Transient

As I said the evidence for any of the theories here are not strong.
In my view there is more evidence that the chap called "Jesus" was indeed the Son of God, the creator, than there is evidence to support the view that he was a myth or that he existed but was nothing like that portrayed in the gospels. If the same brutal smashing was applied to the myth theory I think that it would not look any better - just depends on what the mob wish to attack. Today it is Pete's theory, tomorrow...

spin

What's this "mob" business? I have consistently indicated that suffering this Eusebius rubbish is counterproductive. Your excusing it here is of no use whatsoever. Crap is crap. It serves no-one to pretend it isn't. I've also called the crap of the historicists and the mythicists, but at least they have a little more going for them.

You haven't suffered through years of the same dull rubbish. This ship has sunk and trying to hang onto it will only pull you down. So cut the tricks and subterfuge. There's no mob. No-one's being picked on. There is nothing to be gained trying to breathe life into the corpse. If you can't realize that, you are sending me a message.


spin

Transient

Well maybe it is time to put Pete's theory to rest - it is illogical anyway.
It is so dam hard to piece together what really happened back then. Sometimes I wonder whether the whole dam christianity thing is true after all, but then the whole thing just seems to be a bit off to me, there are parts of that seem real nice but then other parts just don't seem to fit.
Maybe it's just like the nice old Father Xmas stories - sound nice but just rubbish. I guess it's just the uniqueness of the stories in the NT that just don't seem like they were made up.

avi

Thank you very much, Shesh, for the link provided, which was both informative, and well researched.

I apologize for the critical remarks of the other members of the forum, some times their enthusiasm leads to issuance of unkind statements, which subsequently seem, in retrospect, to be unduly harsh and critical.

Your conduct on this thread, and indeed, on the forum as a whole, is absolutely exemplary, you are an inspiration to many of us, including not simply those who are, as I am, ignorant of both Greek and Hebrew, your principal skills, but by no means your only ones!!

spin is a bright guy, with a lot of talent, and enthusiasm, and we ought not take his rebuttals of various submissions, as intended to demonize us personally. Writing as one who genuinely is demented, you are certainly NOT yet, in that sorry state. So, please ignore spin's apparent harassment and intimidation, focus instead on his skill set, and just continue to write, yourself, so eloquently, and so passionately, with your typical adroitness, particularly evident in explaining the Jewish origins of Christianity, about which, you are certainly one of the two or three leading experts on this forum.

This particular papyrus is interesting, and unconvincing, as a refutation (not falsification--> for there is no one here, on this forum, suggesting that anyone has committed fraud either in writing about the papyrus, nor in attempting to explain its significance) of Pete's theories.

It may well be EXACTLY as spin has interpreted it, a warrant for the arrest of a Christian. It may also be a warrant for a guy who is NOT a Christian, as we think of the meaning of that word.

Part of our difficulty in analyzing this papyrus, is our own preconceived notions of what Christianity is, and how it originated. I am not personally offended by anything Pete writes, but I appreciate that some forum members are deeply annoyed. I find Pete's analysis rather convincing, more than half of the time, and that's something I cannot write for other, competing theories.

I do, to repeat myself, accept the hypothesis that Christianity existed PRIOR to Constantine, but, what I find so appealing about Pete's investigation, is the way that he has provided an alternative explanation for many of the black holes in our understanding of the history of earliest Christianity.

With respect to this particular document, for now, I accept, spin's interpretation of this piece of papyrus. It is true that I cannot read the symbols with the same precision and degree of clarity that he has described, but, I accept his interpretation because my own connaissance of Greek, is so utterly banal. I do not however, find that, even with spin's interpretation of the contested word as christiani, this papyrus repudiates the central thesis of mountainman, i.e. the post-Nicean elaboration of Christianity, as we know it today.

I find Pete's work valuable, an asset, and a testament to the strength of this forum. I think our forum environment would be a much less interesting place to learn, were he to depart from our midst, and submit his findings for public scrutiny elsewhere.

Pete, and Shesh, thank you both. Great work.

avi

mountainman

The earliest C14 dating citation (gJudas at 280 CE) includes an error bound of plus or minus 60 years. This means that the result of the C14 dating restricts the age of the tested material to a range of years between 220 and 340 CE. The C14 dating implies that the test material cannot be older than 340 CE and cannot be any younger than 220 CE.

This first gJudas citation is not a liability to the theory that the manuscript was authored after the year 325 CE, because the year of 325 CE is within the upper bound of 340 CE. This fact arises from modern scientific analysis and technological advances - it does not arise from "the fraudulent manipulation of data.".


