Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:36 am Is it later than Pliny's Letter 97 (which I currently would accept as authentic and date c. 110 CE)? I am less certain about that, but I think it is plausible that 1 Tim. 6.20 refers to Marcion's antitheses (c. 144 CE?):

Oooo---yeah, great observation. Unpacking the implications, I'll have to concede that my argument from the existence of slave deaconesses c. 110ad as being distinctively (proto) Marcionite is unsupported. The authentic letters of Paul surely give evidence that women were in leadership roles pretty much everywhere there were christians just 50 or so years earlier. And that "antithesis and so-called gnosis" crack can't be used to show the patriarchy had won that early.

Thanks for helping me think this through!

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 9:41 pm This is a statement of hypothesis, and it relies on multiple other hypotheses (or perhaps a particular definition of biographical).

Each of these items requires interpretation. "seems to mean" is subjective to the interpreter. This presumes that any thing that could be remotely interpreted as a passing glance of a reference to some historical artifact, must be interpreted as literal and historical. This "seems to mean" hides that interpretation is still happening anyway. When Paul says that Jesus was "born of a woman" (Gal 4:4), he's very obviously being literal and saying that Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem. When Paul tells the Galatians "you are no longer a slave" he very obviously not being literal. When he calls James, Jesus' "brother" he literally means "brother". When he calls Titus his own "brother" he doesn't literally mean "brother'.

What's missing in this interpretation is the remarkable ability that early Christians have in saying so much about Jesus while managing to avoid saying anything specific about Jesus that wasn't already a required scriptural prophecy for the Christ.

Paul can mention Jesus genealogy on multiple occasions without mentioning the virgin Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Herod, Egypt, floating stars, shepherds, wise men, or a census. Sure I agree that most of that is made up but its pretty odd for the guy not to know Jesus parents names if he actually meet Jesus' biological brother.

Paul and 1 Clement mention Jesus' suffering and death many many times and manage to avoid saying that the Romans or Pontius Pilate were involved. They aren't aware that he was abandoned by his disciples, carried his own cross, and was buried in a tomb that would eventually be found empty. 1 Clement can write a huge letter warning the Corinthians about the dangers of betrayal without mentioning Judas.

Hebrews and Revelations can only mention a "city" as the place of Jesus crucifixion as if they aren't aware that that city was Jerusalem. A place that also happens to be very near his own birth place.

Early Christians have no problem using scriptures as sources of quotations of Jesus, but also show no knowledge of a single one of his parables. His parables are also considered some of the most historical stuff in the gospels.

All of these also require a hypothesis to explain. You could argue that silence is not that strong of a inference, but silence can easily be defeated with the existence of evidence. I think it's import to consider how poor the evidence we have is compared to what would could possible have with just the documents we are already aware of. I suppose that I think this is far more difficult to explain away than you do.

that stuff can be explained by positing a break in the transmission of the information going back to the founders. one could argue these problems are actually evidence for a historical movement and the texts we have are one or two steps removed from them. so *ev took the parables, others ignored them. how can you have a group that follows the founder yet ignores his sayings? easily, if that group is derivative and doesn't go back to the founders directly. it all points back to a fragmented transmission from a historical movement IMO it is this vs the fictional origins and the latter gets airtime and the former doesn't

Paul can mention Jesus genealogy on multiple occasions without mentioning the virgin Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Herod, Egypt, floating stars, shepherds, wise men, or a census. Sure I agree that most of that is made up but its pretty odd for the guy not to know Jesus parents names if he actually meet Jesus' biological brother.

Not really directed at the quote above, but I think it confuses things by saying Paul (for example) "doesn't know" X simply because he doesn't mention X. We don't know what he doesn't know simply from a handful of letters. Part of that seems to be based on "X was important for Christians in the 4th Century therefore X would have been important to Christians in the First Century". At the least, the conclusion "author doesn't know X" requires more than simply a lack of mention of X.

RandyHelzerman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 7:56 am

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 7:09 am A serious quarrel among scholars concerning its genuineness arose between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th;

Its pretty amazing how non-original most NT scholarship is these days.....the dutch radicals already wrote about everything scholars have written in both the past 100 years and will write in the next 100 years

I take stylometric arguments very seriously; the techniques are getting better every day, and once they can fully exploit the large language models such as chatGPT uses, they will get amazingly better.

But just on the basis of the content of these letters, it's hard from to imagine they are interpolations. Try to imagine when and who the interpolators were? Tertullian paraphrases parts of them in his Apologeticum, book 2. His account in no way contradicts the text we have today. Tertullian's day job was a lawyer, and he was writing a legal opinion, and he would have been called out if he fraudulently cited a legal precedent. There's no way he made them up.

Pretty much the only thing which Tertullian doesn't mention is that Pliny rounded up women slaves, who were deaconesses. But who--if they were going to make up something--would make *that* up? How would it even occur to somebody's imagination that Pliny would take the word of slave women as in any way authoritative? Women couldn't even testify in a court of law. It has to be true, because its stranger than any fiction anybody would write.

