dating the birth stories?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Dialogue with Trypho compared to the NT - in Greek

Post by mlinssen »

I'm going by the Greek text of the Dialogue. I have it in PDF only so I'll take the greek from the NT and insert between round brackets what the Dialogue has differently. Where word(s) are between [ and ], those aren't in the Dialogue. I'm using "plain English" to write the Greek to keep it legible, and as such use oo for the omega instedd of the usual w and not make a distinction between eta and epsilon, among others - the word will be clear enough. It's late, sorry

A note: these are the references to Luke in my copy of the Dialogue. Could be they're all rubbish of course, it's not like Justin says these are that...

DialogueWithTrypho 76 For He exclaimed before His crucifixion: 'The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.' Luke 9:22

Luke 9:22 22 εἰπὼν ὅτι “Δεῖ τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ἀπὸ (upo) τῶν πρεσβυτέρων (Grammateoon) καὶ ἀρχιερέων (Pharisaoon) [καὶ γραμματέων καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι] καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθῆναι (anastenai).”

Matthew 16:21 21Ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ‹ὁ› Ἰησοῦςb δεικνύειν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἀπελθεῖν καὶ πολλὰ παθεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ ἀρχιερέων καὶ γραμματέων καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθῆναι. (No difference here, the relevant last part is verbatim with Luke)

- What the Dialogue has here is the typical "Scribes and Pharisees; that phrase is present in Luke 3 times, and 9 times in Matthew. Slight advantage for Matthew here then

DialogueWithTrypho 81 Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.' Luke 20:35

Luke 20:35 [οἱ δὲ καταξιωθέντες τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν] (hoti) οὔτε γαμοῦσιν (gamesousin) οὔτε γαμίζονται (gamethesontai) 36 [οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀποθανεῖν ἔτι δύνανται,] (alla) ἰσάγγελοι (esontai) [γάρ] εἰσιν (esontai), [καὶ υἱοί εἰσιν] (tekna tou) Θεοῦ τῆς ἀναστάσεως [υἱοὶ] ὄντες.

Matthew 22:30 [ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστάσει] (hoti) οὔτε γαμοῦσιν (gamesousin) οὔτε γαμίζονται (gamethesontai), ἀλλ’ [ὡς] ἄγγελοι (isaggeloi) [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ] εἰσιν (esontai). 31 [περὶ δὲ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑμῖν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ λέγοντος] (very differently: tekna τοῦ Θεοῦ ῆς ἀναστάσεως ὅντες)

- Luke is more verbatim to the Dialogue than Matthew here, as should be. A win for Luke

DialogueWithTrypho 96 For He taught us to pray for our enemies also, saying, 'Love your enemies; be kind and merciful, as your heavenly Father is.' Luke 6:35

Luke 6:35 [Πλὴν] ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν [καὶ ἀγαθοποιεῖτε καὶ δανίζετε μηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες· καὶ ἔσται ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολύς, καὶ ἔσεσθε υἱοὶ Ὑψίστου, ὅτι αὐτὸς χρηστός ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀχαρίστους καὶ πονηρούς] 36 Γίνεσθε (xrestoi kai) οἰκτίρμονες, [καθ]ὼς ὁ Πατὴρ ὑμῶν [οἰκτίρμων ἐστίν.] (o ouranios)

Matthew 5:43 [ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν,] ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν [καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς]
Matthew 5:48 [Ἔσεσθε] (gineste) [οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι] (xrestoi kai oixtirmones) ὡς ὁ Πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος [τέλειός ἐστιν.]

- The first part is shared verbatim by Luke and Matthew, the middle part only by Luke, the last part ("heavenly") is only in Matthew. A tie

DialogueWithTrypho 100 and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to your word.' Luke 1:38

Luke 1:38 [Εἶπεν δὲ Μαριάμ “Ἰδοὺ ἡ δούλη Κυρίου] γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου.” [καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτῆς ὁ ἄγγελος.]

- Only Luke has this, and this is a perfect verbatim copy. Major win for Luke

DialogueWithTrypho 103 His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass:' Luke 22:44, 42

Luke 22:42 λέγων “Πάτερ, εἰ βούλει παρένεγκε τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ· πλὴν μὴ τὸ θέλημά μου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γινέσθω.” 43 Ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ ἐνισχύων αὐτόν. 44 καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο· καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν.

