Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Vinzent deprecates Q and other hypothetical sources as unnecessary if the "Gospel of the Lord" which is commonly attributed to Marcion was the first Gospel.

"Marcion And The Dating Of The Synoptic Gospels - Professor Markus Vinzent". YouTube. History Valley. 27 May 2022. "In this episode, Professor Markus Vinzent joins History Valley podcast for the first time to discuss his redating of the Gospels to the 2nd century CE and his conclusion that the Gospel of the Lord which is commonly attributed to Marcion was the first Gospel and that the four canonical Gospels Mark, Matthew, Luke and John copied from Marcion's Gospel."

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 5:51 pm How do you view the historical integrity of the NT attestations and references by the "Church Fathers"

* both before Marcion c. 85 – c. 160 CE (such as Ignatius died c. 108/140 CE, Polycarp 69 – 155 CE, and Clement c. 35 – 99 CE),

* and after Marcion (such as Justin 103 – 165 CE, Tertullian 155 – c. 220 CE, and Irenaeus c. 130 – c. 202 CE) ? (See further below)

#1 The dating of these early works is far from certain.
#2 Few, if any, of these testify to the Gospel narrative. Indeed I've argued that 1 Clement shows no signs that the writer considered Jesus a person, much less that they knew of any Gospels.
#3 Justin clearly doesn't know that NT. He knows of narratives that a very similar to the Gospels we know, but they aren't the Gospels we know. I suspect very strongly that Justin or his writings influenced the development of the proto-orthodox NT collection.
#4 Irenaeus and Tertullian are clearly reading the actual NT.

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 5:51 pm Irenaeus' views on orthodoxy (or proto-orthodoxy) include apostolic succession and the fact that scholars contend that Irenaeus quotes from 21 of the 27 New Testament books. At the same time Irenaeus is a chief heresiologist and as you say "is able to list out a dozen or more major schools of heresy.".

Are we to trust and effectively reconcile Irenaeus as a reliable witness for both :

* apostolic succession and proto-orthodoxy
* Marcion and the gnostic heretics

It seems to me to be paradoxical that we accept Irenaeus as an authority in latter case but not in the former. Can you resolve this?

Clearly Irenaeus is reading the actual NT, or essentially the first edition of the NT collection. Irenaeus' views on apostolic succession are #1 conjecture and #2 part of his defense of the integrity of the NT collection against the writings of the so-called heretics. Its how he establishes the validity of his writings vs the writings of his opponents. We may question the validity of some of the claims that Irenaeus makes against his so-called gnostic opponents, but there seems to be little reason to doubt that such opponents existed. The fact that he's able to identify roughly a dozen different schools of Christianity, most of which have more in common with each other than with the views of Irenaeus or Justin Martyr, would seem to indicate that proto-orthodoxy was in fact in the minority at this time. Is it really reasonable to think that in a span of roughly 100 years according to Irenaeus' timeline, that the "true teachings" of Jesus had been so utterly corrupted and that the true identify of this figure had been so utterly forgotten? Especially if, as Irenaeus claims, the accounts of the NT were actually the base from which everything started?

Keep in mind that what Irenaeus and the NT collection essentially espouse is that the Gospel provide the original understand of who Jesus was and that Acts of the Apostles records how the true teachings of Jesus initially spread throughout Asia Minor and Greece. This Apostolic Era lasted let's say from 35 to 68 CE. Now, in the following 100 years, according to Irenaeus, we are to believe that the true base of Christian teachings that had been established, now became utterly corrupted after the deaths of the disciples, and over this 100 year period it came to be that the true teachings and writings about Jesus were twisted into lies. Somehow, these lies overtook the truth and the majority of "Christians" were now following misinformation that claimed Jesus was Spirit who descended from heaven, who had been sent from a god higher than the Jewish god, in order to overthrow the Jews, not that he was in fact sent by the Jewish god.

We could postulate that this happened because of the Jewish wars and efforts to disassociate Christ worship from the Jews, but even proto-orthodox Christianity had no problem throwing the Jews under the bus. Clearly such a step was not necessary, and in fact many have argued that proto-orthodoxy was actually more anti-Jewish than Marcionism. The Marcionites, apparently, considered the Jews unwitting victims of divine deception, whereas the proto-orthodox blamed the Jews for culpable defiance of God. So, certainly Gnosticism is not required to separate Christianity from Judaism, proto-orthodoxy did that just fine.

rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:27 am#3 Justin clearly doesn't know that NT. He knows of narratives that a very similar to the Gospels we know, but they aren't the Gospels we know.

