Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Charles Wilson wrote:It's obvious to me that you did not read what I wrote.

.

You can take a thirsty horse to water.

There are different levels of understanding going on here.

"Why do you seek the living among the dead?"

Over and over I find a phrase, a small sentence fragment, something odd that gives an alert that something else is going on from what common understanding tells us.

Today was one of those days. I have Jay to thank for a small directional change in thought that made all the difference. He Posted on the fact that nowhere in the NT does it state that Jesus was nailed to a cross. He asked for other examples from the stated one and I gave him Otho, from Suetonius. After all, John gives us Galba, Otho and Vitellius right there so, "Why not?"

I know, I know. 'Cept it's there. OK. I had been puzzling over the Empty Tomb and started this Thread on whether the Tomb Sequence was grafted onto the Gospels and what that would mean. Jay, again, plays an important role in this. He had discovered a Deep relationship between Mark and John. The Synoptics show a Pattern of Revision and there is a split with Mark and John. The Tomb Scene appears to have been split into 4 parts and distributed to the 4 Gospels. The Tomb Scene thus is of a different Type than the development of the Synoptics and John. Atwill has seen that if the rising sun is used as an objective marker for the events in the Tomb Scene, a coherent and non-contradictory Story arises. It reads almost as a Play, a play based on mistaken identities.

Was it a Play? If so, when was it written?

To me, there are usually 2 time frames to look at: the end of Herod as given to the Romans by Nicholas of Damascus ("Nico-D'mas", perhaps?) and the Ascension of the Flavians at the expense of the Julio-Claudians and the sprawling Sweep of History recorded in the Gospels as well. Where to look?

Jay had put me onto Otho again and I have always been struck by something in John concerning Otho. The Tomb Scene has the head bandages separated from the body bandages (Atwill: "The soudarion was a funeral cloth used by the Romans - not by Jews". "Soudarion" is a Latin word.) The analysis leading up to this points to this as referring to Galba and his beheading. The "Vinegar on a Hyssop Stick" is a most vicious swipe at Vitellius, who found his old lover Asiaticus selling "posca" in a bazaar. The Roman soldiers strike "Jesus" in the side and water and blood come out - there's Otho, right there. Problem: It's out of sequence in a minor way in the Gospels. Jesus-Vitellius dies after the Vinegar-Hyssop Vulgarity but the soldier pierces him after he has died. The Symbolism is inverted for some reason. Why?

So...Back to Otho because...I had to. Start at Vitellius:

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Vitellius":

"When he presently received the support of the army of the upper province too, which had previously transferred its allegiance for Galba to the senate, he eagerly accepted the surname of Germanicus, which was unanimously offered him, put off accepting the title of Augustus, and forever refused that of Caesar.
...
Then showing greater and greater disregard for the laws of gods and men, he assumed the office of high priest on the day of Allia, held elections for ten years to come, and made himself consul for life.

WHOA! Vitellius goes haywire with the gods and refused forever the title of Caesar. Something is going on here. What? Well...Back to Otho. I re-read the section on Otho testing the points of his 2 daggers, this section being the one quoted to Jay on the Thread. Somehow Plutarch by way of Pliny shows up and I'm at the end of Plutarch's Lives... and the last paragraphs of "Otho":

"As for his soldiers, when Pollio, their remaining prefect, ordered them to swear allegiance at once to Vitellius, they were incensed; and when they learned that some of the senators were still there, they let all of them go except Verginius Rufus, and him they annoyed by going to his house in military array and inviting him again, and even urging him, to assume the imperial power, or to go on an embassy in their behalf. But Verginius thought it would be madness for him to accept the imperial dignity now, when they were defeated, after refusing it before, when they were victorious, and as for going on an embassy to the Germans, he feared to do so, since they felt that he had often done them violence beyond all reason; and so he stole away unobserved by another door. When the soldiers learned of this, they consented to take the oaths, and joined the forces of Caecina, thus obtaining pardon."

Then I went back to the passage above and then HOLY FLOCKENSCHMIRDT!!! What did I just read? "...But Verginius thought it would be madness for him to accept the imperial dignity now, when they were defeated, after refusing it before...he feared to do so, since they felt that he had often done them violence beyond all reason; and so he stole away unobserved by another door.

This guy refuses to be made Emperor and leaves through the back door to avoid the soldiers looking for him to proclaim him Emperor. WTF?!??

