Flaming Moe

Mountainman,

Any reason why the Greek codices haven't been C14 tested?

Thanks.

andrewcriddle

I may be quite wrong, but I have the impression that some of the posters in this thread may be confusing the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, (A collection of sayings by the adult Jesus of which the earliest form is thought by some scholars to predate the canonical Gospels), and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (A collection of rather weird stories about Jesus as a child and adolescent which is certainly later than the canonical Gospels).

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

The simplest explanation is that the Gospel writers didn't know anything about Jesus during that period - because they didn't know him, nor did they know anyone who had known him. They were recording myth/legend/fiction/propaganda (aka 'hero biography'), not historical records.

For those who might claim "oh, that aspect just wasn't important to the writers", the birth narratives, combined with the story about Jesus at 12, prove otherwise.

mountainman

Hey Flaming Moe,

They have been handled too many times and are probably highly contaminated specimens under the current level of technology as I understand it. Same for the papyrii. Aside from this, I have no idea why some of the greek codices have not been tested. As far as I know they will be dated to descendants (or perhaps copies) of one of the "Constantine Bibles" of the c331 fame. (ie: contemporary dating puts them anyway somewhere in the late fourth century)

Having said this, I dont see any reason that some of the spine of the codices could be sampled via C14 testing, as were the gJudas and gThomas --- the only 2 new testement related c14 citations that I know of. Is there a third somewhere? I thought I saw someone mention something somewhere a few months back ????

Best wishes,


Pete

PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

I applaud your strong demand for physiological evidence based on the latest techniques of science. Such evidence may be extremely helpful and help to judge many questions decisively.

I think paleography provides a less definite methodology, more subject to the hazards of human interpretation, but as long as the dating is kept within a 50-100 year probably range, it can be a useful tool.

However, most historical reconstruction is generally done by taking a little knowledge from one field and mixing it with knowledge from other fields. Often the nature and quality of proofs differ in the different fields.

Using diverse fields such as history, Biblical Studies, archaeology, sociology, psychology, literature, textual and narrative criticism, cinema studies, pop culture (especially comic-books) studies, and philosophy, I think we can render a much more accurate reconstruction of the reasons and ways Christianity developed than the traditional ones.

The influence of Eusebius, and through him Constantine, on the traditional narratives of the development of Christianity is so great that one is tempted to say that they invented it. But that would be giving them far too much credit in my opinion and ignoring the typically diverse elements that precede all leaps and major changes.

For example, Thomas Edison is generally given credit for the invention of the motion picture, but this attribution ignores the multitude of incidents and accidents that really led to its development. First it was Edison's hired men, MKL Dickson and his assistants, who really did the actual work of invention. Edison supplied the money and the desire for the project.

Even so, without the invention of still photography 60 years before, motion pictures could not have come into existence. Also without the exciting scientific studies of Eadweard Muybridge and half a dozen other experimenters in the intervening years, Edison would never have thought the project worth doing or even thought of the project. The genius of George Eastman and his ability to develop increasing light sensitive film was also a necessary ingredient that led to the invention almost 120 years.

Just as we can look at motion pictures and see the complex evolution that led up to the moment of seeming creation, we can look behind any number of leaps, inventions and creations and see the evolutions that were necessary for it to take place. In the case of Judaism splitting in Christianity, I see a number of developments necessary before we get to the 4th century.

1. First century anti-Herodian opposition movements trying to spread Yahwehism and combat Roman domination. Apostles dedicating their lives to this movement. The Christs (Anointed Ones) of Yahweh/Jesus
2. Supernatural (comic-book) stories of heroic traveling Apostles spreading the kingdom of God movement and working magic.
3. Mixture of prophetic and apostolic literature to create the gospel/son of God - Jesus Christ stories. A period of diverse gnosticism
4. The mixture of 2nd century gnosticisms in the Alexandrian cauldron of the 3rd century.
5. Eusebius and Constantine taking that Alexandrian potion and giving it a fairy-tale history in the early 4th century, which seems to have drastically increased its efficacy.

Until the application of C14 dating techniques to disprove or prove it, this is my best hypothesis.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for bringing up this possible confusion. I meant the Gospel of Thomas, not the infancy Gospel of Thomas, as an example of gnostic text that could predate the canonical gospels.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

There is also the text known as The Acts of Thomas which is known by everyone to be sourced from this epoch in ancient history commonly referred to as "christian origins". Within the text of he gospel of thomas is embedded an old text called The Hymn of the Pearl or The Hymn of the Soul and which most commentators date (substantially) earlier that the text of the Acts of Thomas. The author of the Acts has embedded an older text in the narrative and placed in in the mouth of Thomas the (christian) apostle who is at that time in prison (in the narrative).

What is the explanation for all this authorship; and what is the range of conjectural dating for the three (or more) Thomas texts?

Best wishes,



Pete

andrewcriddle

Hi Pete

We have papyri fragments of the Gnostic Gopel of Thomas the earliest of which is usually dated to c 200 CE so the Gospel must be okder than that. It is probably 2nd century CE although some scholars would date it in the 1st century CE.

The Acts of Thomas is generally dated to the 3rd century CE, although, as you say, the "Hymn of the Pearl" is earlier.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a disputed and complex story. IMHO the chronology goes something like this.
a/ Stories about Jesus the child develop from the 2nd century CE on. They are mostly oral but some are written.
b/ This material is written down to produce something like the Infancy Gospel we know in the 4th century CE.
c/ In the 7th century CE a version of this Gospel becomes attributed to Thomas.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Hi Andrew,

I am wary of the paleographic dating and of
the finds at OXYRHYNCHUS because we know
via the Historia Monachorum that the city was
literally flooded with monasteries -- but in the
fourth century. The city is decribed
as totally packed. Our papyri from this city's
rubbish dump therefore are most likely from
the mass invasion (was it refugees to the desert)
in the 4th century.

Best wishes,



Pete

Cyberia

Several years ago the BBC did a good documentary on Jesus in India and even showed what may be his tomb, which looks like the tomb of a man who had been crucified. There is also:


http://www.alislam.org/library/books...dia/index.html


And the last verse of John:


John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.