Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:55 am
The starting point of my question is the dating probably prevailing among scholars, namely to the years 69/70
--> What would be a likely late date or a late terminus ad quem? How far would you seriously go?
--> And what are your arguments?
(Can you give another argument if your main argument would be the certainty that Mark was written after Marcion or after another „heretic“ of the second century and shows an anti-marcionite view.)
Inasmuch as I would like to contribute, I will not go near this can of worms.
First, the exact order has to be established.
Then we can talk about dates.
Which inevitably will bring us back to order, etc
1) Order solely established via literary criticism
2) Date(s) solely established via true, objective historical records
And after that one can look at the Origens etc, Josephus', and date attempts from content itself. But those sit in a very different universe of reliability
Personally, I place Thomas at the end of the first half of the first century, and perhaps it got written decades earlier but just didn't catch on. All the gospel stuff? Late first, beginning of second century. And all literary fiction from beginning to end, with the only purpose of "steering a movement in the desired direction"
Perhaps Paul started it (by hijacking the movement instigated by the text of Thomas), and Mark wrote a narrative to support that - a decade or so later.
Then even later, a decade or so, perhaps two, it needed another overhaul because Marcion, initially in favour, had to be ousted. So Matthew rewrote Marcion, accompanied by his own
, just as Paul recreated Thomas, and Mark sustained Paul with fiction.
At the other side of the camp, near the Thomas movement, there was a lot going on, and people went in the other direction: full-blown gnosticism, mixed with the new story from Paul and Mark.
And somewhere in the middle, there was John Presbyter. I've always said it: he is Thomas who switched sides, but of everything I've written in this post, that is entirely unlikely, closer to impossible. But John, a century after it all started, still had to be used to answer the questions that remained. So he got altered here and there, and incorporated
James David Audlin is about to wrap up on his 5 decades of research on John, and will publish his 3,000 pages within the next year, gawds help it. I've seen some on academia.edu already, and it is very promising
By the way, all this is just a brain bug. I like the idea but it will likely change: I have little knowledge of all the different MSS, accepted or not, that have flown around.
But it is all fiction, with perhaps a tiny historical core. And we can only rely on textual criticism and archeology, because there's too much at stake. And proven to have been interpolated