dating the birth stories?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
cora
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

dating the birth stories?

Post by cora » Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:42 pm

Hello all together,

In my study I found the birth-story of Luke. It comes from a writing called "the infancy gospel of James", which is dated by the scholars at 150.
This could mean that Luke was written, or at least completed, AFTER 150.

I also found the birth-story of Mathew. It comes from the papers of Justin Martyr, of which Irenaeus became the guardian in 170.
This could mean that Mathew was written, or at least completed, AFTER 170.

I hope everybody knows that the 4 gospels were first mentioned and named by Irenaeus in 185. This was already researched and found out in the 19th century by Cassels, although this knowledge seems to have been lost somewhere. I think it is important to know.

Anybody any thoughts on this?

CAM

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by Charles Wilson » Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:56 pm

I have the Matthean Genealogy as being taken from the Records of Josephus. Nicholas of Damascus concocted a phony Genealogy for Herod's father Antipater that would have allowed Herod to become High Priest.

The Key is that Herod's forebears came through the Babylonian Exile. Matthew has "Shealtiel" coming through the Babylonian Exile as well.
Herod didn't use the Fake Genealogy but it was lying around when Matthew was manufactured.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:24 pm

to Nora,
Basilides (120-140), as reported by Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', I, 24, 4 "[Basilides thought] He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead, so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them."

According to Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VII:
Chapter XV "... all the events in our Lord's life occurred, according to them [Basilidians], in the same manner as they have been described in the Gospels." (which would imply Basilides knew about a few gospels, as can be confirmed next, from the same book)
- Basilides knew about GJohn:
Chapter X "The seed of the cosmical system was generated, he [Basilides] says, from nonentities; the word which was spoken, "Let there be light." And this, he [Basilides] says, is that which has been stated in the Gospels: "He was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."[words in italics are as in Jn1:9]" and
Chapter XV "And that each thing, says [Basilides], has its own particular times, the Saviour is a sufficient [witness] when He observes, "Mine hour is not yet come." [words in italics are as in Jn2:4]"
- Basilides knew about GLuke:
Chapter XIV "This, he [Basilides] says, is that which has been declared: "The Holy Spirit will come upon thee," that which proceeded from the Sonship through the conterminous spirit upon the Ogdoad and Hebdomad, as far as Mary; "and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee," [bolded italics as in Lk1:35]"
- Basilides knew about GMatthew:
Chapter XV "And the Magi [afford similar testimony] when they gaze wistfully upon the star [according to Mt2:1-2,9-10]. For [Jesus] Himself was, he [Basilides] says, mentally preconceived at the time of the generation of the stars,"

Valentinus (120-160) also knew about Luke's gospel, according to Irenaeus 'Against Heresies' III, XIV, 3-4 and Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VI:
Chapter XXX "[Valentinus says] Jesus was born of Mary the virgin, according to the declaration, "The Holy Ghost will come upon thee"--Sophia is the Spirit--"and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee"--the Highest is the Demiurge,--"wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy."" (bolded italics as in Lk1:35)

Cordially, Bernard

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

The bloodline of the Virgin (Justin Martyr)

Post by mlinssen » Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:45 pm

cora wrote:
Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:42 pm
Hello all together,

In my study I found the birth-story of Luke. It comes from a writing called "the infancy gospel of James", which is dated by the scholars at 150.
This could mean that Luke was written, or at least completed, AFTER 150.

I also found the birth-story of Mathew. It comes from the papers of Justin Martyr, of which Irenaeus became the guardian in 170.
This could mean that Mathew was written, or at least completed, AFTER 170.

I hope everybody knows that the 4 gospels were first mentioned and named by Irenaeus in 185. This was already researched and found out in the 19th century by Cassels, although this knowledge seems to have been lost somewhere. I think it is important to know.

Anybody any thoughts on this?

CAM
Indeed Cora, that is very perceptive.
The funny thing on top of that is that Justin keeps hammering on the bloodline of the virgin, instead of that what it turned out to be in the gospels

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho:

Code: Select all

Chapter  23 ... Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham ...
Chapter  43 ... Him who was born of a virgin, of the family of Abraham and tribe of Judah, and of David ...
Chapter  45 ... and be born of this virgin of the family of David ...
Chapter 100 ... the Son of the patriarchs, since He assumed flesh by the Virgin of their family ...
            ... His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham
Chapter 101 ... He admits them to be His fathers, who trusted in God and were saved by Him, who also were the fathers of the Virgin, by whom He was born
I'm not even sure this is complete, I just checked for 'virgin'

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by andrewcriddle » Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:51 am

The Infancy Gospel is almost certanly later than Matthew and Luke.
See viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7219

Andrew Criddle

rgprice
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The bloodline of the Virgin (Justin Martyr)

Post by rgprice » Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:53 am

mlinssen wrote:
Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:45 pm
Indeed Cora, that is very perceptive.
The funny thing on top of that is that Justin keeps hammering on the bloodline of the virgin, instead of that what it turned out to be in the gospels

