mountainman

Perhaps if you knew more about formal logic you would see that my argument is in fact quite conformable to formal logic and the abundant statistics which are available to analysing the answer to this question. I wonder if the question were to be made known to someone like Richard Carrier whether he would make some comment. Its really common sense logic.

The question can be summarised thus:

Is finding an "original ancient manuscript" far more "statistically probable"
than finding a "scribal copy of an earlier ancient manuscript"?

Take any random find of a "book" (ancient codex) in an archaeological find. What is the statistical probability that it is an original work of an author, as compared to the statistical probability that it is a scribal copy of an earlier published codex authored by a perhaps long dead author.

Is there anyone familiar with formal logic and/or statistical probability reading this thread, and who would be kind enough to add their opinion to this issue?

mountainman

The C14 dating is quite recent - I dont know precisely when the tests were conducted however the gJudas one must have been very recent, perhaps around 2006? Dating via the manuscript evidence is probably the oldest form of dating (in the absence of specific dates in the manuscript). Dating via the paleographical analysis of handwriting on Greek papyri fragments I think was quite popular from at least the beginning of the 20th century.

To return to the data and evidence available on the "Gnostic Acts and Gospels" (New Testament Apocrypha - [NTA]) here again are the fragments which contain references to the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" that I am aware of at the moment.

Greek papyri fragments of "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc"

A number of Greek papyri fragments related to the NTA are postulated to be dated earlier than the 4th century, but the evidence is not conclusive. AFAIK spamandham all the following assessments are likely to have been made prior to the C14 assessments.

For the Gospel of Peter P.Oxy.2949, P.Oxy.4008 and P.Vinbob G 2325 are often cited as “early”, whereas P.Oxy.849 is dated to 325 CE. “They are possibly but not conclusively from the Gospel of Peter.” [p,258, FN:11; "Fabricating Jesus" - Craig A Evans].

Likewise P.Oxy.654, P.Oxy.655 and P.Oxy.1 cited for the Gospel of Thomas,
P.Oxy 2525, P.Oxy 3525 and P.Rylands cited for the Gospel of Mary,
and P.Oxy 3524 and p.Bodmer cited in respect of the Infancy Gospel of James cannot be regarded as conclusively certain.

Additionally, there exists a great preponderance of Greek papyri fragments of the NTA which have been dated to the 4th or 5th centuries. Finally it is worth noting in passing that few commentators note that the population demographics for the city of Oxyrhynchus is known to have hit a massive peak in the mid 4th century. The analysis of coins found at the fifteen Oxyrhynchus tip sites also suggests the same thing. (See Milne, J.G.)

What does the manuscript tradition say about the dating of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc"? Here is my earlier summary ....

The corroboration of the 4th century evidence via the Manuscript Tradition

The collective dating of all available earliest manuscript copies of the NTA produce a profile which itself suggests a fourth century origin. A glance down the column marked “Earliest Manuscript” in Appendix (C) shows dates no earlier that the 4th century. Thus the manuscript tradition itself supports the postulate that the books of the NTA were authored in the 4th century. The source manuscripts are invariably Coptic and Syriac translations, and not Greek as intimated by Eusebius.

C14

Two independent C14 results have a bell curve over 319 CE plus or minus 42 years.

spamandham

Before getting that far, we would need to factor in points such as whether there are multiple copies of the texts in question or whether they are unique as far as we know. If there are multiple copies, then this indicates the text was valued, and it is unlikely we have the original. If the text is unqiue as far as we know, then it is reasonable to presume it is the original.

I agree that there needs to be a good reason to posit that a given ancient manuscript is not the original text, but the existence of other copies (or inclusion in a set contaning other texts known to have been copied) is that good reason, no?

mountainman

But until we find miltiple and unattributed scribal copies, we must presume that the texts in question are simply originals. Authorship is happening all the time, and operates on a scale many orders of magnitude over and above the production of unattributed scribal copies of some "ancient text".

The Gnostic Gospels and Acts appear to explode in Coptic and Syriac manuscripts in the 4th century. We may certainly test the inference that some of these texts existed centuries earlier, but what authority is to be used if not the warped authority of the "church historians"?

