4 ms·

The article said the papyrus is from the 8th century, which is rather recent compared to other apocryphal texts, I think. I thought the various Churches had con

The article said the papyrus is from the 8th century, which is rather recent compared to other apocryphal texts, I think. I thought the various Churches had consolidated around the canonical bible centuries before then? If this isn't some kind of hoax (very big if), I'd be curious to know who was writing/copying what would have been considered very heretical at the time.

jemfinch 10y ago
The canon of the new testament was effectively decided for the western church (at least) at the regional councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late fourth century. I don't know anything about this particular text, but the canon had been established for centuries by this point. (Yes, I know it wasn't officially decided in an ecumenical council until Trent in 1545, but those three councils effectively settled the question, given the importance of the regions involved.)
- wtbob 10y ago
  > Yes, I know it wasn't officially decided in an ecumenical council until Trent in 1545 Trent was hardly ecumenical, given that the Eastern half of the œkumene wasn't present:-)
  - jemfinch 10y ago
    Ok, ecumenicalish :-P
lotharbot 10y ago
> "I thought the various Churches had consolidated around the canonical bible centuries before then?" The Bible canon was at least semi-established in around the 2nd century, and by the end of the 4th century the canon was very stable. There were still ongoing disagreements between branches of the church, but never over whether a "new" writing should be included, always over writings from the first or possibly early second centuries, or older Jewish writings. An 8th century writing would not have warranted much attention. IMO the non-canonical "gospels" from after ~150 AD are uninteresting. The interesting stuff, outside of the canon, are the really old writings ( http://earlychristianwritings.com/ http://earlychristianwritings.com/ ) and the commentary/teachings of early church leaders (http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html ).
- justifier 10y ago
  can you elaborate on what exactly you mean by 'uninteresting'? is that opinion informed as a believer or as historian? does your date refer to survived text or assumed date of original writing?
  - lotharbot 10y ago
    > "exactly you mean by 'uninteresting'?" Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus, nor the founding or early history of the Christian church or religion. It might be interesting in its own right, but not for studying that topic. > "does you date refer to survived text or assumed date of original writing?" The ~150 AD date that I use to separate interesting from uninteresting? Assumed date of original writing. Oldest surviving text can sometimes help establish that date, but only in a one-directional sense. There are lots of other markers of authenticity or inauthenticity that scholars look for; if you click through to the Early Christian Writings website I linked above, most of the writings have a few-page discussion of their likely age and authorship, and reading through a handful of those descriptions will give you a taste of what a rich field of scholarship there is surrounding the authentication of ancient writings.
    - justifier 10y ago
      thanks for engaging, but you did skip over my most interesting question: is that opinion informed as a believer or as historian? > Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus, nor the founding or early history of the Christian church or religion. have you read mary or judas? in coptic? they are fascinating if only from the perspective of enlightenment regarding the life or teachigns of jesus, and shine a light on the early machinations that engineered what would later be known as the christian church and religion see the excerpt from mary in another comment of mine in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918993 that excerpt brings a fascinating degree of enlightenment at how jesus viewed gender lines that clearly went in opposition to views held by the other disciples in judas, if you read it in the original coptic you will see that every instance of the proper noun for 'jesus christ', often uniquely abreviated IHC or nXC, is quantified by the attirbutive verb 'laughing', he is the 'laughing christ'.. which for me, was an enlightening view of jesus' life and opinion