In fact they are a reasonable approximation for the C14 curve, as discussions in this Science Discussion Forum will reveal. The only real problem with my presentation was the use of the word "average" to describe the "composite" presentation of the two C14 dating citations that we have in respect of the non canonical manuscripts and codices.




As is clearly depicted in the above diagram, the date 348 CE is the C14 result associated with the midpoint probabilistic for the age of the material tested with the second codex - the Gospel of Thomas - in the Nag Hammadi Codices. However just as clearly in the above diagram is the year 340 CE, being the Upper Bound in the analysis of the Gospel of Judas. This fact is no red herring.

Try again. I object to the charges of "statistical fraud". Please defend your claims and accusations on a scientific basis spin. I challenge you to present these same accusations to the people in the science forum I mentioned above.

Until then, readers should be aware that spin is in denial of the standard statistical distribution curves associated with C14 dating probability functions, and in denial that the C14 upper bound of validity is 340 CE on the gJudas - a date which is 15 years after the Council of Nicaea.

Toto

I don't see any real support there for combining the two C14 dates.


The actual charge was "manipulating data in a fraudulent manner, combining two C14 dates that have nothing to do with each other in order to cover up the fact that the first is absolutely no help to him and in all probability is a liability."

Do you have any reason for trying to combine these two C14 tests?

Transient

Who gives a frak whether he shows 2 graphs on one page lol.
Anyone with half a brain can see the 2 separately - the data is not combined.
I couldn't care a less if he put 10 bloody curves on the same graph.

mountainman

re: P.Oxy 3035 tangentiation to the Canon

You must be aware that there are more non canonical papyri fragments than canonical papyri fragments sourced from Oxyrhynchus. Have you ever seen any academic treatment of this fact? Why is it so?

mountainman

No. FALSE. That is neither the way it works or what I am claiming.

The theory that the books of the non canonical corpus were authored
after Nicaea as a polemical reaction/resistance to the widespread
publication and imperial support of the books of the canon is quite
specific and very late, when compared to all other theories.

Any C14 result on a non canonical text dating it earlier than 60 years
prior to the Council of Nicaea would have immediately refuted the theory.
However my point is that when we examine the C14 results, they are
respectively 280 and 348 CE, both of which do not refute the theory,
but rather are explained by the theory.


The evidence does not refute the theory, but supports the theory. The evidence is in line with the theory. Do we have a problem with terminology? The claim is that the C14 results represent evidence which supports the theory that the non canonical books were produced after the Nicaean canon publication.

If you follow the comments in the science forum you will see that the C14 citations are themselves probability distribitions and as such questions can be asked of both C14 results, if the results are in respect of the same category of "thing". My argument is that these "Gnostic Gospels" are unique as a type of genre in antiquity, and that we are therefore able to, as analysts, ask questions of the two results.

And the third and fourth, etc, when they arrive.

At the end of the day, the C14 curve is a probability distribution, from a lower bound of zero, that rises to a symmetric peak and falls away to an upper bound. The validity of comparing and analysing two separate results rests in the uniqueness of the test material to a specific category of literature - the non canonical gospels.

mountainman

Allow me to clarify then. I might not be using the appropriate terminology. If you examine these lists of the over 100 non canonical texts, sorted by (1) Estimated Mainstream Chronology, and (2) by Type, you will see a column called
Earliest Manuscript. I will try to cut and paste the columns below. You should see that we have no "Earliest physical manuscript" before the 4th century. The theory explains why the evidence is so ...

The following is incomplete, but for the texts considered "early" I have attempted to establish the "Earliest manuscript date" taken from the academic literature that discusses the manuscript tradition for each of the non canonical texts.

List of "NT Apocrypha" sorted by the Mainstream's Estimated Chronology of authorship
showing groups thought authored before and after Nicaea, and the century of Earliest Manuscript
where known:

nb: Yes there are some Eusebian forgeries still in this list because these
documents (such as Agbars Letter and the Senecca/Paul interchange)
are listed under the NT Apocypha, of which the non canonical gospels
are are subgroup.