From the always Politicized Wiki-P:

After Nero's fall, the legions under Verginius Rufus hailed him emperor as opposed to Servius Sulpicius Galba but Verginius Rufus refused to accept the crown. After the death of Otho in April 69, the soldiers again offered the throne to Verginius, but he again refused it. Verginius retreated to an estate at Alsium to the northwest of Rome, where he studied, composed poems, and had a literary salon, living calmly for thirty years, chiefly in his villa at Alsium, on the coast of Etruria. After the murder of Emperor Domitian, Marcus Cocceius Nerva was elected emperor by the senate. Nerva chose as his co-consul for 97 the elderly Verginius Rufus who was enticed out of retirement. However, when Verginius Rufus was to hold a speech, he dropped a book he was carrying, and while bending down to pick it up, slipped and broke his hip. He died not long afterward and was given a state funeral.

At the public burial with which he was honored, the historian Tacitus (then consul) delivered the funeral oration. Pliny the Younger, his neighbor and ward, has recorded the lines which Verginius had ordered to be engraved upon his tomb: Hic situs est Rufus, pulso qui Vindice quondam Imperium asseruit non sibi sed patriae ("Here lies Rufus, who after defeating Vindex, did not take power, but gave it to the fatherland")."

Attention Shoppers! Candidate for the Subject of the Empty Tomb: Lucius Verginius Rufus AD 15 - 97.

"Why do you seek the living among the dead?"

CW

Loose Ends-

1. Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Otho"

"When he at last woke up at about daylight, he stabbed himself with a single stroke under the left breast; and now concealing the wound, and now showing it to those who rushed in at his first groan, he breathed his last and was hastily buried (for such were his orders)..."

There is other supporting evidence that Rufus is the Template for the Tomb Scene. Here's the first and it is suggestive. It is explicitly stated that Otho died about "daylight". The Tomb Motif is thereby supported. The emperor is dead! Where may we find his successor?

"How about Rufus?" He's out the side door. He's outa' here. Therefore the people are looking for someone who's not even there.

2. Rufus dies in 97. Earlier I went on record stating that the earliest the Gospels could have been written was around 95, just before the death of Domitian. On this view, Domitian wishes to replace the Signs Gospel/Baptism of John with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. This death date of Rufus complements this idea quite well. The Project continues after Domitian's death with the Ending now in place. "People looking for a god (emperor) who is not there" do not find an "Empty Tomb". They find the Flavians.

3. Vespasian had committed to Otho but waited a year before stepping in to sweep out the trash. Vitellius is viscerally hated. The End was with Otho at the Battle of Bedriacum - Blood and Water. The Vinegar-on-a-Hyssop Stick is very vicious satire. "It is finished..."

4. Of slight interest is the ending of Suetonius' description of Otho:

"In short the greater part of those who had hated him most bitterly while he lived lauded him to the skies when he was dead..."

No, really?

5. Remember who praises Rufus at his funeral: Tacitus and Pliny the Younger.

Quite a set of fingerprints.

CW

Hi Charles,

Is there any similarity between your position and that of either -

Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah - The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus (2005)

• According to Atwill, the Gospels are not accounts of the ministry of a historical Jewish Jesus compiled by his followers sixty years after his death. They are texts deliberately created to trick Messianic Jews into worshipping the Roman Emperor 'in disguise'. The essence of Atwill's discovery is that the majority of the key events in the life of Jesus are in fact satirical: each is an elegant literary play on a military battle in which the Jewish armies had been defeated by the Romans. This is an extraordinary claim-but supported by all the necessary evidence.

or

Francesco Carotta's Jesus was Caesar - On the Julian Origin of Christianity – an investigative report (2005)

• Julius Caesar, son of Venus and founder of the Roman Empire, was elevated to the status of Imperial God, Divus Julius, after his violent death. The cult that surrounded him dissolved as Christianity surfaced. A cult surrounding Jesus Christ, son of God and originator of Christianity, appeared during the second century. Early historians, however, never mentioned Jesus and even now there is no actual proof of his existence. On the one hand, an actual historical figure missing his cult, on the other, a cult missing its actual historical figure: intriguing mirror images.

Thanks.



