david_christainsen@hotmail.com (David Christainsen) wrote in message news:<15910715.0311101230.42eb2afc@posting.google.com>...

More from Barbara Thiering with whom Libertarius disagrees ---

More of the Roman history - and a footnote
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1460

"The New Testament has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas,all twelve apostles. The Clementine
literature has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas, all twelve apostles.

On readin this, I wondered slightly just what is being argued, and on
what basis. Is it seriously argued that because two documents discuss
the same topics, that ... what? I can think of no valid argument that
could commence in such a way.

The Clementines give accurate dates and information on Roman conditions in
the latter part of the reign of Tiberius, late 30's AD. They have none of the
gross historical errors that expose a pseudepigraphon, as in the case
of Daniel.

In the absence of a statement of the points in question, it is
impossible to evaluate this claim. So, may I ask what information
they contain that could not be available to a 3rd century author?

Their account of the debates in Caesarea between Peter and
Simon Magus fit the conditions of the first proclamation of Christian
teaching as an advance on the Old Covenant. If they had been composed
as fiction several centuries later as critics have thought, the Jewish
question would have been simply irrelevant."

Since the Jewish origin of Christianity is still recognised, and
indeed is part of the NT, I really do not see how this argument can
have weight.

"The reason for their not being recognised as historical is, as in the
case of a great mass of apocryphal and newly discovered material,
because their further content is unfamiliar compared with the New
Testament.

The Clementine Recognitions have been known for a considerable period,
and, people like William Whiston aside, their derivative nature has
been generally recognised. There is a great mass of material loosely
classed as 'New Testament Apocrypha' which does not, and never had,
any claims to be more than fiction, written for entertainment. Other
material was written in order to advance the claims of some heresy or
other; or even to make money. Consequently I would have thought that
the historian must have a duty to sift this matter, and not simply
adopt whatever material some previous editor has chosen to include in
some arbitrary collection. Surely only the idle or careless would
presume that a document would acquire some claims to authenticity
because the word 'gospel' is written at the top?

Canonicity has been the criterion for historicity. But that
is a theological assumption, not the assumption of a historian.

I'm not sure what this can mean. An organisation, united by an
ideology rather than shared class and social boundaries, comes into
being led by a charismatic individual, subsequently executed. His
followers regroup under a secondary leader, and found cells, and
exchange literature.

Now this could be a sketch of the genesis of Marxist-Leninism, but it
fits quite a number of movements. To determine the nature of the
movement, it will be necessary to read the literature produced by it.
If counterfeits exist -- people wishing to hijack the movement (e.g.
anarchism) -- then we will look to see where the real tradition is,
and consider that tradition authentic which explains the existence of
the others.

The canonical texts have provenance. The texts otherwise referred to
do not. Some indeed, however interesting, have no history before 1930
when they were found in a jar somewhere in Egypt, and only modern
study tells us that these are ancient documents of some sort.
Moreover, they are plainly in disagreement with those which have
provenance. Furthermore, in many cases we can see that they come from
a group other than that with which we are concerned. The creation of
forged literature continues to our own day, so we need not be
surprised to find it.

The ancient account seems to cover all the facts, and explains the
genesis of all the material; while the idea that there was no definite
identity to Christianity is explicitly contradicted in the ancient
literature wherever it is raised. There is no theological issue here
-- simply one of objective data analysis.

On that belief there was only one form of the Church, only one history.

But this is the statement of the fathers. The idea that the church
had no initial ideological identity would require considerable proof,
since it sounds very strange. The existence of the fake gospels does
not constitute that proof, in that their existence is more
satisfactorily accounted for by the pressure of paganism on the
nascent Christian community: an account likewise given, and a relation
noted, in the historical record. We require no other theory: what are
the facts which that theory explains, which are not better explained
by the statements of the fathers?

Consequently, a great many historical sources have been defined as
worthless. It was Elaine Pagels who protested against such a
destruction of evidence, in the light of the Nag Hammadi material. She
pointed out that they proved that earliest Christianity was diverse,
with many different forms.

This is not the statement of the fathers, who were in a position to
know, and have stated their view. What portion of the ancient
evidence requires this thesis? and it leaves unanswered the question
of how on earth the apostolic church came into being. Movements
frequently lose their first vigour and ideological purity; frequently
acquire splinter groups. The scenario we are invited to assent to
implies that, without any record of it, a splinter group from a
movement of no definable identity acquired such vigour and purity as
to appear to be the only original foundation. Likewise movements
equally ancient degenerated in such a manner as to appear to be
derived from the first group by the admixture of pagan elements. I
know of no evidence whatever of this, and the idea seems highly
improbable. Water does not usually flow uphill.

But theological pressures have caused her and my protests to be disregarded.

I do not think this can be right.

In the case of the NHL Gospel of Philip, it was placed in the 3rd century, in
the face of its clear evidence of having been composed before AD 70 (see my
article on this in the Journal of Higher Criticism vol 2, 1, Spring 1995)."

While I have not read this, I find it very hard to believe that the
assignment of date will be for reasons of theology. What theology
could NT scholars agree to believe in, I wonder? As long ago as the
1940's, Alexander Souter commented on the tendency of scholars to
advance heretical literature at the expense of canonical.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

david_christainsen@hotmail.com (David Christainsen) wrote in message news:<15910715.0311101230.42eb2afc@posting.google.com>...

More from Barbara Thiering with whom Libertarius disagrees ---

More of the Roman history - and a footnote
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1460

"The New Testament has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas,all twelve apostles. The Clementine
literature has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas, all twelve apostles.

