mountainman

Dear aa5874,

I am trying for a moment to ignore the canon, and the history of Jesus, and the history of the Jesus Brigade, and trhe history of the comments on the books of the Jesus brigade. I am trying instead, here, to examine what little we know of the opposition to christianity.

What I am attempting to draw out of this discussion is not the history of Jesus, or the believers in Jesus, but in fact the opposite --- this actual history of the heretics, the people who wrote literature which was not incorporated into the canon, who were portrayed as those who were not the followers of the "pure canon".


He could not get the time to completely manipulate the history of the writing and the chronological appearance and the authors of the new testament non canonical literature, because we can be well assured by scholarship that at least a reasonable portion of the NT apocrypha were being written in the fourth century.

The history of jesus believers is one history preserved by Eusebius. But I have little interest here for this history of jesus believers. I am attempting to draw out of this history, the included sub-history of the jesus-disbelievers .. the gnostic authors, the heretics, the people who apparently co-evolved with the true jesus believers, but were finally separated by the good shepherd Constantine at Nicaea, as aliens and anathemetised authors, leaving the pure canon followers inside the basilicas.

The history of the NT apocrypha and their authors is mentioned in a very untidy manner by Eusebius. He cannot give us any names for the authors of the oppositional gnostic texts. Why cannot he provide an author for these tractates? Did he know who wrote any of these (perhaps forty or more) tractates which mention Jesus and the apostles but which were not canonical? The Eusebian history concludes c.324 CE, but the apocrypha were still being written after Eusebius' death c.339 CE. He had no control over the opposition to christianity and the jesus brigade when he was dead (at least).


Arguments in support of the contention that the NT apocrypha were written after Nicaea.

1) Without exception all the NT apocrypha cite the NT canon and show a great knowledge of the canonical new testament books, as if they had been very studiously examined in the process of writing the NT apocrypha. Therefore there is little doubt that the apocrypha must have been written after the assembly of the canon which resembled its final form. How late is this?

2) Archaeological considerations (ie: absence of any hard evidence) suggests that the followers of the NT canon were very much underground. One might also assume that the NT canon was also very much underground also, and was not published openly for distribution to greek academics. Which non-christian outside of Eusebius mentions the canon before c.324 CE?

3) When Constantine shut the temples of the greek academic non-christians c.324/325 CE, and actively supported the christian party, and promoted the NT canon to the supreme role of the Holy Writ of the new Roman state monotheistic religion, these non-christian greek academics reacted. They had a lot of time of their hands (their temples were closed, they were prohibited from their own ancient network of non-christian churches and temples). Their own literature (Pythagoras, Plato, Euclid, Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, Plotinus (via Porphyry) etc was now very much second rate literature. They took up the pen and wrote the fourth century NT apocryphal tracts, such as The Acts of Philip --- known by scholarship to have been authored perhaps in the later part of the fourth century.

4) When did the greek academics really react against christianity? My argument is that this happened when christianity was elevated to the state level over and above the values held dear by these same greek academics (eg: the logos). When christianity is underground and insignificant, who in their right mind would have been interested in it? But when Constantine selected this sect for his own political purposes of creating a strong and centralised state monotheistic religion (exactly like the Persians did a century before him) christianity was no longer little-known..

5) At least as many as 30 NT apocryphal tractates are known to have been published after c.324 CE in the fourth or fifth centuries. (NB: I am ignoring the NT apocrypha which were written later than this). What was the nature of this anti-canonical movement, and what was its history?

6) Radio-Carbon datings: gJudas (290 CE +/- 60 years); and the Nag Hammadi codices publications dated to 348 CE (+/- 60 years).

7) The Acts of Pilate, in which the author asserts Pilate to have exclaimed that Jesus heals by the power of the Healing god Asclepius, is mentioned by Eusebius (See the quote in the earlier post) as having been distributed to the pagan schools (there were no christian schools at that time) to be memorised by the pagans. This represents the classic example. We have a Constantinian canon, and all is well. All of a sudden someone maliciously writes a brand new Gospel of Nicodemus, and being the good gnostic that they were, true to form, inside the gospel of Nicodemus is a sub tractate -- the Acts of Pilate. Was Pilate an apostle? Constantine would have been outraged! The Acts of Pailate! Who wrote this? I want his name! I want his head on a plate! I want to stop this author from writing anything else.


Arguments in support of the contention that the NT apocrypha were written before Nicaea.


