On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

[The Crow]

Gday all,

Rather than de-rail the thread on Carrier's OHJ, I thought this subject might benefit from a thread of its own.

The external record suggest a late arrival of the Gospels. Here is my expanded chronology including many documents that help to show the evolution of the Gospel :

50s-70s Sayings and Stories of a celestial Jesus are created from (from 'visions' and the Tanakh)
50s - Paul : 1Thess., 1&2 Cor., Gal., Rom., Phill., Phil. - no historical detail
60-70 Hebrews, mentions some Jesus Stories
80s - Colossians, 1 John, James - no historical details
80-90 Clement, knows two sayings of Jesus
90s - Eph., 2 Thess., 1 Peter - no historical detail
90-100 Didache, knows the Lord's prayer
100s Jude - says very little about Jesus
100-110 Barnabas, knows a few stories about Jesus
120 Proposed creation of the first Gospel
120s 2&3 John, Preaching of Peter, Quadratus - knows some Jesus stories
110-130 Ignatius, knows some stories of Jesus
130s? Papias' clues of written Gospels come from Eusebius
135? Apocalypse of Peter knows Mark/Matthew
140s? Marcion's version of Luke
140s Epistles of the Apostles talks about writing Gospels
138-161 Aristides mentions an un-named singular Gospel that is 'recently preached'
150s Justin mentions memoirs called Gospels - no names of authors
140-160 Ptolemy knows G.John by text
150-200 Acts of Peter knows a written Gospel
170 Heracleon knows G.John by text
170-200 The Treatise on the Resurrection knows a written Gospel
170s The diaTessaron has four (un-named?) Gospels
180s Irenaeus quotes four Gospels by name


This suggest several stages :
1. Visions and revelation about Jesus (50-70)
2. Stories and Sayings of Jesus circulate, some are written down (80-110)
3. Gospels first created around 120 CE
4. First clues to Gospels around 130-140
5. Cites to Gospels 140-170
6. Gospels numbered then named by 180
7. Explosion of Gospel citations from 180 on

As to why the internal datings suggest otherwise, I wonder whether we have an example of a piece of theological literature from a sect that believes in God acting in History and writing a tract that is set in an earlier period. In other words, G.Mark was written in Bar Kochba times but was deliberately set in the Temple's Fall timeline.


Kapyong

Hi ya Kap. Question. You have the composition of the first Gospel at 120. I see no mention of Luke or Matthew. I do realize its hard to place an actual date on any of this but would not the Gospels of Luke and Matthew fit into your equation? Its assumed that Matthew was supposedly written around 50 to 60 possible as early as 50.

http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/onli ... o-matthew/

Luke on the other hand is different. Supposedly there are two different assumptions on that one. The first being between 59 - 63 and the other 70's or 80's.

http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/onli ... o-to-luke/

From what I know I would place Luke at around mid 70's to early 80. The very fact that so much of Luke and Matthew were drawn or dependent on Mark I have my doubts about Matthew being as early as claimed. But those are my thoughts and I am not above being corrected here if I am way out there on this. Was just wondering why you chose to exclude Matthew and Luke and what your reason for it was?

Thanks.

[andrewcriddle]

The most one can claim is that Mark 13 matches certain reconstructions of what may have happened in the Bar Kochba period.

What are those reconstructions that may have happened in that period?

Attempts to relate Mark 13 to Bar Kochba generally hold that Bar Kochba's forces at one stage took Jerusalem from the Romans and were then driven out by Hadrian's forces. For which there is little evidence. Bar Kochba certainly aspired to regain Jerusalem but that is another matter. There is no clear evidence that Jerusalem itself was a battleground during the Bar Kochba rising.

Attempts to relate Mark 13 to Bar Kochba generally hold that Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter on the site of the Jewish temple. This is probably a late Christian legend.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

What are the sources for these reconstructions?

[andrewcriddle]

What are the sources for these reconstructions?

The usual source for the claim that Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter on the Temple Mount is Cassius Dio. But this refers not to the original text of Cassius Dio book 69 but to the Byzantine epitome which has parallels to late Christian legendary sources. See Discussions by Yaron Eliav such as the one in God's Mountain: The Temple Mount in Time, Place, and Memory
and Hadrian's Actions on the Temple Mount according to Cassius Dio and Xiphilinus, JSQ 4 (1997), 125–144

Documents from Wadi Murabba'at and coins struck by Bar Kochba have been interpreted as referring to Bat Kochba's forces having taken Jerusalem in the early stages of the revolt. These interpretations are now generally accepted as mistaken. See for example the material in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome edited by Peter Schafer, particularly the article by Hanan Eshel

Andrew Criddle

[Blood]

But what exactly does 'apostolic' mean? Our first instinct is to identify ἀποστολικός or ὰποστολικών to mean ‘of one apostle,' ‘of the apostle’, ‘of the apostles.’ But the Marcionite division of the New Testament would deny that understanding. After all, both the gospel and the letters derive from the same individual and this one individual was the one and only 'apostle.'

