Page 3 of 3

Re: M. D. Litwa, Carpocrates, Marcellina, and Epiphanes, review

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2023 6:56 pm
by Leucius Charinus
00.5.00
Here Litwa outlines the early "Gnostic Groups" in the context of Marcion

The Gnostic Creator God The Demiurge - Dr. M. David Litwa
https://youtu.be/HAURjH71ZjY?t=304

There are Marcionites, there are Sethians, there are Naasenes, there are Valentinians, there are Basilideans ---- these are all different Christian groups who all have different ideologies.

///

Gnostics = common term for "those who know".

The problem as I see it is that we do not have any direct material from any of these groups until the Nag Hammadi Library. If the heresiologists are dissembling history they are directly responsible for multiplying these "gnostic entities" as mentioned by Litwa.

Here we are almost 17 centuries later trying to reconstruct what happened. Occam basically says that "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

Is there a way out of this?

Re: M. D. Litwa, Carpocrates, Marcellina, and Epiphanes, review

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2023 9:03 pm
by GakuseiDon
Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 6:56 pmHere we are almost 17 centuries later trying to reconstruct what happened. Occam basically says that "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

Is there a way out of this?
Yes, we put a big, fat asterisk on ALL ancient literature, pagan and Christian, that says "all dating is based on tradition and assumed provenance." And, in the absence of further information, that's perfectly fine. A few things we can date, the rest is assumption. It's inevitable, because we can only work with what we have.

Re: M. D. Litwa, Carpocrates, Marcellina, and Epiphanes, review

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:15 pm
by Leucius Charinus
GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 9:03 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 6:56 pmHere we are almost 17 centuries later trying to reconstruct what happened. Occam basically says that "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

Is there a way out of this?
Yes, we put a big, fat asterisk on ALL ancient literature, pagan and Christian, that says "all dating is based on tradition and assumed provenance." And, in the absence of further information, that's perfectly fine. A few things we can date, the rest is assumption. It's inevitable, because we can only work with what we have.
From the above we are in a position to differentiate between those texts which are hypothetical and those texts which are not. One asterisk for those physical texts which we now have and which have been dated. Examples of these would be the NHL, Codex Tchacos, and the like. The dating of all these physical texts seems to be densely clustered in the middle of the 4th century.

Two asterisks for those texts which must remain hypothetical because we have no direct physical corroboration. Examples of these would be the Gospel of the Ebionites and Hebrews. Hypothetical texts cannot be reliably dated in the same manner as we can and have dated the physical manuscripts.

Does this advance in any way the reconstruction of what happened?

Re: M. D. Litwa, Carpocrates, Marcellina, and Epiphanes, review

Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2023 12:30 am
by GakuseiDon
Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:15 pmTwo asterisks for those texts which must remain hypothetical because we have no direct physical corroboration. Examples of these would be the Gospel of the Ebionites and Hebrews. Hypothetical texts cannot be reliably dated in the same manner as we can and have dated the physical manuscripts.

Does this advance in any way the reconstruction of what happened?
I think something like that would be very useful. Also identifying the earliest physical copy of a text that we have: for example, Justin Martyr's writings come from a copy dated to about the 15fh Century CE. Your posts have convinced me that this needs to be understood when examining texts. Many texts, some dated from the Second and Third Centuries CE, do seem to date from the Fourth Century.

Re: M. D. Litwa, Carpocrates, Marcellina, and Epiphanes, review

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:04 pm
by Leucius Charinus
GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 12:30 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:15 pmTwo asterisks for those texts which must remain hypothetical because we have no direct physical corroboration. Examples of these would be the Gospel of the Ebionites and Hebrews. Hypothetical texts cannot be reliably dated in the same manner as we can and have dated the physical manuscripts.

Does this advance in any way the reconstruction of what happened?
I think something like that would be very useful. Also identifying the earliest physical copy of a text that we have: for example, Justin Martyr's writings come from a copy dated to about the 15fh Century CE. Your posts have convinced me that this needs to be understood when examining texts. Many texts, some dated from the Second and Third Centuries CE, do seem to date from the Fourth Century.
For many years I have been (unsuccessfully) looking a list or a collection that presents the earliest extant manuscripts for all forms of literature - Christian and "pagan" - in antiquity. I have found some short specific lists here and there but nothing comprehensive.

