mountainman

There are a number of cases that have been made for the possibility that the non canonical literature is of 4th century origin, the major one imo being the fact that it is common acknowledged (almost without exception) that the authors of the non canonical material had before them the canonical texts of the bible. Carrier repeats this fact above:

On the basis of this fact the question becomes at which time did the text of the canonical new testament bible become "widely known and important" to the author of the non canonical texts. The mainstream paradigm follows blindly along as a result of the "Testimonium Tertullianum", in which Tertullian asserts that the author of the Acts of Paul (and Thecla) authored the text in the 2nd century "out of love for Paul". This is the only mention of an author of the non canonical texts in the entire collection of the fathers including Eusebius. The name "Leucius" does not emerge until the later 4th century, and becomes explicit as "Leucius Charinus" under Photius centuries later.

The problem with the non canonical works is that the author is not named, despite the fact that Eusebius sets out to name and number "the wolves which devasted the flock" - the Gnostics who were heretics.

The case for the possibility that the Gnostic literature was generated as a result of Constantine's massive widespread publication of the NT bible rests on the fact that until this time, it is reasonable to argue that most of the educated greek speaking pagans c.324 CE had never heard of, and/or had never taken the opportunity of studying very very very carefully the text of the NT. I say very very very carefully, because it is immediately evident to those who have analysed the non canonical texts, that they have been created by combining bits and pieces of the NT narratives and adding new material. The author(s) of the non canonical gospels and acts must have been an exceedingly highly trained logician and analyst, and has selected bits and pieces of the NT in various combinations and permutations to mimick and to outline further novel stories and tales and romances about the characters who had appeared in the NT bible.

In the year 324 CE in the eastern empire, Constantine decreed that everyone was going to become Christian, and he set about this in a systematic manner which included handing over copies of the NT Bible to be used in the pulpit. It is therefore claimed that it was only at this time that the NT became a political issue in the ROman Empire from the perspective of the non christians, the Graeco-Roman pagans of the empire.

Many people were effected. The pagan priesthood was made redundant essentially almost overnight - robbed of their custodial power by the destruction of major temples by Constantine and by prohibitions on temple practices which were enforced (in the cities at least) by the army. We may surmise that he was not impressed by the academies of the philosophers and of the learned, since he burnt Porphyry and executed Sopater. Thus the entire non christian "Guardian Class" of Alexandria were robbed of their powers and their livelihood and their traditions and their future.

It is my claim that it is a possibility for discussion that the author of the non canonical material came from this class of dispossessed Greek speaking academics, who immediately had to contend with the power of the new testament and Constantine's Bible.

How did the Alexandrian indigenous non christians react to all this c.324/325 CE?


In brief, since the NT itself only rose meteorically to any prominence in the Greek literate circles of the non christians when Constantine brought it with him from Rome and the West, it seems quite reasonable to consider that those who authored the non canonical texts did so at that time. They had been made redundant and were essentially sitting around on their hands wondering what was going on. Alternatively, others, such as the "Prophet" Pachomius, convinced himselve that he saw a "vision" c.324 CE, and went a few hundred miles away from Alexandria, up the Nile, to the S Bend at Nag Hammadi. While most assess Pachomius to have been a christian on account of the assertion by Jerome that he was baptised before he left town, I reject this assertion by Jerome, and assess Pachomius to have also been associated with this dispossessed class of greek literate non christian (ie: Graeco-Roman) people c.324 CE in Alexandria. (The City of Alexander was about to be recycled to become the City of Constantine)

mountainman

Would you change your opinion if any of these texts had either the name of the author on them
and/or the date, that corroborated the C14?

The fact that these texts are nameless and dateless is an additional consideration here.
I mean the canonical gospels all had named authors who lived in history right?
Political reality demands that these non canonical books have an author or authors.
The major widely preserved literary heretics of christianity are not named by their orthodox supressors -- why?
See the above post about the "Testimonium Tertullianum" as being the only reference in all of history
to an AUTHOR of this class of documents called the non canonical scap-pile.



Now, I do appreciate you stating both sides of the case here:

Yes, theoretically we could be dealing in copies of an original, or copies of copies of an original, etc, etc, etc and be as regressive as we care to be. But, is it not just as likely that we may be dealing with originals (or at least copies made during the life of an author for the purpose of immediate distribution (ie: publication)?

How do we know one way or the other?
Which is more likely:

1) finding an original and/or immediately published copy of that original or

2) finding a copy made centuries after the original publication


True.


I agree that the C14 cannot discern the source.
We may conjecture one of two things as above.

That is the document represents a product of an author writing arond the time the codex was physically manufactured, or that the document represents the product of an earlier author writing centuries beforehand.

But logically, which is far more likely (possibly by several orders of magnitude)?

mountainman

Unaddressed from another thread, in regard to the pseudonymous non canonical gospels and acts etc (eg: "Gospel of Judas")...



But I think it is the problem.

C14 dating is a new source of evidence for BC&H

Lets imagine for the moment that we are talking from the future and instead of only 2 C14 citations with respect to the -- in this OP -- the non canonical books of the new testament - we have twenty two different codices having been C14 dated. Just imagine how they are to be analysed and then explained or incorporated into the overall body of evidence.


Possible (Future) Scattering or Distribution Scenarios ....

(1) the 22 dates are scattered between the 1st and 4th century
(2) the 22 dates are scattered between the 2nd and the 4th century
(3) the 22 dates are scattered between the early 3rd and the 4th century
(4) the 22 dates are scattered between the mid 3rd and the 4th century
(5) the 22 dates are scattered between the late 3rd and early 4th century.


In all the above scenarios with the exception of scenario (5) the theory that the non canonical texts were authored as a reaction to the Council of Nicaea and the sudden appearance of the new testament with a big political clout is immediately refuted. I get an early mark and go surfing.

However if the scenario turns out to be (5) my question to you is to ask whether you will still be trotting out the commonly accepted argument that we are just dealing in copies of earlier copies?

Quantifying an estimate for the ratio between "Original Works" and "ReCopied Works"

Logic mandates that we need to come to an agreement of the ratio between original books and books which you are calling "copies" (inserted into expensive and exceedingly contraversial codices centuries after original authorship).

Do you think that the ratio between original works and centuries-old copies/reproductions of earlier authored works is

(a) 1: 100
(b) 1: 22
(c) 1: 5
(d) 1: 3
(e) 1: 1.414

or what is your "belief" or "Ball park estimate"? Sooner or later we are going to have that many C14 citations - or dating of material by some other technological process, so you should appreciate the need to establish this ratio. It is not simple because each specific text will have its own count of copies around the time of first publication (all of which for the purposes of this exercise can be considered as "originals"). What we need to determine is the number of times these originals were simply republished centuries later as authorless texts. This later figure I would think to be small for many many smaller publications



The Criterion of the "Earlier Original"

Does this work like the "Criterion of Embarrassment"?

If we have the choice in finding stuff that is quite late
we have the right to invoke the criterion of the "Earlier Original"
and conjecture for the strategic placements of transcendental
earlier originals in the second and third centuries based on 4th century
black and white codex manufactured evidence.

Perhaps the papyrus was becoming illegible in Egypt through heat!!!
The stuff from Oxyrhynchus seems to have lasted without scribes.

Mainstream currently appear to use this criterion in dealing
with the non canonical material.



The gnostic codices were specially made ...



These things were time capsules designed to last in the elements.
See how securely they were bound in leather bindings and straps.

Toto

The proto-canonical material did not need to be "widely known" to be the basis of the non-canonical literature. It only needed to be available to the non-canonical authors, in the second, third and fourth centuries.

mountainman

Well, if this is the case, why are the names of these non canonical authors not preserved in the accounts of Eusebius, especially considering that he states explicitly he is about to do so?

Dont you think that its strange Eusebius did not name these 2nd and 3rd century gnostic authors? What possible reasons could hypothetically exist to acccount for this state of affairs?


One explanation is that the gnostic authors were writing at the same time as Eusebius, and the names of these heretical Gnostic authors have been subject to imperial "damnatio memoriae" and have been expunged from the records when it became politically expedient for that to occur.

Toto

This is a non sequitur. Eusebius said he was going to name names, then he didn't or some later editor excised it - but what does this have to do with when the gnostic gospels were written?

mountainman

The Gnostic gospels must have had an author, and, it also follows that the name of that author was at one time publically known, but was suppressed or excised from the orthodox accounts as a political means to suppress the popularity and knowledge of these alternative gospels.

An examination of the appearance of Leucius [Charinus]) - the only name ever to be associated with numerous "gnostic acts" - shows that the orthodox were associating this name as the primary author, and that they were happy to name an author, some of whom contended was the campanion of John. The names "Lucius" and "Karinas" are the scribes in the "Acts of Pilate", which is itself recognised as a 4th century authored text. All this stuff happens late. Why must we remain stuck about suspecting earlier (pre-Nicaean) authorship?


The question remains whether this authorship occurred before or after Nicaea, and while the C14 evidence does not prove that the original Greek Gnostic Gospels were authored after Nicaea (nb: it certainly subjected the theory to a process of falsification and the theory survived), my claim here is that it does allow the discussion of that possibility, and a discussion of its implications to BC&H.

mountainman

According to this opinion we can never ever ever ever ever ever ... ever ever ... etc etc etc expect to find an original writing. Yet we have records of sales and receipts from the sands of Egypt, that may not have been duplicated. Obviously you (and others) cannot be correct in this opinion.


How easy is it to find "Original Works"?

As a random percentage, if you wandered blindfold
into a massive library of books during a blackout,
and selected one and then returned outside into the light
and removed your blindfold,


(A) what would the probability be that you had selected
a book containing [a collection] of copies of literature authored by anonymous people centuries ago?

(B) what would be the probability that you had selected
a book containing [a collection] of original works, by a known author, authored and published within the same century?

