dating the gospels?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: dating the gospels?

Post by hakeem »

The fact that Justin mentioned the Acts of Pilate is evidence that Justin named his sources. If Justin knew of Gospels called gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn or Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles he would have mentioned them by name.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: dating the gospels?

Post by arnoldo »

Besides Justin, Lucian of Samosata also doesn't name the Gospels in the following account.

It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He inter preted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom11 they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

12. "Then at length Proteus was apprehended for this and thrown into prison, which itself gave him no little reputation as an asset for his future career and the charlatanism and notoriety-seeking that he was enamoured of. Well, when he had been imprisoned, the Christians, regarding the incident as a calamity, left nothing undone in the effort to rescue him Then, as this was impossible, every other form of attention was shown him, not in any casual way but with assiduity, and from the very break of day aged widows and orphan children could be seen waiting near the prison, while their officials even slept inside with him after bribing the guards. Then elaborate meals were brought in, and sacred books of theirs were read aloud, and excellent Peregrinus—for he still went by that name—was called by them 'the new Socrates.'

13. “Indeed, people came even from the cities in Asia, sent by the Christians at their common expense, to succour and defend and encourage the hero. They show incredible speed whenever any such public action is taken; for in no time they lavish their all. So it was then in the case of Peregrinus; much money came to him from them by reason of his imprisonment, and he procured not a little revenue from it. The poor wretches have convinced themselves, first and foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for all time, in consequence of which they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody; most of them. Furthermore, their first lawgiver12 persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once, for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence. So if any charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk.

https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/201 ... s-proteus/
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Dating the Naassene Sermon

Post by billd89 »

Where Hippolytus' Philosophumena should be dated 225 AD, then the Naassene Sermon should have a probable 'Late Date' of c.150 AD. This, given the time-lag typically witnessed in the decades-long circulation and growing importance of smthg needing to be refuted. But a few points conservatively confirm that an earlier date (c.100-110 AD) is certainly warranted here.

I'm not convinced, but Bousset (1913) believed an older pre-Christian Gnostic layer is evident. That should date the oldest Ophite myth in the Naassene Sermon to before 60 AD; whether that came from Syria I do not know.

1) Dating the death of James-the-Just 62 AD (c.Age 61) and IF his true disciple was Mariamne, @ 25yo (born 37 AD, died Age 63 in 100 AD), then her teachings should have occurred 80-100 AD. Mariamne's 'Naassene Gospel' would date c.100 AD. The sect is assumed to have flourished c.115-140 AD, a generation or so after the generic (Proto-; Judeo-Gnostic) Ophites.

2) If we date the completed Naassene Sermon referenced by Hippolytus (225 AD) to a generation AFTER Mariamne's death (or: assume she was actually one generation removed from James' true hearer), therefore 135 AD, the material which composed the Naassene Sermon should be also at least 35-60 years older still. Ergo: ALL Gospels and mentioned Pauline Epistles would be known and reconciled sometime c.75-100 AD in Syria.

3) Irenaeus (c.180) knew them generically as Ophites, Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 30); again, for their writings to have circulated (60yrs) OR become well-known to someone ~20yo in Smyrna Turkey in 150 AD, then suppose the 'Ophites' should have appeared at least two generations earlier (viz., they are not 'novel', new). Therefore, the Naassenes had probably arrived by c.75-90 AD.

4) Scholars note the content bears striking similarities to Valentinian material, yet older. As the earliest & more complex Valentinian material dates c.135 AD, so the older & simpler Naassene material should be a generation earlier (c.105 AD).