LC

Leucius Charinus wrote:Hi Charles,

Is there any similarity between your position and that of either -

Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah - The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus (2005)

• According to Atwill, the Gospels are not accounts of the ministry of a historical Jewish Jesus compiled by his followers sixty years after his death. They are texts deliberately created to trick Messianic Jews into worshipping the Roman Emperor 'in disguise'. The essence of Atwill's discovery is that the majority of the key events in the life of Jesus are in fact satirical: each is an elegant literary play on a military battle in which the Jewish armies had been defeated by the Romans. This is an extraordinary claim-but supported by all the necessary evidence.

1. That's a very good summary of Atwill's Position.

I found Atwill after I began reading early Mark, looking at the text with a reading that supported a different Intentionality. At this early point, I had an understanding but nowhere else to go. Atwill provided a basis for understanding and I now believe that Caesar's Messiah is essentially correct in its particulars. People moan and whine over his use of Statistical Analysis and how everything is a Deep Puzzle but sometimes, after the fact, I believe that he didn't go far enough.

We both came to the same conclusion: "Eleazar" is the Savior. Atwill takes 100+ pages to show that. I look at 1 Chronicles 24 and see the same thing. Atwill believes that the Lunatic is possessed by "Legion" and Legion represents the Seditionists. I, on the other hand, believe that the word means what it says. The Priesthood is Standing with God to overthrow the Herodians and the Romans. The Lunatic is possessed by Legion and he only harms himself when he attempts to dispossess himself. It will only occur by an intervention from the Priesthood. This is what is rewritten into the savior-god story.

Guess what? We're both correct. How?

My original study was in following a Trail that led through the Priesthood and eventually led to the Hasmoneans and the Rulership that was given to the Priesthood by God. This idea is not to be trifled with and many a modern Skoller will posit "communities" (See: "Q" Community), "savior-figures" and the like in an effort to deny what is Plain and Simple. The Herodians and the Romans were out to destroy the Hasmonean Dynasty and Temple Priesthood. They succeeded and it led to their own (The Herodians and the Pharisees...) deaths.

I see a Story that was rewritten. We have most all of it and I have reconstructed that Story. This is not found in Atwill. He refers to it as "Backwards Typology", since his work looks forward from 70 and what I see looks back. To bore you and the one other reader who might read this, this Story is about a character who comes to us as "Peter". He is of the Mishmarot Group "Immer". He saves a Priest from the Slaughter that occurs at Passover, ostensibly in 4 BCE. Mishmarot Rotations have a 6 year Cycle and the few survivors see that in 12 years, they will be in Jerusalem for Passover again where they will finish off the Romans. They are killed and this survivor returns to finish out his days as he was trained - He is now a Priest himself.

I now use Atwill as a Template to place the Roman rewrite into its proper form. At times it is very easy to see. I wish others would take a chance and examine it. Joe Atwill is a fine person. I have enjoyed working with him.

Francesco Carotta's Jesus was Caesar - On the Julian Origin of Christianity – an investigative report (2005)

• Julius Caesar, son of Venus and founder of the Roman Empire, was elevated to the status of Imperial God, Divus Julius, after his violent death. The cult that surrounded him dissolved as Christianity surfaced. A cult surrounding Jesus Christ, son of God and originator of Christianity, appeared during the second century. Early historians, however, never mentioned Jesus and even now there is no actual proof of his existence. On the one hand, an actual historical figure missing his cult, on the other, a cult missing its actual historical figure: intriguing mirror images.

2. I wish I could spend some time examining Carotta. We had a Poster - "ghost" - who was quite fond of the Thesis. I do not want to airily dismiss it. Carrier committed an error by implying that he had not read Atwill and therefore had refuted him. Puh-leeeze. So, I cannot comment much. It may have some Truth in it but there may be some truth in the idea that the Gospels reflect Horus-Osirus Mythology. It may work but it doesn't explain much.

I have attempted to remain "fully grounded". I ended up in a Settlement named "Jabnit", in Northern Galilee, which was occupied by the Group Immer. They believed the Hasmoneans descended from them. It's a real place, not some community created to provide an idea that "The Jews and the Priesthood could not have created all of this...". They did and the Romans could not tolerate it. So they stole everything they could. Someone found the Story, dismembered it and rewrote it for the Glorification of the Flavians. This at once became too obvious and another rewrite hid this. The material is still there. You can find it yourself if you read it with a different Intentionality:

"Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?"

"What could this POSSIBLY mean?" It depends on whether you see this as New Teaching - or looking back to an Atrocity that occurred 12 years prior to this moment, being directed at the Pharisees and the Herodians.