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
The fact that the papyrus is from the 8th century is only relevant if it's the original. If it's a copy, it's not relevant for dating the book. Irish monks (at least) copied stuff that they knew they disagreed with - pre-Christian pagan stories, for example. See "How the Irish Saved Civilization" for an example.
- lotharbot 10y ago
  > "If it's a copy, it's not relevant for dating the book." It's relevant in a one-directional sense. If you have an early 2nd century papyrus, you know that the original is early 2nd century or earlier -- which is fairly important, in and of itself, when it comes to anything relating to Jesus or Christianity. If you have an 8th century papyrus, you know that the original is 8th century or earlier -- which means very little. So you have to look for other markers of age/importance/authenticity, such as vocabulary words that were in common use in some specific era. Or markers of inauthenticity, such as... well... a lot of stuff in this article.
  - int_handler 10y ago
    > such as... well... a lot of stuff in this article Can you elaborate on some of these things and provide some reasoning as to why they are markers of inauthenticity?
    - lotharbot 10y ago
      The wikipedia article goes into more detail (with less storytelling): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife The short answer is, the manuscript has no traceable history, seems to have come from someone with motive to create a forgery whose story is inconsistent, was presented along with a forged papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, and is physically questionable -- the handwriting, shape of the piece of paper (probably cut recently), the quality of the ink, and even the grammar are suspect. It has some grammatical weirdness that appears in a particular, modern, translation of the Gospel of Thomas and nowhere else.
MichaelMoser123 10y ago
i don't know - the eastern orthodox churches don't have celibacy for priests (only for bishops), they base this practice on the third council of Constantinople in 680; so in the eight century it was ok for priests to marry in these quarters, also Egypt was home to many sects considered heretical by the official church in Constantinople.
- michaelsbradley 10y ago
  It wasn't okay for priests to marry, but rather it was/is okay to ordain married men – subtle difference, but important. As one goes further back in time, the issue isn't so much about celibacy but about the obligation of sexual continence for those ordained to the ministerial priesthood. In the Christian West, the obligation of perpetual sexual continence (= husband and wife not having sexual intercourse at any time after the husband is ordained) was eventually safeguarded by the obligation of celibacy (= can't be married). In the Christian East, the obligation of perpetual continence was more or less put aside for all but those ordained to the episcopate. Note that Christian monasticism in the East and West entails/ed "evangelical chastity" (cf. the life of Christ and the Apostle Paul; Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7), so it's a somewhat separate consideration that monks don't marry. Interestingly, in much of the Christian East periodic sexual continence is still an obligation for married priests, i.e. for some period of time prior to their celebration of the eucharistic liturgy. Such periodic sexual continence (or abstinence) of married clergy is sometimes referred to as "levitical continence" while the perpetual variety is referred to as "apostolic". Some of the early Church Fathers maintained that after Pentecost and the birth of the Church, the Apostles of Jesus dedicated themselves in a total way to the spread of the gospel and their ministry, such that they no longer had sexual intercourse with their wives. The lesser form of continence is then seen to be modeled after the obligations of the levitical priesthood of ancient Judaism. A greater share in the apostolic ministry (bishop vs. simple priest) thus entails a greater obligation of continence. To safeguard that obligation, it is the general practice in the Christian East to only ordain to the episcopate men who have already committed themselves to a life of perpetual continence, i.e. monastic clergy.

