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

[Leucius Charinus]

In another thread about the resistance of paganism to the rise of Christianity in the WRE you wrote:

If your agenda was limited to extolling the splendor of pagan antiquity I think we would be good friends Pete.

That would be preferable SA. I am happy to park Bullneck and the NT canonical literature in the car park. It was a bridge too far for now. I have regrouped my studies around the NT Apocryphal corpus.

However what if I were to say to you that I find it likely that the texts in the NHL and the NTA literature in general were themselves written by intellectual elites in the last generation of a purely pagan antiquity and who's own agenda included:

(1) extolling the splendor of pagan antiquity (particularly Platonism);

(2) lamenting the onset of the process of Christianisation;

(3) resisting the imperial agenda whereby the NT/LXX Bible codex was rapidly being established as a powerful political instrument - particularly in the eastern Roman empire and the cities of Byzantium, Antioch and Alexandria;

(4) being (political) dissidents -- and thus viewed as "heretics" - with respect to the imperial (Christian) agenda.

[StephenGoranson]

Whether later considered canonical or apocryphal, some Christian mss--primary not secondary evidence- are dated before Constantine.
The 256-sealed locus Christian building in Dura Europos is before Constantine

[Peter Kirby]

Can we not worry about motives, please? Leucius Charinus, mythicists, Christians, atheists. all have perspectives that are either worth considering, or not. Either they are right -- in which case who cares their motivation? -- or they are wrong, in which case who cares their motivation? In the latter case, either ignore them or show why they are wrong.

"Great Minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."

You don't have to engage small minds. That choice is yours.

Leucius Charinus has a perspective about the provenance of early texts that is worth keeping in mind. As long as he isn't poisoning other threads with irrelevancies, I see his contribution as a positive for this board.

Sure thing. I left this thread alone for 6 months before commenting. And my comment is not in any official capacity.

But refusing to discuss motivations -- and that's what I also got from Mr Brown's response -- can lead to "the emperor is wearing no clothes" situations, where nobody can discuss something that should be plain to see for everyone and which really does change the whole vibe of what's going on.

And I will reiterate that it is a little sad that someone would go to all the trouble of offering such a weak (evidence-wise) and radical (scholarship-wise) perspective, then water it down completely by abandoning the most interesting parts (culturally and philosophically), which are more sensitive, even though the perspective offered necessarily has implications for those parts of the story.

The thing is, I could almost respect the sheer ridiculousness of how bad it is, if it were more brazen about how radical its implications could be. But this whole thing of putting a veil over the stuff about the New Testament ruins the dance and robs the performance of its potential for taking the reader on that walk down the wild side. Already a failure as science, it loses all artistic value and fails to make a dent in any way. And we're left with nothing but a few naked assertions, stilted rhetoric, and banal fallacies.

Which obviously leads to the "ignore them" category -- why bother?

But perhaps there's some kindness in saying more specifically why people think you're boring.

[Secret Alias]

It's almost as boring as imagining a fourth century writer inventing a "gospel" whose "radical new message" is ... Daniel 9:24 - 27 was fulfilled almost 300 years earlier. It would be like McDonalds having a promotion to have a menu and all its employees dress up like they're from 1730. Nothing people like better than history.

[Leucius Charinus]

But refusing to discuss motivations -- and that's what I also got from Mr Brown's response -- can lead to "the emperor is wearing no clothes" situations, where nobody can discuss something that should be plain to see for everyone and which really does change the whole vibe of what's going on.

Repeatedly I have asserted that I am motivated as an independent historical researcher to seek the historical truth of Christian origins. To the JHS in 2007 I sent a thesis that Constantine invented Christianity. That and the JHS Reviewers comments have been made available since then. A few years later decided to reframe my ideas as follows:

Three New Ideas in the Field of Ancient History

Idea (1) The Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored 325-336 CE as a reaction to the Constantine Bible

Idea (2) Evidence of systematic Christian identify theft suggests Arius may not have been a Christian, but in fact a Platonic theologian, and may be identified with the Gnostic Leucius Charinus

Idea (3) Constantine commissioned the fabrication of the New Testament and its history 312-324 CE

With this caution:

It is important to note that idea (1) is to be examined first.
Secondly, idea (2) is to be examined. Finally, idea (3) may be
approached, and examined only after review of ideas (1) and (2).
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/

This should go part of the way in explaining why I am attempting to discuss the ultimate provenance of the NT Apocryphal class of literature in isolation from the NT canonical class.

