On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:I don't quite understand the point you are making PK. AFAIK the dating of the NHC's is by a combination of methods which include examination of their cartonage and palaeography, and that most scholars seem happy enough to date them (terminus post quem) about the mid 4th century. This terminus post quem date is at least two decades after Nicaea.
That is correct, for Codex VII. Not necessarily all the codices.

The other codices may have an earlier terminus post quem, since they wouldn't have any cartonnage to date.

OK. Thanks very much. I understand and agree that my original claim requires further conditions.

Namely for example the expectation that all the codices were produced within a small window of time - not exceeding two decades. I don't see this as too unreasonable. The largest argument in favour of this is that if the Pachomian monastic settlement manufactured the codices, then the codices must have been produced after the monastic system was established and able to support the expertise to manufacture codices and to perform Greek to Coptic translations.


But you've discarded paleography, generally speaking, have you not?

Not at all. I just have reservations on the error bounds provided by the bulk of scholarship. I see palaeography as one of a series of dating methodologies, none of which provide results without error bounds. Specifically I have cited Brent Nongbri's call for a 4th century upper bound on most if not all of the "early" NT papyri.




LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Peter Kirby »

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:Mr. Leucius Charinus, you owe me two scoops of ice cream and a coke.
Should you ever visit Australia (the conversion rates are well in your favour atm) know that's a done deal.
At least one New Testament manuscript has been C-14 dated (and, yes, you get to see the calibrated date range):

http://alinsuciu.com/2014/04/06/radioca ... x-glazier/
COOL.
  • On the 19th of May 1994, the report for the piece of leather was returned from Dr. Georges Bonani with the following report:
    from Lab. No. ETH-12270, a sample of leather produced
    the AMS 14C Age [y BP] of 1’565 ± 45
    with the results of δ13C[o/oo] of – 23.6 ± 1.1
    with the calibrated Age [BC/AD] of AD 420-598
The radiocarbon age (if I have added the numbers correctly) is 385 CE +/- 45 years or between 340-430 CE.
Looks good to me.

As I've been reading this, I've seen that something like "AMS 14C Age [y BP]" refers to the conventional radiocarbon age, or RCYBP, radiocarbon years before the present, where "BP" actually means "before 1950" (or "before physics," as I've seen it also).

Generally speaking, to avoid confusion, scientists ask that uncalibrated results are not converted into calendar years but remain "BP" figures.

Standardization on a reference date such as 1950 is required for the next step, calibration.

The point that the calibrated results have a different shape and center is well-taken.

Calibrated results can be given in terms of BP (years before 1950), in which case they are "cal BP," or in terms of AD, BC, etc.
Leucius Charinus wrote:But it demonstrates IMO that C14 results have a penultimate symmetric age distribution whereas the final results have a asymmetric calibrated distribution.

It may follow therefore that we do not have the calibrated C14 results for the Gospel of Judas and that National Geographic has for some reasons as yet unknown bull-rushed the C14 "Age" result. Time will tell. The final report by UA would be cool.

But in the meantime I will try and run the age result above through the oxcal software to see if I can duplicate the given calibrated result above.

Thanks again for finding this C14 reference.
No worries. :thumbup:

You've certainly raised an issue that should be raised, regarding the distinction between calibrated and uncalibrated results of C-14 dating. It is not something that most classicists and NT scholars will have been trained in, so it can (perhaps) easily slip past unnoticed.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Peter Kirby »

I've discovered a distinction that may be of some use.

When scientists give the uncalibrated results, they are not stating a confidence level of a range of dating. So what are they stating? They are talking about the amount of decay that they are measuring and the margin of error of the measuring of that decay, whether they express that directly or in the form of a margin of error in years BP.