CW

Charles Wilson wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:Hi Charles,

Is there any similarity between your position and that of either -

Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah - The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus (2005)

• According to Atwill, the Gospels are not accounts of the ministry of a historical Jewish Jesus compiled by his followers sixty years after his death. They are texts deliberately created to trick Messianic Jews into worshipping the Roman Emperor 'in disguise'. The essence of Atwill's discovery is that the majority of the key events in the life of Jesus are in fact satirical: each is an elegant literary play on a military battle in which the Jewish armies had been defeated by the Romans. This is an extraordinary claim-but supported by all the necessary evidence.

1. That's a very good summary of Atwill's Position.

I found Atwill after I began reading early Mark, looking at the text with a reading that supported a different Intentionality. At this early point, I had an understanding but nowhere else to go. Atwill provided a basis for understanding and I now believe that Caesar's Messiah is essentially correct in its particulars. People moan and whine over his use of Statistical Analysis and how everything is a Deep Puzzle but sometimes, after the fact, I believe that he didn't go far enough.

We both came to the same conclusion: "Eleazar" is the Savior. Atwill takes 100+ pages to show that. I look at 1 Chronicles 24 and see the same thing. Atwill believes that the Lunatic is possessed by "Legion" and Legion represents the Seditionists. I, on the other hand, believe that the word means what it says. The Priesthood is Standing with God to overthrow the Herodians and the Romans. The Lunatic is possessed by Legion and he only harms himself when he attempts to dispossess himself. It will only occur by an intervention from the Priesthood. This is what is rewritten into the savior-god story.

A Roman conspiracy?


What do you make of the non canonical gospel and acts of the gnostic heretics? I am asking this because I think that is important for anyone who wishes to sketch an hypothesis or theory to answer the mystery of Christian origins to ALSO address the authorship and chronology of the non canonical books. I know everyone is SERIOUSLY focussed on the sketch of the canonical books of the NT, but this is not the complete data set of evidence to be explained.

All the evidence available should be addressed at the end of the day.

I now use Atwill as a Template to place the Roman rewrite into its proper form. At times it is very easy to see. I wish others would take a chance and examine it. Joe Atwill is a fine person. I have enjoyed working with him.

Examining alternative theories is sometimes useful. The Roman connection to the Bible does need to be explained. Some Roman must have had his fingers in the pie of the new testament. The Romans crucified god after all, and were very serious people not to be messed with.



LC

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Charles Wilson wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:Hi Charles,

Is there any similarity between your position and that of either -

Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah - The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus (2005)

• According to Atwill, the Gospels are not accounts of the ministry of a historical Jewish Jesus compiled by his followers sixty years after his death. They are texts deliberately created to trick Messianic Jews into worshipping the Roman Emperor 'in disguise'. The essence of Atwill's discovery is that the majority of the key events in the life of Jesus are in fact satirical: each is an elegant literary play on a military battle in which the Jewish armies had been defeated by the Romans. This is an extraordinary claim-but supported by all the necessary evidence.

1. That's a very good summary of Atwill's Position.

I found Atwill after I began reading early Mark, looking at the text with a reading that supported a different Intentionality. At this early point, I had an understanding but nowhere else to go. Atwill provided a basis for understanding and I now believe that Caesar's Messiah is essentially correct in its particulars. People moan and whine over his use of Statistical Analysis and how everything is a Deep Puzzle but sometimes, after the fact, I believe that he didn't go far enough.

We both came to the same conclusion: "Eleazar" is the Savior. Atwill takes 100+ pages to show that. I look at 1 Chronicles 24 and see the same thing. Atwill believes that the Lunatic is possessed by "Legion" and Legion represents the Seditionists. I, on the other hand, believe that the word means what it says. The Priesthood is Standing with God to overthrow the Herodians and the Romans. The Lunatic is possessed by Legion and he only harms himself when he attempts to dispossess himself. It will only occur by an intervention from the Priesthood. This is what is rewritten into the savior-god story.

Leucius Charinus wrote:A Roman conspiracy?

What do you make of the non canonical gospel and acts of the gnostic heretics? I am asking this because I think that is important for anyone who wishes to sketch an hypothesis or theory to answer the mystery of Christian origins to ALSO address the authorship and chronology of the non canonical books. I know everyone is SERIOUSLY focused on the sketch of the canonical books of the NT, but this is not the complete data set of evidence to be explained.

