mountainman

We have already seen in the Mani thread the lengths the orthodox heresiologists went to fabricate fictitious histories of their "Gnostic opponents". My argument is that the Gnostic authors of the non canonical gospels etc only commenced to write their stuff when the new testament was raised to any form of open significance in the empire. This did not happen until Nicaea. Until then, I think that it is quite reasonable to suspect that the bulk of the educated pagans had never even heard of the new testament (Here I am assuming it existed before the peace of Constantine for the sake of the argument).


The history of Nicaea and the reception of christianity in the Eastern Empire has been written by the orthodox heresiological victors. I conjecture that the reception was nowhere near as harmonius as these writers assert, and that these writers (just like Hegemonius and Ephrem on Mani) have fabricated things about these post Nicaean authors, namely their history. My claim is that the references in Eusebius, and Tertullian to the appearance of the "Gnostic Gospels" have been inserted, retrospectively, in order to obscure their political appearance in the years immediately after of Nicaea.


Once a few generations had passed, the controversy over the "Gnostic Gospels" had lost a great deal of historical focus, and the books themselves had to be buried in order to be preserved.

In summary Toto, I am asserting someone (either Eusebius, or his continuators) lied about the history of the "Gnostic Gospels etc", and retrojected a few key small references to them, into "Eusebius's Church History" and into Tertullian.


What makes you say that? Of course I realise that. The heresiologists have just as bad a reputation for fabricating history as do apologists, but in the instance of history of the non canonical gospels, it is the heresiologists who have up until now been considered as the expert witnesses.

The heresiologists were considered the authorities on the heretics. The tide has changed. The heresiologists are now perceived more as fabricators.

mountainman

Ta Transient,

If I had 10 C14 results I would certainly put them on the one graph but there are only two such tests related to the new testament that I am aware of.

However I presented this in order to put the post nicaean origins theory of the non canonical gospels on the line. By "put on the line" I mean stress test it and highlight its weaknesses and flaws.

Essentially in the OP I think it is reasonable to argue that the noncanonical Gospels
were authored only after the bible was widely published, after 325 CE.


The two results we have are now registered in the graph above.
Supposing we get another 8 citations on "noncanonical gospels".
What happens?


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

(1) the 10 dates are scattered between the 1st and 4th century
(2) the 10 dates are scattered between the 2nd and the 4th century
(3) the 10 dates are scattered between the early 3rd and the 4th century
(4) the 10 dates are scattered between the mid 3rd and the 4th century
(5) the 10 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 gospels were authored after Nicaea is immediately refuted. I get an early mark and go surfing. It will have been an interesting journey, but it will be over.


However if the scenario turns out to be (5) what would that say to anyone looking at the combined graph of ten C14 citations scattered between the late 3rd and 4th century?

To my way of thinking, if scenario (5) eventuates, then the C14 results themselves would strongly suggest that the noncanonical gospels were in fact original products of the fourth century.


I know we dont have 10 C14 results today, only 2.
But 2 is enough to calibrate trends for the future.
Do you know any good bookmakers?

spin

If we look at the linked dictionary entry:

[T2]fal·si·fy (fôlsә-f1)
v. fal·si·fied, fal·si·fy·ing, fal·si·fies
v.tr.
1. To state untruthfully; misrepresent.
2.
a. To make false by altering or adding to: falsify testimony.
b. To counterfeit; forge: falsify a visa.
3. To declare or prove to be false.
v.intr.
To make untrue statements; lie.[/T2]
Do we note definition #3: To declare or prove to be false? Someone didn't even read the dictionary entry they supplied.

Of course, I could go on with other dictionaries and we'd find the same thing, falsification of a theory is the demonstration that it doesn't work. Why bother to trumpet the fact that one refuses to use words available in the language? I feel there is no hope here. Let's extend the ignore list. :huh:


spin

avi

Thank you spin.

Yes, I absolutely AGREE with you, that the third meaning of the word is exactly as you use it, and YES, I certainly did read that THIRD entry at the URL.

