How late might the gospels be?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Bernard Muller »

How I dated 1 Clement:
http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html#1clement then "find" on: 5.2
They're pretty vague mentions
Not so about "Clement" referring to 1 Corinthians:

1Clem 47:1-4
"Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul.
What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?
Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties.
Yet that making of parties brought less sin upon you; for ye were partisans of Apostles that were highly reputed, and of a man approved in their sight.


Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by hakeem »

posted in error
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Charles Wilson »

hakeem wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:47 pm In addition, writings attributed to 2nd century writers like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Celsus, Municus Felix show no knowledge of the character called Paul, no knowledge of his supposed letters, no knowledge of the Pauline teachings of the resurrection, no knowledge of the Pauline teachings about the Second Coming and no knowledge of a character called Paul who preached to anyone in the Roman Empire.
Et tu, hakeemi?

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6329

""We hardly have original Islamic sources from the first two centuries of Islam," Kalisch observes in a German-language paper available on the Muenster University (website). It is fascinating reading, and since it is not yet available in English I take the liberty of translating or summarizing a few salient points. Responsibility for any errors of translation of interpretation is my own.

Kalisch continues, "And even when a source appears to come from this period, caution is required. The mere assertion that a source stems from the first or second century of the Islamic calendar means nothing. And even when a source actually was written in the first or second century, the question always remains of later manipulation. We do not tread on firm ground in the sources until the third Islamic century."

This, Kalisch observes, is extremely suspicious: how can a world religion have erupted in a virtual literary vacuum? A great religion, moreover, inevitably throws off heresies: where are the early Islamic heretics and Gnostics? Later Islamic theologians knew the titles of some of their works, but the content itself was lost. "The only explanation for the disappearance is that it had long since become unusable theologically," he alleges of certain Shi'ite sources.

Kalisch draws on the well-known work of Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds, whose criticism of the received version have a distinctly minority position in Koranic scholarship:

It is a striking fact that such documentary evidence as survives from the Sufnayid period makes no mention of the messenger of god at all. The papyri do not refer to him. The Arabic inscriptions of the Arab-Sasanian coins only invoke Allah, not his rasul [messenger]; and the Arab-Byzantine bronze coins on which Muhammad appears as rasul Allah, previously dated to the Sufyanid period, have not been placed in that of the Marwanids. Even the two surviving pre-Marwanid tombstones fail to mention the rasul.

The great scandal of Islamic tradition is the absence of Islamic formulations from coins and monuments dating from the its first two centuries, as well as the presence of material obviously incompatible with Islam. "Coins and inscriptions are incompatible with the Islamic writing of history," Kalisch concludes on the strength of older work, including Yehuda Nevo and Jutith Koren's..."


Therefore, etc., etc., etc...
***
The lack of "Historicity" in the NT stories is only the beginning. What follows from that fact? That is what is important. Again, to the believer, the NT *IS* History. There are no other "facts". The "List" of non-historical events given above is not the point. AS DESCRIPTIONS, the events are manifestly non-historical. So, what?

We have 2 Supersessionist religions that are suspect at their origins. Both exhibit similar flaws but that is a bit tangential. To me, the Historical aspect of the problem is important. The Hasmoneans, Jannaeus and the Mishmarot Priesthood have been submerged to tell about a "New Religion" that arose. Why? The material that explains what we have is on the ground and in the history we have.

CW
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:17 pm to Hakeem,
'1 Clement', usually accepted to have been written in the 1st century, mentions Paul and some of his letters.
Early in the 2nd century, the Naassenes also mentioned Paul and quoted Romans 1:27 (a very long verse) and
Basilides (120-140) also mentioned Paul and quoted at least one phrase from Paul's epistle 'Romans' (http://historical-jesus.info/64.html).
Actually, Justin quoted a verse in gLuke, deemed to be an interpolation including a phrase from 1 Corinthians (11:23-25), which is part of a passage (1 Cor 11:23-28 http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adb) considered also an interpolation (by some critical scholars and myself).
Marcion, around 130 CE, made extensive use of Paul's epistles (including some pseudo-Pauline ones). He worked on epistles which already had been combined (by others than Paul).

You are wrong into thinking that the relevant found manuscripts had to be written right after the Pauline epistles and Acts. It is more likely to be copies made well after the original texts.

Cordially, Bernard
The supposed 1 Clement was admitted to be written by the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome was initiated in the 4th century.

