dating the birth stories?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:47 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:53 am
mlinssen wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:58 am
What is most important in here is what Brent phrased very well

https://brentnongbri.com/2018/04/11/jus ... e-gospels/

* The lone exception to this “plural” rule in Justin’s surviving writings is actually quite telling: At Dialogue 106.3, the manuscripts read καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ. The singular αὐτοῦ is so out of keeping with Justin’s normal practice that some modern editors have emended the text at this point; Goodspeed and Bobichon follow the manuscripts; Otto reads ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ; I’m unable to consult Marcovich, but according to Bobichon’s apparatus, he follows Otto in adding the words τῶν ἀποστόλων.

What connection are you drawing between (A) Justin's threefold use of "gospel" to indicate a written text, including once in the first Apology which hakeem referenced and again on that page you linked to at archive.org, and (B) Nongbri's discussion of the singular αὐτοῦ in Dialogue 106.3? I am not following.
The essential part of Nongbri's comment is now emphasised

cora
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by cora » Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:15 am

Let me go back to the actual birth stories: I see the birth story of Luke as a "normalisation" of the infancy gospel from 150, because that is rather weird. It cannot be as the church said in the middle ages: look how nice. They took the birth story of Luke and expanded it BACKWARD.
But the point is, in the infancy gospel which is playing in the year 6 because of the census, at the end everybody has to flee for the SOLDIERS OF HEROD. But there was no Herod, the romans had taken over. So Luke left that out.
But the original writer thought that there was a new king Herod in 6.

The birth story of Mathew as in Justin, if you look well, has also soldiers from king Herod, and also a king Herod in 6. Because there was no new Herod in 6, Mathew left that out, so since then everybody thinks it is about Herod the Great, king until 4 BC, which gives a 10 year difference in birth dates. But also Justin thought that there was a new king Herod in 6.

Both the originals, the infancy gospel and Justin point to a birth date in 6. Both have soldiers of a new king Herod in 6, which was not there.
I therefore wonder if there is a connection between the infancy gospel and Justin. Personally I think so, because of the similarities. That can hardly be a coincidence. Any thoughts????

Not to mention that both birth stories point to a Jesus dying at 24 years old!!!!!!!!!

I do think that the birth stories of Luke and Mathew are reworkings of the infancy gospel and of Justin Martyr. They have to be written then after 150 and after 170.

Has anybody any thoughts about that?

greetings, Cora. .

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 » Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:24 am

cora wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:15 am
Let me go back to the actual birth stories: I see the birth story of Luke as a "normalisation" of the infancy gospel from 150, because that is rather weird. It cannot be as the church said in the middle ages: look how nice. They took the birth story of Luke and expanded it BACKWARD.
But the point is, in the infancy gospel which is playing in the year 6 because of the census, at the end everybody has to flee for the SOLDIERS OF HEROD. But there was no Herod, the romans had taken over. So Luke left that out.
But the original writer thought that there was a new king Herod in 6.

The birth story of Mathew as in Justin, if you look well, has also soldiers from king Herod, and also a king Herod in 6. Because there was no new Herod in 6, Mathew left that out, so since then everybody thinks it is about Herod the Great, king until 4 BC, which gives a 10 year difference in birth dates. But also Justin thought that there was a new king Herod in 6.

Both the originals, the infancy gospel and Justin point to a birth date in 6. Both have soldiers of a new king Herod in 6, which was not there.
I therefore wonder if there is a connection between the infancy gospel and Justin. Personally I think so, because of the similarities. That can hardly be a coincidence. Any thoughts????

Not to mention that both birth stories point to a Jesus dying at 24 years old!!!!!!!!!

I do think that the birth stories of Luke and Mathew are reworkings of the infancy gospel and of Justin Martyr. They have to be written then after 150 and after 170.

Has anybody any thoughts about that?

greetings, Cora. .
Do you mean the infancy gospel of Thomas?
I see that as a parody on Mark, and it does breathe the context of the gospel of Thomas.
But I don't see any relation between it and the birth narratives. Which ones do you see?

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8635
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:40 am

mlinssen wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:47 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:53 am
mlinssen wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:58 am
What is most important in here is what Brent phrased very well

https://brentnongbri.com/2018/04/11/jus ... e-gospels/

* The lone exception to this “plural” rule in Justin’s surviving writings is actually quite telling: At Dialogue 106.3, the manuscripts read καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ. The singular αὐτοῦ is so out of keeping with Justin’s normal practice that some modern editors have emended the text at this point; Goodspeed and Bobichon follow the manuscripts; Otto reads ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ; I’m unable to consult Marcovich, but according to Bobichon’s apparatus, he follows Otto in adding the words τῶν ἀποστόλων.

What connection are you drawing between (A) Justin's threefold use of "gospel" to indicate a written text, including once in the first Apology which hakeem referenced and again on that page you linked to at archive.org, and (B) Nongbri's discussion of the singular αὐτοῦ in Dialogue 106.3? I am not following.
The essential part of Nongbri's comment is now emphasised
How so? (To my eye, the essential part of his comment is that Justin would not have referred to the Memorabilia as belonging to a single apostle; rather, he would have attributed the Memorabilia to plural apostles. But I am not sure what the connection is between that and hakeem's drawing attention to the use of the term "gospel" in the first Apology, followed by your own drawing attention to the use of the term "gospel" in the Dialogue.)

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 » Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:11 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:40 am
mlinssen wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:47 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:53 am
mlinssen wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:58 am
What is most important in here is what Brent phrased very well

https://brentnongbri.com/2018/04/11/jus ... e-gospels/

* The lone exception to this “plural” rule in Justin’s surviving writings is actually quite telling: At Dialogue 106.3, the manuscripts read καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ. The singular αὐτοῦ is so out of keeping with Justin’s normal practice that some modern editors have emended the text at this point; Goodspeed and Bobichon follow the manuscripts; Otto reads ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ; I’m unable to consult Marcovich, but according to Bobichon’s apparatus, he follows Otto in adding the words τῶν ἀποστόλων.

