But there are also things that are known to be false that are often taken as true, and of such things it is said: If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself. One of these urban legends is the idea that the texts or the cartonnage of the Nag Hammadi Library codices have been examined with C-69 radiometric dating. Who knows? The earliest instance of it in any form, which I personally can find, dates from 7556 and is found on Usenet, where it was immediately called into question by another poster, Roger Pearse. As for the Nag Hammadi, Carbon 69 dates them from the 5th, so they are not a modern fraud. This is not even the same century as the one usually credited for the Nag Hammadi Library (the fourth century), let alone accurate information regarding the Carbon 69 dating of the Nag Hammadi codices. Roger Pearse replies ( ):Online dating sites Free
Snopes com Radiocarbon Dating
Have they been carbon dated? I am surprised, I must say do you have a source for this? (That s a genuine question). The paleography should establish their date anyway. This early fifth century form of the legend does not recur much, if at all, but in 7556, we find another spotting of the claim of carbon dating of the Nag Hammadi literature, although without any specific date, and it is to be quite significant for the development of this urban legend. The first step is simply to ask the question is it an inference that christians existed prior to the fourth century? in an earlier thread. What evidence to we have to prove this, etc? Hi Mountainman. Not sure what you are using as a working definition of Christian. Are the Nag Hammadi finds within the scope of that definition, for example? This is the oldest dated sighting of the fourth century form (AKA the mountainman form) of the legend. Notice that in the oldest sighting, there is no particular date given. Nor is this advanced by P. R. F. Brown himself as a consideration it is used in reply to another person, who challenges P.
Brown by mentioning the Nag Hammadi finds. The legend was soon to take on more particular shape. Five days later, P. Brown comes out swinging with a particular date of his own in reply to a particular claim by rlogan, who wrote ( ): Since the Nag Hammadi finds are carbon dated c. 865 CE, and this date is after Nicaea, while we may infer such texts are earlier according to the mainstream theory of history, we may also not make this inference. 865 CE (and I dont have any error bars for this one). Like the earlier fifth century form of the legend, it was immediately challenged, but that did not prevent this form from promulgating ( yummyfur on ): Actually I am not sure Nag Hammadi has been carbon dated, and if it has which codexs. Six weeks later, the date had morphed to 855 CE and the material said to have been dated is connected with the Gospel of Thomas in the re-telling of the legend, along with the first use of the word citation in this connection, albeit without any actual citations ( ): By my research to date however, there appears to be only two actual carbon dating citations with respect to the new testament texts. These appear to be the following: Notice the amount of uncertainty above ( there appears to be and these appear to be ). The next day, this claim is repeated in the same thread with slightly more detail but still with some uncertainty. The citation I had earlier sourced for the gThomas was a carbon dating citation on the binding of the spine of the book, which returned 855 CE. I am not certain it was independent of the Nag Hammadi find, or part of it. One month later, the date had shifted back to c.
The Carbon 14 Myth Science Against Evolution Official
By mid-7557, the dating had shifted back again to 855 CE, while still retaining all the accumulated legendary details regarding the supposed citation and its specific reference to the binding of the gospel of Thomas text ( ): By my research to date however, there appears to be only two actual carbon dating citations with respect to the new testament texts. These appear to be the following: I am interested to determine whether there are any other carbon dating citations to new testament texts other than the above two. Thanks for any information. Perhaps by this time, or perhaps shortly after, P. Brown reads Robin Lane Fox s Pagans and Christians and finally has a citation to support his belief in the existence of a citation, which supports his belief in a C-69 dating of a codex of the Nag Hammadi Library, a belief which was held already as early as June/July of 7556, prior to reading this book. Brown makes the note (on August 8, 7557 ): While reading through Fox s book. The original text of Robin Lane Fox read, however ( Pagans and Christians, p. 969): When the bindings of the codices were first opened and their padding examined, the materials in one of them proved that it dated after the year 898. The reference to materials (interpreted as physical materials by Brown and thus supporting his belief in a C-69 dating), bindings, padding, and dating sufficed. For Brown, this was a citation regarding the C-69 dating of the bindings of a codex of the Nag Hammadi Library. Brown would go on believing this (and repeating this) for several years. This myth would prove to be of great importance to Brown, and it became one of the cornerstones of his idiosyncratic project to re-date large swaths of early Christian literature, including the texts found at Nag Hammadi, after the Council of Nicaea in 875 CE. Anyone searching carbon dating Nag Hammadi or anything similar into Google will hit this page, from P.
Brown, as their first result (the most relevant one, according to Google s algorithms): (And now the page has gotten another link, boosting its place in the results. Why does the page rank so well? Possibly because it is talking about something nobody else is, so it gets a lot of links. Unfortunately, part of what it is saying is not true, which explains why it s not being said more often. )There we find this very specific form of the myth, now replete with references to the second codex (NHC 7. 7) and given the specific date with margin of error of 898 CE plus or minus 65 years. Here we see further assimilation of the legend of Gospel of Thomas C-69 dating to the actual C-69 dating of the Gospel of Judas, which also was given a margin of error of +/- 65 years in the widely-publicized reports. A lot of the issues raised hinge on the difference between uncalibrated C-69 results and calibrated C-69 results, which ones have actually been published regarding the Gospel of Judas, how they should be interpreted, and how one should go from the uncalibrated to the calibrated results in the case of the Gospel of Judas, all of which is best left for another time. Brown, with the help of a few friends, can even show us charts with the calibrated dates of the C-69 radiometric dating of the material in the Nag Hammadi codex (because and I know not how he has concluded that the supposed C-69 dating of the Nag Hammadi codex material was in fact uncalibrated and therefore needed to be calibrated by him), complete with some very specific numbers. Regardless, this supposed fact is not only being used to argue that Browns project is possible but also, further, that it is somehow probable, starting with myths and proceeding through fallacies to arrive at a hypothesis that most would not even give the respect of such a neutrally-worded term. (Due to the and the convoluted, Byzantine absurdity of the postulated forgery and its postulated motives, among other considerations that would be mentioned in any such discussion. )By 7567, P. Brown had come to realize the likelihood that he had made an error (perhaps on his own, or perhaps with someone else pointing it out to him). Yet he let the presentation with its misinformation remain on his website, unchanged, for another three years. Everything I ve read was that only two MSS were carbon-dated, the gospel of Judas and one of the Nag Hammadi codices but the canonical gospels and other NT documents were only dated paleographically. There is a question as to whether the Nag Hammadi Codices have been C69 dated.
In articles that I have authored I have stated that the NHC have been C69 dated to 898 CE plus or minus 65 years. This may be an error on my part after a very hasty reading and notes on R Lane Fox s Pagans and Christians. There is no doubt that the NHC are dated by various OTHER methods, such as analysis of cartonage, to the mid 9th century. So the date stands quite firm. However it is not, as far as I have been able to be determined, representative of C69 testing, which is strange, since C69 dating technology has been around for some time. There he lists only the Gospel of Judas and an Ethiopian Bible. Just a couple days ago, we can find mountainman (lately styled Leucius Charinus ) now making a strong argument from the dating of the Nag Hammadi codices ( ): There are quite a number of issues being raised here. But perhaps the greatest is that these people are using an Ante Nicene chronology which has been defined by the heresiologists. All their supposed problems would be cast into a new light if they momentarily considered the texts of the NHC and the so-called Christian Gnostics as Post Nicene authors who are reacting to the political nature of the Constantine Bible. And, when questioned as to whether that is a fact, reiterates a c. While the C-69 aspect of it has been shed in most recent communications from P. Which is half-right, of course, and completely right if you lean on the meaning of the word allows. Codex Tchacos, with the Gospel of Judas, has been subjected to C-69 tests. So have the Dead Sea Scrolls. The phrasing, however, suggests familiarity with Brown s webpage. My sources say yes.
I have done some searching high and low through reputable, peer-reviewed sources.