Gospel of Judas: Radiocarbon Age Results

[Peter Kirby]

Oh dear, oh dear.

I do seem to be picking on Pete lately.

I have done as much digging as I can (without obtaining more exact references from the horse's mouth) regarding the C-14 dating of Codex Tchacos.

Here are my results:

http://peterkirby.com/gospel-of-judas-r ... sults.html

They don't really agree with Pete's (though someone must be credited for raising the initial question, of course).

An alternative interpretation has been suggested, which has none of the advantages (in terms of explaining the particulars of the material found in Krosney's book) of the one proposed above. It also has several disadvantages.

It proceeds from the completely unwarranted and unreasonable assumption that the "280 CE" figure used by National Geographic refers to an uncalibrated conventional radiocarbon age.
It tends to assume (whether explicitly or not) something very close either to a conspiracy or incompetence on the part of the team.
It arrives at a graph that contradicts the statements of the team about the results, due to the fact this "alternative" involves a relatively high probability of a fifth century dating.
It also assumes that the famous "+/- 60 years" is for an uncalibrated conventional radiocarbon age range (which is within one standard deviation, i.e., a 1-sigma interval), even though Krosney lists five actual "plus or minus" figures for the individual fragments, without any of them having the number 60,
and without any of them being centered on a radiocarbon age of 1670 ["280 CE"] (although the uncalibrated radiocarbon age of a single fragment, just the second one, does miss this by two years with its 1672 RCYBP),
and even though the account from Krosney specifically explains the 280 CE +/- 60 years range (originally stated as a range "between" 220 and 340 CE and not necessarily implying a normal distribution) as being the result of additional computation, from the calibrated ages,
and being stated at a "95 percent confidence," implying a 2-sigma interval, which is not used when representing a conventional radiocarbon age (instead, a 1-sigma interval corresponding to the range within a single standard deviation is used).

That's not even the interesting part, IMO.

I strongly suggest (without definitively proving---that'll take a quote from Jull and his team before all the data goes to rot somehow) that it is not too hard to locate the actual data in the lines of Krosney's book... and that's the most interesting part, IMO.

[slevin]

Perhaps other, new myths will arise out of other, newly-misinterpreted references? Time will tell

Thank you for the interesting historical background on the subject of radiocarbon dating of the Gospel of Judas and other texts from Nag Hammadi.

The notion that an error led to an "urban legend", is reasonable in my opinion. However, to equate that "urban legend" with "myth" is incorrect.

Myths alone, not legends, involve supernatural deities, as spin has noted in the archives. We tend to interchange "legend" and "myth", in ordinary conversation, but they are not synonyms, as he had explained.

Regarding the underlying issue: establishing the date of these ancient Coptic manuscripts, I do not understand why it is significant, whether they were copied (or translated), in the third, fourth, or fifth century. Could you elaborate on that point? Let's imagine, irrespective of the exact radiocarbon date of the papyrus, that ink had been placed on the papyrus in the early third century. Alternatively, early fifth century.

Two dates, two eras. How would an early, third century date, versus a late, fifth century date, change our assessment of the text itself? Whether third, or fifth century, to pick the two extremes, had not Christianity, in its many flavors, already spread throughout the Roman Empire, by the early third century? Do we possess extant versions of ancient manuscripts by authors from that time period, acknowledging the same texts found in the jar in the Egyptian desert? Is there not controversy regarding Irenaeus' denunciation of gJudas, as to whether or not the Latin translation of his text corresponds to the Coptic translation found in Codex Tchacos? We lack the original Greek version, of either text.

In other words, while analysis of various carbon dating issues is not without merit, it appears to me, at least, relatively insignificant, comparing the degree of precision sought with mass spectrometry, with the ambiguity of the underlying texts, and their interpretation, with respect to identifying the forces sculpting earliest Christianity.

http://www.radiocarbon.com/accelerator- ... ometry.htm

[Peter Kirby]

The notion that an error led to an "urban legend", is reasonable in my opinion. However, to equate that "urban legend" with "myth" is incorrect.

Myths alone, not legends, involve supernatural deities, as spin has noted in the archives. We tend to interchange "legend" and "myth", in ordinary conversation, but they are not synonyms, as he had explained.

Yes, yes, yes.

I can show you my poetic license if it is completely necessary, officer.

Regarding the underlying issue: establishing the date of these ancient Coptic manuscripts, I do not understand why it is significant, whether they were copied (or translated), in the third, fourth, or fifth century. Could you elaborate on that point? Let's imagine, irrespective of the exact radiocarbon date of the papyrus, that ink had been placed on the papyrus in the early third century. Alternatively, early fifth century.