(hoti) ἱδρὼς ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι (katexeito), αὐτοῦ (euxomenou) καὶ (legontos, "Parelthetoo) εἰ (dunaton) τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο

- Not even close, I've just written a complete new sentence

Matthew 26:39 [Καὶ προελθὼν μικρὸν ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον] αὐτοῦ [προ]σευχόμενος καὶ λέγων (legontos) [“Πάτερ μου,] εἰ δυνατόν [ἐστιν, παρελθάτω ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ] τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο

- An almost perfect fit for Matthew, who doesn't have the first part. Given what Luke has, Matthew certainly is a perfect fit

DialogueWithTrypho 105 He said, 'Father, into Your hands I commend my spirit,' Luke 23:46

Luke 23:46 [Καὶ φωνήσας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν] “Πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου.”

- No Matthew here, he does a verbatim copy of Mark's "foreign language" that has to be explained to the audience. LOL. Major win for Luke

+ That concludes all of Luke's quotes (6 in total) in Dialogue with Trypho.
No quotes of Mark, nor John - and 19 of Matthew.
What's the score for Luke? Slight advantage for Matthew, A win for Luke, A tie, Major win for Luke, Matthew certainly is a perfect fit, Major win for Luke

So, given this outcome, I'll do Matthew's tomorrow I think and that should be equally, let's say 60-40? 70-30 perhaps? What Sweet Jus has in his writing is "a good bit of Matthew" in his Lukan quotes

One for the road then:

DialogueWithTrypho 17 For He appeared distasteful to you when He cried among you, 'It is written, My house is the house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves!' Matthew 21:13

Matthew 21:13 [καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς] “Γέγραπται ‘Ὁ οἶκός μου [οἶκος] προσευχῆς [κληθήσεται] (estin),’ ὑμεῖς δὲ (pepoiexate) αὐτὸν [ποιεῖτε] ‘Σπήλαιον λῃστῶν.’

Luke 19:46 [λέγων αὐτοῖς] “Γέγραπται [‘Καὶ ἔσται] ὁ οἶκός μου [οἶκος] προσευχῆς·’ (estin) ὑμεῖς δὲ [αὐτὸν ἐποιήσατε] (ἐποιήσατε αὐτὸν) ‘Σπήλαιον λῃστῶν.’”

- Luke's is better. Again, "no verbatimness" though. Bedtime for me, later
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by hakeem »

The fact that Justin Martyr and Marcion were contemporaries who lived in the time of Antonius c 138-161 CE means that Marcion could not be the source of the birth narrative since he [ Marcion] would need another source from the supposed time of his son of God if he appeared in the time of Pilate.

Justin named his sources as the Memoirs of the Apostles

Now if the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all false attribution as claimed by many Scholars then Justin would not have known such Gospels as is evident in his writing.

Justin has nothing at all to gain by not acknowledging the actual names of the authors of the Gospels if their names were already found on the manuscript themselves and nothing to lose if he admitted that Marcion had corrupted the Gospel according to Luke.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Cora,
Hippolytus is 3rd century to begin with.
Early third century.
He cannot know anything of Basilides (120-140) except from the book of Irenaeus. Hippolytus is also a disciple of Irenaeus.
Hippolytus knew a lot about Basilides and his theories, even quoted him, as evidenced in:
Against All Heresies, book VII, chapters VIII, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV & XXV
Hippolytus knew that most likely from Basilides' writings.
Irenaeus did not say as much in Against Heresies, book I, chapter XXIV, but it is also obvious he knew about Basilides' writings.
He is doing exactly what his master did: placing the gospels back in time!!! To "prove" that they were there BEFORE they were there. The policy was that they had to be placed before Marcion to make Marcion the heretic. The same goes for a certain Aristides, also around 120. They are doing the same. They did it maybe dozens of times.
Pure unevidenced speculations.
Irenaeus and Hippolytus are not reliable. They have a policy. As so many others you are being fooled, deceived, in the name of the church of rome.
You are the one who is fooled by your speculations.
Apart from that: Basilides is a gnostic. This means he has his own god, god the father, the original gnostic god. He is therefore absolutely not interested in church of rome-gospels about Jahweh. Nor is he interested in virgins. In the gnostic religion there is no virgin. The gnostic religion is spiritual. You see, you have been fooled and deceived twice by Hippolytus.
Of course Basilides is a gnostic. But what does that has to do about Irenaeus and Hippolytus knowing about Basilides' theories in details?
I would try to study some Gnosticism if I were you. It is a separate religion with its own god. It has nothing to do with the church of rome. It came from Greece in the 4th century BC.
Basilides was a Christian gnostic who extrapolated on Christian beliefs. He did not belong to a separate religion generated in Greece in the 4th century BC, even if Basilides was said to adopt Aristotle's systems.