And I will reiterate that it is a little sad that someone would go to all the trouble of offering such a weak (evidence-wise) and radical (scholarship-wise) perspective, then water it down completely by abandoning the most interesting parts (culturally and philosophically), which are more sensitive, even though the perspective offered necessarily has implications for those parts of the story.

It seems that every time I want to discuss the history of the NT apocryphal class of literature others want to keep asking me things about my original idea.

But this whole thing of putting a veil over the stuff about the New Testament ruins the dance and robs the performance of its potential for taking the reader on that walk down the wild side. Already a failure as science, it loses all artistic value and fails to make a dent in any way. And we're left with nothing but a few naked assertions, stilted rhetoric, and banal fallacies.

I am not "putting a veil over the stuff about the" NTC. I am happy to discuss the NTC.

But the OP is about the NTA and the forgery of heresiology. Did Irenaeus exist? Bishop, Saint, Doctor? The historicity of Irenaeus is being presumed. It needs to be questioned. We have only late and suspicious Latin manuscripts. Are we looking at something like Pseudo-Isidore? Could the church lie about its enemies?

[Leucius Charinus]

It's almost as boring as imagining a fourth century writer inventing a "gospel" whose "radical new message" is ...

Gospel of Nicodemus / Acts of Pilate

Pilate informs Jews that
Jesus heals by the god Asclepius


Pilate saith:
And what things are they that he doeth, and would destroy the law?

The Jews say:
We have a law that we should not heal any man on the sabbath:
but this man of his evil deeds hath healed the lame and the bent,
the withered and the blind and the paralytic, the dumb
and them that were possessed, on the sabbath day!

Pilate saith unto them:
By what evil deeds?

They say unto him:
He is a sorcerer, and by Beelzebub the prince of the devils
he casteth out devils, and they are all subject unto him.

Pilate saith unto them:
This is not to cast out devils by an unclean spirit,
but by the god Asclepius.

This looks like a pagan satire to me.

Nothing people like better than history.

Constantine is destroying the most ancient temples of Asclepius 325 CE.
And he is looting the temples. He is executing chief priests of Apollo.

What do we find in the Nag Hammadi Library?

Asclepius 21-29: NHC 6.8

- instruction from Hermes (Trismegistus) to Asclepius.
The text reveals the persecution of the epoch ...


"Trismegistus, what is the character of the iniquity that is there?"

"Now you think, Asclepius, that when one takes something in a temple, he is impious. For that kind of a person is a thief and a bandit. And this matter concerns gods and men. But do not compare those here with those of the other place. Now I want to speak this discourse to you confidentially; no part of it will be believed. For the souls that are filled with much evil will not come and go in the air, but they will be put in the places of the daimons, which are filled with pain, (and) which are always filled with blood and slaughter, and their food, which is weeping, mourning, and groaning."

"Trismegistus, who are these (daimons)?"

"Asclepius, they are the ones who are called 'stranglers', and those who roll souls down on the dirt, and those who scourge them, and those who cast into the water, and those who cast into the fire, and those who bring about the pains and calamities of men. For such as these are not from a divine soul, nor from a rational soul of man. Rather, they are from the terrible evil."


Selection made from James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition. Harper Collins, San Francisco, 1990.

[GakuseiDon]

Idea (1) The Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored 325-336 CE as a reaction to the Constantine Bible

Could you lay out the positive evidence for this idea please? There are a number of propositions in your original post which don't form an argument as far as I can see. Or is this a matter of "prove me wrong"?

If it is a question of "what is the best explanation for the apparent pre-4th Century heretical writings?" then "it was all forged in the 4th Century" doesn't appear as strong as "the traces of heretical writings in post-4th Century writings are a result of trying to suppress apparent pre-4th Century writings" at first glance. So I'd be interested in the positive evidence for that idea.

[GakuseiDon]

Hitchens's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

[Leucius Charinus]

Idea (1) The Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored 325-336 CE as a reaction to the Constantine Bible

Could you lay out the positive evidence for this idea please?

First some background.

