Early Christianity - Science topic

Dear Frederyk,

you will have used any answer by now I think!

in general, entries to the Nag Hammadi Library can be cited via their folio and line numbering - which must include Codex numbering in order to make it unique. I usually use the Tractate numbering instead of Tractate name when I display exact Coptic text, e.g. in the following example:

Codex II,4 35:4 ⲉⲧⲣⲁϫⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲉⲕⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ̅ⲛⲓⲙ' ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓⲏ̅ⲥ̅

And when providing the translation, I usually supply the human readable information:

Gospel of Thomas, Logion 13 ... he said to him, viz. Thomas: oh writer, Wholly, my mouth will not receive it {to say it: thou resembles who? IHS said}: myself not thy writer: ...

The part in between { } matches

Your leaf:line numbering is confusing because you use the same separator, namely a comma. Brill, in their indexing of the Codices, uses Roman numerals for the Codices like you and I do, but no comma in between the Codex/Tractate indication and the leaf/line numbering:

ⲓⲏ̅ⲥ 2.23; 20.11,24

This is for Codex I leaf 2 line 23 as well as leaf 20 lines 11 and 24

ⲓ̅ⲥ̅, 1)ⲓ̅ⲏ̅ⲥ̅. 56:3, 56:5, 1)56:6 - the 1) is a raised 1, like a footnote numbering

Brill uses a differing notation across Codices (including the way they notate the text itself!), which makes one wonder whether they really knew what they were doing; the way that the critical apparatus is presented - as well as emended - also changes over time in their books, and their work certainly isn't consistent or to be taken as leading

Regarding your examples, I would change 1):

NHC II, 86:30–31

or even, although I would find that confusing because the Tractate number is a logical notation and not a literal one:

NHC II,4 86:30–31

And we could argue about the Codex numbering being logical or literal, yes.

The confusing part is the citation by person, as James Robinson authored the book but Bentley Layton translated the Tractate here, and while I like your 2) in that regard I would suggest to clearly differentiate between both:

NHC II, 86:30–31, “The Hypostasis of the Archons (II,4),” trans. Bentley Layton, in James M. Robinson, ed., 'The Nag Hammadi Library in English', 3rd ed. (San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 2000), 162.

Hope that helps,

Martijn Linssen

Martin McNamara

It seems to me that it is not so much a matter of insufficient evidence but of the impossibility of a plausible answer. Hence it appears an assessment along the lines of what Stanley Wilkin appears to be suggesting is most likely — just a story element borrowed, for propaganda purposes, from practices associated with the birth of literal kings.

Perhaps you could consult Ildar Garipzanov’s Graphic Signs of Authority in Late Antiquity an the Early Middle Ages (OUP 2018), https://global.oup.com/academic/product/graphic-signs-of-authority-in-late-antiquity-and-the-early-middle-ages-300-900-9780198815013?cc=cz&lang=en&

And also the volume edited by the same author and alii published by Brepols:

Also invaluable and classic is the Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie in 8 volumes published by Herder:

Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie. Hrsg. von Engelbert Kirschbaum (Bände 1–4) und Wolfgang Braunfels (Bände 5–8). 8 Bände. Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau u. a. 1968–1976, ISBN 3-451-22568-9.

Of interest could be also:

Diefenbach, Steffen

Römische Erinnerungsräume

Heiligenmemoria und kollektive Identitäten im Rom des 3. bis 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (De Gruyter 2007)

While I agree with you of course, Peter, that idealism has killed billions, certainly when attached to religion or religious behaviour, and Marx cannot therefore be excused, also he did not intend what happened under the Bolsheviks, who made a particularly violent approach to Marx's ideas. There's something of the early Islam in Bolshevism, that its ideas can be forced onto others. Here I'm talking about the early conquest tropes, where the message and morals were so absolute that day to day morality was bypassed. Bolshevism was not the only approach, just the worst.

Marx's writings in general indicate a highly moral personality, shocked by poverty, injustice and suffering (to an extent) of others.

I see no reason to assume a Buddhist connection to the account of the wise men in Matthew.  That story is far more easily and logically handled by looking at Parthian connections.

Now that there were Buddhist missionaries is very clear and it is plausible that they influenced some of the teachings and/or stories of Jesus, but it is not necessary.  It is interesting to see the arguments brought forward to make the connections, but some of the arguments are not convincing at all.  Some of these look very much like the arguments that since there were pyramids in both ancient Central America and in Egypt that there must be a connection.  I tend to think that parallel ideas can develop independently of each other.  And there is also the notion that commonalities sometime do not reflect mutual influence but rather some deeper, unrecognized common source.