Irenaeus and Hippolytus in their critiques of Basilides, also said his theories mentioned Christian items, such as Christ, god of the Jews, Jesus to be crucified, appearing on earth as a man who wrough miracles. Basilides even modify a passage from gMark & GMatthew about the role of Simon of Cyrene, the bearer of Jesus' cross, but "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.".

The above is from Irenaeus. Now from Hippolytus:
"Basilides, therefore, and Isidorus, the true son and disciple of Basilides, say that Matthias communicated to them secret discourses, which, I being specially instructed, he heard from the Saviour." Matthias is mentioned as the replacement of Judas the traitor in Acts 1:23 & 26.
"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." And the Magi (afford similar testimony) when they gaze wistfully upon the (Saviour's) star." (from gJohn and gMatthew).
"And these things happened, he [Basilides] says, in order that Jesus might become the first-fruits"

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Dialogue with Trypho compared to the NT - in Greek (PART 2)

Post by mlinssen »

I'm going by the Greek text of the Dialogue. I have it in PDF only so I'll take the greek from the NT and insert between round brackets what the Dialogue has differently. Where word(s) are between [ and ], those aren't in the Dialogue. I'm using "plain English" to write the Greek to keep it legible, and as such use oo for the omega instedd of the usual w and not make a distinction between eta and epsilon, among others - the word will be clear enough. It's late, sorry

(So, given this outcome, I'll do Matthew's tomorrow I think and that should be equally, let's say 60-40? 70-30 perhaps? What Sweet Jus has in his writing is "a good bit of Matthew" in his Lukan quotes)

______________________________________________________________

DialogueWithTrypho 17 For He appeared distasteful to you when He cried among you, 'It is written, My house is the house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves!' Matthew 21:13

Matthew 21:13 [καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς] “Γέγραπται ‘Ὁ οἶκός μου [οἶκος] προσευχῆς [κληθήσεται] (estin),’ ὑμεῖς δὲ (pepoiexate) αὐτὸν [ποιεῖτε] ‘Σπήλαιον λῃστῶν.’

Luke 19:46 [λέγων αὐτοῖς] “Γέγραπται [‘Καὶ ἔσται] ὁ οἶκός μου [οἶκος] προσευχῆς·’ (estin) ὑμεῖς δὲ [αὐτὸν ἐποιήσατε] (ἐποιήσατε αὐτὸν) ‘Σπήλαιον λῃστῶν.’”

- Luke's is better, it has the correct verb form

DialogueWithTrypho 35 For he said, 'Many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.' Matthew 7:15 (Matthew 24:5 too!)

πολλοὶ ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου (ἔXωθεν endedumenoi dermata) προβάτων ἔσωθεν δέ εἰσι λύκοι ἅρπαγες.

Matthew 24:5 πολλοὶ [γὰρ] ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου [λέγοντες ‘Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Χριστός,’ καὶ πολλοὺς πλανήσουσιν.]
Matthew 7:15 [Προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵτινες ἔρχονται πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν] ἐνδύμασιν (endedumenoi dermata) προβάτων ἔσωθεν δέ εἰσι[ν] λύκοι ἅρπαγες.

- A very odd combo of both verses

Luke 10:3 Ὑπάγετε· ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς ὡς ἄρνας ἐν μέσῳ λύκων.
Luke 21:8 Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν “Βλέπετε μὴ πλανηθῆτε· πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου λέγοντες ‘Ἐγώ εἰμι,’ καί ‘Ὁ καιρὸς ἤγγικεν·’ μὴ πορευθῆτε ὀπίσω αὐτῶν.

- A very different verse by Luke 10, the only place where he has wolves. The first part of 21 matches Matthew to the letter

DialogueWithTrypho 35 And, 'Beware of false prophets, who shall come to you clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.' Matthew 7:15

Προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵ τινες (eleusontai) πρὸς ὑμᾶς (ἔXωθεν endedumenoi dermata) προβάτων ἔσωθεν δέ εἰσι λύκοι ἅρπαγες.

