The Myth of Nag Hammadi's Carbon Dating

[Leucius Charinus]

In scholarship, there are some things that are known to be true, some things that are known to be false, some things that are simply unknown (whether true or false), and some matters of opinion and speculation that are keenly debated. 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 have been examined with C-14 radiometric dating.

http://peterkirby.com/nag-hammadi-carbo ... -myth.html

I don't think you're going to like this essay very much, Pete...

As it turns out there were in fact C14 radiometric dating results from the physical material in the Nag Hammadi Library (as indicated above).

You're quoting something from 2015. At that time, there weren't.

But that's my point. There were. Brent Nongbri lists 2014

Before 2014–date of analysis uncertain] Gospel of Jesus Wife and Associated Fragment. Gregory Hodgins, “Accelerated Mass Spectrometry Radiocarbon Determination of Papyrus Samples,” Harvard Theological Review 107 (2014) 166-169 and Noreen Tuross, “Accelerated Mass Spectrometry Radiocarbon Determination of Papyrus Samples,” Harvard Theological Review 107 (2014) 170-171. The report of Hodgins lists many other papyrus manuscripts (mostly Pharaonic) that have been subjected to radiocarbon analysis.

2014. Papyrus amulet with a Christian prayer. Roberta Mazza, “P.Ryl. Greek Add. 1166: Christian Prayer Amulet with a Tax Receipt on the Back,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 197 (2016) 73-84.

2014. Crosby-Schøyen Codex. Hugo Lundhaug, “The Date of MS 193 in the Schøyen Collection: New Radiocarbon Evidence,” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 57 (2020) 219-234.

2014. Nag Hammadi Codex I. Hugo Lundhaug, “Dating and Contextualising the Nag Hammadi Codices and their Texts: A Multi-methodological Approach Including New Radiocarbon Evidence,” pages 117-142 in J. Verheyden, J. Schröter, T. Nicklas (eds.), Texts in Context (Leuven: Peeters, 2021).

2014. Wyman Fragment of Romans. Daniel Stevens, “The Wyman Fragment: A New Edition and Analysis with Radiocarbon Dating,” New Testament Studies 68 (2022) 431-444.

Radiocarbon Analysis of Papyrus and Parchment Manuscripts: A List
https://brentnongbri.com/2023/02/22/rad ... ts-a-list/

IDK for sure but it seems likely to me that the tests were conducted, or there was a report of the tests being conducted, but the results seem never to have been published. The C14 results indicate that the NHL are among the earliest discovered physical manuscripts related to Christian origins, and that their chronology conforms with the Codex Tchacos containing the "Gospel of Judas".


the Secret Book of John

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/a ... njohn.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocryphon_of_John

If this is the case then it may follow that the Secret Book of John was the "most popular" Christian tractate - there being multiple ancient copies extant. But I have serious doubts as to whether we can simply pronounce it to have been composed by a Christian in order to be understood by a Christian audience in the mid to late 4th century.

The NHL and the "Gospel of Judas" are time-capsules ostensibly from antiquity. Without physical manuscripts from before the middle ages we can certainly argue about the chronology of the Ante Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. But we can't argue with the C14 dating. Something "Christian" was happening during the Christian revolution of the 4th century (which I define to be approx. 324-381 CE).

What more precisely was the Christianity (or indeed Chrestianity) like at that time? And how was orthodox Chrestianity historically differentiated from Arian Chrestianity? This makes me think that we are dealing with a massive political / religious / social / philosophical / literary controversy.

[Peter Kirby]

In scholarship, there are some things that are known to be true, some things that are known to be false, some things that are simply unknown (whether true or false), and some matters of opinion and speculation that are keenly debated. 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 have been examined with C-14 radiometric dating.

http://peterkirby.com/nag-hammadi-carbo ... -myth.html

I don't think you're going to like this essay very much, Pete...

As it turns out there were in fact C14 radiometric dating results from the physical material in the Nag Hammadi Library (as indicated above).

You're quoting something from 2015. At that time, there weren't [... anything published, anway...].

But that's my point. There were. Brent Nongbri lists 2014

What is your point, though?

From the looks of it, there was testing in 2014, and it wasn't published until well after I wrote that blog post.

I do recall doing my due diligence here and doing a search for relevant literature when I wrote my post.

[Leucius Charinus]

What is your point, though?

From the looks of it, there was testing in 2014, and it wasn't published until well after I wrote that blog post.

In scholarship, (as you wrote)

1) there are some things that are known to be true,
2) some things that are known to be false,
3) some things that are simply unknown (whether true or false), and
4) some matters of opinion and speculation that are keenly debated.
5) 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 have been examined with C-14 radiometric dating.

My point is that in this particular case we are dealing with an assertion I made in 2006 which I admitted in 2012 and afterwards to be an honest mistake. It was not something I knew to be false.

THUS

6) But there are also things which are mistakenly asserted to be true as at a certain date which are false at that date yet as time moves on they actually become factual and true. Not because the earlier assertion was correct but because new evidence is discovered such that the original assertion - although erroneous at the time - now becomes true.

I do recall doing my due diligence here and doing a search for relevant literature when I wrote my post.

I have always accepted that you do due diligence. I aspire to do the same and if I make mistakes I have been happy to admit to them. But the myth of Nag Hammadi's Carbon Dating for which I was responsible from 2006 ceased to be a myth in 2014.

[Peter Kirby]

I guess you're looking for vindication, and maybe you have it in your own eyes.

People who commented on the essay liked how it explored how a false notion (the "urban legend" or "myth") developed.

You still invented data out of thin air.

Remember this?

[Leucius Charinus]

I guess you're looking for vindication, and maybe you have it in your own eyes.

I'm looking for the historical truth about the texts in the NHL. Contrary to modern scholarship I believe the historical truth is to be associated with the scientific C14 dates rather than the heresiological "Fathers" of ecclesiastical history. The C14 dates point to a post Nicene epoch.

People who commented on the essay liked how it explored how a false notion (the "urban legend" or "myth") developed.

In this case it developed from an honest mistake.

You still invented data out of thin air.

Remember this?

The 348 CE date was not invented. It is plastered across all the studies of the NHL as the earliest possible date determined from cartonnage. The date occurs 16 times in Hugo LUNDHAUG's article.

Remember that in 2006 A. J. Tim Jull, director of the National Science Foundation-Arizona AMS Laboratory wrote the following completely illogical statement about the 220-340 CE C14 date for the Gospel of Judas:

"All five samples, remarkably, are the same age," Jull said. "All date to the third to fourth century, clearly before the Council of Nicaea, which presumably would have suppressed such a document."

The experiment was conducted in 2005 and the final report AFAIK has still not been released.

[Peter Kirby]

You still invented data out of thin air.

Remember this?

The 348 CE date was not invented. It is plastered across all the studies of the NHL as the earliest possible date determined from cartonnage.

So I'm right here

[Peter Kirby]

People who commented on the essay liked how it explored how a false notion (the "urban legend" or "myth") developed.

In this case it developed from an honest mistake.

The story of how it developed is the substance of the old blog post:

In reply to this quote from P. R. F. Brown (June 8, 2006):

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?

A response came from rlogan, who asks (June 8, 2006):

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?

P. R. F. Brown writes in reply (June 10, 2006):

AFAIK the carbon dating of the Nag Hammadi literature which is purported to be relevant to the “New and Strange Testament”, is to a period after the Council of Nicaean (325 CE).

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. R. F. Brown by mentioning the “Nag Hammadi finds.” Nothing more specific than “after the Council of Nicaean (325 CE)” is said here. The legend was soon to take on more particular shape.

Five days later, P. R. F. Brown comes out swinging with a particular date of his own in reply to a particular claim by rlogan, who wrote (June 15, 2006):

The Nag Hammadi finds have, for example, third century texts.

The date of “c. 360 CE” enters here (June 15, 2006):

Since the Nag Hammadi finds are carbon dated c.360 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.

Later the same day, this claim is repeated, along with signs that the carbon dating of the Gospel of Judas manuscript (which is a historical fact) has been influencing the legend’s memory regarding the Nag Hammadi Library and leading the first tradents of the legend to assign a C-14 result to Nag Hammadi similarly (June 15, 2006):

I have already (perhaps elsewhere) posted that I am aware of only two valid carbon dated results in respect of NT manuscripts:

1) Nag Hammadi – dated by the bindings to c.360 CE (and I dont have any error bars for this one).

2) The recent GJudas – dated 280 CE (+/- 60 years)

Like the earlier “fifth century” form of the legend, it was immediately challenged, but that did not prevent this form from promulgating (“yummyfur” on June 15, 2006):

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 “350 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 (July 26, 2006):

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:

1) Binding on the text – gospel of Thomas (to 350 CE)
2) Binding on the recent gospel Judas (to 280 CE +/- 60 years)

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 350 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. 360 CE” with a grave mark of uncertainty over it (August 28, 2006):

It should be noted that there are 2 relevant datings:

1) Nag Hammadi, c.360 CE (gThomas & binding??)
2) LOCATION, c.280 CE (+/- 60 years), (gJudas).

Early the next year, it remains 360 CE, but without any indication of uncertainty (February 21, 2007):

The carbon dating citation (360 CE) for the binding of a ms of the gThomas is one of only two known C14 citations related to NT literature.

By mid-2007, the dating had shifted back again to “350 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 (June 26, 2007):

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:

1) Binding on the text – gospel of Thomas (to 350 CE)
2) Binding on the recent gospel Judas (to 280 CE +/- 60 years)

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. R. F. 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-14 dating of a codex of the Nag Hammadi Library, a belief which was held already as early as June/July of 2006, prior to reading this book. Brown makes the note (on August 3, 2007 or before):

Bindings of the codices carbon-dated to 348 CE.

While reading through Fox’s book. The original text of Robin Lane Fox read, however (Pagans and Christians, p. 414):

“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 348.”

The reference to “materials” (interpreted as physical materials by Brown and thus supporting his belief in a C-14 dating), “bindings,” “padding,” and dating sufficed. For Brown, this was a citation regarding the C-14 dating of the bindings of a codex of the Nag Hammadi Library. Brown would go on believing this (and repeating this) for several years.

It was all "honest" and certainly a "mistake," but not all honest mistakes are equal.

[Peter Kirby]

I understand it was long ago now, and I didn't want to re-litigate this, but if you really meant this:

I have always accepted that you do due diligence. I aspire to do the same and if I make mistakes I have been happy to admit to them.

There would be no pushback here at all. You would acknowledge that one of the mistakes was inventing data about carbon dating that did not exist.

[ebion]

In this case it developed from an honest mistake.

They're cited in (thanks LC):
https://brentnongbri.com/2023/02/22/radiocarbon-analysis-of-papyrus-and-parchment-manuscripts-a-list/

2014. Nag Hammadi Codex I. Hugo Lundhaug, “Dating and Contextualising the Nag Hammadi Codices and their Texts: A Multi-methodological Approach Including New Radiocarbon Evidence,” pages 117-142 in J. Verheyden, J. Schröter, T. Nicklas (eds.), Texts in Context (Leuven: Peeters, 2021).