My suspicion is that the appearance of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc was retrojected into the fictional history of "Early Christianity" by having people such as Irenaeius and Tertullian admit the existence of contemporary 4th century authorship.

But my point is that we do not have any other copies of the texts, only assertions that they may have once existed.

IMO the "Gnostics" were the generation of the Eastern Roman empire, focussed on Alexandria, who personally witnessed the 324/325 CE invasion by the "Christian Soldiers of Constantine" and who personally witnessed the attempted canonization of the Constantine Bible at Nicaea. We all know that this canonization was not quite successful.

The Gnostics began to author their own "New Testament Accounts" which they entitled "The Travels of the Apostles" and for which they invented a gospel and and act for all the apostles whom the orthodox canonical christians forgot to provide an account of. These extra canonical inventions were received with prohibition and censorship and destruction by the orthodox and the 'uncononical books' were prohibited to be read.

The mainstream case for the early dating of Gnostic gospels and acts relies upon the hypothetical existence of "earlier originals" -- an existence as asserted by the literary reports of orthodox heresiologists. These people considered the Gnostics to be "vile heretics". I am of the opinion that we will never find any earlier originals than the documents which have been turning up for the last few hundred years from the 4th century.

That is, the Nag Hammadi Codices are originals - authored in the 4th century as a reaction to Constantine and the state orthodox cult which he brought in. I have copied the following in from a post in another thread ....

The Concept of Our Great Power ---- NHC 6.4

In his book “Mental perception: a commentary on NHC VI, 4, The concept of our great power”, Francis E. Williams claims that the Archon of the West is actually a veiled reference to the Emperor Julian. However, it is far more reasonable to identify this Archon of the West as a veiled reference to the Emperor Constantine

Then the wrath of the archons burned. They were ashamed of their dissolution. And they fumed and were angry at the life. The cities were <overturned>; the mountains dissolve. The archon came, with the archons of the western regions, to the East, i.e., that place where the Logos appeared at first. Then the earth trembled, and the cities were troubled. Moreover, the birds ate and were filled with their dead. The earth mourned together with the inhabited world; they became desolate.

Constantine is known to have greatly troubled the cities of the Eastern Empire, both during his final military battle against the Eastern Emperor Lucinius, described by the historian Zosimus as "a great massacre"(about 34,000 dead), and after his supremacy. Thus it may be that this text is referring to Constantine’s victories from the perspective of those over whom he was victorious. The text continues …

Then when the times were completed, then wickedness arose mightily even until the final end of the Logos. Then the archon of the western regions arose, and from the East he will perform a work, and he will instruct men in his wickedness. And he wants to nullify all teaching, the words of true wisdom, while loving the lying wisdom. For he attacked the old, wishing to introduce wickedness and to put on dignity.

Constantine rose to power in the west and conquered the eastern regions with his army. From the perspective of the east, Constantine wished to nullify the ancient Hellenistic teachings and brought about an end to their traditionally revered “Logos”. Moreover the reference to "lying wisdom" and "introduction of wickedness" mirrors what Julian later writes concerning the "fabrication of the Christians” being “a fiction of men composed by wickedness". There can be no doubt that Constantine attacked the old traditions.


It is suggested therefore that when the wise citizens of the Roman Empire were asked who were the "rulers of this age" they would unanimously defer to the "Lord God Caesar", whoever that happened to be at the time. The New testament is after all is a greek text assembled for the edification of greek literate "converts". No self-respecting Greek academic however would have been interested in reading the bible. The Bible was underground before Nicaea and the Gnostic greeks had probably never heard of it. But everyone perhaps without exception knew who the "Lord God Caesar" was.


See Pontifex Maximus.

Eusebius would have us believe that the rulers of this age were not the Sacred Assembly of the Pontifices - the "Greek (Gnostic) priesthood" - and the network of academies such as that of Plato who focussed on the "Pontifex Maximus" Lord God Caesar, but rather the Apostolic lineage of the "Christian Bishops" who are devotedly focussed on the story of Jesus and the Twelve Aristotles. Those who believe Eusebius in this matter need their head read

PyramidHead

By definition there are many more scribal copies of an original text than there are originals of that text. I might go even further and say that, by definition, there can be only one truly original text. Without any other knowledge, it would seem to me that any text we find is much more likely to be a scribal copy (of which there were probably hundreds) than the original (of which there is one).

spamandham

I believe the argument being made, is that if a given text is the only one of it's kind known to exist, then we should presume we have the original manuscript. I'm not sure if that's really a good assumption, since the copying of texts was commonplace to support libraries.