Matthew 7:15 Προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵτινες [ἔρχονται] (eleusontai) πρὸς ὑμᾶς [ἐν] (ἔXωθεν) ἐνδύμασιν (endedumenoi dermata) προβάτων ἔσωθεν δέ εἰσι[ν] λύκοι ἅρπαγες.

- A pretty good fit. Luke doesn't have the admonition, and certainly not the rest

DialogueWithTrypho 35 And, 'Many false Christs and false apostles shall arise, and shall deceive many of the faithful.' Matthew 24:11 (and 24 too!)

(Anastesontai) πολλοὶ (ψευδόχριστοι καὶ ψευδοapostoloi, καὶ πολλούς (toon pistoon) πλανήσουσιν

Matthew 24:11 καὶ πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται [ἐγερθήσονται] καὶ [πλανήσουσιν πολλούς] (πλανήσουσιν πολλούς)·
Matthew 24:24 [ἐγερθήσονται γὰρ] ψευδόχριστοι καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται, [καὶ δώσουσιν σημεῖα μεγάλα καὶ τέρατα ὥστε πλανῆσαι, εἰ δυνατὸν, καὶ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς.]

- Not even close. Pseudo prophets are in Matthew, not pseudo apostles. Again, a mash-up. Nothing the like in Luke

DialogueWithTrypho 49 He cried, as he sat by the river Jordan: 'I baptize you with water to repentance; but He that is stronger than I shall come, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: whose fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His floor, and will gather the wheat into the barn; but the chaff He will burn up with unquenchable fire.' Matthew 3:11-12

Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν· (eXei) δὲ ὁ ἰσχυρότερός μού, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί· 12 οὗ τὸ πτύον (αὐτοῦ) ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ διακαθαριεῖ τὴν ἅλωνα αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὸν σῖτον συνάξει εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην, τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον κατακαύσει πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ.”

Matthew 3:11-12 Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν· ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί· 12 οὗ τὸ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ διακαθαριεῖ τὴν ἅλωνα αὐτοῦ, καὶ συνάξει τὸν σῖτον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην, τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον κατακαύσει πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ.”

- An almost perfect copy of Matthew, just a few words changed order, and eXei is missing

Luke 3:16 ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων πᾶσιν ὁ Ἰωάννης “Ἐγὼ μὲν ὕδατιb βαπτίζω ὑμᾶς· ἔρχεται δὲ ὁ ἰσχυρότερός μου, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς λῦσαι τὸν ἱμάντα τῶν ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί· 17 οὗ τὸ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ διακαθᾶραι τὴν ἅλωνα αὐτοῦ καὶ συναγαγεῖν τὸν σῖτον εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην αὐτοῦ, τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον κατακαύσει πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ.”

- And Luke is not very different really

DialogueWithTrypho 49 Wherefore also our Christ said, [when He was] on earth, to those who were affirming that Elijah must come before Christ: 'Elijah shall come, and restore all things; but I say unto you, that Elijah has already come, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatsoever they chose.' Matthew 17:12

Ἠλίας (men eleusetai kai apokatastesei panta) λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι Ἠλίας ἤδη ἦλθεν, καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτὸν, ἀλλὰ ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ ὅσα ἠθέλησαν

Matthew 17:12 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι Ἠλίας ἤδη ἦλθεν, καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτὸν, ἀλλὰ* ἐποίησαν ἐν αὐτῷ ὅσα ἠθέλησαν· οὕτως καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου μέλλει πάσχειν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν.”

- An almost perfect fit, nothing in Luke

DialogueWithTrypho 51 and in the following terms: 'The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist; from that time the kingdom of the heavens suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. And if you can receive it, he is Elijah, who was to come. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.' Matthew 11:12-15

ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται (mexri) Ἰωάννου τοῦ Βαπτιστοῦ (exotou) ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν βιάζεται, καὶ βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν. καὶ εἰ θέλετε δέξασθαι, αὐτός ἐστιν Ἠλίας ὁ μέλλων ἔρχεσθαι. 15 Ὁ ἔχων ὦτα (akouein,) ἀκουέτω.

