mountainman

The argument here relates to the scale of probability and I am simply
suggesting that the knowledge via evidence in our possession indicates
that "original works" are in fact far more statistically citable than
"copies of original works". In this I appeal to common sense.

But I have asked for citations of examples of authors making "straight copies of earlier works"
and have supplied citations of a a miniscule group of authors whom we know published "original works".
You may find one or two citations. How does that compare to the scale of works of "original authorship"

Of course. This is my argument precisely. Most works of literature are ephemeral original works.
Probability thus suggests that if one stumbles over a codex in the dark in a cave then it is an ephemeral original work
and conversely NOT a "straight copy of an earlier original work" centuries old.

In terms of overall manuscript publication this would IMO represent the exception
rather than the rule. The rule being that most manuscript publication is being
conducted (in many fields of knowledge, and art, etc, etc, etc) by "original works".


To move on to the next point ...


Narrowing the Scope to the Gnostic Literature


I have made no progress convincing anyone here that the New Testament Canonical books
were a 4th century literary phenomenom, however I have made some tremendous concessions
in order to limit the scope of discussion to the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" alone.

For the purpose of examining the history of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" I am happy
to allow that the NT canonical manuscripts were exant before the year c.324 CE without
further argument, since I wish to discuss just the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".





That's another big "if". Common sense probability (see above "numerical parity") suggests that
the 4th century was the time when the technology of codex really took off. In fact the evidence
suggests that Constantine's instruction to Eusebius for Eusebius to order 50 more sets of codices
of the "Bible" contributed to the technology, which was Greek.

It is anachronistic also in the sense that in the story of Jesus and his Apostles
the production of apostolic manuscripts was not presented until after Jesus death.
In this story, not only does Peter carry around a book, but so does Jesus.

In a typical gnostic fashion we might meditate on the question
"What was that book which Jesus carried?"


New data is always welcome to open minds.


The reasons by which I am arguing that we cannot rely soley
upon the certified opionion and assessment of registered and
highly trained paleographers are outlined in this article.

Also, below, I cover the papyri fragments which are being used
to suggest original copies of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts"
were earlier than the 4th century.






C14 dating of New Testament related manuscripts is fairly recent.
The dates on average focus on 319 CE (290 and 348 CE +/- 60 years)
The academics are falling over themselves to postulate many of these
texts are centuries old.

The historical context used as the basis of dating Christian and gnostic literature
to the second or third centuries.is the "history" fabricated by Eusebius, or the regime
which preserved Eusebius in the 4th and 5th centuries. You have only to read the most
recent assessment of the recently published Gospel of Judas. Who features as the
authority for dating? It is the "mention" of Ireaeus, via Eusebius.

Toto, you need to be aware that I have spent a great deal of time reading and
accumulating the reasons for the basis of the dating of the Gnostic Literature
in particular --- ie: the non canonical literature of the NT. I have outlined
the Eusebian introduced "Authors" whose mention is considered "evidence" of the
early existence of the "Gnostic Gospel and Acts".

It is summarised in this post entitled
A Summary of the Mainstream Evidence for Pre-Nicaean "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc"

With respect to the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" your assertion that
I am not dealing with the actual arguments is false, since the above
post summarises these accepted academic arguments and evidence.



Do I have to remind you that my argument is that Eusebius did not write the heretical documents.
The heretical documents were the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" and their authorship was still
occurring in the epoch of Eusebius and if you examine the mainstream estimated chronology
of authorship for all the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" you will see that many of them
are known to have been authored after Nicaea!.

Here is a summary -- The New Testament Apocryphal Corpus:
Listings by (1) Chronology and (2) Type



I am trying to date the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" to the 4th century.
And the two extant C14 citations are both in respect of "Gnostic Gospels".

My argument is that these were authored in the 4th century in response to
the massive empire wide changes Constantine conducted by making a state
religion which was based on the new testament canon.

mountainman

Here is the summary of opinion and evidence.
If I have made any critical errors or omissions let me know ...



Why does everyone think that the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" and much of the new testament apocryphal literature was authored "early" --- before the Council of Nicaea? In the following I have outlined the evidence at the basis of this commonly accepted "belief". Note that in the following the abbreviation NTC represents the "New Testament Canon" while thre abbreviation NTA represents the "New Testament Apocrypha" (ie: the Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc)

Defining the literary evidence supporting the Mainstream chronology

A process of categorization is employed to focus on the key literary evidence supporting generally accepted mainstream theory of “Pre-Nicaean” authorship. The twenty-odd books which are presumed to have been authored “Early” (i.e. before Nicaea 325 CE) have been classified according to six Category Codes.

Category (1) consists of books for which Eusebius presents literary sources that would have us infer that these books were cited by authors in the 2nd or 3rd century. These key citations will be briefly examined further below.