Peter van Deun has actually published an article on the range of uses for the term. He notes that ἀποστολικός indeed has a previous history in pagan literature. The use of the word is very rare in pagan texts (about 5 passages) and all these record date from late antiquity; we find the oldest pagan example in the Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus, an author who worked in the early third century CE, and this is — as he demonstrates — younger than the oldest Christian records. He also points out that the pagan ἀποστολικός is used in a very specific literary meaning: it is a kind of song (i.e. μέλη), sung upon the departure of a diplomatic delegation or written by someone abroad who sent his poem afterwards.

Could we have stumbled on the Marcionite context for dividing the New Testament into 'evangelic' and 'apostolic? If - as Paul says 'Christ speaks in me' there is good evidence to show that Paul took on Jesus in himself. Perhaps it was argued that the second coming already occurred. So the 'apostolic' represents his (i.e. Jesus) departure now in Paul, in the same way the 'evangelic' represented his arrival as the heavenly sky man.

Note this from Liddell:

ἀποστολ-ικός , ή, όν,
A.sung on departure, “μέλη” Procl. ap. Phot.p.322B.

To put it in the simplest terms possible - 'the evangelic' portion of the NT = the hello, 'the apostolic' portion of the NT = the goodbye, presumably of the same heavenly being.

All very relevant. I, too, have wondered about the origin and application of the rare Greek word "apostle" in the Christian context. Why did they use that word? A song "sung on departure" could mean that the apostles were those marked for martyrdom.

Then we have the following, quite a puzzle if the Marcionites wrote it like this. "The twelve" are a separate group from "the apostles," of whom Paul is the least and doesn't even deserve to be called an "apostle."

1 Corinthians 1:15-19
and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
and last of all he appeared to me also, as to an abortion.
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

[Blood]

The lack of an explicit reference to the Temple's destruction in 70 cannot be used to date the texts before 70.

None of the NT texts cite the fall of the Temple. That's because they were conceived of as prophetic literature. The reader's supposed to believe that all of it actually was written before 70, when in reality, none of it was. You're supposed to believe the gospels were written in the 30s, the epistles in the 40s and 50s, and Acts in the 60s. Just like you were supposed to believe Daniel was written in the 500s.

[Stephan Huller]

Why did they use that word? A song "sung on departure" could mean that the apostles were those marked for martyrdom.

But remember in the Marcionite context (assuming for a moment it was the earliest or at least the earliest to use the term 'apostle') had only one 'apostle.' I don't know if one apostle was so called because he was sent to die. I really don't know (meaning I haven't spent enough time on the problem).

The only parallel I have ever found to the Marcionite emphasis on Paul as ho apostolos is the Samaritan identification of Moses as the apostle. It was apparently applied to the founder (or a later) of the Dustan sect in near contemporary times http://books.google.com/books?id=pzo6KA ... an&f=false

[Stephan Huller]

The Samaritans also identify the angel of the presence as 'the apostle.' This might be the solution somehow. I don't know http://books.google.com/books?id=ddLqKD ... an&f=false

[Stephan Huller]

Here is the line which Fossum thinks is decisive to the understand the concept of the 'apostle' as an angel:

Are not all angels ministering spirits sent (ἀποστελλόμενα) to serve those who will inherit salvation? [Heb 1:14]

I don't know if it is the English language but I can't get around the basic concept here in the Greek. Is the idea that the angels are 'sent' (i.e. that they go TO the world or that they leave FROM heaven). There is an English expression 'to take leave.'

Here is the closest I get to the etymological sense that stellein usually translated simply as 'send' really has the concept of 'leave' in mind http://books.google.com/books?id=SKZNAw ... rt&f=false

and perhaps better (see footnote of the previous):

http://books.google.com/books?id=ltZBUW ... nd&f=false

[Bernard Muller]

... and were then driven out by Hadrian's forces. For which there is little evidence. Bar Kochba certainly aspired to regain Jerusalem but that is another matter. There is no clear evidence that Jerusalem itself was a battleground during the Bar Kochba rising.
Attempts to relate Mark 13 to Bar Kochba generally hold that Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter on the site of the Jewish temple. This is probably a late Christian legend.

I thought the majority opinion was that Jerusalem was a pile of ruins during the rebellion of 132-135, with no protecting city walls. It certainly was that according to the textual evidence, and the rebels had better thing to do (such as repairing existing fortresses) than to start any rebuilding in wide open Jerusalem. And there is no evidence they did. There was nothing much to destroy then for the Romans. There was no battle there.
Furthermore, it is thought the small Roman garrison (a lot less than a legion, according to archaeological evidence), vacated Jerusalem at the onset of the rebellion.
And the temple of Jupiter was built, if ever, after 135.
Anyway, there is no way "Mark" could have anchored his mini-apocalypse and his parable of the tenants on the events of 135.
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p44.htm

Cordially, Bernard