On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:44 pm
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.
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.