Papyrus 20915 - English Translation

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Papyrus 20915 - English Translation

Post by davidmartin »

DCH
Yes not a gnostic creation seems insistent on oneness of God all over the place, addresses plural language of Genesis question in there somewhere
Not much to say about Jesus?
That citation of Revelation about the angel calling the birds of the air to come and eat the flesh of men, and other citations, suggest to me that what we have here is a kind of apocalypse, but instead of a blessed age that is dawning but rather an age of wrath
I thought that this whole text is aimed to give the correct understanding of God as pretty wrathful and punishing more than a prophetic type of text
It's pretty gloomy it probably inspired some awful sermons. How unlike Clement of Alexandria considering this text is supposed to be from the same school of thought
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papyrus 20915 - English Translation

Post by rakovsky »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:01 pm I agree there's not much to go on here to connect these fragments to the Preaching
The main connection that I see is between the similarity of keywords between the "Book of Anunciation" and Clement's quote from the Preaching of Peter in Quote #6 that I listed, about how God created all that is visible and invisible. He is at All and fulfills the All with what is not incomplete. (my parahphrase)
It's seems like a clunky reformulation in the Book of Annunciation of ideas found in Preaching of Peter. I don't know if that same set of key concepts and keywords comes up in another Jewish or ancient Christian source that could have been the origin of this passage in the Book of Annunciation.

The second main connection is looser- the repeated references to Peter as making certain statements, with the written sources being unmentioned, suggest that those statements could be from the Preaching of Peter, or for that matter from another source like another apocryphal work ascribed to Peter.

In sum, I guess that conceivably the Papyrus could have some other reformulations from the Preaching of Peter like it might have in the case of Quote #6, particularly when it ascribes some statements to Peter. But it feels like a loose or uncertain connection.
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papyrus 20915 - English Translation

Post by rakovsky »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:01 pm
This part in Blue comes across to me as sounding like Gnosticism, wherein people exist in some heavenly, spiritual, or immateril realm and then when they enter the material world they incur death and suffering. I don't know if you can find some Christian non-Gnostic "Proto-Gnostic" or Platonic texts that express this same idea
I think "orthodoxy" using "gnostic" language does have some basis in surviving texts although it appears unusual i wonder if there's a case to re-evaluate that. i mean we have things in Colossians and Ephesians that look a little that way. Also I'm thinking of some of the stuff in the Clementine literature also associated with Peter. And some other texts i can't remember right now (i remember a commentary about a text that said it appeared to present orthadoxy in gnostic language. 3 corinthians?? my memory won't retrieve it)

What i mean is, perhaps when we see something that looks a little gnostic it might not actually be at all, just uses similar language or concepts
Ok, I understand what you are getting at David, which is that sometimes Gnostic sounding language shows up in orthodox Jewish or Christian texts. One simple example is Wisdom/Sophia. It's a big concept in Gnosticism, but the idea of Sophia as a Spirit shows up in the orthodox Wisdom of Solomon, as well as probably in Proverbs. So certainly some open mindedness is needed before classing a document as orthodox or gnostic. Maybe it's better a result to say that a document seems to be better classed as one or the other.

Still, it's important to see if a text falls into the orthodox or Gnostic camp in order to understand it. Each of those two camps has certain special definite features in their schemes of cosmology. Based on these special features, texts like the Sethian Gnostic writings and Eugnostos the Blessed for example can be classed as Gnostic. One of the special features in the Gnostic camp is that people pre-existed their life in our material, atomic, physical universe, realm, or aeon, and that by entering the material realm, we incur death and suffering. This is the idea that I cited from the Papyrus that the text ascribes to "Peter." In the orthodox conception, whether we were in the physical realm in physical bodies or not, we could still suffer due to sin. This is because in the orthodox conception, with sin, death and suffering entered the world. It's true that in the NT there is this tension between spirit and flesh, with flesh tending to sin and the flesh being mortal, but still there is a difference between the two camps on this topic.