That sounds interesting. What is the evidence for that?

rgprice wrote: #4 Irenaeus and Tertullian are clearly reading the ...
... first edition of the NT collection

• Well, they would have been reading the first edition of the four-gospel NT collection (ie. a post-Marcionite edition)

rgprice wrote: Irenaeus' views on apostolic succession are #1 conjecture and #2 part of his defense of the integrity of the NT collection against the writings of the so-called heretics. It's how he establishes the validity of his writings vs the writings of his opponents.¹ We may question the validity of some of the claims that Irenaeus makes against his so-called gnostic opponents,¹ but there seems to be little reason to doubt that such opponents existed.²

• ('his' italicised by me)

1. I think rgprice is right to frame the preceding writings of Valentinus, the Sethians, the Simonians, etc., as Irenaeus' perceived opponents though that's only b/c Irenaeus was, as rgp is implying, re-writing history. But I think the view and perceived battle was only one way, so opponents² wouldn't have applied - and still wouldn't apply - to the so-called 'gnostic' writers' views of themselves: heck, they probably never knew Irenaeus: their followers contemporaneous with Irenaeus or later might have known Irenaeus' views (or might not have).

The Syntagma, a text, afaik, first attributed to Justin Martyr, and taken up by others, especially Irenaeus, is likely to be key here.

rgprice wrote:The fact that he's able to identify roughly a dozen different schools of Christianity, most of which have more in common with each other than with the views of Irenaeus or Justin Martyr, would seem to indicate that proto-orthodoxy was in fact in the minority at this time.

• 'proto-orthodoxy' might only have started with Irenaeus.

This -


- is likely. There are passages in Justin's writings that allude to or are similar to passages, verses or pericopes in the gospels, particularly Matthew, but are hard ever - if ever - the same as those in the gospels.


This -


- is noteworthy.

As is

Keep in mind that what Irenaeus and the NT collection essentially espouse is that the Gospel provide the original understand of who Jesus was and that Acts of the Apostles records how the true teachings of Jesus initially spread throughout Asia Minor and Greece. This Apostolic Era [supposedly] lasted, let's say, from 35 to 68 CE. Now, in the following 100 years, according to Irenaeus, we are to believe that the true base of Christian teachings that had been established, now became utterly corrupted after the deaths of the disciples and, over this 100-year period, it came to be that the true teachings and writings about Jesus were twisted into lies. Somehow, these lies overtook the truth and the majority of "Christians" were now following misinformation that claimed Jesus was Spirit who descended from heaven, who had been sent from a god higher than the Jewish god, in order to overthrow the Jews, not that he was in fact sent by the Jewish god.

I take issue with some of this:

We could postulate that this happened because of the Jewish wars and efforts to disassociate Christ worship from the Jews, but even proto-orthodox Christianity had no problem throwing the Jews under the bus. Clearly such a step was not necessary, and in fact many have argued that proto-orthodoxy was actually more anti-Jewish than Marcionism. The Marcionites, apparently, considered the Jews unwitting victims of divine deception, whereas the proto-orthodox blamed the Jews for culpable defiance of God. So, certainly Gnosticism is not required to separate Christianity from Judaism, proto-orthodoxy did that just fine.

• A few scholars have posited/argued that Marcionism was anti the Jewish scriptures but not anti-Semitic per se. The advent of proto-orthodoxy and its texts were more anti-Judaic and even anti-Semitic, despite some 'Judaising' aspects of proto-orthodoxy.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:47 pm

rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:27 am#3 Justin clearly doesn't know that NT. He knows of narratives that a very similar to the Gospels we know, but they aren't the Gospels we know.

That sounds interesting. What is the evidence for that?

Justin considers himself a Chrestian, and talks about

First Apology Chapter 4:

https://archive.org/details/apologiesof ... 5/mode/1up

1. Ὀνόματος μὲν οὖν προσωνυμία οὔτε ἀγαθὸν οὔτε κακὸν κρίνεται ἄνευ τῶν ὑποπιπτουσῶν τῷ ὀνόματι πράξεων" ἐπεί, ὅσον γε ἐκ τοῦ κατηγορουμένου ἡμῶν ὀνόματος, χρηστότατοι ὑπάρχομεν.
5. Χριστιανοὶ γὰρ εἶναι κατηγορούμεθα· τὸ δὲ χρηστὸν μισεῖσθαι οὐ δίκαιον.
1. By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are most excellent people.
5. For we are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is excellent is unjust.

