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