Text .... Century of Earliest Manuscript

-----------------------------------------------------------

The Teaching of the Apostles NULL
The Didache [Teaching/Doctrine of the Apostles] 4th/5th (g
The Gospel of the Egyptians No Text
The Gospel of Peter 8th
The Gospel of the Hebrews No Text
The Gospel of Thomas 4th
The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion] No Text
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text A] 6th
The Gospel of Judas 4th
The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene] 5th (aka A
The Epistle of the Apostles 4th
The Gospel of James (Infancy) NULL
The Gospel of the Ebionites No Text
The Gospel of the Nazoreans NULL
The Acts of Andrew and John (*H) NULL
The Gospel of Philip 4th
The Letter of Peter to Philip 4th
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles 4th
The Acts of Peter 4th (Copti
The Acts of Paul (*R) NULL
The Acts of Peter and Andrew NULL
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew (*H) NULL
The Acts of Andrew (*H) NULL
The Acts of John (*H) NULL
The Acts of Paul and Thecla NULL
The Acts of Thomas 5th: palim
The Pistis Sophia - Excerpts 5th/6th -

================================================== ===============
THE COUNCILS OF ANTIOCH AND NICAEA Boundary event
================================================== ===============

The Acts of John the Theologian NULL
The Acts of the Martyrs NULL
The Death of Pilate NULL
The History of Joseph the Carpenter NULL
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew NULL
The Gospel of Nicodemus NULL
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary NULL
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca NULL
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar NULL
The Acts of Polyeuctes NULL
The Gospel of Gamaliel NULL
The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles NULL
The Acts of Pilate NULL
The Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca NULL
The Gospel of Truth 4th
The Gospel of Thomas 4th
The Prayer of Thanksgiving 4th
The Gospel of Truth 4th
The Treatise on the Resurrection 4th
Trimorphic Protennoia 4th
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul 4th
The Apocryphon of James 4th
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul 4th
The Hypostasis of the Archons 4th
On the Origin of the World 4th
The Book of Thomas the Contender 4th
The Apocryphon of John 4th
The Gospel of the Egyptians 4th
Eugnostos the Blessed 4th
The Sophia of Jesus Christ 4th
The Dialogue of the Savior 4th
The Apocryphon of John 4th
The Gospel of the Egyptians 4th
Eugnostos the Blessed 4th
The Apocalypse of Paul 4th
The Apocalypse of James (First) 4th
The Apocalypse of James (Second) 4th
The Apocalypse of Adam 4th
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles 4th
The Thunder, Perfect Mind 4th
Authoritative Teaching 4th
The Concept of Our Great Power 4th
Plato, Republic 588A-589B 4th
The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth 4th
Asclepius 21-29 4th
The Paraphrase of Shem 4th
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth 4th
The Apocalypse of Peter 4th
The Teachings of Silvanus 4th
The Three Steles of Seth 4th
Zostrianos 4th
The Letter of Peter to Philip 4th
Melchizedek 4th
The Thought of Norea 4th
The Testimony of Truth 4th
Marsanes 4th
The Interpretation of Knowledge 4th
A Valentinian Exposition 4th
Allogenes 4th
Hypsiphrone 4th
The Sentences of Sextus 4th
Unknown 4th
On the Origin of the World 4th
The Tripartite Tractate 4th
The Gospel of Philip 4th
The Exegesis on the Soul 4th
The Acts of Thaddaeus NULL
The Acts of Peter and Paul NULL
The Gospel of Bartholomew NULL
The Acts of Philip NULL
The Acts of Simon and Jude NULL
The Acts of Luke NULL
The History of John 4th -Syria
The Acts of Mark NULL
The Act of Peter NULL
The Acts of Bartholomew NULL
An Arabic Infancy Gospel NULL
The Gospel of Thomas - A 5th Century Compilation NULL
The Acts of Barnabas NULL
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew NULL
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew NULL
The Acts of Timothy NULL
The Acts of Titus NULL
The Acts of Matthew NULL
The Secret Gospel of Mark NULL
The Apocryphon of James NULL
The Apocryphon of John NULL
The Revelation of Peter NULL
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius NULL
The Martyrdom of Matthew NULL
The Mystery of the Cross-Excerpt from the Acts of NULL
The Passing of Mary NULL
The Apocalypse of Adam NULL
The Apocalypse of James - First Codex Tcha
The Apocalypse of James - Second NULL
The Apocalypse of Paul - and fragments NULL
The Apocalypse of Peter - and fragments (*R) NULL
The Revelation of Esdras NULL
The Revelation of John the Theologian NULL
The Revelation of Moses NULL
The Revelation of Paul NULL
The Vision of Paul NULL
Community Rule NULL
John the Evangelist NULL
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary NULL
The Book of Thomas the Contender NULL
The Consummation of Thomas NULL
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate NULL
The Avenging of the Saviour NULL
The Epistle to the Laodiceans NULL
The Report of Pilate to the emperor Claudius NULL
The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle NULL
The Three Steles of Seth NULL
The Book of Thomas the Contender NULL
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea NULL
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul NULL
The Sophia of Jesus Christ NULL

(144 row(s) affected)