mountainman

A Summary of the Mainstream Evidence for Pre-Nicaean "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc"


Here is the summary of today's contemporary opinion and evidence.
If I have made any critical errors or omissions let me know ...
(nb: I have taken these unaddressed argument from here


Why does everyone think that the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" and much of the new testament apocryphal literature was authored "early" --- before the Council of Nicaea? In the following I have outlined the evidence at the basis of this commonly accepted "belief". Note that in the following the abbreviation NTC represents the "New Testament Canon" while thre abbreviation NTA represents the "New Testament Apocrypha" (ie: the Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc)

Defining the literary evidence supporting the Mainstream chronology

A process of categorization is employed to focus on the key literary evidence supporting generally accepted mainstream theory of “Pre-Nicaean” authorship. The twenty-odd books which are presumed to have been authored “Early” (i.e. before Nicaea 325 CE) have been classified according to six Category Codes.

Category (1) consists of books for which Eusebius presents literary sources that would have us infer that these books were cited by authors in the 2nd or 3rd century. These key citations will be briefly examined further below.

For books in Category (2) Eusebius himself is the earliest witness. (The Acts of Andrew and John, The Acts of Andrew and Matthew, The Acts of Peter and Andrew, The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of John, The Teaching of the Apostles)

Category (3) lists books cited but for which there are no extant texts. (The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion], The Gospel of the Egyptians, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Gospel of the Nazoreans)

Category (4) lists books for which there is no “early” mention. (The Acts of Thomas, The Acts of Peter, The Acts of John the Theologian, The Pistis Sophia [nb: this is misnamed and is actually entitled "A Portion of the Books of the Savior"], The Didache [Teaching of the Apostles], The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]

Category (5) is reserved for the books of the Nag Hammadi Codices (NHC). The publication of the NHC has been C14 dated to 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years). This C14 dating "superficially" supports 4th century authorship.

Finally in the last Category (6) The Acts of Pilate heads a large list of over 30 books of the NTA currently conjectured to have been authored after the Council of Nicaea. Fourth century (or later) authorship of this large group of NTA books is of course very much in line with the arguments presented here.

Summary of Literary Citation Evidence for Mainstream chronology

It should therefore be clear from the above categorization that the historical evidence concerning some early authorship of the books of the NTA arises only in the first two categories. Books listed in Categories 3, 4, 5 and 6 are either already known to have been authored after Nicaea, or there are no early witnesses to suggest this postulate. Books listed in Category 2 are first evidenced by Eusebius himself, but there is no guarantee that these did not appear during the period Eusebius was writing.

This just leaves the literary evidence associated with books listed in Category 1 as the basis of the mainstream postulate for early authorship. This literary evidence may be briefly summarized as follows:

The Gospel of Peter:
Eusebius cites Origen, Justin Martyr and Serapion as mentioning this text although in the case of Justin, MR James comments that “the evidence is not demonstrative”. Eusebius has an unknown Serapion report that he walked into a Gnostic library and “borrowed” a copy of this text.

The Gospel of Thomas:
Eusebius cites Hippolytus (155-235), Refutation of all Heresies, v. 1-6., as mentioning something similar to the received text, and cites Origen as mentioning some text of Thomas. Eusebius cites saying (No. 2 in the gThomas) as quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Miscellenies ii. 45. 5; v. 96.3), as coming from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There is certainly some ambiguity here.

The Gospel of Judas:
Eusebius cites a mention of this text in Irenaeus’ “Adversus Haereses” [I.31.1] however some integrity issues have been noted with it. For example, the text is described by Irenaeus as being linked with such villainous persons as Cain, Esau, Korah, and the Sodomites, rather than with the traditionally respected person of Seth. One commentator writes “Perhaps Irenaeus was simply misinformed or deliberately confused the two as a rhetorical strategy. At any rate, it is a strange divergence that demands clarification.” [Review of Deconick, Arie Zwiep] There is further ambiguity here

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
Eusebius preserves a citation from Irenaeus who quotes a non-canonical story that circulated about the childhood of Jesus. Many but not all scholars consider that it is possible that the apocryphal writing cited by Irenaeus is, in fact, what is now known as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. There is room for doubt

The Infancy Gospel of James:
Early knowledge of the “Protevangelium of James” is inferred from the preservation in Eusebius of mention by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. An inference is not the same thing as unambiguous evidence.

The Acts of Paul:
The chief and final literary citation is from Eusebius’ often cited Latin author Tertullian, in his De baptismo 17.5. This appears as the only “early” instance in which information is provided concerning an author of apocryphal writings. Note that the manuscripts which preserve Tertullian's De baptismo are quite late, the earliest being the 12th century Codex Trecensis.