On readin this, I wondered slightly just what is being argued, and on
what basis. Is it seriously argued that because two documents discuss
the same topics, that ... what? I can think of no valid argument that
could commence in such a way.

The Clementines give accurate dates and information on Roman conditions in
the latter part of the reign of Tiberius, late 30's AD. They have none of the
gross historical errors that expose a pseudepigraphon, as in the case
of Daniel.

In the absence of a statement of the points in question, it is
impossible to evaluate this claim. So, may I ask what information
they contain that could not be available to a 3rd century author?

Their account of the debates in Caesarea between Peter and
Simon Magus fit the conditions of the first proclamation of Christian
teaching as an advance on the Old Covenant. If they had been composed
as fiction several centuries later as critics have thought, the Jewish
question would have been simply irrelevant."

Since the Jewish origin of Christianity is still recognised, and
indeed is part of the NT, I really do not see how this argument can
have weight.

"The reason for their not being recognised as historical is, as in the
case of a great mass of apocryphal and newly discovered material,
because their further content is unfamiliar compared with the New
Testament.

The Clementine Recognitions have been known for a considerable period,
and, people like William Whiston aside, their derivative nature has
been generally recognised. There is a great mass of material loosely
classed as 'New Testament Apocrypha' which does not, and never had,
any claims to be more than fiction, written for entertainment. Other
material was written in order to advance the claims of some heresy or
other; or even to make money. Consequently I would have thought that
the historian must have a duty to sift this matter, and not simply
adopt whatever material some previous editor has chosen to include in
some arbitrary collection. Surely only the idle or careless would
presume that a document would acquire some claims to authenticity
because the word 'gospel' is written at the top?

Canonicity has been the criterion for historicity. But that
is a theological assumption, not the assumption of a historian.

I'm not sure what this can mean. An organisation, united by an
ideology rather than shared class and social boundaries, comes into
being led by a charismatic individual, subsequently executed. His
followers regroup under a secondary leader, and found cells, and
exchange literature.

Now this could be a sketch of the genesis of Marxist-Leninism, but it
fits quite a number of movements. To determine the nature of the
movement, it will be necessary to read the literature produced by it.
If counterfeits exist -- people wishing to hijack the movement (e.g.
anarchism) -- then we will look to see where the real tradition is,
and consider that tradition authentic which explains the existence of
the others.

The canonical texts have provenance. The texts otherwise referred to
do not. Some indeed, however interesting, have no history before 1930
when they were found in a jar somewhere in Egypt, and only modern
study tells us that these are ancient documents of some sort.
Moreover, they are plainly in disagreement with those which have
provenance. Furthermore, in many cases we can see that they come from
a group other than that with which we are concerned. The creation of
forged literature continues to our own day, so we need not be
surprised to find it.

The ancient account seems to cover all the facts, and explains the
genesis of all the material; while the idea that there was no definite
identity to Christianity is explicitly contradicted in the ancient
literature wherever it is raised. There is no theological issue here
-- simply one of objective data analysis.

On that belief there was only one form of the Church, only one history.

But this is the statement of the fathers. The idea that the church
had no initial ideological identity would require considerable proof,
since it sounds very strange. The existence of the fake gospels does
not constitute that proof, in that their existence is more
satisfactorily accounted for by the pressure of paganism on the
nascent Christian community: an account likewise given, and a relation
noted, in the historical record. We require no other theory: what are
the facts which that theory explains, which are not better explained
by the statements of the fathers?

Consequently, a great many historical sources have been defined as
worthless. It was Elaine Pagels who protested against such a
destruction of evidence, in the light of the Nag Hammadi material. She
pointed out that they proved that earliest Christianity was diverse,
with many different forms.

This is not the statement of the fathers, who were in a position to
know, and have stated their view. What portion of the ancient
evidence requires this thesis? and it leaves unanswered the question
of how on earth the apostolic church came into being. Movements
frequently lose their first vigour and ideological purity; frequently
acquire splinter groups. The scenario we are invited to assent to
implies that, without any record of it, a splinter group from a
movement of no definable identity acquired such vigour and purity as
to appear to be the only original foundation. Likewise movements
equally ancient degenerated in such a manner as to appear to be
derived from the first group by the admixture of pagan elements. I
know of no evidence whatever of this, and the idea seems highly
improbable. Water does not usually flow uphill.

But theological pressures have caused her and my protests to be disregarded.

I do not think this can be right.

In the case of the NHL Gospel of Philip, it was placed in the 3rd century, in
the face of its clear evidence of having been composed before AD 70 (see my
article on this in the Journal of Higher Criticism vol 2, 1, Spring 1995)."

While I have not read this, I find it very hard to believe that the
assignment of date will be for reasons of theology. What theology
could NT scholars agree to believe in, I wonder? As long ago as the
1940's, Alexander Souter commented on the tendency of scholars to
advance heretical literature at the expense of canonical.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Didymos wrote:

"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FA0453F.A4D58906@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message

news:<3F9D9DCF.8124FF6E@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

and there is NOTHING to show that any "Gospel"
existed before the second century. -- L.

Yes, together with Alfred Loisy, I believe that the conventional
gospels (as we see them now) only started to emerge ca. 100 CE.

===>Right. Possibly even later than that. -- L.

How then can you explain the existence of P-52, P-104, and Egerton? Do not
all of these come periously close to rendering your 100 A.D. date
untenable?

===>No.
Even if the dates were earlier,
a few words a book do not make. -- L.