mountainman

To the readers in the SCIENCE and SKEPTICISM Forum:

I understand that there are a very large number of claims
with respect to the paleographic assessment of the dating
of fragments of the new testament texts, and that these
claims extend to as early as 110 CE.

By my research to date however, there appears to be only
two actual carbon dating citations with respect to the new
testament texts. These appear to be the following:

1) Binding on the text - gospel of Thomas (to 350 CE)
2) Binding on the recent gospel Judas (to 280 CE +/- 60 years)

I am interested to determine whether there are any other
carbon dating citations to new testament texts other
than the above two. Thanks for any information.

Pete

TomboyMom

You might want to try B C & H as well.

mountainman

Thanks TomboyMom,

However I am trying to escape from BC&H and seek opinions
in the science and skepticism newsgroup.

I am after C14 dating reports specifically, and am interested
as to whether any of the thousands of papyrii fragments
have been carbon dated, because to my knowledge, such
a test has not yet been published.

Can anyone direct me at any online C14 publication archives?
Thanks for any information in this area.


Pete Brown

markfiend

It's my understanding that palaeographic dates have a narrower range of error than C14 dates.

youngalexander

Pete,
You are pissing in the wind - again.
OK, I'm a physicist, I know about C dating. Not the same thing as knowing about the C dating of ancient texts.

You might strike it lucky - nice try. Generally scholarship goes the other way.
That is from necessity to expertise, rather than requirement to hope!

In short, if the specimen (properly obtained) has been C dated by a legit lab then unless you have some scientific reason to object - go with the result.

Sven

Now how could this happen...

Sarpedon

Whether you want to 'escape' there or not, this material is appropriate for BC&H.

mountainman

Oh Good Day Sarpedon.
Good to see you again.
Your looking busy this morning.
Best wishes,

Pete

PS: This recent post to the SCIENCE
forum might actually stay there.

ClassicsFiend

I just thought I should mention that the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas are not really considered "New Testament Texts." Gnostic works are frequently dated pretty late anyway, since the main sources for those works (esp. Nag Hammadi) are late. Most scholars think many of the NHL texts were written earlier than copies we have that we can date. Of course, this is true of classical texts too -- I think Terence's Eunuch survives in medieval manuscripts, copied centuries after the play's actual composition. That, however, does not make the original play any less classical.

By the way, what do you mean by the "binding" on the Gospel of Thomas? Are you talking about the one that's included in a Nag Hammadi Codex? I have heard 200 CE as an approximate date for the Greek fragments of that work.

If you are particularly concerned with the actual New Testament and carbon dating, Thomas and Judas are not good texts to start with as a basis for your research.

mountainman

They are clearly not part of the Hebrew text corpus,
and they are mentioned by the purported historical
transmittors of other NT texts. They are of the same
genre as the Gospel of << INSERT PROFILE HERE >>.

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?

The citation I had earlier sourced for the gThomas
was a carbon dating citation on the binding of the
spine of the book, which returned 350 CE. I am
not certain it was independent of the Nag Hammadi
find, or part of it.

I am not aware of a date of 200 CE for the greek of
the gThomas, however I'd guess immediately that you
are not referring to a dating via C14, but by the
process of "paleography", handwring analysis in layman's
terms.

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.

Hopefully, a reader in the SCIENCE and SKEPTICISM
forum might be able to tell us whether there are in
fact any more than these two citations, but alas,
we are now talking back in the BC&H forum.

Still people might wake up here soon.


Pete