mountainman

I question that there existed an "Official Greek LXX" in the epoch BCE. If you are asking me Is it mycontention that the LXX fragments found among the DSS are not authentic, and by authentic, you mean they are faithful copies of the legendary Ptolemaic LXX, then I dont think they are. It is just as reasonable to think there were some Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible done at some point, or points in the epoch BCE, but there was no centralised legendary STANDARD.

I have always allowed for the library of Origen to be central to the raw material used by the 4th century christian publications. It is possible that there were other earlier Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible which Origen drew upon in order to prepare his Hexapla. But the question again is, was there some sort of orthoritative standard legendary GREEK text that was distributed through the empire, and I think that there may not have been.

mountainman

In theory this evidence can be C14 dated.

Sheshbazzar

I'm afraid, mountanman, that you are missing the substance of my argument vis the Hebrew משיח being for many centuries rendered by the Greek term χριστοῦ.

Whether any of these BCE Greek texts were actual exemplars of an 'authoritative standard legendary LXX' is not even germain to the argument.
Any translation of the Hebrew משיח by the Greek term χριστοῦ. whether orally or in any witten Greek text would set up the situation for which I am arguing, Hellenistic Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles using the term χριστοῦ 'Christos' with messianic expectations long before the first century, and united in their contempt for the standing 'Jewish System' represented by The Temple Priesthood and its participating parties.
And while following the Greek text, developing an inclusive Jewish/Gentile fellowship with its own 'explanations' traditions, tropes, sayings and practices in the shadow of the ongoing and 'traditionally' Gentile-excluding Jewish form of the Abrahamic religion.
In Judea, and particularly in Jerusalem during Temple times any such a 'renegade' Law flaunting sect would need to maintain a low profile to survive.
Take the Jewish Temple religious authorities out of the way, which the events of 70 CE did, and such a movement would finally be able to 'come out of the woodwork' and openly express their contempt for the former failed system without much fear of any reprisals. The hated hegmony finally broken.

This would also explain the anomolay of the early Dura Europos 'house church' with its 'Christian' -appearing- images, these tropes and iconography, not based upon the acts of any actual flesh and blood 'J-S' but upon a long and secretively developed political opposition tradition in which 'J-S' the χριστοῦ was that figuative 'Anointed' messianic opponent who would (and in their view, did) overthrow 'The System'.

The sayings and tropes once abroad soon became 'public property' and dozens dissident of sects ran with them, made them their own, and made out of them whatever they would, as there was no recognized strong central authourity yet in place which could possibly control or prevent it from happening.

Literally overnight multiple 'Christianities' came into being and multiplied, each with its own particular spin upon these finally public propaganda 'sayings' and parables.

Duvduv

Shesh, what about accounting for the sources of authorship of texts not included in the canon? Which central inventors wrote them?
Nag Hammadi includes the Apocalypse of Paul but not the epistles.
It even refers to Paul being called from the womb as in Galatians. The Prayer of Paul also mentions the bowing to the name as in Philippians but also the mention of being begotten which doesn't exist in the epistles.

Yet even here the Jesus figure is not linked with the gospel stories.

James The Least

Philo was using the LXX. So that gives us reason to think that it existed in the first century BCE at least.

James The Least

I'm not sure the Pharisees would have been in any position to suppress Christianity even before 70. Perhaps they would have in Jerusalem, but if someone wanted to start a Christos cultus in say Sinope or Antioch, what was stopping them?

Sheshbazzar

This is covered by the statement in the previous post;
"The (old) sayings and tropes (of the long developing Jewish/Gentile Xριστοῦ 'Christos' cult Temple opposing political faction) once abroad soon became 'public property' and dozens dissident of sects ran with them, made them their own, and made out of them whatever they would, as there was no recognized strong central authority yet in place which could possibly control or prevent it from happening."


Many different writers and sources. Quite obviously there was no uniformity in the distribution or possession of the various texts.
Nag Hamadi evidently did not possess the other Pauline Epistles, or more likely they did possess some of them, but simply did not leave any of these behind to be found.
Just because one stumbles on an ancient library is no reason to expect that it will contain exemplars of every text of any given writer, or that we can expect them to be arranged for our convenience by the Dewy Decimal system.

Perhaps copies of those missing texts had never actually passed into their hands, perhaps they were rare, or were out on loan, or off being copied somewhere else, or not yet been composed.
There are many very simple and human reasons that any particular stash might not contain every book we are now familiar with, and contain books that have never before been seen.
It does not require any big conspiracy, just humans bumbling along through their often messy and disorganized lives.

The Nag Hamadi materials only provide us a small window on that past, they by no means give us access to a 360 degree view, far more was going on outside of our limited 'line of sight' than what can be viewed or demonstrated.

יהי המשיח ושמו יהושוע׃ That is to say there was; ὁ Χριστός καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοαὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν
or in plain English 'There was a messiah ('Christos') and his name was יהושוע 'YAHSHUA' (or in the Greek language) Ἰησοῦν Iēsous.

This TITLE and NAME was well known (-Zech 6:12-) as applying to the legendary coming Χριστός 'Christos' centuries before the 'birth' of Χριστός Ἰησοῦν > 'Christos Iēsous' sic 'Christ Jesus' in the first century.

This was the One, 'The Son of Elohim', who was to come and finally bring justice and peace to all of mankind, to these pre-'christian' 'Christos' believers for centuries, before finally publicly emerging in the post-Temple 'Christos' 'Christian' cult writings mocking, damning, and blaming the Temple legalistic form of religion and its despised Priesthood.

Again. This movement and its ideas DID NOT originate in the first century CE, but was as a result of the political events and destruction of the Temple and the breaking of the Priestly hegmon, was finally at long last free to openly assert itself.

The messianic 'sayings texts' and various NT parables and tropes had long been quietly developing and accumulating, and the newly emergent anti-'Jewish' Jewish/Gentile religion set to work in assembling these into a new corpus of 'Holy texts', 'A New Testement' that would both supplement, and yet replace and over-ride that 'Old' Testement' which was according to Moses', rendering it no longer authorative in matters of religios practices.
Thus they could both retain the cherished religious 'history' while at the same time rendering passe and invalid the Mosaic Laws that they had long chafed under.

Duvduv

Come to think of it, what would be the rationale for the Nag Hammadi group not to include Pauline epistles (if not the canonical gospels) in their collection if at least the Prayer of Paul and Apocalypse of Pul ARE included, and for some selective reason point to Galatians and Philippians?

After all, the notion of the begotten son as mentioned in the Prayer is standard Christian belief even if not expressed in the epistles, and even if using that non-canonical expression pleroma. Anyone have any thoughts about this?

Sheshbazzar

I don't doubt that it was there. It simply could not get any significant traction among either 'orthodox' Judaism or the Gentile world with The Temple still standing and the Synagogue system still supportive of Israel and its traditional forms of religion.

Something had to upset that long standing apple-cart (or 'overthrow the tables of The Temple's money changers') before this 'Christos' cults rumblings and gugulings would have to be taken seriously.

And when that something did happen, they were there, ready, waiting, and long prepared with a new theological explanation for the world's new state of affairs, one that they had long been warning of and being ignored.

But now would no longer be ignored. They already had the best and most thought-out and persuasive of theological explanations for what had befallen the Jews and their nation, and subsequent generations built on and added to that explanation, eventually cumulating in the completed texts now known as 'The New Testament' writings.

Duvduv

I am wondering why an anathema in the First Sirmium Creed of Belgrade in 351 condemned anyone who did not believe that Abraham and Jacob saw the Christ when this never appears anywhere in the NT canon texts. Indeed, the idea shows up in Dialogue with Trypho 56 of our old friend Justin Martyr. Here is the anathema again:

15. Whoever says that Abraham saw, not the Son, but the ingenerate God or part of Him, be he anathema.

16. Whoever says that Jacob wrestled, not the Son as man, but the ingenerate God or part of Him, be he anathema.

Of course as we know, whenever "Justin" speaks about such things and even says "we" he never explains who they are, who the leaders are and where the communities are.

The Dialogue says:

"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).