Toto

I assume that carbon dating is accurate as an indication of when the scrolls were physically constructed. I do not (nor does anyone else) follow Pete's idea that carbon dating can be used to fix the date of composition of the text.

No one has mentioned Eisenman here in quite some time.

Otherwise, I am quite puzzled by this post.

Minimalist

It tells you when the sheep (or goat) died so that it's skin could be used to make the parchment. I have trouble imagining an ancient warehouse with piles of parchments sitting around for years waiting for someone to write on them. Given the +/- on C14 dating anyway, why quibble?

spin

The fun thing is that Eisenman's scrotum is nailed to the wall with C14. He knows it. That's why he eventually attempted to say something meaningful about it and got trounced for it. You see he has to move C14 results or repudiate them, as all his previous efforts are invalidated otherwise.


spin

vid

Surely, that's why I explained several times I am unsure about my sources, and that they could easily be very biased. It was some time ago, and I had so much less knowledge of ancients back then. As I remember it, it was not about textual part, but about wide meaning of aramaic word(s), where same word can mean many things, and they constructed other meaning from the sentence. But really, this was far back, I believe that if this position was credible, there would already be someone here who could quote scholar with different meaning.

Thanks a lot for this site... but: please, could you fix "back" parts as "Lord" etc? I always found that disturbing. If there is YHWH, name it is. if there is Elohim, name it so. If there is YHWH, host of XXX, name it... etc. etc. Whenever I see old Jewish text, and see "Lord" there, it seems so christian to me, linking many (originally different?) things together... am I wrong?

Last time I didn't notice there is "good news" (evangelion) so close to it. That *is* noteworthy. Can someone comment on greek evangelion/good-news vs. aramaic good-news? Can it be same thing?

Thanks.

Rick Sumner

Since it's from Is.61.1 (initially), and since Matthew uses gospel in 11.5, I don't think that there can be much doubt that, in the mind of our Greek rendition, at any rate, the two are synonyms.

If that's not clear enough, Is.61.1 uses evangelion in the LXX.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

mountainman

Dear Toto,

You appear to be misrepresenting my position. Say we have two C14 citations such as 290 and 348 CE (both plus or minus 60 years) which have been derived from samples on the spine binding of these two separately discovered codices (gJudas and the NHC gThomas respectively) . My position is that there is no reason to introduce a conjectural fudge factor and the claim that these writings had been authored XXX years earlier. My position is to stand by the C14 data without any additional hypotheses.

Certainly, where there is clear and integrous attribution, with dates and names and places and lineages of earlier authors, such that the literature work is clearly an older work being preserved, then there is in this instance a valid cause to introduce the claim that the authorship of the original texts occurred far earlier than the codex which records a later posterity of it.

The two specific citations were have are NT non canonical literature, and the earliest was recently identified by April Deconnick as a parody. Admittedly Deconnick pulls the mainstream fudgefactor out of the bag and believes that although the C14 says 290 +/- 60 years, the original thing was authored in the 2nd or 3rd century and all we are looking at is a preserved-for-posterity-clone written out of respect c.240-350 CE at a later date.

Why the fudge-factor on gJudas? We have no author or date or attribution that it is being faithfully preserved. The text does not say "Hello I was copied from something older! This is a conjecture. It may be right or it may be wrong, but it is an additional conjectural fudge to the C14.

Why the fudge more specifically on the Nag Hammadi codex contain the gospel of Thomas? This is a list of sayings, all of which have been prefaced by a reference such as this: I_S says.

You will note that the original coptic does not mention Jesus says, but states I_S says. This is a nomina sacra, and abbreviation. It is also the abbreviated form of 'The Healer, which fits perfectly alongside the archaeological dominance in the ROman empire for the period from 500 BCE to 500 CE of the widespread and well-favored Healing God Asclepius. who has temples and shrines everywhere.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing about the gThomas to tell us that it was specifically written to preserve an earlier extant list of sayings. We have a C14 date of 348 CE (+/- 60 years) and that is the date I use. Mainstream need to introduce a fudge-factor to make sense of the pseudo-history delivered to them by Constantine and Eusebius. The C14 is not saying to us, here is a date, but this text is actually hundreds of years older. It is simply saying "Here we have an unattributed text dated by C14 to the C14".

The fudge factor is additional conjecture.
Yes, It may be appropriate in certain instances (attribution, etc).
No, in this instance, the texts do not tells us "I am preserved X centuries".
Where is Occam when you need him?

Best wishes,


Pete

Ben C Smith

The fragment is in Hebrew, not Aramaic.

The instances of Lord in the translation are translating אד�*י (adonai), which simply means lord; there is nothing to fix. I presume Mart�*nez capitalized it because it obviously refers to God.

I do not find יהוה anywhere in this fragment.

I think so. The LXX repeatedly replaces the proper name Yahweh with the circumlocution κυριος, which means lord in Greek. The Christians did not make this custom up; they inherited it.

However, I do sympathize with the idea of retaining the personal name (despite the difficulty in reconstructing the vowels), and you will find me doing so on various pages of my website (my page about the term Lord in Paul, for example).

Again, this is Hebrew, but the word used is בשר, and yes, it is the same word as used in Isaiah 61.1, which Luke 4.18 quotes using the Greek term ευαγγελισασθαι (to evangelize or to preach the gospel or to deliver good news). That term is, of course, the verb form of the noun ευαγγελιον (commonly rendered as gospel).

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Nitpick: Isaiah 61.1 LXX uses ευαγγελισασθαι, the verb formed from ευαγγελιον, not ευαγγελιον itself.

Ben.

vid

My bad, sorry. Once again, I am just quoting from my faint memory. It was first response to the post, and I decided to mention anything i remember. Since this seems to be position not backed by anyone, i freely move away from it... It was just something I have read long time ago on disputable sites, no need to discuss it any further anyway, until some *serious* opposition arises, unlike one presented by me.

Thanks for clearing.

Are there multiple possible explanations (AFAIK, many hebrew words have VERY wide meanings range), or is the "to deliver good news" settled thing?

Sorry for my many mistakes, btw...

Ben C Smith

Well, בשר also means flesh in Hebrew, but it is difficult to see how that meaning would apply here. The word is used all over the Hebrew scriptures for bearing good news. Refer to 1 Samuel 31.9; 2 Samuel 4.10; 18.26, 31; 1 Kings 1.42; 1 Chronicles 10.9; Isaiah 40.9; 41.27; 52.7; 60.6; Nahum 1.15.

But the parallel with Isaiah 61.1 really seals the deal, I think.

No problem.

Ben.