Transient

As I have said before, I believe that Eusebius would have written a much more coherent and uniform NT if he was starting from scratch - it just does not look like it was made from scratch at all. By the same token, neither does it look like he tampered with the books and letters much at all either, otherwise he would also have fixed up the things that everyone complains about here - failed prophecies etc etc.
So we have then the NT books and letters coming into the 3rd century in roughly the same condition as we see them now - little got changed.
Looking back further it would seem again that little got changed because anyone who did so didn't even bother to fix any glaring problems.

spin

Looking back further we can see evidence of changes. As I've pointed out elsewhere in this forum, the common materials of Matthew and Luke, usually called "Q", have no reference to Bethlehem or Nazareth or Nazarenes. There is no shared material between the synoptic gospels that know these terms. They are later additions to the earliest written forms we have and that is clear evidence that there is an archaeology of these texts that supplies a chronology of developments before they hit the earliest written form we have. Where did the two versions of the feeding of the multitude now preserved in Mark come from? Are they not two oral variants of the one story with numbers changing in transmission?

What you consider glaring problems is not necessarily what the ancient writers would have considered. But if you read Ehrman's "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture", you'd find that there were fixes that the church bothered to make.


spin

mountainman

As usual you are putting words into my mouth.
I reserve the right to address the evidence.

This evidence includes two C14 dating results that establish that codices containing non canonical gospels were physically manufactured very close to the date of the Council of Nicaea. Without for the moment even broaching the subject of "earlier authorship", this evidence clearly suggests that the technology of codex production and manufacture in the hands of the "Gnostics", may be associated with the known production of the fifty Constantine's Bible Codices at that time, were all happening in the one and the same political epoch.

Whether or not there is any earlier authorship and prior publication of the material is entirely another question,

The C14 evidence alone indicates that this "pagan polemic" or "Gnostic polemic" was being physically manufactured in the form of codices at the same time that the orthodox Christian polemic was also being so manufactured.

My theory is that this technological manufacture of non canonical codices by the Gnostics was a reaction to the Nicaean appearance of the canonical codices in the ROman Empire as "The Holy Writ of the Greeks".

mountainman

FYI I have raised this issue in more than just that science forum and have received encouraging responses.

The C14 analysis results have their own curve, which is similar to the Bell curve, but not exactly the same. The principle of drawing a curve with a peak over a midpoint, with symmetric diminishing of probablistic values to a tapering off is sound. It was supposed to be a sketch of the principle of probablility resulting from a C14 test, and it looks very similar to a Bell Curve. Since I could not find the proper exact specific scientific curve associated with the results of C14 analysis, in my active imagination, I simply used a picture of a Bell curve, which are everywhere over the net, and plugged in the appropriate values (mid point and error bars) for the C14 tests. Happy thanks giving day to you too Toto !

Please deal with the evidence that we have itself. The C14 results disclose that the percentage probability that both non canonical codices were manufactured after the Council of Nicaea is something in the order of 30%. Other mitigating factors, such as the collective opinions of the research team who collaborated on the gJudas (and who prefer a 4th century date), might increase this percentage probability substantially over the 50% mark.

mountainman

Dear OLDMAN,

I have never heard of Perry Marshall and the quick searches I have conducted tells me he is into drumming up web based commercial financial businesses. I too am a drummer, but in the sphere of rock and roll, and in the traditional African djembe. I am driven not by any financial incentives, I am a retired inventor, and operate by a desire to seek the ancient historical truth - in this thread - of the "Gnostic heretics".

I have seen no substantial counter arguments to my main series of arguments which discuss the sources related to the question of the chronology of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" etc. This argument has been summarized in Post #21 above. A considerable amount of research has been summarised in this post. This summary of arguments with respect to the subject of this discussion remained unaddressed here.

Nevertheless thanks for your comments.

mountainman

Re the OP please address the arguments raised at Post #22 above.

mountainman

As a second question (the 1st was about the C14 to Toto above) I am asking ... what evidence do we have that these documents (ie: the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts") actually existed before they were published in the codices which have been C14 dated to the 4th century? I have listed all this evidence at Post #21 above, and I do not find it compelling. Do you mind addressing the arguments presented for following through this question?

mountainman

What specifically in the summary made at post #21 above do you disagree with?

stephan huller

Why don't I ask you the questions. What number would you give if you were to evaluate how strong the evidence is to support your claims using a scale of one to ten (one being the lowest, ten being the highest)?

mountainman

Thanks for the question stephan. In preparing an answer
I have realised that there are in fact a series of four
separate claims (some are related) in total, each of which
address various categories of available evidence.