To give you an idea of the difference in formulations, the Gnostic "Apocryphon of John," which precedes the Sophia of Jesus Christ in Codex III of the Nag Hammadi Library, refers to the archons as "the robbers" when it says that the archons
brought him (Adam) into the shadow of death, in order that they might form (him) again from earth and water and fire and the spirit which originates in matter, which is the ignorance of darkness and desire, and their counterfeit spirit. This is the tomb of the newly-formed body with which the robbers had clothed the man, the bond of forgetfulness; and he became a mortal man.
By comparison, the Papyrus the section about Peter that I was talking about as Gnostic sounding was:
also to] the [time] where we
33 [(arrived)] into the human world.
34 [The] man received these. And instead of
35 [life] he ended up under the hand of death.

FOOTNOTE: Lines 29 and following] perhaps a citation from The Preaching of Peter.

1 When he jumped from his [ ]
2 he lost the shape [ the one]
3 who [ ] became [ ]
4 [ ]
5 [ ] in [him ]
6 [ ] and [ ]
7 [ ] his nests [
The idea in this Papyrus section is that we preexisted our entrance into the material world, and that when Adam entered the material world he received mortality, went under death, and lost his original model. The implication is that it's blaming our entrance into the material world for our receiving going under the hand of death. These fit the Gnostic "take" on these issues better than the "orthodox" Jewish, pharisaic, NT etc. take. The orthodox Torah or rabbinical take could say that Adam had a body of light and then sinned, became mortal, and got clothed in skin. I would have to check whether getting flesh happened at the same time as getting mortality. But anyway the rabbinical and classic Christian view would not explain it as Adam's entrance into the material world as being responsible for him coming under death. Mortality and suffering are blamed more on sin. For instance, theoretically a being like Adam could still exist in our world without skin and still suffer or be dead, if for instance we are talking about a spirit from a corpse. Further, even though Adam got flesh, the classical view is that he didn't per se "lose" his created image or shape like the Papyrus section says. Man remains in the image of God despite deformity.
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papyrus 20915 - English Translation

Post by rakovsky »

I guess that neither gnosticism nor Orthodoxy would normally say necessarily that man lost his original shape or form or image by being in the physical skin or flesh, but blaming the entrance into the material world for death formation of man is characteristic of Gnostic formulas, whereas I think that you would have to reformulate classic Orthodox ideas in order to come to that same expression.

There is a certain set of writings like the Gospel of Thomas where scholars debate whether they are Gnostic, protoGnostic, or orthodox. In any case, some terms like flesh and archons are characteristic of both gnosticism and Orthodoxy, and some concepts are coming to both like being in a material body being related to or leading to sin and suffering. But certain formulations are characteristic of only one camp or the other, like emphasizing entrance into the material world as being the cause of suffering versus sin being the cause of suffering and the flesh being a causal Factor intending to get people to sin.

So for instance, Romans 5 says, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". In this orthodox formula, sin and thus death entered the world due to Adam's act. The implication is that had Adam acted differently, sin and death might not gave entered the world for man.

Or in Genesis 1-2, God made man out of clay and then said not to eat the forbidden fruit or man would die. The implication is that had man not eaten the fruit, he would not have become susceptible to death despite being made of clay. However after they sin, they get skin, which could be the idea of them going from bodies of light to mortal flesh bodies. Then in Genesis 3, God says, "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread, until you return to the ground--because out of it were you taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return." You could hypothesize that had they not been taken out of ground, they would not die, and thus it's their physicality that brings suffering. But that would go against the earlier implication that it's not being from clay per se that brought death, but rather violating the command.

The upshot of this is that while there could be different takes or versions or reformulations of the Genesis events, so the orthodox formulas don't characteristically emphasize entrance into the material world as bringing death, whereas Gnostic formulas do make that emphasis.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Papyrus 20915 - English Translation

Post by davidmartin »

On reflection I agree with what you're saying here
It does appear a bit gnostic in the sense of being 'thrown' into the world
What i wanted to suggest was maybe some of the texts in Peter's name that were used by the orthodox were a bit gnostic
The Gospel of the Hebrews has some gnostic-like features (Holy Spirit is the Mother of Christ)
The Shephard of Hermas has some too, like the personified good and bad angels with names similar to what's found in Apocryphon of John
I'm falling into the trap of using the word gnostic aren't I?!
What i'm getting as is maybe 'gnostic' like beliefs were not originally as heretical as they came to be later, when the gnostic groups took it a lot further
Paul's idea's probably weren't universal at the beginning