Dear Nikita,

Let us not forget that the Midrash comes from the Hebrew verb Derash or (daras in Arabic) which simply means to study. Studying the Hebrew bible usually necessitates two strategies: pechat and remez. (literal versus metaphoric meaning). It is sometimes very hard to draw a line between both strategies since both of them are sometimes used to deliberately make this material less accessible to the casual reader and prevent its abuse by detractors. My advice is to follow the chronological order of interpretation. The older it is the more likely it would be literal and vice versa. because most fo the time , metaphoric interpretation is an answer to a controversial issue.

Esa es la eterna realidad, siempre habrá otra versión diferente a la nuestra. Pero eso es lo que estimula las ideas, los nuevos libros, la civilización. Todo es un eterno cambio. Para mí, la conexión que usted hace es importante porque la ignoraba. Me es casi imposible estar al tanto de todo. En todo caso, agradezco el intercambio intelectual con usted.

Saludos!

A multi-layered question indeed.

And quite complex also: in physics the mechanic outcome of elastic collision can be easily calculated in case of two balls. That is not thruth in case of three balls.

It is somehow similar the case of the collision of the roman, hebrew and christian religion – during the first centuries. Sorry, during the last centuries. Khmm, during few millennia ago…

Because even by using a christian, roman or hebrew calendar, the user may lost her/his/it’s (!) objectivity.

The question is formulated in a kind of holistic vision. It can be approached by simplifying.

1. the R-C relation : romans did not regarded christianity as a religion, but as a superstition. And they regarded christians as high-nutritive-valued food for their captive lions. Good for circus of the Panem et circenses slogan

2. the H-C relation: hebrews regarded Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, not as a Messiah. So, they considered christianity a sect which took a wrong turn.

3. The R-H relation was marked by the first jewish revolt (ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70) and the third revolt led by BarKochba, ended by Julius Severus’s 12 legion, which accomplished the first genocide in 135 (580.000 Jew killed in Judea. Roman soldiers stopped stabbing and killing the Jews to save their own horses, because the jewish blood rose till the level of their horses’s nostrils – according to the Torah)

These aspects can shed some light to the complex interrelations which shaped the evolution of these religions. These relations were driven mostly by the desire of physical extermination, territorial and financial dominance of the opponents - or sometimes to force them to convert (this had an unconvenient aspect: converted people could not be taken as slaves, expropriated or forced to pay double taxes.)

But if we approach this multi-layered question in this simplified way, we will find a lot of similarities with our modern problems. We fight and kill people in name of Christ (modern crusades), Allah the (Djihad) or to build the Third Temple – saying that we fight for democracy and justice. We declare that the territorial claims, the petrol, the interest rates are on a secondary plane.

Early christianity, the last roman emperors or the Kingdom of Judea had to find their ways of survive in a highly complex situation – and one of them has failed. The biggest and strongest.

Did we learned something from their exemple?

Dr. Helig,

My dissertation advisor at Harvard University Divinity School is the late Prof. Dieter Georgi. He passed away in March of 2005. His doctoral dissertation completed at Heidelberg (in the late 1950s/early 1960s) is: The Opponents of Paul in II Corinthians. His dissertation was originally produce in German.

The English translation of Prof. Georgi's disseratation was published in 1985 (via Fortress Press, in Philadelphia, PA, USA). Prof. Georgi's interest in Paul remained quite pronounced throughout his scholarly life.

His habilitation published in German in Germany in 1964 is on The History of Paul's Collection for Jerusalem. That work, too, was published in English in 1992 under the title: Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul's Collection for Jerusalem.

Another work of Prof. Georgi's that might be related to the question you pose is: Theocracy: In Paul's Praxis and Theology (1991).

In addition, I think a collection of essays published in 2004, less than a year before he passed away, might, more than any other of Prof. Georgi's publications be relevant in relationship to your question above. The book is entitled: The City in the Valley: Biblical Interpretation and Urban Theology (from an SBL series: Studies in Biblical Literature).

I hope that what I have shared above might prove helpful.

Thomas M. Scott, Th. D.

Associate Professor of Religion

Clark Atanta University

Atlanta, GA