All the evidence available should be addressed at the end of the day.

My current view - as in, "Today...Right now..." - is that there is an unexamined part of the Gnostic Source idea. This is seen in the last few days on this Site, as well as in commentary on Papias. Question: Did Russia go through the Industrial Revelolution in order to "Properly" go through the Necessary Steps to achieve Marxist Glory? Lenin had to show this in order to justify the Soviet that allowed the Central Committee to "Lead the Vanguard of the Proletariat", in order that millions die in the name of Socialism.

So: We have the first generation of people creating this Christianity and this generation is beginning to die out.

1. "Lookit...We have given you Secret Knowledge. We, the Romans did it. Pretty neat trick, huh?..."
2. The very Cynical follower appropriates the language of "Secret Knowledge" and rewrites the "Secret Knowledge" to label his group as the beneficiaries. "Neat trick, huh?"

3. Flavius Constantinus Heraclius gets an agreement with some warring tribes in the East. "The East is secured!" Ten or so years later, Heraclius is dead but there is this "Blank Check" allowing a few in these tribes to kill and murder with impunity. "Convert or Die! Neat trick, huh?..."

'N so on.
It's not that I am refusing to analyze Gnostic Literature in the Gospels. I've got a limited amount of time left and there are only 32 hours in the day. I believe that there is a TREMENDOUS untapped pool of knowledge in the examination of the Functioning Jewish Culture. "The Priestly Cult was retrograde and doesn't need to be studied..." Oh, RILLY!!! So the Priests, the Hasmoneans and Temple Culture are ignored and - again - "It's there, it's really there!" Amazing.

Leucius Charinus wrote:Examining alternative theories is sometimes useful. The Roman connection to the Bible does need to be explained. Some Roman must have had his fingers in the pie of the new testament. The Romans crucified god after all, and were very serious people not to be messed with.

I feel as if I'm in an Alternate Version of the first book of Cities in Flight. The Roman connection is not even being considered. Josephus is a Demi-god and people are considered to exist without examining what must have been true in order for that person to have existed. Existence is not a predicate but you'd have a hard time convincing quite a few skollers on that point.

CW

Leucius Charinus wrote:

What do you make of the non canonical gospel and acts of the gnostic heretics? I am asking this because I think that is important for anyone who wishes to sketch an hypothesis or theory to answer the mystery of Christian origins to ALSO address the authorship and chronology of the non canonical books. I know everyone is SERIOUSLY focussed on the sketch of the canonical books of the NT, but this is not the complete data set of evidence to be explained.

All the evidence available should be addressed at the end of the day.

Agreed. These writings are so spectacularly different that I think most Bible scholars are at loss as to how to address them. Mostly, they dismiss them as late, but, as we know, some Sethian and Gnostic writings might be as early or earlier than Christian writings (Turner dates Apoc. of Adam to the first century). It's interesting, but still an area that I have not delved into very far beyond reading some McRae articles. Very illuminating and informative. I wouldn't mind seeing some conversation here on this subject if we have informed participants.

cienfuegos wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

What do you make of the non canonical gospel and acts of the gnostic heretics? I am asking this because I think that is important for anyone who wishes to sketch an hypothesis or theory to answer the mystery of Christian origins to ALSO address the authorship and chronology of the non canonical books. I know everyone is SERIOUSLY focussed on the sketch of the canonical books of the NT, but this is not the complete data set of evidence to be explained.

All the evidence available should be addressed at the end of the day.

Agreed. These writings are so spectacularly different that I think most Bible scholars are at loss as to how to address them.

Here is a summary - The New Testament Apocryphal Corpus Academic Summaries and Overviews
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... maries.htm
The link above provides the full quotes and context for the summaries below:

• An Index of Summary Comments
  
  "insipid and puerile amplifications" [Ernest Renan]
  
  "excluded by their later and radical light" [John Dominic Crossan]
  
  "severely conditoned responses to Jesus ... usually these authors deny his humanity" [Robert M. Grant]
  
  "they exclude themselves" [M.R. James]
  
  "The practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history" [Bart Ehrman]
  
  "The Leucian Acts are Hellenistic romances, which were written to appeal to the masses" [Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard]
  
  "The key point ... [NT Apocrypha] have all been long ago considered and rejected by the Church.
  
  "The names of apostles ... were used by obscure writers to palm off their productions; partly to embellish and add to ... partly to invent ... partly to support false doctrines; decidedly pernicious, ... nevertheless contain much that is interesting and curious ... they were given a place which they did not deserve." [Tischendorf]
  
  "Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently ... making fun of traditional biblical beliefs"[April Deconick]
  
  "heretics ... who were chiefly Gnostics ... imitated the books of the New Testament" [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
  
  "enterprising spirits ... pretended Gospels full of romantic fables and fantastic and striking details, their fabrications were eagerly read and largely accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity." "the heretical apocryphists, composed spurious Gospels in order to trace backward their beliefs and peculiarities to Christ Himself." [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
  
  "the fabrication of spurious Acts of the Apostles was, in general, to give Apostolic support to heretical systems, especially those of the many sects which are comprised under the term Gnosticism. The Gnostic Acts of Peter, Andrew, John, Thomas, and perhaps Matthew, abound in extravagant and highly coloured marvels, and were interspersed by long pretended discourses of the Apostles which served as vehicles for the Gnostic predications. The originally Gnostic apocryphal Acts were gathered into collections which bore the name of the periodoi (Circuits) or praxeis (Acts) of the Apostles, and to which was attached the name of a Leucius Charinus, who may have formed the compilation." [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

You can clearly see that these texts are the "poor cousins" of the canonical texts which are to be held up as "Holy Writ".

No one has yet developed a consistent hypothesis or theory for these texts.

Texts like "The Gospel of Thomas" because of their Q-like appearance have been commandeered by Biblical Scholarship as "very early".
What evidence is provided? Fuck all. (See below)

Mostly, they dismiss them as late, but, as we know, some Sethian and Gnostic writings might be as early or earlier than Christian writings (Turner dates Apoc. of Adam to the first century). It's interesting, but still an area that I have not delved into very far beyond reading some McRae articles. Very illuminating and informative. I wouldn't mind seeing some conversation here on this subject if we have informed participants.

I have made a study of the non canonical literature and you will find a tabulation of over 100 Gnostic Gospels and Acts here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... _Index.htm

My novel hypothesis is that all these works (including much of the so-called "Old Testament" apocrypha) can be logically explained as a Greek literary reaction to the political appearance of the Constantine NT Bible codex c.325 CE. The Bible codex as we all know contained the Greek LXX, and part of the literary reaction used this as a source (as well as the NT). Athanasius informs us the Greeks "derided the mystery that the Christians adored". Eusebius informs us that the "sacred scriptures were ridiculed in the [Alexandrian] theatres of the unbelievers". My opinion FWIW is that these really weird non canonical texts are part of this ridicule. Unofficial stories about Jesus and Adam and Seth designed as seditious writings which undermined the impact of the Constantine Bible as a political instrument of the EMperor in his attempt to unify the Roman Empire by means of a "holy writ".

When one earnestly seeks for evidence substantiating any earlier appearance of the non canonical literature one is continually presented only by one category of evidence. Namely, mentions and partial quotes by the so-called enemies of the heretics, the "Early Orthodox Church Fathers". That's it for evidence. Period. How can we have orthodoxy and heresy before Nicaea? This stretches the imagination. Clearly the null hypothesis is that orthodoxy and heresy (in terms of literary texts) arose only after the orthodoxy became political with the "Nicaean agreement". There are a very small number of palaeographically dated papyri fragments. However following recent developments in the analysis of palaeographical dating, such dates are now viewed to NOT preclude the 4th century.

FWIW there is a thread on all this - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=771

If you're interested in any of the above maybe you could respond there.

Thanks,



LC

Leucius Charinus wrote:

cienfuegos wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

What do you make of the non canonical gospel and acts of the gnostic heretics? I am asking this because I think that is important for anyone who wishes to sketch an hypothesis or theory to answer the mystery of Christian origins to ALSO address the authorship and chronology of the non canonical books. I know everyone is SERIOUSLY focussed on the sketch of the canonical books of the NT, but this is not the complete data set of evidence to be explained.

All the evidence available should be addressed at the end of the day.

Agreed. These writings are so spectacularly different that I think most Bible scholars are at loss as to how to address them.

Here is a summary - The New Testament Apocryphal Corpus Academic Summaries and Overviews
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... maries.htm
The link above provides the full quotes and context for the summaries below:

• An Index of Summary Comments
  
  "insipid and puerile amplifications" [Ernest Renan]
  
  "excluded by their later and radical light" [John Dominic Crossan]
  
  "severely conditoned responses to Jesus ... usually these authors deny his humanity" [Robert M. Grant]
  
  "they exclude themselves" [M.R. James]
  
  "The practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history" [Bart Ehrman]
  
  "The Leucian Acts are Hellenistic romances, which were written to appeal to the masses" [Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard]
  
  "The key point ... [NT Apocrypha] have all been long ago considered and rejected by the Church.
  
  "The names of apostles ... were used by obscure writers to palm off their productions; partly to embellish and add to ... partly to invent ... partly to support false doctrines; decidedly pernicious, ... nevertheless contain much that is interesting and curious ... they were given a place which they did not deserve." [Tischendorf]
  
  "Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently ... making fun of traditional biblical beliefs"[April Deconick]
  
  "heretics ... who were chiefly Gnostics ... imitated the books of the New Testament" [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
  
  "enterprising spirits ... pretended Gospels full of romantic fables and fantastic and striking details, their fabrications were eagerly read and largely accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity." "the heretical apocryphists, composed spurious Gospels in order to trace backward their beliefs and peculiarities to Christ Himself." [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
  
  "the fabrication of spurious Acts of the Apostles was, in general, to give Apostolic support to heretical systems, especially those of the many sects which are comprised under the term Gnosticism. The Gnostic Acts of Peter, Andrew, John, Thomas, and perhaps Matthew, abound in extravagant and highly coloured marvels, and were interspersed by long pretended discourses of the Apostles which served as vehicles for the Gnostic predications. The originally Gnostic apocryphal Acts were gathered into collections which bore the name of the periodoi (Circuits) or praxeis (Acts) of the Apostles, and to which was attached the name of a Leucius Charinus, who may have formed the compilation." [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

You can clearly see that these texts are the "poor cousins" of the canonical texts which are to be held up as "Holy Writ".

No one has yet developed a consistent hypothesis or theory for these texts.

Texts like "The Gospel of Thomas" because of their Q-like appearance have been commandeered by Biblical Scholarship as "very early".
What evidence is provided? Fuck all. (See below)

Mostly, they dismiss them as late, but, as we know, some Sethian and Gnostic writings might be as early or earlier than Christian writings (Turner dates Apoc. of Adam to the first century). It's interesting, but still an area that I have not delved into very far beyond reading some McRae articles. Very illuminating and informative. I wouldn't mind seeing some conversation here on this subject if we have informed participants.

I have made a study of the non canonical literature and you will find a tabulation of over 100 Gnostic Gospels and Acts here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... _Index.htm

My novel hypothesis is that all these works (including much of the so-called "Old Testament" apocrypha) can be logically explained as a Greek literary reaction to the political appearance of the Constantine NT Bible codex c.325 CE. The Bible codex as we all know contained the Greek LXX, and part of the literary reaction used this as a source (as well as the NT). Athanasius informs us the Greeks "derided the mystery that the Christians adored". Eusebius informs us that the "sacred scriptures were ridiculed in the [Alexandrian] theatres of the unbelievers". My opinion FWIW is that these really weird non canonical texts are part of this ridicule. Unofficial stories about Jesus and Adam and Seth designed as seditious writings which undermined the impact of the Constantine Bible as a political instrument of the EMperor in his attempt to unify the Roman Empire by means of a "holy writ".

When one earnestly seeks for evidence substantiating any earlier appearance of the non canonical literature one is continually presented only by one category of evidence. Namely, mentions and partial quotes by the so-called enemies of the heretics, the "Early Orthodox Church Fathers". That's it for evidence. Period. How can we have orthodoxy and heresy before Nicaea? This stretches the imagination. Clearly the null hypothesis is that orthodoxy and heresy (in terms of literary texts) arose only after the orthodoxy became political with the "Nicaean agreement". There are a very small number of palaeographically dated papyri fragments. However following recent developments in the analysis of palaeographical dating, such dates are now viewed to NOT preclude the 4th century.

FWIW there is a thread on all this - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=771

If you're interested in any of the above maybe you could respond there.

Thanks,



LC

It is extremely interesting to me, but a huge task to assimilate at this time for me. I will take a look but I doubt I will have much to offer in the near term. Perhaps down the road.