5) Given the Book of Elchasai was written c.115 AD but first indicated in 220 AD, the teaching of Elchasai was unknown to Irenaeus. So the sect should date about generation or two later than the Naassene sect, and E. material would have been popularized c.175 AD. That Origen thought the Elcesaites 'new' (Tertullian on the 'recent' Valentinians means 50-60 years earlier), is also consistent to c.175 AD. Since Hippolytus (225 AD) knew of the Book of Elchasai, that fact puts the writing well-within the 60yr metric for something to circulate, become popular/influential, etc. and therefore worthy of refutation.
Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:39 pm About the Naassenes:
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naassenes:
The Naassenes had one or more books out of which Hippolytus of Rome largely quotes in the Philosophumena


The Naassenes claimed to have been taught their doctrines by Mariamne, a disciple of James the Just. The retention of the Hebrew form shows that their beliefs may represent the earliest stages of Gnosticism. Hippolytus regards them as among the first to be called simply "Gnostics", alleging that they alone have sounded the depths of knowledge.


The writer [a Naassene writer], it will be seen, makes free use of the New Testament. He seems to have used all the four Gospels, but that of which he makes most use is St. John's. He quotes from Paul's epistles to the Romans, Corinthians (both letters), Galatians, and Ephesians.


"and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." [1 Co 3:14?] For in these words which Paul has spoken they say the entire secret of theirs


These are, he [a Naassene writer] says, what are by all called the secret mysteries, "which (also we speak), not in words taught of human wisdom, but in those taught of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him." [1 Co2:13-14] And these are, he says, the ineffable mysteries of the Spirit, which we alone are acquainted with. Concerning these, he says, the Saviour has declared, "No one can come unto me, except my heavenly Father draw some one unto me." [Jn 6:44]


And again, it is said, the Saviour has declared, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." [Mt 7:21]


And this, he [a Naassene writer] says, is what has been declared: "The sower went forth to sow. And some fell by the wayside, and was trodden down; and some on the rocky places, and sprang up," he says, "and on account of its having no depth (of soil), it withered and died; and some,"he says, "fell on fair and good ground, and brought forth fruit, some a hundred, some sixty, and some thirty fold. And this, he says, is what has been declared: "The sower went forth to sow. And some fell by the wayside, and was trodden down; and some on the rocky places, and sprang up," he says, "and on account of its having no depth (of soil), it withered and died; and some," he says, "fell on fair and good ground, and brought forth fruit, some a hundred, some sixty, and some thirty fold. Who hath ears, ... let him hear." [the three quotes are from Mt 13:3-9]

...
Cordially, Bernard
Blog musings:
In other words, these early Christian leaders believed themselves to be earthly incarnations of the masculine and feminine spirits which were proposed by Elxai. James and Mary {Mariamne} were just another in a long line; however, Paul’s awareness of James probably indicates that James (and Cephas) preceded him. In light of the Naassene awareness of Paul, the Naassenes might represent a snapshot in time prior to a fallout between Jamesian and Pauline Christians. And James…he was just another in a long line of Jesus Christs.

Wm. Blake, c.1810
Image

Irrelevant? I like to know origins. Ribi, [2006], pp.15-6
Barbara Hannah recorded: “He [Jung] told me more than once that the first parallels he found to his own experience were in the Gnostic texts, that is, those reported in the Elenchos (sic) of Hippolytus.” It is now evident that Jung studied the Gnostic materials preserved by Hippolytus in 1915 and saw then the parallels with his own experience. This connection with the Gnosis instigated intense interest and further reading of the then extant Gnostic literature. Gnostic myth thereafter supplied a vocabulary for expression of the experiences recorded in Liber Novus.

gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: dating the gospels?

Post by gmx »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 7:48 pm
What you wrote here are unevidenced assertions.
Again you need to decide when gMatthew was written: before Justin or by Irenaeus around 180.

Cordially, Bernard
We have no extant manuscripts of hypothesized predecessors to Matthew's gospel.

We have extant papyri witnesses to Matthew's gospel dated to the second century, and many extant papyri witnesses to Matthew's gospel dated to the third century.

If Matthew was composed circa 180, then we are very likely in possession of the autograph and multiple manuscripts copied from it (or fragments thereof).

What are the chances of that being the case ? I would say it approaches zero, but I have the benefit of being wholly uneducated in the field.
Post Reply