On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

[Stephan Huller]

Back to these meaningless fucking diagrams. Why not draw a picture of Eusebius and Hosius 'forging' the New Testament and pass it off as a photograph? These diagrams are sub-moronic.

[Leucius Charinus]

Back to these meaningless fucking diagrams.

The diagrams depict mainstream chronology for the gnostic material: 2nd, 3rd and 4th century authorship.

They demonstrate that the mainstream sees a continuity of gnostic authorship during these centuries.

Why do we not see some significant change in the Gnostic material before and after Nicaea?

Why not draw a picture of Eusebius and Hosius 'forging' the New Testament and pass it off as a photograph?

The discussion is not about the books of the canonical NT. The discussion is about the books of the non canonical NT.

You are permitted to draw a picture of Marcion forging the NT if you like, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Let's assume Marcion was responsible for the NT. The question is who authored the Gnostic Gospels and Acts.

These diagrams are sub-moronic.

.... reading comprehension and logic?

[theomise]

I would like to discuss the idea and hypothesis that the Gnostic Gospels and Acts, much of the NT Apocrypha and indeed even some of the OT Apocrypha all represent a Greek literary reaction to the appearance of the Constantine Bible in the eastern Roman Empire, particularly at Alexandria, after Constantine's military supremacy of c.324/325 CE. I would like to point out here and now in order to avoid the usual emotional issues associated with discussion about "Christian Origins" that this idea is totally unrelated to the dating of the Canonical Books of the Christian Bible, and that 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.

The idea to be explored and discussed and pump bullets into for testing here in this thread is that Irrespective of when the canonical NT books were authored, there was no authorship of the heretical Gnostic gospels and Acts, etc, etc, etc until after the Bible was raised from obscurity by Constantine, and made the "Holy Writ" at the basis of a centralised monotheistic religion of the Roman political empire. The idea is that the Gnostic material was a literary reaction to the appearance of the Greek NT Bible under the rule of Constantine, and that these "Gnostic" writings did not exist until c.325 CE.

The evidence relevant to this discussion, against the proposition that the Gnostic literature existed prior to 325 CE is twofold and may be summarised as:

(1) The "Church Fathers" mentioned these Gnostic gospels and Acts, etc
(2) Various datings of fragments of Gnostic Gospels to before 325 CE.

My response to these to commence the discussion is as follows:


(1) The "Church Fathers" mentioned these Gnostic gospels and Acts, etc

The contention is that these "mentions" were inserted into the books of "Early Christians" (who we may presume to be genuine) after Nicaea. The classic example highlighting my response here is the dating of the Clementine literature - the Recognitions and Homilies. Until recent times this literature was presumed to be from the 2nd or 3rd century because of mentions by Origen. However modern scholarship sees this literature as being written by an Arian after 330 CE. The idea is that there was a massive controversy over UNAUTHORISED books and the orthodoxy wrote up this controversy as though it had been a controversy over the books of the heretics during the earlier 2nd and 3rd centuries.



(2) Various datings of fragments of Gnostic Gospels to before 325 CE.

For a tabulation of papyri see: http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... papyri.htm

The contention here is that these palaeographical assessments may be viewed as having error bounds (like C14) that accommodate a later (4th century) date.



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.

I haven't read this whole discussion yet, but would you regard early-dated papyri of Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses as evidence against your thesis?

http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/text.php?tm=61317
http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/text.php?tm=61318

[Leucius Charinus]

(2) Various datings of fragments of Gnostic Gospels to before 325 CE.

For a tabulation of papyri see: http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... papyri.htm

The contention here is that these palaeographical assessments may be viewed as having error bounds (like C14) that accommodate a later (4th century) date.

I haven't read this whole discussion yet, but would you regard early-dated papyri of Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses as evidence against your thesis?

http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/text.php?tm=61317
http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/text.php?tm=61318

Adversus haereses 03, 9, 52-60 69-72 ..... dated ..... AD 150 - 250

Adversus haereses 05 3, 2-13, 3 ...... dated ........... AD 275 - 324

YES. The early dating of these papyri might reasonably be cited against this hypothesis.

However in defence of these papyri not falsifying the hypothesis it might be argued that the margin for a later dating of these two papyri could easily be extended to c.325 CE without too many complaints from the palaeographers. The first has an upper estimate of 250 CE, the second an upper estimate of 324 CE. The hypothesis requires a date of around 325 CE. Thanks for your question.