1) Eusebius in his "history" tells us that some of these tractates were (at time very vaguely) mentioned by very respectable christian authors in early centuries,

So we have to hypothesise that Eusebius has lied about this, in the same modus operandi that he lied about "finding the hand of Jesus Christ in the letter to Agbar", and the "Hand of Josephus" in the TF.

Incidentally, those who present Eusebius as anthing other than a thoroughly dishonest historian will also need to subscribe to the theory that the manuscripts which have since been discovered and radio-carbon dated were published also in earlier centuries, and transmitted by copyists from the preNicene epoch into the fourth century.

2) Are there any other arguments other than "Eusebius said so"?



Now there is little doubt that some of the contents of some of the NT apocryphal tractates are very old. The gThomas is a classic example, because it has within it, preserved by its author, a sub-tract known to scholarship as "The Hymn of the Pearl". Thus our gnostic author buries the valuable esoteric and spiritual knowledge (of the gnostic non-christian sects and religions) into a seemingly "christian tractate".

The NT apocrypha are seemingly "christian tractates"..
But when were they first written in the ancient histirical sense?

The argument I wish to explore in this thread is that, despite the assertions of Eusebius (in his usual modus operandi of citing his own forgeries --- eg: The Letter of Jesus Christ Himself to Agbar, and the Testimonium Flavianum) the entire corpus of the NT apocrypha may have been written as a seditious polemical reaction of the Hellenistic gnostic sects and their academics, whom Constantine actively persecuted c.324 CE.

Best wishes,



Pete

aa5874

I am trying to impress upon you not to ignore the "crime scene". There are very important clues at the "crime scene".

An investigator must never ignore the "crime scene".

There are the NT and the writings of Eusebius, especially Church History. Please do not ignore them.

mountainman

Dear aa5874,

I am at the very least most suitably impressed with your advice not to ignore the "crime scene". My best people have questioned all the available eyewitness archaeologists and we have narrowed down the "crime scene" to one of four centuries in the early common era.


A crime scene has four dimensions: three of space and one of time.


An important fact has come to light. If Eusebius was, as he pretends to be, an honest christian, and he literally forges the hand of Jesus H. Christ himself in the scandlous Agbar-Jesus correspondence, and he literally forges the hand of Flavius Josephus in the TF, what is he not capable of forging?

We are talking about the (christian) name attached to the hand that forged in the most high and mighty christian name of Jesus Christ himself to the King Agbar ....

"Ahhhh, sorry King Agbar, I'll send one of the new miraculous healing super-crew over later after the main act. Hang on mate! Dont go and die on me for god's sake! It wont be long ... and ahhhh, by the way, thanks for believing in my historical existence mate! Cheers!!"

We are talking about the man who was voted "The first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity" over a century ago now. Times move slowly. At least one one question remains. Exactly how certain was the historical Jesus that his letter would be delivered to Eusebius via Annanius the courier in a far-distant century?

Do you have any questions which remain?


Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

It is the physical evidence from the "crime scene" that will ultimately provide the clues to the possible perpetrators and the time the "crime" occurred.

Do not ignore the physical evidence from the "crime scene."



I am trying to tell you Eusebius may have confessed to his involvement in the "crime" and told us how it was done.

Please do not ignore Eusebius. He wrote the History of the Church.

I think we have a confession. Eusebius may have thought he was just re-writing history.

mountainman

Dear aa5874,

Here is just one bit of evidence that I have pondered over for some time, a line out of the Nag Hamadi Codex 6.2 "The Acts of Peter and the 12 apostles". The author is providing a running introductory description for the first time of the key figure, the Pearl man Lithargoel. All modern commentators report that Lithargoel is to associated and understood as Jesus. Here Peter is presented as the narrator, who states the following:
I have four questions:

(1) Since when did Jesus carry books?
(2) Since when did the apostles carry books?
(3) Why were the books carried not exactly the same?
(4) In which century were codices commonly carried around?

Can anyone furnish a reasonable answer to any of these questions?

Best wishes,


Pete

gentleexit

And what's that "modus"? Earnest plodding I think. Honesty too. In his history, he admitted himself that ...

and when he quotes, though he may characterize a source his own way, he usually gives it as is and you can judge for yourself. (for example Constantine's "Constantine to his eastern subjects" doesn't show intolerance despite the historian's introduction).

In his "illustrious men", Jerome gives more space to Eusebius' mentor, the man who built the library that Eusebius used and Jerome saw. This man was the scholar and Eusebius is often named for him. Eusebius just collated.

The notion that he was a great original thinker is belied by his cowering at Nicea and the nature of his writing. And as Photius said, his style plods: "he does not, however, exhibit much charm and grace in explanation, which is also a defect of his other works". This is reader, organizer, not creator.