Dear old Jull himself comments on this stuff ( http://www.nucleonica.com/wiki/Articles ... ticle2.htm ):
The AMS method has generally improved since its inception, so that external precision of about ±0.5 percent in 14C content, or ±40 years in uncalibrated radiocarbon age are possible on 1-mg-sized samples. Samples as small as 100 µg have been successfully dated to about ±150 years BP. Experimental studies on even smaller samples are under way at several laboratories. When multiple targets are used, we can reduce the error to about ±0.25 percent or ±20 years in radiocarbon age.
Radiocarbon age is C-14 content, and C-14 content is radiocarbon age. That's important to remember.

Meanwhile, when they give a range of dates with a confidence level of 1-sigma and 2-sigma (68% probability and 95% probability), they (Scientists, not Journalists!) generally do this for the calibrated results only, because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be doing this for the C-14 content measurement, however expressed.

Although they give 1-sigma and 2-sigma calibrated results, they are not assuming a normal curve.

Sometimes they also give the "intercept of radiocarbon age with calibration curve," although there is some dispute to how useful such a figure is.

Here are some actual reports from which I learned this stuff:

http://www.deldot.gov/archaeology/Black ... /app_e.pdf
http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/6069 ... 10+MB).pdf
http://www.sfj.no/sff/k2post.nsf/viewAt ... 056648.PDF
http://www.sfj.no/sff/k2post.nsf/viewAt ... 056649.PDF

Fascinating, really. Would make things simpler to have direct access to a report like this.

Instead we have to deal with a few scattered quotations and the broken interpretations of journalists ... and wait.

BTW there was a 2014 fall paper at the SBL from Christian Askeland on the C-14 dating of gJudas. I asked him for a copy through academia.edu and wonder what might be in it. Also, if completely necessary, I suppose someone could bother the scientists themselves for a quote.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by DCHindley »

"radiocarbon dating of scrolls and linen fragments from the judean desert"
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index ... /1642/1646

DCH
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

DCHindley wrote:"radiocarbon dating of scrolls and linen fragments from the judean desert"
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index ... /1642/1646

DCH


Image

Thanks DCH.

C14 age and calibrated age are listed in separate columns.
This looks like a final report for the DSS.



LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote: Instead we have to deal with a few scattered quotations and the broken interpretations of journalists ... and wait.

BTW there was a 2014 fall paper at the SBL from Christian Askeland on the C-14 dating of gJudas. I asked him for a copy through academia.edu and wonder what might be in it.
That sounds interesting PK.
Also, if completely necessary, I suppose someone could bother the scientists themselves for a quote.
I once asked Tim Jull when the final report might issue. He replied saying that the report he sent to Nat Geo was available. I requested that but did not hear anything further. This may have been a year of two ago.

It would seem that Tim Jull knows how to prepare a final summary report for C14 tests as demonstrated by the above link DCH gave for the C14 tests on the DSS. He was again at that time the one who's name was on the report. For the 2005 tests on the Gospel of Judas I would be expecting a report similar to that of the DSS above, with separate columns for the C14 age and Calibrated age. I don't think that is too much to expect.

Ten years for a final report is a long time to wait. My suspicion in all this relates to the people selling Nat Geo. It would not surprise me of they ran with a maxim something like "the earlier the date the more sensational the story" (where a 1st century manuscript or relic is the JACKPOT LOL). It also occurs to me that one of the causes of the delay of the final report may be found to be related to confidentiality agreements prepared by Nat Geo into which all parties were contracted.



LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

PDF: The Bodmer ‘miscellaneous’ codex and The crosBy-schøyen codex ms 193: a new ProPosal*
Brice C. Jones

http://www.bricecjones.com/uploads/1/8/ ... _jones.pdf
  • In a 1995 article on the Coptic versions of the New Testament, Frederik Wisse listed four stages of the transmission history of Coptic versions:

    (1) Pre-Classical Stage (250–350 ce);
    (2) Classical Sahidic and Fayumic Stage (350–450 ce);
    (3) Final Sahidic and Fayumic Stage (450–1000 ce);
    (4) Bohairic Version (after 800 ce).