[Leucius Charinus]

What is not made explicit in the OP is the inference that the authors of the Gnostic material were not Christians, but pagan academics and theologians (Platonists, etc) in the generation who witnessed the supremacy of Constantine, the Council of Nicaea, the very first widespread publication of a standard NT Bible, and the "Christian Revolution" that followed. The idea is that these pagans reacted by creating their own stories using the new god "Jesus Christ" (in the Nomina Sacra form as found in the Constantine Bible) and his apostles, in which they platformed their own ideas. These authors were perceived as writing "Blasphemies" against the orthodox. Why? Because their books were not authorised by the Emperor. This action went against the "majesty" of the Emperor, and was thus immediately treated as treason.

Readers may need to take a one or two steps backwards in order to understand this hypothesis.

REMINDER: This is not about the chronology of authorship of the canonical books of the orthodox,
but the chronology of authorship non canonical books of the gnostic heretics.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Leucius Charinus,

I don't find any parallels here, just the Christian imagination at work. Because "A" contains "C" and "B" contains "C." this does not mean that "A" and "B" are parallel. A basketball is round, the moon is round. That does not mean that the moon is parallel to a basketball.

All the evidence points to many gnostic writings predating New Testament Gospel writings. One can postulate that the opposite is true and the evidence is terribly flawed and doesn't exist, the way certain Christians write about evolution, but as with the creation-evolution debate, it is a waste of time because all the facts are on one side.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

If gnostic literature was a reaction against orthodoxy, we would expect to see stronger parallels. Most gnostic literature make no points at all about any of the NT gospel stories. When you react against something, you have to parallel it in some way.

Here are some parallels that it would be good to discuss ...

(1) The Characters: The gnostic literature (by this I mean all non canonical books etc) concerns itself with Jesus, the Apostles, Paul. The stories are different but the characters indeed the names of the books are all from the canon. Certainly other characters are interwoven such as Seth, Adam, Hermes, Asclepius, and Female voices.

(2) The Genre: The canonical set has one Act of the Apostles. The Gnostic material has more than 30 "Acts", and most of the apostles get their own "Acts of" and in many cases two apostle names and used for the title of the book. The canonical set has 4 gospels, while the non canonical set has more than 20 "Gospels". Is this not a striking parallel in itself - the gnostics appear to have cloned the canonical books.

(3) The Plot: The gnostic material nearly always deals with the post-resurrected Jesus, and the Apostles are still trying to ask question.

(4) The NOMINA SACRA: The Constantine Bible used codes to represent Jesus, Christ, God, etc and it may have appeared to the academics of the Roman Empire who witnessed to implementation of the "Christian Revolution and State" that the Emperor was quite entitled to nominate the god of his choice - as was customary. Constantine's god was to be found encoded in a Greek book. The Gnostic authors used these same codes to platform the characters in their books. In the "Gospel of Thomas" the Jesus said .... repetition uses the Jesus CODE in Coptic. One interpretation of this Gospel of Thomas is that it was an effort by post Nicaean gnostics to preserve their wisdom sayings by putting these sayings into the mouth of Constantine's new god - CODE NAME.

(5) THE TONE: The serious Canonical Books and the "Monty Pythonish" MILLS and BOON non canonical romance adventure stories. Jesus does not laugh in the canonical books but is presented as laughing by the gnostics.

(5) Parallels by cloning: Do the non canonical books clone many things - characters, events, sayings - of the canonical books? I think there is an argument that they indeed do (just as the canonical books clone the LXX)

(6) SATIRE & PARODY: I would like to explore the possibility that at least some elements of some non canonical books use satire and parody of their canonical counterparts. Here we are looking for "Monty Pythonish" treatments of the canonical material. Resurrecting smoked fish, commanding bed bugs, camels through needles, travelling hither and thither on "bright clouds", Jesus appearing and disappearing, sometimes a boy, a man, a child,

One cannot find any such meaningful parallels in most of the gnostic literature to the gospels.

I have listed some parallels above for discussion.

DIAGRAM of Presumed Chronology of the New Testament Apocrypha









DIAGRAM of Alternative Proposed Chronology of the New Testament Apocrypha

[Leucius Charinus]

All the evidence points to many gnostic writings predating New Testament Gospel writings.

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Could you point to a few gnostic writings which predate the NT and cite the evidence used for this.

