|
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Did gnostic preservers make "collections" of texts, like the canonical collections ?
Did gnostic preservers make "collections" of texts, like the canonical collections ?
My position is that gnostic preservers made collections of texts, and that we are generally finding abundant evidence for this activity. The activity is precisely the same as the orthodox canonical preservers, who preserved specific series of texts together as a "collection".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
The gnostics did not make "collections" that are at all analogous to a deck of cards.
The stupidity of this just makes my head hurt.
|
The evidence that supports my position is abundant:
(1) The Nag Hammadi Codices are a manufactured "collection" of texts. They are described as a "collection" by the world's scholarship.
(2) The Qarara Codices, containing the Tchacos Codex, containing the texts of the Gospel of Judas, and two other texts, represent "collections" of "gnostic texts".
(3) Photius c.845 CE has a "collection" of texts before him perhaps in Bagdad, and describes them with a flair.,
(4) Eusebius mentions collections of heretical books from which Bishop Serapion is able to arrange an inter-library loan for the "Gospel of Peter".
(5) The new testament canon, while not preserved by "gnostics" is also best viewed as a specific "collection" of texts - sometimes called books.
Christian orthodoxy and christian heresy was defined by the specific "collection of texts" that people selected, for one reason or another, to preserve.
As far as I am concerned, examining the texts of the orthodox and the gnostics as "collections" arises naturally from the evidence. The evidence indicates that these texts were not preserved individually, but as "collections".
Best wishes,
Pete
Quote:
Photios finds a "Collection" of Gnostic texts while in Bagdad, 9th century
At an uncertain date, Photios participated in an embassy to the Abbasids of Baghdad.[10]
his renowned Bibliotheca or Myriobiblon, a collection of extracts and abridgments of
280 volumes of classical authors (usually cited as Codices), the originals of which
are now to a great extent lost. The work is especially rich in extracts from historical writers.
There has been discussions on whether the Bibliotheca was in fact compiled in Baghdad
at the time of Photius' embassy to the Abbasid court in Samarra in June 845, since many
of the mentioned works - the majority by secular authors - seems to have been virtually
nonexistent in both contemporary and later Byzantium. The Abbasids showed great interest
in classical Greek works and Photius might have studied them
during his years in exile in Baghdad.[26]
[10] I. Plexidas, Introduction, 17; J. Shepard, Spreading the World, 235
[26] Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture; Jokisch, Islamic Imperial Law (2007),
with discussions on the earlier standpoints of Threadgold and Lemerle (pp 364-386)
Photius' BIBLIOTHECA OR MYRIOBIBLON
114. [Lucius Charinus, Circuits of the Apostles: Acts of Peter,
Acts of John, Acts of Andrew, Acts of Thomas, Acts of Paul]
Read a book entitled Circuits [1] of the Apostles, comprising the Acts of Peter,
John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, the author being one Lucius Charinus, [2] as
the work itself shows. The style is altogether uneven and strange; the words
and constructions, if sometimes free from carelessness, are for the most part
common and hackneyed; there is no trace of the smooth and spontaneous expression,
which is the essential characteristic of the language of the Gospels and Apostles,
or of the consequent natural grace.
The contents also is very silly and self-contradictory. The author asserts that
the God of the Jews, whom he calls evil, whose servant Simon Magus was, is one God,
and Christ, whom he calls good, another. Mingling and confounding all together,
he calls the same both Father and Son. He asserts that He never was really made man,
but only in appearance; that He appeared at different times in different form
to His disciples, now as a young, now as an old man, and then again as a boy,
now taller, now shorter, now very tall, so that His head reached nearly to heaven.
He also invents much idle and absurd nonsense about the Cross, saying that Christ
was not crucified, but some one in His stead, and that therefore He could laugh
at those who imagined they had crucified Him. He declares lawful marriages to be
illegal and that all procreation of children is evil and the work of the evil one.
He talks foolishly about the creator of demons. He tells monstrous tales of silly
and childish resurrections of dead men and oxen and cattle. In the Acts of St. John
he seems to support the opponents of images in attacking their use.
In a word, the book contains a vast amount of
childish,
incredible,
ill-devised,
lying,
silly,
self-contradictory,
impious, and
ungodly statements,
so that one would not be far wrong in calling
it the source and mother of all heresy.
|
|
03-28-2011, 05:51 PM
