The quote contained additional and specific references 4th century primary sources - codices quoted are: NTC (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus); NTA (Nag Hammadi Library, Codex Tchacos, the Qarara Codices, the Akhmim Codex, the Askew Codex and the Bruce Codex).Quoting yourself, LC, as expert witness is circular.
No and reasons were provided. Can you not admit that I am highly skeptical of the level of accuracy to be associated (by mainstream biblical historians) with the upper bounds of dates assigned by paleography in isolation? It's not as if the Greek fragments are explicitly dated or have been subjected to scientific C14 dating tests. The authorship / composition date for the Gospel of Thomas is presently fixed by paleographical hypotheses. Not by historical fact. As such it's open for debate.Can you admit that the Gospel of Thomas was written (first composed) before Constantine?
The claim applies to the "heretical" gospels and acts. (See Eusebius, above - Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 25.)Can you provide a definition--year dates--for your proposed brief window period between canon finalization and the Eusebius writing that you quoted in which you say most NT Apocrypha was written in reaction to the canonization (after that) and (before) Eusebius writing?
SUMMARY TIMELINE:
325 CE - "Quasi Canonical" [1] NT/LXX Greek Bible codices (Eusebius as editor) circulated by Constantine in the east.
325-337 CE - Greek composition of that subset of the NTA described as "heretical" by Eusebius (and following orthodox church fathers)
330-350 CE - Coptic translation and production of the NHL (containing "heretical" gospels and acts)
367 CE - Traditionally accepted Canon closure via Athanasius
[1] Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus considered as exemplars by a number of scholars. Quasi canonical due to additional books such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas (in Sinaiticus) and 1 and 2 Clement (in Alexandrinus). Otherwise these earliest NT codices are basically "canonical".
325 CE - "Quasi Canonical" [1] NT/LXX Greek Bible codices (Eusebius as editor) circulated by Constantine in the east.
325-337 CE - Greek composition of that subset of the NTA described as "heretical" by Eusebius (and following orthodox church fathers)
330-350 CE - Coptic translation and production of the NHL (containing "heretical" gospels and acts)
367 CE - Traditionally accepted Canon closure via Athanasius
[1] Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus considered as exemplars by a number of scholars. Quasi canonical due to additional books such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas (in Sinaiticus) and 1 and 2 Clement (in Alexandrinus). Otherwise these earliest NT codices are basically "canonical".
You subscribe to the biblical historical definition of primary sources whereas I subscribe to the classical historical definition of primary sources. These are not the same.Again, you talk methodology, then abandon it. E.g., copies of texts are not "primary sources" as you claim
A more detailed response to this erroneous assertion is found in a separate thread:
viewtopic.php?p=173100#p173100
I place the earlier Greek autograph of Thomas 325-337 CE. (See above) I also place the upper bounds of the Greek fragments after 325 CE (Also see above). There is of course the alternative hypothesis put forward by Martijn that the autograph of Thomas was Coptic and not Greek. Although I am not 100% convinced by this, I do not rule it out.--Coptic Nag Hammadi Thomas is not an autograph copy, but (a copy of) a translation from an earlier Greek Thomas.
Ancient ante Nicene authors wanting to write further gospels are hypothetical ante Nicene identities writing hypothetical ante Nicene gospels. The hypothetical existence of authors and books depends upon a handful of testimonies by hostile heresiologists evidenced in manuscripts from the middle-ages.Ancient authors didn't say, oh I want to write a gospel, but I have to wait until other gospels are canonized so I can react against that and resist Constantine, as few future freedom-fighters.
On the other hand it is not hypothetical but is a fact that the Roman emperor Constantine c.325 CE published and circulated (see above note [1]) the four (canonical) gospels as a package with the intent of this package becoming one of the the foundational elements of a new and strange "Holy Writ" for the edification of the entire Egypto-Graeco-Roman empire. It is also factual (and not merely hypothetical) that a large number of heretical NTA books are physically dated to the mid 4th century.
Do you seriously contemplate that there would be no raised Greek eyebrows as a result of this imperially supported Jesus Story Book novelty? Do you maintain that the highly educated Neo-Platonists in their school in Alexandria would have accepted this "official" Jesus Story without applying any skeptical thinking and written commentary in response?
Heresy could not have arisen without orthodoxy.
The stronger the orthodoxy the greater and more controversial becomes the heresy. The undisputed and most demonised heretic of all time was Arius of Alexandria who appears as Constantine's foil and bane c.325 CE. For his efforts he was subjected to imperial damnatio memoriae. Obviously there was a great resistance to the emperor's Nicene agenda and the history of this resistance and controversy was most embarrassing to the church industry as it moved forward. As a result, the church was motivated to suppress the (Arian) controversy (over books) from the historical record.
Statistics: Posted by Leucius Charinus — Sun Jun 02, 2024 10:08 pm