avi

Yes. 14Carbon data do not differentiate copies from original documents.

a. I don't know the answer to this question,
b. The word likelihood brings to mind STATISTICS and PROBABILITY, two subjects involving mathematics, not history. In my opinion, one cannot speak to, or write confidently about, likelihood, absent a thorough data base of KNOWN data. So far as I am aware, we have the opposite problem, LOTS of unknowns, with only a paucity of documents bearing a date regarded as definitive. In that environment, many unknowns, few standards, I think it is unwise to offer conclusions based on probabilities.

I believe that the real question here is this: Do we possess some 14Carbon data, no matter how modest in scope, to affirm a date for the harvest of the papyrus PRIOR to the fourth century, with relevant text upon it?

Consider, for example, the oldest extant copy of John, P52. How has this date of 150 CE been deduced?

Even if 14Carbon data suggested a date of 150CE, and I am not asserting that it has, that would only confirm a date of harvest of the papyrus, not a date for authorship. Contrarily, a 14Carbon date of 250 CE would REFUTE (not "falsify", unless you suspect the chemists performing the test of illegal behaviour) this idea that P52 was authored in the middle of the second century.

14 Carbon data is most useful at setting lower limit boundaries, not supporting an exact date of authorship.

Cheers,

avi

mountainman

Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to the answer to this question?
I am convinced that this is an important question that needs to be addressed.

I would suggest that as the number of late C14 citations increases with respect to the non canonical (i.e. "Gnostic") gospels and acts etc then the likelihood that these are manuscripts that were actually authored LATE increases. This seems logical to me.


But history is about likelihoods. For example Richard Carrier is going a long way out of his way in the introducing of his planned work about the "Historicity of Jesus" by a volume dedicated to Bayesian analysis, which is basically analysis of likelihoods and possibilities.


Dont forget that the OP here is specifically related to the books of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts etc" and not the books of the NT canon. The two C14 citations are - for the manufacture of the NHC 2 codex containng the gThomas 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years) and for the manufacture of the Tchacos codex containing the gJudas 280 CE (plus or minus 60 years).

We have two ancient codices manufactured around the time of the Council of Nicaea containing "Gnostic Gospels and Acts etc". Mainstream currently thinks these contain literature authored centuries earlier. My idea is that these codices contain original authorship during the post Nicaean epoch.

With respect to this C14 data, lets summarise these two theories:

THEORY A = the two codices contain copies of authors centuries earlier.
THEORY B = the two codices contain copies of post Nicaean authors.

(Note that Theory A currently relies heavily upon testimony found in Eusebius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc [ie: the orthodox heresiologists make authoritative references to the existence of these HERETICAL Gnostic texts before the 4th century]
and additionally upon a very few non canonical papyri fragments dated paleographically to the 2nd/3rd centuries) - NB: The evidence for theory A is summarised in detail above at post # 21)

Are both these theories falsifiable?

Statistically, how many codices need to be discovered and C14 dated to the approximate epoch of Nicaea in order that Theory A is found to be statistically untenable, and that Theory B is at least discussed as a viable scenario?

I would have thought one codex was enough, but we have two.

mountainman

So did you get a response from Peter Head?


Anyone who has examined the process of radiocarbon dating will tell you that a result which cites a median date and a plus and minus date range represents an uncalibrated radiocarbon age estimate. Normally, such "Age Estimates" are then subject to the process of calibration to the known radiocarbon calibration curve.

mountainman

Theoretical manufacture of Gnostic manuscripts by century to the 4th century
vs
Physical evidence of manufacture by century to the 4th century


For those who are interested in statistics the following graph might prove interesting. It shows two counts by century. Firstly the number of theoretically manufactured Gnostic manuscripts/codices for specific "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" (NT Apocrypha) for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries. Secondly it shows the number of texts which have been found that can be physically dated to these centuries in accordance to the manuscript tradition (excluding the paleographic dating of the Oxyrynchus papyri).

