Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2311
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.

Post by StephenGoranson »

I suggested that Hebrew minim (heretics) and minut (heresy) and Greek hairesis (heresy) interacted by the second century.
https://people.duke.edu/~goranson/Essenes_&_Others.pdf
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.

Post by davidmartin »

luckily none of this effects my eye witness text the Odes, papyrus Bodmer. 3-4th c but probably 3rd. in reality the odes and thomas are about the only contenders for a really early date that hasn't been messed around with or kludged together
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:36 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 3:07 am Here is a basic map of the evidence as I see it at the moment:
https://www.academia.edu/78665273/Evide ... Literature
I think I'm getting to understand your point.
Yet I see it differently, although I agree that the creation of the Septuagint went along with that of the NT: they needed falsified Scripture to support their falsified prophecies, and that is why the translation of the Hebrew is so gruesome at points

LXX

It is generally agreed that Greek fragments of the LXX are found with the Dead Sea Scrolls and have been dated in the epoch BCE and prior to the Christian era. It is also generally agreed that during the Christian era the Christians used a "Christianised" version of the LXX which was unique in that it employed various "nomina sacra". There is no doubt that the Greek LXX translation was butchered in places in order to shoe-horn Christian related prophecies from the epoch BCE to the common era. There are a number of theories for the composition of the Hebrew Bible and its Greek LXX translation. There is the documentary hypothesis where the Hebrew Bible is ancient, and there is the hypothesis of Russell Gmirkin in which the Hebrew Bible and LXX appear together c.273 BCE at the library of Alexandria during the rule of Ptolemy II.

Neither of these theories for the Hebrew Bible and/or the Greek LXX translation are directly relevant to the OP which is concerned with the date of composition of the NTA (New Testament Apocryphal literature).


NTC

There are also a multitude of theories for the composition of the NTC (New Testament Canonical) literature - that is the tetrarchy of gospels, Acts, letters of Paul etc. These theories see the production of this NTC literature in the 1st and/or 2nd centuries and its transmission by the Ante Nicene fathers (FF) -- supposedly through the 3rd century library of Origen -- to the 4th century and eventual political circulation by Constantine and Eusebius (recognised as its final editor). The authors of the NTC are not known.

None of these theories for the NTC are relevant to the OP which is concerned with the date of composition of the NTA (New Testament Apocryphal literature).


NTA

There are again multiple theories for the authorship and date of the NTA (New Testament Apocryphal) literature. This literature consists of at least 23 "Other Gospels", at least 29 "Other Acts of the Apostles, a collection of more than 10 "Other Wisdom Sayings", a collection of at least 8 "Other Letters and Correspondences", a collection of at least a dozen various Apocalypses/Revelations and at least another further two dozen Gnostic Treatises. The authors of the NTA are not known.

These theories for the NTA literature postulate that the date of authorship spans a long period of time between the mid 2nd century through to the end of the 4th century. The basis for this chronology is dependent on attestations to the existence of some of these texts in the 2nd and 3rd century by the heresiologists like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin et al.

Now some scholars argue that a few of these NTA books may have been composed in the 1st century, gThomas being one. However gPhilip is not one, and is commonly dated to the 3rd century. In general modern scholarship perceives the (almost 100 texts of the) NTA to have been composed across the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries.

In contrast to these theories of the NTA, the OP proposes that - perhaps with some exceptions such as gThomas - the entire collection was composed during the rule of Constantine (325-337 CE) as a direct reaction to the political appearance of the NTC Bible codex.
Yet the NHL comes first;
At the moment I'd argue that (with possible exceptions like gThomas) the NTC comes first and that the NHL (as a subset of the NTA) is a literary reaction to the NTC and comes after the NTC became a political instrument in the Roman empire.
... the emergence of Chrestianity is where it all starts,
We are not able to satisfactorily disambiguate between Chrestianity and Christianity other than to say that for some reason - whatever they ultimately mean - the terms are conflated, and that in the available evidence from antiquity there was a confusion over what the two terms were supposed to represent. No doubt the later church industry settled on the term Christian and attempted to erase the term Chrestian.