Someone suggested (some French and Latin required):
https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/

However this collection is not a complete collection / catalogue so it may be missing some data. On a now defunct link I found this information:

How Do Other Ancient Texts Compare to the New Testament? #10 Post of 2012

Homer Iliad --- c. 400 BC
Herodotus History === 10th C
Sophocles Plays === 3rd C BC
Plato Tetralogies === AD 895
Caesar Gallic Wars === 9th C
Livy History of Rome === Early 5th C
Tacitus Annals === AD 850
Pliny, the Elder Natural History === 5th C fragment
Thucydides, History === 3rd C BC

Here FWIW to some here is my collection that I have gathered over the years. I cannot guarantee it is error-free but it is a start:

SUMMARY: Earliest extant manuscripts

5th Clement I and 2

0462 - Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica) - Syriac; Greek = 11th century

0800 - Suetonius (De vita Caesarum) *

0800 - Tertullian (Apologeticum plus) *

914 Eusebius "Against Hierocles"
914 Eusebius "Praeparatio Evangelica"

9/10TH Lucian of Samosata

10th Socrates Scholasticus:

10/11 Origen: the Manuscripts of the "Philocalia"

13th - Cyril of Aleandria "Against Julian"

1364 - Saint Justin ("Omnibus edition")

1350 - Hippolytus ("extremely crabbed hand") - C14

10/11th Irenaeus - (Latin not Greek) Claremontanus - Earliest Latin manuscript of Latin AH

If you or anyone can add to this list please go ahead.

PS: I regard the absence of such as a serious problem of scholarship.
But perhaps I just have not looked in the right place?

Re: M. D. Litwa, Carpocrates, Marcellina, and Epiphanes, review

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2023 12:32 am
by GakuseiDon
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:04 pmFor many years I have been (unsuccessfully) looking a list or a collection that presents the earliest extant manuscripts for all forms of literature - Christian and "pagan" - in antiquity. I have found some short specific lists here and there but nothing comprehensive.
That's an interesting list, and one that might yield interesting results. As well as date, I'd like to see where the earliest extant version was actually located, i.e. which monastery and which library. A pattern might well evolve.

We often think of interpolations in terms of Christian writings and not pagan writings, with the odd exceptions of the passages referring to Jesus in Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the Younger.

But the Church Fathers in the Second Century CE extensively quoted from the writings of many many Greek philosophers, especially writing to pagans, to ''prove' the validity of Christianity. It was a very important part of their apologies.

As those pagan writings went through the same copying process that Christian writings went through, they'd be subject to the same processes of interpolations and marginal glosses, where Christian copiers would 'helpfully' update the source pagan texts to reflect what they 'really' meant.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:04 pmHowever this collection is not a complete collection / catalogue so it may be missing some data. On a now defunct link I found this information:

How Do Other Ancient Texts Compare to the New Testament? #10 Post of 2012

Homer Iliad --- c. 400 BC
Herodotus History === 10th C
Sophocles Plays === 3rd C BC
Plato Tetralogies === AD 895
Caesar Gallic Wars === 9th C
Livy History of Rome === Early 5th C
Tacitus Annals === AD 850
Pliny, the Elder Natural History === 5th C fragment
Thucydides, History === 3rd C BC

Yes, it makes me wonder about the provenance of those texts. How confident can we be that those works attributed to Pliny the Elder were actually written by him? Similarly, Tacitus, Julius Caesar. I think we are at the mercy of tradition, the same as we are for nearly all ancient writing, pagan and Christian.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:04 pmHere FWIW to some here is my collection that I have gathered over the years. I cannot guarantee it is error-free but it is a start:
It's a very good start. Out of interest, IYO is there enough info there to impact your theory, either "for" or "against"? What differences would you predict to find between pagan and Christian writings with regard to assigning provenance, the 'earliestness' of any extant copies, if any? Might be worth it's own separate thread.

