On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

[Stephan Huller]

I found the original section in Eznik:

He sent his Son to redeem them and 'to take on the likeness of a slave and to come into being in the form of man' [Phil 2:7] in the midst of the sons of the God of the Law. 'Heal' he said 'their lepers and give life to their dead and open their blind and make very great healings as a gift to them, so that the Lord of creatures might see you and be jealous and raise you on a cross.'

'And then having become dead you will descend into the Harsh (or, Hell) and you will raise them thence because it is not customary for the Harsh to accept life into its midst. And for the same reason you will go up to the cross so that you might resemble the dead and so that you might open the mouth of Hell to take you and enter into the middle of it and empty it.'

And when he had raised him on a cross, they say, he descended into the Harsh and emptied it. And having raised the souls from the middle of it he led them into the third heaven, to his Father.

And the Lord of creatures having become angry, in his anger he rent his robe and the curtain of of his temple. And he darkened his sun and he clothed his world in umber. And in his affliction he dwelt in mourning. Then when Jesus descended a second time in the form of his divinity to the Lord of creatures, he brought a lawsuit against him on account of his death.

And when the Lord of the world saw that divinity of Jesus, he discovered that another God apart from himself existed. And Jesus said to him, 'I am in litigation with you, and let no one judge between us, but the laws that you wrote.'

And when they had placed the Law in the middle, Jesus said to him "Did you not write in your Law, 'Whoever will murder he will die, (cf Num 35.30 - 34)?' and 'Whoever sheds the blood of a righteous one, his blood will be shed (Gen 9:6)?'" And he said, 'Yes, I wrote."

And Jesus said to him "So give yourself into my hands, so that I might slaughter and shed your blood, because rightly am I more lawful than you, and great favors have I bestowed on your creatures." And he began to reckon up those favors that he had bestowed on that one's creatures.

And when the Lord of creatures saw that he had gained victory over him - neither did he know what to say in reply because by his own Law he was condemned; nor did he find an answer to give because he came forth condemnation in exchange for his death - so having fallen down in supplication, he was praying to him "Whereas I sinned and slaughtered you ignorantly because I did not know that you were a god, but rather I considered you a man, let there be given to you in exchange, for revenge, all of those who wish to believe in you to take wheresoever you wish."

So Jesus having released him, he carried off Paul from the astonished ones, and he revealed to him their prices, and he sent him forth to preach that we have been bought for a price, and everyone who believes in Jesus has been sold by that Just One to the Good One.

Sorry, anyone trying to build a case for the second century origins of the gospel can't appeal to Paul or Marcion.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

For ease of reference here is Bernard on Clement 15:1 :

a) In 1Clement15:1, we have:
οὗτος ο λαος τοις χειλεσιν με τιμα η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεστιν απ εμου
"For said in a certain place, "This people honours Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me."
A similar wording appears in Mk7:6:
οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ
"[same as above]"
But the corresponding passage (Isa29:13) from the LXX (allegedly quoted by "Mark": "it is written") is somewhat different: here are two slightly different versions:
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσί με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ·
and
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ
Notes:
a) "Matthew", in Mt15:3, copied GMark version but switch back to the LXX for "ὁ λαὸς οὗτος" instead of following '1 Clement' or GMark "οὗτος ὁ λαὸς".
b) "Clement" replaced "ἀπέχει" (which shows in the LXX and GMatthew) by "απεστιν".
So "Mark" consulted the LXX to put together his (abbreviated) quote, but "Clement" needed only GMark to make his.
That confirms "Clement" knew about GMark, and not the other way around.

Pardon me Bernard, but I think it's faintly rude to keep directing people to your web-site, just to read a paragraph that you could have posted here in 1 minute. It would be far more polite and open of you to quote your arguments here where than can be read by everyone easily and quickly. A lot of people simply do not follow links at all.

This analysis repeats what has been discussed in this thread recently, starting with the initial post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin, so I agree with you about the Greek word order etc.

In fact I agree it does seem to place G.Mark before 1 Clement. Of course it's still possible that 1 Clement quoted from a proto Gospel of small sayings collection too. A set of sayings from which the author of G.Mark also drew.

However, over all, I'd give you a 75% chance that the evidence better fits 1 Clement knowing G.Mark.

But the dating of 1 Clement is itself very uncertain - perhaps it's time of calamities is the Bar Kochba period?

Kapyong

[MrMacSon]

There seems to be this Paul doppelganger who appeared after the [alleged] crucifixion and challenged the authority of Peter.

... it has to be said that any appeal to Marcionitism in support of the 'gospel was created in the second century CE' doctrine is doomed to fail (and for this reason I can't understand why my friend Hermann Detering continues to accept it).

AD Loman thought there were two apposing sects - a Jewish-messianic one with Simon/Peter at it's core, & a Gnostic-messianic Sect with Saul/Paul at it's centre.

the Roman records (and various marginalized 'heretical' references) place the crucifixion to 21 CE.

Which 'Roman records' were the first to state this?

The Marcionites said that Paul wrote both the gospel and the apostle.

Maybe they were not referring to the synoptic or canonical gospels as we now know them?

It is also worth noting that orthodox sources (De Recta in Deum Fide) emphasize that the Marcionites said that the gospels were not written by apostles but also that Matthew and John were historical individuals who just happened not to have written the texts ascribed to them. I don't know how much of this tradition we can trust ...

.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

But there are difficulties here which should be noted. First of all, the Roman records (and various marginalized 'heretical' references) place the crucifixion to 21 CE.

Really? I thought it was around the early 30s - which records and references do you refer to?

The Marcionites said that Paul wrote both the gospel and the apostle.

Does that necessarily mean it happened that way ?

Is it really likely that Paul (whoever he was) had a vision about a thing named 'Jesus' who lived a century earlier and who warned of the destruction of the temple forty nine to fifty years after the crucifixion? How did the earliest Christians account for the silence about this historical event (not historical figure) a century earlier? Then there is the question of Simon Magus. There seems to be this Paul doppelganger who appeared after the crucifixion and challenged the authority of Peter. How and why did this scenario arise? Let's suppose that Simon Magus is an entirely fictitious creation, he seems to be connected with heretical readings and interpretations associated with the Pauline tradition. Note that in the Pseudo-Clementines he emphasizes the superiority of 'visions' over actually seeing Jesus (as Peter claimed). Let's suppose that Simon is completely fictitious. Why would someone have invented a Pauline doppelganger dated to the apostolic period who cites the words and sayings of Paul in the apostolic period.

No no, I wouldn't place Paul late at all - I'd place him at his traditional home of the 50s - I don't see that he has to be connected to the Gospels when he is so silent in so many places on so many ways.

It is also worth noting that orthodox sources (De Recta in Deum Fide) emphasize that the Marcionites said that the gospels were not written by apostles but also that Matthew and John were historical individuals who just happened not to have written the texts ascribed to them.

All good - but that doesn't mean Paul wrote them at all, although we agree that Gospels were not written by the people whose names they bear.

I don't know how much of this tradition we can trust but it has to be said that any appeal to Marcionitism in support of the 'gospel was created in the second century CE' doctrine is doomed to fail (and for this reason I can't understand why my friend Hermann Detering continues to accept it).

I will remove my references to Marcionites entirely, and I have nothing depending on them.

I am afraid this theory doesn't work. The fact that no early sources survive shouldn't lead to the classic mountainman error that we date the tradition to the earliest surviving exemplars. Think about it in another way. How much of the Qumran sect would we have known about if it wasn't for the recent archaeological discovery? There were countless traditions buried under the sands of time. It's stupid to see the gap between our earliest witnesses and 21 CE and assume that the gap 'needs to be filled' in some way.
Shit happens.

Fair enough - this started as an experiment to date the Gospels as late as the external evidence would allow, but we have seen several problems with it so far - although I don't agree that Paul is late.

I will try one more go at reconciling these problems, just for the exercise.

Kapyong

[Bernard Muller]

to Kapyong,

Pardon me Bernard, but I think it's faintly rude to keep directing people to your web-site, just to read a paragraph that you could have posted here in 1 minute. It would be far more polite and open of you to quote your arguments here where than can be read by everyone easily and quickly. A lot of people simply do not follow links at all.

Two bad. The reason I ask people to follow my links is I don't have to do extra work for duplicating formatting with color, bold, etc. when it is already done on the text I link too. What you posted looks like a bag of potatoes, without the color, the bolding, the italics I put into the text. Anyway, why should I do extra work: very few on that board are interested on what I wrote. I guess most do not even read my posts.

However, over all, I'd give you a 75% chance that the evidence better fits 1 Clement knowing G.Mark.

Coming from you, it is extraordinary.

But the dating of 1 Clement is itself very uncertain - perhaps it's time of calamities is the Bar Kochba period?

I do not see how the revolt of Bar Kochba in Judah was considered a series of calamities for the inhabitants of Rome.

Cordially, Bernard

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Just for fun, here is my attempt to keep going with the late Gospel theory, with Clement moved back, and the Marcionites removed :

There are a lot of documents missing from this list of course, including a lot of early ones as Blood mentioned :

Ephesians - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus.
Colossians - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus.
2 Thessalonians - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus.
1 Timothy - one reference (6:13 "Christ Jesus who in his testimony before Pilate made the good confession")
2 Timothy - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus.
Titus - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus.
Hebrews - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus.
James - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus.
1 Peter - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus.
2 Peter - 1:18 reference to transfiguration ("we heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the mountain")
1 John - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus.
2 John - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus.
3 John - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus.
Jude - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus.

I am trying to keep my list as small as possible with around 1 or 2 points per decade.

Here is my list then with red for Gospels :

30-70s Sayings and Sories of a celestial Jesus are created from (from 'visions' and the Tanakh)
50s - Paul : 1Thess., 1&2 Cor., Gal. Rom. Phill, Phil. - Stories, no historical detail
60-70 Hebrews, mentions some Jesus Stories
80s - Colossians, 1 John, James - Stories, no historical details
90s - Eph., 2 Thess., 1 Peter - Stories, no historical detail
90s Didache, knows the Lord's prayer
100s Jude - says very little about Jesus
100s Barnabas, knows a few Stories about Jesus
120s Proposed creation of the first Gospel G.Mark
120s 2&3 John, Preaching of Peter, Quadratus - knows some Jesus stories
110-130 Ignatius, knows some stories of Jesus
120s-130s - Proposed G/Matthew and G.Luke and Acts
130s? Papias' clues of written Gospels come from Eusebius
130s Clement, knows G.Mark among some sayings of Jesus
135? Apocalypse of Peter knows Mark/Matthew
140s Epistles of the Apostles talks about writing Gospels
138-161 Aristides mentions an un-named singular Gospel that is 'recently preached'
150s Justin mentions memoirs called Gospels - no names of authors
130s-140s - Proposed G.John
140-160 Ptolemy knows G.John by text
150-200 Acts of Peter knows a written Gospel
170 Heracleon knows G.John by text
170-200 The Treatise on the Resurrection knows a written Gospel
170s The diaTessaron has four (un-named?) Gospels
180s Irenaeus quotes four Gospels by name

This list is still consistent within itself, although we have seen some arguments with various issues.

Kapyong

[Stephan Huller]

Eusebius citing the official 'Acts of Pilate' of Maximinus II http://www.roman-empire.net/decline/maximinus-II.html dates the crucifixion to 21 CE. This has been oft discussed at these forums by DCH and myself.

[Stephan Huller]

The point is guys that you can argue that the Catholic tradition 'corrupted' the original understanding of the gospels being created in the second century but the claim becomes more difficult to accept once it becomes clear that the 'supernatural Jesus' tradition also doesn't know anything about this nonsense. It is a modern construct. Ancient sources assumed that the apostle was a historical figure who lived in the first century. I can understand and sympathize with the idea that Jesus was supernatural. This view is attested from the very beginning of our earliest records. But the idea that the apostle was also a fiction - or at least 'ahistorical' - begins to sound rather desperate. The Marcionites clearly believed in a different 'Paul' from the Catholics but he was firmly rooted in the first century. Sorry, this isn't going to work.

Also Celsus in the second century clearly reports the existence of those who thought Jesus was a phantasm and those who thought Jesus was a historical person but there is no controversy about the gospels being 'invented' in the second century. Surely if Celsus had access to this tradition (he seems to know everything else) he would have used it to discredit Christianity.

[Stephan Huller]

Just for the record, one of my best acquaintances in the 'industry' Markus Vinzent is I believe taking up this very argument and trying to make it work with Marcionitism. So, you never know, I may be full of shit. But I can't see how this can work. I should wait to read his arguments but it seems to me at least that he is going to argue on behalf of this idea

[MrMacSon]

Just for the record, one of my best acquaintances in the 'industry' Markus Vinzent is I believe taking up this very argument and trying to make it work with Marcionitism. So, you never know, I may be full of shit. But I can't see how this can work. I should wait to read his arguments but it seems to me at least that he is going to argue on behalf of this idea

What argument? That ^^ "the Catholic tradition 'corrupted' the original understanding reality of the gospels being created in the second century"?

That "The Marcionites clearly believed in a different 'Paul' from the Catholics but he was firmly rooted in the first century" could also work if the [subsequent] Catholic 'tradition' corrupted an original Paul, or conflated the Catholic-Paul with someone else.