Matthew 11:12-15 ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Βαπτιστοῦ ἕως ἄρτι ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν βιάζεται, καὶ βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν. 13 πάντες γὰρ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ νόμος ἕως Ἰωάννου ἐπροφήτευσαν· 14 καὶ εἰ θέλετε δέξασθαι, αὐτός ἐστιν Ἠλίας ὁ μέλλων ἔρχεσθαι. 15 Ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκουέτω.

- The words are there in a very different order, which is highly peculiar as this verse is Matthew down on his very knees, begging for acceptance that John B. is Elijah. Luke has nothing

DialogueWithTrypho 76 when He said: 'They shall come from the east [and from the west ], and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of the heavens: but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness.' Matthew 8:11

ἥξουσιν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν. οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον

Matthew 8:11 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι πολλοὶ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν ἥξουσιν καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν 12 οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον· ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων.”

- An almost perfect fit, with only a slightly different word order in the first part. Which is matched perfectly in Luke:

Luke 13:29 καὶ ἥξουσιν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν (καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ νότου, καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ.)

DialogueWithTrypho 76 And, 'Many shall say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten, and drunk, and prophesied, and cast out demons in Your name? And I will say to them, Depart from Me.' Matthew 7:22

πολλοὶ ἐροῦσίν μοι τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ‘Κύριε Κύριε, οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι ἐφάγομεν καὶ ἐπιομεν καὶ προφητεύσαμεν, καὶ δαιμόνια ἐξεβάλομεν; καὶ eroo autois 'Anaxooreite ap emou'

Matthew 7:22 πολλοὶ ἐροῦσίν μοι ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ‘Κύριε Κύριε, οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι ἐπροφητεύσαμεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι δαιμόνια ἐξεβάλομεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι δυνάμεις πολλὰς ἐποιήσαμεν;’

Luke 13:26 Τότε ἄρξεσθε λέγειν ‘Ἐφάγομεν ἐνώπιόν σου καὶ ἐπίομεν, καὶ ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις ἡμῶν ἐδίδαξας·’

- A nice fit. Matthew has only one "depart from me" and it's the Πορεύεσθε ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ of 25:41. Luke has the ἀπόστητε ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ of 13:27 and the Ἔξελθε ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ of 5:8
Highly interesting to see how this is a mash-up between Luke and Matthew

DialogueWithTrypho 76 Again, in other words, by which He shall condemn those who are unworthy of salvation, He said, 'Depart into outer darkness, which the Father has prepared for Satan and his, angels.' Matthew 25:41

Upagete εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον, o etoimasen o Pater τὸ Σατανᾶ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ.

Matthew 25:41 Τότε ἐρεῖ καὶ τοῖς ἐξ εὐωνύμων ‘Πορεύεσθε ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ ‹οἱ› κατηραμένοι εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον τὸ ἡτοιμασμένον τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ.
Matthew 8:12 (one of three "outer darkness") οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον

- A very weak pointer, far from being close. Nothing the like in Luke

DialogueWithTrypho 93 They are these: 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your strength, and your neighbour as yourself.' Matthew 22:37

Ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῇς ἰσχύος σου καὶ ‘Τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν.

Matthew 22:37 Ὁ δὲ ἔφη αὐτῷ “‘Ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου.’

- The first part matches a bit although Dialogue has the genitive

Luke 10:27 Ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν “‘Ἀγαπήσεις Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἰσχύϊ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου,’ καὶ ‘Τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν.’”

- And Luke has a marvellously magnificent fit here compared to Matthew, this is just the wrong reference

_______________________________________________________________________
TO BE CONTINUED LATER. TIME CONSUMING STUFF
_______________________________________________________________________

DialogueWithTrypho 99 He prayed in these words: 'Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.' Matthew 26:39

XXX Matthew 26:39 [Καὶ προελθὼν μικρὸν ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον] αὐτοῦ [προ]σευχόμενος καὶ λέγων (legontos) [“Πάτερ μου,] εἰ δυνατόν [ἐστιν, παρελθάτω ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ] τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο

XXX An almost perfect fit for Matthew, who doesn't have the first part. Given what Luke has, Matthew certainly is a perfect fit

XXX Luke 22:42 λέγων “Πάτερ, εἰ βούλει παρένεγκε τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ· πλὴν μὴ τὸ θέλημά μου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γινέσθω.” 43 Ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ ἐνισχύων αὐτόν. 44 καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο· καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν.