    Commenting on the ‘Pre-Classical Stage’, Wisse says the following:
    • This period is characterized by a number of uncoordinated translation efforts into various dialects serving, it would seem, mainly the interests of private Greco-Egyptian Christians. This would explain the production of MSS that include a curious selection of, or excerpts from, several OT and NT writings.

The difference between Weiss's hypothesis and the one being defended here is only in the (1) Pre-Classical Stage (250–350 CE) which I would revise to (325-350 CE).

An entirely natural political explanation of "the production of MSS that include a curious selection of, or excerpts from, several OT and NT writings" is simply that the authors of these Coptic texts were responding to the NT Bible (+ LXX) which was widely published by Constantine c.325 CE.

The question as to why private Greco-Egyptians would develop an interest in NT Biblical material in the decades prior to the widespread publication of the NT Bible relies heavily upon the replacement of a Pachomian origin for these codices with an origin involving the idea that these codices were "burial goods". Many of the manuscript discoveries are indeed associated with burial tombs however these burial tombs are just as likely to be directly associated with Pachomian monks, including Pachomius himself who died c.348 CE.

I know of no evidence in support of any Pre-Classical Stage (250–325 CE) aside from inferences from the Codex Tchacos C14 test results. The Pachomian monastic system did not really get underway until well after 325 CE. But what I find most disturbing is that none of these academics are considering the political climate of Constantine's rule, dominated by the widespread publication of the NT Bible as a political instrument for the revolutionary "Christian Monotheistic State".

The following letter is found in a number of Coptic codices, including the Nag Hammadi Codices and the Tchacos Codex ...

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/letpet.html
  • The Letter of Peter which he sent to Philip

    "Peter, the apostle of Jesus Christ, to Philip, our beloved brother and our fellow apostle, and (to) the brethren who are with you: greetings!

    Now I want you to know, our brother, that we received orders from our Lord and the Savior of the whole world that we should come together to give instruction and preach in the salvation which was promised us by our Lord Jesus Christ. But as for you, you were separate from us, and you did not desire us to come together and to know how we should organize ourselves in order that we might tell the good news. Therefore would it be agreeable to you, our brother, to come according to the orders of our God Jesus?"

    When Philip had received these (words), and when he had read them, he went to Peter rejoicing with gladness. Then Peter gathered the others also. They went upon the mountain which is called "the (mount) olives," the place where they used to gather with the blessed Christ when he was in the body.

    Then, when the apostles had come together, and had thrown themselves upon their knees, they prayed thus saying, "Father, Father, Father of the light, who possesses the incorruptions, hear us just as thou hast taken pleasure in thy holy child Jesus Christ. For he became for us an illuminator in the darkness. Yea hear us!"

    And they prayed again another time, saying, "Son of life, Son of immortality, who is in the light, Son, Christ of immortality, our Redeemer, give us power, for they seek to kill us!"

    Then a great light appeared so that the mountains shone from the sight of him who had appeared.
    And a voice called out to them saying,

    "Listen to my words that I may speak to you.
    Why are you asking me?
    I am Jesus Christ who am with you forever."
Jesus speaks out of the clouds above the mountain and asks the Apostles why they are asking him.

Isn't this scene basically the same as the Monty Python scene of "God speaking from the clouds" in the "Holy Grail"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZhLDo09D68




LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Peter Kirby »

Leucius Charinus wrote:PDF: The Bodmer ‘miscellaneous’ codex and The crosBy-schøyen codex ms 193: a new ProPosal*
Brice C. Jones wrote:

http://www.bricecjones.com/uploads/1/8/ ... _jones.pdf

In a 1995 article on the Coptic versions of the New Testament, Frederik Wisse listed four stages of the transmission history of Coptic versions:

(1) Pre-Classical Stage (250–350 ce);
(2) Classical Sahidic and Fayumic Stage (350–450 ce);
(3) Final Sahidic and Fayumic Stage (450–1000 ce);
(4) Bohairic Version (after 800 ce).
Leucius Charinus wrote:Commenting on the ‘Pre-Classical Stage’, Wisse says the following:

This period is characterized by a number of uncoordinated translation efforts into various dialects serving, it would seem, mainly the interests of private Greco-Egyptian Christians. This would explain the production of MSS that include a curious selection of, or excerpts from, several OT and NT writings.
Leucius Charinus wrote:The difference between Weiss's hypothesis and the one being defended here is only in the (1) Pre-Classical Stage (250–350 CE) which I would revise to (325-350 CE).
Leucius Charinus wrote:I know of no evidence in support of any Pre-Classical Stage (250–325 CE) aside from inferences from the Codex Tchacos C14 test results.
Okay, and this is naturally rude to say, but is that fact especially interesting? Is it interesting at all? This is now a time-worn technique (fallacy) that you've used on forums. "I know of no evidence" this, that, and the other. We're not your reference library. We might not know either, but that's only because of the same level of ignorance and laziness on our part that is being shown on yours. Can you report back when you do know what has been written on this subject? That'd be a little more interesting.

I don't know why you even bring up Codex Tchacos in this regard. The quoted sources seem very clear that they are talking about Coptic translations ("versions") of the New Testament.
Leucius Charinus wrote:Isn't this scene basically the same as the Monty Python scene of "God speaking from the clouds" in the "Holy Grail"?
But, yes, that is a great movie. :thumbup:

Sorry but now I'm getting flashbacks of an English teacher of mine lamenting the decline of the classics, saying that it's degenerated to watching movies like Gladiator or dressing up and running chariots around the track field, with the neglect of the hard study of Greek and Latin. He may not be too far off. As a point of fact I did later have a university professor of Roman history pop in the movie for an entire classroom session. :oops:
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:PDF: The Bodmer ‘miscellaneous’ codex and The crosBy-schøyen codex ms 193: a new ProPosal*
Brice C. Jones wrote:

http://www.bricecjones.com/uploads/1/8/ ... _jones.pdf

In a 1995 article on the Coptic versions of the New Testament, Frederik Wisse listed four stages of the transmission history of Coptic versions:

(1) Pre-Classical Stage (250–350 ce);
(2) Classical Sahidic and Fayumic Stage (350–450 ce);
(3) Final Sahidic and Fayumic Stage (450–1000 ce);
(4) Bohairic Version (after 800 ce).
Leucius Charinus wrote:Commenting on the ‘Pre-Classical Stage’, Wisse says the following:

This period is characterized by a number of uncoordinated translation efforts into various dialects serving, it would seem, mainly the interests of private Greco-Egyptian Christians. This would explain the production of MSS that include a curious selection of, or excerpts from, several OT and NT writings.
Leucius Charinus wrote:The difference between Weiss's hypothesis and the one being defended here is only in the (1) Pre-Classical Stage (250–350 CE) which I would revise to (325-350 CE).
Leucius Charinus wrote:I know of no evidence in support of any Pre-Classical Stage (250–325 CE) aside from inferences from the Codex Tchacos C14 test results.
Okay, and this is naturally rude to say, but is that fact especially interesting? Is it interesting at all? This is now a time-worn technique (fallacy) that you've used on forums. "I know of no evidence" this, that, and the other. We're not your reference library. We might not know either, but that's only because of the same level of ignorance and laziness on our part that is being shown on yours. Can you report back when you do know what has been written on this subject? That'd be a little more interesting.
Unless I state otherwise you may assume I have made great steps to enlighten my ignorance of the ancient historical evidence and have not been lazy to spend hours, days, seasons and years investigating the existence and evaluation of whatever evidence has been discussed within the peer-reviewed literature and the ancient sources themselves. That is not to say I know everything far from it. Many there are in this and other discussion forums who participate to ask and answer questions related to the field of investigation. When I say I know of no evidence you may assume I have looked for it long and hard.



I don't know why you even bring up Codex Tchacos in this regard. The quoted sources seem very clear that they are talking about Coptic translations ("versions") of the New Testament.

