Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 04-23-2010, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

According to the law of statistical probability they are far more likely to be "[ephemeral] original contemporary works" than "scribal copies of centuries old works".

That's correct Toto. One needs to make an additional assumption.
You may assume that they were "scribal copies of centuries old works".
Or you may assume they were "[ephemeral] original contemporary works"

....

No, there is no assumption required. We know that scribal copies were the normal means of producing copies of books.

Scribes were employed to both make copies of "ancient books" and to make copies of "original contemporary books.
Both categories of books were preserved concurrently all the time, I agree, and so must you.

We know for a fact that every single known author of original works was producing original works. Surely you are not about to dispute this fact? Obviously, unless you can dispute this fact then it is mandatory that an assumption is required. Obviously at all ages, we had concurrent publication of "original works" and "centuries old reproduced works". Scribes performed both tasks. Publication houses were called scriptoria.

Quote:

If we have a C14 dating of a particular manuscript, we do not know if that is the date of composition or the date of the copy. If you think that some statistical measure will throw some light on the issue, you have not analysed the issue.

Analysis suggests that there will exist a ratio at any one epoch in history between the numbers of "original works produced and published" and numbers of "centuries old works reproduced and published". Common sense analysis suggests that the dominant category is the former - "original works". Examine any library and estimate this ratio. Original works, and not "centuries old reproductions" will dominate the ratio.

If you can find a citation --- regarding this ratio --- to the contrary I would be interested to see it.

darstec · 04-23-2010, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

According to the law of statistical probability they are far more likely to be "[ephemeral] original contemporary works" than "scribal copies of centuries old works".

That's correct Toto. One needs to make an additional assumption.
You may assume that they were "scribal copies of centuries old works".
Or you may assume they were "[ephemeral] original contemporary works"

....

No, there is no assumption required. We know that scribal copies were the normal means of producing copies of books.

If we have a C14 dating of a particular manuscript, we do not know if that is the date of composition or the date of the copy. If you think that some statistical measure will throw some light on the issue, you have not analysed the issue.

Every time you bring in C14 dating, you are introducing an irrelevant issue that just wastes time and calls the rest of your argument into disprepute if it had any repute to start with.

But C-14 is a better indicator than paleography which can simply be a work copied with a previous style to make it look old and venerable. It tells us for a fact that at least on version (copy or original) was created approximately at a certain time.

I think (if I read him correctly) Mountainman is correct in saying that we should suspect a first century date if every instance we have of a work is radiocarbon dated to the fourth century and so is anything that refers to it.

In a field dealing with religious works such as Christian manuscripts relying on paleography alone is no better than accepting Grimm's Fairy Tales as history.

mountainman · 04-23-2010, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

But C-14 is a better indicator than paleography which can simply be a work copied with a previous style to make it look old and venerable. It tells us for a fact that at least on version (copy or original) was created approximately at a certain time.

Precisely. The publication itself is able to be objectively dated.

Quote:

I think (if I read him correctly) Mountainman is correct in saying that we should suspect a first century date if every instance we have of a work is radiocarbon dated to the fourth century and so is anything that refers to it.

Again, precisely. And the more 4th century C14 dates the more we should naturally suspect something is amiss in the "storyline" --- at least iin regard to the historical appearance of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".

Quote:

In a field dealing with religious works such as Christian manuscripts relying on paleography alone is no better than accepting Grimm's Fairy Tales as history.

Furthermore, the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" were regarded by the orthodox (canonical) "state christians" after Nicaea as "forbidden", "not to be read", "heretical", "authored by the disciples of the devil", etc, etc, etc .....

Leaving aside for one moment the history of the "Orthodox Canonical Christians", the laws of common sense dictate that we should be very suspicious about the history provided by the "Orthodox Canonical Christians" concerning their "Religious Opposition" -- those vile, heretical misfits who were the unnamed authors of the "Gnostic Acts and Gospels".

mountainman · 04-24-2010, 05:40 AM

The Gnostic Gospels

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Dating

See also Gnosticism

The documents which comprise the collection of gnostic gospels were not discovered at a single time, but rather as a series of finds. The Nag Hammadi Library was discovered accidentally by two farmers in December 1945 and was named for the area in Egypt where it had been hidden for centuries.[7] Other documents included in what are now known as the gnostic gospels were found at different times and locations, such as the Gospel of Mary, which was recovered in 1896 as part of the Akhmim Codex and published in 1955. Some documents were duplicated in different finds, and others, such as with the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, only one copy is currently known to exist.