PS This papyrus does seem to have a bit of a gnostic feel to it. It talks of the 'perfect ones' in one place and has that gnostic pessimism as well, that reminded me a bit of Clement's writings but he has a more optimistic feel
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papyrus 20915 - English Translation

Post by rakovsky »

David,
To give you a simplified general overview, there were several major philosophical or cosmological systems in the 1st century BC-2nd century AD:
-- Judaism;
-- the Christianity of Jesus, Peter, John, and Paul, which from the Church's writings of the time, followed the basic theology of Judaism;
-- Gnosticism, which existed as a school even before Christianity appeared on the scene;
-- Plato's philosophy, which seems soft enough that some of its key points or features seem compatible with Christianity, Judaism, and Gnosticism.

One of the cases of clashes between the apostolic Christian camp and the Gnostics that shows that the camps were separate was the conflict between the apostles and Simon Magus the Gnost in the Book of Acts.

With some books like Eugnostos the Blessed, it's easy to see that it falls into the Gnostic camp. But some other writings like Ascension of Isaiah, which I have been mulling over for the last year, are harder. For instance, it seems to give 18 months to the time between the Resurrection and the Ascension, which Irenaeus said the Gnostics did. But just because a text has a "heresy", issue, or mistake that matches the Gnostics' ideas does not necessarily show that Gnostics wrote it, depending on the issue. This goes along with what you are saying in your last message.

I would classify the issues of Jesus' mother being the Holy Spirit and the virtues corresponding to angels with Gnostic names in the Shepherd in that way- as features that could be a red or yellow flag, but don't prove them to be Gnostic. Jerome has an apologia explaining how the H.S. can be called Jesus' mother. In the case of the Shepherd, we can tell that it's not a Gnostic work because we have enough of the text to see that it doesn't have a Gnostic cosmology. The fact that the virtues correspond to angels is not specifically Gnostic because Wisdom of Solomon or other canonical books relate certain virtues or powers to spirits or angels, wisdom being one of several examples. As for the Apocryphon of John using the same names for angels, I guess that a possible reason could be that the Shepherd came out first in c. 155 AD, and then the Apocryphon came out later (I forget the date) and used the angels names.

On the other hand, unlike the question of the 18 months, the passage blaming entering the material world for going under the hand of death and losing man's original shape goes to one of the major features of the Gnostic system.

I'm not sure if the Judaic/Christian "take" on the issue is even compatible with the Gnostic take. In the Torah story, God makes man out of clay, tells him that if he eats the forbidden fruit, then he will die that day, man eats the fruit, then God says that he will sweat to make bread and that was made out of dust and shall return to it (Gen. 3:19), and finally God makes coats of skin for Adam and Eve (the physical body?)(Gen. 3:21). In this scheme, man is made out of clay and dust (physical atoms?) even before he gets the curse, and he gets the curse even before he gets bodily physical skin flesh. At least, this is my tentative reading of those events.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Papyrus 20915 - English Translation

Post by Secret Alias »

Gnosticism, which existed as a school even before Christianity appeared on the scene;
Comical. Like Judaism is separate from "gnosticism." You really have outdated nonsensical notions. Why aren't you as dead as your ideas?
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Papyrus 20915 - English Translation

Post by davidmartin »

Thanks Rakovsky when talking about gnostics its more about defining what it means than actually discussing anything!

But the gnostics were split into many groups with different ideas. I also suspect strongly there was a tendency towards a more 'religious' gnostic system over time which then clashed harder with orthodoxy than at an earlier stage. But, at some point at the softer end of gnosticism it just looks like ordinary mysticism existing as part of orthodoxy. If this softer stuff was prominent at an earlier date it would explain how come orthodox writings sometimes look gnostic, they used to talk to each other once but positions hardened and become more extreme. That's my take on it anyway
The reality probably was a lot more controversial and segmented even at an early date, but approximately that's how it went
The actual origins of Christianity for me are somewhere in the middle of all of them and not really represented any more by a 2nd century church or group we know about, neither orthodox or gnostic. they all went their own way in some areas. I recon the Montanists were closest in my own biased personal opinion. If the Gnostics were a pre-existing school they would have clashed also with the first Christians
When i saw the Odes of Solomon i thought, yeah, thats the origin of it that's the key text, it's got everything
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papyrus 20915 - English Translation