The character called Clement bishop of Rome was manufactured as it can be easily shown that not even the Church writers knew when the supposed Clement was Bishop.

Some said Clement was the first Bishop after Peter, Some say he was second. Some say he was third. Some say he was Bishop c 68 CE. Some say he was Bishop c 95 CE.

There were no Christians called Bishops in the 1st century.

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr and Lucian show that leader of the Christian Church was called President.

See Justin's First Apology and Lucian;s Death of Peregrine."

1st Clement is a forgery or false attribution invented no earlier then the 4th century.

In addition, Justin Martyr could not have used gLuke since he [ Justin] specifically made references to the Memoirs of the APOSTLES.

The supposed author called Luke was not known as an Apostle in Christian writings.

Justin's First Apology
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things
Justin's First Apology
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;".....

Justin could not have used the Epistles of Paul when he Justin specifically stated that it was twelve illiterate men who preached the Gospel to ALL the world.

Justin's First Apology
For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God...
The so-called Paul and his Epistles were invented after the writings attributed to Justin, after Celsus, after Josephus, the Gospels and after Acts of the Apostles.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Bernard Muller »

The supposed 1 Clement was admitted to be written by the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome was initiated in the 4th century.
There were Christians in Rome since the first century, according to Paul & Tacitus. Together, they formed a church, just like the one in Corinth then: "The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, ..." (1 Clement prologue)
The character called Clement bishop of Rome was manufactured as it can be easily shown that not even the Church writers knew when the supposed Clement was Bishop.
The letter does not say its author is Clement, or a bishop. The author is only a spokesman for the Christians of Rome.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:40 am
The supposed 1 Clement was admitted to be written by the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome was initiated in the 4th century.
There were Christians in Rome since the first century, according to Paul & Tacitus. Together, they formed a church, just like the one in Corinth then: "The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, ..." (1 Clement prologue)
There is no actual letter from Clement. The so-called 1st Clement letter is admitted to have been from the Church of Rome which was initiated in the 4th century.


The so-called Clement letter does not state anywhere that it was written in the 1st century, does not state anywhere that the Epistle of the supposed Paul was written in the 1st century or before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and does not state anywhere that there were Christians in the 1st century or before c 70 CE.

In addition, there is no manuscript of the so-called 1st Clement dated to the 1st century.

Examine the opening line of the so-called 1st Clement.
The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

The character called Clement bishop of Rome was manufactured as it can be easily shown that not even the Church writers knew when the supposed Clement was Bishop.
Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:40 am The letter does not say its author is Clement, or a bishop. The author is only a spokesman for the Christians of Rome.

Cordially, Bernard

The so-called Clement letter is of unknown authorship and unknown date of composition so In effect, the so-called Clement letter is utterly useless to determine when the Epistle mentioned was composed.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:13 pm
Matthew would seem to repeat it with even more urgency. Does that mean Matthew also had to have been written perhaps only months or a year or so after Mark?

We are told that Matthew revised Mark's baptism episode to explain away a supposed embarrassment in the original account. What signs are there that Matthew did something similar with Mark's little apocalypse?
It is very subtle:
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days" (Mt 24:29a):
The great tribulation of the Jews (following the disastrous events of 70C.E.) is generally considered to have lasted up to around 85-90C.E. At that time, Judaism had been reorganized by well esteemed Pharisaic rabbis (Mt 5:20a,23:2-3a,7 <=> Josephus Ant., XVIII, I, 3).
Note: "Matthew" did not call Jerusalem siege & destruction in 70C.E. a time of tribulation, as "Mark" did.
"For then there will be [in the future] great tribulation, ... (Mt 24:21 RSV)
“"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, ... (Mt 24:29 RSV)
to be compared with:
For in those days there will be such tribulation ... (Mk 13:19 RSV) (those days are the one of the fall of Jerusalem & soon after)
"But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, ... (Mk 13:24 RSV).

It is not ultra-clear, but it is obvious "Matthew" took the trouble to revise gMark wording on a very critical point.
That is probably too subtle. The adverb τότε normally means "then" in the sense of it being "at that time," with reference to the time frame just mentioned. For example:

Genesis 12.6: 6 And Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. Now the Canaanite was then [τότε, RSV "at that time"] in the land.

It is not that Abram passed through the land and then afterward the Canaanites were there. Rather, he passed through the land at the same time as the Canaanites were there.