For books in Category (2) Eusebius himself is the earliest witness. (The Acts of Andrew and John, The Acts of Andrew and Matthew, The Acts of Peter and Andrew, The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of John, The Teaching of the Apostles)

Category (3) lists books cited but for which there are no extant texts. (The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion], The Gospel of the Egyptians, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Gospel of the Nazoreans)

Category (4) lists books for which there is no “early” mention. (The Acts of Thomas, The Acts of Peter, The Acts of John the Theologian, The Pistis Sophia [nb: this is misnamed and is actually entitled "A Portion of the Books of the Savior"], The Didache [Teaching of the Apostles], The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]

Category (5) is reserved for the books of the Nag Hammadi Codices (NHC). The publication of the NHC has been C14 dated to 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years). This C14 dating "superficially" supports 4th century authorship.

Finally in the last Category (6) The Acts of Pilate heads a large list of over 30 books of the NTA currently conjectured to have been authored after the Council of Nicaea. Fourth century (or later) authorship of this large group of NTA books is of course very much in line with the arguments presented here.

Summary of Literary Citation Evidence for Mainstream chronology

It should therefore be clear from the above categorization that the historical evidence concerning some early authorship of the books of the NTA arises only in the first two categories. Books listed in Categories 3, 4, 5 and 6 are either already known to have been authored after Nicaea, or there are no early witnesses to suggest this postulate. Books listed in Category 2 are first evidenced by Eusebius himself, but there is no guarantee that these did not appear during the period Eusebius was writing.

This just leaves the literary evidence associated with books listed in Category 1 as the basis of the mainstream postulate for early authorship. This literary evidence may be briefly summarized as follows:

The Gospel of Peter:
Eusebius cites Origen, Justin Martyr and Serapion as mentioning this text although in the case of Justin, MR James comments that “the evidence is not demonstrative”. Eusebius has an unknown Serapion report that he walked into a Gnostic library and “borrowed” a copy of this text.

The Gospel of Thomas:
Eusebius cites Hippolytus (155-235), Refutation of all Heresies, v. 1-6., as mentioning something similar to the received text, and cites Origen as mentioning some text of Thomas. Eusebius cites saying (No. 2 in the gThomas) as quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Miscellenies ii. 45. 5; v. 96.3), as coming from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There is certainly some ambiguity here.

The Gospel of Judas:
Eusebius cites a mention of this text in Irenaeus’ “Adversus Haereses” [I.31.1] however some integrity issues have been noted with it. For example, the text is described by Irenaeus as being linked with such villainous persons as Cain, Esau, Korah, and the Sodomites, rather than with the traditionally respected person of Seth. One commentator writes “Perhaps Irenaeus was simply misinformed or deliberately confused the two as a rhetorical strategy. At any rate, it is a strange divergence that demands clarification.” [Review of Deconick, Arie Zwiep] There is further ambiguity here

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
Eusebius preserves a citation from Irenaeus who quotes a non-canonical story that circulated about the childhood of Jesus. Many but not all scholars consider that it is possible that the apocryphal writing cited by Irenaeus is, in fact, what is now known as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. There is room for doubt

The Infancy Gospel of James:
Early knowledge of the “Protevangelium of James” is inferred from the preservation in Eusebius of mention by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. An inference is not the same thing as unambiguous evidence.

The Acts of Paul:
The chief and final literary citation is from Eusebius’ often cited Latin author Tertullian, in his De baptismo 17.5. This appears as the only “early” instance in which information is provided concerning an author of apocryphal writings. Note that the manuscripts which preserve Tertullian's De baptismo are quite late, the earliest being the 12th century Codex Trecensis.

As for those (women) who appeal to the falsely written Acts of Paul in order to defend the right of women to teach and to baptize, let them know that the presbyter in Asia who produced this document, as if he could add something of his own to the prestige of Paul, was removed from his office after he had been convicted and had confessed that he had done it out of love for Paul.

The 4th century interpolation into Josephus, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum”, is regarded by many as a critically positioned forgery, with respect to the history of the NTC. Likewise the “Testimonium Tertullianum”, it is suggested, should be regarded as a critically positioned forgery, with respect to the history of the NTA.

Rejection of the “conclusive evidence” via the “Church preserved literature”

Jerome’s novel addition to the Christian tradition - that the author of the Acts of Paul wrote in the presence of the apostle John in the 1st century - is a plainly fraudulent misrepresentation, and has been soundly rejected by many academics.

It is suggested that all the above “literary evidence” in the writings of the “Fathers” may be either ambiguous or false interpolations either by Eusebius, or his orthodox continuators who preserved both Eusebius and Tertullian.