AKAIK the mainstream hypothesis is that the NT writings appeared first [chronologically - eg: 1st century] and then the Gnostic writings started appearing in a later century (eg: 2nd and 3rd and 4th centuries). Additionally, the evidence of the authorship of gnostic material indicates some material (perhaps 50% of it) was also being authored in the 4th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels

The Gnostic Gospels are a collection of about fifty-two ancient texts based upon the teachings of several spiritual leaders, written from the 2nd to the 4th century AD

Thanks


LC

[Leucius Charinus]

A discussion of the evidence by which it is currently believed by mainstream scholars and academics that
at least some of the "Gnostic Acts and Gospels" existed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the CE.

STEP (1): What is the mainstream view?

According to the mainstream academic and scholarly theorists in the field of "Biblical History", the manufacture of Gnostic manuscripts commenced as early as (for some) the 1st century, and continued on a sporadic basic through the 2nd and 3rd and 4th centuries. The following table provides a list of gnostic texts that according to the mainstream theory, were authored and published during the first four centuries. I prepared this some years ago, and there is obviously no real consensus on some texts, but the following should serve to introduce the actual texts in debate. Step 2 will be to discuss the evidence supporting 1st, 2nd and 3rd century texts.


Apochyphal Text .... Mainstream Chronology.
-------------------------------------------------- ---------
The Vision of Isaiah 1st
The Gospel of Thomas 1st [099]
The Didache [Teaching/Doctrine of the Apostles] 1st?
The Teaching of the Apostles 1st?
The Gospel of the Egyptians 1st-2nd
The Gospel of the Hebrews 1st-2nd
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles 2nd
The Apocalypse of Peter 2nd
The Epistle of the Apostles 2nd
The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene] 2nd
The Gospel of the Ebionites 2nd
The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion] 2nd
The Gospel of the Nazoreans 2nd
The Apocalypse of James (Second) 2nd [130]
The Gospel of James (Infancy) 2nd [150]
The Teachings of Silvanus 2nd [150]
A Valentinian Exposition 2nd [160]
The Acts of Paul (*R) 2nd [160]
The Gospel of Truth 2nd [160]
The Gospel of Peter 2nd [170]
The Apocalypse of James (First) 2nd [180]
The Apocryphon of James 2nd [180]
The Apocryphon of John 2nd [180]
The Apocryphon of John 2nd [180]
The Gospel of Judas 2nd [180]
The Gospel of the Egyptians 2nd [180]
The Letter of Peter to Philip 2nd [190]
The Letter of Peter to Philip 2nd [190]
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text A] 2nd/3rd
The Thunder, Perfect Mind 2nd/3rd
The Acts of Andrew and John (*H) 2nd-3rd
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew (*H) 2nd-3rd
The Acts of Andrew (*H) 2nd-3rd
The Acts of John (*H) 2nd-3rd
The Acts of Peter 2nd-3rd
The Acts of Peter and Andrew 2nd-3rd
The Revelation of the Magi 2nd-3rd
A Portion of the Books of the Saviour (aka Pistis 3rd
The Gospel of Philip 3rd
The Hypostasis of the Archons 3rd
The Sophia of Jesus Christ 3rd
The Three Steles of Seth 3rd
Zostrianos 3rd
The Acts of Thomas 3rd [220]
The Tripartite Tractate 3rd/4th
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul 3rd[280]
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul 3rd[280]
The Apocalypse of James - First 3rd-4th