The problems I have with your use of "falsify" to indicate the concept of "repudiate", or "refute", or "disprove", are these:

a. first of all, your blogs and ordinary posts to this forum generally (with some exceptions, as is true for everyone) tend to be of exceptional utility, importance, and interest. Your knowledge is encyclopedic, your linguistic skills nearly without peer, and your wit exceptional. As a consequence, many people read what you write, in particular, and accordingly, the way you express yourself, filters down, among those of us, less gifted, less well educated, less talented, and with much less experience. Your skills are disproportionately emulated by others. Consequently, when you use a word, like "falsify", to indicate "repudiation", rather than "dishonest fraud", OTHER FOLKS pay attention, and start writing that way TOO.

b. "Repudiate", or "Disprove", or "Refute", do not convey the concept of fraud, as the primary underlying motive for selecting that word in expressing one's thoughts. One can disprove or refute evidence or theories, without invoking or raising the notion of fraud. However, that cannot be said for "falsify". To me, at least, if no one else, the word falsify ALWAYS signifies an undercurrent of fraud. I acknowledge that you, and many others employ the word to indicate simple repudiation, entirely absent fraud, but, like the skill of walking along a narrow beam, 100 meters above ground, with no net beneath, it takes some effort to gain proficiency with such an interpretation, after a lifetime spent on the limitless horizon. I prefer to remain safely on terra firma. You and the other skywalkers are welcome to dance along the narrow beam, high in the air above me, fearlessly, while I seek out the nearest chair in which to repose.

c. English, unfortunately, has become the world's language for communication. Many folks who can read English, are not native speakers, and accordingly, will have difficulty following an argument, when the word chosen to express a thought, does not correspond to the first meaning of a dictionary entry, particularly, in the setting where an element of contradiction exists between the first and third definitions in the dictionary. How is the non-native speaker to recognize that you, spin, use the word "falsify" to represent "disprove", but NOT fraud?

d. Closely related to (c), the subject matter of this forum, history of ancient christianity, is filled to the brim with fraud.
One cannot turn a page in these ancient texts without uncovering yet another allegation of deceit, "interpolation", and overt forgery. Consequently, it is not very sharp, for anyone, to be inserting into one's text, words which, a priori, convey the notion of fraud, when the intention, contrarily, is quite the opposite, i.e. to suggest repudiation without any hint of fraud.

avi

mountainman

I have been searching for the detailed C14 analysis report following the C14 testing done at the University of Arizona, probably sponsored by National Geographic, as part of their publication, translations, etc of the Gospel of Judas. It appears that as at 2007 this report was not yet published, however the following article provides the uncalibrated radiocarbon dates obtained during the testing:


THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS AND THE QARARA CODICES SOME PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS - Peter M. Head
Tyndale Bulletin 58.1 (2007) 1-23.

The relevant section on the C14 test runs as follows:


Here is the Press Release

mountainman

The Effect of Calibration is dramatic

The above results, which have been published everywhere around the internet, and in journals and in books and other reference material have been always previously cited as 280 CE plus or minus 60 years. These results are the consequence of a specific statistical analysis on 4 out of 5 of the above test results.


However, these results are the uncalibrated results.
A process of calibration is required to the known radiocarbon calibration curve.
Here is a draft graph, once the result of 280 +/- 60 years is calibrated.
The effect of calibration is quite dramatic.




Features:

(1) The red curve on the left hand side peaks at 1670 (years before the present = years before 1950) and shows a standard distribution similar to the graphs that I had earlier drafted. Note that this is the uncalibrated result.

(2) The wandering double curve descending from left to right is the radiocarbon calibration curve, continually being refined and republished. You can see that the final result of "calibration" projects the asymmetries of this overriding calibration curve onto the uncalibrated curve at (1).

(3) The resultant "calibrated result" is shown as the multiple peaked curve in the lower center, and it is not difficult to see that the median and the bounds have been substantially altered from 280 CE +/- 60 years, with a 95% confidence level, to a possible distribution between 240 CE and 540 CE, clearly taking in the period from Nicaea, 325 CE onwards.


That the Gnostic Gospels and Acts are Post-Nicaean

The above C14 evidence lends a great deal of support to the idea that that the Gnostic Gospels and Acts were a polemical pagan publication authored after widespread publication and new importance of the Constantine Bible. The idea is that the non canonical acts and gospels were written as a reaction to the canonical new testament, and they were promptly banned and prohibited by Constantine, and formed the very first entries in the ledger of the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum".

I am happy to receive counter arguments, but the way I see it, it is logical that there was not a great deal of resistance and polemic against the new testament until that time it was widely published and raised to the focus of academic assessment for the entire Roman empire under Constantine. The new testament was then studied by Greek academic authors, and the "Gnostic Acts and Gospels" were fabricated using sources from the NT in various novel combinations and permutations, including new and novel facts about "The Travels of the Apostles", as described by Photius centuries later, and providing the Gnostic authors to promote their own form of religious understanding, which was substantially different from Constantine's.

stephan huller

Why do you keep perpetuating this argument? Your argument is stupid for 100 different angles. Why continue to argue this one point?

