Witulski's view about Revelation

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Dating, Perspectives

Post by billd89 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:06 amMy question re the date of the Gospel of Mark was intended to point out that your claim about some apparent standard of there being 2 to 3 gens of orality before a text makes its appearance actually puts the gospel of Mark very late. ... I was looking for some method that might apply to different types of texts that could justify the 2 or 3 generation claim. It sounds like an assumption especially tailored to fit conventional biblical studies.
No, I havent said that. For most myths of this period, oral teaching is probably a generation or two (30-75 years) before the script begins to circulate widely. Appearance (first notice) might be sooner.
billd89 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:31 amI 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. And Alexandrian Xtian Gnosticism is far too advanced & complex c.125 AD to support 'Late Gospels': foundational material should be 2-3 generations older.
I wasn't thinking of 'Mark', rather Basilides. Though I date Basilides c.125 AD, the range is 120-140 AD; 117 AD is sometimes given. Nothing I've read suggests Basilides is necessarily dependent on GMark either.
125 AD - 60 = 65 AD; Where 'Mark' is widely assumed as early as 64 AD that possibly fits, a Q document would be even older, 10-20yrs.
140 AD - 90 = 50 AD; on the Quelle, obv.

It's a useful metric for me, approximate, my yardstick. The real question is: what/where is the Gnostic oral tradition leading to Basilides' teachings, a generation or two before 125 AD? That's what interests me. I'm fairly convinced it's Jewish Gnosticism before 70 AD.

I am well-aware that 'consensus' is something of a misnomer in MOST cases it's used. For example: 'group consensus' means ALL members agree (or at least, Do Not Oppose) a decision or point. It shouldn't mean 'majority view' - but it does. Usage.

The conventional model(s) for dating Christian origins seems reasonable to me. The 'Gnostic' scholars are, by contrast, very sloppy and all over the map.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Dating, Perspectives

Post by neilgodfrey »

billd89 wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:41 am For most myths of this period, oral teaching is probably a generation or two (30-75 years) before the script begins to circulate widely. Appearance (first notice) might be sooner.
......
The conventional model(s) for dating Christian origins seems reasonable to me. The 'Gnostic' scholars are, by contrast, very sloppy and all over the map.
Niels Peter Lemche nailed it in his chapter in Did Moses Speak Attic (link and discussion at https://vridar.org/2012/01/01/scientifi ... e-gospels/). One needs to justify an oral precursor of such lengths of time in every case, not assume it. In non-biblical studies dating starts with where our knowledge is the most secure on the basis of independent evidence. Starting with the contents of the narratives in a source is circular reasoning and unfortunately typical of biblical studies' method of dating the gospels.
Post Reply