PyramidHead

It's an absurd argument, then. Reaching into a bowl of candies that contains one green gumball and several hundred yellow gumballs will probably result in the acquisition of a yellow gumball. Since manuscripts are arbitrarily distributed throughout the world, the landscape of probability favors copies (of which there are presumably many) over originals (of which there can only be one).

aa5874

And further we don't even know if we have copies of the original or if the original author did amend his own original which would make make that new work an original.

Tertullian claimed that there were at least two versions of "Against Marcion" written exclusively by him. Based on Tertullian, the earlier "Against Marcion" 1 is original and the later "Against Marcion" (version 3) is also an original, a NEW work, and is not a copy of "Against Marcion" (version1).

And there is a forged copy "Against Marcion" (version 2) full of mistakes which was originally or initially from Tertullian but was manipulated by a "brother".

So, we can have copies of an original work, copies of forgeries, and copies of an original amended work.

mountainman

G'Day PyramidHead and thanks for your contribution.

However I either have not explained my position clearly enough or everyone is misunderstanding my position. I will clarify by attempting to define exactly what my argument is. I am considering two different types of publications ...

Type (1) - The ORIGINAL PUBLICATION of a literary work in antiquity

By "original publication" I like you above credit an original author who, having authored a literary work, either copies it himself x number of times, or sends it out to commercial scribal copyists to make the additional x copies. He then distributes these x copies to x different clients (some of which for arguments sake might be peers or libraries of antiquity, such as that at Alexandria or Pergamum, or smaller provincial libraries, commensurate with the scale (x) of distribition. All these copies, up to x, constitute here my definition of the "original publication" of the literary work.

Is everyone with me so far? Chrestos!



Type (2) - The Subsequent Republication of the same literary work one or two or three centuries afterwards

A century or two later, one of these "original publications" for some reason comes to the attention of another publisher, and at that time, one or two hundred years after the original publication a second publication is manufactured. This reason for this second publication may include the possibility that copies of the original publication are being lost or are deteriorating towards extinction, and if the work is to be preserved, it needs to be copied by a patron publisher. However, this possible reason for the second publication may not arise for many centuries if the original publication is kept in a secure environment. The question how long would a 1st or 2nd or 3rd or 4th century codex or scroll last in the technological environment of those epochs is a separate, but possibly related question.


Clarification

The point I am making is that, with specific correspondence to the manuscripts today known as the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc", then we have the following mainstream assertion. Some of these "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" were first published in the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd centuries of the common era (see 1 above). One or two (or according to some academics' dating of the earliest "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc", three) centuries afterwards a second republication is manufactured by a patron publisher for the sake of posterity. (see 2 above).



Argument

My argument is that statistically the more numerous publications will be represented in the (1) original publication and distribution perhaps while the author is still alive, perhaps shortly after. And that the statistically less numerous publications will be these (2) republications after a century or two or three.


**********

Does that make my argument any clearer to all respondents"

**********


Lets look at a specific example ...



Specific example - the gJudas

Firstly, the evidence in our possession is a codex which was manufactured probably in the 4th century, according to both the C14 dating and to the opinions of the research team working on the archaeological find.

My idea is that, contrary to the assertion of the world's academic opinion, the manuscript in our possession represents a type (1) Original publication and not, as mainstream currently believes, a type (2) republication from centuries earlier.

Mainstream sees gJudas as a Type (2) Republication

Have a look at the range of conjectural dates discussed and asserted by many academics for the "Original Authorship Publication Type (1) that is believed to exist for the gJudas. (Early 2nd century - 200 years before the securely identified 4th century evidence).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_...s_of_the_codex

My argument is that the one green gumball is represented by a Type (2) Centuries-After Republication, and that the several hundred yellow gumballs are represented by the Type (1) Original Publication and distribution. It appears to me common sense to argue that Original authorship is far more prolific. Nothing has changed in this regard. Fortunately type (1) publications are highly productive and organic in all ages - dependent upon technology and freedom of speech.

