avi

YES, agree, THOSE PARTICULAR manuscripts/codices were likely produced after Nicaea, because, the C14 data suggests that the Papyrus plants were harvested after Nicaea.

However, Toto's point remains valid, in my opinion, i.e. this data only affirms the likelihood that the specific document which has been analyzed, was created after 325 CE. This method cannot determine when the original was written/forged, nor can this method permit deduction of whether we are examining an original document or a copy thereof.

avi

spin

Given that the actual C14 dating of Judas is 280 +/- 60, ie 220-340, and that there is no reason whatsoever to average the date ranges of the two different documents--even two documents found in the same collection can vary greatly (think of DSS Testament of Kohat & Pesher Psalms)--why exactly would you agree that the Gospel of Judas was produced after 325? You know you know nothing about C14 and you know that you have no reason to doubt the empirical data. The text could just as easily have been written as early as 220 CE as it could up to 340. So what evidence makes you choose the last 15 years of the date range?


spin

avi

I did not choose the last 15 years of the date range. I agreed that THOSE specific documents were most probably generated sometime within the C14 range. The emphasis of agreement was on the English word: THESE, in other words, opposing the concept that C14 guarantees a specific date of composition.

avi

mountainman

Two additional Factors mitigating gJudas to the 4th century

(1) From the reports that I have read the members of the research team that was gathered around the analysis of the gJudas manuscript, all prefer a date in the 4th century, rather than the 3rd.

(2) Examining all the myriad dates provided by the manuscript tradition associated with the dating of all the earliest known (Syriac and Coptic) sources from the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts", nothing is earlier than the mid 4th century (excepting the paleographical assessment of Oxyrhynchus codex fragments).

stephan huller

Everything I have ever read on the subject of the Gospel of Judas suggests

(a) that it was based on a second century original and
(b) no firm dating is ever given beyond a median between the radiocarbon range.

An example;

And this from Bart Ehrman in his 2006 book:

(the Lost Gospel of Judas p. 8)

I have never heard of anyone prefer the late dating other than those who want to dismiss the document for personal reasons. It would be illogical to do so given there is no compelling reason to go to either extremes of the range established by radio-carbon dating.

I tend to be suspicious of anything Pete says because he is such a fanatical partisan.

stephan huller

But there is the Flavia Sophe gnostic inscription which is usually acknowledged to come from the third century. There are dissenting voices but most again the mean dating in scholarship is the third century.

mountainman

Thanks Avi,

I do understand everyone's burning desire to bring into the discussion of the evidence itself this further and additional hypothesis or postulate, namely, that this item of evidence was a later copy of an "earlier and closer-to-the original gJudas.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that contemporary scholarship accepts this hypothesis as being true and valid. The history of the acceptance of this hypothesis - ie: that some only of the "original authorship of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts" occurred in either the 2nd or 3rd centuries involves implicit reliance upon the writings of the orthodox heresiologists presented in Eusebius's "Church History", and the assertions of the continuators of Eusebius in the later 4th and 5th centuries.

However, as you can see from my outline of claims above, I am taking what I consider to be a valid and justifiable step of rejecting the very small number of literary assertions found in Eusebius and Tertullian as false. I will allow these heresiologists to be witnesses for their own orthodox christian flock, but I will not allow these heresiologists to be authorities in the matter of the history of their sworn enemies - the "Gnostics".

Consequently, my opinion is that there are in fact no earlier "originals", and that the evidence in our possession, dated to the 4th century and within a stone's throw of the Nicaean Roman State Church Event of 325 CE, actually represent the original authorship.

Having said all this, it is still valid to postulate that these heresiologists were in fact "telling the truth" about the history of the appearance of the books of their enemies, and that we may one day expect to find, and C14 date, some manuscripts from the 3rd or perhaps even 2nd century. But until this evidence is forthcoming, this postulate is being held on the basis of the unquestioned authority of the orthodox heresiologists in regard to matters of the chronology of the "Gnostic Gospels and acts".

mountainman

As an analyst I might want to ask the question, given the two C14 dating results, what is the probability that both documents were manufactured after Nicaea? This is a valid question, and its answer is computed by reference to both date's individual probabilities. The answer on the C14 dates alone, has been estimated to be about 30% probability.

Furthermore, these are not just "two different documents", but can be validly considered to represent exemplars of an extremely unique category of document in ancient history, namely the "Gnostic Gospels and acts". They represent the same unique category of documents, and are related by the unique classification of their subject matter.

In fact, they may have been taken from one single monumental work (See Photius on "Leucius Charinus") , consistent of many "Gospels and Acts", entitled "The Travels (or the "Circuits) of the Apostles", which were broken up and distributed in order to maximise the chance of their survival in an extremely despotic and hostile environment.

mountainman

These dissenting voices, such as that in Flavia Sophe in Context by P McKechnie - 2001, arguing for a 4th century date, are sufficient evidence for my case.

mountainman

Stephan, I agree. Same here. I put it to you that everything you (and I and everyone else for that matter) have ever read on the subject of the chronology of the "earliest" gJudas defers immediately and without question to the authority of the reference made by Irenaeus (via Eusebius).

This is my entire point stephan. I am not compelled however, to trust the orthodox heresiologists in matters of the history of their sworn religious enemies. I think that this Irenaeus reference to the existence of the gJudas has been retrojected -- and fabricated at the time "Church History" was hitting the streets of Nicaea. See post # 21 in this thread, which provides the details at the basis of Ireneus being an authority on the dating of gJudas.