jemfinch 10y ago

The canon of the new testament was effectively decided for the western church (at least) at the regional councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late fourth century. I don't know anything about this particular text, but the canon had been established for centuries by this point. (Yes, I know it wasn't officially decided in an ecumenical council until Trent in 1545, but those three councils effectively settled the question, given the importance of the regions involved.)

wtbob 10y ago
> Yes, I know it wasn't officially decided in an ecumenical council until Trent in 1545 Trent was hardly ecumenical, given that the Eastern half of the œkumene wasn't present:-)
- jemfinch 10y ago
  Ok, ecumenicalish :-P

lotharbot 10y ago

> "I thought the various Churches had consolidated around the canonical bible centuries before then?" The Bible canon was at least semi-established in around the 2nd century, and by the end of the 4th century the canon was very stable. There were still ongoing disagreements between branches of the church, but never over whether a "new" writing should be included, always over writings from the first or possibly early second centuries, or older Jewish writings. An 8th century writing would not have warranted much attention. IMO the non-canonical "gospels" from after ~150 AD are uninteresting. The interesting stuff, outside of the canon, are the really old writings ( http://earlychristianwritings.com/ http://earlychristianwritings.com/ ) and the commentary/teachings of early church leaders (http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html ).

justifier 10y ago
can you elaborate on what exactly you mean by 'uninteresting'? is that opinion informed as a believer or as historian? does your date refer to survived text or assumed date of original writing?
- lotharbot 10y ago
  > "exactly you mean by 'uninteresting'?" Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus, nor the founding or early history of the Christian church or religion. It might be interesting in its own right, but not for studying that topic. > "does you date refer to survived text or assumed date of original writing?" The ~150 AD date that I use to separate interesting from uninteresting? Assumed date of original writing. Oldest surviving text can sometimes help establish that date, but only in a one-directional sense. There are lots of other markers of authenticity or inauthenticity that scholars look for; if you click through to the Early Christian Writings website I linked above, most of the writings have a few-page discussion of their likely age and authorship, and reading through a handful of those descriptions will give you a taste of what a rich field of scholarship there is surrounding the authentication of ancient writings.
  - justifier 10y ago
    thanks for engaging, but you did skip over my most interesting question: is that opinion informed as a believer or as historian? > Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus, nor the founding or early history of the Christian church or religion. have you read mary or judas? in coptic? they are fascinating if only from the perspective of enlightenment regarding the life or teachigns of jesus, and shine a light on the early machinations that engineered what would later be known as the christian church and religion see the excerpt from mary in another comment of mine in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918993 that excerpt brings a fascinating degree of enlightenment at how jesus viewed gender lines that clearly went in opposition to views held by the other disciples in judas, if you read it in the original coptic you will see that every instance of the proper noun for 'jesus christ', often uniquely abreviated IHC or nXC, is quantified by the attirbutive verb 'laughing', he is the 'laughing christ'.. which for me, was an enlightening view of jesus' life and opinion

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

The fact that the papyrus is from the 8th century is only relevant if it's the original. If it's a copy, it's not relevant for dating the book. Irish monks (at least) copied stuff that they knew they disagreed with - pre-Christian pagan stories, for example. See "How the Irish Saved Civilization" for an example.

lotharbot 10y ago
> "If it's a copy, it's not relevant for dating the book." It's relevant in a one-directional sense. If you have an early 2nd century papyrus, you know that the original is early 2nd century or earlier -- which is fairly important, in and of itself, when it comes to anything relating to Jesus or Christianity. If you have an 8th century papyrus, you know that the original is 8th century or earlier -- which means very little. So you have to look for other markers of age/importance/authenticity, such as vocabulary words that were in common use in some specific era. Or markers of inauthenticity, such as... well... a lot of stuff in this article.
- int_handler 10y ago
  > such as... well... a lot of stuff in this article Can you elaborate on some of these things and provide some reasoning as to why they are markers of inauthenticity?
  - lotharbot 10y ago
    The wikipedia article goes into more detail (with less storytelling): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife The short answer is, the manuscript has no traceable history, seems to have come from someone with motive to create a forgery whose story is inconsistent, was presented along with a forged papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, and is physically questionable -- the handwriting, shape of the piece of paper (probably cut recently), the quality of the ink, and even the grammar are suspect. It has some grammatical weirdness that appears in a particular, modern, translation of the Gospel of Thomas and nowhere else.

MichaelMoser123 10y ago

i don't know - the eastern orthodox churches don't have celibacy for priests (only for bishops), they base this practice on the third council of Constantinople in 680; so in the eight century it was ok for priests to marry in these quarters, also Egypt was home to many sects considered heretical by the official church in Constantinople.

michaelsbradley 10y ago
It wasn't okay for priests to marry, but rather it was/is okay to ordain married men – subtle difference, but important. As one goes further back in time, the issue isn't so much about celibacy but about the obligation of sexual continence for those ordained to the ministerial priesthood. In the Christian West, the obligation of perpetual sexual continence (= husband and wife not having sexual intercourse at any time after the husband is ordained) was eventually safeguarded by the obligation of celibacy (= can't be married). In the Christian East, the obligation of perpetual continence was more or less put aside for all but those ordained to the episcopate. Note that Christian monasticism in the East and West entails/ed "evangelical chastity" (cf. the life of Christ and the Apostle Paul; Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7), so it's a somewhat separate consideration that monks don't marry. Interestingly, in much of the Christian East periodic sexual continence is still an obligation for married priests, i.e. for some period of time prior to their celebration of the eucharistic liturgy. Such periodic sexual continence (or abstinence) of married clergy is sometimes referred to as "levitical continence" while the perpetual variety is referred to as "apostolic". Some of the early Church Fathers maintained that after Pentecost and the birth of the Church, the Apostles of Jesus dedicated themselves in a total way to the spread of the gospel and their ministry, such that they no longer had sexual intercourse with their wives. The lesser form of continence is then seen to be modeled after the obligations of the levitical priesthood of ancient Judaism. A greater share in the apostolic ministry (bishop vs. simple priest) thus entails a greater obligation of continence. To safeguard that obligation, it is the general practice in the Christian East to only ordain to the episcopate men who have already committed themselves to a life of perpetual continence, i.e. monastic clergy.