XXX (hoti) ἱδρὼς ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι (katexeito), αὐτοῦ (euxomenou) καὶ (legontos, "Parelthetoo) εἰ (dunaton) τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο

Not even close, I've just written a complete new sentence

DialogueWithTrypho 100 also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father.' and, 'No man knows the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.' Matthew 11:27

Matthew 11:27 Πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρός μου, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν Υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατήρ, οὐδὲ τὸν Πατέρα τις ἐπιγινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ ᾧ ἐὰν βούληται ὁ Υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι.

DialogueWithTrypho 100 He was discoursing about His future sufferings: 'The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Pharisees and Scribes, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.' Matthew 16:21

Matthew 16:21 21Ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ‹ὁ› Ἰησοῦςb δεικνύειν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἀπελθεῖν καὶ πολλὰ παθεῖν ἀπὸ (upo) τῶν πρεσβυτέρων (Grammateoon) καὶ ἀρχιερέων (Pharisaoon) [καὶ γραμματέων καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι] καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθῆναι (anastenai).

Luke 9:22 22 εἰπὼν ὅτι “Δεῖ τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ ἀρχιερέων καὶ γραμματέων καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθῆναι.” (No difference here, the relevant last part is verbatim with Matthew)

- It is Luke who gets quoted here. What the Dialogue has here is the typical "Scribes and Pharisees; that phrase is present in Luke 3 times, and 9 times in Matthew. Slight advantage for Matthew here then

DialogueWithTrypho 103 and Christ answered him, 'Get behind me, Satan: you shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.' Matthew 4:9-10

Matthew 4:9-10 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ “Ταῦτά σοι πάντα δώσω, ἐὰν πεσὼν προσκυνήσῃς μοι.” 10Τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς “Ὕπαγε, Σατανᾶ· γέγραπται γάρ ‘Κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις.’

DialogueWithTrypho 105 these words are recorded in the memoirs: 'Unless your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens.' Matthew 5:20

Matthew 5:20 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.

DialogueWithTrypho 122 For Christ would have borne witness even to them; but now you have become twofold more the children of hell, as He said Himself. Matthew 23:15

Matthew 23:15 Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι περιάγετε τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηρὰν ποιῆσαι ἕνα προσήλυτον, καὶ ὅταν γένηται, ποιεῖτε αὐτὸν υἱὸν γεέννης διπλότερον ὑμῶν.

DialogueWithTrypho 125 as my Lord said: 'A sower went forth to sow the seed; and some fell by the wayside; and some among thorns, and some on stony ground, and some on good ground.' Matthew 13:3

Matthew 13:3 Καὶ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς πολλὰ ἐν παραβολαῖς λέγων “Ἰδοὺ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ σπείρων τοῦ σπείρειν. 4 καὶ ἐν τῷ σπείρειν αὐτὸν ἃ μὲν ἔπεσεν παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν, καὶ ἐλθόντα τὰ πετεινὰ κατέφαγεν αὐτά. 5 Ἄλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη ὅπου οὐκ εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, καὶ εὐθέως ἐξανέτειλεν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς, 6ἡλίου δὲ ἀνατείλαντος ἐκαυματίσθη καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ῥίζαν ἐξηράνθη.

DialogueWithTrypho 125 For He answers him, 'It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.' Matthew 4:10

Matthew 4:10 Τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς “Ὕπαγε, Σατανᾶ· γέγραπται γάρ ‘Κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις.’
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by rgprice »

cora wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:00 pm Hello,
Hippolytus is 3rd century to begin with. He cannot know anything of Basilides (120-140) except from the book of Irenaeus. Hippolytus is also a disciple of Irenaeus. He is doing exactly what his master did: placing the gospels back in time!!! To "prove" that they were there BEFORE they were there. The policy was that they had to be placed before Marcion to make Marcion the heretic. The same goes for a certain Aristides, also around 120. They are doing the same. They did it maybe dozens of times.
Irenaeus and Hippolytus are not reliable. They have a policy. As so many others you are being fooled, deceived, in the name of the church of rome.
It is true that the orthodox Christians placed the Gospels back in time, prior to Marcion. But I don't think this was a "policy". Rather, they actually believed it. It is the case that some of the Gospel writer, namely "John", intentionally intended their writing to appear like eyewitness accounts.