However the issue dealt with in the OP concerning the composition and date of authorship of the NTA can be considered entirely separate from the problem associated with the two terms. The objective in the OP is to explain the appearance of the more than 100 texts of the NTA in the political history of the Roman empire as a political reaction to Constantine's NTC and LXX Bible codex 325 CE.
... and Philip attests to a full blown theology and baptism with receiving the Holy Spirit.
There are 50 other texts in the NHL to also be explained. The "Secret Book of John" for example attests to a full blown Platonist rewrite of the books of Genesis, where Jesus reveals the philosophy of Plotinus to the apostle John. Seth is favored over Adam as the progenitor of humanity, and Jesus is seen as an incarnation of Seth. This sort of polemic is easily explained by seeing "The Secret Book of John" as a Platonist reaction to the LXX.
Then we get the NT with the Septuagint:
As outlined above, the Greek Septuagint appears in the epoch BCE. The NTC (canonical books) whether they appear in the 1st or 2nd century (or later) were ultimately published as a political instrument c,325 CE. The OP argues that the NTA (Apocryphal NT) were composed as a subsequent literary reaction to the NTC.
the hostile takeover by the Romans.
Constantine is regarded as conducting a hostile takeover of the pagan religious sector / industry and replacing it with the Christian Nicene church industry. The Romans were not interested in the Christian cult until the 4th century. There is a valid question as to whether the imperial persecution of the Christians by pagan emperors is myth or history. I'd suggest the former.
And then we get the fierce protests to that including some of the source material as well that got added later on in the NT: what you call NTA
The orthodoxy preserved the NTC literature and listed much of the NTA literature in their index of prohibited books. According to mainstream opinion the NTC did not become "closed" until the later 4th century and the Festal letter of Jerome c.367 CE. This letter also documents a whole swag of NTA texts which the orthodox wanted to suppress.

There is also some small overlap between the NTC and the NTA (as in a Venn diagram). In this overlap area we have stuff like the Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Ignatius and other texts which appear in the earliest Greek codices but which were later axed.

And then, as a reaction to that, the Falsifying Fathers produce all their rhetoric and we're likely already in the 5th / 6th CE at that point - so I agree that those are completely falsified as well
It is important IMO to understand that Christian literature consists of three classes outlined in the map above:

1) NTC (Canonical books) - authors unknown
2) NTA (Apocryphal books) - authors unknown
3) EH (Ecclesiastical History - authors are Eusebius and his 5th century continuators.
Yet what I don't understand is why there are so many errors in everything: why do the FF disagree for 2/3rds of their attestations to Marcion, for example? Why, if we didn't find any of it all until 10th CE, and when we did find it all of it was curated by Christians - why is it all so very imperfect? Why is it so very far removed from "too good to be true"?
My answer to these questions is because the "Ecclesiastical History" of the Ante Nicene Fathers (10 volumes), the Nicene Fathers (14 volumes) and the Post Nicene Fathers (14 volumes) represent stuff which was deposited in layers over many centuries by the church industry. It is thus the opposite to a time capsule, although many scholars treat it as if it were. We may never know what Eusebius really wrote because the Ante Nicene Fathers packaged up by Eusebius was obviously "preserved" by his continuators. Stuff got changed, stuff got added and stuff was deleted from Eusebius. Layers of forgeries were compounded over the centuries in order to cater to the propaganda and pseudo-historical polemics of the church industry and its monopoly business model which changed with the times - century by century.

In regard to the OP it is important to be able to present EH7 - Heresiology and the books of the NTA, and EH1 - Orthodox doctrines and everything to do with the books of the NTC as separate strands of propaganda.

The OP examines EH7 heresiology and the NTA books as a pseudo-historical fabrication which is independent of the historical provenance of the NTC Canonical books. The church industry wanted to write the heretical books of the NTA out of history. They therefore retro-scripted the appearance of these books out of the history of the rule of Constantine (IMO) and into the preceding centuries by means of forging the material of Irenaeus et al.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.

Post by Leucius Charinus »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:13 am I suggested that Hebrew minim (heretics) and minut (heresy) and Greek hairesis (heresy) interacted by the second century.
https://people.duke.edu/~goranson/Essenes_&_Others.pdf
An interesting article. No doubt there were Hebrew heretics during the Jerusalem orthodoxy however the OP is focused on Christian heretics which are explicitly defined as those who authored, circulated (and later preserved) the books of the NT apocrypha, and whom were targeted by the Ante Nicene heresiologists like Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, etc.

The mainstream theory is that such heretical authors (of the 100 or more NT Apocryphal books) flourished only from the mid 2nd century, and through the 3rd and 4th centuries. This chronology is being controlled by the attestations of these and 4th century heresiologists (like Epiphanius and Eusebius).