As for those (women) who appeal to the falsely written Acts of Paul in order to defend the right of women to teach and to baptize, let them know that the presbyter in Asia who produced this document, as if he could add something of his own to the prestige of Paul, was removed from his office after he had been convicted and had confessed that he had done it out of love for Paul.

The 4th century interpolation into Josephus, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum”, is regarded by many as a critically positioned forgery, with respect to the history of the NTC. Likewise the “Testimonium Tertullianum”, it is suggested, should be regarded as a critically positioned forgery, with respect to the history of the NTA.

Rejection of the “conclusive evidence” via the “Church preserved literature”

Jerome’s novel addition to the Christian tradition - that the author of the Acts of Paul wrote in the presence of the apostle John in the 1st century - is a plainly fraudulent misrepresentation, and has been soundly rejected by many academics.

It is suggested that all the above “literary evidence” in the writings of the “Fathers” may be either ambiguous or false interpolations either by Eusebius, or his orthodox continuators who preserved both Eusebius and Tertullian.

Rejection of the “conclusive evidence” of Greek NTA papyri fragments

A number of Greek papyri fragments related to the NTA are postulated to be dated earlier than the 4th century, but the evidence is not conclusive.

For the Gospel of Peter P.Oxy.2949, P.Oxy.4008 and P.Vinbob G 2325 are often cited as “early”, whereas P.Oxy.849 is dated to 325 CE. “They are possibly but not conclusively from the Gospel of Peter.” [p,258, FN:11; "Fabricating Jesus" - Craig A Evans].

Likewise P.Oxy.654, P.Oxy.655 and P.Oxy.1 cited for the Gospel of Thomas,
P.Oxy 2525, P.Oxy 3525 and P.Rylands cited for the Gospel of Mary,
and P.Oxy 3524 and p.Bodmer cited in respect of the Infancy Gospel of James cannot be regarded as conclusively certain.

Additionally, there exists a great preponderance of Greek papyri fragments of the NTA which have been dated to the 4th or 5th centuries. Finally it is worth noting in passing that few commentators note that the population demographics for the city of Oxyrhynchus is known to have hit a massive peak in the mid 4th century. The analysis of coins found at the fifteen Oxyrhynchus tip sites also suggests the same thing. (See Milne, J.G.)

The corroboration of the 4th century evidence via the Manuscript Tradition

The collective dating of all available earliest manuscript copies of the NTA produce a profile which itself suggests a fourth century origin. A glance down the column marked “Earliest Manuscript” in Appendix (C) shows dates no earlier that the 4th century. Thus the manuscript tradition itself supports the postulate that the books of the NTA were authored in the 4th century. The source manuscripts are invariably Coptic and Syriac translations, and not Greek as intimated by Eusebius.

SUMMARY

The above evidence is far from conclusive in establishing that the Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored before the epoch of Nicaea and Eusebius. In addition it has not yet been argued that Eusebius himself cannot be regarded as a fair and accurate witness, since he himself must be classified as an Heresiologist with respect to the Gnostics, and is thus a hostile witness.

People may trust Eusebius as an integrous witness for the orthodox history of the canon following Christians, but they should not expect Eusebius to be an integrous witness for the opposing Gnostic history. Retrojection of material in the Eusebian "Ecclesiatical History" and other sources has had the effect that we are compelled to believe that ***some** of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored -- following Eusebius alone -- before Nicaea. I have dealt with the details above, and the evidence is far from conclusive.

The conjecture that the Gnostic Gospels and Acts and the NT Apocryphal literature in general were all actually authored after Nicaea, as a reaction to the NT canon has therefore been put forward as an alternative. As I have attempted to outline in the above, it may be argued that this conjecture is not contrary to the available evidence in our possession.

Manistream Data Resources

The following resources are summaries of manistream opinion and chronology estimates provided by mainstream opinion. I trust I am not misrepresenting mainstream opinion in all of this, so I have provided some detailed specifications of it. Should there be any errors in these articles, let me know.

This stuff may not be everyone's cup of tea. Many people want to cling to the NT canonical "Gospels and Acts" in discussions. Here, we must learn to leave them by the wayside in order to explore their "Far Side".


The Apocrypha at a Glance: A compilation of commentary concerning the nature of the entire set of new testament non canonical literature. This article summarises mainstream opinion concerning the genre of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts. IMO much (but not all) of the New Testament Apocryphal corpus is essentially a Homerization of the Canon, and was authored in the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea. It mimics the canon. Did in fact a clever and studiously inventive author of Hellenistic romance narratives take a leaf out of Constantine's Bible?

The Apocrypha Masterlist: Listings of the entire New Testament Apocryphal literature according to two sort orders ...
(1) according to the mainstream chronological estimates, and
(2) according to the type (ie: Acts, Gospels, etc).