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho:

Code: Select all

Chapter  23 ... Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham ...
Chapter  43 ... Him who was born of a virgin, of the family of Abraham and tribe of Judah, and of David ...
Chapter  45 ... and be born of this virgin of the family of David ...
Chapter 100 ... the Son of the patriarchs, since He assumed flesh by the Virgin of their family ...
            ... His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham
Chapter 101 ... He admits them to be His fathers, who trusted in God and were saved by Him, who also were the fathers of the Virgin, by whom He was born
I'm not even sure this is complete, I just checked for 'virgin'
This is interesting. I'm not sure what to make of it.
Matthew 1:
1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
...
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
It's funny because no matter how you slice it Jesus can't be "of the seed" of David.

But you make a good point that Martyr is focusing on the bloodline of Mary, while both Matthew and Luke tie Jesus' Davidic bloodline to Joseph. Yet at the same time, if Martyr didn't get this idea from Matthew then where did he get it from?

Could it be that Martyr simply missed the subtly of the fact that the bloodline was tied to Joseph? His account sounds very much like Matthew, he's just focused on the wrong parent.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The bloodline of the Virgin (Justin Martyr)

Post by mlinssen » Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:47 am

rgprice wrote:
Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:53 am
mlinssen wrote:
Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:45 pm
Indeed Cora, that is very perceptive.
The funny thing on top of that is that Justin keeps hammering on the bloodline of the virgin, instead of that what it turned out to be in the gospels

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho:

Code: Select all

Chapter  23 ... Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham ...
Chapter  43 ... Him who was born of a virgin, of the family of Abraham and tribe of Judah, and of David ...
Chapter  45 ... and be born of this virgin of the family of David ...
Chapter 100 ... the Son of the patriarchs, since He assumed flesh by the Virgin of their family ...
            ... His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham
Chapter 101 ... He admits them to be His fathers, who trusted in God and were saved by Him, who also were the fathers of the Virgin, by whom He was born
I'm not even sure this is complete, I just checked for 'virgin'
This is interesting. I'm not sure what to make of it.
Matthew 1:
1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
...
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
It's funny because no matter how you slice it Jesus can't be "of the seed" of David.

But you make a good point that Martyr is focusing on the bloodline of Mary, while both Matthew and Luke tie Jesus' Davidic bloodline to Joseph. Yet at the same time, if Martyr didn't get this idea from Matthew then where did he get it from?

Could it be that Martyr simply missed the subtly of the fact that the bloodline was tied to Joseph? His account sounds very much like Matthew, he's just focused on the wrong parent.
It does indeed, doesn't it?

Naturally, if you plan to stage a virgin birth, and its product must be of a certain descent, then you make the virgin represent the bloodline

Of course, in a man's world, that's not what people like to see

My idea is, and I must admit that MrMacSon led me there, is that Sweet Jus here started it all, this whole idea. Naturally, he puts the bloodline on Mary

Matthew and Luke must have come after him, that is the only feasible option. I don't know how they thought that it would work to put the bloodline on Joseph, but they did

And of course, if Justin were chatting about whatever he read in either Luke or Matthew or both, he would not ramble on about the female bloodline.
I think

I haven't gone with a fine comb through Trypho - so I might have to reconsider some, dunno. Or I might not

rgprice
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by rgprice » Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:45 am

Maybe, but I'm skeptical. It doesn't seem like something Martyr would make up. Surely he's read about this somewhere.

Also, note that the whole claim of, "Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin", as well as the later immaculate conception of Mary from the infancy gospel of James, are why I argue that Jesus was originally conceived of as having been unborn. These claims also surely speak to why a real person would never have been worshiped in the first place. The theology of Hebrews, I believe, rests on the proposition that Jesus is unborn. He has to be unborn in order to be pure.

The "born of a virgin" business was the loophole that someone tried to come up with to show how he could have been "fully human". But you see, he could only be "fully human" if, at the very least, he was born of a virgin.

This is also why I'm now thinking Galatians 4:4 is an interpolation.

We start with a theology in which the pure sacrifice of Jesus requires that he is uncorrupted and unborn. This is reflected in Hebrews and in the teachings of Marcion.

But in reaction to Marcion, of whom, not coincidentally, Martyr was the first major critic, it was necessary to show that Jesus was actually human. This had to be done in order to uphold monotheism and push back against Marcion's claim of two Gods. By showing that Jesus was human and born on earth, it proved that Jesus actually came from the Creator God, which Marcion denied.

So I theorize that Matthew was written in reaction to Marcion for that reason. But Matthew had to contend with the existing theology, which held that Jesus was a pure sacrifice, so Matthew had to invent the virgin loophole as a way to try and make Jesus both fully human and also pure.

But I'm glad I read this thread because I hadn't noticed this quirk of Martyr's rhetoric, which puts a little bit of a kink into things. One can argue that Martyr invented this himself under the same logic, but that doesn't seem satisfactory to me. I would think he read this somewhere. But if not from Matthew, then where? It's so close to Matthew that either he read Matthew and didn't understand it, or he heard about this from someone who had read Matthew and didn't pass it on exactly right, or Martyr's writings inspired Matthew, or Martyr and Matthew both copied from some "lost source" which I really hate to consider (or maybe there is some other explanation I don't know about).

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by mlinssen » Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:14 am

rgprice wrote:
Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:45 am
Maybe, but I'm skeptical. It doesn't seem like something Martyr would make up. Surely he's read about this somewhere.

Also, note that the whole claim of, "Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin", as well as the later immaculate conception of Mary from the infancy gospel of James, are why I argue that Jesus was originally conceived of as having been unborn. These claims also surely speak to why a real person would never have been worshiped in the first place. The theology of Hebrews, I believe, rests on the proposition that Jesus is unborn. He has to be unborn in order to be pure.

The "born of a virgin" business was the loophole that someone tried to come up with to show how he could have been "fully human". But you see, he could only be "fully human" if, at the very least, he was born of a virgin.

This is also why I'm now thinking Galatians 4:4 is an interpolation.

We start with a theology in which the pure sacrifice of Jesus requires that he is uncorrupted and unborn. This is reflected in Hebrews and in the teachings of Marcion.

But in reaction to Marcion, of whom, not coincidentally, Martyr was the first major critic, it was necessary to show that Jesus was actually human. This had to be done in order to uphold monotheism and push back against Marcion's claim of two Gods. By showing that Jesus was human and born on earth, it proved that Jesus actually came from the Creator God, which Marcion denied.

So I theorize that Matthew was written in reaction to Marcion for that reason. But Matthew had to contend with the existing theology, which held that Jesus was a pure sacrifice, so Matthew had to invent the virgin loophole as a way to try and make Jesus both fully human and also pure.

But I'm glad I read this thread because I hadn't noticed this quirk of Martyr's rhetoric, which puts a little bit of a kink into things. One can argue that Martyr invented this himself under the same logic, but that doesn't seem satisfactory to me. I would think he read this somewhere. But if not from Matthew, then where? It's so close to Matthew that either he read Matthew and didn't understand it, or he heard about this from someone who had read Matthew and didn't pass it on exactly right, or Martyr's writings inspired Matthew, or Martyr and Matthew both copied from some "lost source" which I really hate to consider (or maybe there is some other explanation I don't know about).
I agree to "not going there" with regards to lost sources unless there is strong evidence for that.
Justin does mention Joseph and Mary, I just saw, so my theory is dented.
It would seem far more likely that he is trying to fix the impossible claim that Jesus is from the Davidian line via Joseph

Christianity. Overflowing with apologies since the very start LOL

I've got a thread somewhere on Luke and Matthew using Judges, Isaiah and yet another book from the Tanakh which also seemed odd and has stuck in my head for that reason. Will look into that later but this seems to be just an incident

rgprice
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by rgprice » Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:15 am

Here is further evidence that Gal 4:4 is an interpolation BTW:
"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son" Galatians 4:4 — the God, of course, who is the Lord of that very succession of times which constitutes an age; who also ordained, as signs of time, suns and moons and constellations and stars; who furthermore both predetermined and predicted that the revelation of His Son should be postponed to the end of the times. It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain (of the house) of the Lord shall be manifested; and in the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh as Joel says. It was characteristic of Him (only) to wait patiently for the fullness of time, to whom belonged the end of time no less than the beginning. But as for that idle god, who has neither any work nor any prophecy, nor accordingly any time, to show for himself, what has he ever done to bring about the fullness of time, or to wait patiently its completion? If nothing, what an impotent state to have to wait for the Creator's time, in servility to the Creator! But for what end did He send His Son? To redeem them that were under the law, Galatians 4:5 in other words, to make the crooked ways straight, and the rough places smooth, as Isaiah says Isaiah 40:4 — in order that old things might pass away, and a new course begin, even the new law out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, Isaiah 2:3 and that we might receive the adoption of sons, Galatians 4:5 that is, the Gentiles, who once were not sons.
- Tertullian; Against Marcion V.4
Notice that Tertullian never calls out Marcion for erasing "born of a woman, born under the law." Tertullian goes on about how the God who sent Jesus must be the Creator God, but never calls out the most obvious thing, which would be the statement that God's Son was, "born of a woman, born under the law."

The fact that Tertullian doesn't call this out can only mean that the text doesn't even exist in Tertullian's version of Paul's letters. It is inconceivable that he wouldn't have jumped all over this. This would be, in effect, the smoking gun that Tertullian needed to clearly show that Marcion was wrong. For Tertullian to simply pass by this statement is unimaginable. That statement literally is THE smoking gun of orthodoxy. It is, arguably, the single most important statement in all of the Pauline letters to put into service against Marcion. The only explanation for why Tertullian wouldn't have brought this bazooka to bear is because it wasn't in his arsenal.

Post Reply