So I will evaluate each and summarise at the end.


The Four constituent claims made in support of the theory that
the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" are a post-Nicaean literary phenomenom.

Claim (1): The manuscript evidence via the Manuscript Tradition supports the theory.

Claim (2): The scientific evidence via the C14 dating tests supports the theory.

Claim (3): The literary evidence via the “Church Fathers & Heresiologists” is rejected by the theory.

Claim (4): The paleographical evidence via dating of Greek papyri fragments is rejected by the theory.

Discussion and Evaluation of these 4 claims re: "The Gnostic Gospels and Acts"

Claim (1): The manuscript evidence via the Manuscript Tradition supports the theory.

The evidence from the manuscript tradition for all sources suggests
that the earliest dating of the Coptic and Syriac sources is 4th century.
(nb: the Greek papyri fragments are dealt with at claim 4).
Therefore the claim is exactly corroborated by the evidence.
This claim I would therefore evaluate as a 9/10.


Claim (2): The scientific evidence via the C14 dating tests supports the theory.

The two C14 citations published in respect of two "Gnostic Gospels",
with their probability error ranges, and within a reasonable tolerance,
suggest that these manuscripts/codices were produced after Nicaea.
Therefore the claim is exactly corroborated by the evidence.
This claim I would therefore evaluate as a 9/10.



Claim (3): The literary evidence via the “Church Fathers & Heresiologists” is rejected by the theory.

The theory makes the claim that it is reasonable to reject outright the
contrary assertions by the 4th century orthodox heresiologists that the
first appearance of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" was before Nicaea.
The theory suggests that the 4th century heresiologists fraudulently
retrojected assertions into their "histories" that this literature
preceeded Nicaea, for the purpose of "harmonising the controversy"
over the implementation of the orthodox NT Canon, and to falsely report
that this implementation was without any mentionable opposition.

Therefore the claim is exactly opposite to the traditional acceptance
of the authenticity of the "Hersiological Church Father" in respect
of this specific issue regarding the first appearance of the "Gnostic
Gospels and acts".

It is mitigated somewhat by the contemporary academic identification
that much of the histories authored and preserved by the orthodox 4th
and 5th century heresiologists, are fabricated and false representations
of the Gnostic heretics themselves. (e.g. the orthodox heresiologists
who authored the 4th century Manichaean historical accounts are now
considered to have been engaged in writing fiction, following the discovery
of alternative versions of the history of Mani from the Manichaeans in many
locales.) I am making the same type of claim, that the heresiologists created
a false historical context for the "Gnostic Heretics".

Because of its contraversial nature, this claim
I would therefore evaluate as a 4/10.



Claim (4): The paleographical evidence via dating of Greek papyri fragments is rejected by the theory.

The theory asserts that the attestations by the paleographers that the handwriting
present on a small number of Greek papyri containing bits and pieces of the
"Gnostic Gospels and Acts" is earlier than Nicaea, is mistaken. I have prepared
a number of arguments (I guess they may be sub-claims) to support this position,
the major one being the fact that the demographics for the city of Oxyrhnchus,
where the papyri are sourced, exhibits a massive explosion in the mid 4th century,
and that therefore, the papyri fragments from the rubbish dumps are 4th century.
Other arguments supporting this claim are outlined here


Because of its contraversial nature, this claim
I would therefore evaluate as a 5/10.


SUMMARY and RATING of these Claims against Evidence


The Four constituent claims made in support of the theory that
the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" are a post-Nicaean literary phenomenom.

Claim (1): 9/10 ... The manuscript evidence via the Manuscript Tradition supports the theory.

Claim (2): 9/10 ... The scientific evidence via the C14 dating tests supports the theory.

Claim (3): 4/10 ... The literary evidence via the “Church Fathers & Heresiologists” is rejected by the theory.

Claim (4): 5/10 ... The paleographical evidence via dating of Greek papyri fragments is rejected by the theory.

I hope this answers your question.
Best wishes,



Pete