The Non Canonical "Leucian Acts": Analysis of a number of the standard translations of the non canonical "Acts of the Apostles" reveals a distinct signature of anti-christian polemic. These supposedly earliest Gnostic Acts were supposed to have been authored by one "Leucius Charinus", also known variously as the "Son of the Devil", and other similar names, by orthodox christians for centuries and centuries and centuries? Who was this author? Nobody known at present. He was obviously a master heretic, but who was he and when did he write these heretical and very docetic "Acts of the Apostles".


End Note

This thread is about the authorship of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" and not the "Canonical Gospels and Acts".
In this thread I will not be making any arguments for a late date to the NT.
As far as this thread is concerned the gospels could have been authored in the 2nd or 3rd centuries.
This thread is about the "far side" - the authorship of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".

mountainman

The C14 radiocarbon dating results are generally depicted with a mean estimate date and an error range which varies according to the age of the mean estimated date. In respect of the New Testament related manuscripts there have been two and two only C14 dating results that I am aware of, and they are both in respect of "Gnostic Gosepls" which fall on the Non Canonical side of the table of "Early Christian Literature" and NOT the Canonical side.

C14 Citation (1) of (2) for the Gospel of Judas = 290 CE +/- 60 years





C14 Citation (2) of (2) for the Gospel of Thomas [NHC 2.2] = 348 CE +/- 60 years






Precisely, according to the Bell Curve distribution it is quite reasonable
for us to take an average of these two separate and independent C14 citations.
The result looks like the following ....


C14 Citation (1) and (2) COMBINED = 319 CE +/- 42 years



This result provides the precise reason that I am suggesting that the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts"
need to be perceived and evaluated as Post Nicaean reactions to the New Testament Canon
which was widely and lavishly published, and supported throughout the Roman Empire with the sword,
from the epoch which commences from the supremacy of Constantine c.324 CE.

The argument that these manuscripts are actually "original manuscripts" of the fourth century
is certainly supported by the C14 dating analyses, which tells us that they were published at
that time. The assertion that they are simply "copies of earlier original documents" from prior
centuries needs to be questioned, and that involves examining the literature evidence which
is presented in Eusebius and other Eusebian "endorsed authors" such as Tertullian. In the post above in this thread I have meticulously itemised this literature evidence from the "Heresiologists".


It needs to be acknowledged that these "Heresiologists". at the moment are governing the traditional historical beliefs associated with the literature of their sworn enemies, the Gnostic heretics.

spin

Well, if Stephan was a naughty boy with name games, he should be chastised for that, but do it in loco and call him for that issue.

I peek at the nonsense mountainman is flogging at the moment and I see a ridiculous presentation purporting to be dealing with C14 and think, with such blundering about, what would be the point?


spin

mountainman

The point spin would be to point out the ridiculous blunder.

It seems to me that within the bounds of scientific analysis, two independent C14 citations of 290 CE and 348 CE (each with an error range of +/- 60 years) may be averaged to yield a result of 319 CE +/- 42 years. I have bounced the validity of this calculation off some experts, and they all agree that it is a standard practice with multiple C14 dating citations. In this case, the evidence just happens to be dates of a pair of "Gnostic NT related Manuscripts", and not the bones of an ox, or something else.

The process itself appears quite common and justifiable .... so, where is the ridiculous blunder in the analysis of this evidence?

Doug Shaver

Some of us have. The fact that we disagree with your conclusions is not proof of the contrary.

avi

Were I you, senor, I should be a tad circumspect about criticizing radioactive carbon 14 dating, because the recently developed, non-destructive method, once implemented on a broad scale, and further refined to accept smaller papyrus fragments, is going to refute (not falsify!) many a would be critic.

Pete's presentation may or may not satisfy every nuclear chemist participating in the forum, but, it is superior to most of the drivel I read here, daily. In particular, do you possess, spin, some radioactive carbon 14 dating evidence to oppose Pete's data?

If not, then you err in seeking to label his efforts, "nonsense".

I am waiting to read the reply of someone who knows more about nuclear chemistry than I do.

avi

Toto

I think that Pete's idea that we can use the date of the earliest manuscript that we have as the date of the composition of the work is just wrong.

spin

If I were you, avi, I'd recommend that you a) learn to read more closely and b) look at how C14 is used. Who, for example, uses bell curves to represent C14 data?? And then who simply averages out the locus of two curves and creates a new one?? Sheesh.


spin

stephan huller

No one can possibly believe that the date of the surviving manuscripts of ancient documents represent the correct dating of the original texts. The people who make such claims are simply finding a way for those documents to disappear. There is a much easier way for Pete to avoid acknowledging the surviving material.

Find something else to study!

spin

I wouldn't mind if it were actually study. The notion there is "learning". If it were an attempt at study, I'd recommend sticking to the day job. Payment at least reflects a modicum of success.


spin