Statistical Results




The Big Question

There appears to be no physical evidence that the Gnostics manufactured their texts until the 4th century. The mainstream theory for the noncanonical gospels etc postulates that such manufacture must have happened in the early centuries before Nicaea, and although we have fourth century copies of these texts, they were all originally authored in preceeding centuries. With respect to the non canonical texts that the mainstream theory postulates were authored in the 4th century (and after Nicaea) each of them is recognised as being published more or less contemporaneous with authorship.

What do these above stats suggest to the readers?

avi

Thanks for this post, Pete. Very interesting.

Some questions arise. You have probably addressed these concerns before, and I have simply failed to read, or comprehend, your analyses.

a. "quantity of manuscripts" ??? I don't know how to interpret this notion. Is P52 an example of a manuscript? In other words, when you quantify, in your nifty chart, "manuscripts", does each entry correspond to an entire manuscript, or just a fragment therefrom?

b. "physically dated" ???? How is this accomplished? So far as I am aware, 14 Carbon dating, as discussed previously, specifies only a date for harvest of the papyrus. It does not confirm a specific date of authorship, nor, even, guarantee a date when quill was put to papyrus in order to copy an extant manuscript.....

c. "excluding Oxyrhynchus papyrus" ???? Why? How does this exclusion aid us in our attempt to learn the sequence of events leading to creation of the Canon?

d. "Statistical Results" ????
I don't observe any statistics here. It is a lovely chart, both instructive, and educational. I like it. I simply don't agree with the notion that the data contained within the chart represent "statistics".

What your graphical illustration explains, beautifully, in my opinion, is the fact that we possess today almost no physical evidence, created originally, prior to the fourth century, to support the supposition of existence of Christianity, ostensibly three centuries earlier.

avi

mountainman

Hi avi,

Always a pleasure to try and address your questions. Thanks for them.

An entire manuscript (or at least a large part thereof). Although the papyri fragments like P.52 are also referred to as manuscripts, I am dealing with manuscripts which are entire, or almost entire, texts. Here is a list of such texts (i.e. "Gnostic gospels and acts, etc)

For a good example see the Authentication Page on the gJudas at National Geographic. It lists the following methodologies which are used in parallel to arrive at an estimate of the physical date of the evidence in our possession.

This list is incomplete. It represents all types of tests performed on a manuscript to determine its date. In some cases, some manuscripts have dates written in them, so this shoudl also match the rest of the indicators.

For a number of reasons.
(1) I am dealing in more or less complete manuscripts of texts, not fragments.
(2) The Oxy papyri are a set of evidence that have been paleographically dated to "Early", and I think in error, for various reasons I have elsewhere outlined.


This thread is about the events leading up to the creation and authorship of the non canonical gospels and acts. This is the Long Way Around to the Canon. The books of the canon, and the books of the non canonical material are two sides of the one coin of "Christian Origins". The Canon books are defintely the "Heads". The non canonical stuff is the tails.


There are numbers on the side of the graph. These represent different non canonical gospels and acts. If you want a get an idea of which of these texts are being statistically added up, and sorted by century, have a look at the items on this list. The actual numbers from the graph are as follows:

THEORETICAL evidence of manufacture:
1st century = 3
2nd century = 25
3rd cenrury = 10
4th century = 45

PHYSICAL Evidence of manufacture
1st century = 0
2nd century = 0
3rd centrury = 0
4th century = 83

Each of these samples is a gnostic text or more generally, a text classified within the category of new testament apocypha. Material which is OUTSIDE of the canon.


Almost. This material is not examining (Canonical) Christianity but rather the manuscript evidence of the heretics - specifically the Gnostic manuscript manufacturing business. If we change that one term, what you say summarises it - that is .... We possess today no physical evidence, presumed to have been created originally, prior to the fourth century, to support the supposition of existence of Gnostic manuscript manufacture, ostensibly three centuries earlier.