In Against Marcion 4.4 Tertullian lays out his logic for placing the Gospels before Marcion. I don't think Tertullian was intentionally trying to fool anyone, he was just mistaken. I think the same goes for others like Irenaeus. And at this time there were no "policies" such as this, the church wasn't that organized yet.
Book IV Chapter 4. Each Side Claims to Possess the True Gospel. Antiquity the Criterion of Truth in Such a Matter. Marcion's Pretensions as an Amender of the Gospel.

We must follow, then, the clue of our discussion, meeting every effort of our opponents with reciprocal vigor. I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us, except it be that principle of time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an elemental truth, that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin. For, inasmuch as error is falsification of truth, it must needs be that truth therefore precede error. A thing must exist prior to its suffering any casualty; and an object must precede all rivalry to itself. Else how absurd it would be, that, when we have proved our position to be the older one, and Marcion's the later, ours should yet appear to be the false one, before it had even received from truth its objective existence; and Marcion's should also be supposed to have experienced rivalry at our hands, even before its publication; and, in fine, that that should be thought to be the truer position which is the later one — a century later than the publication of all the many and great facts and records of the Christian religion, which certainly could not have been published without, that is to say, before, the truth of the gospel. With regard, then, to the pending question, of Luke's Gospel (so far as its being the common property of ourselves and Marcion enables it to be decisive of the truth, ) that portion of it which we alone receive is so much older than Marcion, that Marcion himself once believed it, when in the first warmth of faith he contributed money to the Catholic church, which along with himself was afterwards rejected, when he fell away from our truth into his own heresy. What if the Marcionites have denied that he held the primitive faith among ourselves, in the face even of his own letter? What, if they do not acknowledge the letter? They, at any rate, receive his Antitheses; and more than that, they make ostentatious use of them. Proof out of these is enough for me. For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current among us (we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion), is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated (falsified) by the defenders of Judaism, for the purpose of such a conglomeration with it of the law and the prophets as should enable them out of it to fashion their Christ, surely he could not have so argued about it, unless he had found it (in such a form). No one censures things before they exist, when he knows not whether they will come to pass. Emendation never precedes the fault. To be sure, an amender of that Gospel, which had been all topsy-turvy from the days of Tiberius to those of Antoninus, first presented himself in Marcion alone — so long looked for by Christ, who was all along regretting that he had been in so great a hurry to send out his apostles without the support of Marcion! But for all that, heresy, which is for ever mending the Gospels, and corrupting them in the act, is an affair of man's audacity, not of God's authority; and if Marcion be even a disciple, "he is yet not above his master"; Matthew 10:24 if Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, "Whether it be I or they, so we preach"; 1 Corinthians 15:11 if Marcion be a prophet, "even the spirits of the prophets will be subject to the prophets", 1 Corinthians 14:32 for they are not the authors of confusion, but of peace; or if Marcion be actually an angel, "he must rather be designated as anathema than as a preacher of the gospel", Galatians 1:8 because it is a strange gospel which he has preached. So that, while he amends, he only confirms both positions: both that our Gospel is the prior one, for he amends that which he has previously fallen in with; and that that is the later one, which, by putting it together out of the emendations of ours, he has made his own Gospel, and a novel one too.
Here Tertullian is simply wrong. He's talking about a letter in which Marcion said that he was correcting the "gospel", meaning "teachings" of the Roman Christians. Marcion did not claim that he was literally making textual corrections to a written Gospel. Nor did Marcion ever claim to have any knowledge of a Gospel called Luke. Tertullian has assumed that Marcion was operating on Luke. But it appears that the logic of Tertullian is all genuine. Yet from what Tertullian says, you can tell that he did not actually know which Gospel came first. He was deducing it based on his reading of Marcion's claims about correcting prior teachings.

I think this typifies the third orthodox understanding of Marcion and his work.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by hakeem »

rgprice wrote:

It is true that the orthodox Christians placed the Gospels back in time, prior to Marcion. But I don't think this was a "policy". Rather, they actually believed it. It is the case that some of the Gospel writer, namely "John", intentionally intended their writing to appear like eyewitness accounts.
First of all there was no such thing as orthodox Christians until perhaps in the 4th century as shown in multiple apologetic writings like "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus and "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

The doctrine of a physical death and bodily resurrection of a Deity was not orthodox at all in any ancient religion except by a little known cult up to at least the mid 2nd century c 150 CE.

