stephan huller

Second century orthodoxy was the belief system formulated by Irenaeus and imposed on the rest of the Church through his intimacy with the Emperor Commodus (cf. AH 4.30.1) and his believing mistress Marcia. Clement of Alexandria always connects 'fear' and 'faith' - not only because of Abraham.

mountainman

Thanks for this reference Andrew.

Here is the full exposition of the author's notes on this text at NHC 1.3:

The author in the article refers to Neoplatonism 43 times, and states

Emperor Julian is regarded as an advocate of Neoplatonism, and surprisingly enough,
according to the findings of Rowan Williams, and his sources, so is Arius of Alexandria.


The Debate about Valentian has 3 (?) sources


The basis of the confidence by which DeConick can state,
"No this is original doctrine of Valentinus"
are the references Toto has earlier furnished

Since Epiphanius and Theodoret wrote after the publication of this text at NHC 1.3,
they are not in the same class of sources as the earlier three cites.
So the great debate about Valentinus is essentially a great debate
about these three sources and their referential integrity if any.


Three independent Sources OR One "Eusebian" Source?

There may be three sources but because they have been funnelled across the desk of Eusebius, we may be dealing with just one source called Eusebius (or whoever preserved Eusebius in the later 4th and 5th centuries while the heretics were being obliterated from the face of the planet Earth). This "Eusebius" is the chief heresiologist, and on matters regarding his chief literary enemies, the vile and despicable heretical Gnostics, how TF! can we be so nieve and gullible not to outrightly question his integrity on this matter? De Connick's response echoes the centuries old default position of accepting at face value whatever can be found about the Gnostics in the writings of the orthodox heresiologists - their opponents.

The "Lost Generation" of Neoplatonists

I refer to the above quote alluding to a "Lost Generation of Neoplatonists, and suggest that this generation was that of Sopater, whom Constantine had executed c.336 CE. What happened to them? They went bush. This is an Australian expression which means they "headed for the hills", or sought refuge in remote locations, or left the cities, or evacuated the centers of Christian imperial presence, or avoided the new and strange religion.

It is more likely that the "Gospel of Truth" was authored by a post Nicaean Neoplatonist Greek philosopher and academic, attempting to harmonize the advances of neoplatonism (Porphyry, Plotinus) with the philosophy of the new state religion, if indeed the new state religion had a philosophy, or not just a "Holy Greek Writ".

Mainstream History of NHC 1.3 "The Gospel of Truth"

(1) It was written by Valentinian because Eusebius said Irenaeus said so.
(2) It was written by Christians because it mentions Jesus, and remained ANONYMOUS because of modesty.
(3) It is therefore to be dated to the early 2nd century.
(4) It was preserved in its anonymous state for two centuries.
(5) It was then redacted and/or interpolated by (Christian?) Neoplatonists and/or ARIANS in the 4th century.
(6) It was then finally published as part of the NHC in the mid 4th century.


An Alternative History of NHC 1.3

(1) It was written as a reaction to the "massive christianization of the east" at Nicaea 324/325 CE by an author in the Alexandrian academic Greek literate Neoplatonist school - "The Lost Generation of Neoplatonists". NOTE: The generation of Nicaean Neoplatonists was lost because Constantine considered that:

"Plato's critical questioning is a menace to the state"

(2) The Greek sources were translated to Coptic at the remote refuge and non christian monastery of Nag Hammadi during the period until c.348 CE (the date the codex was manufactured) and then ceermoniously prepared for burial and consignment to the earth, since these books were forbidden and declared to be heretical by the 4th century Imperial Christian regime. They invited death to their preservers, and perhaps to the entire monastery if they were found by the orthodox searches - they were "HOT and ILLEGAL PROPERTY". And they could not be preserved by any other means except burial in the Mother Earth.


I find the alternative hypothetical chronology and explanation a great deal simpler.


Final Question

I'd like to ask this question. If we did not have these three citations from Eusebius (i.e. Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian) concerning the existence of a version of a text called "The Gospel of Truth", then what dates would be being conjectured for the authorship of the text(s) at NHC 1.3? IMO the answer to the question is totally obvious. We would be conjecturing the texts were written within a few decades of their codex manufacture. That is in the early 4th century. Eusebius stands at the door guarding against this hypothesis. Can we do without Eusebius in regard to the matters of his enemies the gnostics? What will it cost us?

mountainman

IMO avi and stephan it was not so much orthodox theology, rather it was orthodox heresiology. Orthodox Christianity was after all historically defined by its opposition to its heresies.

We might compare it to dividing and ruling a brand new package of intellectual property rights (obviously of the books of the NT Canon and LXX) based on the inquisitional destruction of all its heretical negatives.

The imperial army was at hand during that later phase to simplify the process, so we can only wonder at the power and the passion and the tremendous foresight of the "Early Christians" as a persecuted underground minority who battled on for hundreds of years not only against despotic Roman Emperors and their minions, but also against such vile uneducated heretical Gnostic authors who could write such utter gargabe, filthy language and abhorent philosophy that we find in this text out of NHC 1.3 called "The Gospel of Truth".

aa5874

Who all in the 2nd century preached the HERESY that Jesus was about FIFTY years old when he suffered?

Who all in the 2nd century preached the Heresy that in Ephesus John taught that Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered?

Virtually every single Church writer REJECTED the claim in "Against Heresies" by "Irenaeus" that Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered and that John also preached the very same thing.

"Against Heresies", wholly or in part, is the product of a fraud to produce a BOGUS history of the Church.

aa5874

Based on the fact that there was NO printing press in antiquity in order to preserve writings they would have to be copied by hand.

It is not practical to expect "originals" for documents written thousands of years ago.

But, it is NOT really difficult to know what the Church tampered with and invented.

The Church did NOT manipulate every writing that passed through them. Those that the Church manipulated and INVENTED have their "FINGERPRINTS" all OVER them.