--//--

But Trajan's letter back to Pliny argues even more persuasively for these letters authenticity. What story of martyrs has ever had the Emperor saying that it is "against the spirit of the age" to hunt down christians? Or that an Emperor would have said that christians can't be dragged into court because of anonymous accusations? Trajan's policies here are so enlightened, that Tertullian could use them to argue for religious tolerance -- remember, he was absolutely one of the best lawyers in history---every constitution written since 1700, even the most authoritarian, at least pay lip service to religious toleration--a concept which was invented by and agued for by Tertullian----using Pliny's letters to Trajan as precident.

What martyrology has ever portrayed the romans as being champions of religious tolerance??

I made a suggestion about possible partial interpolation here

Andrew Criddle

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 7:01 am

RandyHelzerman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 5:31 am

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 7:51 pm I.e. it looks very much like a proto-Marcionite setting.
because Marcionite and non-Marcionite Christians looked very much alike. I do like the idea of thinking about proto-Marcionites because there isn't necessarily that much original theologically about Marcion.

Yup. There is one detail in Pliny's letters which sounds Marcionite, and that is the high status that women--slave women even--had. When Pliny wanted to get an authoritative read on what this new sect was all about, naturally he would have rounded up some of their leaders....and the leaders he found were women, slaves, and yet had titled offices (deaconess).

It would be nice to think that all branches of christianity around 100ad really practiced what Paul preaches when he says that in Christ there is no Jew/Greek, Male/Female, Free/Slave. I'm *hoping* that it wasn't so very distinctive of Marcionite christianity, but I fear that it might be so

I do not think there is anything peculiarly Marcionite about the two ancillis (maidservants or slave women) who are called ministrae (ministers, or deaconesses) whom Pliny had tortured to extract the truth about what the Christians believed or did Letter 10.97:

Quo magis necessarium credidi ex duabus ancillis, quae ministrae dicebantur

Phoebe in Romans 16.1 is a deaconess of the church of Cenchreae (the harbor city on the eastern side of the Isthmus of Corinth, though she is probably not a slave. There are several other women mentioned in Romans 16 to whom Paul sends greetings, many of whom seem to be engaged in the work of the Lord (as Paul calls it).

Romans 16.3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. 4 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.5 Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia. 6 Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. 8 Greet Ampliatus, my dear friend in the Lord. 9 Greet Urbanus, our co-worker in Christ, and my dear friend Stachys. 10 Greet Apelles, whose fidelity to Christ has stood the test. Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus. 11 Greet Herodion, my fellow Jew. Greet those in the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord. 12 Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. 13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too. 14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the other brothers and sisters with them. 15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the Lord’s people who are with them.16 Greet one another with a holy kiss.

Slaves certainly could be members of the church, as Paul addresses them in several places, and I cannot see why they could not have held lower offices. (I suspect they were not often chosen as bishops, unless freed first).

Best,

Ken

Callistus an ex-slave controversially became bishop of Rome shortly after 200 CE. See Hippolytus Later church rulings disapproved of the ordination of persons still slaves on conflict of interest grounds, Thomas Aquinas

I answer that, By receiving Orders a man pledges himself to the Divine offices. And since no man can give what is not his, a slave who has not the disposal of himself, cannot be raised to Orders. If, however, he be raised, he receives the Order, because freedom is not required for the validity of the sacrament, although it is requisite for its lawfulness, since it hinders not the power, but the act only. The same reason applies to all who are under an obligation to others, such as those who are in debt and like persons.

Andrew Criddle

There is a lot to respond to here. I'll start with this:

1) There are some significant reasons to conclude that the first Gospel was produced after Bar Kokhba.
2) My position is that the Marcionite version of the Pauline letters should be taken as the more authentic version of the letters, which is closer to their original form.

Firstly, other than a very few passages in the Pauline letters that indirectly indicate Jesus was a "messiah", which are also not in the Marcionite letters, there is no real theology developed around the concept of Jesus as a Messiah in the Pauline letters. We find the term "Christ" all over the Pauline letters, but as has long been acknowledged the term is used in the Pauline letters like a name in a way unfamiliar to other Jewish writings and of course in reality what we have is the nomina sacrum ΧΣ, which could mean "Christ" or "Chrest" (Good).

So there is certainly no strong or definitive indication that the Pauline letters identify Jesus as a "messiah" figure. Yet the Gospels clearly indicate that Jesus was at least some type of messiah. He is presented, rightly or wrongly, as the "King of the Jews".

Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark treats the messianic identity of Jesus as a "secret" that most people failed to recognize. This is a type of literary trope used to retroactively introduce new claims into the past. This indicates that the messianic identity of Jesus was a new concept being introduced by the first Gospel writer.