The idea is that the Gnostic manufacturing business did not commence until after Nicaea, and was a reaction to Nicaea, and to the imposition of the new testament. The only reason we are expecting 1st and 2nd and 3rd century originals is that the texts were explicitly mentioned in Eusebius's history, and in Tertullian (sources controlled by the heresiologists). IMO these references were deliberately inserted in order to misrepresent and obscure the historical controversy of the 4th century between the popularity of the subversive gnostic books, and the imperially ratified canonical collection, which was openly and lavishly published c.325 and afterwards.

mountainman

Hi Toto and all Paul enthusiasts,

Who was the "blind chief"? I have been thinking about Jesus and Paul at Nag Hammadi. The question in my mind is whether it is a logical necessity that we must conclude that the original greek gnostic authors of these tractates, such as this one featuring Paul, had to be any form of "christians" or whether, for example, they were greek authors who were reacting to the meteoric dominance that Paul and Jesus received over and above Hermes, Asclepius, The Logos, Plato and Hellenistic cultural icons following the Council of Nicaea.

Although some people have tentatively dated to the 3rd century the original Greek authorship of this text, this is a tentative date, since there is no earlier mention for this text, no earlier fragments, etc.

You see, it is also quite logical to consider that, once Jesus and Paul rose to political prominence (which they did at Nicaea), then they could be discussed and written about, by any group of people who at that epoch existed in the Roman Empire, particularly in Alexandria. It is not mandatory that such groups. writing about Jesus and Paul after Nicaea, need have been christians of any sort.

Let's have a closer look at the opening account in this Nag Hammadi text (mid 4th century Coptic) "The Reality of the Rulers", to see whether it provides any more information about the reality of the rulers at that time in antiquity:


In providing a list of possible answers to the question Who is "their blind chief"? ...
the name of the emperor Constantine might make the number one position.



Best wishes,





Pete

mountainman

Have we been digging up the heretical buried jesus jokes of the gnostics?


In the docetic Acts of John, Jesus does not leave footprints in the sand. John cannot seem to touch Jesus' physical body. John commands a legion of bed bugs. He is a strange and powerful dude.


In the Gospel of Peter Jesus is lead from the tomb and his head is higher than the sky; The cross follows along behind Jesus at a walk. The cross speaks its own talk. It says "YEAH!".


In The Acts of Paul, the author uses Aesops Fables in the Baptised Lion Affair- Paul baptises a talking lion in the wilderness. When thrown to the lions at the conclusion Paul is saved from death by the christian lion in the arena. (One good turn deserves another!)


In The Gospel of Philip, Jesus came to crucify the world but exactly where did Jesus often kiss Mary? On her forehead? on her cheek? on her lips? The manuscript has been damaged at that precise spot. Jesus could have often kissed Mary anywhere.

In the Acts of John the Theologian, The Emperor Domitian receives complaints about a new and strange nation of Christians. The author of this text had read Eusebius, who is the only one that uses these terms in the whole saga of "Early Christianity".


In the Gospel of Judas, Judas is presented as one of twelve "daimons". None of the twelve "daimons" can look at Jesus in the eyes. Jesus is presented as a "Head Daimion" or sorceror.


In The Gospel of Mary , Mary is presented in having exclusive knowledge not given to Peter. As a result, Peter is peeved. "Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?"

In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Child Jesus as a malevolent trickster wizard. Death and destruction follow the child jesus.


In the Letter of Peter to Philip (NHC 8.2) after a melodramatic and pyrotechnic display of light upon the Mount of Olives, in a big booming voice from the clouds, Jesus asks the apostles "Why [TF] are you asking me"?


In the Acts of Thomas: Judas refuses Jesus' direct commands to go to India, so Jesus sells him into slavery.Thomas misrepresents himself as a master builder and the king gives him money to build a new palace. Thomas gives the money away to the poor, and builds nothing. Eventually, when the Indian King realises that Thomas is not a master builder, "he rubbed his face with his hands, and shook his head for a long space."


