mountainman

Or there will emerge a new non-desructive C14 related dating technological process. A secure dating would eliminate the need for conjecture and guesswork on all sides.

Maklelan

Whoops, I meant 350. My apologies.

The fact that Constantine legalized Christian worship and then made Christianity the official religion of the entire Roman Empire didn't have anything to do with that?

This has no bearing on the composition of New Testament manuscripts prior to the fourth century.

First, I disagree that this indicate 4th century anything, and second, you don't "mitigate towards" anything. "Mitigate" means to make less severe/intense or to mollify.

The trash of the citizens and the government ended up at the same dump, irrespective of religious affiliation.

The most prominent paleographical assessment I saw for the Gospel of Judas was actually around 400. Most dates are early fourth century. I have also seen "4th or 5th century," "first half of the 4th century," and "approximately A.D. 300." I have never seen any published paleographic analysis that placed it before the C14 dating. Regarding the Nag Hammadi codices, I have seen "early fourth century" for some codices, and "second half of the 4th century for others. The paleographic chronology for Coptic from that place and time period is particularly sparse, though, so it's no surprise to find a broader range of dates. Out of curiosity, though, would you mind citing those publications which have provided these earlier estimates?

What on earth does the date of the composition of the Gospel of Judas manuscript and the Nag Hammadi codices have to do with the date of the composition of the New Testament?

I'm at a loss for words regarding how those considerations could at all bear on the question of the date of the composition of the New Testament. The Gospel of Judas and Nag Hammadi comments just have nothing whatsoever to do with the question. The fact that "new testament related codices" were produced in the fourth century doesn't in any way, shape, or form indicate that the New Testament itself was composed then. You would first have to show that they are contemporaneous with the composition of the New Testament, and since they borrow from and adapt New Testament pericopes, and are also later copies of earlier texts, that's absolutely precluded. You simply do not have the foggiest idea what you're doing.

Duvduv

How credible is the scenario of the numbers of participants at Nicea?
If there were as many bishops as claimed, who both attended and stayed home, it would mean that several hundred communities of "Christians " existed back into the third century, which could be exaggerated.

Maklelan

To which estimation do you refer? I wouldn't say there were "several hundred communities," but there were enough to have several hundred people attending at Nicea. Each bishop was bringing lots of people with him. That Christianity would have been legalized and then made the official religion of the Roman Empire makes little sense if it were not quite widespread.

Duvduv

Supposedly Constantine invited 1800 but only 200-300 came.

Maklelan

I don't buy 1800 communities. Convenient, though, that each bishop could bring two priests and three deacons, meaning 300 bishops = 1800 attendants. I've not done any serious research on this, but I imagine the majority of the communities were represented.

Duvduv

So you think 300 communities was realistic early in the 4th century?
Where would so many have been located ?
And if only 250 people attended, that would only be 40 or 50 communities.

Maklelan

300 communities of Christians in ~300 years? Absolutely.

Egypt, Syria, Arabia, Asia Minor, Armenia, Italy, Gaul, Spain, elsewhere.

That number of communities would hardly compel Constantine to demand unity for the sake of the stability of his empire.

Chili

Maybe so, but Catholicism is not based on a popularity contest and will never be moved by persuasion, but truth can be very convincing and will do it all by itself . . . and so one bishop is enough. Lets face it, sheep will follow and go to where the good shepherd takes them and do just what followers do best.

And please consider that scholars do not know or they would not be scholars. Oh right and it was called Catholic and not Christian

Duvduv

How do we know if the whole story involving Constantine and events at Nicea are even true when nothing is known aside from claims from good old Eusebius?? The fact is that so much is in the fog, and really how do we know what Constantine was doing with Nicea at all.