Here are a few scriptures that I believe are best explained as relating to Bar Kokhba:

We know that Hadrian erected a temple of Jupiter on the temple mount just prior to the Bar Kokhba revolt, and that Hadrian enacted harsh repressions against the Jews.


We know that Bar Kokhba was identified as the Messiah, and after the failure of his campaign he was maligned as a false messiah. He was also said to do signs and wonders.


Why the talk of rebuilding? Bar Kokhba reportedly rebuilt a small temple on the temple mount and claimed to have liberate the temple. So here again we have a counter claim to Bar Kokhba. In this case, the writer is referring to a theological claim that Jesus himself is the temple, not a physical structure.


Neil reviews some of Turmel's case for the man of lawlessness/sin being Bar Kokhba: https://vridar.org/2011/05/31/identifyi ... salonians/

There are essentially three main figures this passage seems likely to be referring to: Caligula, Hadrian, or Bar Kokhba. Two of these are from the same time period in the second century. Caligula never actually presented himself in the Temple, while apparently both Hadrian and Bar Kokhba at least in some fashion.

So here we have three passages in the scriptures that make a lot of sense in the context of the Bar Kokhba revolt.

2 Thess is often considered a pseudo-Pauline letter. So even if other Pauline letters were written in the first century, it is possible that 2 Thess was written in the 2nd century and that in fact the writing of 2 Thess may be related to the production of the Pauline letter collection. It may well be that the Pauline collection was assembled by the writer of 2 Thess or was prompted by the writing of 2 Thess. So several letters could have existed for some time, but it was the events of the Bar Kokhba revolt that led to the compilation of the collection in the early 130s. The writing of the first Gospel would have then soon followed.

The Pauline letters are clearly most occupied with the concept of Jesus as a figure who liberates mankind from the yoke of the law, who provides hope for resurrection of the dead and eternal life. Paul is concerned about morality and salvation from corruption, sin, injustice and earthly desires. The main writings of Paul are not concerned with conflict or larger political events, such as wars or major social upheavals.

Yet the first Gospel is very concerned about these things. The first Gospel is heavily pre-occupied with significant political events, with the destruction of the temple and the collapse of Judaism.

Why does the first Gospel present Jesus as a messiah who was unrecognized in his own time? A significant reason to do this would be to introduce the claim that it was not Bar Kokhba who was the Messiah, rather it was Jesus. The idea that Jesus was the Messiah doesn't come out of nowhere, it is a response to events that are related to the destruction of the Temple.

Mark appears to indicate that the movement of Bar Kokhba was misguided. Jesus was the messiah, but a different kind of messiah. Jesus rebuilt the temple, but a different kind of temple. Jesus is being touted as an answer to the failures of Bar Kokhba.

Is it possible that the first Gospel was written prior to the Bar Kokhba revolt and that the writer was motivated purely by events following the First Jewish-Roman War? Yes it is. But, the Bar Kokhba revolt provides better context for several specific aspects of the first Gospel. Yes, the setting of the crucifixion of Jesus under Pilate is closer to the First Jewish-Roman War, but this is far from definitive. In the case of the story of Elijah and Elisha, the ministries of Elijah and Elisha are set before the fall of the Northern Kingdom, but the story is clearly written after the subsequent fall of the Southern Kingdom. Nevertheless the ministries of Elijah and Elisha, set long before the later fall of the Southern Kingdom, are used to set the stage for the ultimate demise of the Southern Kingdom to the Babylonians and their destruction of the "First Temple".

Similarly, the first Gospel writer seems to view the First and Second/Third Jewish-Roman wars in a similar way as the two destruction events of Kings, where first the Northern Kingdom falls and then the Southern in two different conflicts. In this case, the two different conflicts happen to have taken place in the same region.

rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 2:01 am Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark treats the messianic identity of Jesus as a "secret" that most people failed to recognize. This is a type of literary trope used to retroactively introduce new claims into the past. This indicates that the messianic identity of Jesus was a new concept being introduced by the first Gospel writer.

this is a genial finding, thank you!

It is a definitive point about Mark.

Note also the verse 13:7:


That verse is addressed to people that think that the "wars and rumors of wars" in 70 CE are sufficient to mark the "end". Other 65 years are necessary.

Mark 13:21 has Christ, not Messiah

• well, Codex Sinaiticus has ͞χϲ͞ . ie. the nomem sacrum

• "if any one say to you: Lo, here is Christ, lo there; believe not."

And Mark 13:22 has ψευδόχριστοι - pseudochristoi - as does Codex Sinaiticus (and ψευδοπροφῆται - pseudoprophētai)

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 2:31 am Mark 13:21 has Christ, not Messiah

• well, Codex Sinaiticus has ͞χϲ͞ . ie. the nomem sacrum

• "if any one say to you: Lo, here is Christ, lo there; believe not."

And Mark 13:22 has ψευδόχριστοι - pseudochristoi - as does Codex Sinaiticus (and ψευδοπροφῆται - pseudoprophētai)

But does "Christ" mean "Messiah"?