Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 04-29-2010, 11:40 PM

Oxyrhynchus Papyri Fragments of the "Unknown and Nameless Gnostics"

Can anyone explain why the "Orthodox" and the "Gnostics" were using the very same rubbish dumps in the city of Oxyrhynchus? Why are we finding a mixture of both the canon and the non canonical side by side in the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchus? Would this not in some manner imply that there was in the one city of Oxyrhynchus the concurrent operation of the preservation of both the books of the canonical new testament and the non canonical new testament (ie: the "heretical Gnostic Gospels and Acts"). Make sure to have a look the date range which covers the fourth century, during which epoch these two groups were opponents.

So my question would be - did the Orthodox and the Gnostics use the same rubbish dumps at Oxyrhynchus? Was this preservation being done by two different groups or by one of these two groups alone? Three possibilities -- and there are others --- are these:

(1) Two different groups - the Orthodox and the Gnostics - concurrently preserved their respective books in the city of Oxyrhynchus and concurrently dumped old copies into the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps.

(2) One group - the Orthodox - established in isolation at Oxyrhynchus preserved both the canonical and the non canonical books and dumped old copies into the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps.

(3) One group - the Gnostics - established in isolation at Oxyrhynchus preserved both the canonical and the non canonical books and dumped old copies into the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps.

Any other possibilities might include the historical "occupation" of the city of Oxyrynchus at different epochs for two different groups. There are other options - I have started with the simplest. Do any of the above simplest possibilities appears to be more likely on a logical basis considering the major schisms which are recorded between the people preserving the canon and the people preserving and authoring (dont forget some of the "Gnostic Gospels" are authored in the later 4th century) the non canonical books?

Finally, if you think option (1) must be the more appropriate, do you think that the "Orthodox Christian Scribes" talked to the "Gnostic Christian Scribes" when they happened to meet while throwing old copies of their respective holy scriptures away at the local rubbish dump? Or did they throw books at each other at the tip? Was the Arian controversy partially about "book throwing" between the orthodox and the gnostics at the dump?

Huon · 04-30-2010, 06:39 AM

Pete, suppose that a muslim commando comes to Oxyrhynchus around 640 CE. They find a lot of christian monasteries containing old papyri. To them, these libraries contain rubbish. That can be how these papyri go to the dump.

DCHindley · 04-30-2010, 05:42 PM

The papyrus fragments are not limited to religious texts and other literature. There were also all sorts of dated letters, business papers, offiicial acta of the local administration, etc. If you were to ask me, Christian codices and some gnostic ones were confiscated from Christian assemblies by the authorities who raided them in the 3rd century, and after the trial, were summarily thrown in the dump. The Nag Hammadi codices were buried in a cemetary, probably by the order at the monk's request.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Pete, suppose that a muslim commando comes to Oxyrhynchus around 640 CE. They find a lot of christian monasteries containing old papyri. To them, these libraries contain rubbish. That can be how these papyri go to the dump.

mountainman · 04-30-2010, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Pete, suppose that a muslim commando comes to Oxyrhynchus around 640 CE. They find a lot of christian monasteries containing old papyri. To them, these libraries contain rubbish. That can be how these papyri go to the dump.

I appreciate the response Huon, but I would suspect that there are a number of questions I would have about this option.

(a) Did the Muslim commando have his soldiers carry the manuscripts to the tip?
(b) Did the Muslim commando order the christians to carry the manuscripts to the tip?
(c) Why did the Musim commando not just burn the manuscripts ?

However there are some far more serious questions, such as ....

(d) Why would a 7th century Christian monastery be preserving the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" (which were utterly forbidden since c.325 CE or thereabouts) in addition to the Canon for centuries? This does not make sense.

(e) Most manuscripts for the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" appear to have been purposefully buried in isolation --- not on the rubbish dump. The Nag Hammadi codices were hidden in the talus of a remote region (near a monastery). The Gospel of Peter for example was buried -- in isolation -- with an Egyptian monk.