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Nicaean Boundary Event - 324/325 CE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Allogenes 4th
Asclepius 21-29 4th
Authoritative Teaching 4th
Eugnostos the Blessed 4th
Eugnostos the Blessed 4th
Hypsiphrone 4th
Marsanes 4th
Melchizedek 4th
On the Origin of the World 4th
On the Origin of the World 4th
Plato, Republic 588A-589B 4th
The Acts of John the Theologian 4th
The Acts of Pilate 4th
The Acts of Polyeuctes 4th
The Apocalypse of Adam 4th
The Apocalypse of Paul 4th
The Book of Thomas the Contender 4th
The Concept of Our Great Power 4th
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar 4th
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca 4th
The Death of Pilate 4th
The Dialogue of the Savior 4th
The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth 4th
The Exegesis on the Soul 4th
The Gospel of Gamaliel 4th
The Gospel of Nicodemus 4th
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 4th
The Gospel of the Egyptians 4th
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary 4th
The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles 4th
The History of Joseph the Carpenter 4th
The Interpretation of Knowledge 4th
The Paraphrase of Shem 4th
The Prayer of Thanksgiving 4th
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth 4th
The Sentences of Sextus 4th
The Testimony of Truth 4th
The Thought of Norea 4th
Trimorphic Protennoia 4th
Unknown 4th
The Act of Peter 4th-5th
The Acts of Luke 4th-5th
The Acts of Mark 4th-5th
The Acts of Peter and Paul 4th-5th
The Acts of Philip 4th-5th
The Acts of Simon and Jude 4th-5th
The Acts of Thaddaeus 4th-5th
The Gospel of Bartholomew 4th-5th
The History of John 4th-5th
An Arabic Infancy Gospel 5th
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew 5th
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew 5th
The Acts of Barnabas 5th
The Acts of Bartholomew 5th
The Acts of Timothy 5th
The Acts of Titus 5th
The Acts of Matthew 6th

[Leucius Charinus]

Step (2) - Categorizing the literary evidence supporting the Mainstream chronology

A process of categorization is employed to focus on the key literary evidence supporting the generally accepted mainstream theory of "Pre-Nicaean" authorship. The texts have been classified according to six Category Codes as follows.


Category (1): Eusebius's "Research" discloses earlier "witnesses". (12 texts)
Category (1) consists of books for which Eusebius presents literary sources that would have us infer that these books were cited by authors in the 2nd or 3rd century. These key citations will be briefly examined further below.

Category (2): Eusebius's himself is the earliest "witness". (5 texts)
In Category (2) Eusebius himself is the earliest witness. (The Acts of Andrew and John, The Acts of Andrew and Matthew, The Acts of Peter and Andrew, The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of John, The Teaching of the Apostles)

Category (3): There are no extant texts. (9 texts)
Category (3) lists books cited but for which there are no extant texts. (The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion], The Gospel of the Egyptians, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Gospel of the Nazoreans)

Category (4): There are no "Early Witnesses". (27 texts)
Category (4) lists books for which there is no “early” mention. (The Acts of Thomas, The Acts of Peter, The Acts of John the Theologian, The Pistis Sophia [nb: this is misnamed and is actually entitled "A Portion of the Books of the Savior"], The Didache [Teaching of the Apostles], The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]

Category (5): Known 4th Century (or Later) Authorship (55 texts)
Finally in the last Category (5) The Acts of Pilate heads a large list of over 77 books currently conjectured to have been authored after the Council of Nicaea. Fourth century (or later) authorship of this large group of books is in line with the arguments to be presented here.




Step (3) - Examining the key citations by Eusebius for "Early Witnesses"


The Gospel of Peter:
Eusebius cites Origen, Justin Martyr and Serapion as mentioning this text although in the case of Justin, MR James comments that “the evidence is not demonstrative”. Eusebius has an unknown Serapion report that he walked into a Gnostic library and “borrowed” a copy of this text.

The Gospel of Thomas:
Eusebius cites Hippolytus (155-235), Refutation of all Heresies, v. 1-6., as mentioning something similar to the received text, and cites Origen as mentioning some text of Thomas. Eusebius cites saying (No. 2 in the gThomas) as quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Miscellenies ii. 45. 5; v. 96.3), as coming from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There is certainly some ambiguity here.

The Gospel of Judas:
Eusebius cites a mention of this text in Irenaeus’ “Adversus Haereses” [I.31.1] however some integrity issues have been noted with it. For example, the text is described by Irenaeus as being linked with such villainous persons as Cain, Esau, Korah, and the Sodomites, rather than with the traditionally respected person of Seth. One commentator writes “Perhaps Irenaeus was simply misinformed or deliberately confused the two as a rhetorical strategy. At any rate, it is a strange divergence that demands clarification.” [Review of Deconick, Arie Zwiep] There is further ambiguity here

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
Eusebius preserves a citation from Irenaeus who quotes a non-canonical story that circulated about the childhood of Jesus. Many but not all scholars consider that it is possible that the apocryphal writing cited by Irenaeus is, in fact, what is now known as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. There is room for doubt

The Infancy Gospel of James:
Early knowledge of the “Protevangelium of James” is inferred from the preservation in Eusebius of mention by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. An inference is not the same thing as unambiguous evidence.