Classical usage pretty much stops there for our purposes. By NT times τότε could mean "then" in the sense of "next" or "thereupon" or "thereafter," but I am unable to come up with any examples in which it implies anything but a fairly immediate consequence. Matthew 4.1, for example, uses τότε to tell us when Jesus was tempted in the desert, and especially given that Mark 1.12 says that it was immediately after the baptism there is no reason to interpose a delay in Matthew, either.

In short, there is nothing preventing the reader of Matthew 24.21 from taking it exactly as we must take Mark 13.19: "at that time" or "in those days" just mentioned there will be a great tribulation. If Matthew meant to signal something different, he chose a pretty poor word to signal it with.

His change of vocabulary is probably just a matter of personal preference, τότε being one of his favorite words; I count 89 instances (!) in Matthew (as opposed to only 6 in Mark, 15 in Luke, and 10 in John). It is practically a verbal tic of his.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Secret Alias »

Tangent alert:

For those who care about these things (mystical traditions) - from the founder of Samaritanism (no not Moses, Mark):
Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD [Exodus 15.1 the Song]
Marqe in Mimar Marqe II.7 starts with the first two words in Hebrew
אָז יָשר
and then in Greek:
τότε ᾖσε
Marqe then points out in how many different ways the number eight can be demonstrated as being present here starting with the Aramaic form of 'then' in the Targum:
טטעַ
This has a value of 88 (= 70 + 9 + 9)

Then he points out that 'then' in Hebrew אָז has a value of 8 (= 7 + 1)

Marqe also keeps mentioning the Sabbath and the start of Creation but no one has ever been able to figure out what the great kabbalistic secret he is revealing to his readers. I am certain he is interested in the very Christian understanding of the 'revelation of the ogdoad' - i.e. the number 8:
אָ + ז = 8
ט + ט + עַ = 88
Now Marqe must have noticed than 'then' in Greek i.e. τότε only adds up to 675:
675 = τ (300) + o (70) + τ (300) + ε (5)
But the whole phrase 'then sang' in Greek actually adds up to the magical number 888:
888 = τ (300) + o (70) + τ (300) + ε (5) + ᾖ (8) + σ (200) + ε (5) = 888
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
By NT times τότε could mean "then" in the sense of "next" or "thereupon" or "thereafter," but I am unable to come up with any examples in which it implies anything but a fairly immediate consequence. Matthew 4.1, for example, uses τότε to tell us when Jesus was tempted in the desert, and especially given that Mark 1.12 says that it was immediately after the baptism there is no reason to interpose a delay in Matthew, either.
It seems to me that when 'Matthew" used a verb with a future tense after 'tote', that 'tote' means "next".
See Mt 12:29, 16:27, 13:43, 24:9,10,23,30(2),40, 25:31,34,37,41,44,45. 25:1 is odd.

As for Mt 4:1, the 'tote' can also be understood as "next", that is introducing an action which follows the preceding one.
In short, there is nothing preventing the reader of Matthew 24.21 from taking it exactly as we must take Mark 13.19: "at that time" or "in those days" just mentioned there will be a great tribulation. If Matthew meant to signal something different, he chose a pretty poor word to signal it with.

Or clever "Matthew" did not want to linguistically depart too much from gMark on that critical point.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:45 am to Ben,
By NT times τότε could mean "then" in the sense of "next" or "thereupon" or "thereafter," but I am unable to come up with any examples in which it implies anything but a fairly immediate consequence. Matthew 4.1, for example, uses τότε to tell us when Jesus was tempted in the desert, and especially given that Mark 1.12 says that it was immediately after the baptism there is no reason to interpose a delay in Matthew, either.
It seems to me that when 'Matthew" used a verb with a future tense after 'tote', that 'tote' means "next".
See Mt 12:29, 16:27, 13:43, 24:9,10,23,30(2),40, 25:31,34,37,41,44,45. 25:1 is odd.

As for Mt 4:1, the 'tote' can also be understood as "next", that is introducing an action which follows the preceding one.
In short, there is nothing preventing the reader of Matthew 24.21 from taking it exactly as we must take Mark 13.19: "at that time" or "in those days" just mentioned there will be a great tribulation. If Matthew meant to signal something different, he chose a pretty poor word to signal it with.

Or clever "Matthew" did not want to linguistically depart too much from gMark on that critical point.
The main point is that the adverb does not introduce any real period of time. It does not look like Matthew was extending anything. That adverb, τότε, is not a great choice for extending time. I think that you are off the track mindreading Matthew like that; as I pointed out, τότε is one of his favorite words.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply