DCHindley

Fair enough.

As far as I am aware, no literary mss from Roman antiquity were precisely dated. We can't fault the authors or scribes for following the conventions of their times.

But how would that effect the dating of individual fragments, other than placing them deeper in the pile? The prehistory of a city, say, is not impacted by how much debris is piled over the ancient remains by later re-builders.

I haven't had a chance to carefully read the article you cite above. I'll comment when I get the chance. FWIW, though, Roberts was questioning the assumption that the codex became the standard for literary works in the 3rd century CE, but you cited him as if his reference to it in Grenfell & Hunt should settle the matter. In the past I have seen other articles that argue in the direction of earlier dating, but I do not know if I have digitized any of them for my personal use.

DCH

aa5874

Again, you give the mis-leading impression in the OP that the contradictions in NT manuscripts called Gospels were harmonized when in fact the Epistula ad Carpianum (Epistle to Carpian) described the TEN TABLES and how to use them.

And further, the 10th Table is dedicated to UNIQUE things in EACH Gospel.

Effectively, directly in the 10th TABLE of the Eusebian Canons the Contradictions of EACH NT manuscripts called Gospels can be found immediately.

mountainman

Again this is verging away from the OP but what threads are not subject to tangentiation .....

Thanks for the questions.

What you suggest might apply to a city's rubbish dump if there is a constant but relative small population growth for the period in question. However from what I have read of the sources the city of Oxyrynchus underwent a massive population increase in the mid 4th century. The following is taken from Historia Monachorum:

We are able to infer from this that many rubbish dumps would have been commissioned as a result of a city forming outside the original city walls. Many of these may have been the source of the Oxford papyri haul. Consequently we may be looking at mid 4th century trash.

This source above also tells us that the population explosion consisted largely of monks, a class of people who we might expect to have been interested in becoming familiar with the Bible, since it had but recently been appointed as the holy writ of the Roman Empire.

The way I see these fragments are the results of literate monks trying to come to terms with the literature of the bible, because of its most important political position in the empire at that time. The question is of course who were these monks so-described by the author of Historia Monachorum.

The following is an extract from Virgins of God: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity By Susanna Elm


In summary, whether these monks were literate Christians or literate pagans, they suddenly appear in the city of Oxyrhynchus in the mid 4th century and in association with the general monastic community movement. The Nag Hammadi Codices are a product of such communities. This should provide a pause to consider this alternative explanation of a mid 4th century origin for the Christian related papyri fragments from Oxyrhynchus.

FWIW I have not seen this argument presented by scholars or academics who appear to in general consider the monastic movement a Christian phenomenom. I do not agree with this assessment. When we look for evidence that Pachomius (for example) was an "orthodox" Christian we are essentially lead to a solitary assertion by Jerome that Pachomius was baptised shortly before he "had a vision" and permanently left Alexandria for Nag Hammadi and environs.

Additionally the presence of both canonical and non canonical papyri fragments is best explained by non-orthodox (and even pagan) monks practicing literary familiarization exercises. NOTE: if pagan, then these monks would have been essentially in exile from Alexandria in which, during the mid 4th century, the orthodox Christians ruled as representatives of the Christian emperors.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Propaganda

The Christian emperors who sponsored the manufacture of Greek bible codices indulged heavily in propaganda.


Keep well.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

“When there is no variation in the story then we are one hundred percent certain it’s a fake.
Human beings telling the truth never tell the story quite the same way twice."

- Salman Rushdie

In order to appear realistic the gospels needed to have at least some contradictions. This is just basic common sense. The prefacing of the gospels with lavish "harmony tables" may be perceived as an exercise in smoothing over the expected contradiction in the manner of an advertising campaign designed to present a unified and consistent propaganda message directly from the four "blessed evangelists". Eusebius's letter to Carpian was also physically present in the earliest Bibles.

There is also the question as to whether Eusebius betrays himself when appealing to the energy and effort of Ammonius the Alexandrian, who is recognised by the classicists and ancient historians as the non Christian "Father of Neoplatonism".


That there was ever another Christian Ammonius the Alexandrian is highly debatable. In my mind Eusebius is simply appealing (falsely) to his audience that the famous (non Christian) Platonist philosopher Ammonius of Alexandria was in fact a Christian. This is equivalent to identity theft.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

But this is completely asinine as you also think that that there was no such a thing as Origen the Christian. It is amazing to continually see someone argue against every piece of evidence there is - as if it were not strange that every single piece of evidence has been forged or invented. I don't know what words can describe such a lunatic argument. I can't believe that anyone could even consider something so ridiculous.

According to you there is no Ammonius, no Clement, no Origen, no Pamphilus, no Pierius, no Melitius, no Dionyius, no Christian at all in Alexandria.

This is absolutely nuts. I don't even know how to go about attacking an utterly worthless argument like this. Thomas Barnes argues that Eusebius originally wrote the first seven books of the Church History before the end of the third century. I find the arguments very convincing. As such it can't be a 'Nicene conspiracy.' There must have been a Church at the time Eusebius was writing this book. How on earth did he make reference to so many people, citations. It's absurd and not worth considering.

Toto

Realism would require some variation. But instead, the gospels show evidence of rewrites - large blocks of text that have the identical words, with theologically motivated changes.

There's no common sense in evidence here.

You want us to believe that the forger deliberately wrote four contradictory gospels, and then a harmony to smooth them over??

:banghead: :Cheeky: :banghead: :huh:

Does Eusebius ever state that this Ammonius is the same person as Ammonius Saccus? What are the odds that there was only one Ammonius in Alexandria at the time?

Wikipedia has

Ammonius may refer to:

• Ammonius Lithotomos (3rd century BC), Greek lithotomist
• Ammonius of Athens (1st century AD), philosopher and teacher of Plutarch
• Ammonius Saccas (3rd century AD), Neoplatonist philosopher and teacher of Plotinus
• Ammonius of Alexandria (Christian) (3rd century AD), Christian writer confused with Ammonius Saccas
• Ammonius Hermiae (5th century AD), Alexandrian philosopher
• Ammonius Grammaticus, Supposed author of a grammatical treatise
• Ammonius (genus), a genus of the spider family Barychelidae
• Ammonius (crater), a lunar crater
• Ammonius (monk)

mountainman

Ammonius not Origen is mentioned by Eusebius in regard to the OP. There is substantial evidence for Ammonus the Platonist but AFAIK only 4th century Christian sources make the claim that there existed (also in the 3rd century) another Alexandrian Ammonius the Christian.

Perhaps Eusebius is simply lying confused? What evidence can you cite for the existence of this second Christian Ammonius of Alexandria?





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

The name is derived from the Egyptian god Ammon just as Origen is from Hor (Horus). Wonder if there were a lot of Egyptians with that name?

stephan huller

But the evidence for Ammonius Sacca has a pagan witness - Porphyry - say explicitly that he was a Christian who gave up Christianity. How on earth do you get around this one? Eusebius made up that reference? Really? He has Porphyry claim that Origen the Christian had a teacher named Ammonius who began life as a Christian but later gave up his religion? This destroys your whole thesis. The pagans say Ammonius began life as a Christian.

mountainman pretend world crashes down and burns. bye bye.