FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-29-2009, 08:35 AM   #41
jakejonesiv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Hi Roger,

Fascinating observations as always. What is your dating of Papias?

Jake
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 08:37 AM   #42
jakejonesiv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Vinnie’s dating is based on a number of questionable assumptions. The issue is complicated by the likelihood that canonical Mark is a late redaction of urMark. UrMark would have lacked the "great omission" material in Luke, and contained the name of the woman who anointed Jesus that has been suppressed in, for example. Indeed, I suspect that urMark was of heretical origin, perhaps the gospel of Basilides.

The Christology of GMark is not Pauline (i.e. docetic as in Phil 2:6-11), and it is not proto-orthodox (incarnation). It instead corresponds to Basilides, an early Alexandrian Gnostic. Basilides was an Adoptionist, and this is the Christology of Mark. Jesus evading the cross and Simon of Cyrene being crucified instead is also agreeable with Basilides. See Irenaeus, AH. 1.24.4.
Basilides taught that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in the place of Jesus, while Jesus stands by and laughs. The Gospel of Mark can be used to support that doctrine. Simon is forced to carry the cross (Mark 14:21). After that, it is pronouns all the way through the crucifixtion.
21. They pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene
...
22. Then they brought him to the place Golgotha
...
24. And they crucified him
The proto-orthodox had their history of the gospel of Mark according to Papias, whereby GMark is supposed to have been written by Mark, a disciple of Peter. Eusebius places Mark in Alexandria, H.E. 2.16.1; 2.24.1. However, it is quite interesting that the Gnostics had a parallel but different origin of Mark point by point. Origen mentions the Gospel of Basilides. Basilides was said to be a disciple of Glaucias, a disciple of Peter.

The first gospel was urMarkus. UrLucas was simply urMark plus most of the "Quelle" material. There is no need to suggest that "Quelle" was a document or that a community is implied. Marcion's Evangelion would be derived from urLucas, a minor redaction. Canonical Matthew and Canonical Luke would then be derived from Marcion's Gospel and the respective Sondergut (and Mark). Somewhere between 150 and 180 CE.

No doubt, this solution is also too simplified. Even Tertullian couldn't keep straight what was supposed to be in GMatthew and GLuke.

Also, I have left out the heretical gospels (such as GPeter, Gospel to the Hebrews) that deserve consideration to early origin as the catholic gospels. During the second century the gospels were much too fluid and even in the process of creation. I suspect that the transmission, redaction, and corruption of gospels before we reach the extant texts are much more complex than any simplified source theory can explain.

Additionally, there was a tendency to harmonize that would, after the fact, seem to indicate common origin of originally dissimilar material. Even after we reach the extant manuscripts, we can discern a harmonization tendency in gospel transmission. How much of this went on before the extant record? Quite a bit if Justin Martyr is any indication. He never refers to any gospel by the names given a generation later by Irenaeus; he always called them by the catch-all "Memoir's of the Apostles." He seems to quote from a
strange brew harmonization that includes material that was later found in the canonical gospels, mixed in with heretical material.

It should be remembered that all four of the canonical gospels were in the hands of the heretics before the proto-orthodox appropriated them.

There is no adequate evidence for the existence of the fourfold Gospel before Irenaeus, ca. 185 CE. Irenaeus admits that the four gospels have authority because various heretics used them previously. Matthew by the Ebionites. Luke came from Marcion. Mark by the
Separatists (i.e. Adoptionists such as Basilides). John came from Valentinus (or the Apelleans if Roger Parvus is correct). Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. Book 3, chapter 11, sections 7 and 8. There is no record that anyone had so much as heard of any gospel authored by Luke before Irenaeus.

Jake Jones IV
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 08:55 AM   #43
Vinnie
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post

It is my understanding that terminus ad quem is the latest possible date for something, not the earliest. I believe terminus a quo is the earliest it could have occurred.
...
Vinnie
Hi Vinnie,

You are correct that terminus ad quem is the latest possible date for something.

The terminus ad quem for a work is determined by by the appearance of external corroboration. For Papias, this is determined by Irenaeus mentioning him ca. 185 CE in AH.

Will you correct the useage of the term in your articles?

Best,
Jake Jones IV

If my usage was incorrect I would but since Irenaeus calls him a companion of Polycarp, hearer of John and an ancient or early man a date some time in the first half of the second century is necessary. The terminus ad quem on the basis of Irenaeus is most certainly not 180 or 185 C.E. It is about where I placed it. The 30's or possibly the 40's if you want to assume Papias lived to 80 and wrote on his death bed.

Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 09:00 AM   #44
Vinnie
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
Vinnie’s dating is based on a number of questionable assumptions. The issue is complicated by the likelihood that canonical Mark is a late redaction of urMark. UrMark would have lacked the "great omission" material in Luke, and contained the name of the woman who anointed Jesus that has been suppressed in, for example. Indeed, I suspect that urMark was of heretical origin, perhaps the gospel of Basilides.

