The self-evident emergence of Christianity

[Leucius Charinus]

The Diatessaron fragment from Dura Europa is your kryptonite.

From the same article:

Dura Parchment 24 (DP24)

Dura Parchment 24 is a critical manuscript because it is understood to be dated by archaeological stratiographic dating prior to the fall of Dura Europos 256–57 CE. It was discovered on March 5, 1933 by Clark Hopkins’ wife, Susan, in a workman’s bucket. It was presumed that it came “from the embankment, behind (west of) Block L8 and not far from Tower 18.” Hopkins writes: “How it got into the debris at that point remains a mystery, and how it happened to be preserved and then discovered is another.” [14]

Could DP24 have been introduced to Dura between the 3rd and the 20th century? We don’t know. In any event the text is a harmony gospel and not a canonical gospel. This opens up further questions. Perhaps the four canonical gospels are derived from a single harmony gospel, and not the other way around.

Genuine, authentic and unambiguous historical evidence for the NT and "Early Christians" which is independent of the propaganda and known pseudo-historical forgeries of the church industry, is as rare on planet earth as kryptonite.

[Leucius Charinus]

I read an article on the Thunder poem that suggests it was native Egyptian based on the poetry rhyming and punning in that language

NHC 6.2 is definitely Non-Christian: "I, I am godless, and I am the one whose God is great." The Thunder - Perfect Intellect, takes the form of an extended, riddling monologue, in which an immanent savior speaks a series of paradoxical statements concerning the divine feminine nature. These paradoxical utterances echo Greek identity riddles, a common poetic form. It makes an interesting read.

I'm inclined to suggest everything in Codex 6 is non Christian including "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostolic Boneheads"

[Leucius Charinus]

And those are the only two texts that I've analysed so far... and there are 50 more to go

That will be an interesting journey.

Follow the texts Pete, they tell the least tainted truth; that certainly holds true for the NHL - not for its biased translations, but for the MSS themselves

I will certainly follow the texts in the NHL. The NHL is a time capsule.

I do not regard the 10 volume set of the Ante Nicene Fathers as a time capsule.

[davidmartin]

NHC 6.2 is definitely Non-Christian: "I, I am godless, and I am the one whose God is great." The Thunder - Perfect Intellect, takes the form of an extended, riddling monologue, in which an immanent savior speaks a series of paradoxical statements concerning the divine feminine nature. These paradoxical utterances echo Greek identity riddles, a common poetic form. It makes an interesting read.

I'm inclined to suggest everything in Codex 6 is non Christian including "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostolic Boneheads"

I hate to be the contrarian (but it's in my nature, sorry I enjoy it) but Thunder should be included in the broader Christian texts if we are including the other gnostic Christian texts. For a start it references at least one saying in Thomas (the inside is like the outside). Secondly the curious interplay with Corinthians which has been noted. Thirdly it's a candidate for a Simonian text ('the one who stands' and identification with the character as the Simonian female figure and many other connections). It's also similar to Jewish wisdom poems. It definitely should be considered as related to Christianity in some way despite that not appearing obvious at first glance
But if you are defining 'Christian' more rigidly then that's fine, i guess this is a game of definitions!

[mlinssen]

I hate to be the contrarian (but it's in my nature, sorry I enjoy it) but Thunder should be included in the broader Christian texts if we are including the other gnostic Christian texts. For a start it references at least one saying in Thomas (the inside is like the outside). Secondly the curious interplay with Corinthians which has been noted. Thirdly it's a candidate for a Simonian text ('the one who stands' and identification with the character as the Simonian female figure and many other connections). It's also similar to Jewish wisdom poems. It definitely should be considered as related to Christianity in some way despite that not appearing obvious at first glance
But if you are defining 'Christian' more rigidly then that's fine, i guess this is a game of definitions!

gnostic Christian texts - really?
Where then do you draw the line between Christian and non-Christian?

[davidmartin]

gnostic Christian texts - really?
Where then do you draw the line between Christian and non-Christian?

I think i've fallen foul of definitions again. 'Christian' is the wrong word when seeking a broad definition, I don't mean orthodox Christianity but what other word is there that's the problem I just can't think of one. I just think everything should be thrown into one big pot called "Some weird thing that happened no-one agrees on"
The Hermetic texts wouldn't be in there but I think that's an easy one
But as an example take Eugnostos the Blessed. It appears non-Christian but was used as a source to multiple Christian texts like the Sophia of Jesus Christ which itself should be in the pot. So Eugnostos is in because it's used as a source and is unclear, heck maybe it is connected after all, that's a big unanswered question what to make of this strange text

I was grumbling because Thunder is noted in the footnotes of the official NHL translation as appearing to be SImonian, and yes it does. Well, if it is then it isn't non-Christian if it is SImonian. Instead the NHL introduction gives a piss poor statement that it doesn't know what to make of it. They could have drawn up a list of parallels to the Simonians, but no.