The article cited related to Coptic versions of the New Testament and commences as follows:
Brice-Jones wrote:In the early 1950s, a large cache of manuscripts was discovered in Upper Egypt near the town of Dishna. These finds are now referred to as the Dishna Papers or, more commonly, the Bodmer Papyri.1 Found within this collection were several papyrus manuscripts that proved to be extremely important for the study of the text of the New Testament.
The author is discussing NT texts which have been preserved in codices and manuscripts which are largely categorised as either gnostic or non canonical. The OP is all about the gnostic or non canonical literature and the question "When was it authored"?

Everyone is well aware that the Coptic codices and manuscripts of the 4th century represent literary evidence that is at least one step removed from the original [and primary] Greek manuscripts. There are a few Greek papyri fragments already discussed somewhere above.

The only other evidence about the authorship of the original Greek texts is derived from the church organisation. I have provided an analysis of what the church organisation says about the books of the heretics - the non canonical texts. This may be discussed if anyone is interested.

I don't trust the NT Bible to be an historical account, but neither do I trust the literary evidence which has been "preserved" by the church organisation to be an historical account. My research on the lines and patterns of transmission of codices and manuscripts from antiquity to the present day by the church organisation has noted abundant recognition of forgery and corruption of literary evidence. This crime - and it is a crime - pales into an insignificance when the other atrocities of the church organisation are mapped for the same period.

Prior to these manuscript discoveries - many being Coptic codices - the literary material preserved by the church organisation was the ONLY (does everyone really understand this fact?) way investigators could find any information on the authors of these texts.

"What if the church organisation simply lied about their literary-political opponents"?

I think this is a valid question. There will be people in the field who think this is a rude question, perhaps even offensive. I can understand that. The more advanced Theology students and students of Biblical History spend years navigating their way through the ante-Nicene fathers, but they are taught to treat their sources as if they were historical accounts. They are not historical accounts. They are ecclesiastical histories and heresiological accounts. They are secondary evidence wrt the OP.

We can for the sake of the exercise of investigation just temporarily ignore the literary evidence supplied by the church about the authorship of the non canonical literature. The result of this throws into the spotlight all these recent (mainly Coptic) codex and manuscript discoveries. This stuff is a lot closer to the primary evidence that everyone is seeking than the secondary evidence anyway. It may be one step removed but it may also represent the initial wave of Greek to Coptic translations. This only takes one generation to model.


Leucius Charinus wrote:Isn't this scene basically the same as the Monty Python scene of "God speaking from the clouds" in the "Holy Grail"?
But, yes, that is a great movie. :thumbup:
Will you accept the possibility that the Letter of Peter to Philip contains a parody or satire?

Namely in Jesus speaking to his apostles from the light and the clouds saying "Why are you asking me"?

That's not likely to make it into the agrapha.





LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE

Post by Peter Kirby »

Leucius Charinus wrote:Unless I state otherwise you may assume I have made great steps to enlighten my ignorance of the ancient historical evidence and have not been lazy to spend hours, days, seasons and years investigating the existence and evaluation of whatever evidence has been discussed within the peer-reviewed literature and the ancient sources themselves. That is not to say I know everything far from it. Many there are in this and other discussion forums who participate to ask and answer questions related to the field of investigation. When I say I know of no evidence you may assume I have looked for it long and hard.
I apologize for suggesting otherwise.

Why do these scholars propose 250-350 as the earliest period for Coptic versions of the New Testament, then?
Leucius Charinus wrote:Will you accept the possibility that the Letter of Peter to Philip contains a parody or satire?

Namely in Jesus speaking to his apostles from the light and the clouds saying "Why are you asking me"?

That's not likely to make it into the agrapha.
I wouldn't press too hard on that sentence, out of its context, and that translation as you have.

The more recent translation from Marvin Meyer reads:

"Listen to my words that I may speak to you. Why are you looking for me? I am Jesus Christ, who is with you forever." (p. 590)

This translation and interpretation makes more sense, in context, reading the second sentence with reference to the third.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply