avi

Of course spin intends to convey the notion that the evidence refutes Pete's arguments (unaccompanied by suggestion of fraud).
spin, not avi, introduced Dura Europos, on this thread.

The radioactive carbon 14 data from Gospel of Judas suggests to me, at least, that the papyrus upon which the text is written, was harvested sometime during the range of dates specified by the test, including, and not limited to, a date post Nicea.

avi

stephan huller

mountainman,

Have you finally lost it? You proudly hold up that graph as proof that the Gospel of Judas was composed by your Nicaean conspiracy? Really? Have you lost it? Take a look at what you are proudly holding up as proof of your silly theory. Just look at what you're saying. I never intended to ridicule you but you are making yourself look like a fool.

And this too

These are supposed to be GNOSTIC writings produced in the fourth and fifth centuries? Have you ever so much as read ANY of these texts? None of these are gnostic texts. None of them! You are really getting desperate now. Just quit while you still have some self-respect.

mountainman

Pay attention stephan. The theory is that the non canonical gospels and acts etc are post Nicaean productions of non Christian Gnostic Greeks authored as a polemical and literary reaction to the publication of the canonical gospels and acts by Constantine c.325 and Nicaea.

We will see. In the meantime here is a draft composite graph showing both C14 dating citations on the one presentation. This may clarify a few issues you and spin appear to be having a problem with ...



This is a draft, it lacks a few things, but I thought I'd have a go.
You will notice the red line shown as Nicaea.

At that time Constantine published the Canonical Gospels and Acts.
My theory is that shortly thereafter, one or more academic Alexandrian non christians authors started publishing the first of the non canonical gospels and acts, as a reaction to Bullneck's Bible.



I have read many of these texts, and most of the 52 Nag Hammadi texts which are not included on that list, but which perhaps be added.

The list above is a list of what I have collected of the New Testament Non Canonical texts, which I have also referred to as the New Testament Apocrypha, and also as the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc", with the etc covering items also catalogued with the NT Apocrypha (NTA). I gave up using this formal term NTA in preference to "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc". What toto refers to when he created the OP as the noncanonical gospels should in fact be more general.

Yes the list does contain a few common Eusebian forgeries, which have nothing at all to do with the Gnostics, but which are often classified somewhere in the NTA.

The list I posted was a list of items often classified with the New Testament Apocryphal corpus taken from my own notes here.

spin

So whenever you blunder badly and chop to some other subject, you think that's a reasonable evasive tactic.

It's too late for that. You've already made your intention clear. Notwithstanding the fact that the C14 data is of no help, you read it as if it is. It was introduced with the aim of somehow supporting the conspiracy theory and you took up the torch and got burnt. You attempted to go to the lists regarding Dura Europos and got unseated. Now gone to bat for the C14. Having a conclusion but no evidence for it is a bitch.


spin

stephan huller

Your theory about the origins of the production of the list of fourth and fifth century texts is unsubstantiated and a distraction from the C 14 evidence which you put forward and now has demolished your own theory.

Please come up with something substantive to support your claims

mountainman

Your questions at post # 49 regarding my own assessment of the strength of my claims against the evidence were answered in depth at post # 50.

Your response makes no reference to my claims and makes no attempt whatsoever to address the detailed and summary response, and in fact, is highly suggestive that you are not reading what I am writing.

Summary and Rating of Claims

Claim (1): 9/10 ... The manuscript evidence via the Manuscript Tradition supports the theory.

Claim (2): 9/10 ... The scientific evidence via the C14 dating tests supports the theory.

Claim (3): 4/10 ... The literary evidence via the “Church Fathers & Heresiologists” is rejected by the theory.

Claim (4): 5/10 ... The paleographical evidence via dating of Greek papyri fragments is rejected by the theory



Please provide some arguments directed at these specific claims, so that I can gauge precisely what it is that you have a problem with.

mountainman

Avi is simply pointing out that the C14 dating tells us the date when the papyri plants were originally harvested, not the date the papyrus itself was used by the scribe to manufacture a codex. How long did the papyrus sit idle between harvest and use? We dont know --- lets call it X years.

This is what avi is referring to - I understand that much spin. But spin is a textual critic, and is taking avi to task for mixing up his words in the haste of preparing a response.




In other words the entire composite result needs to be shifted X years into the future. This greatly assists the theory that the New Testament Apocryphal material was a Post Nicaean phenomenom.

Thanks avi.

avi

Always glad, Pete, keep up the good work, you are an inspiration to some of us!!!

avi

spin

When the blind lead the blind, the result is inevitable. But once you're in the hole, you don't have to think China is your escape route.


spin

stephan huller

Your arguments change so much you should be called Proteus. I happened to be a person who doesn't ever get a headache so I can continue trodding through all the nonsense. You just happen to transform your original points in each subsequent post it is difficult to remember what the original point is.

Since we are discussing whether or not there is any evidence for your theory about the creation of the gospels in the fourth century from scratch, you have already concede that there is no evidence to support your claims. You haven't produced any smoking gun, any reason to support this untenable position.

Yet you leave it up to those of us who have a high tolerance for garbage to wade through your ever shifting positions.

You, Pete, were the one who originally put forward the claim that the C 14 dates for the Gospel of Judas supported your claims that everything Christian was fabricated at the time of Nicaea. No rational interpretation of the evidence could possibly support that contention.

The only way you can make this case is by (a) claiming the possess the original autograph copy of the Gospel of Judas and (b) assuming the latest possible date for the manufacture of this original document. These assumptions CANNOT possibly be authenticated. Indeed it would be the equivalent of shooting ten holes in one if it were true.

You always make this absurd argument that the surviving documents in our possession are all the originals of those manuscripts. This is absolutely impossible. There is no likelihood of that being true.

The Gospel of Thomas is certainly not dated to the period you assign it. For one there are a number of older manuscripts which preserve its contents to the third century:

•Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 654
Preserves fragments of Prologue+Sayings 1-7
Greek; middle/late third century
•Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1
Preserves most of Sayings 26-30+77b, 31-33
Greek; late second/early third century
•Oxyhrynchus Papyrus 655
Preserves fragments of Sayings 24, 36-39
Greek; third century

and even these are not the originals of the document. A date of the late second century is a conservative estimate. One could make a strong case for an even earlier date.

There is simply too much evidence for you to honestly ignore. You only do so because you are a partisan and propagandist rather than a true scholar.