Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

to Ben,

Anecdotes from pagan history/historians (Jesus as a miracle worker based on Apollonius of Tyana).

'Life of Apollonius of Tyana' was published in 220-240. Wouldn't that be a bit late to have influenced the gospels?

Christian praxis (concern for the poor).

How do you know that concern for the poor did not start earlier as by Jesus and later by the pillars of the church of Jerusalem?

Christian gospel writings (Q, Signs Source, Passion Narrative).

Signs Source, Passion Narrative: hypothetical documents unproven to have existed, but loved by some Christian apologists. There are a lot more evidence for the existence of Q: http://historical-jesus.info/q.html & http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-exist.html. And of course, "Luke" & "Matthew" drawing on Q does not mean the whole of Q was invented.

Eyewitness testimony (Mark basing his gospel on Petrine or similar preaching).

I would not say "Mark" based his gospel on ... but "Mark" based part of his gospel (mostly the framework and some anecdotes) on ...

Gnostic speculations in story form (the Word made flesh in the Johannine prologue).

In the earlier Philo of Alexandria's works, the Word is the Son of God. In Paul's epistles, the pre-existent Son of God acquires flesh when on earth (from a human mother and father). So no need to go to later Gnostic speculations for that.
BTW, you do not have anything about Philo of Alexandria as source materials for the Christian gospels. Maybe because Philo's ideas got adopted by Paul early on?

No, the fall of Jerusalem is not an anecdote; but the examples I gave were anecdotes from relevant history, including the war for Jerusalem. I do not think it is worth creating another entire category for "big events" in history as opposed to "small events", any more than it would be to create an entire category for "long gospel sources" as opposed to "short gospel texts", but I am more than willing to change my wording from "anecdotes" to something else. Do you have any suggestions?

Events affecting the Christian community where the gospel was written. (fall of Jerusalem, false Christs and prophets threatening the very existence of Mark's community, people embracing Christian teaching then rejecting it (Mk 4:5-7), etc.

That should be a separate category than:

Anecdotes from Jewish history/historians (a detachment from Legio X Fretensis becomes a herd of swine; Archelaus gets a cameo in the parable of the pounds).

BTW, "a detachment from Legio X Fretensis becomes a herd of swine" is speculative and no more than a possibility. "Archelaus gets a cameo in the parable of the pounds" is more certain.

Question: if a part of a gospel (such as "calming the sea" in gMark) has some parallels from earlier textual sources, does that mean, according to you, that nothing in that story is genuine, as heard from eyewitness(es)?
That's a very important question.

Cordially, Bernard

An important source is predecessor Gospel word(s) that subsequent is reacting to

Yes, there is a lot of that from Q, gLuke, gMatthew & gJohn regarding gMark.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

Anecdotes from pagan history/historians (Jesus as a miracle worker based on Apollonius of Tyana).

'Life of Apollonius of Tyana' was published in 220-240. Wouldn't that be a bit late to have influenced the gospels?

The text, sure. But I did not write: "the Life of Apollonius". I wrote "Apollonius", the person. (It has been proposed before; I am not a fan; but this list is not about me agreeing with everything on it.)

Christian praxis (concern for the poor).

How do you know that concern for the poor did not start earlier as by Jesus and later by the pillars of the church of Jerusalem?

I do not know it. That does not prevent me from putting it on the list, because this is a list of possibilities, not certainties. And, if Jesus and the Pillars did inaugurate a Christian concern for the poor, then it is still Christian praxis! The possibility exists that Jesus started it, and it continued, but nobody truly remembered that Jesus had started it; they assumed he did and invented words about it to place on his lips. Do I think that is what happened? Probably not. But it is possible.

Christian gospel writings (Q, Signs Source, Passion Narrative).

Signs Source, Passion Narrative: hypothetical documents unproven to have existed, but loved by some Christian apologists. There are a lot more evidence for the existence of Q: http://historical-jesus.info/q.html & http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-exist.html. And of course, "Luke" & "Matthew" drawing on Q does not mean the whole of Q was invented.

All of this is correct. None of it gets these items removed from a list of possibilities to explore.

Eyewitness testimony (Mark basing his gospel on Petrine or similar preaching).

I would not say "Mark" based his gospel on ... but "Mark" based part of his gospel (mostly the framework and some anecdotes) on ...

Okay. Cheers.

Gnostic speculations in story form (the Word made flesh in the Johannine prologue).

