On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

[Peter Kirby]

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).

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....

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.

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.

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

Interesting, maybe, but you nowhere answer the question.

I think it may be better to view this conflict from the point of view and definitions of the orthodoxy.

Um, what? Indeed, what the damn hell?

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?

[Peter Kirby]

Just for context here, I could call you a crank, say that you are doing pseudo-history, accuse you of having no genuine interest in history, mention that you are completely outside of the community of historians, and say that everything you write has absolutely, positively, completely nothing at all to do with history and cannot even be numbered among the bad works of history.

Suppose you found a statement like that. By your own "method," you are hanged out to dry as a complete outsider to history, without any genuine interest in it. Now we should interpret any texts we find from you in this way, and we should assume that your intentions are insincere, and that you have only a passing interest in making pseudo-historical texts but no genuine belief when you say that you are purporting to describe history.

Oh dear.

(Of course, Eusebius doesn't even say exactly what you want him to say, but that's just another problem with your madness. We don't have to go very far to stumble over more...)

[Leucius Charinus]

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).

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...

Interesting, maybe, but you nowhere answer the question.

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. .............

IFF we follow and explore the hypothesis in the OP then follows that the authors of the non canonical texts "suddenly and unexpectedly" found themselves to be subjects of the Imperial Christian State. Whatever Christianity was before Constantine it got a massive makeover at least. Christmas and Easter into the calendar for starters.

I would answer your question by saying that the authors of the non canonical texts may have been pagans who composed literary accounts as a reaction against the Christian State. These pagans though must be seen as educated and highly literate philosophers. They are Alexandrian. There are a number of types of literary reaction ....

(1) Sayings lists: gThomas. Having Jesus say philosophical utterances which may have otherwise been the sayings of other sages and/or ascetics.
(2) "Leucian Acts": Hellenistic romance novels, wild impossible fictional accounts. May include some gospels (Peter). May include parody and satire. Clementine lit.
(3) Preservation of Hellenistic literary material: NHC Hermes to Asclepius, Plato's republic, Sextus, Eugnos the Blessed and transformation to the Sophia of Jesus.
(4) Platforming their own ["gnostic"] philosophical ideas and concepts interspersed with copied literary references from the [official] NT.
(5) OTHER

Some of these texts were written for popular appeal (eg: 2). Some were far more esoteric. But in all cases none of these authors need have been a Christian believer as such.

An analogy might assist. Suppose a powerful military force takes over the world and internet and forms a new world order. At the basis of this new world order there is the need to convert to the Scientology religion. What would happen? Well there would be a great deal of complaint, and the name of Ron L Hubbard would become viral. They would be quoting it and giving their own spins on it. If a heavy Orwellian influence were to be added, there would be penalties for speaking out against scientology. People who were NOT scientologists would be writing all about scientology. If the power was great enough, and any and all resistance failed, in a few generations we would all be scientologists.

Likewise, when Constantine precipitated the "sudden and unexpected" appearance of the Christian State, there was a massive literary backlash, and IMO these non canonical texts are part of that literary backlash. The authors of these were NOT Christians, but were writing about elements of the Christian canonical texts. All of this action BTW may have been localised at Alexandria 325-336 CE.

Obviously this is a new hypothesis that no one else (to my knowledge) has explored.




LC

[Peter Kirby]

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).

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...

Interesting, maybe, but you nowhere answer the question.

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. .............

IFF we follow and explore the hypothesis in the OP then follows that the authors of the non canonical texts "suddenly and unexpectedly" found themselves to be subjects of the Imperial Christian State. Whatever Christianity was before Constantine it got a massive makeover at least. Christmas and Easter into the calendar for starters.

I would answer your question by saying that the authors of the non canonical texts may have been pagans who composed literary accounts as a reaction against the Christian State. These pagans though must be seen as educated and highly literate philosophers. They are Alexandrian. There are a number of types of literary reaction ....

(1) Sayings lists: gThomas. Having Jesus say philosophical utterances which may have otherwise been the sayings of other sages and/or ascetics.
(2) "Leucian Acts": Hellenistic romance novels, wild impossible fictional accounts. May include some gospels (Peter). May include parody and satire. Clementine lit.
(3) Preservation of Hellenistic literary material: NHC Hermes to Asclepius, Plato's republic, Sextus, Eugnos the Blessed and transformation to the Sophia of Jesus.
(4) Platforming their own ["gnostic"] philosophical ideas and concepts interspersed with copied literary references from the [official] NT.
(5) OTHER

Some of these texts were written for popular appeal (eg: 2). Some were far more esoteric. But in all cases none of these authors need have been a Christian believer as such.

An analogy might assist. Suppose a powerful military force takes over the world and internet and forms a new world order. At the basis of this new world order there is the need to convert to the Scientology religion. What would happen? Well there would be a great deal of complaint, and the name of Ron L Hubbard would become viral. They would be quoting it and giving their own spins on it. If a heavy Orwellian influence were to be added, there would be penalties for speaking out against scientology. People who were NOT scientologists would be writing all about scientology. If the power was great enough, and any and all resistance failed, in a few generations we would all be scientologists.

Likewise, when Constantine precipitated the "sudden and unexpected" appearance of the Christian State, there was a massive literary backlash, and IMO these non canonical texts are part of that literary backlash. The authors of these were NOT Christians, but were writing about elements of the Christian canonical texts. All of this action BTW may have been localised at Alexandria 325-336 CE.

Obviously this is a new hypothesis that no one else (to my knowledge) has explored.




LC

You haven't answered the question. You refer to it as a "new hypothesis" and say that the authors of (apparently, all) the non-canonical texts "may have been pagans." Your insistence on avoiding the question of what evidence there is for that suggests that you may have no good answer at all.

[Leucius Charinus]

AFAIK all manuscripts that mention "Jesus" actually only mention the nomina sacra code for "Jesus" ("IS"). The full names "Jesus", "Christ"", are NEVER found in their expanded explicit form in any manuscript. The only exception I have found to this is the Greek word for "antichrist".

The full names "Jesus", "Christ"", are NEVER found in their expanded explicit form in any manuscript.

This is wrong, but it also highlights the need for a careful, fresh, and thorough evaluation of the original manuscripts for even starting on these questions.

///

Completely and undeniably relevant, in this regard, is the text of the Codex Sinaiticus at Mark 16:6.

Nobody can know everything, but we should at least strive for comprehensive knowledge and accuracy of the particular basis of our own academic thesis... I am being completely frank when I say I've noticed that (a) you frequently don't come close to meeting such a standard and (b) you stumble on evidence presented by others of which you had no knowledge (which doesn't suit you) and then dismiss it as irrelevant with a disturbing level of comfort and ease. Something to worry about, I think, since you are pursuing this on a serious level and thinking of writing a book.

Thanks for providing these exceptions to the rule. I knew there were some exceptions but was unaware of Codex Sinaiticus at Mark 16:6. I had before looked for the earliest attestations to "Chrest" and "Christ" in the literary record. And also for The sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity. I had not done any research on the earliest attestation for the [non nomina sacra] form of Jesus. I am sure there is a thread here somewhere on this specific issue. I have looked for it twice and cannot find it. The presence of "Jesus" in Sinaticus is not an earth shattering event and does not impact on the OP at all.

But it is interesting. Something I did not know. (There's lots I do not know) So thanks PK.




LC

[Leucius Charinus]

You haven't answered the question. You refer to it as a "new hypothesis" and say that the authors of (apparently, all) the non-canonical texts "may have been pagans." Your insistence on avoiding the question of what evidence there is for that suggests that you may have no good answer at all.

Thanks for this question PK. I'd like to take the time to gather material to answer it because it is a good question.


LC

[Bertie]

A few years back, one of the occasional contributors on this forum asked on his own blog whether any of the early "heretics" were willing to own the name "Christian" — he got a few replies indicating that some of them did consider themselves as such:

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2012 ... hristians/

Of course, one might say that those bits of evidence were forged for some odd reason, but that would just be a move to non-falsifiability.