Re: M. D. Litwa, Carpocrates, Marcellina, and Epiphanes, review

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2023 2:58 am
by Leucius Charinus
GakuseiDon wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 12:32 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:04 pmFor many years I have been (unsuccessfully) looking a list or a collection that presents the earliest extant manuscripts for all forms of literature - Christian and "pagan" - in antiquity. I have found some short specific lists here and there but nothing comprehensive.
That's an interesting list, and one that might yield interesting results. As well as date, I'd like to see where the earliest extant version was actually located, i.e. which monastery and which library. A pattern might well evolve.
Actually that's a very worthwhile data element - and along with that, the date of discovery. A good example of that is the text called Philosophumena; or The Refutation of All Heresies attributed by some to Hippolytus and by others to others. This was discovered in the mid 19th century and was added to the writings of "The Fathers" in the following century.
We often think of interpolations in terms of Christian writings and not pagan writings, with the odd exceptions of the passages referring to Jesus in Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the Younger.

But the Church Fathers in the Second Century CE extensively quoted from the writings of many many Greek philosophers, especially writing to pagans, to ''prove' the validity of Christianity. It was a very important part of their apologies.

As those pagan writings went through the same copying process that Christian writings went through, they'd be subject to the same processes of interpolations and marginal glosses, where Christian copiers would 'helpfully' update the source pagan texts to reflect what they 'really' meant.
It resolves to a complex web of transmission - one often ignored.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:04 pmHowever this collection is not a complete collection / catalogue so it may be missing some data. On a now defunct link I found this information:

How Do Other Ancient Texts Compare to the New Testament? #10 Post of 2012

Homer Iliad --- c. 400 BC
Herodotus History === 10th C
Sophocles Plays === 3rd C BC
Plato Tetralogies === AD 895
Caesar Gallic Wars === 9th C
Livy History of Rome === Early 5th C
Tacitus Annals === AD 850
Pliny, the Elder Natural History === 5th C fragment
Thucydides, History === 3rd C BC

Yes, it makes me wonder about the provenance of those texts. How confident can we be that those works attributed to Pliny the Elder were actually written by him? Similarly, Tacitus, Julius Caesar. I think we are at the mercy of tradition, the same as we are for nearly all ancient writing, pagan and Christian.
There is certain degree of truth in that. My approach has been to look at the manner in which education systems have changed over the centuries since antiquity to the present and - most importantly- which organisation(s) have been responsible for running them.

By this I start with the Greek intellectual traditions (these can be listed - maths, geometry, astronomy. medicine, ect etc). These were originally collegiate. These effectively disappeared after the rise of the Christian state for a thousand years. The Christian education system was established and was run by the church. During the reformation and afterwards (when the Greek intellectual traditions returned to the education systems) the church began to lose its central control.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:04 pmHere FWIW to some here is my collection that I have gathered over the years. I cannot guarantee it is error-free but it is a start:
It's a very good start. Out of interest, IYO is there enough info there to impact your theory, either "for" or "against"? What differences would you predict to find between pagan and Christian writings with regard to assigning provenance, the 'earliestness' of any extant copies, if any? Might be worth it's own separate thread.
IMO the time capsule of the NHL has not yet been understood but when it is then a great deal of the "mystery of Christian origins" will be exposed. New discoveries have the ability to completely overturn paradigms and I think this is what will happen.

The Christian academics who have translated the NHL think these texts (or at least some of these texts) were composed by Christians. OTOH I believe the NHL texts were composed by pagans in complete reaction mode to the NT/LXX codex.

This 'earliestness' aspect of the NHL (and other codices) is very important. Its from the mid 4th century. We know this by many indicators include C14. This stuff is primary evidence of whatever was going down in the mid 4th century. Whatever we read in the "Fathers" of the supposed 2nd century has no guarantee of being anywhere near "early".

Like Mac says much is propaganda. Sorting through the (false) propaganda to find the historical truth is the task ahead. The historical method tells us to "stay with the primary evidence Luke".