In the earlier Philo of Alexandria's works, the Word is the Son of God. In Paul's epistles, the pre-existent Son of God acquires flesh when on earth (from a human mother and father). So no need to go to later Gnostic speculations for that.
BTW, you do not have anything about Philo of Alexandria as source materials for the Christian gospels. Maybe because Philo's ideas got adopted by Paul early on?

I can always add Philo. But what would distinguish his influence from gnostic speculations in general? (In other words, I need a reason to differentiate the two, and I would need an example to offer.)

No, the fall of Jerusalem is not an anecdote; but the examples I gave were anecdotes from relevant history, including the war for Jerusalem. I do not think it is worth creating another entire category for "big events" in history as opposed to "small events", any more than it would be to create an entire category for "long gospel sources" as opposed to "short gospel texts", but I am more than willing to change my wording from "anecdotes" to something else. Do you have any suggestions?

Events affecting the Christian community where the gospel was written. (fall of Jerusalem, false Christs and prophets threatening the very existence of Mark's community, people embracing Christian teaching then rejecting it (Mk 4:5-7), etc.

Good! I have made it "anecdotes and experiences" to cover all this ground. And I have added your "false prophets" example. Thanks.

BTW, "a detachment from Legio X Fretensis becomes a herd of swine" is speculative and no more than a possibility.

No more than a possibility, you say? Excellent. It makes the list!

Question: if a part of a gospel (such as "calming the sea" in gMark) has some parallels from earlier textual sources, does that mean, according to you, that nothing in that story is genuine, as heard from eyewitness(es)?

No. There may still be eyewitness testimony in a story containing events elaborated from earlier textual sources. It is possible.

Ben.

to Ben,

The text, sure. But I did not write: "the Life of Apollonius". I wrote "Apollonius", the person. (It has been proposed before; I am not a fan; but this list is not about me agreeing with everything on it.)

It does not look Apollonius was famous before 'The Life of Appolonius', but put later on (neo-Platonic) steroids in the book, using the same tricks than the gospel authors used in their gospels.

I can always add Philo. But what would distinguish his influence from gnostic speculations in general? (In other words, I need a reason to differentiate the two, and I would need an example to offer.)

Philo came earlier than the gospels. Gnostic speculations came after the canonical gospels were written.
That would be a good reason to put the emphasis on Philo rather than gnostic speculations.

I do not know it. That does not prevent me from putting it on the list, because this is a list of possibilities, not certainties. And, if Jesus and the Pillars did inaugurate a Christian concern for the poor, then it is still Christian praxis! The possibility exists that Jesus started it, and it continued, but nobody truly remembered that Jesus had started it; they assumed he did and invented words about it to place on his lips. Do I think that is what happened? Probably not. But it is possible.

The problem is you present what is just possible in your OP as something certain. You do that not once, but several times:
Christian praxis, Gnostic speculations, Christian liturgy, etc.)
By the way, I don't take Jesus or the pillars as being Christians.

Events affecting the Christian community where the gospel was written. (fall of Jerusalem, false Christs and prophets threatening the very existence of Mark's community, people embracing Christian teaching then rejecting it (Mk 4:5-7), etc.

Good! I have made it "anecdotes and experiences" to cover all this ground. And I have added your "false prophets" example. Thanks.

No, you haven't:

Anecdotes or experiences from Jewish history/historians (a detachment from Legio X Fretensis becomes a herd of swine; inroads by "false prophets" framed as dominical predictions).

Why do you continue to think "false prophets" would be framed as dominical predictions?
I wrote "false Christs and prophets threatening the very existence of Mark's community". What does that have to do with dominical predictions? and from Jewish history/historians?
What don't you accept the possibility real false Christs and prophets were affecting Mark's community when the gospel was written?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

Anecdotes from pagan history/historians (Jesus as a miracle worker based on Apollonius of Tyana).

'Life of Apollonius of Tyana' was published in 220-240. Wouldn't that be a bit late to have influenced the gospels?

'Life of Apollonius of Tyana' is supposed to have been written by one of the Philostratuses, yet there is also supposed to have been a work titled 'Philostratus' written by Hierocles 'to the Christians', as if to a friend, called Philalethes (ie. 'Lover of Truth' - λογος φιλαληθης προς τους χριστιανους). In this Hierocles proposed a semi-mythical Apollonius as a superior rival to Christ.

There is also a treatise by Eusebius against the Life of Apollonius, with reference to parallels drawn by Hierocles between Apollonius and Christ, so, as Eusebius seems to be a key collator and gatekeeper for the New Testament, what was written in the 3rd & 4th centuries may have had an influence on aspects of eventual Christian doctrine.

Bernard wrote: ... Gnostic speculations came after the canonical gospels were written.

Not necessarily! The view that Gnostic texts were a reaction to the canonical gospels is a Christian misrepresentation to hide the likelihood that gnostic writings existed when the gospels were being written and to hide the likelihood that gnostic ideas or texts influenced Chrsitian theology & doctrine.

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

The text, sure. But I did not write: "the Life of Apollonius". I wrote "Apollonius", the person. (It has been proposed before; I am not a fan; but this list is not about me agreeing with everything on it.)

It does not look Apollonius was famous before 'The Life of Appolonius', but put later on (neo-Platonic) steroids in the book, using the same tricks that the gospel authors used in their gospels.

Yes, I tend to agree.

I can always add Philo. But what would distinguish his influence from gnostic speculations in general? (In other words, I need a reason to differentiate the two, and I would need an example to offer.)

Philo came earlier than the gospels. Gnostic speculations came after the canonical gospels were written.
That would be a good reason to put the emphasis on Philo rather than gnostic speculations.

I used a capital G for "gnostic" on the list only because it was the first word of the item. I intend the word to be "gnostic", not "Gnostic". That means it can cover Christian gnosticism, Jewish gnosticism, pagan gnosticism... the field is wide open.

I do not know it. That does not prevent me from putting it on the list, because this is a list of possibilities, not certainties. And, if Jesus and the Pillars did inaugurate a Christian concern for the poor, then it is still Christian praxis! The possibility exists that Jesus started it, and it continued, but nobody truly remembered that Jesus had started it; they assumed he did and invented words about it to place on his lips. Do I think that is what happened? Probably not. But it is possible.

The problem is you present what is just possible in your OP as something certain.

I absolutely do not, and you have absolutely misread the OP. I even said that "my initial list is going to include a couple of possibilities I consider to be marginal candidates". This is about what is possible. Not one item on that list am I claiming as certain.

By the way, I don't take Jesus or the pillars as being Christians.

That is true. You do not. And you may have a point.

Why do you continue to think "false prophets" would be framed as dominical predictions?

I must have misread you this time. I thought you meant that some of Jesus' predictions about false prophets to come were designed (by Mark or somebody else who is not Jesus) to reassure Mark's readership in the face of such false prophets. If that is not what you meant, what did you mean?

I wrote "false Christs and prophets threatening the very existence of Mark's community". What does that have to do with dominical predictions?

Because in the gospels Jesus predicts the rise of false prophets.

What don't you accept the possibility real false Christs and prophets were affecting Mark's community when the gospel was written?

I am not sure I understand the grammar here. Are you asking why I do not accept the possibility that false messiahs and prophets were affecting Mark's community? But I most certainly do accept that possibility. I never said I did not.

Ben.

Why do we keeping referring to them as "false" messiahs? Are we distinguishing here? How do we distinguish? What is a true messiah? How would we know?

MrMacSon wrote:

Bernard wrote: ... Gnostic speculations came after the canonical gospels were written.

Not necessarily! The view that Gnostic texts were a reaction to the canonical gospels is a Christian misrepresentation to hide the likelihood that gnostic writings existed when the gospels were being written and to hide the likelihood that gnostic ideas or texts influenced Chrsitian theology & doctrine.

My main target here is "gnosticism", lowercase g. Obviously that encompasses the kind of gnosticism that has come to be known as "Gnosticism", uppercase G, but the genus is much wider than the species. There may well be Jewish gnostic influences, for example, on the gospels that long predate anything that we would now label as Gnosticism, uppercase G.

I honestly do not like what that terminology has become in English, having to make such distinctions, but that is the state of the field at this point, and I am trying not to be misunderstood.

But you are correct, too, MrMacSon, that some of those Gnostic, uppercase G, speculations may predate the gospels. It is possible. But my wording does not necessarily require that. I may try to think of a way to word it so that it retains a lowercase g on my list.

Ben C. Smith wrote:I may try to think of a way to word it so that it retains a lowercase g on my list.

Done: "Jewish, Christian, or pagan gnostic speculations in story form."