neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:14 pm
billd89 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:31 amby the time smthg is recorded in script its been in existence orally a generation or two earlier.
What evidence or what models or what exemplars do you point to as models to justify this claim?
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:29 pm
[I wrote:]"I don't buy into all this Late Dating; by the time smthg is recorded in script its been in existence orally a generation or two earlier."
So the Gospel of Mark was written a generation or two after 70 CE? Between 100 and 150CE
No. The consensus for composition is 66-74 AD, and the basic oral teaching might be 15 years earlier. 'Within a generation' ~ 10-25 yrs.
Backtrack. For most myths, oral teaching is probably a generation or two (30-75 years) before the script begins to circulate widely. Whichever (re-copied) fragment survives -in the future!- is not likely the oldest but rather the newest or from the 'early popularity' of the work's dissemination, say +10-25 years, conservatively.
Hypothetical Model: Estimation of Time-Progression for Novel Religious Work's Dissemination in Antiquity
Teaching. Year 0.
Teaching First Written. Year 10.
Teaching becomes popular. Year 35-50.
Teaching becomes famous Gospel. Year 50-75.
Gospel becomes 'canonical'. Year 75-125.
Oldest Surviving Fragment, c. Year 65.
So a LATER well-known/much-copied novel work by an Anon. dated to 125 AD was likely 'originally composed' anywhere from 50-100 yrs earlier.
billd89 wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 6:39 amOrigen wrote Contra Celsum at the request of Ambrosius, in response to Celsus’ True Logos, an attack on Christianity. Celsus was dead by this stage, and True Logos had been composed 70 to 80 years previously. The fact that it was still in circulation may have worried Christians like Ambrosius, but there must have been a lag-time of several decades for many works to become 'popular'. In this famous case, it took nearly 3 generations!
Time slows by decades. Condensing time (to even early 20th C speeds, for example) is the mistake; imagining that everything spread overnight (the 21st C norm) is absurd, thoughtless. Look at the time-frame of four or five famous works by ancient philosophers, then add a generation or two: that's how slowly the work of an unknown preacher actually spread in Antiquity.
The 'True Doctrine' of Celsus is one example. I presume Celsus should have been reasonably 'well-known' c.200 AD - if he was famous, then time-scale for popularity {Hypotheticals, in brackets} might be condensed somewhat. By here's a time-frame from the history we have:
255 AD
--
c.253 AD: Origen dies, Age c.69.
--
--
250 AD
--
248 AD: Contra Celsum, written. Origen is about 64yo. Celsus has been dead 70yrs.
--
--
245 AD ~~~{Likely: True Doctrine well-known, 'canonical' in its authority.}~~~
--
--
--
--
240 AD
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
230 AD ~~~{Likely: True Doctrine gains popularity.}~~~
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
220 AD
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
210 AD
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
200 AD {Likely: True Doctrine begins to spread, a generation later, by the teachings of Celsus' students.}
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
190 AD
--
--
--
--
--
c.184 AD: Origen born.
--
--
--
c.180? AD: Celsus dies, Age c.65?
--
--
--
--
175 AD: True Doctrine, written. Celsus is Age c.60. Celsus had extensive knowledge of the New Testament, which had been quasi-canonical for about two generations.
--
.....
c.115? AD: Celsus born.
Contra Celsum, 2.27.
"After this he says that certain (Christian) believers, like persons drunk by establishing their secondary writ from primary scripture, they even refashion the Gospel thrice, four-fold, indeed manifold, so they might deny refutations. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion {after 150 AD}, and those of Valentinus {after 135 AD}, and, I think, also those of Lucian {?? c.120 AD?} ..."
Origen is a very learned Church Father, with a vast library. He's writing historically, looking backwards in time
from Celsus' day(=175 AD). But (excepting those listed) he knows of no other tampered Gospel, circulating in his own time (c.245 AD) OR the past. Also note: the "Gospel" reference is in the singular, which he means a collection (= 'the Canon'), certainly considered one whole, sacred unit in his day (c.245 AD). Since Marcion (c.145 AD), Tatian's reference (c.150 AD), and the Muratorian Canon (c.170 AD) all point likewise to well-known and familiar Gospels, such (in whatever forms) were 2-3 generations old - NOT NEW. The 'Gospel' was accepted as 'the Jesus Story' of Mark,Matthew,Luke + John = in (4) different forms. But there were also (3) counterfeit versions that Celsus would have known (thinks Origen), although O. sounds uncertain
if there might be yet others from the 2nd C. AD? Curious.
What other (now-known) counterfeit 'Jesus Gospels' did Origen miss, c.50-200 AD? Isnt that telling, at least in terms of our time-frame theory?
I wonder if Origen (who speaks familiarly but vaguely of a suspiciously heretic group: "Lucian's followers") might mean the same Thomasine sect that GJhn is supposed to have disputed. That would fit Celsus' claim these early Xtian groups wrote counter-narratives against each other (viz., John against 'GThom'), in addition to often revising their own Gospels. Timewise, that implies GThom dated ~15-30yrs before GJhn (as responses went, then).