An obvious wordplay by Justin gets lost in falsification by changing Χρηστιανοὶ into Χριστιανοὶ:

“our name demonstrates that we are very Chrestos, and while we are accused of being Chrestianoi, hating what is Chrestos is unjust” – the more than apparent logic behind linking these two words here, the substantive and the adjective, loudly attests to the anomaly of Χριστιανοὶ in the MS, caught between χρηστότατοι and χρηστὸν. The entire paragraph is based on the stem χρηστός, and it is also evident that Justin considers himself to be among these Chrestians, and while we can’t expect the earliest MS available, Parisinus Graece 450 – which dates to the 14th CE - to reveal an original spelling, there is no need for that: this entire sentence in verse 5 can only work when it says Χρηστιανοὶ.

Vinzent's Christi Thora spells it all out how Justin refers to memories, then to a single gospel, and online later to multiple gospels - by simply using the plural

Dialogue 10, 2: "so-called gospel"
Dialogue 12, 2: "good message for the poor"
Dialogue 100, 1 evokes the impression of a text
First Apology 66, 3: "so-called gospel"
"Memories" (hypomneumata) are referenced 13 times in Dialogue with Trypho

Some suggest that sweet Jus purposely tries to evade the word Evangellion in order to not be associated with Marcion

But 4 gospels, even without names and numbers? Absolutely not

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:49 pm Vinzent's Christi Thora spells it all out how Justin refers to memories, then to a single gospel, and online later to multiple gospels - by simply using the plural

• I presume you mean only, not online (Justin wasn't online, nor was anyone else then, of course )

Some suggest that sweet Jus purposely tries to evade the word 'Evangelion' in order to not be associated with Marcion

• yep

But 4 gospels...without names and numbers? Absolutely not

• yep

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 2:09 pm

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:49 pm Vinzent's Christi Thora spells it all out how Justin refers to memories, then to a single gospel, and online later to multiple gospels - by simply using the plural

• I presume you mean only, not online (Justin wasn't online, nor was anyone else then, of course )

Some suggest that sweet Jus purposely tries to evade the word 'Evangelion' in order to not be associated with Marcion

• yep

But 4 gospels...without names and numbers? Absolutely not

• yep

I am infamous for my fat fingers!
Truth be told I got a new phone and I yet have to break it in, dictionary wise

Sweet Jus did have a fairly popular podcast back then, pity that you missed it. It was called "Just in my tier" and in it he narrated about all the famous characters in his neighbourhood

Rather short-lived it was, but still

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:49 pmDialogue 10, 2: "so-called gospel"
Dialogue 12, 2: "good message for the poor"
Dialogue 100, 1 evokes the impression of a text
First Apology 66, 3: "so-called gospel"
"Memories" (hypomneumata) are referenced 13 times in Dialogue with Trypho

Some suggest that sweet Jus purposely tries to evade the word Evangellion in order to not be associated with Marcion

But 4 gospels, even without names and numbers? Absolutely not

The "so-called gospel" in Dialogue is being spoken by Trypho. Also in Dialogue, Justin describes the memoirs as:

"For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them"

It does sound like our Gospels, though obviously there isn't enough information to prove that. I'd be interested in evidence that they weren't our 4 Gospels though.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:18 pm

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:49 pmDialogue 10, 2: "so-called gospel"
Dialogue 12, 2: "good message for the poor"
Dialogue 100, 1 evokes the impression of a text
First Apology 66, 3: "so-called gospel"
"Memories" (hypomneumata) are referenced 13 times in Dialogue with Trypho

Some suggest that sweet Jus purposely tries to evade the word Evangellion in order to not be associated with Marcion

But 4 gospels, even without names and numbers? Absolutely not

The "so-called gospel" in Dialogue is being spoken by Trypho. Also in Dialogue, Justin describes the memoirs as:

"For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them"

It does sound like our Gospels, though obviously there isn't enough information to prove that. I'd be interested in evidence that they weren't our 4 Gospels though.

Do you really assume that there was a Trypho? Have you read even a few pages of this rhetoric?

LOL.

The burden of proof lies with you GDon. Go on then, make my day - you don't stand the slimmest chance

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:38 pmDo you really assume that there was a Trypho? Have you read even a few pages of this rhetoric?

I agree Trypho is Justin's character, that may or may not have been based on a real person whom Justin interacted with. But it doesn't matter. The character of Trypho is presented as a Jew, and it is in character for him to say "so called gospels".

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:38 pmThe burden of proof lies with you GDon. Go on then, make my day - you don't stand the slimmest chance

If there is a claim on the table that Justin didn't know our Gospels, then I'd like to understand the evidence for that. I'm not even denying it, just interested in the evidence.