The proposed alternative is that the heresiological narratives prior to 325 CE were fabricated, and that there was an avalanche of all the NT apocryphal books which was precipitated by Constantine's widespread publication of the NT and LXX Bible codex as a political instrument of the Graeco-Roman empire.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.

Post by Leucius Charinus »

BTW about Philip and the two issues:

1) The Chrestian / Christian intersection, and
2) The chronology of gPhilip

I have just read the following article and suggest it may provide a few historical allusions to a post-Nicene 4th century composition date for Philip. The author is aware of the Arian controversy.

"Begotten, Not Made, to Arise in This Flesh:
The Post-Nicene Soteriology of the Gospel of Philip [2013]"
by Hugo Lundhaug

https://www.academia.edu/5895809/Begott ... ilip_2013_

Hugo Lundhaug does not seem to mention Chrestian. He reads Philip as an orthodox Christian with backup references from 4th and 5th century orthodox Alexandrian bishops such as Theophilus, Cyril and Athanasius. He places Philip in the late 4th or early 5th century. He opens his article with this:

"Our picture of early Christianity can be likened to a jigsaw puzzle, and a very large and complicated puzzle at that. Unfortunately it is a puzzle that lacks most of its original pieces, so we have to assemble it to the best of our abilities using the very few pieces available to us. Inevitably, given the lack of pieces, those we do have are sometimes placed in erroneous locations where they are allowed to distort the overall picture and influence the placement of other pieces. Moreover, the longer they stay in the wrong
place, the harder they are to dislodge."

AMEN.

I would make a few points:

1) We are actually dealing with a 4 dimensional jigsaw puzzle because political reality changes from age to age, ruler to ruler, year to year, and so on. Stuff gets changed by the regimes preserving the stuff with adds and deletes to various aspects of various narratives.
Philip inside the NHL is immune to this stuff because we all agree it represents a time capsule direct from the mid-to-late 4th century. We need to interpret it as such.

2) The jigsaw puzzle related to the NT Apocryphal corpus of literature has been purposefully corrupted by the Nicene church industry by creating false attestation narratives (heresiological) to be associated with some of the NT apocryphal books.

3) The church has perpetuated the erroneous claim that the NT apocryphal books were authored by Christians, whereas I propose that the authors were non-Christians, who were chiefly elite and well trained Platonic philosophy schooled writers REACTING to the very first stages in the Christianisation of the Roman empire. These stages involved the emperor circulating the Christian NT Bible as a political instrument.

4) Arius of Alexandria is a key and central jigsaw puzzle piece at the beginning of the post Nicene Age. The Nicene church has painted Arius as a Christian presbyter whereas IMO it is more reasonable to believe that the church lied, and that Arius was a Platonist philosopher. In the words of Rowan Williams and Charles Kannengiesser : "Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing Plotinic logic within biblical creationism," We must suspect that some of the books Arius wrote were in fact some of the NT apocrypha

https://www.academia.edu/44862334/_The_ ... nd_Thalia_
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.

Post by Leucius Charinus »

davidmartin wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 1:21 pm luckily none of this effects my eye witness text the Odes, papyrus Bodmer. 3-4th c but probably 3rd. in reality the odes and thomas are about the only contenders for a really early date that hasn't been messed around with or kludged together
Kludging IMO is what the church industry has done to their version of the history of the conflict between themselves (and their cherished NT canonical masterpiece) and the pernicious heretics who wrote, circulated and preserved "Other Jesus Stories", "Other Gospels", "Other Acts", "Other Epistles", "Other Revelations and Apocalypses". It must have been embarrassing for the orthodoxy until this problem was "fixed".

Fortunately more texts have come to light. Apart from the Bodmer Papyri and the NHL there is the Bruce Codex, the Askew Codex, the Akhmim Codex, the Turfan fragments, the Qarara Codices, Codex Tchacos and other manuscript discoveries. These shed a new light on the NT apocrypha other than the traditional polemical kludges of the orthodox heresiologists.

I tend to place all these manuscripts in the post Nicene age. I don't think the NT apocrypha were eecked out bit by bit, book by book, over the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries as the heresiologists would have us believe. Rather I think it more reasonable to view the entire collection as one massive avalanche of books which was precipitated by the appearance and political authority of Constantine's Bible codex.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:00 pm BTW about Philip and the two issues:

1) The Chrestian / Christian intersection, and
2) The chronology of gPhilip

I have just read the following article and suggest it may provide a few historical allusions to a post-Nicene 4th century composition date for Philip. The author is aware of the Arian controversy.