BACKGROUND: The mainstream chronology (150-400 CE)

The current mainstream theory for the chronology of the hundreds of books classed within the NT Apocryphal (NTA) is that they were authored over a long period of many centuries. Authorship commences generally somewhere in the mid 2nd century although some scholars argue that a small number of the NTA books could have been authored earlier. Examples may include the Gospel of Thomas as being authored in the 1st century. The mainstream theory further posits that authorship of the NTA then occurred through the 2nd, and 3rd and 4th centuries with some sort of cut-off point in the later 4th century. Examples of known NTA books (texts) being authored after the Nicene Council are the Acts of Titus, The Acts of Pilate, Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, Gospel of Gamaliel, Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, Apocalypse of Thomas, and many others. Additionally many tractates within the Nag Hammadi Library (NHL) which exhibit a fully blown demonstration of neo-Platonic (Plotinic) thought are throught to be post Nicene.



BACKGROUND: Positive evidence for the mainstream terminus ad quem Ante Nicene chronology (1st/2nd/3rd century)

"The latest possible dates of composition (terminus ad quem) is fixed by [a] the earliest proof of existence of the texts, such as (rarely) the earliest physical copy, or (commonly) b the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work." (RG)

[a] physical copies: (Primary evidence) The evidence here is represented by physical codices, manuscripts, or fragments of mss which are thought to be dated prior to the Nicene Council on the basis of paleography in isolation. There is only a small number of these - I have a draft list of these here:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Apocr ... papyri.htm

(b) Attestations (Secondary evidence) by Ante Nicene Church Fathers (heresiological literature within the broader scope of "Ecclesiastical History"). Examples will include Irenaeus attesting to the Gospel of Judas and the Apocryphon of John. And Tertullian attesting to the Acts of Paul (and Thecla). Tertullian tells us that the author had written this "out of love for Paul".


Alternative Chronology for terminus ad quem (325-336 CE)

I have proposed an alternative terminus ad quem chronology. The Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored 325-336 CE - it is proposed - as a literary reaction to the Constantine Bible. Authorship was not distributed over many centuries but instead was confined to a small window of time. There was an avalanch of authorship immediately following the Nicene Council (325 CE) and declaration of Constantine's agenda with the NT and LXX Bible Codex. This authorship was stamped out very quickly.


Now you ask: what is the positive evidence for this idea?

(1) The bulk of the actual physical Evidence is acknowledged to be post Nicene - dated to the mid 4th century or later: Nag Hammadi, Gospel Judas, C14 dates. Many manuscripts are not physically represented until centuries later. I would argue that the small number of fragments mentioned above [a], and dated by paleopgraphy in isolation should have upper bounds in the 4th century. So that the idea is in good agreement with the chronology of known physical evidence. I would argue that the idea is able to be disconfirmed (or falsified) by evidence but that it isn't falsified by this evidence [a] because the upper bounds of the paleographical estimates should include the first half of the 4th century. I can and have provided arguments in support of this.

(2) The idea implies a political context in which a massive post Nicene controversy would be expected to have occurred. We know that the Arian controversy featured heavily in the post Nicene 4th century.

(3) The bulk of the earliest attestations to various books of the NTA are late. Eusebius is our first witness to the existence of many NTA books. Other 4th century fathers attest to many other NTA books. For example Jerome is the first to attest to the Ascension of Isaiah. Many NTA books are first mentioned in "Lists of Prohibited Books" such as The Decretum Gelasianum from the 5th century but incorporating material from Dmasus in the 4th century. Roman Emperors and Popes from the 5th century and later rage against various NTA books and decree they shall be burned.

(4) Archeology: The depiction of scenes from the books of the NTA are present in sarcophagi reliefs from the mid 4th century. These include the image of Peter striking the Tarpean rock and making water flow from it. The earliest depictions of Peter and Christ show them carrying wands at a time when the Pseudo-Clementine literature, featuring the magician Simon Magus, was in circulation.

There are a number of propositions in your original post which don't form an argument as far as I can see.

2) The social identity of the authors of the NTA: it will be argued that the authors of the NTA were not Christians, but in fact highly educated and literate pagans, many of whom may be identified as Platonist philosophers.

This argument is probably contraversial but it should be clear. The heresiological material of the church would have us believe that the NTA books were authored by Christians. I think they lied. The NTA (and specifically the NHL) have only been studied by Christian scholars with this idea already baked in like a confirmation bias. This immediately explains why there are so many "Platonising treatises" within the Nag Hammadi Library.

