rlogan

Talk about staying power. I think it is incurable.

mountainman

Thanks Maklelan for the research. The notes that I made while reading through Robin Lane-Fox's book "Pagans and Christians" were made in 2007. At that time I was taking a course at Sydney University about Suetonius's 12 Caesar's run by Dr Michael Birrell, an Australian historian and archaeologist, who loaned me his copy of the book, which I read and returned. (As a result I cannot check the book immediately) I recall it was an earlier edition of the book (not the latest edition) but I have little hope that there is a substantial difference in that the earlier edition mentions a C14 result for Nag Hammadi while the later edition does not.

In view of the foregoing, it seems therefore that I must admit that I must have made a mistake back in 2007 when I noted there was a C14 result mentioned in Lane-Fox for the Nag Hammadi codices.

If there is no C14 date for Nag Hammadi then my graph showing the technical combined C14 data for gThomas and gJudas is meaningless. However the secure date of 348 CE (via non-C14 dating) is not altered, and the inferences that may be drawn from such a late date are not substantially altered.


No gJudas is a separate issue and does not rely on a C14 date for the Nag Hammado codices. The gJudas data stands as the range 220 - 340 CE. It is not outside the bounds of the C14 results to conjecture - contrary to the supposed earlier (ambiguous) mention by Irenaeus via Eusebius about gJudas - that the coptic gJudas was manufactured between the years 335-340 CE from a Greek original which was authored between the years 325-335 CE.


Let's assume that the earlier edition of Lane-Fox makes no mention of a C14 date and that in all the notes I made from this book here this mention that I noted to C14 was a mistake on my part.

Finally I wish to say thanks again for taking the time to point out a likely error in my claims of two independent C14 dates, when there appears to be only the one C14 test. In good faith, despite the mistake, for at least a year or so, I have made this claim in many discussions and the error has not been pointed out before today, so I have you to thank for this service. Can you confirm the antithetical claim (which may be a fact), that there has never been any radiocarbon test conducted on any of the Nag Hammado codices?

Maklelan

I appreciate the honesty, but it ticks me off because now I feel bad about being so snarky. Thanks a pantload, man.

The date would have to be moved back to around 375-ish, since those texts would not have been incorporated into the cartonnage the same year they were produced. Receipts were usually saved for quite some time.

But it's been made quite clear that there is no question of the calibrated 220-340 range. You don't have the data to re-calibrate to produce a range more helpful for your theory.

The odds of that being accurate are virtually non-existent. I suppose it's possible, but that scenario certainly isn't plausible enough to constitute actual evidence of anything. Additionally, virtually all scholars make a quite good argument that the Greek Vorlage underlying the gospel of Judas dates to the second century CE, based on affinities with other texts from that time period.

I've not seen any C14 results for the Nag Hammadi codices. That doesn't mean there haven't been any, though.

mountainman

This statement ignores the subject of the thesis presented as idea 1, namely that the Gnostic corpus is Post Nicaean. It ignores the thesis because you are citing the canonical manuscripts, which the thesis is not concerned about since it is about the non canonical manuscript. Do you not understand that this essay was written ONLY about the non canonical literature?

In the essay I cite these "firmly dated Gnostic manuscripts" (aside from the C14 result for gJudas) in two categories as follows:

(a) The Non canonical Papry

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].

Gospel of Thomas: P.Oxy.654, P.Oxy.655 and P.Oxy.1

Gospel of Mary: P.Oxy 3525 and P.Rylands 463

Infancy Gospel of James: P.Oxy 3524 and p.Bodmer 5 - cannot be regarded as conclusively certain.

(b) The suspicious evidence of Eusebius and the "Church Fathers"

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 Vision of Isiah

Mentioned by Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr ?


The Apocalypse of Peter

This is not the Gnostic text! Mentioned by Clement (Eclogues 41,48,49) - but there is no extant text


The Gospel of Truth
This is the NHC text; some consider it to be mentioned by Irenaeus ?


The Apocyphon of John
Mentioned by Irenaeus ?


The Sentences of Sextus

Sextus appears to have been a Pythagorean. Some think it is quoted by Origen, Contra Celsum, viii. 30; Commentary on Matthew, xv. 3)


The Acts of Peter

Attributed to Leucius Charinus, along with the Acts of Paul. The other books attributed to "Leucius" are: The Acts of John, The Acts of Andrew, the Acts of Thomas, and possibly also The Acts of Andrew and John, The Acts of Andrew and Matthew and The Acts of Peter and Andrew. Notably, most of these are first witnessed by Eusebius, with the exception of the Acts of Paul.