"Begotten, Not Made, to Arise in This Flesh:
The Post-Nicene Soteriology of the Gospel of Philip [2013]"
by Hugo Lundhaug

https://www.academia.edu/5895809/Begott ... ilip_2013_

Hugo Lundhaug does not seem to mention Chrestian. He reads Philip as an orthodox Christian with backup references from 4th and 5th century orthodox Alexandrian bishops such as Theophilus, Cyril and Athanasius. He places Philip in the late 4th or early 5th century. He opens his article with this:

"Our picture of early Christianity can be likened to a jigsaw puzzle, and a very large and complicated puzzle at that. Unfortunately it is a puzzle that lacks most of its original pieces, so we have to assemble it to the best of our abilities using the very few pieces available to us. Inevitably, given the lack of pieces, those we do have are sometimes placed in erroneous locations where they are allowed to distort the overall picture and influence the placement of other pieces. Moreover, the longer they stay in the wrong
place, the harder they are to dislodge."

AMEN.

I would make a few points:

1) We are actually dealing with a 4 dimensional jigsaw puzzle because political reality changes from age to age, ruler to ruler, year to year, and so on. Stuff gets changed by the regimes preserving the stuff with adds and deletes to various aspects of various narratives.
Philip inside the NHL is immune to this stuff because we all agree it represents a time capsule direct from the mid-to-late 4th century. We need to interpret it as such.

2) The jigsaw puzzle related to the NT Apocryphal corpus of literature has been purposefully corrupted by the Nicene church industry by creating false attestation narratives (heresiological) to be associated with some of the NT apocryphal books.

3) The church has perpetuated the erroneous claim that the NT apocryphal books were authored by Christians, whereas I propose that the authors were non-Christians, who were chiefly elite and well trained Platonic philosophy schooled writers REACTING to the very first stages in the Christianisation of the Roman empire. These stages involved the emperor circulating the Christian NT Bible as a political instrument.

4) Arius of Alexandria is a key and central jigsaw puzzle piece at the beginning of the post Nicene Age. The Nicene church has painted Arius as a Christian presbyter whereas IMO it is more reasonable to believe that the church lied, and that Arius was a Platonist philosopher. In the words of Rowan Williams and Charles Kannengiesser : "Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing Plotinic logic within biblical creationism," We must suspect that some of the books Arius wrote were in fact some of the NT apocrypha

https://www.academia.edu/44862334/_The_ ... nd_Thalia_
Lundhaug has translated all of Philip, and I have called him out - in the Chrestian Discussion - on not even mentioning xrhstos. No response

Images of Rebirth - Cognitive Poetics and Transformational Soteriology in the Gospel of Philip and the Exegesis on the Soul

Nearly fifty years ago Robert M. Grant argued that “the new gospels from Nag-Hammadi deserve a welcome because they will help show what Christianity is not, and what our canonical gospels are not,” and added that “They may conceivably help us to see what our gospels are, but the differences will remain more important than the similarities.”13I hope, however, to have demonstrated in the present study that these texts should not be seen as evidence of what Christianity was not, but rather of what it was. Gos. Phil. and Exeg. Soul should be seen as parts of the fabric of early Christianity, and hence as sources for what early Christianity was like, rather than as contrasts to Christianity in its formative period. I also hope to have shown that in order to properly understand Gos. Phil. and Exeg. Soul, they need not and should not be approached from the per-spective of a predetermined category of “Gnosticism.” By eschewing this category, these early Christian texts suddenly appear less as aberrations of early Christianity than as parts of it,14and we may more easily focus on the similarities between these texts and other early Christian sources, rather than on the differences.

Etc. I have also asked him what his stance is on his "Christian monasteries" where the NHL got produced, in the light of the Chrestian paper. No response

It is evident what Lundhaug's goal is: to follow in the footsteps of the Falsifying Fathers
Last edited by mlinssen on Sun May 08, 2022 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 1:41 am Lundhaug has translated all of Philip, and I have called him out - in the Chrestian Discussion - on not even mentioning xrhstos. No response

Images of Rebirth - Cognitive Poetics and Transformational Soteriology in the Gospel of Philip and the Exegesis on the Soul

Nearly fifty years ago Robert M. Grant argued that “the new gospels from Nag-Hammadi deserve a welcome because they will help show what Christianity is not, and what our canonical gospels are not,” and added that “They may conceivably help us to see what our gospels are, but the differences will remain more important than the similarities.”13

Interesting comments from Grant. The NHL has "paganism" all over it as distinct from whatever Christianity was when the NHL was collected, translated, edited and physically manufactured. In using the term "paganism" anachronistically I simply mean that many of the NHL tracts are non-Christian. And the ones which are being touted as Christian because they feature Jesus or an apostle, draw heavily on Hellenistic literature and concepts.