Every budding poet, storywriter, technical documentor, mathematician, philosopher, judge of law, farmer, priest, sailor, bishop, historian, astronomer, geometer, logician, medical students and teachers, compiler of anthologies, bridge builders, General, soldier, playwright, newspaper reporter, town mayor, town fool, etc, etc, etc --- each seek to express their original authorship, and is far less likely to republish material and to patronise an UNKNOWN author of centuries past with a patronising republication.


Example of Type (2) - Republication in the 21st century of publications originally authored in the 19th century

Here is a list of 19th century published authors such as Wordsworth, William (1770-1850). What percentage of 21st century publications are republications of these 19th century published authors as compared to the percentage of original 21st century publications? Common sense suggests a very small percentage of gumballs.


Homer

Sure many people republished Homer, a known author, but the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" at the present moment, and for the last 16 centuries at least were authored by an author whose name is not known. Eusebius explicitly states that his history will declare and reveal the names of the Gnostic authors, but his history fails to do so, and/or the names of the Gnostic authors - those "vile heretics" - have been removed by the preservers of Eusebius.



Summary

Which brings us back to the main argument here that it is reasonable to conjecture, given the above argument and the C14 citations together, and despite the chronographic assertions within "Eusebius and Tertullian", that we are in fact in possession of the (Publication Type (1)) originally authored manuscripts of the author(s) of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" and that the authorship of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" is a post-Nicaean literary phenomenom. The political reality suggested is simply that these manuscripts represent a political and religious literary reaction (perhaps perceived by the orthodox as seditious!) by the 4th century Greek (probably Alexandrian) "Gnostic authors" against the elevation of the "New Testament Canon" by Constantine c.324 CE to the status of "Holy Writ" of the Graeco-Roman civilisation of c.324 CE.

mountainman

In the discussion of the dating of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts which are represented at Nag Hammadi and elsewhere, to the ground of the fourth century I wish to make it clear that I am arguing from first principles. For the sake of discussion I am happy to suggest Constantine did NOT invent Christianity (it was a small little known religion but nevertheless present in the Roman empire), ........................ but nevertheless, the Gnostic Gospels are Post-Nicaean.

If the existent Christian religion was little known, then it appears to me that the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" can be described simply as the "Pagan"* reaction to the appearance of Constantine's publishing the Bible. The first element of evidence is the description given by Eusebius of the reception of the Constantine Bible (or its prototypes) in the Eastern Empire. Constantine had just become supreme and promoted his preferred cult - the Christians .....

“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

[Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]

What really happened when Constantine flouted the Bible c.324 CE?
the sacred matters of inspired teaching were exposed to the most shameful ridicule

This fits if the Eastern empire was largely "Pagan"*.
The Pagans ridiculed the Bible shamefully.
And where did they do this?
"in the very theaters of the unbelievers".


I present to you the history of the reception of the Christian religion.
It was received with shameful ridicule by the Pagans.
The "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" are this shameful literary ridicule.
The "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" are a literary reaction to the Constantine Bible.
They are a Pagan and Greek literary reaction and were performed in theatres.

Constantine obviously regarded them as seditious.
These stories were immediately prohibited and destroyed where possible.
The literary reaction then went underground - Syria and Nag Hammadi.
This explains the Syriac and Coptic migration from Greek for the earliest mss.


*** Pagan (NOTE)

religious and political background to the times c.324 CE


I have used the word Pagan here to signify the Graeco-Roman people of the
eastern empire prior to the year 324 CE. Inscriptions related to the word
"pagan" start turning up in the mid 4th century as a perjoritive christian term.
Thus using it here is anachronistic. However the point I am tryong to make
is that these people - the "Pagans" or the "Graeco-Romans" were certainly
not "Christians" and had probably never heard about the christian religion
before Constantine promoted it in broad daylight with his military campaign.

It is reasonable to assume that, even if Constantine had access to an authentic
religion which had been operating for centuries, it was little known, and little
if at all supported in the eastern empire c.324 CE.