Post by rakovsky »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:55 am
Gnosticism, which existed as a school even before Christianity appeared on the scene;
Comical. Like Judaism is separate from "gnosticism." You really have outdated nonsensical notions. Why aren't you as dead as your ideas?
Well, I guess that I am, since the idea that Judaism is separate from Gnosticism is alive and frequently actively expressed.
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papyrus 20915 - English Translation

Post by rakovsky »

davidmartin wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:31 pm Thanks Rakovsky when talking about gnostics its more about defining what it means than actually discussing anything!

But the gnostics were split into many groups with different ideas. I also suspect strongly there was a tendency towards a more 'religious' gnostic system over time which then clashed harder with orthodoxy than at an earlier stage. But, at some point at the softer end of gnosticism it just looks like ordinary mysticism existing as part of orthodoxy. If this softer stuff was prominent at an earlier date it would explain how come orthodox writings sometimes look gnostic, they used to talk to each other once but positions hardened and become more extreme. That's my take on it anyway
The reality probably was a lot more controversial and segmented even at an early date, but approximately that's how it went
The actual origins of Christianity for me are somewhere in the middle of all of them and not really represented any more by a 2nd century church or group we know about, neither orthodox or gnostic. they all went their own way in some areas. I recon the Montanists were closest in my own biased personal opinion. If the Gnostics were a pre-existing school they would have clashed also with the first Christians.

When i saw the Odes of Solomon i thought, yeah, thats the origin of it that's the key text, it's got everything
There's alot to talk about. Scholars debate the origin of the Odes of Solomon. I'm inclined to the view that they were authored by Bardeisan in the late 2nd century, which is one of the two views on the question. One reason is because it's known that he authored forged Davidic poetry, and Odes of Solomon would nearly fall into that genre. I made a thread topic on the Odes elsewhere on the forum relating to this issue. I read that Bardeisan was an orthodox Christian who became Gnostic or semi-Gnostic. If that was the case, it would explain why the Odes come off as a mix of Gnosticism and orthodox Christianity. As I recall, I did not find anything in it that was necessarily uniquely Gnostic per se, in contrast to the quote that the Papyrus ascribed to Peter that we were talking about.

I am open to ideas that there was a major faction of the early Christians of the 1st century or even in Jesus' ministry who were Gnostic. One reason is because we know that at some point in the 1st or 2nd century there was a major Ebionite faction, and as I recall, a major faction of the Ebionites had specifically Gnostic teachings. There are other reasons too. For instance, the Nosairis of Syria seemed to have some possibly Gnostic ideas and may be related to the c. 1st century Nazerini of Syria, and thus related to "Nazerenes" somehow. Third, there is the issue of the Thomas tradition, like the Gospel of Thomas, which may or may not be from Thomas, and which may or may not be Gnostic.

But strictly speaking, the most core leadership and writings of the Christian Church/Assembly/Congregation as Jesus founded it was orthodox, rather than Gnostic, and there are alot of reasons for this. One is that the ancient Judaism of the Torah and pharisees has a separate cosmology and theology from Gnosticism, and the Gospels and NT present Jesus and the apostles working within that OT framework, with the NT being filled with references to the OT. A second reason is that Paul presents James, Peter, and John as the three pillars of the Church, and what we have of their writings and their retellings of Jesus is in the orthodox camp cosmologically and theologically. A third reason is that the basic Christian idea fits in the paradigm of TaNaKh Judaism much better than that of Gnosticism. Christ is a Greek translation of Messiah. The Messiah concept was from the TaNaKh and pharisee / rabbi traditions, where the Son of David is God's "Anointed"/Messiah who comes to "fulfill" the TaNaKh prophecies and Moses' Torah, which Jehovah gave to Moses. In the Gnostic camp by contrast, there is alot of avoidance of the Tanakh theology. In Marcion's case, he removed OT references from his version of the NT. A common idea in Gnosticism was even that the ultimate true Deity and the OT Jehovah were two separate gods, and the Gnostics looked down on the latter, calling him Yaldabaoth.
Post Reply