[slevin]

Completely and undeniably relevant, in this regard, is the text of the Codex Sinaiticus at Mark 16:6.

I am in agreement with you here. Then, I wonder, though, what about the relevancy of the non-existence of text: τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν , in that same text? Does its absence merit discussion? Does the insertion of the English translation, misrepresenting the Greek, merit discussion?

Or, is that absence superfluous to the discussion at hand? I think it is "completely and undeniably relevant" to note that somebody, somewhere, in the fourth century, observed that "Iesoun", with or without Nomina Sacra, was ambiguous, and felt a need to insert, into subsequent versions of Mark 16:6, the qualifier, "the Nazarene".

Unless deemed worthless for comment, and that may be in fact, exactly right, for I am certainly not an expert, one could note, that a thumb obscuring the salient portion of the text, represents nothing more than a simple oversight, in my view, and not a deliberate act of malevolence, yet PK's harsh criticism of similarly unfortunate errors by LC, seems disproportionate to the magnitude of LC's mistakes, as I see it.

Thanks to both of you for an interesting, instructional topic. You have both taught me, a lot, here, today.

[Peter Kirby]

for I am certainly not an expert, one could note, that a thumb obscuring the salient portion of the text, represents nothing more than a simple oversight, in my view, and not a deliberate act of malevolence, yet PK's harsh criticism of similarly unfortunate errors

wtf, man... like what the legitimate fuck... what's it with you and this thumb??????? ... the thumb is now an "error" and "oversight"??????? wtf????????????

[slevin]

... the thumb is now an "error" and "oversight"???????

No, I explicitly wrote the contrary, that it was most probably the result of inattention, not an attempt to deliberately deceive, by obscuring the fact that "the Nazarene" isn't found in the original Greek text.

What is significant, to me, at least, is that you cavalierly stated "it isn't a thumb", as though that were the question I had raised.

Nope.

The issue is not (and that's why I explicitly rejected an implication that you had deliberately sought to conceal omission), your digit. It is the absence of a piece of text, text that unfortunately could not be observed, even if it had been present, in Codex Sinaiticus.

There could be many reasons why Codex Sinaiticus exhibits the absence of "the Nazarene", but what strikes me as a bit odd, is that you would ignore this point, and instead exclaim: "it wasn't my thumb", as though the question involved identification of which of your digits obscured the text, preventing our recognition of the absence of "the Nazarene".

The question here, concerns dating Gnostic literature. You came down rather hard on LC for a bit of overzealousness on his part. However, you seem to be quite relaxed about analyzing an issue, which you have introduced. Surely it warrants a comment more significant than, "it wasn't my thumb". No one cares about identification of the specific digit, concealing the absence.

Why did subsequent editions insert text not found in Codex Sinaiticus, here, "the Nazarene"? To what extent is this passage ambiguous, without that clarification? Does the combination of NOT using Nomina Sacra plus the omission of "the Nazarene" signify that the chap who was no longer in the tomb was not thought, by Mark anyway, to be the human Jesus? Is it not curious, that given so much space in the Codex, (a very unusual phenomenon), because of the deliberate omission of Mark 16:9 to the end, no one scribbled, in the (very wide) margin, "the Nazarene"? Is there any other place in the gospels where "the Nazarene", omitted, is coupled with "Iesoun" spelled out, concurrently avoiding use of nomina sacra? The nomina sacra, in essence, perform the same function, as "the Nazarene", so I find this passage very interesting, because it omits both of the traditional identification markers. How do we certify that the Iesoun, who been buried in the cave, corresponds to the lad from Nazareth?

Maybe your focus on the thumb, represents your contempt for my having suggested that this idea, represents some sort of novelty, maybe the absence of "the Nazarene" appears in your eyes, as something utterly banal and insignificant. I don't deny not knowing, for example, if scholarly publications have, or have not yet, already addressed any or all of these points. Perhaps absence of "the Nazarene" is a ho-hum, non-issue for everyone else. In such a case, I can understand your rationale for ignoring it.