[mlinssen]

I was grumbling because Thunder is noted in the footnotes of the official NHL translation as appearing to be SImonian, and yes it does. Well, if it is then it isn't non-Christian if it is SImonian. Instead the NHL introduction gives a piss poor statement that it doesn't know what to make of it. They could have drawn up a list of parallels to the Simonians, but no.

Every book on the NHL should be burned if you ask me, it's better to have nothing than to have misleading falsifications. If they can throw Christianity at any of it they'll do so in abundance - if they can't, they'll cease their actions there

Because it can either be Christian or none of the above - that is how the "scholars" who worked on it work. I won't indict any of them of malintent unless I've caught them on having different translations and opinions for a different audience, such as Layton who is perfectly capable of translating Thomas' "kingdom of the heavens" as such, while he insists on "kingdom of heaven" in the Brill book

Even Pagels, who's on the liberal side of it all so to say - I think there's a large part of her that doesn't want to make Koester right, for obvious reasons. And then there's another part that'll undermine solid foundations that she sadly has had to rely upon. It is what it is, unfortunately: if you're raised by wolves, howling comes natural to you. If raised by a shepherd and domesticated as part of a large flock, you'll be nothing but mee-eek

[davidmartin]

I like the old school scholars like JRS Mead they were not lazy back then, damn he translated the Pistis Sophia and no-one has dared to attempt this since. I enjoyed reading Jesus the Healer recently that was good shit.

But the gnostic stuff though is hard to make sense of but you can see the split between the Simonians and the really dualistic kind in the Thunder. The Simonians got married, had children and thought the same hermaphrodite God made everything. The dualistic ones called them out on this and said no, this universe is like a small button on a robe (thanks Irenaeous for recording they said that) and made by the demiurge. Powerful difference of opinion. Likewise the dualistic ones blamed Sophia for the demiurge, but the Simonians said she was innocent of all charges. As per "Thus, it was not Helen at fault, but those covetous powers who lusted for her and fought with each other" and the Trimorphic Protennoia another Simonian candidate text says the same (with a dualistic gloss as noted by Turner) by calling her "the innocent Sophia". Anyway I don't know how come they never mention any of this

[mlinssen]

I have the transcription of Thunder, it even already sits in my Thomas excel source - like Philip though, and the latter has priority at the moment

It would seem that people also are of the opinion that Thomas is really hard to make sense of, isn't it?
Well, so much for that then. Granted, it took me 2 years and I'm only halfway with the Commentary, but that's just because writing 500 pages takes time and I translated Thomas from scratch. I basically have it all done but would need another 500 pages, which would be another year. I took a year off, can't afford to do that again - but at least I know Coptic now so Philip will only take a few months. Q2-3 still is feasible

I'm not really interested in the theological NHL texts though, all that is guaranteed to be made up stuff so it's nothing but an opinion - but Thunder is a different beast and maybe, just maybe, it's on the horizon. But there is an awful lot on its way elsewhere, and the recent developments may drive my occupation back to Thomas, deeper into Marcion.
We'll see

[davidmartin]

I'm not really interested in the theological NHL texts though, all that is guaranteed to be made up stuff so it's nothing but an opinion - but Thunder is a different beast and maybe, just maybe, it's on the horizon. But there is an awful lot on its way elsewhere, and the recent developments may drive my occupation back to Thomas, deeper into Marcion.
We'll see

ah it would be great if you did the Thunder. Much easier than Phillip. I think it's interesting Thunder is really anti-Marcionite with the claim to being the only being who exists also pro childbirth and marriage (and possibly divorce). The flesh is a 'garment' but also part of us. So it reproaches gnostics and orthodox alike, the ultimate contrarian, and makes you hope the only one not reproached is yourself haha.

What caught my eye was this piece by Cassandra J. Farrin https://www.westarinstitute.org/blog/ta ... fect-mind/

My own response to this text is startled acknowledgment that the writer knew Paul’s letters. When I was working with the editors of the Acts Seminar Report, I learned that in order for an historian to claim that one author is alluding to another, by definition enough of the original has to be carried into the new work to give itself away. That happens in Thunder. “Why then do you hate me, you Greeks? Because I am a barbarian among barbarians?” (Thunder 3:3) alludes to 1 Corinthians 9:20 and Romans 1:14–15. In some ways the whole poem is a meditation on Paul’s statements like this. “Advance toward childhood; Do not hate it because it is small and insignificant” (Thunder 4:5).

The malleability of the speaker, speaking for the divine, also suggests s/he is emulating Paul, with one crucial difference that I find fascinating: Paul doesn’t mention sayings of Jesus much, but the writer of Thunder draws on both Paul’s letters and Jesus’ empire of God sayings. “Do not stare at me in the shit pile, leaving me discarded; you will find me in the kingdoms … In my weakness do not strip me bare; Do not be afraid of my power” (Thunder 2:13, 17). The poetry that resulted is beautiful, but its very difference is a strong reminder that in the study of history we need to leave room for creativity and spontaneity, too.

So this "non-Christian" text that scholars say "Contains no distinctively Christian, Jewish, or gnostic allusions" magically somehow knows Paul? What to make of this