Lundhaug then gives his assessment:

I hope, however, to have demonstrated in the present study that these texts should not be seen as evidence of what Christianity was not, but rather of what it was. Gos. Phil. and Exeg. Soul should be seen as parts of the fabric of early Christianity, and hence as sources for what early Christianity was like, rather than as contrasts to Christianity in its formative period.
I also hope to have shown that in order to properly understand Gos. Phil. and Exeg. Soul, they need not and should not be approached from the per-spective of a predetermined category of “Gnosticism.”
By eschewing this category, these early Christian texts suddenly appear less as aberrations of early Christianity than as parts of it,14and we may more easily focus on the similarities between these texts and other early Christian sources, rather than on the differences.

The author thinks that by wearing Christian glasses everything in the fabric of the patterns of evidence will make sense. It might make sense if the Christians did not destroy the actual political history of the Arian controversy. But they did. And it needs to be reconstructed using the time capsule of the NHL.

And with competent non-biased translations.

Etc. I have also asked him what his stance is on his "Christian monasteries" where the NHL got produced, in the light of the Chrestian paper. No response
Pachomius is another critical element in the jigsaw puzzle (after Arius) which the Christian/Chrestian church industry painted as a Christian/Chrestian. This was accomplished by Jerome who simply asserted Pachomius was "baptised" just before he decided to leave Alexandria. Pachomius IMO was not a Christian. The Pachomian monastic settlements developed during the rule of Constantine and his sons. Thousands of people decided it was good for their health to move out of Alexandria and the cities of the eastern empire. Four hundred miles up the Nile River. It was a mass movement precipitated by what can only be described as the Christian/Chrestian revolution of the 4th century. Christianisation or Chrestianisation was a process. It started with Constantine circulating the NT Bible. In the cities of the east.

Nobody (except perhaps for Arius and the Arians) dared to openly challenge Constantine's religious doctrines until he died 337 CE. That is the problem with military dictators.
It is evident what Lundhaug's goal is: to follow in the footsteps of the Falsifying Fathers
Forgery In Christianity by Joseph Wheless (1930) may be old but it provides copious footnotes to the fabulous falsifying fathers. As in introduction to the fathers of the Nicene church industry it is IMO illuminating.

https://infidels.org/library/historical ... istianity/

Introduction
Chapter I – Pagan Frauds–Christian Precedents
Chapter II – Hebrew Holy Forgeries
Chapter III – Christian “Scripture” Forgeries
Chapter IV – The Saintly “Fathers” Of The Faith
Chapter V – The “Gospel” Forgeries
Chapter VI – The Church Forgery Mill
Chapter VII – The “Triumph” Of Christianity
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

The Eusebian fiction

Post by arnoldo »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 6:40 pm . . Forgery In Christianity by Joseph Wheless (1930) may be old but it provides copious footnotes to the fabulous falsifying fathers. As in introduction to the fathers of the Nicene church industry it is IMO illuminating.

https://infidels.org/library/historical ... istianity/

Introduction
Chapter I – Pagan Frauds–Christian Precedents
Chapter II – Hebrew Holy Forgeries
Chapter III – Christian “Scripture” Forgeries
Chapter IV – The Saintly “Fathers” Of The Faith
Chapter V – The “Gospel” Forgeries
Chapter VI – The Church Forgery Mill
Chapter VII – The “Triumph” Of Christianity
The Emperor Julian's account is even older and probably of greater significance.

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth. Now since I intend to treat of all their first dogmas, as they call them, I wish to say in the first place that if my readers desire to try to refute me they must proceed as if they were in a court of law and not drag in irrelevant matter, or, as the saying is, bring counter-charges until they have defended their own views. For thus it will be better and clearer if, when they wish to censure any views of mine, they undertake that as a separate task, but when they are defending themselves against my censure, they bring no counter-charges.

https://tertullian.org/fathers/julian_a ... 1_text.htm

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 6:40 pm ...
I also hope to have shown that in order to properly understand Gos. Phil. and Exeg. Soul, they need not and should not be approached from the per-spective of a predetermined category of “Gnosticism.”

My fat fingers sometimes miss the highlight button and hit the one next to it, the [ PRE ] thingy - I fixed that now in the OP
Post Reply