against Jesus - sired by a Roman soldier by the rape of the Jewish Mary (while she had her periods). It fits in to other stories of the 4th century, such as that reported by Epiphanius in the "Greater Questions of Mary" where Jesus has explicit sex in the presence of Mary half way up a mountain, by pulling a woman out of his side.
I think that the public reception to the Christian state and the Jesus Story in the 4th century has been largely "airbrushed" out of the record. Understandably in some cases.
LC
Um, what? Indeed, what the damn hell?LC wrote:I think it may be better to view this conflict from the point of view and definitions of the orthodoxy.
We're asking whether the authors of some texts considered themselves to be Christians or not. Specifically we're asking for evidence of your opinions regarding them being, somehow, outsiders to this group and nonbelievers in its stuff, but with an inclination anyway to refer to its texts. Did you get completely lost or something? Just forgot the topic? Should I be worried?