rationalskepticism.org

Mike S wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote: “FWIW IMO this controversial political situation of 325 CE spawned the "Other Gospels and Acts". IOW the gnostic gospels and Nag Hammadi texts (etc) are a literary reaction to the political appearance of the Greek NT Bible codex and its use as a political instrument of state at that time by Constantine. The Arian controversy and the controversy over these non canonical books (especially those deemed to be heretical or blasphemous or docetic etc) are highly related. Arius may have authored some of these "Gnostic Gospels of Acts" and this explains why Constantine wanted him dead.”

The Nag Hammadi texts may have been buried in response to, but were hardly spawned in response to, a “letter from Bishop Athanasius declaring a strict canon of Christian scripture”,

The letter from Bishop Anathasius containing the canon also condemned heretics and their "apocryphal books to which they attribute antiquity and give the name of saints." Consensus believes this letter may have precipitated the burial. No one is claiming this letter spawned the heretical writings which it condemns. These heretical texts obviously preceded the letter of 367 CE. By how many decades, generations or centuries is the real question here.

...... or, some “literary reaction to the political appearance of the Greek NT Bible”! I similarly doubt very much doubt “Arius may have authored some of these "Gnostic Gospels of Acts"!

You are free to doubt any claims about the evidence.

Let's look at it with respect to gThomas.

Consider the Gospel of Thomas:

“Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as 40 AD or as late as 140 AD, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

My position at the moment is that the Gospel of Thomas (along with the rest of the major Gnostic Gospels and Acts) was authored after 325 CE. But first let's look at the evidence underpinning the mainstream dating, which obviously seeks earlier and earlier dates for this "Sayings Gospel". I see three categories of evidence ...

(1) Literary attestations to gThomas via the "Church Fathers"

Eusebius cites Hippolytus (155-235), Refutation of all Heresies, v. 1-6., as mentioning something similar to the received text, and cites Origen as mentioning some text of Thomas. Eusebius cites saying (No. 2 in the gThomas) as quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Miscellenies ii. 45. 5; v. 96.3), as coming from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There is certainly some ambiguity here, even accepting the literary evidence contained in the heresiologists about their political enemies the heretical authors, is integrous (and I do not ... It has been exposed that Origen was interpolated in the later 4th century by orthodox bishops with respect to the appearance of the Clementine literature, for example, See below).

(2) Papyri Fragments of gThomas largely from Oxyrynchus

P.Oxy.654, P.Oxy.655 and P.Oxy.1 which are variously dated by palaeography to the 2nd or 3rd centuries. What upper bounds might be realistically applied to these palaeographical estimates? My position is that dates in the earlier 4th century cannot be ruled out with any great certainty. Additionally there are other arguments related to the changing population demographics of the city of Oxyrynchus which mitigate towards a date towards the mid 4th century. Obviously the same evidence may be evaluated with upper and lower bounds and both of these may differ from one evaluator to the next. The first step is getting the evidence on the table and listed. That's what I am doing here.


(3) The Coptic gThomas in the NHL

This leaves us with the Coptic gThomas in the NHL, which is generally dated to the mid 4th century.

That is the evidence which I am aware of at the moment that is relevant to all hypotheses about the chronology of original authorship of the Gospel of Thomas.

My position at the moment is that the Greek original was written in Alexandria c.325-336 CE (i.e. in the rule of Constantine) and a copy was taken 400 miles down the Nile to the Pachomian monastery for preservation in Coptic.

Or, as Elaine Pagels sees it: “Gnosticism should be considered at least as legitimate as orthodox Christianity because the ‘[heresy’ was simply a competing strain of early Christianity.”

I am in agreement with the observation but not the chronology. Competing strains of Christianity are IMO far more likely in a highly charged political Christian environment, and my position is that what Pagels et al view as "Valentianian" or "Sethian" or other competing strains of Christian literary expression, are drawn from the Alexandrian Greek generation which witnessed the appearance of Constantine as the Supreme Caesar and Pontifex Maximus of the East and West Roman Empire, and his Christian State Revolution c.325 CE.

The question is what kind of reasonable probability space is generated with the evidence that I have listed above concerning the gThomas. You may have other evidence, in which case I am always interested.

A terminus post quem is the earliest time the event may have happened, and a terminus ante quem is the latest. Mainstream have always been interested in the earliest date of authorship for gThomas. What comments or observations have been made in regard to the terminus ante quem for the authorship of gThomas. Any reasonable analyst must know we are dealing with two bounds - an upper and lower - in order to make a first approximation of the probability space.

It must also follow that I don’t give any credence to your “alternate theory … that none of gnostic gospels or acts were authored before the council of Nicaea, and that these literary creations were a reaction and response to the political appearance of the NT Bible in the rule of Constantine c.325 CE.”

What is the foremost evidence item or items that you would cite, use and evaluate in order to detract credence to this alternate theory for the chronology of the authorship of the "Other Jesus Stories"?


Also FWIW this alternative theory is designed not only to best explain a political history of the authorship of the "Other Jesus Story Books" (Gnostic Gospels and Acts etc) but also much (but not all) of that entire class of Christian literature referred to as the "Old Testament Apochrypha". All the Sethian material for example, and writings related to figures in the LXX. The consistent explanation is that this material was a literary reaction to the LXX component of the NT Bible. The Gnostic gospels and acts mimic the NT. The OT Apocrypha mimics the LXX. Both the NT and LXX were political instruments in the rule of Constantine, and as such were the target of dissidence, lampoon, parody and satire.

There is evidence that strongly suggests that c.325 CE and following the Alexandrian Greeks RIDICULED and DERIDED the NT/LXX Bible which Constantine as a professed Christian adored. I think this ridicule and derision extended to the authorship of "Other Jesus Stories".


And finally if you are seeking some item of evidence which is in alignment with this alternative chronology then I suggest the best article to digest is the WIKI page on the Clementine Literature. Despite citations and mentions in the writings of Origen the current theory for the chronology of authorship focusses on c.330 CE, by an Arian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature

Early references

It was long believed that the early date of the Clementines was proved by the fact that they were twice quoted by Origen. One of these quotations occurs in the Philokalia of Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil (c. 360). Dr. Armitage Robinson showed in his edition of that work (1893) that the citation is an addition to the passage of Origen made by the compilers, or possibly by a later editor. The other citation occurs in the old Latin translation of Origen on Matthew. This translation is full of interpolations and alterations, and the passage of Pseudo-Clement is apparently an interpolation by the translator from the Arian Opus imperfectum in Matt.[4]

Omitting Origen, the earliest witness is Eusebius. In his 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."

I guess that one term for this is retroscription. Basil and Gregory have interpolated Origen in order to make the reader of Origen infer that Origen was aware of the Clementine literature. Why would they do this? IMO they were fabricating a pseudo-history in which the massive political and literary controversy which followed the Christian Revolution of 325 CE was attenuated and swept into a false past under the carpet.

To summarise I am attempting to sketch the political history of the post Nicene age which the ecclesiastical histories of the heresiologists have suppressed (and retroscripted). In this sketch the NT-LXX Bible is a political instrument of the Emperor and the Christian State, and the Gnostic authors were responding to its very first political appearance. They trivialised it by writing other and sometime very exciting "Jesus and Apostle Stories" which the public loved to hear. But Constantine deployed the army on seek and destroy missions for these and other "Prohibited Books". They were not safe to have around your villa. They became very hot political potatoes. They were burnt or buried. As was the politics IMHO.