What connection are you drawing between (A) Justin's threefold use of "gospel" to indicate a written text, including once in the first Apology which hakeem referenced and again on that page you linked to at archive.org, and (B) Nongbri's discussion of the singular αὐτοῦ in Dialogue 106.3? I am not following.
The essential part of Nongbri's comment is now emphasised
How so? (To my eye, the essential part of his comment is that Justin would not have referred to the Memorabilia as belonging to a single apostle; rather, he would have attributed the Memorabilia to plural apostles. But I am not sure what the connection is between that and hakeem's drawing attention to the use of the term "gospel" in the first Apology, followed by your own drawing attention to the use of the term "gospel" in the Dialogue.)
You're having a slow day I'd say, tired?
When I am commenting on something and dropping the word 'essential' without further ado, it is more likely that it is I who thinks it is essential rather than that it would be who would think that it would be you who thinks it is so :lol:

Brent is commenting on adding the words τῶν ἀποστόλων - I am not going to emphasise it again...

You said "(B) Nongbri's discussion of the singular αὐτοῦ in Dialogue 106.3? I am not following." Brent doesn't only discuss that, he notes that "of the apostles" gets added in between - the usual "fix", I guess?

In Apology 66.3-4 Justin talks of "in the events by them related-from-memory, the called gospels: ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ´ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια
Dialogue 10.1-4 mentions the word but it is a sarcastic comment by Trypho and he renders the 'gosple' singular instedd of plural
Dialogue 100.1, funnily, also has the singular and this time it is Just himself who uses that

And then, the reason for my comment should be evident, but let me spell it out: Brent Nongbri's discussion ALSO discusses a singular reference to "gospel" in general, just like Dialoge (10 &) 100

Stuart
Posts: 663
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by Stuart » Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:04 pm

I would suggest examining Revelation 12:1-6

And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. [3] And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. [4] His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place (τόπον) prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

This is a celestial birth, it even says so in verse 12:1. And the battle of Michael and the Dragon which follows similarly reading the constellation formations.

This is independent of the gospel stories and strikes me as prior.

hakeem
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by hakeem » Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:22 pm

It is interesting to note that although Trypho in Justin's Dialogue made reference to the Gospel (singular) it is claimed he read them (plural).

hakeem
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by hakeem » Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:04 pm

Stuart wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:04 pm
I would suggest examining Revelation 12:1-6

And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. [3] And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. [4] His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place (τόπον) prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

This is a celestial birth, it even says so in verse 12:1. And the battle of Michael and the Dragon which follows similarly reading the constellation formations.

This is independent of the gospel stories and strikes me as prior.
You have no evidence at all that revelations is independent of the Gospels. In any event, the Christian Canon does state their Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem.

The Revelations of John is dated to the late 1st century by Christian writers.

cora
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by cora » Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:40 pm

Hai,
Like I explained I am talking about the birth stories of Luke and Mathew. Luke has to do with the "infancy gospel of James" from 150. Mathew has to do with Justin Martyrs papers, in the hands or Irenaeus since 170.
I was thinking that the infancy gospel of James (Luke) and Justin Martyr (Mathew) might have something to do with each other. More close reading learns that BOTH birth stories (James and Justin) in fact point to the year 6, and both stories have soldiers from a Herod of the year 6, which did not exist. That looks a lot like each other. That was my point. Maybe Justin wrote both of them, or knew the other story.

The other point is that IMO Luke used the birth story of the infancy gospel of James, reworking it. And that Mathew used the story of Justin, also changing it to take the non existing Herod of 6 out. If this is true, the birth stories of Luke and Mathew were written after 150 and after 170. The other gospels have no birth stories. Luke and Mathew were therefore not complete until after 150 and after 170.

It means also that Irenaeus' statement that they all in Judea were using Mathew, just taking the birth story off, is a lie.
Also Irenaeus' statement that Marcion had stolen Luke, and mutilated it by taking the birth story of, is a much worse lie. Marcion's gospel was already IN the church of rome, before the birth story was even written. How could Marcion take off which was not even there yet????? My proposition is therefore that Luke stole the gospel of Marcion, and added a lot to it. This was easy stealing as the gospel of Marcion was kept in the church of rome. Therefore the so-called Luke was an employee of the church of rome. Made into Paul's bff in the pastoral letters, which are almost generally considered to be not by Paul. IMO the church of rome was trying to destroy Marcion and his churches.
"Luke" could be used also as the so-called writer of the Acts, which is for the most part about Paul.

The birth story of Mathew becoming known in 170, makes the writer of Mathew also an employee of the church of rome. I discovered anyway in the sermon on the mount: pieces of Luke, pieces of the original Marcion (as published) and pieces of Justin Martyr. I could quote them. The sermon on the mount is therefore fabricated: different pieces of different authors. So who is Mathew?
The names on the gospels are from 185, that is a thing that is certain.

I do just close-reading. So look at it this way.
greetings, Cora.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3747
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:10 pm

To Nora,
Luke has to do with the "infancy gospel of James" from 150.
The other point is that IMO Luke used the birth story of the infancy gospel of James, reworking it. And that Mathew used the story of Justin, also changing it to take the non existing Herod of 6 out. If this is true, the birth stories of Luke and Mathew were written after 150 and after 170.
According to Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VII, Basilides (120-140) knew about the nativity story of 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]

Also Hippolytus wrote, in the same book:
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."

Cordially, Bernard

Post Reply