Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Gday Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:So when do you think gMark was written at the earliest?
Do you think gMark was written after 1 Clement?

I'm happy with the consensus of G.Mark @ ~70 and 1 Clement @ ~96.
But I don't think Clement knew G.Mark - the gospels seem to have remained in their own small circles for some time. The first appearance of written Gospels in the wider Christian community would be Papias and Aristides, maybe Ignatius - later culminating with Justin.

It looks like the Gospels were largely UNknown until about 120-130.
Thus I think Barnabas, 1 Clement, and probably even the Didakhe - did NOT know any of our written Gospels.

Instead, there were many stories and traditions growing around Jesus Christ, from at least the time of Paul, and probably earlier - including attaching him to episodes in the Tanakh. That was the source for those three early books.

G.Mark had also drawn on those traditions at any earlier stage, but it and the other Gospels remained cloistered for some decades - it appears the Gospels were not considered Christian doctrine at first.

Bernard Muller wrote: But the fourteen other words in 1 Clement are exactly the same and in the same sequence as in gMark.
I do not think oral transmission can explain such a close similarity, but one copying on the other would.

But they are in the LXX too, no need to invoke G.Mark.

Bernard Muller wrote: I am surprised about your number: nearly a hundred times. Where did you get that? I do not think "Clement" cited epistles that much. But beside an epistle written to the Corinthians, I do not know of any other identifications. "Clement" quoted & paraphrased quite a lot of 'Hebrews" without indicating where he got all that. The same thing applies for many OT quotes: little or no indication of the sources.

Actually, that wasn't quite correct, sorry.
The numbers are actually the count of the foot-notes from the online copy of 1 Clement at the Church Fathers, although they have split it up into chapters now, and the foot-notes are gone. Some of the references in the foot-notes are not formal citations. Here is one line of my list of NT foot-notes :

Kapyong wrote:5 Eph. v. 21; 1 Pet. v. 5. 8 1 Pet. ii. 17. 10 Tit. iii. 1. 15 Literally, "Christ;" comp. 2 Cor. i. 21, Eph. iv. 20.

I can't easily reproduce the foot-notes here without losing formatting, to check the details, please view my page:
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/ClementRome.html

Under "Other NT References" are 44 references. I exaggerated greatly, sorry.

Under "OT References" are rather more - about 100 probably a fair call.


Kapyong

to Kapyong,

Bernard Muller wrote:

But the fourteen other words in 1 Clement are exactly the same and in the same sequence as in gMark.
I do not think oral transmission can explain such a close similarity, but one copying on the other would.

But they are in the LXX too, no need to invoke G.Mark.

No, that's not true:
1 Clement: οὗτος ο λαος τοις χειλεσιν με τιμα η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεστιν απ εμου
Mark 7:6: οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ
"[same as above]"
LXX: ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ
1 Clement and gMark have only one word of difference (but the different words appear to have the same root)
There are a lot more differences between the LXX and either gMark or 1 Clement.

I can't easily reproduce the foot-notes here without losing formatting, to check the details, please view my page:
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/ClementRome.html

I checked your page. There is no indication of direction and I am very doubtful that "Clement" copied on the Pastorals, for example, because of the dating of the publishing of these texts. But the opposite might be true, because apparently, 1 Clement was well known (for good cause, because the epistle "teach" about discipline & unity of the faithfuls: an excellent tool for any church leader!).
In the past, I checked cross referencings from NT to OT on the NIV and other books & found that many times the similarities are very debatable because not being close. I think that might be the case for your footnotes.
Anyway, on your page, you compare a verse in 1 Clement 24 with Lk 8:5 (parable of the sower). But the same parable is in gMark (see Mk 4:6).
Also, you compare a verse in 1 Clement 27 with Mt 24:35. But the same verse is in gMark (see Mk:13:31).

It looks like the Gospels were largely UNknown until about 120-130.
Thus I think Barnabas, 1 Clement, and probably even the Didakhe - did NOT know any of our written Gospels.

However, gMark was known by "Luke", "Matthew", "John" and the authors of Q.
http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html & http://historical-jesus.info/q.html
So gMark was not so largely unknown. But obviously not much respected, because "Luke", "Matthew", "John" and the authors of Q made considerable modifications to it. That's what "Clement" seems to have done also on a few passages of gMark (except one: 7:6).

I'm happy with the consensus of G.Mark @ ~70 and 1 Clement @ ~96.

I place 1 Clement much earlier, around 80-81. As explained here http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

Cordially, Bernard

Kapyong wrote:Gday DCHindley,

Thanks,

I checked that file, but oddly there are no specifics other than Iexplorer doesn't like my site.
MalwareBytes and more are all happy at my end.

