Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ClassicsFiend · 06-27-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

They are of the same
genre as the Gospel of << INSERT PROFILE HERE >>.

Whoa there! Not so! Have you actually spent time reading gnostic gospels or arguments about them? They are hardly the easy, biographical reads of the NT. And documents like the "Gospel of Truth" (most complete version is in Codex I if you're interested) come with a lot of discussion of genre and what genre would be appropriate. Give gnostic "gospels" a shot sometime -- they are a real mind trip.

Quote:

When you mention the word "dated" and "date"
in the above para what precisely do you mean?
What was the process of dating? And what were
the end resultant dates of that process?

Well I know that the Nag Hammadi Library is dated by the bindings, especially the cartonnage that provides a lot of vital clues (including some tantalizing possible evidence that they come from a local monastery and mentions of monks, so you have a terminus ante quem right there based on the foundation of local monasteries). I would check out Alastair Logan's book The Gnostics: Identifying an Early Christian Cult for a great basic intro to useful NHL sources. I'm guessing the Greek stuff would be done paleographically (not sure, but it shouldn't be difficult to look up) but everyone I've ever seen at a talk bemoans the lack of Coptic paleography.

Quote:

The problem with that approach is that by excluding
these two texts, there are no further C14 citations on
the new testament texts to be able to discuss.

AFAIK, there are only two NT c14 citations.
Strange that we dont have any more, but there
you have it. Only two have been published.

This may be true, I haven't made a major foray into carbon dating (though I plan to pick up papyrology down the line so maybe then). But you don't need carbon dating to convince scholars that Gnostic writings are late. To have a coherent argument, you would absolutely need to carbon date the earliest fragments we have of "official" New Testament texts.

mountainman · 06-27-2007, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClassicsFiend

Quote:

They are of the same
genre as the Gospel of << INSERT PROFILE HERE >>.

Whoa there! Not so! Have you actually spent time reading gnostic gospels or arguments about them? They are hardly the easy, biographical reads of the NT. And documents like the "Gospel of Truth" (most complete version is in Codex I if you're interested) come with a lot of discussion of genre and what genre would be appropriate. Give gnostic "gospels" a shot sometime -- they are a real mind trip.

Look, I have no problem with the quality of some of the
more inspirational content in some of these texts, but
I am presently staying as close as possible to the ancient
history angle.

The new testament itself has some very nice sayings. The
only problem is that they were illegitimately seconded from
other ancient sources in the Roman empire, such as Philo's
and Josephus' descriptions of religious, social and philosophical
practices of the (for example) Essenes. and the Hebrews.

Most people are reasonably aware of the midrash picture,
but they cannot countenance the next step in the path;
that is to actually go out and try and formulate a theory
for the invention of the christian texts in antiquity.

Everyone knows the invention happened.
The question is when, and who, and where,
and the usual series of questions.

Quote:

AFAIK, there are only two NT c14 citations.
Strange that we dont have any more, but there
you have it. Only two have been published.

Quote:

This may be true, I haven't made a major foray into carbon dating (though I plan to pick up papyrology down the line so maybe then). But you don't need carbon dating to convince scholars that Gnostic writings are late. To have a coherent argument, you would absolutely need to carbon date the earliest fragments we have of "official" New Testament texts.

My position at the moment it to determine whether or not
we have any citations (from C14) that are earlier than the
rise of Constantine.

ClassicsFiend · 06-27-2007, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The new testament itself has some very nice sayings.

That is definitely not what I meant. Here is a long quote from the Gospel of the Egyptians:

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis.org

From that place, the three powers came forth, the three ogdoads that the Father brings forth in silence with his providence, from his bosom, i.e., the Father, the Mother, (and) the Son.

The <first> ogdoad, because of which the thrice-male child came forth, which is the thought, and the word, and the incorruption, and the eternal life, the will, the mind, and the foreknowledge, the androgynous Father.

The second ogdoad-power, the Mother, the virginal Barbelon, epititioch[...]ai, memeneaimen[...], who presides over the heaven, karb[...], the uninterpretable power, the ineffable Mother. She originated from herself [...]; she came forth; she agreed with the Father of the silent silence.

The third ogdoad-power, the Son of the silent silence, and the crown of the silent silence, and the glory of the Father, and the virtue of the Mother, he brings forth from the bosom the seven powers of the great light of the seven voices. And the word is their completion.

These are the three powers, the three ogdoads that the Father, through his providence, brought forth from his bosom. He brought them forth at that place.

Domedon Doxomedon came forth, the aeon of the aeons, and the throne which is in him, and the powers which surround him, the glories and the incorruptions. The Father of the great light who came forth from the silence, he is the great Doxomedon-aeon, in which the thrice- male child rests. And the throne of his glory was established in it, this one on which his unrevealable name is inscribed, on the tablet [...] one is the word, the Father of the light of everything, he who came forth from the silence, while he rests in the silence, he whose name is in an invisible symbol. A hidden, invisible mystery came forth:
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE oooooooooooooooooooooo uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Everyone knows the invention happened.
The question is when, and who, and where,
and the usual series of questions.

You are free to have your pet theories and all that, but saying "everyone" knows the invention happened is extremely dishonest. As someone heavily involved in academia I can assure you this is not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

My position at the moment it to determine whether or not
we have any citations (from C14) that are earlier than the
rise of Constantine.

You should probably try to do that by focusing on dating of texts that aren't already acknowledged as later than Constantine! If texts that are actually supposed to be earlier have been shown to be otherwise through C14 dating, then you might have something. But until then... well, nothing.

mountainman · 06-29-2007, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClassicsFiend

You are free to have your pet theories and all that, but saying "everyone" knows the invention happened is extremely dishonest.

I was actually pitching this to the JESUS MYTH people.
Those who entertain in the JESUS HISTORY theory space
are not interested in this specific little integrity issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClassicsFiend

As someone heavily involved in academia I can assure you this is not true.

Since when did the academics possess any form of absolute truth?
Citation please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

My position at the moment it to determine whether or not
we have any citations (from C14) that are earlier than the
rise of Constantine.

You should probably try to do that by focusing on dating of texts that aren't already acknowledged as later than Constantine! If texts that are actually supposed to be earlier have been shown to be otherwise through C14 dating, then you might have something. But until then... well, nothing.

Interesting times indeed.
Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Roger Pearse · 06-29-2007, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClassicsFiend

You are free to have your pet theories and all that, but saying "everyone" knows the invention happened is extremely dishonest.

It is distasteful, isn't it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

ClassicsFiend · 06-29-2007, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I was actually pitching this to the JESUS MYTH people.
Those who entertain in the JESUS HISTORY theory space
are not interested in this specific little integrity issue.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this. I actually think Jesus mythers may have a point. And what does this have to do with integrity? I certainly hope you are not attempting to insult mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Since when did the academics possess any form of absolute truth?
Citation please.

I think you know you're deliberately being nasty. I made no claim that academics have a monopoly on authority, although I do think having read a lot, discussed issues with others who are knowledgable, and learned original languages goes a very long way. That is possible outside of the ivory tower. Your claim was that "everyone" accepts your theory, and I was simply informing you that, even beyond the general public (who would most certainly not agree!), people who do this stuff as their job and spend years of their lives studying it would consider your position a marginal one. Actually more like "crackpot."

I know you're not going to change your mind because plenty of people disagree with you, but you should at least be aware of the fact that you are in a very tiny minority when you try to advance your conspiracy theory.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.