The mainstream arguments, mirrored by most of participants in this discussion group,
would have us believe that option (A) is more probable than option (B)
whereas my opinion is that option (B) is more probable than option (A)
and by several orders of magnitude.

avi

Hi Pete!
I will try to clarify. Maybe I will only make matters more muddled than usual!!!

The relatively rare isotope of carbon, labeled 14C, representing a carbon atom, derived from Nitrogen, with 8 neutrons and 6 protons, is unstable, and eventually will decay into 14 Nitrogen.

Plants which grow in the atmosphere, not in a greenhouse with sheltered environment, accumulate 14C, converting carbon dioxide into plant structural material.

In the case of Papyrus, this process, of incorporating the unstable isotope of Carbon into the plant, CEASES upon harvest of the plant. Thereafter, the amount of 14C steadily decreases....

The papyrus is then stored, sometimes for centuries, before use as writing material.

One does not know the date when the plant material was used as paper, we know only the OLDEST POSSIBLE date that it could have been harvested. We do not know, from 14C studies, the date when something was written on this plant material.

In the case of receipts and bills, and so on, where a human has recorded a date, then we can assume honesty, and accuracy, and conclude that FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL document, the date is appropriate. Should that date correspond to the date attained by measuring 14C, then, one has demonstrated that the time interval between harvest of the papyrus and recording the date of sale, was short. If one finds two pieces of papyrus in a trash heap, such as has been discovered at oxyrhynchus, perhaps even lying adjacent to one another, or even touching one another at the time of discovery, then it would be FALSE to conclude that the second document, lacking a human recorded date, was generated/created, at the same time as the first document, which did bear a written date, even though BOTH documents demonstrated the SAME 14C date, i.e. same date of harvest of the papyrus.

This is an argument of futility, which spin and I have gone round and round on: I will not prevail in my argument with him, about the supposed "discovery" of a papyrus fragment at Dura Europos, and I do not expect to convince you or anyone else, for that matter, of the futility of expecting a close correlation between 14C data and the date of origin of authorship of a document. There is simply too much wiggle room for fraud, error, and financial gain, to accept such evidence at face value.

It is simply a matter of the distinction between empiricism and superstition. I do not believe or accept superstitious thinking. Like Thomas, I must feel the wound, Pete. If that second document is lying in between two other human dated documents, all three bound in a leather case, with the case buried in a stone bunker, apparently undisturbed for 1700 years, and all three having precisely the same 14 C date of harvest of the papyrus, I still WILL NOT ACCEPT the validity of the claim that the middle document, was written at the same time period as the other two documents. I will fear that someone has inserted the document, or exchanged the document, or altered the document, perhaps right under our noses, just as was, I believe, the case for that document at Dura Europos.

A particular document may well have been written, exactly on the date corresponding to the 14C date of the papyrus harvest. But, it would be wrong, in my opinion, to conclude that it MUST have been written on that date, based on 14C data. All we can say, with certainty, is that the papyrus was harvested on that date, so that, therefore, the document could not have been created BEFORE that date.

avi

mountainman

Examining Likelihoods and not Certitudes


Hi Avi,

I understand your reasoning above, about jumping to false conclusions as a result of associating the C14 date of manufacture of an ancient codex with the conjectured date of authorship of the text(s) within the codex, and in principle I agree.

We are only ever dealing with LIKELIHOODS and not certainties.


At the moment the superstition that the 4th century manufactured codices contain
copies of writings authored hunders of years before their date of manufacture
is the prevailing mainstream paradigm. Mainstream appear certain of this claim
because of the evidence they think they have presented by Irenaeus et al.

Is this mainstream theory falsifiable?



Neither do I, but I do accept statistical analyses as indicative of trends and of what is more probable and less probable, because none of our data is fail safe in itself.

Would you agree avi that it would be equally invalid to conclude that
these 4th century C14 dated texts MUST be copies of texts authored centuries earlier.

I have not mentioned MUST above Avi.
All I mentioned was the possibility to be explored.
I am not advocating certitude but arguing against it.
If you go back to my original question that you responded to you will find this ....

QUESTION
How many 4th century C14 citations on gnostic gospels and acts etc will it take
for the general person to start questioning whether we are dealing with original 4th century texts?
I'd like to ask any readers how many C14 citations would it take to convince you of this possibility?

The possibility refers to the likelihood that we are actually dealing with original 4th century texts in the Nag Hammadi Codices and the Tchacos Codex (gJudas, etc).
It does not refer to the CERTAINTY that these are either copies or originals.

I am not advocating certainties - I am examining and advocating an analysis of LIKELIHOODS.
There is a vast difference betwen these two approaches.
Allow me to rephrase the above original question in order to remove any reference to any perceived CERTAINTIES.

QUESTION
How many 4th century C14 citations on gnostic gospels and acts etc will it take
for the LIKELIHOOD that we may be dealing with original 4th century texts to be taken seriously.

Thanks and best wishes,


Pete

PS: GIVEN that nothing is certain, what is more likely in the library scenario above at post # 198 ?