Rejection of the “conclusive evidence” of Greek NTA papyri fragments

A number of Greek papyri fragments related to the NTA are postulated to be dated earlier than the 4th century, but the evidence is not conclusive.

For the Gospel of Peter P.Oxy.2949, P.Oxy.4008 and P.Vinbob G 2325 are often cited as “early”, whereas P.Oxy.849 is dated to 325 CE. “They are possibly but not conclusively from the Gospel of Peter.” [p,258, FN:11; "Fabricating Jesus" - Craig A Evans].

Likewise P.Oxy.654, P.Oxy.655 and P.Oxy.1 cited for the Gospel of Thomas,
P.Oxy 2525, P.Oxy 3525 and P.Rylands cited for the Gospel of Mary,
and P.Oxy 3524 and p.Bodmer cited in respect of the Infancy Gospel of James cannot be regarded as conclusively certain.

Additionally, there exists a great preponderance of Greek papyri fragments of the NTA which have been dated to the 4th or 5th centuries. Finally it is worth noting in passing that few commentators note that the population demographics for the city of Oxyrhynchus is known to have hit a massive peak in the mid 4th century. The analysis of coins found at the fifteen Oxyrhynchus tip sites also suggests the same thing. (See Milne, J.G.)

The corroboration of the 4th century evidence via the Manuscript Tradition

The collective dating of all available earliest manuscript copies of the NTA produce a profile which itself suggests a fourth century origin. A glance down the column marked “Earliest Manuscript” in Appendix (C) shows dates no earlier that the 4th century. Thus the manuscript tradition itself supports the postulate that the books of the NTA were authored in the 4th century. The source manuscripts are invariably Coptic and Syriac translations, and not Greek as intimated by Eusebius.

SUMMARY

The above evidence is far from conclusive in establishing that the Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored before the epoch of Nicaea and Eusebius. In addition it has not yet been argued that Eusebius himself cannot be regarded as a fair and accurate witness, since he himself must be classified as an Heresiologist with respect to the Gnostics, and is thus a hostile witness.

People may trust Eusebius as an integrous witness for the orthodox history of the canon following Christians, but they should not expect Eusebius to be an integrous witness for the opposing Gnostic history. Retrojection of material in the Eusebian "Ecclesiatical History" and other sources has had the effect that we are compelled to believe that ***some** of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored -- following Eusebius alone -- before Nicaea. I have dealt with the details above, and the evidence is far from conclusive.

The conjecture that the Gnostic Gospels and Acts and the NT Apocryphal literature in general were all actually authored after Nicaea, as a reaction to the NT canon has therefore been put forward as an alternative. As I have attempted to outline in the above, it may be argued that this conjecture is not contrary to the available evidence in our possession

mountainman

Thanks gurugeorge.

I have taken the libery of responsing in this new thread because the claims I am here making have been narrowed in order to focus upon the literature of the "Gnostic Acts and Gospels". If you have perceived any merit in the broader claims to which you replied, then I am hoping that the same merit applies to a reduced set of those claims.

The implications being argued are these:

1) the Nag Hammadi codices (C14 dated to 348 CE +/- 60 years) were authored as "original documents" in the 4th century

2) the Gospel of Judas (C14 dated 290 CE +/- 60 years) was authored authored as an "original document" in the 4th century.

3) the Gnostic Gospels and Acts as a body of literature are a Homeric and Post-Nicaean reaction to the imperial decision to authorise the new testament canon as the "Holy Writ" of the then Graeco-Roman empire.

The mainstream view of the chronology of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" is based upon Eusebian derived literary assertions which are presented and discussed above, in addition to a small number papyri fragments.

Dutch_labrat

About the C14 dating: If you find a manuscript dated at year X that indeed only indicates that the text originates at year X or earlier. If you have a whole set of different manuscripts that are all dated within a narrow period and none before it gets a lot different.

Why do we see a cut-off point? We have other manuscripts older than that so where are the biblical ones?

mountainman

The C14 radiocarbon dating results are generally depicted with a mean estimate date and an error range which varies according to the age of the mean estimated date. In respect of the New Testament related manuscripts there have been two and two only C14 dating results that I am aware of, and they are both in respect of "Gnostic Gosepls" which fall on the Non Canonical side of the table of "Early Christian Literature" and NOT the Canonical side.

C14 Citation (1) of (2) for the Gospel of Judas = 290 CE +/- 60 years





C14 Citation (1) of (2) for the Gospel of Thomas [NHC 2.2] = 348 CE +/- 60 years




Precisely, according to the Bell Curve distribution it is quite reasonable
for us to take an average of these two separate and independent C14 citations.
The result looks like the following ....


C14 Citation (1) and (2) COMBINED = 319 CE +/- 42 years



This result provides the precise reason that I am suggesting that the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts"
need to be perceived and evaluated as Post Nicaean reactions to the New Testament Canon
which was widely and lavishly published, and supported throughout the Roman Empire with the sword,
from the epoch which commences from the supremacy of Constantine c.324 CE.

The argument that these manuscripts are actually "original manuscripts" of the fourth century
is certainly supported by the C14 dating analyses, which tells us that they were published at
that time. The assertion that they are simply "copies of earlier original documents" from prior
centuries needs to be questioned, and that involves examining the literature evidence which
is presented in Eusebius and other Eusebian "endorsed authors" such as Tertullian. In the 2nd
post of this thread I have meticulously itemised this literature evidence from the "Heresiologists".

We see a cut off point IMO because the manuscript of the Gospel of Judas and the manuscripts of the Nag Hammadi Codices which contain the Gospel of Thomas were physically published in the fourth century. The oldest Greek codices manuscripts of the New Testament are all dated to the 4th century (Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sainaticus, etc) and are thought to be related to the 50 bibles published by Constantine c.330 CE.

As far as I know there are no C14 citations for any canonical manuscript. This thread therefore by necessity must remain exclusively focussed on the questions related to the history of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts". At present it is being assumed that the Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored continuously in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries, but the C14 suggests otherwise. To provide an idea of what the current belief about this "Gnostic Chronology" have a look at aList of "Hidden Books" sorted by the Mainstream's Estimated Chronology.


The suggestion is that these "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" were originally authored only once Christinianity was "elevated to the purple by the purple" and became the offical state religion of the entire Roman empire according the well-enforced decree of the Emperor Constantine with effect from Nicaea. I am using the following terms almost synonymously ....

* new testament "Gnostic Acts and Gospels"
* the "Hidden Books" of the NT
* the New Testament Apocrypha
* the "Forbidden Books" of the New Testament

I think these were authored in the 4th century.
The NT was entirely obscure before the Council of Nicaea.
The "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" react against the canonical NT.
This idea provides a simple political explanation of why and when they were authored.

Toto

How can you make this statement? C14 cannot tell you if the manuscript is original or a copy.

It is difficult to take your argument at all seriously if you persist in claiming this.

mountainman

According to the law of statistical probability they are far more likely to be "[ephemeral] original contemporary works" than "scribal copies of centuries old works".

That's correct Toto. One needs to make an additional assumption.
You may assume that they were "scribal copies of centuries old works".
Or you may assume they were "[ephemeral] original contemporary works"

How many books produced in antiquity were "originals" and how many were "straight copies of earlier works".
How many of each category were produced by Eusebius, Origen, Porphyry, Philo, Josephus, Julius Caesar, eyc, etc.
Choose your author or authors --- everyone without exception produced "originals".
Where is your evidence to think that most literary productions in that epoch were not "original works"?

Do you have any citation to support this [mainstream] opinion
that we are necessarily dealing with "scribal copies from centuries past".?

Here is a list of Authors of Antiquity.
How many of these produced "originals"?
How many of these produced "scribal copies from centuries past"?
Yes Origen might have "copied the LXX" but his Hexapla may have been novel.
Certainly his production and authorship on the work is "an original work".

Do you have any citation to support this [mainstream] opinion
that we are necessarily dealing with "scribal copies from centuries past".?

NO.

Why? Because we have been spared in making it explicit.
Why? Because the Hereiologist Eusebius asserts this is "a matter fact" citing Irenaeus on gJudas for example).
That's why common sense has not prevailed in this issue.
Because every man and his dog is following along behind Eusebius with respect to the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".
That's why the C14 appears to have no bearing on the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".

Ejecting Eusebius from a position of any authority with the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" is reasonable.
Once Eusebius is ejected on the basis of him being an "Heresiologist" and a biased unreliable witness -
even a false witness then we are left with the objective consideration of the likelihood of finding either
"[ephemeral] original works" and "Centuries Old Copies".

Note that this argument is not being applied to the New testament Canonical Gospels and Acts.
This argument is being applied only to the New testament Non Canonical "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".
This is the only domain in which C14 citations are currently found.

Toto

No, there is no assumption required. We know that scribal copies were the normal means of producing copies of books.

If we have a C14 dating of a particular manuscript, we do not know if that is the date of composition or the date of the copy. If you think that some statistical measure will throw some light on the issue, you have not analysed the issue.

Every time you bring in C14 dating, you are introducing an irrelevant issue that just wastes time and calls the rest of your argument into disprepute if it had any repute to start with.

mountainman

Presumed Chronology of the New Testament "Gnostic Gospels and Acts"

mountainman

Alternative Proposed Chronology: Authorship of the New Testament "Gnostic Gospels and Acts"