"In the Book of Thomas, the teaching of Jesus has become Platonised, while Plato's teaching has become Christianised."

John D. Turner, The Book of Thomas and the Platonic Jesus, pp.606-607 as cited by Bart D. Ehrman, Forgery and Counter-forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (2013), p.414

3) heresiological narratives have been either interpolated or forged.

I am obliged to explain this evidence (b) above - attestations upon which the mainstream chronology is based. My explanation is that the church industry has simply lied about the political appearance of the NTA. In other posts I have expanded this contention and pointed out that the same elite 4th centuries Christians - most of whom were raised to the status of Doctors of the Latin Church and Doctors of the Greek Church - were also the inventors of the Holy Relic Trade. Do you understand that the Holy Relic Trade is a fraud?

Or is this a matter of "prove me wrong"?

No. The idea opens an alternative way of interpreting the available evidence - both primary and secondary.

It could be wrong. It could be right. I am putting it out there.

If it is a question of "what is the best explanation for the apparent pre-4th Century heretical writings?" then "it was all forged in the 4th Century" doesn't appear as strong as "the traces of heretical writings in post-4th Century writings are a result of trying to suppress apparent pre-4th Century writings" at first glance. So I'd be interested in the positive evidence for that idea.

An example of how this idea has been proven to be true for at least one of the NTA texts is found in the Clementine literature. All of scholarship prior to c.1900 had assumed that Origen had made reference, or knew about, the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies because these are found in the writings of Origen. However it has been established that these references in Origen were added by the editorial hands of two 4th century elite bishops Gregory and Basil.

Harnack gave a very complete summary of all the literary parallels on the Patristic side, and his work is a standard of reference for those who approach the subject. He made, however, one bad mistake is supposing, as others had done, that the Recognitions were quoted by Origen, thus determining a literary terminus ad quem for their composition; and it fell to the lot of Dr. Armitage Robinson to show that the supposed reference in the Philocalia of Origen was not Origen's at all, but was to be credited to the editorial hands of Basil and Gregory.

Notes on the Clementine Romances
Author(s): Rendel Harris
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 40, No. 3/4 (1921), pp. 125-145
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3259292

The next person to attest to the Clementine literature is Eusebius.
Ecclesiastical History, III, xxxviii (AD 325) he mentions some short writings and adds:


"And now some have only the other day brought forward
other wordy and lengthy compositions as being Clement's,
containing dialogues of Peter and Appion,
of which there is absolutely no mention in the ancients."

[GakuseiDon]

Idea (1) The Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored 325-336 CE as a reaction to the Constantine Bible

Could you lay out the positive evidence for this idea please?

First some background.

Thanks LC.

BACKGROUND: The mainstream chronology (150-400 CE)

The current mainstream theory for the chronology of the hundreds of books classed within the NT Apocryphal (NTA) is that they were authored over a long period of many centuries. Authorship commences generally somewhere in the mid 2nd century although some scholars argue that a small number of the NTA books could have been authored earlier. Examples may include the Gospel of Thomas as being authored in the 1st century. The mainstream theory further posits that authorship of the NTA then occurred through the 2nd, and 3rd and 4th centuries with some sort of cut-off point in the later 4th century. Examples of known NTA books (texts) being authored after the Nicene Council are the Acts of Titus, The Acts of Pilate, Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, Gospel of Gamaliel, Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, Apocalypse of Thomas, and many others. Additionally many tractates within the Nag Hammadi Library (NHL) which exhibit a fully blown demonstration of neo-Platonic (Plotinic) thought are throught to be post Nicene.

Right. For practical purposes let's call this the "mainstream theory with regards to NTA dating". If you'd prefer a different name, please let me know.

BACKGROUND: Positive evidence for the mainstream terminus ad quem Ante Nicene chronology (1st/2nd/3rd century)

"The latest possible dates of composition (terminus ad quem) is fixed by [a] the earliest proof of existence of the texts, such as (rarely) the earliest physical copy, or (commonly) b the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work." (RG)

[a] physical copies: (Primary evidence) The evidence here is represented by physical codices, manuscripts, or fragments of mss which are thought to be dated prior to the Nicene Council on the basis of paleography in isolation. There is only a small number of these - I have a draft list of these here:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Apocr ... papyri.htm

Yes, that's interesting stuff. No-one can say you haven't done your homework!

(b) Attestations (Secondary evidence) by Ante Nicene Church Fathers (heresiological literature within the broader scope of "Ecclesiastical History"). Examples will include Irenaeus attesting to the Gospel of Judas and the Apocryphon of John. And Tertullian attesting to the Acts of Paul (and Thecla). Tertullian tells us that the author had written this "out of love for Paul".

Understood. That sounds fine.

Alternative Chronology for terminus ad quem (325-336 CE)

I have proposed an alternative terminus ad quem chronology. The Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored 325-336 CE - it is proposed - as a literary reaction to the Constantine Bible. Authorship was not distributed over many centuries but instead was confined to a small window of time. There was an avalanch of authorship immediately following the Nicene Council (325 CE) and declaration of Constantine's agenda with the NT and LXX Bible Codex. This authorship was stamped out very quickly.

Okay. Let's call it "LC's theory with regards to NTA dating". Again, if you prefer a different name, please let me know.

Now you ask: what is the positive evidence for this idea?

Yes. And by this I mean where LC's theory offers greater explanatory power than the mainstream theory. So it's not just an alternative explanation that is required, but one that explains the data elements and evidence better than in the mainstream theory.

(1) The bulk of the actual physical Evidence is acknowledged to be post Nicene - dated to the mid 4th century or later: Nag Hammadi, Gospel Judas, C14 dates. Many manuscripts are not physically represented until centuries later. I would argue that the small number of fragments mentioned above [a], and dated by paleopgraphy in isolation should have upper bounds in the 4th century. So that the idea is in good agreement with the chronology of known physical evidence. I would argue that the idea is able to be disconfirmed (or falsified) by evidence but that it isn't falsified by this evidence [a] because the upper bounds of the paleographical estimates should include the first half of the 4th century. I can and have provided arguments in support of this.

Yes, as per the link you've offered earlier, where you then link to a discussion of the dating of earliest papryi fragments (which I'll admit I only skimmed over.)

I'm wondering how "in good agreement with the chronology of known physical evidence" suggests that the LC theory offers greater explanatory power than the mainstream one. Even granting your dating, there is nothing in the mainstream theory that falls if the physical evidence post-dates Nicene. Nothing in the mainstream theory relies on the physical evidence for NTA texts to pre-date Nicene. It just means current scholarship is wrong in the consensus of the dates of those papryi.

So my question is: assuming the earliest physical evidence of NTA texts is pushed to Nicene times, how does that show that the LC theory has greater explanatory power than the mainstream one? Is it unexpected in the mainstream theory? If so: why?

(2) The idea implies a political context in which a massive post Nicene controversy would be expected to have occurred. We know that the Arian controversy featured heavily in the post Nicene 4th century.

I don't see this as positive evidence towards the LC theory. (Mainstream theory: pre-Nicene NTA physical materials were destroyed either through active suppression or passive neglect.) How does the LC theory offer greater explanatory power than the mainstream one?

(3) The bulk of the earliest attestations to various books of the NTA are late. Eusebius is our first witness to the existence of many NTA books. Other 4th century fathers attest to many other NTA books. For example Jerome is the first to attest to the Ascension of Isaiah. Many NTA books are first mentioned in "Lists of Prohibited Books" such as The Decretum Gelasianum from the 5th century but incorporating material from Dmasus in the 4th century. Roman Emperors and Popes from the 5th century and later rage against various NTA books and decree they shall be burned.

When orthodox Christians gained power, they started book burning. How does the LC theory offer greater explanatory power than the mainstream one?

(4) Archeology: The depiction of scenes from the books of the NTA are present in sarcophagi reliefs from the mid 4th century. These include the image of Peter striking the Tarpean rock and making water flow from it. The earliest depictions of Peter and Christ show them carrying wands at a time when the Pseudo-Clementine literature, featuring the magician Simon Magus, was in circulation.

I don't understand the relevance here, I'm sorry. But same question about explanatory power.

There are a number of propositions in your original post which don't form an argument as far as I can see.

2) The social identity of the authors of the NTA: it will be argued that the authors of the NTA were not Christians, but in fact highly educated and literate pagans, many of whom may be identified as Platonist philosophers.