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 above citations all relate to the noncanonical literature, the subject of the first idea/thesis and essay. If you have to continually refer to the canonical evidence, then you do not undertand the purpose of the thesis which explicitly concentrates on the Gnostic corpus as a phenomenom in its own right.



I have listed the evidence above by which such a proof - in respect of the Gnostic material in question and NOT the canonical material - is deemed to be valid. I do not see these evidence items as a "proof" of the existence of the non canonical material prior to Nicaea.


Despite the C14 mean date of 280 CE (+/- 60 yrs) the Coptic gJudas manuscript is often described as a product of the 4th century, and is sometimes seen as related to the Nag Hammadi codices. I have seen claims that the palaeographic dating is not 3rd but 4th century, akin to the NHC. Do you acknowledge this variance?



My analysis being discussed if of the non canonical literature. Above, at my website and in my essay I point out that, for the purposes of arguing that the gnostic literature post dates Nicaea, I am happy to allow the canonical material to have been authored in any early century 3, 2 or 1 -- it does not impact on the thesis in regard to the appearance of the gnostic material.


My essay "An alternative chronology for the lost authorship of the Gnostic Gospels" which you have described as uninformed and presuppositional provides the two categories of evidence which you have above termed "PROOF" for the notion that the Gnostic material is dated prior to Nicaea. The first category are a set of non canonical papyri, and the second are a set of textual mentions by the "Church Fathers" in Eusebius.

My claim is that that this evidence for the existence of Gnostic material (NOT CANONICAL material) in the pre-Nicaean epoch is not sure and certain proof that the Gnostic New Tesatament books predate Nicaea, as is the claim of yourself, and all other mainstream researchers.

If you can convince me that any of these evidence items that I have researched and listed above (or indeed any other sources available to you on the specific issue of NON CANONICAL and NOT the canonical evidence) are certain and unambiguous, then you will have refuted the first thesis, that the Gnostic NT literature is not pre-Nicaean, but a post-Nicaean reaction to the formalised and widespread appearance of the Constantine Bible.

mountainman

It's all cool. Everyday is a fresh beginning. I consider that I am in your debt since I value information over disinformation. So many thanks again, and good luck with your own research - in whatever hypotheses you decide to explore.




Yes that's quite reasonable.



I understand the point you are making here - did you see the report of Peter Head above, in which I list the 5 constituent test results? Do you see these 5 test results as calibrated or uncalibrated? The following from the very end of post # 221:

1) Papyrus from interior of leather cover: AD 209 +/- 58 years;
2) Loose papyrus from fragments associated with codex: AD 333 +/- 48 years;
3) Leather with attached papyrus from binding: AD 223 +/- 51 years;
4) Papyrus from page 9: AD 279 +/- 50 years;
5) Papyrus from page 33: AD 279 +/- 47 years.

I could be wrong, but I see these 5 results as uncalibrated and a statement of the penultimate radiocarbon age estimate, because they are all cited as symmetric. I make some other comments at the end of post #221 (with a link to Peter Head's report)



Thankyou for the concession here. I certainly do not tender this stuff as anything more than a ball park conjecture or idea. While I have approached it as a thesis, it is only an idea, which might turn out to be categorically refuted by unambiguous evidence. When that happens I'll start waxing the board.



I do understand the consensus position on this text, and indeed other texts from the NHC, that the original Greek source predates the Coptic source by centuries. I agree with the consensus that the Greek must predate the Coptic. However I am exploring the latest date possible bound by the limits of the evidence, and although it is only just borderline, the possibility that the Gnostic literature is a massive Alexandrian reaction to the Constantine Bible still appears to be open, albeit only just.



Thanks - I am looking. If there were they could be back in the 70's.

Duvduv

Further to my exchange with aa587754, here is the insertion into the new Creed of 381 that introduces a small historical element:
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father

mountainman

Maklelan are you going to respond to post # 234 about the non canonical evidence presented as DISTINCT from the canonical evidence, or do you insist that the canonical and non canonical material is irretrievably tangled in antiquity and cannot logically be separately addressed?

mountainman

Has everyone read AD 381 (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Charles Freeman?

Duvduv

How pivotal was the Nicene-Constantinople ideology in and of itself to the ascendancy of that form of Christianity onto the Roman regime, and would things have taken a different turn had the Romans permanently accepted Arianism or Nestorianism, or would it have made no difference one way or the other?

No Robots

Arianism in the West and Nestorianism in the East were doomed because they did not have a comprehensive political outlook to match their spiritual doctrines. Only with the advent of socialism does Unitarian Christianity have a chance to establish itself permanently.