Most Manuscripts are not Primary Sources

[StephenGoranson]

Some NT-related non-canonical texts postdate the fourth century.
And, for your preferred date range, you abandon your otherwise-declared hard and fast "rule"--never to assume an earlier date than that of a known dated manuscript.
So that terminus is bogus.

Some NT-related non-canonical texts predate 325. For example, Gospel of Thomas.
To say of relevant Oxyrhynchus papyri that "Arguably all this material is all late" is on the level of "I want that to be so."
So that terminus is bogus.

Both limits, bogus.

[Leucius Charinus]

WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE SAY?:
What are the dates of the physical remnants of NT
apocryphal manuscripts so far actually discovered ?

(1) Papyri fragments from Oxyrhynchus :
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Apocr ... papyri.htm
Arguably all this material is all late.

(2) Complete or partial Codices from Egypt: These include the NHL, Tchacos, Qarara, Akhmim, Askew, Bruce, etc. All these codices are from the 4th century or later.

Some NT-related non-canonical texts postdate the fourth century.

It is generally accepted that practically all (at least a great majority) of these NT-related non-canonical texts pre-date the fifth century. Let's start with this dominant slab of texts. Perhaps there were some NT-related non-canonical texts authored after what I have referred to as an "avalanche" of NT-related non-canonical texts precipitated by the NT/LXX Bible codex circulated by the Pontifex Maximus c.325 CE.

And, for your preferred date range, you abandon your otherwise-declared hard and fast "rule"--never to assume an earlier date than that of a known dated manuscript. So that terminus is bogus.

You are forgetting that the alternative theory is dealing with three sets of Christian literature: NTC, NTA and EH. The theory is attempting to discover the historical truth concerning the chronological relationships between these three sets. These sets are more or less independent although there will be some small overlaps.

The "rule" --never to assume an earlier date than that of a known dated manuscript is first applied to these sets. We have NTC stuff from the 4th century. We have NTA stuff from the 4th century. No worries.

We do not have EH stuff (heresiological literature of Irenaeus and the "Fathers") until the 11th-15th century. So I flag this set as "suss". It does not have the quality of referential integrity that is exhibited by the first two sets NTC and NTA.

We can say for sure that the NTC and NTA existed in the 4th century because of the 4th century physical evidence. We can't say the same thing about EH - heresiological literature. (and as advised a long time ago I reject P.Oxy 405 as "certain" evidence for Irenaeus).

What you are referring to above are elements of the NTA set: NT-related non-canonical texts for which we do not have any early physical manuscripts. A 4th century terminus for these can be supported because many other elements in the set do show conformity with a 4th century earliest date. Ditto for NTC material. But not so for EH (heresiology) material.


RE: Oxyrhynchus papyri and gThomas

Some NT-related non-canonical texts predate 325. For example, Gospel of Thomas. To say of relevant Oxyrhynchus papyri that "Arguably all this material is all late" is on the level of "I want that to be so."

OTOH some paleographers observe that "the drive to have older and older Christian manuscripts, however, shows no signs of abating". So someone has to represent the loyal opposition. You must have read the scholarship SG about this "pendulum of opinion" related to earlier and earlier dating?

The estimated dates for the Gospel of Thomas fragments via paleography in isolation are 3rd century:

• p.oxy.654 3rd century Prologue and logoi 1-7

• p.oxy.655 3rd century logoi 24, 36-39

• p.oxy.1 3rd century logoi 26-33, 77a

These estimations should be expressed with upper and lower bounds. Both of these bounds are the subject of debate. Arguments have been made with respect to the upper bounds (of other manuscripts, not the gThomas mss) to the effect that they are not realistic. And that 4th century upper bounds should also be included in the estimates on the basis of comparanda already dated to the 4th century.

Therefore setting a latest possible date for the Gospel of Thomas in the 3rd century based on the upper bounds assigned paleographically to these three fragments (above) may itself be bogus. Some paleographers question the degree of certainty which can associated with these current estimates. So it's not just me.

[StephenGoranson]

but
just you

[Leucius Charinus]

We have own opinions - someone once said - but not our own facts. And it is facts, is it not, that in the search for early christian origins, are in short supply.

Yes MH that is certainly the case.

"History is no epic, history is no novel, history is no propaganda because in these literary genres control of the evidence is optional, not compulsory.
~ Arnaldo Momigliano, The rhetoric of history, Comparative Criticism, p. 260

For the 1st and 2nd century there is for Christian origins an exceedingly short supply of primary sources of evidence (manuscripts and archeology). One might even say the shortness of the supply approaches a vacuum.

OTOH there is a relative glut of secondary sources of evidence for the same period; for example a glut of medieval manuscripts of the Ante Nicene fathers. Our "facts" about Marcion and his literature are derived from the latter.

AFAIK the earliest primary source evidence related to Marcion is this:

The meeting-house of the Marcionites, in the village of Lebaba, of the Lord and Saviour IS the Good - Erected by the forethought of Paul a presbyter, in the year 630 Seleucid era (i.e. 318 CE)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Ali

[Leucius Charinus]

Manuscripts of the "Fathers" are Secondary Sources not Primary Sources

The writings of the church fathers are evidence of early Christianity but IMHO they certainly do not represent primary sources of evidence. These writings of the church fathers - in the form of physical artefactual manuscripts - are all from the medieval period and thus not contemporaneous with the (say) 2nd century.

The logic of this proposition relates to the standard definitions of historical source classifications and seems to me to be obvious and sound. But perhaps I am missing something and if there are people out there who can see what I am missing then please speak up. I could be wrong in this.

There is a significant difference between primary sources of evidence and secondary sources of evidence when it comes down to writing a history. This difference is expressed here:

Significance of source classification

History

In scholarly writing, an important objective of classifying sources is to determine their independence and reliability.[5] In contexts such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources."[6] Sreedharan believes that primary sources have the most direct connection to the past and that they "speak for themselves" in ways that cannot be captured through the filter of secondary sources.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source#History

So supposing we are trying to write a history of Christian origins for the first two centuries. What does the history of Christianity (the NT writings and the "Universal Church") in the early centuries look like if we stay only with the primary sources of evidence as advised in the above quote?