It cannot be a coincidence that all NT writings, except the Apocalypse of John, were falsely placed before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE by every Church writer.
rgprice wrote:
In Against Marcion 4.4 Tertullian lays out his logic for placing the Gospels before Marcion. I don't think Tertullian was intentionally trying to fool anyone, he was just mistaken. I think the same goes for others like Irenaeus. And at this time there were no "policies" such as this, the church wasn't that organized yet.
The author of "Against Marcion" and other writings, the supposed Tertullian, deliberately introduced bogus claims about Marcion, the names of the authors of the Gospels and Epistles and the order of the writings.

The claim by the author called Tertullian that Marcion used gLuke and Pauline Epistles was patently false since it is seen in the writings of Justin Martyr, the contemporary of Marcion, that no Gospel was known as gLuke , no mention of Epistles or attributed to anyone called Paul and that Marcion preached about another God and another son.
rgprice wrote:
Here Tertullian is simply wrong. He's talking about a letter in which Marcion said that he was correcting the "gospel", meaning "teachings" of the Roman Christians. Marcion did not claim that he was literally making textual corrections to a written Gospel. Nor did Marcion ever claim to have any knowledge of a Gospel called Luke. Tertullian has assumed that Marcion was operating on Luke. But it appears that the logic of Tertullian is all genuine. Yet from what Tertullian says, you can tell that he did not actually know which Gospel came first. He was deducing it based on his reading of Marcion's claims about correcting prior teachings.

I think this typifies the third orthodox understanding of Marcion and his work.
It is extremely naive to think that the supposed Tertullian did not know when the Gospels and Epistles of his own cult were written but seems to know everything about all the so-called heretics. The logic of Tertullian can only be considered genuine if he was truthful but there is no evidence that he was.

Once you read the writings attributed to Tertullian, not just "Against Marcion", it will be exposed that the author deliberately invented false claims about Marcion and the authorship of the Gospels and Epistles for the sole purpose of making it appear that the Jesus cult was in existence since the time of Pilate.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to rgprice,
gLuke existed before gMarcion appeared on the scene: http://historical-jesus.info/53.html

Cordially, Bernard
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by mlinssen »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:21 am to rgprice,
gLuke existed before gMarcion appeared on the scene: http://historical-jesus.info/53.html

Cordially, Bernard
It is not very convincing to quote Church fathers ad nauseam against Marcion, Bernard. Au contraire

You cite 3 cases from the NT, that's it?

Luke 5:33 is fun, he has the word "pray" but doesn't utilise it. Mark doesn't, nor Matthew. Yet Thomas and Marcion do, and perhaps Marcion also utilises it - we can't know

It is also funny that you have Luke 4:31 and Capernaum, yet omit to mention Luke 4:23 And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘“Physician, heal yourself.” What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.’”

In Luke, Jesus hasn't been there yet, that happens 8 verses later. In Marcion, he surely has been, of course.
And why do people need introductions? Is that a law of some kind? You must be all over Thomas then, he doesn't introduce anyone - not even his protagonist

Your last case is even weakest, Luke 21:32
Here, "this generation" has been substituted by "heaven and earth".
How can you say that? Don't you have to prove direction of dependence first? Oh wait, the Church fathers do that for you, isn't it?
Last edited by mlinssen on Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by cora »

I like this discussion. I tried to partake in it, because I have also some things to say. This was not possible. Most of my posts are refused by a censor. I have never heard of censorship. I didn't know there was a censor here. I don't abuse people. I say nothing unfounded. I have studied this a very long time. Only not from a bible viewpoint, but from a history viewpoint, which brings much more information IMO. Maybe the censor can enlighten me about what is going on. In this way I cannot function on this forum.

Cora.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by mlinssen »

cora wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:20 pm I like this discussion. I tried to partake in it, because I have also some things to say. This was not possible. Most of my posts are refused by a censor. I have never heard of censorship. I didn't know there was a censor here. I don't abuse people. I say nothing unfounded. I have studied this a very long time. Only not from a bible viewpoint, but from a history viewpoint, which brings much more information IMO. Maybe the censor can enlighten me about what is going on. In this way I cannot function on this forum.

Cora.
Ah, you must be including links in them? It's a spam protector, I had that as well in the beginning

Once you've posted a bit you can use links all you want, just not in the very beginning

Is it that?
Post Reply