Although the manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi are generally dated to the 4th century, there is some debate regarding the original composition of the texts. A wide range and the majority of scholars date authorship of the Gnostic gospel of Nag Hammadi to the second and third century.[8] Scholars with a focus on Christianity tend to date the gospels mentioned by Irenaeus to the 2nd century, and the gospels mentioned solely by Jerome to the 4th century[citation needed]. The traditional dating of the gospels derives primarily from this division.

The debate regarding original composition of the text assumes that there was some earlier original composition. Why? Because the 4th century does not match the traditional "Eusebian derived" expectations that there were copies of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" in circulation in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Why do we believe the heresiologist Eusebius in matters of "history" of his arch enemies? If Eusebius is known to have been characterised as "the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity" with respect to his friends, should be rely upon Eusebius's "historical annotations" regarding his enemies? I dont think so.

This leaves the C14 and the 4th century politics.

mountainman · 04-25-2010, 06:05 PM

Ancient manuscripts are discovered C14 dated to the 4th century. Do the manuscripts represent contemporary 4th century authorship or do the manuscripts represent copies of centuries old authorship, from the 3rd century, or the 2nd century, or the 1st century? This is the question.

Logically there are two possibilities in regard to any randomly discovered undated manuscript from antiquity (or any epoch prior to the printing press when scribes were employed to make copies). Here are the two assumptions we can make ....

Assumption (1): The Authorship of the Manuscript is Contemporary with Publication. That is the Manuscript is a copy of an original work authored "in recent times" by the author and/or commissioned scribes.

Assumption (2): The Manuscript is not contemporary with Publication. That is the Manuscript is a copy of an original work authored "in ancient times" by the author and/or commissioned scribes.

Toto, you must see that one or another of these assumptions will be selected and/or preferred. At the moment, with respect to the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" the contemporary Biblical Scholarship and academics are following the second assumption.

Your assertion that there is no assumption required is not logical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No, there is no assumption required. We know that scribal copies were the normal means of producing copies of books.

Scribes were employed to both make copies of "ancient books" and to make copies of "original contemporary books.
Both categories of books were preserved concurrently all the time, I agree, and so must you.

We know for a fact that every single known author of original works was producing original works. Surely you are not about to dispute this fact? Obviously, unless you can dispute this fact then it is mandatory that an assumption is required. Obviously at all ages, we had concurrent publication of "original works" and "centuries old reproduced works". Scribes performed both tasks. Publication houses were called scriptoria.

Quote:

If we have a C14 dating of a particular manuscript, we do not know if that is the date of composition or the date of the copy. If you think that some statistical measure will throw some light on the issue, you have not analysed the issue.

Analysis suggests that there will exist a ratio at any one epoch in history between the numbers of "original works produced and published" and numbers of "centuries old works reproduced and published". Common sense analysis suggests that the dominant category is the former - "original works". Examine any library and estimate this ratio. Original works, and not "centuries old reproductions" will dominate the ratio.

If you can find a citation --- regarding this ratio --- to the contrary I would be interested to see it.

Toto · 04-25-2010, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
Logically there are two possibilities in regard to any randomly discovered undated manuscript from antiquity (or any epoch prior to the printing press when scribes were employed to make copies). Here are the two assumptions we can make ....

...

There is the possibility that the manuscript is original, and the possibility that it is a copy of a manuscript. It appears that you want to rule out the second possibility, for your own reasons.

The mainstream does not assume that the documents are copies. They take the C14 date as the latest possible date of composition, and consider other evidence for an earlier date.

So far, this thread appears to be you talking to yourself and baiting me into answering you. If there is nothing more to say, the thread can be closed.

Infidelic · 04-25-2010, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
Logically there are two possibilities in regard to any randomly discovered undated manuscript from antiquity (or any epoch prior to the printing press when scribes were employed to make copies). Here are the two assumptions we can make ....

...

There is the possibility that the manuscript is original, and the possibility that it is a copy of a manuscript. It appears that you want to rule out the second possibility, for your own reasons.

The mainstream does not assume that the documents are copies. They take the C14 date as the latest possible date of composition, and consider other evidence for an earlier date.

So far, this thread appears to be you talking to yourself and baiting me into answering you. If there is nothing more to say, the thread can be closed.

Whoa there. I know you don't care for MM's arguments, but let's not close the thread because of that.