If you for instance believe that gravity doesn't have an effect on you - that you just decide to 'opt in' to the influence of a massive planet like earth - keep it to yourself. No one is going to criticize you for as long as you don't continue to promote your idiotic beliefs in public. But if you keep arguing these points over and over again you deserve to be continually beaten over the head. No fancy graphs and charts are going to change the underlying situation.

What about this don't you understand:

Were you hit in the head with a surf board and never recovered? This evidence ultimately makes your theory less likely not more likely to be true.

This theory is stupid. Christianity was not invented from scratch in the fourth century and as such there is no point to continue to manipulate the evidence regarding the Gospel of Judas. Why do you need to convince other people about this nonsense? I don't understand. Surely there must be a better way for you to spend your time other than devoting yourself to the pursuit of lunacy.

Give it a rest.

mountainman

What you do not understand stephan is the results which have been published everywhere are as yet incomplete, and represented uncalibrated results. The graph above shows the radiocarbon calibrated results with a 95% confidence as anywhere between 250 and 540 CE.

Do you understand that?
I dont think you do.


Deal with the OP stephan. The OP theory is that the noncanonical gospels and acts etc were authored after the year 325 CE. The OP is not about orthodox christianity at all, and with respect to the OP it is immaterial whether the NT canon was authored in the 1st or 2nd or 3rd or 4th centuries. How many times do I have to repeat this?

For the sake of arguing the OP I am happy to accept that the NT canon was authored substantially by Marcion and Ammonias Saccas in the second century. The OP is not about the NT canon. The OP is about the books of the non canonical corpus of literature. The Gnostic books. The hidden books. The heretical books. The banned books. The prohibited books. The burned books. The buried books. The Hot Books. The Underground books. The Resistance Books. DO YOU GET THE DRIFT stephan?

The OP is about the authorship "Gnostic Gospels and Acts". The C14 tells us that the Gnostics were manufacturing codices in the 4th century after Nicaea. The OP is arguing that the authorship of these books, including the "Gospel of Thomas" and the "Gospel of Judas" was undertaken as a reaction to the Nicaean prominence of the NT canon, and not before.

stephan huller

But there is nothing from Head which suggests this. At a certain point it becomes tiresome to go through all your manipulations of data to achieve your desired inference.

Peter actually came to my blog today. Do you want me to ask him if he supports your inferences from the data?

What does everyone think the answer will be? Any question? Anybody?

Give it up surfer boy. Go back in the water

mountainman

Head's paper advises that the C14 test director Jull had not published the results as at 2007 when Head wrote. Part of the publication process for a C14 date is to take the radiocarbon age determined (in this case 280 +/- 60 years) and perform the radiocarbon calibration process, probably using the OxCal software like I did, to produce a calibrated C14 distribution result - a sample is shown above (based on Head's report, and the results published in National Geographic and at the University of Arizona and elsewhere in 2006).


You could ask him:

(1) Whether Jull has published his paper yet from the 2006 test..
(2) Whether Jull's published paper calibrates the 280 CE result.
(3) Whether he is aware the world is presently quoting the uncalibrated C14 results.
(4) How he views the scientific requirement of performing the calibration of the C14 result.


Head may be surprised. You have my permission to send him the above graph for his comment.
The red curve at the upper left represents the uncalibrated C14 determination with a normal distribution peaked at 280 CE.
The black multi-peaked curve at the lower center represents the radiocarbon calibration result - multipeaked.


I'll bet you a block of surfwax that I am at least correct in pointing out that the published results from the National Geographic funded C14 test on fragments from the Codex Tchacos, containing the gJudas, namely 280 +/- 60 years, is an uncalibrated result. The final published paper by Jull (certainly not available when Head wrote in 2007) is by standard supposed to present the final step of the radiocarbon calibration process of the C14 determination.

As to whether I am correct in the larger hypothesis, that the NT apocryphal corpus is a post Nicaean literary phenomenom, time will tell. I think we can all guess what Head will say about this hypothesis, when asked cold. He will defer to the contemporary academic hegemon of believing Irenaeus and others (via Eusebius) -- in respect of the books of the NT Apocryphal corpus -- rather than the C14. He, like you, has not given the hypothesis any thought.