This argument is probably contraversial but it should be clear. The heresiological material of the church would have us believe that the NTA books were authored by Christians. I think they lied. The NTA (and specifically the NHL) have only been studied by Christian scholars with this idea already baked in like a confirmation bias. This immediately explains why there are so many "Platonising treatises" within the Nag Hammadi Library.

I can see your point but I can't see the relevance. The mainstream theory (as I understand it) would have that there was a great variety of groups that called themselves "Christians" over the first few centuries. Some were pretty much Jews. Others were pretty much Platonists. It's part of the evolution of a Jewish Christianity that became more pagan and more in tune with "Athens" (as Tertullian complained) as it expanded into the Roman Empire.

So I'd like to understand how your argument is less expected under the mainstream theory.

"In the Book of Thomas, the teaching of Jesus has become Platonised, while Plato's teaching has become Christianised."

John D. Turner, The Book of Thomas and the Platonic Jesus, pp.606-607 as cited by Bart D. Ehrman, Forgery and Counter-forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (2013), p.414

It sounds similar to the statement in M. Felix's Octavius:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... avius.html

I have set forth the opinions almost of all the philosophers whose more illustrious glory it is to, have pointed out that there is one God, although with many names; so that any one might think either that Christians are now philosophers, or that philosophers were then already Christians.

Relevance of John Turner's statement, please?

3) heresiological narratives have been either interpolated or forged.

I am obliged to explain this evidence (b) above - attestations upon which the mainstream chronology is based. My explanation is that the church industry has simply lied about the political appearance of the NTA. In other posts I have expanded this contention and pointed out that the same elite 4th centuries Christians - most of whom were raised to the status of Doctors of the Latin Church and Doctors of the Greek Church - were also the inventors of the Holy Relic Trade. Do you understand that the Holy Relic Trade is a fraud?

Does it matter? Does the mainstream theory depend on the Holy Relic Trade with regards to NTA dating? I have not read the use of the Holy Relic Trade to date any NTA texts.

Or is this a matter of "prove me wrong"?

No. The idea opens an alternative way of interpreting the available evidence - both primary and secondary.

It could be wrong. It could be right. I am putting it out there.

Yes, and I really do appreciate that. People putting themselves out there is how science advances. It is easy for me to sit back and try to wear you down by throwing out a hundred irrelevant questions. So I'm trying not to abuse that privilege. My focus here is Bayesian (not that I'm claiming to be an expert at all!): when comparing two separate theories, where does the LC theory provide greater explanatory power with regards to NTA dating over the mainstream theory?

If it is a question of "what is the best explanation for the apparent pre-4th Century heretical writings?" then "it was all forged in the 4th Century" doesn't appear as strong as "the traces of heretical writings in post-4th Century writings are a result of trying to suppress apparent pre-4th Century writings" at first glance. So I'd be interested in the positive evidence for that idea.

An example of how this idea has been proven to be true for at least one of the NTA texts is found in the Clementine literature. All of scholarship prior to c.1900 had assumed that Origen had made reference, or knew about, the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies because these are found in the writings of Origen. However it has been established that these references in Origen were added by the editorial hands of two 4th century elite bishops Gregory and Basil.

Harnack gave a very complete summary of all the literary parallels on the Patristic side, and his work is a standard of reference for those who approach the subject. He made, however, one bad mistake is supposing, as others had done, that the Recognitions were quoted by Origen, thus determining a literary terminus ad quem for their composition; and it fell to the lot of Dr. Armitage Robinson to show that the supposed reference in the Philocalia of Origen was not Origen's at all, but was to be credited to the editorial hands of Basil and Gregory.

Notes on the Clementine Romances
Author(s): Rendel Harris
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 40, No. 3/4 (1921), pp. 125-145
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3259292

The next person to attest to the Clementine literature is Eusebius.
Ecclesiastical History, III, xxxviii (AD 325) he mentions some short writings and adds:

"And now some have only the other day brought forward
other wordy and lengthy compositions as being Clement's,
containing dialogues of Peter and Appion,
of which there is absolutely no mention in the ancients."

Interesting as an example of 5th C interpolating into an apparent 3rd C text, but is it unexpected according to the mainstream theory of NTA dating? Does the LC theory of NTA dating offer greater explanatory power here than the mainstream theory of NTA dating?