However I do appreciate your additional option.
I do not pretend to know the "correct" option at all.

It just seems quite strange to me that nobody has yet asked the obvious question as to why we have the concurrent practice of throwing both canonical works and non canonical works on the one series of Oxyrhynchus rubbish tips throughout the 2nd and 3rd and 4th centuries (and alot of papyri fragments are securely dated to the 4th century!). It just does not make sense.

mountainman · 05-01-2010, 04:20 AM

DCHindley,

Have a look down the date column for both the New Testament and the NT Apocrypha. You will see papyri fragments in both categories which have been dated to the mid 4th century. I am not sure exactly the method of dating. I would think that many are dated paleographically while other may be fortunate enough to be able to be more securely dated by other means. For example from the NT Canon there appears to be listed over 20 papyri which have been dated to 350 CE or later, and 10 papyri from the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" which have been dated from 325 CE onwards.

I appreciate your opinion on this but it seems to me that these dates are suggesting we have parallel throwing of both copies of the books of the NT canon and copies of the "Gnostic books" into these same tips during the fourth century and beyond. How would you explain this 4th century (and later) activity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The papyrus fragments are not limited to religious texts and other literature. There were also all sorts of dated letters, business papers, offiicial acta of the local administration, etc.

If you were to ask me, Christian codices and some gnostic ones were confiscated from Christian assemblies by the authorities who raided them in the 3rd century, and after the trial, were summarily thrown in the dump. The Nag Hammadi codices were buried in a cemetary, probably by the order at the monk's request.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Pete, suppose that a muslim commando comes to Oxyrhynchus around 640 CE. They find a lot of christian monasteries containing old papyri. To them, these libraries contain rubbish. That can be how these papyri go to the dump.

Rick Van Vliet · 05-01-2010, 07:24 AM

The Gospel of Thomas isn't Gnostic any more than Einstein was Gnostic.

DCHindley · 05-01-2010, 09:21 AM

mm,

The best I can suggest is to go to the POxy Online site maintained by Oxford University:
http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/

There, with the help of one of the Text of the NT volumes (I forget whether it was Metzger's or the one by the Alands that had this feature) that identifies each papyrus in detail, you can check into which batch of papyrii the publication came from, and see what other fragmernts were in the same batch of finds.

Either that or search for an academic publication that discusses the finds in the way you would like.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

DCHindley,

Have a look down the date column for both the New Testament and the NT Apocrypha. You will see papyri fragments in both categories which have been dated to the mid 4th century. I am not sure exactly the method of dating. I would think that many are dated paleographically while other may be fortunate enough to be able to be more securely dated by other means. For example from the NT Canon there appears to be listed over 20 papyri which have been dated to 350 CE or later, and 10 papyri from the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" which have been dated from 325 CE onwards.

I appreciate your opinion on this but it seems to me that these dates are suggesting we have parallel throwing of both copies of the books of the NT canon and copies of the "Gnostic books" into these same tips during the fourth century and beyond. How would you explain this 4th century (and later) activity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The papyrus fragments are not limited to religious texts and other literature. There were also all sorts of dated letters, business papers, offiicial acta of the local administration, etc.

If you were to ask me, Christian codices and some gnostic ones were confiscated from Christian assemblies by the authorities who raided them in the 3rd century, and after the trial, were summarily thrown in the dump. The Nag Hammadi codices were buried in a cemetary, probably by the order at the monk's request.

DCH

PhilosopherJay · 05-01-2010, 09:47 AM

Hi Pete,

This is an excellent question.

When looking at the canonical material, we see that about 4 out of 60 findings are dated to 200 C.E. or before. When we look at the non-canonical material about 9 out of 27 findings are listed as 200 or before. Thus non-canonical findings dated to 200 or before is 33% and canonical findings is 6%.

When we look at the four early dated canonical fragments, and go to each one's wiki page, we find that P104 (Matthew) is dated to the late 2nd century, P103 and P77 (Matthew) to 2nd or 3rd century, and P90 (John) to the late 2nd century,

Thus, the evidence seems to point to a community using the canonical gospels of Matthew, John, the noncanonical Gospels of Peter and Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas and an unknown gospel around 200.

Of course, these could represent two or more rival groups using different texts. However, the simpler hypothesis would be that it represents just one Christian community. The evidence seems to point away from the idea that Christian Orthodoxy existed in this Egyptian town in 200 C.E.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Oxyrhynchus Papyri Fragments of the "Unknown and Nameless Gnostics"

Can anyone explain why the "Orthodox" and the "Gnostics" were using the very same rubbish dumps in the city of Oxyrhynchus? Why are we finding a mixture of both the canon and the non canonical side by side in the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchus? Would this not in some manner imply that there was in the one city of Oxyrhynchus the concurrent operation of the preservation of both the books of the canonical new testament and the non canonical new testament (ie: the "heretical Gnostic Gospels and Acts"). Make sure to have a look the date range which covers the fourth century, during which epoch these two groups were opponents.

So my question would be - did the Orthodox and the Gnostics use the same rubbish dumps at Oxyrhynchus? Was this preservation being done by two different groups or by one of these two groups alone? Three possibilities -- and there are others --- are these:

(1) Two different groups - the Orthodox and the Gnostics - concurrently preserved their respective books in the city of Oxyrhynchus and concurrently dumped old copies into the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps.

(2) One group - the Orthodox - established in isolation at Oxyrhynchus preserved both the canonical and the non canonical books and dumped old copies into the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps.

(3) One group - the Gnostics - established in isolation at Oxyrhynchus preserved both the canonical and the non canonical books and dumped old copies into the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps.

Any other possibilities might include the historical "occupation" of the city of Oxyrynchus at different epochs for two different groups. There are other options - I have started with the simplest. Do any of the above simplest possibilities appears to be more likely on a logical basis considering the major schisms which are recorded between the people preserving the canon and the people preserving and authoring (dont forget some of the "Gnostic Gospels" are authored in the later 4th century) the non canonical books?

Finally, if you think option (1) must be the more appropriate, do you think that the "Orthodox Christian Scribes" talked to the "Gnostic Christian Scribes" when they happened to meet while throwing old copies of their respective holy scriptures away at the local rubbish dump? Or did they throw books at each other at the tip? Was the Arian controversy partially about "book throwing" between the orthodox and the gnostics at the dump?

mountainman · 05-01-2010, 08:33 PM

Hi Philosopher Jay,

If we are to simultaneously entertain textual "evidence" from Eusebius, and to accept as fact people in Oxyrynchus were preserving the "Gospel of Peter", then it is perhaps possible that the people at Oxyrynchus were "Docetists". Our man Eusebius introduces the literary works of one Serapion, who had filed a report after visiting a very similar community who had been preserving :The Gospel of Peter". This community is characterised by people whom Serapion, according to Eusebius, calls "Docetae" or "Docetists".

This would tend to lend support to the notion that the people using the rubbish dump at the city of Oxyrynchus c.200 CE were not "Orthodox Christians" but in fact, quite the opposite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EUSEBIUS

Eusebius, HE, Book 6
Chapter XII.
Serapion and His Extant Works.

1 It is probable that others have preserved other memorials of Serapion's literary industry,
but there have reached us only those addressed to a certain Domninus, who, in the time of
persecution, fell away from faith in Christ to the Jewish will-worship; and those addressed
to Pontius and Caricus, ecclesiastical men, and other letters to different persons, and
still another work composed by him on the so-called Gospel of Peter.

2 He wrote this last to refute the falsehoods which that Gospel contained, on account of some
in the parish of Rhossus who had been led astray by it into heterodox notions. It may be well
to give some brief extracts from his work, showing his opinion of the book. He writes as follows:

3 "For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ;
but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them,
knowing that such were not handed down to us.

4 When I visited you I supposed that all of you held the true faith,
and as I had not read the Gospel which they put forward under the name of Peter,
I said, If This is the Only Thing Which Occasions Dispute Among You,
Let It Be Read. But now having learned, from what has been told me,
that their mind was involved in some heresy, I will hasten to come to you again.

5 Therefore, brethren, expect me shortly. But you will learn, brethren,
from what has been written to you, that we perceived the nature of the heresy of Marcianus,
and that, not understanding, what he was saying, he contradicted himself.

6 For having obtained this Gospel from others who had studied it diligently,
namely, from the successors of those who first used it, whom we call Docetae
(for most of their opinions are connected with the teaching of that school)
we have been able to read it through, and we find many things in accordance
with the true doctrine of the Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine,
which we have pointed out for you farther on."

So much in regard to Serapion

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

This is an excellent question.

When looking at the canonical material, we see that about 4 out of 60 findings are dated to 200 C.E. or before. When we look at the non-canonical material about 9 out of 27 findings are listed as 200 or before. Thus non-canonical findings dated to 200 or before is 33% and canonical findings is 6%.

When we look at the four early dated canonical fragments, and go to each one's wiki page, we find that P104 (Matthew) is dated to the late 2nd century, P103 and P77 (Matthew) to 2nd or 3rd century, and P90 (John) to the late 2nd century,

Thus, the evidence seems to point to a community using the canonical gospels of Matthew, John, the noncanonical Gospels of Peter and Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas and an unknown gospel around 200.

Of course, these could represent two or more rival groups using different texts. However, the simpler hypothesis would be that it represents just one Christian community. The evidence seems to point away from the idea that Christian Orthodoxy existed in this Egyptian town in 200 C.E.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Oxyrhynchus Papyri Fragments of the "Unknown and Nameless Gnostics"

Can anyone explain why the "Orthodox" and the "Gnostics" were using the very same rubbish dumps in the city of Oxyrhynchus? Why are we finding a mixture of both the canon and the non canonical side by side in the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchus? Would this not in some manner imply that there was in the one city of Oxyrhynchus the concurrent operation of the preservation of both the books of the canonical new testament and the non canonical new testament (ie: the "heretical Gnostic Gospels and Acts"). Make sure to have a look the date range which covers the fourth century, during which epoch these two groups were opponents.

So my question would be - did the Orthodox and the Gnostics use the same rubbish dumps at Oxyrhynchus? Was this preservation being done by two different groups or by one of these two groups alone? Three possibilities -- and there are others --- are these:

(1) Two different groups - the Orthodox and the Gnostics - concurrently preserved their respective books in the city of Oxyrhynchus and concurrently dumped old copies into the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps.

(2) One group - the Orthodox - established in isolation at Oxyrhynchus preserved both the canonical and the non canonical books and dumped old copies into the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps.

(3) One group - the Gnostics - established in isolation at Oxyrhynchus preserved both the canonical and the non canonical books and dumped old copies into the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps.

Any other possibilities might include the historical "occupation" of the city of Oxyrynchus at different epochs for two different groups. There are other options - I have started with the simplest. Do any of the above simplest possibilities appears to be more likely on a logical basis considering the major schisms which are recorded between the people preserving the canon and the people preserving and authoring (dont forget some of the "Gnostic Gospels" are authored in the later 4th century) the non canonical books?

Finally, if you think option (1) must be the more appropriate, do you think that the "Orthodox Christian Scribes" talked to the "Gnostic Christian Scribes" when they happened to meet while throwing old copies of their respective holy scriptures away at the local rubbish dump? Or did they throw books at each other at the tip? Was the Arian controversy partially about "book throwing" between the orthodox and the gnostics at the dump?

mountainman · 05-01-2010, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

mm,

The best I can suggest is to go to the POxy Online site maintained by Oxford University:
http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/

There, with the help of one of the Text of the NT volumes (I forget whether it was Metzger's or the one by the Alands that had this feature) that identifies each papyrus in detail, you can check into which batch of papyrii the publication came from, and see what other fragmernts were in the same batch of finds.

Either that or search for an academic publication that discusses the finds in the way you would like.

Thanks for the suggestion. I looked at this some time back and imported the papyri database to SQL and constructed different views into it which meet at the detail end of the spectrum in documents for the sale of corn, petitions, tax receipts, the sale of slaves, and all that usual business of antiquity. At the time there were 6,345 items in the register, of which 1,091 were provenanced from Oxyrynchus.

In regard to the "batches" from the site, these appear to have been "Biscuit Tins" and with the site being a rubbish dump I dont think we can expect any rigorous form of dating by associated material, so the batches probably wont be all that helpful.

In this thread I am not going to argue against the early datings attributed to some papryi via paleographers -- I will accept these --- but rather am examining the phenomenom whereby the parallel "rubbishing of documents" at the city of Oxyrynchus appears to have been conducted on both "Canonical" and "Non Canonical" books --- all the papyri appear to be from codices.

The evidence indicates some sort of continuous parallel preservation acrss many centuries and well after the "Nicaean Boundary" at which time many of the non canonical works would have been first prohibited in preference to the canonical books (plus Hermas since Constantine seemed to include it).

The preservation and existence of copies of "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" after Nicaea at any one place would not contribute to the estblishment of orthodoxy at that place, yet this is precisely what the Oxyrynchus papyri evidence reveals.

If one takes all this evidence at its face value, one might conclude that we are not dealing with any "Orthodox Christians" at Oxyrynchus, but rather we are dealing with a "Gnostic and Docetic" community in the first place, which was preserving manuscripts that are today recognised as "Gnostic".

04-29-2010, 11:40 PM	#1
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Did the Orthodox and the Gnostics use the same rubbish dumps at Oxyrhynchus? Oxyrhynchus Papyri Fragments of the "Unknown and Nameless Gnostics" Can anyone explain why the "Orthodox" and the "Gnostics" were using the very same rubbish dumps in the city of Oxyrhynchus? Why are we finding a mixture of both the canon and the non canonical side by side in the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchus? Would this not in some manner imply that there was in the one city of Oxyrhynchus the concurrent operation of the preservation of both the books of the canonical new testament and the non canonical new testament (ie: the "heretical Gnostic Gospels and Acts"). Make sure to have a look the date range which covers the fourth century, during which epoch these two groups were opponents. So my question would be - did the Orthodox and the Gnostics use the same rubbish dumps at Oxyrhynchus? Was this preservation being done by two different groups or by one of these two groups alone? Three possibilities -- and there are others --- are these: (1) Two different groups - the Orthodox and the Gnostics - concurrently preserved their respective books in the city of Oxyrhynchus and concurrently dumped old copies into the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps. (2) One group - the Orthodox - established in isolation at Oxyrhynchus preserved both the canonical and the non canonical books and dumped old copies into the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps. (3) One group - the Gnostics - established in isolation at Oxyrhynchus preserved both the canonical and the non canonical books and dumped old copies into the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps. Any other possibilities might include the historical "occupation" of the city of Oxyrynchus at different epochs for two different groups. There are other options - I have started with the simplest. Do any of the above simplest possibilities appears to be more likely on a logical basis considering the major schisms which are recorded between the people preserving the canon and the people preserving and authoring (dont forget some of the "Gnostic Gospels" are authored in the later 4th century) the non canonical books? Finally, if you think option (1) must be the more appropriate, do you think that the "Orthodox Christian Scribes" talked to the "Gnostic Christian Scribes" when they happened to meet while throwing old copies of their respective holy scriptures away at the local rubbish dump? Or did they throw books at each other at the tip? Was the Arian controversy partially about "book throwing" between the orthodox and the gnostics at the dump?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-30-2010, 06:39 AM	#2
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Pete, suppose that a muslim commando comes to Oxyrhynchus around 640 CE. They find a lot of christian monasteries containing old papyri. To them, these libraries contain rubbish. That can be how these papyri go to the dump.

05-01-2010, 07:24 AM	#6
Rick Van Vliet Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Southeast Posts: 249	The Gospel of Thomas isn't Gnostic any more than Einstein was Gnostic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.