darstec

Perhaps the single copy theorem works today, but it would not work in an age where a noted author is dictating for the first time his new novel about a holy son of some god to a group of scribes so he can make more money or further his church more quickly. That practice is not unknown in the ancient world.

But even the very idea of an original can be flawed. Look at the Corinthian epistles. It has been pretty well established that I Corinthians that we have now is a combination of some parts of a first Corinthians letter, and some parts of a second Corinthians letter, plus some parts of a totally unknown third Corinthians letter. Likewise II Corinthians seems to be a similar amalgamation of other passages from those original letters. One wonders if what we have now bears even the slightest resemblance to those originals?

The same must hold true to the gospels too. Yet based on what we have paleographers would have us believe that P52 must be very close to an original copy made in 125 CE based upon the one word 'and'. They won't even take into consideration that a scribe is using a revered handwriting scripting to lend more authority to his work. Most successful handwriting forgeries bank their success on such nearsightedness.

As to your gumball analogy, millions upon millions of dollars are spent each week on lotteries whose participants believe will pick that green gum ball. And you know what? Often somebody does get that green gumball.

ThermalCry

The copies we have now are 4th century ... but aren't they written in Coptic? How long would it take for a book to gain popularity in its original language (Greek) before it would be translated and circulated?

mountainman

Preserved in Coptic - imo probably because the Greek was "too visible and too hot [ie: prohibited]".


We are told that "The Acts of Pilate" was circulated though the schools of the empire, to be memorised by schoolchildren. This represents a grass roots level attempt to diminish the desires and agenda of Constantine's canonical books. Their popularity depended upon who was in charge of the schooling systems (ie: non christians) and moreso --- the advertising for the local performances at the grass roots level. According to Eusebius the local Alexandrian Greek "unbelievers of Constantine's Canonical New Tesatament" scheduled routine performances of these books in their local downtown Alexandrian theatres ....

“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

Constantine's Canon was first received with unholy GREEK SATIRE

Then came the Draconian prohibitions ....

ThermalCry

The fact that the canon was ridiculed doesn't necessarily mean the Gnostic gospels and acts were written AFTER the canon was introduced. When the canon was made official, is it so unlikely that it was mocked simply for the fact that it was made 'the official canon'? Isn't it just as likely that unbelievers used texts that very well may have been contemporary (or at least ballpark), in a satirical manner to highlight how ridiculous cherry-picking an 'official canon' was? In the same way, when people quote the bible in some sort of moral debate, and I might interject with a silly 'don't eat shellfish' joke?

I don't see the use of such texts as evidence that they were created as a response to the canon, just that they were USED in response.

mountainman

I have separately addressed the question of the chronology of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" at post # 2 in this thread, entitled A Summary of the Mainstream Evidence for Pre-Nicaean "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc"


Precisely!


In this case I would argue that the Gnostic texts were authored by the generation upon whom the "Official Canon" was first imposed - namely the Alexandrian Greek (priesthoods and academics). It seems more likely IMO that there were no "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" etc before the "Official Canon" became known widely due to Constantine's religious and political and military focus. I agree that the texts were used .... "in a satirical manner to highlight how ridiculous cherry-picking an 'official canon' was? ".


Like Monty Python's "Life of Brian" or Billy Conolly on the Crucifixion?

Given my arguments (above) concerning the likely chronology of authorship of the Gnostic Gospels etc, I see that they were created and used as a response to the canon -- by non Christian Alexandrian Greeks -- who were taking the mickey out of Constantine's Canon. They were written to be performed in the Greek theatres of Alexandria while the storm clouds of Christian soldiers milled around and secured the cities in the name of the Emperor Constantine. They were then prohibited and forbidden and were the subject of search and destroy missions by the army (325 CE onward). In the end, these books became so hot and dangerous, they had to be buried (Nag Hammadi, gJudas, gPeter, etc, etc, etc) .

mountainman

From another thread ....

I would expect the greatest amount of heretics to have appeared on the day Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire. This coincides with the Arian controversy. The C14 dating associated with the recently published gJudas takes second place to the utterly unreliable Irenaeus.

The problem with the discernment of "Gnostic History" is that it is being controlled by the references to it in the manuscripts of the orthodox church heresiogists, such as Eusebius.

Sooner or later it will dawn on people that the Nag Hammadi codices are the records of the Graeco-Roman generation which was fleeing the implementation of the canonical christianity under Constantine and his sons in the early 4th century. The exodus from Alexandria was lead by Pachomius.

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.

mountainman

Another argument which may be brought to bear on the late 4th century date of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" is the fact that the papyri fragments being touted as "early" by means of palaeographical assessment in the large are known to have been derived from papyrus codices. The Oxyrhynchus papyri fragments are both canonical and non-canonical, and most are from leaves designed to be prepared into codices.

Here is a very interesting article on the CODEX and the Canon ...

The Codex and Canon Consciousness - by Robert A. Kraft


In the article he mentions that "Athanasius was well aware of the single codex bible, having been involved in the production of such for the emperor Constans around the year 338". Other interesting points include that "Origen's Hexaplaric tool presumably had to be in codex format in order to be effective" and that "Eusebius mentioning various disputed works, copying mega-codices for Constantine, was probably writing in scroll format himself". The author's conclusion is that the "The canon" is the product of 4th century technological developments.

Quote:

But once it was possible to produce and view (or visualize) "the Bible" under one set of physical covers, the concept of "canon" became concretized in a new way that shapes our thinking to the present day and makes it very difficult for us to recapture the perspectives of earlier times. "The canon" in this sense is the product of 4th century technological developments. Before that, it seems to me, things were less "fixed," and perceptions, accordingly, less concrete.

It is far easier to believe that the rubbish tips of Oxyrhynchus were used in the mid fourth century by Gnostic Heretics, who were attemting to manually preserve the conflict between the "Canonical Gospels and Acts" and the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts", since the codex technology is known to have flourished in that century.

Otherwise we have the situation that it is not just the orthodox canon christians throwing out their old codex related papryi on the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchus, but we have the startling fact that the "Gnostic Heretics" were using the same rubbish dumps to dispose of their own codex prepared papyri. This scenario implies that we have two separate opposing underground unknown and archaeologically invisible groups of religious activists, both using the same rubbish dumps, and both using the technology of the codex centuries before its dominance. This situation is not logically plausible.

History of the Technology of the Codex

From above, see also extracts from "The Meta-data of Early Christian Manuscripts - Larry Hurtado.

darstec

You ignore the circumstance where the original author is dictating to a group of scribes. That behavior is not unknown among the ancients.

Even in modern days when we have print on demand where the original stays in the author's computer and is perfectly sent and printed as a perfect duplicate, until such time as the original author revises his work.

I think we should use copy of a copy of a copy for works handed down through different scribes and distinguish them from original copies dictated to multiple secretaries. In either case determining when an original might have been written can be difficult if not impossible. Take for instance Christmas letters in modern times where the bulk of the letter is pre-written and the author adds a personal note to some of the recipients. Which is really original? Surely some of the books of scripture or any letter from antiquity could have started the same way. We know for instances the the Corinthian epistles are an amalgamation of several earlier letters to them. What we have now are a mixture of various passages taken from each of them and combined into the two popular ones we now have.

darstec

What is to say that it wasn't read within weeks of the original copy and the reader liked it so much that he just had to translate it for all his friends to read? I think it is merely an assumption that it took long time periods for something to travel and be translated.

mountainman

The transmission of the Greek "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" into the Coptic language may have also been in response to the political forces and context of the epoch - that is, the early 4th century. In times of war it is immediately apparent to analysts that things get done quicker and with a greater expediency.

Our best analysts have conjectured that at the basis of all the latin, Coptic and Syriac manuscript evidence in which the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" are presented, is the Greek. Aside from a few paleographical claims specific to a few Oxyrynchus papyri fragments (from codices and not scrolls) every single dating at the roots of all the hundreds of "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" manuscripts is of fourth century origin or later.

This sitation provides the perfect opportunity to examine the hypothesis that we will not ever find a "Gnostic Gospel or Act" earlier than Nicaea, because the entire literary non canonical "Christian" corpus is a direct consequence of the appearance of Constantine's Bible in the eastern Roman empire.

The legends and stories introduced by the "Gnostic authors" over and above the legends and stories presented in the NT canon were very quickly (by the later part of the 4th century - see Damasius and "Peter was here in Rome" Tourist Trade advertisement) accepted into the lore of the church, even while - at the same time - the source Gnostic stories were prohibited and banned and declared to be the product of vile and antichristian heretics.

We have to entertain the possibility therefore that the history of the opposition against the NT canon was retrojected by those victors who controlled the preservation of literature and history at that time - and following that time.

Those who question Eusebius in matters relating to the integrity of the history of the origin of the NT canon and the "Orthodox Church" must surely understand that, as a completely independent exercise we can question Eusebius in matters relating to the integrity of the history of the origin of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" and the Gnostic heretics (and their Pre-Nicaean Graeco-Roman church of ancient and highly revered temples and shrines).

If we dismiss the literary assertions of the anti-Gnostic heresiologist Eusebius (ie: "mentions" by Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc) with respect to just the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" then we are left with a picture which is in almost entire conformity with all the available post Nicaean evidence for this literature.

I am not saying this because I dislike Eusebius. I am suggesting this in order to make historical sense of the ultimate origins of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".