I have had no other readers detect anything bad.

Have you had that issue with many other sites? (You mentioned Peter's?)

No, just web pages on Peter's site which contain your posts. It does not seem to be associated with any other website.

DCH

Gday Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: No, that's not true:
1 Clement: οὗτος ο λαος τοις χειλεσιν με τιμα η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεστιν απ εμου
Mark 7:6: οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ
"[same as above]"
LXX: ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ
1 Clement and gMark have only one word of difference (but the different words appear to have the same root)
There are a lot more differences between the LXX and either gMark or 1 Clement.

Yes, I agree that 1 Clement and G.Mark are closer than 1 Clement and the LXX.
Yes, I agree that 1 Clement could have copied from G.Mark.
No, I don't think you have shown he certainly DID copy from G.Mark.
But now we are arguing possibles and probables etc.

It seems entirely plausible for BOTH G.Mark and 1 Clement to have picked up similar Jesus stories from the growing oral tradition, without Clement having to have known G.Mark.

Bernard Muller wrote: I checked your page. There is no indication of direction and I am very doubtful that "Clement" copied on the Pastorals, for example, because of the dating of the publishing of these texts. But the opposite might be true, because apparently, 1 Clement was well known (for good cause, because the epistle "teach" about discipline & unity of the faithfuls: an excellent tool for any church leader!).
In the past, I checked cross referencings from NT to OT on the NIV and other books & found that many times the similarities are very debatable because not being close. I think that might be the case for your footnotes.
Anyway, on your page, you compare a verse in 1 Clement 24 with Lk 8:5 (parable of the sower). But the same parable is in gMark (see Mk 4:6).
Also, you compare a verse in 1 Clement 27 with Mt 24:35. But the same verse is in gMark (see Mk:13:31).

Indeed - I just copied those notes straight from the old Church Father's web site, many of them appear to be very loose indeed, and the direction of some are debatable. No, I have not evaluated them all, I do not stand by every one.

However - I am not making any positive claims about textual dependence of 1 Clement.
I just do not agree with your claim that 1 Clement knew G.Mark.
Considering all the evidence - it's a possible, but not yet a probable, in my view.

Kapyong wrote:It looks like the Gospels were largely UNknown until about 120-130.
Thus I think Barnabas, 1 Clement, and probably even the Didakhe - did NOT know any of our written Gospels.

Bernard Muller wrote: However, gMark was known by "Luke", "Matthew", "John" and the authors of Q.
http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html & http://historical-jesus.info/q.html
So gMark was not so largely unknown. But obviously not much respected, because "Luke", "Matthew", "John" and the authors of Q made considerable modifications to it. That's what "Clement" seems to have done also on a few passages of gMark (except one: 7:6).

It's a puzzle - G.Mark certainly was known to the other evangelists (and yet poorly regarded as you say), yet all the Gospels seem similarly poorly regarded at first - as shown by their late acceptance. Perhaps the dominant early Christianity WAS a form of mythicism, so that a historical Jesus story was initially rejected; but when enough time had passed, a historical Jesus story became more credible, then accepted, eventually enforced.

Because so many early Christian writers do not seem to know about the Gospels or their stories :

Above we see how 'r' for resurrection is mentioned from earliest times (orange), but 'T' for the empty tomb does not get a mention (red) until Justin.

But after Justin, the Gospel details are repeated frequently :


This comes from table analysing Christian citations in the early works :
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/ChristianTable.html
The Gospels are missing for a reason - looking at this shows the odd gap between the writing of the Gospels and their appearance in Christian writings.

Writings around the turn of the century know no Gospels - which only clearly appear with Papias and Aristides, Justin is the first to know four, and after Justin everyone knows and repeats the details.

Apparently the Gospels existed for 50 years before they became known and accepted.
Odd.


Kapyong

Kapyong wrote: It looks like the Gospels were largely UNknown until about 120-130.
Thus I think Barnabas, 1 Clement, and probably even the Didakhe - did NOT know any of our written Gospels.

Kapyong wrote: The Gospels are missing ... looking at this shows the odd gap between the writing of the Gospels and their appearance in Christian writings.

Writings around the turn of the century know no Gospels - which only clearly appear with Papias and Aristides, Justin is the first to know four, and after Justin everyone knows and repeats the details.

Apparently the Gospels existed for 50 years before they became known and accepted. Odd.

Kapyong

Yes, references to the Gospels are missing in the first half of the 2nd century - conspicuously so.

MrMacson wrote:Aspects of the so-called 'Oliveti Discourse' (aka the 'Synoptic Apocalypse'; the 'Little Apocalypse'; or the 'Mount Olivet Prophecy') of Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 show alignment with the Bar Kochba Revolt of the early 130s AD/CE.

Bernard Muller wrote: This is what I wrote in http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html:

D) Could Mk13:5-23 refer to the 70-135 period, ending by the second Jewish war and the defeat of Bar Kokhba?

That's rather out-of-question because:

a) the later events (at least one hundred after Jesus' crucifixion) can hardly fit into the time frame of the verse quoted in A) and also the one in Mk13:30 (which also appears in GMatthew (24:34) and GLuke (21:32) "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation [the one of Jesus] will by no means pass away till all things [among them, Jerusalem's destruction (21:20-24) and the second coming (21:25:28)] take place."

There's a whole lot of stuff you've thrown in there, Bernard.

1. Mark 13 (vv.5-13) could refer to 70 AD/CE, or 130-5 AD/CE, or both. They may not refer much to the intermediate period (ie. 70-135 AD/CE)

2. Jesus' crucifixion or second coming could be allegories for a number of events

Bernard Muller wrote: c) "Luke" included, in his/her version of the mini-apocalypse of GMark, evidenced historical details pertaining to the events of 70, such as Lk21:21b,24 and:

Yes, Luke 21 is tied to Mark 13 (and to Matt 24).

Bernard Muller wrote: Lk21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.", also in Marcion's gospel (written 140 +-10 years), and corresponding to Mk13:14 "abomination of desolation".

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Jerusalem was besieged by Roman armies in 135. Also, the rebel Jews were unlikely to make a stand at Jerusalem, then an unwalled fully destroyed city with no natural defense on the northern side. Besides, the "desolation is near", that is not inflicted yet (in 135, it would be 65 years old!).

Yes, there was desolation in and around Jerusalem during 130-5 AD/CE, but there was plenty of conflict 130-5.

There were issues around plans to rebuild the Jewish Temple, and Hadrian apparently reneging on them.

This caused ongoing rebellion among the Jews. In response, there were large scale mass murders of Jews in Caesarea and other communities by the Romans. These murders sparked a larger rebellion led by Simon Bar Kochba (A.D. 132-135). Bar Kochba rallied the people and massacred the famous 12th legion of the Roman army. Jerusalem was liberated for three years and Rabbi Akiva proclaimed Bar Kochba as the Messiah who was to deliver the Jewish people.

The Jews proceeded to set up an independent government. Coins were struck that commemorated the "First Year of the Deliverance of Israel." One coin showed the facade of the Temple*.

Within three years of Jerusalem's liberation under the Bar Kochba revolt, Rome marched against the rebels and killed Bar Kochba.

* It is possible that Bar Kochba had attempted to rebuild the Temple (so Hadrian eventually destroyed a Temple that had been partially-restored by Bar Kochba). Hadrian eventually erecting a statue of himself, Jupiter, and a Roman Temple where the Jewish temple had once stood.

The Sanhedrin then officially labeled Bar Kochba a false Messiah and Jerusalem was again in Roman hands.

It's possible the resurrection or second coming refers to the attempts to rebuild the Temple 132-5 or to hopes another attempt would be possible in future.

to Kapyong,

Yes, I agree that 1 Clement and G.Mark are closer than 1 Clement and the LXX.
Yes, I agree that 1 Clement could have copied from G.Mark.
No, I don't think you have shown he certainly DID copy from G.Mark.
But now we are arguing possibles and probables etc.

It seems entirely plausible for BOTH G.Mark and 1 Clement to have picked up similar Jesus stories from the growing oral tradition, without Clement having to have known G.Mark.

Well, there is more than Mk 7:6 showing "Clement" copying on gMark is not only possible, but also probable, such as Mk 9:42 & "stripes", plus your examples drawn from chapters 24 & 27.
Note: I demonstrated here http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html that "Luke" & "Matthew" copied on 1 Clement and not the other way around.
All of that add up to go from possible to probable.

It's a puzzle - G.Mark certainly was known to the other evangelists (and yet poorly regarded as you say), yet all the Gospels seem similarly poorly regarded at first - as shown by their late acceptance. Perhaps the dominant early Christianity WAS a form of mythicism, so that a historical Jesus story was initially rejected; but when enough time had passed, a historical Jesus story became more credible, then accepted, eventually enforced

But Paul, in some of his epistles, alluded to a human earthly Jesus: http://historical-jesus.info/6.html
The same for the author of "Hebrews": http://historical-jesus.info/40.html
So where is the evidence of a mythical Jesus as allegedly believed before the gospels & Paul?
And I also noticed you use the word "perhaps" when introducing your theory.

As for your list, I have many objection about dating of certain texts:
Such as: Colossians & James should be placed before 70.
! Clement, Didache, Barnabas epistle are located in time too late.
Revelation has some elements from gMatthew as for the Didache & Barnabas (I date the threesome in the 93-97 range (with the Didache still being an ebionistic tract before Christianization):
http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html and http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

Writings around the turn of the century know no Gospels - which only clearly appear with Papias and Aristides

That's because you don't want to accept the evidence from 1 Clement, the Didache, Barnabas, Cerinthus & Revelation. And you do not take in consideration "Luke", "Matthew", Q, "John" knowing gMark ("John" knew also about gLuke and probably 'Acts').
http://historical-jesus.info/q.html and http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to andrewcriddle,

It is quite possible (IMO plausible) to accept the Ignatian letters as genuine (written by a real Ignatius the martyr bishop of Antioch) and date them during the reign of Hadrian.

Did you read my webpage on Ignatius? http://historical-jesus.info/ignatius.html

Cordially, Bernard

I read it very quickly (maybe too quickly)
your explanation of the letters attributed to Ignatius seemed (IMHO and IIUC) a bit too complicated.
I don't think one needs a martyr called Ignatius in the time of Trajan and letters attributed to him from the time of Hadrian.
Why not date both the martyr and the letters in the time of Hadrian ?

Andrew Criddle

to MrMacSon,

1. Mark 13 (vv.5-13) could refer to 70 AD/CE, or 130-5 AD/CE, or both. They may not refer much to the intermediate period (ie. 70-135 AD/CE)

As I explained, referral to 130-5 AD is out of question, as I explained already: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2337&start=30#p52305

Yes, Luke 21 is tied to Mark 13 (and to Matt 24)

So you think gLuke, gMatthew & gMarcion were written after 135, as for gMark?

Bernard Muller wrote:
Lk21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its b]desolation is near.", also in Marcion's gospel (written 140 +-10 years), and corresponding to Mk13:14 "abomination of desolation".

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Jerusalem was besieged by Roman armies in 135. Also, the rebel Jews were unlikely to make a stand at Jerusalem, then an unwalled fully destroyed city with no natural defense on the northern side. Besides, the "desolation is near", that is not inflicted yet (in 135, it would be 65 years old!).

Yes, there was desolation in and around Jerusalem during 130-5 AD/CE, but there was plenty of conflict 130-5.

But this desolation started when the disciples could still be alive ("when you see"). It's a bit of stretching for 70 AD, but for 135 AD, it is well beyond the lifespan of Jesus' disciples.

There were issues around plans to rebuild the Jewish Temple, and Hadrian apparently reneging on them.

This caused ongoing rebellion among the Jews. In response, there were large scale mass murders of Jews in Caesarea and other communities by the Romans. These murders sparked a larger rebellion led by Simon Bar Kochba (A.D. 132-135). Bar Kochba rallied the people and massacred the famous 12th legion of the Roman army. Jerusalem was liberated for three years and Rabbi Akiva proclaimed Bar Kochba as the Messiah who was to deliver the Jewish people.

The Jews proceeded to set up an independent government. Coins were struck that commemorated the "First Year of the Deliverance of Israel." One coin showed the facade of the Temple*.

Within three years of Jerusalem's liberation under the Bar Kochba revolt, Rome marched against the rebels and killed Bar Kochba.

So what? This is irrelevant even if some events in 132-135 are similar to the ones in 66-70 (foremost massacre of Jews by the Romans).

* It is possible that Bar Kochba had attempted to rebuild the Temple (so Hadrian eventually destroyed a Temple that had been partially-restored by Bar Kochba).

There is no evidence about that possibility.

It's possible the resurrection or second coming refers to the attempts to rebuild the Temple 132-5 or to hopes another attempt would be possible in future

Possibility is not evidence.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:

MrMacson wrote: Yes, there was desolation in and around Jerusalem during 130-5 AD/CE, but there was plenty of conflict 130-5.

But this desolation started when the disciples could still be alive ("when you see"). It's a bit of stretching for 70 AD, but for 135 AD, it is well beyond the lifespan of Jesus' disciples.

Of course desolation of Jerusalem started in 70AD, but there were still events well after that that exacerbated 'theological desolation'.

There has been plenty of commentary that events in christian theological texts could refer to events in the 2nd century

• eg. see https://books.google.com.au/books?id=KK ... et&f=false
  
  via http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=2359