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.PhilosopherJay wrote: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.
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.
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".Then we have to suppose that people later made up this Gospel of Peter document that Origen and Eusebius claim to know about.
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.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.
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.
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).In simplifying the orthodox canon in the Fourth century, Constantine and his advisers (including Eusebius) decided to attack the text as heretical.
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.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.
What is religious satire? (I made a post in the General Religion forum)
Philosopher Jay wrote: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