Carbon dating four gospels
Carbon dating results, when expressed in a single number, give an a specific date. Fox (, between 348 CE and 541 CE (given that a time lapse anywhere between three weeks and two hundred years is known to occur).No, I saw it when looking at the peculiarity of that very particular number: 348. It turns out that this particular date has some basis in fact, although it is not a radiometric dating, and it has nothing to do (directly) with the Coptic manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas or its codex, Codex II. Figuring out the median of the probability distribution of its dating is complex, given the presence of three (or four, as we will see) fragments, but simple arithmetic might show that it would lie between 366 CE and 373 CE (adding 25 years to 341 CE and 348 CE, respectively), if not slightly older (given that the 25 years figure above is an average and not a median).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-14 radiometric dating. Day Brown wrote (August 3, 2001): 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 14 dating of the Nag Hammadi codices. Brown himself as a consideration; it is used in reply to another person, who challenges P. The legend was soon to take on more particular shape. 2) The recent GJudas – dated 280 CE ( /- 60 years) 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.Roger Pearse replies (August 4, 2001): This early “fifth century” form of the legend does not recur much, if at all, but in 2006, 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. Brown (June 8, 2006): This is the oldest dated sighting of the “fourth century” form (AKA the “mountainman” form) of the legend. 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”).However, I did not take years to figure out that it was completely false.I didn’t find out by looking at the internal inconsistency, although there is one, in some forms of the myth, i.e., the ones that hew closely to the supposed citation in Fox’s book.
The Myth Becomes Mythical Data 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 325 CE. 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. Possibly because it is talking about something nobody else is, so it gets a lot of links.Adding any other factors into consideration in dating this codex (other than these dated papyri) would add yet more complexity.But this is just the date for Codex VII specifically, not for all the Nag Hammadi codices, which must not be simply assumed to have been produced in the very same year or even the very same decade. The book itself provides a discussion of all four fragments found in the covers of Codex VII (pp. Nobody knows what the future might hold, of course.There was some pushback at first, but apparently the repetition of the legend, along with increasing amounts of detail and certainty expressed, helped the myth to survive so long.
For a moment, I almost believed it, in the conversations taking place on the Biblical Criticism & History forum.Brown makes the note (on August 3, 2007 or before): 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.