In Acts of Pilate, Pilate tells the Jews that Jesus heals by the power of the Graeco-Roman healing god Asclepius.


In the Acts of Peter and Andrew, the apostles call on a Christian angel to suspend a woman by her hair at the city gates while they pass out of town. Peter successfully passes a camel through the eye of a needle, twice.


In The Acts of Andrew and Matthew, the apostles Cast lots for world dominion (just like the Roman soldiers in the story of the crucifixion). Jesus drives a water taxi to the "Land of the Cannibals" in order to rescue the apostle Matthew, despite the fact that many are being eaten daily. Matthew closes his eyes to everything going on around him, and prays.


In the (Syriac) Act of Peter, Peter heals the multitudes on his front porch, but forgets to heal his own daughter (because it is expedient not to heal her)


In The Gospel of Nicodemus: two zombies are wandering around Jerusalem after the mass resurrection following Jesus's resurrection, and are apprehended by the authorities, and are given pens and paper. The two resurrected scribes, known as Leucius & Karinus, independently record the Descent and Ascension. The accounts are examined and found identical and word-for-word. One account is given to Pilate, the other to the Jews. The "zombie scribes" disappear with a flash at the end.


In the Acts of Titus, Paul fasts for seven days and causes the Temple of Apollo to be destroyed.


In the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, are there 11, 12 or 13 apostles? The text discloses that eleven apostles PROSTRATED themselves (twice) on the ground in front of Lithargoel, in the oriental fashion of worship, made popular in Constantine's era. If Lithargoel is taken to be Jesus (an indentification made by every single academic commentator (I think erroneously)) then Jesus cites the Bagavad Gita, in making reference to the "City of Nine Gates". Also if Jesus carries a codex in his hand, that is similar to (not the same) as the codex carried by Peter, what in fact is the codex that Jesus carries?



Summary = Signature of Satire and Polemic


In my book, all these things (and many more that I have not noted here) are the signature of anti-christian satire, similar to the 20th century humor found in Monty Python's "Life of Brian". The Gnostics were taking pot shots at the canonical stories of Jesus and the apostles. Eusebius himself, in his "Life of the Thrice-Blessed Constantine", confirms this fact:

""… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers."

[Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]

"The Eusebian Theaters of the unbelievers"


The presence of multiple voices, or narrator voices, noted by many scholars in some key non canonical works, may be explored by seeing the texts as theatrical scripts, designed to have different narrators.

mountainman

Toto,

At the above post I have made reference to an intensive tabulation of over 100 of these noncanonical gospels and acts, with embedded links to an English translation, to the WIKI article and to the Google search. I then listed a selection of seventeen summaries out of this 100 odd, which appear, to my way of thinking, as rather common and obvious satirizations of Jesus and the Apostles in these texts. This is not preaching. It is asking the obvious question. There is a big difference.


Are you just going to ignore these as "coincidental" ?
Do you think I am mistaken as identifying these 17 extracts as "satire" and/or "parody"?
How do you explain them?
They appear to me as common jokes.
Am I wrong in this assessment?



All the above quotations listed are a novel collection based on an intensive and exhaustive review of these texts, as the link should show. If you or anyone else thinks that this work amounts to preaching, and not research in the field of ancient history, then I can see why you and others arrive at the conclusion that I "must be off my rocker".

However if I am presenting evidence, newly analysed old evidence, and not just "preaching", then I would appreciate the opportunity of vindicating the general presumption that, because I am backing a new idea in the field of ancient history, then I must be "off my rocker". Here I am presenting evidence of satire in seventeen non canonical texts.

My opinion is that it was this satire that was deemed heretical.
One should expect a post Nicaean Greek (alexandrian) reaction to the "Christian revolution".
The reaction was dealt with by prohibition of these texts, etc.

Would my detractors please attempt to address this evidence.
Thanks, and best wishes to all,



Pete

Toto

Yes, in general. If there is any satire, it is from the point of view of a heretical Christian, not from the point of view of an unreconstructed pagan.