On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

[MrMacSon]

Also Celsus in the second century clearly reports the existence of those who thought Jesus was a phantasm and those who thought Jesus was a historical person but there is no controversy about the gospels being 'invented' in the second century. Surely if Celsus had access to this tradition (he seems to know everything else) he would have used it to discredit Christianity.

We don't have Celsus's original texts? Only what someone wrote 'against' him.

[edit: to replace original '/' with intended ?]

[Stephan Huller]

Because Celsus also never existed. The world only started the day you were born

[Kapyong]

Gday,

to Kapyong,
Two bad. The reason I ask people to follow my links is I don't have to do extra work for duplicating formatting with color, bold, etc. when it is already done on the text I link too. What you posted looks like a bag of potatoes, without the color, the bolding, the italics I put into the text.

Ok, I fixed it up a bit

Anyway, why should I do extra work: very few on that board are interested on what I wrote. I guess most do not even read my posts.

Sorry to hear that - well, I've been engaging you and reading what you write.

Coming from you, it is extraordinary.

I try to be objective - it's seems the dependence is clear.

Whereas my argument for the Gospel being dated as late as possible is a working hypothesis, an experiment.

I do not see how the revolt of Bar Kochba in Judah was considered a series of calamities for the inhabitants of Rome.

Yes, silly me, but a series of calamities could mean a lot of things.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Also Celsus in the second century clearly reports the existence of those who thought Jesus was a phantasm and those who thought Jesus was a historical person but there is no controversy about the gospels being 'invented' in the second century. Surely if Celsus had access to this tradition (he seems to know everything else) he would have used it to discredit Christianity.

Would he likely know when they were written ? Some manuscripts fall into his hands which seem to be set around the fall of the Temple and he critiqued them for internal discrepancies. He might not see any controversy about when they written.


Kapyong

[neilgodfrey]

the Roman records (and various marginalized 'heretical' references) place the crucifixion to 21 CE.

What records and references are you referring to?

[Kapyong]

Gday Neil,

the Roman records (and various marginalized 'heretical' references) place the crucifixion to 21 CE.

What records and references are you referring to?

Stephan has said it was :

Eusebius citing the official 'Acts of Pilate' of Maximinus II
http://www.roman-empire.net/decline/maximinus-II.html dates the crucifixion to 21 CE. This has been oft discussed at these forums by DCH and myself.

I don't get this yet, still looking in to it.
(Never heard of the 'Acts of Pilate' of Maximinus II.)

Kapyong

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Sorry, I don't get this - what is the normal meaning? "this"?
Then what is the abnormal meaning ?
'At no point' but also 'at key points'.
I just don't understand you here.

Hi Kapyong, sorry, my English is not so good, you have to read with a little bit good will, what I write.

Please note that I'm not interested in dating of the Gospels or in the relationship between Mark and Clement. I have dealt with the problem only in terms of how Mark makes use of Isaiah (I've noticed 1 Clement 15:2 “en passant”).

I think that there is no other NT author like Mark, who knows so well Isaiah and loves him so much. In my eyes, the assumption is impossible that Mark should not have known that the correct wording of LXX-Isaiah 29:13 is “ὁ λαὸς οὗτος” (We have also seen that Matthew copied Mark but switched back to the correct wording). I do not want to convince you of this view. Maybe my post is a bad post for a discussion.

My question was actually just why Mark has modified the text of Isaiah 29:13 and so I've noticed the markan use of „οὗτος”. It is a very simple word and - as you wrote - it just means "this". Mark used the word only in direct speech or in quotations of the scriptures (all other evangelits also in the narration of the story with the voice of the narrator).

Do you agree when I say that there is no place in the gospel of Mark, in which the word „οὗτος” does not display a special emphasis? Or if I say that Mark used the word „οὗτος” never accidentally or thoughtlessly, but always carefully considered and deliberately? More I will not say.

This particular use of the word „οὗτος” could be an explanation for why Mark changed the wording of Isaiah 29,13 to place this word at the beginning of the sentence and in this way particularly to emphasize. In contrast, Clement made no special use of this word.

This is not a proof and I do not want to make a case. I just want to say, that there is a reason, why Mark could have changed the wording of Jesaja 29:13 and that it is easier to imagine that Mark changed the wording and Clement copied Mark than vice versa.

[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

Don't understand something here. Below you have this:

120 Proposed creation of the first Gospel

Who proposed the first Gospel? If Mark was the earliest at 70 (supposedly).

[Kapyong]

Gday,

120 Proposed creation of the first Gospel

Who proposed the first Gospel? If Mark was the earliest at 70 (supposedly).

Proposed my me as an experiment really :
How late can we date the Gospels and still meet the external evidence?
Which is quite late.

I suggest
120s G.Mark
120s-130s. G.Matthew, G.Luke, Acts
130s-140s G.John

As dates which are as late as the external evidence allows.

Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday,

This is not a proof and I do not want to make a case. I just want to say, that there is a reason, why Mark could have changed the wording of Isaiah 29:13 and that it is easier to imagine that Mark changed the wording and Clement copied Mark than vice versa.

Thanks for that, it makes sense now.
I think you have shown that 1 Clement is dependent on G.Mark or a sub-set of it.

Kapyong