Two dates, two eras. How would an early, third century date, versus a late, fifth century date, change our assessment of the text itself?

It may or may not be "significant," but in any case we'd be foolish to allow false assumptions, whether we consider them "significant" or not at the time.

It also has some measure of intrinsic interest, completely apart from our interest in the original gJudas text. Some are interested in the codex itself.

[perseusomega9]

Had the text been paleographically dated?

[Peter Kirby]

Distinguishing precisely between a third century and fourth century Coptic hand may be difficult, given that Coptic was being developed as a written language during these very centuries (less samples that can be dated by other means, and perhaps not much detectable difference in the script of the writing from the third century to the next). The paleographic assessment, therefore, did not help secure a more-exact third century date, although it did mitigate against much later dates and against forgery.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostg ... paleo.html

Stephen Emmel, professor of Coptic studies at Germany's University of Munster, analyzed the Gospel of Judas and submitted the following assessment.

"The kind of writing reminds me very much of the Nag 'Hammadi codices," he wrote, referring to a famed collection of ancient manuscripts.

"It's not identical script with any of them. But it's a similar type of script, and since we date the Nag 'Hammadi codices to roughly the second half of the fourth century or the first part of the fifth century, my immediate inclination would be to say that the Gospel of Judas was written by a scribe in that same period, let's say around the year 400."

(On the other hand, some paleographic experts [sorry, citation needed] considered that the NHL and its paleography itself may be representative of the late third or early fourth century, so even if the point of comparison is valid, and I don't see that it shouldn't be, the absolute chronological conclusion of "the year 400" would not necessarily follow... nor, indeed, would either one be proven, relatively, before or after the other, just as part of the same period...)

Don't hold me to this, however. Maybe someone's done more since Emmel.

[slevin]

Had the text been paleographically dated?

What I'd be interested in is why apparently no early non-christian papyrus from Oxyrhynchus has been carbon dated, but I'd guess that it had to do with palaeography.

http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... l?t=256694
(thanks, Peter)

Two small points:
a. Coptic manuscripts have not been unearthed, so far as I am aware, at Oxyrhynchus. Without a vast storehouse of ancient documents, at least some of which are securely dated, by text reference to events, such as one finds in the documents recovered at that trash dump site in Egypt, it would be difficult to date these Coptic manuscripts by handwriting.

b. Handwriting is much less accurate than establishing the age of the papyrus plants, just prior to harvest. As Ben C. Smith pointed out, in a comment, critical of Pete's question regarding the evidence from Dura Europos, in the archives, on this issue, it is possible to use old papyrus, to create "new" documents, a century or more, after the plants have been harvested. So, even if we could reasonably date the Coptic codices paleaographically, it is not clear to me, that this evidence would trump that from mass spectrometry.

[arnoldo]

FWIW, Irenaeus in AH mentions a Gospel Judas which may help to date it.

Chapter XXXI.-Doctrines of the Cainites.

Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book1.html

[Peter Kirby]

Certainly it is an important consideration towards dating the original text, arnoldo.

[arnoldo]

Certainly it is an important consideration towards dating the original text, arnoldo.

With respect to the ink used in the extant Gospel of Judas this study dates it to approximately A.D. 280.

[Peter Kirby]

With respect to the ink used in the extant Gospel of Judas this study dates it to approximately A.D. 280.

Interesting, although the wording "consistent with" does qualify such a statement, yet...

The black was an ink called "lamp black," which was consistent with the inks used in Egyptian writings from ancient times and into the third century, Barabe said.

But the brown ink was more mysterious. It was an iron-rich ink called iron gall, but it lacked the sulfur usually found in inks of this sort. The pressure was on to explain the difference.

That study found that contracts in Egypt in the mid-third century were written in lamp black ink, in the traditional Egyptian style. But they were officially registered in the traditional Greek style, using brown iron gall ink.

What's more, the Louvre study found that the metal-based inks from this time period contained little sulfur, just like the ink on the Gospel of Judas.

The Louvre study findings suggested to the teamthat the presence of both inks was consistent with an early date for the Gospel of Judas, Barabe said.

The discovery gave the researchers the confidence to declare the document consistent with a date of approximately A.D. 280.

Perhaps it is possible to create a diachronic account of the changing inks of ancient Egypt, which would then give us a period in which a given type of ink was used. Doesn't seem too different from paleographic methods, philosophically. ... Assuming that we don't believe that different ink compositions would recur haphazardly throughout history.

Thanks for mentioning this.

The specific mention of the year 280 should be clarified as stemming strictly from the C-14 dating team, and Jull specifically, however.