mountainman

NHC 6.1


The author of this tractate has Peter claim that a book cover like (those of) Peter's books was in Lithargoel's left hand. This tells us that Peter is witnessing the christian literature in the form of the codex and not the scroll.

Best wishes,


Pete

Doug Shaver

I don't know a thing about "this tractate" except what was in your post. You included zero information that would establish its credibility.

mountainman

I am expecting that you may have briefed yourself on the Nag Hammadi codices which have a carbon fourteen date of 348 CE (+/- 60 years). See also Robin Lane-Fox on this issue.



Best wishes,


Pete

Doug Shaver

I might do that when I get a chance.

In the meantime, I have read Karen Armstrong on the issue, if by "the issue" you mean what we can infer from the Nag Hammadi documents about Christianity's origins. I don't consider them a reliable source of information about what Peter might have witnessed.

I have read one of Fox's books, by the way. In it, he advocates the position that the gospel of John, or some portion thereof, was actually written by one of Jesus' disciples. Considering what you believe about Christianity's origins, I'm surprised to see you citing him as a credible authority.

mountainman

At that time the following two part review of Lane-Fox
may be worth your while browsing ....

Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians - Part 1: a critical review of the evidence for the existence of christianity in the pre-nicene epoch

Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians - Part 2: a critical review of the evidence against the existence of christianity in the pre-nicene epoch


Inasmuch as we have a text almostly certainly clear of interpolations and any adjustments during the period 348 to 2008 CE (IE: It was buried) which has as its title "The Acts pf Peter and the Twelve Apostles" and presents a narrative about this Peter (ostensibly from the year 348 CE) -- this text is reliable as evidence. But just what did Peter witness in TAOPATTA?

I can accommodate RLF having a position in the field of ancient history, and yet making commentary about other matters. I have cited him as an ancient historian on the basis of his book above, and his background. I would be interested if you could produce that citation.

Best wishes,


Pete

Doug Shaver

From The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. Knopf, 1992 (p. 205):

. . . early in the text's life, the editor who added the final chapter to the Gospel assumed that they were references to the Gospel's author himself. When early Christians do express an opinion on this Gospel, they all agree with this view: I believe that they are right [emphasis added], and that their reading is the one valid explanation of this odd group of allusions. If so, the fourth Gospel rests on an excellent primary source: a disciple who was very close to Jesus, who reclined beside him at the last supper, who saw into the empty tomb.

Doug Shaver

Before I could agree, I would need to know more about it than that it was "almost certainly clear of interpolation and any adjustments." My belief that the gospels are fiction has nothing to do with how many interpolations or adjustments I think are in them. I would think they were fiction even if I were convinced that the extant copies were identical word for word with the originals.

mountainman

Thanks for the cite Doug.

I would need to read the chapter in context to appreciate this in the proper context, and on the basis of this exchange will endeavour to locate this book and read the section.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

The NH codices remain to be properly interpretted. I have attempted to gather information together concerning them at my website (refs already above somewhere). In brief, all I can say is that they represent a time capsule direct from the ground of the mid fourth century of our CE.

As such the tractates each represent bits and pieces of evidence from that epoch. I have chosen to do a considerable bit of analysis on just one of these tractates, TAOPATTA - being the first story in book 6 (NHC 6.1). The story concerns the apostle Peter and an ambiguous number of other apostles and the beginning few lines of the story appear not to have survived.

It is a credit to modern technology and academic methods that the english translations of the full set of Nag Hammadi books were finally published c.1970. Having said that however, IMO the full significance of the genre we are looking at here (direct, so to speak, from the ground as a time capsule, and not person-to-person transmitted) has not yet been completely understood.

Perhaps one question that springs to mind is to ask the question here, as to whether anyone is aware of any author who has made a comment upon the genre of the NHC who mentions - at the time - the fourth century historian Ammianus Marcellinus? And if so, what comments have been made in regard to the history of the greek soldier in the Roman army that relate to the theory of the history of these books we have found from Nag Hammadi.

Jeffrey may know someone?


Ha. Well I am not prepared to argue against this, since you know my position requires that we examine the ground of ancient history for the evidence by which we may be convinced that this fraudulent misrepresentation of ancient history might be seen in its political environment on that ancient ground and epoch in which the act was perpetrated.

Anyway, best wishes,

Pete

Doug Shaver

Well, thanks, Pete. Notwithstanding my opinion of your theories, you do occasionally come up with stuff that makes me think.