It's an interesting issue, IMO. I agree that the C14 dating establishes the latest possible date of composition. I also think, however, the "mainstream" has bought far too much into the christian timeline when dating authorship of biblically related manuscripts. Data showing the time of creation of the actual documents we do have is very interesting. I note that MM says he doesn't know of C14 studies of canonical documents. Does anyone else?

Toto · 04-25-2010, 08:39 PM

If you don't want the thread closed, please say something substantive. Please avoid obviously fallacious arguments such as - most documents are original, therefore this one is.

There are probably many problems with dating the canonical and non-canonical texts, but posting non sequiturs is not helpful.

Infidelic · 04-25-2010, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you don't want the thread closed, please say something substantive. Please avoid obviously fallacious arguments such as - most documents are original, therefore this one is.

There are probably many problems with dating the canonical and non-canonical texts, but posting non sequiturs is not helpful.

I'm sorry, was that directed at me? Did you read my post?

mountainman · 04-25-2010, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is the possibility that the manuscript is original, and the possibility that it is a copy of a manuscript.

Thankyou for acknowledging the two logical possibilities.

Quote:

It appears that you want to rule out the second possibility, for your own reasons.

It appears that the mainstream wants to rule out the first possibility (ie: 4th century authorship) for a number of their own reasons (see below).

Quote:

The mainstream does not assume that the documents are copies. They take the C14 date as the latest possible date of composition, and consider other evidence for an earlier date.

Yes precisely, and what is this other evidence other than Eusebius?
Let's just have a look at this evidence ....
The two C14 dated manuscripts in question are these:

The Gospel of Thomas

Quote:

Attestation

The earliest surviving written references to the Gospel of Thomas are found in the writings of Hippolytus of Rome (c. 222-235) and Origen of Alexandria (c. 233).[23] Hippolytus wrote in his Refutation of All Heresies 5.7.20:

"[The Naassenes] speak...of a nature which is both hidden and revealed at the same time and which they call the thought-for kingdom of heaven which is in a human being. They transmit a tradition concerning this in the Gospel entitled "According to Thomas," which states expressly, "The one who seeks me will find me in children of seven years and older, for there, hidden in the fourteenth aeon, I am revealed."

This appears to be a reference to saying 4 of Thomas, although the wording differs significantly.

Origen listed the "Gospel according to Thomas" as being among the heterodox apocryphal gospels known to him (Hom. in Luc. 1).

In the 4th and 5th centuries, various Church Fathers wrote that the Gospel of Thomas was highly valued by Mani. In the 4th century, Cyril of Jerusalem mentioned a "Gospel of Thomas" twice in his Catechesis: "The Manichæans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort."[24] and "Let none read the Gospel according to Thomas: for it is the work not of one of the twelve Apostles, but of one of the three wicked disciples of Manes."[25] The 5th century Decretum Gelasianum includes "A Gospel attributed to Thomas which the Manichaean use" in its list of heretical books.[26]

Date of composition

Richard Valantasis writes:

Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 60 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.[27]

Valantasis and other scholars argue that it is difficult to date Thomas because, as a collection of logia without a narrative framework, individual sayings could have been added to it gradually over time.[28]

Robert E. Van Voorst states:

Most interpreters place its writing in the second century, understanding that many of its oral traditions are much older.[29]

Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels.[30]

The Gospel of Judas

Quote:

Irenaeus mentions a Gospel of Judas in his anti-Gnostic work Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), written in about 180. He writes there are some who:

declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. . .They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictional history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.[4]

It is clear from the above that Christian scholars and academics reject the notion that the two discovered 4th century C14 dated manuscripts to have been authored in the 4th century primarily because of contrary attestations in the accounts of Eusebius -- the major orthodox Christain Heresiologist of the 4th century.

In addition to this primary Eusebian derived "evidence" a secondary source of evidence appealed to by the mainstream are a very small number of papyri fragments which they think are earlier than the 4th century.

I have meticulously summarised all the available evidence for all the conjecturally [b]PRE-NICAEAN Gnostic Gospels and Acts" above in this post

SUMMARY

The christian scholars and academics are still following Eusebius in regard to the history of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts, despite the fact that Eusebius is admittedly an extremely hostile witness against the Gnostics.

Does anyonyone perceive the danger in following Eusebius for the history of the authorship for the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts"?

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

04-25-2010, 08:39 PM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If you don't want the thread closed, please say something substantive. Please avoid obviously fallacious arguments such as - most documents are original, therefore this one is. There are probably many problems with dating the canonical and non-canonical texts, but posting non sequiturs is not helpful.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.