The Vision of Isiah
Mentioned by Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr ?

The Apocalypse of Peter
This is not the Gnostic text! Mentioned by Clement (Eclogues 41,48,49) - but there is no extant text

The Gospel of Truth
This is the NHC text; some consider it to be mentioned by Irenaeus ?

The Apocyphon of John
Mentioned by Irenaeus ?

The Sentences of Sextus
Sextus appears to have been a Pythagorean. Some think it is quoted by Origen, Contra Celsum, viii. 30; Commentary on Matthew, xv. 3)

The Acts of Peter
Attributed to Leucius Charinus, along with the Acts of Paul. The other books attributed to "Leucius" are: The Acts of John, The Acts of Andrew, the Acts of Thomas, and possibly also The Acts of Andrew and John, The Acts of Andrew and Matthew and The Acts of Peter and Andrew. Notably, most of these are first witnessed by Eusebius, with the exception of the Acts of Paul.

The Acts of Paul:
The chief and final literary citation is from Eusebius’ often cited Latin author Tertullian, in his De baptismo 17.5. This appears as the only early instance in which information is provided concerning an author of apocryphal writings. Note that the manuscripts which preserve Tertullian's De baptismo are quite late, the earliest being the 12th century Codex Trecensis.

As for those (women) who appeal to the falsely written Acts of Paul in order to defend the right of women to teach and to baptize,
let them know that the presbyter in Asia who produced this document, as if he could add something of his own to the prestige of Paul,
was removed from his office after he had been convicted and had confessed that he had done it out of love for Paul.

Step (4): A tabulation of the evidence via palaeographic dating of papyri fragments of the non canonical literature

Gospel of Peter: P.Oxy.2949, P.Oxy.4008 and P.Vinbob G 2325 are often cited as “early”, whereas P.Oxy.849 is dated to 325 CE. "They are possibly but not conclusively from the Gospel of Peter." [p,258, FN:11; "Fabricating Jesus" - Craig A Evans].

Gospel of Thomas: P.Oxy.654, P.Oxy.655 and P.Oxy.1

Gospel of Mary: P.Oxy 3525 and P.Rylands 463

Infancy Gospel of James: P.Oxy 3524 and p.Bodmer 5 - cannot be regarded as conclusively certain.


Additionally, there exists a great preponderance of Greek papyri fragments of the NTA which have been dated to the 4th or 5th centuries

Finally the fragments of "Irenaeus" mentioned above may be added here.


These last 2 posts have summarised the texts and the evidence supporting the hypotheses of their early dating.

If I have missed anything critical now is the time to speak up.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Leucius Charinus,

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.

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. You write, "Eusebius cites Origen, Justin Martyr and Serapion as mentioning this text although in the case of Justin, MR James comments that “the evidence is not demonstrative”. Eusebius has an unknown Serapion report that he walked into a Gnostic library and “borrowed” a copy of this text."

The three references in Eusebius is probably strong enough to consider that the Gospel Of Peter was a Second Century work. The fact that M.R. James commented that the evidence for a single reference "is not demonstrative," does not mean that the three references are not demonstrative. The "Unknown Serapion" Serapion is almost certainly the Patriarch of Antioch. Eusebius refers to him three different times also. According to Wikipedia, ["Serapion" - viewed July 30, 2014] "Eusebius quotes (vi.12.2) from a pamphlet Serapion wrote concerning the Docetic Gospel of Peter, in which Serapion presents an argument to the Christian community of Rhossus in Syria against this gospel and condemns it." Also it says, "Eusebius also alludes to a number of personal letters Serapion wrote to Pontius, Caricus, and others about this Gospel of Peter." Thus Eusebius was aware of at least four different sources which he considered came from the Second Century that mentions the Gospel of Peter.
Besides this, we have Origen in his "Commentary on Matthew" saying "But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife." Thus, beside Eusebius, we have a work by Origen, entirely independent of Eusebius vouching for the early existence of the Gospel of Peter.

Eusebius describes a docetist Gospel of Peter. The archaeological evidence also supports the existence of a docetist Gospel of Peter.

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. Then we have to suppose that people later made up this Gospel of Peter document that Origen and Eusebius claim to know about.

It seems so much simpler and more reasonable to assume that some dosectic 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. In simplifying the orthodox canon in the Fourth century, Constantine and his advisers (including Eusebius) decided to attack the text as heretical. 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.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin