mountainman

And what about the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas which incidentally (via the Nag Hammadi codices) has been carbon dated to 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years)? Do these belong to Q and if not why not?

ApostateAbe

There is some overlap between Q and the gospel of Thomas, but it seems doubtful that the gospel of Thomas sourced Q. It is too late, and it contains much more theological spin, so it more likely sourced Matthew, Luke or John. In the second century, the likely date of the composition of the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Q was apparently long-discarded as incomplete and obsolete.

For example, Luke 7:28 reads, "I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

And Matthew 11:11 reads, "Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

But, Thomas 46 reads, "Jesus said, 'From Adam to John the Baptist, among those born of women, no one is so much greater than John the Baptist that his eyes should not be averted. But I have said that whoever among you becomes a child will recognize the (Father's) kingdom and will become greater than John.'"

The clarification, "From Adam to John the Baptist," seems intended to resolve the difficulty that Jesus was otherwise seemingly implying that John the Baptist was greater than himself.

Toto

Conservative Christions hold that the Gospel of Thomas is late and was derived from the canonical gospels. Liberal Christians tend to think that the gospel of Thomas is early and independent, and related to Q.

No one but you tries to contend that the carbon-14 date of the manuscript is the date of composition.

mountainman

(1) The large majority of the mainstream commentators all assume an historical jesus and try and push all the evidence early in order to follow the faithful sheep and please their mentors and peers with conjectures that support the status quo of the HJ. No evidence is provided by any of these people, other than the citing of the heresiologist Eusebius. The history of the gnostic sources (ie: NHL) is thus being accepted by an appeal to the heresiological enemies of the gnoistics. This is an absurd state of affairs. It would be the equivalent of allowing the Nazis to write the history of their Jewish persecution.

(2) TIME CAPSULES - For all intents and purposes, taking the assessments of the NHL by academics and scholars, the books were buried because it was the only way they were going to have a chance of being preserved. The cartonage indicates they were produced in the early to mid 4th century after the drama of Nicaea. Why would these gnostic people take the time and the expense (these were high technology accomplishments in the 4th century) to go to a remote location hundreds of miles up the Nile and preserve texts from centuries past? The contents of time capsules in a political environment (see Ammianus) are contemporaneous with the epoch. I know of no exceptions to this common sense principle - do you? This is the reason by which I am convinced that the bulk of the contents of the NHL were actually authored in the 4th century and after Nicea.


(3) Some of the gnostic texts such as the one cited below are far better explained by a date of authorship after Constantine's fascist implementation of the state religion of christianity. Why is the generation [the authors of the NHL] fleeing? --- This could not be before Nicea! Who in their right mind would flee from the christians before Constantine championed this long lost nation? Why does the author not believe that Christ is alive? Why does the author write that Jesus did not die his own death? Why does the author state Jesus was nailed by the church to keep him in the church? All this suggests a poltical reaction to "a Roman state Jesus" and thus an authorship after Nicaea.

The Interpretation of Knowledge: NHC 11.1

Text commences ... (13 lines missing) ...

they came to believe by means of signs and wonders and fabrications. The likeness that came to be through them followed him, but through reproaches and humiliations before they received the apprehension of a vision they fled without having heard that the Christ had been crucified. But our generation is fleeing since it does not yet even believe that the Christ is alive. .

...[...]...

And he was crucified and he died - not his own death,
for he did not at all deserve to die because of the church of mortals.
And he was nailed so that they might keep him in the Church.

PS: Split this out if necessary

Toto

The HJ is irrelevant to the dating of the gnostic literature. Most of the scholars who specialize in the gnostic or heretical literature do not seem to be especially orthodox.

Well, look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were preserved from the Roman Legions in 70 CE, but most of them can be dated to the century before they were preserved, and were probably written much earlier. This was a society that honored ancient documents, and preserved the information in them by copying them.

"The Interpretation of Knowledge" is Valentinian. The Valentinians believed that Christ was a spirit who descended on Jesus when he was baptized, and other esoteric doctrines that probably make sense of this if you want to spend the time to figure them out.

We'll see how this develops.

mountainman

They all follow the citations in Eusebius to "gnostic heretics". They all thus follow the "othodox chronology" related to the HJ as espoused in Eusebius.

According to the WIKI article ...
In other words some of these manuscripts were being authored right up until the time they were buried. The same should apply to the NHL.

Again, this explication follows the hostile heresiologist Eusebius who is anyone's only source for these "Early Valentinians". This does not explain why the author would write ...

Why would a "splinter group" in Early christianity, with no powerful orthodoxy, "flee" for unbelief in Christ?

aa5874

The belief that Christ descended on Jesus was NOT the beliefs of the Valentinians, but of Cerinthus, Carpocrates and the Ebionites.

The Valentinians believed Jesus was some kind of angelic being. See "Against Heresies" 1

Jesus was the Star of the Pleroma of the Aeons also known as the Logos according to the doctrine of the Valentinians.

And this is the doctrine of Cerinthus.

Against Heresies 1See http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine...s/advhaer1.txt

It is extremely critical that the doctrine of the Valentinians be distinguished from the doctrines of Cerinthus, Carpocrates and the Ebionites.

avi

Sorry to disagree with you Pete.

The radioactive carbon dating method is useful for demonstrating the time period when organic matter, in this case, papyrus, was harvested.

It is reasonable to assume that the date also corresponds, roughly, to the date when something was written upon the papyrus (assuming that the papyrus had not been stored for many decades in warehouses).

It is unreasonable to assume that this date corresponds to the date of authorship of the document in question. It could simply be the date when a particular manuscript was copied--the original having been composed centuries earlier.

This dating method is useful for demonstrating that a particular work could not have been created later than the radioactive carbon date.

avi

andrewcriddle

Some of the NHL probably was composed in the 4th century CE. See my blog post neoplatonism-and-gnosticism-part-six

However as I say there Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Thanks Andrew,

In your article you cite the following ...

However, Francis Williams has recently claimed that the Archon of the West in this work:

Then the archon of the western regions arose, and from the East he will perform a work, and he will instruct men in his wickedness. And he wants to nullify all teaching, the words of true wisdom, while loving the lying wisdom. For he attacked the old, wishing to introduce wickedness and to put on dignity.

is actually a veiled reference to Julian the Apostate. If so a date shortly after 360 CE would be probable.

Do you and/or other readers not perceive that this could also represent a veiled reference to Constantine himself, who rose to power in the northwest and who conqured the eastern regions with his army, who wished to nullify the the ancient Hellenistic teachings. Moreover the reference to "lying wisdom" and "introduction of wickedness" mirrors what Julian later writes concerning the "fabrication of the christians being a fiction of men composed by wickedness".

Of course I do understand your position, and I do not wish to misrepresent it. The position is - after all - shared by the vast majority of analysts. One final question -- where are your articles Neoplatonism and Gnosticism - Parts One to Five?