Unless you disregard Eusebius, this whole thread goes no where. If you do, then it has legs but I don't see why he should be ignored.

aa5874

I see the word "book" in the OT in Genesis. And "book" appears more than one hundred times in the same book, the OT.

mountainman

Dear aa5874,

I am refering to the physical evidence at the "crime scene". Have quick look at the history of the use of the Codex technology, as an advance over the use of the scroll. In antiquity the scroll was the dominant medium for literary works and would remain dominant for secular works until the fourth century. From the fourth century, the codex gained wide acceptance. Jesus and Peter would not have carried codices in the first century, they would have carried scrolls.

For some reason, the author of NHC 6.1 may be trying to present to the reader an anachronism. It is like saying that Abraham Lincoln was driven to work in a chauffer-driven Lincoln convertible.

What written knowledge did Jesus and Peter carry about?

Setting aside the technology issue, what knowledge do Jesus and Peter carry about with them? Who wrote the books? Surely they were not both carring around similar versions of the new testament? Perhaps they carried the LXX about, to and fro?


At this same WIKI page is the following graph which attempts to present a colour coded chronological map of when the use of papyrus stopped and the use of the codex commenced. The graph shows the codex commencing at 000, and I dont think this is actually correct -- because it is generally acknowledged that the Roman --- Martial --- only began experimenting with the use of the codex in later first century.


There are a number of interest research articles on the historical assessment of the rise of the technology of the codex over the technology of the scroll. The same WIKI page has a reasonable starting point.





Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear gentleexit,

Reasons for being suspicious of Eusebius' accounts related to the history of the new testament non canonical books which were not included in the bible are able to be outlined in a number of ways. There is certainly no need to ignore Eusebius, but one must be properly educated in how Eusebius himself represents the issues related to the entire corpus of the NT apocrypha:

1) The Eusebian position on the non canonical books

We can cite Eusebius here ...
Is it clear from the above that Eusebius represents a hostile witness to the authorship and the chronology of the NT apocrypha. This is not to say we ignore him.

2) Eusebius is capable of forging Jesus Christ's Syriac Hand

Eusebius forged Jesus and Eusebius forged Josephus Flavius in order to tender documents attesting to what Eusebius considered the books of the chrestos guys. If he was capable of forging evidence for his own cause, would he have had any cause not to forge evidence to obscure the cause of his opponents? We dont need to ignore Eusebius, we just need to keep firmly in mind that we cannot trust the wretched scribe any further than he can be physically kicked.


Could have the entire corpus of NT apocryphal literature been written after the year c.324 CE? At this time christianity was first meteorically thrust before the civilisan and academic Hellenistic populace of the eastern Roman empire, visible at last to the world as the supreme Roman state monotheistic religion that it is: characterised by its Holy Writ --- The NT Canon., which had been to all intents and purposes before that time, not very popular, not widely read, etc.

Subsequent generations in the fifth century and beyond are thus left holding a heritage of two very different bags of literature. One called the canon, which was preserved by the orthodox imperialists. The other an underground network of publications which were being sought out and destroyed by the orthodox supporters of the canon. Pachomius decides to bury the NHC in preference to burning it, or having it fall into the hands of the orthodox.

Eventually the political turmoil related to the implementation of christianity and its one true canon is forgotten, but the heretical literature remained, and was preserved by the church, as the "dark side" to authority. And now, in the 20th and 21st centuries, tractates are turning up directly from that epoch.

Anyway, what evidence refutes this position either in whole or in part? Please also note that I am in fact putting forward a scenario in which the christian religion existed prior to Constantine, but was very obscure and very little known. It was not at all at that time conspicuous (despie the Eusebius' assertions that it was politically persecuted) to the academics of Plato and Pythagoras et al. The greek academics only started taking christianity and the NT canon "seriously" when it appeared on their doorstep from the west in the year 324 CE in the form of The One True Word of the Logos.


Best wishes,



Pete

aa5874

So, why does Genesis contain the word "book"? I think it may just be a matter of translation or transliteration.


The main problem with NT apocrypha is that either the author is unknown or fictitious.

Eusebius, on the other hand, did write things that appear to be true, even while writing things that are known to be false. He has left a trail that can be followed.

For example, Eusebius wrote that there were writers of antiquity called Josephus and Philo. This appears to be true, but some of the information he gave about Philo and Josephus appears to be false and the evidence for the falsehoods can be found and documented from the very writings of Philo and Josephus.

It is most fascinating that Eusebius would leave intact the evidence for the fabrication of the History of the Church.