The Christology of GMark is not Pauline (i.e. docetic as in Phil 2:6-11), and it is not proto-orthodox (incarnation). It instead corresponds to Basilides, an early Alexandrian Gnostic. Basilides was an Adoptionist, and this is the Christology of Mark. Jesus evading the cross and Simon of Cyrene being crucified instead is also agreeable with Basilides. See Irenaeus, AH. 1.24.4.
Basilides taught that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in the place of Jesus, while Jesus stands by and laughs. The Gospel of Mark can be used to support that doctrine. Simon is forced to carry the cross (Mark 14:21). After that, it is pronouns all the way through the crucifixtion.
21. They pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene
...
22. Then they brought him to the place Golgotha
...
24. And they crucified him
The proto-orthodox had their history of the gospel of Mark according to Papias, whereby GMark is supposed to have been written by Mark, a disciple of Peter. Eusebius places Mark in Alexandria, H.E. 2.16.1; 2.24.1. However, it is quite interesting that the Gnostics had a parallel but different origin of Mark point by point. Origen mentions the Gospel of Basilides. Basilides was said to be a disciple of Glaucias, a disciple of Peter.

The first gospel was urMarkus. UrLucas was simply urMark plus most of the "Quelle" material. There is no need to suggest that "Quelle" was a document or that a community is implied. Marcion's Evangelion would be derived from urLucas, a minor redaction. Canonical Matthew and Canonical Luke would then be derived from Marcion's Gospel and the respective Sondergut (and Mark). Somewhere between 150 and 180 CE.

No doubt, this solution is also too simplified. Even Tertullian couldn't keep straight what was supposed to be in GMatthew and GLuke.

Also, I have left out the heretical gospels (such as GPeter, Gospel to the Hebrews) that deserve consideration to early origin as the catholic gospels. During the second century the gospels were much too fluid and even in the process of creation. I suspect that the transmission, redaction, and corruption of gospels before we reach the extant texts are much more complex than any simplified source theory can explain.

Additionally, there was a tendency to harmonize that would, after the fact, seem to indicate common origin of originally dissimilar material. Even after we reach the extant manuscripts, we can discern a harmonization tendency in gospel transmission. How much of this went on before the extant record? Quite a bit if Justin Martyr is any indication. He never refers to any gospel by the names given a generation later by Irenaeus; he always called them by the catch-all "Memoir's of the Apostles." He seems to quote from a
strange brew harmonization that includes material that was later found in the canonical gospels, mixed in with heretical material.

It should be remembered that all four of the canonical gospels were in the hands of the heretics before the proto-orthodox appropriated them.

There is no adequate evidence for the existence of the fourfold Gospel before Irenaeus, ca. 185 CE. Irenaeus admits that the four gospels have authority because various heretics used them previously. Matthew by the Ebionites. Luke came from Marcion. Mark by the
Separatists (i.e. Adoptionists such as Basilides). John came from Valentinus (or the Apelleans if Roger Parvus is correct). Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. Book 3, chapter 11, sections 7 and 8. There is no record that anyone had so much as heard of any gospel authored by Luke before Irenaeus.

Jake Jones IV
In a bit of editorial fatigue Luke evinces knowledge of the Bethsaida section. When coupled with a probable disdain for the doublets in Mark the omission is understandable. I had evaluated Mark's textual integrity here but have redone this recently and found Koester's analysis to be a bit weaker. Here is how i responded in something I am working on in regards to the gospel of Mark:

Quote:
Different Versions
Furthermore, it should be noted that Matthew and Luke may have had different versions of the text of Mark itself. Luke may have had a version of Mark lacking the Bethsaida section of Mark that he does not reproduce (Mark 6:45-8:26). Luke 9:17 is the same as Mark 6:44 while Luke 9:19 is the same as Mark 8:27. Some scholars believe there are enough peculiarities in the text that differentiate this section from the rest of Mark.
It begins with Jesus going to Bethsaida and ends with the story of the healing of a blind man from Bethsaida. The town of Bethsaida does not occur again in the Gospel. 
This section of Mark also contains numerous doublets of other Marcan pericopes (walking on water/stilling tempest, feeding of four thousand/feeding five thousand, one of the two stories of the healing of a blind man occurs here).
Two healing stories in this section (Mark 7:32-36 and 8:22-26) are also missing in Matthew as well. These are the only two narratives in the Synoptic Gospels where the healing is accomplished through elaborate manipulations. All other instances are performed through Jesus' word, simple gestures like touching and taking the hand and so forth.
There is also slightly peculiar vocabulary found in several instances here. As Koester writes, "the term "to understand" occurs four times (6:52; 7:14; 8:17, 21), but elsewhere in Mark only once in an illusion to Isa 6:9-10 (Mark 4:12). The synonymous verb "voeiv" is found twice here (7:18; 8:17), elsewhere in Mark only in 13:14. The adjective "without insight" is used in Mark only in this section (8:17).

This is perhaps the strongest indicator of the fluidity of the text of Mark to many scholars that can be cited aside from its attached endings. Why would Luke omit these 74 verses? The New Jerome Biblical commentary has this to say, “It is difficult to find a reason for Luke’s Great Omission, but there is probably more than one. Avoidance of doublets can at least part of the explanation. The double feeding material in Mark 6:30-44 and 8:1-9 (underscored in the saying of 8:19-20) is absolutely unique in Mark; and the omission of 8:1-9 would involve also the omission of 8:14-21. More important, we note possible reminiscences of the omitted mark 6:45-8:26, both in the immediate Lucan context of the omission (cf. Mark 6:45; 8:22 with Luke 9:10 as to Bethsaida; and Mark 6:46 with Luke 9:18 as to Jesus’ praying alone), and elsewhere in Luke (cf. Mark 6:49-50 with Luke 24:36-40, Mark 6:55-56 with Luke 9:11c and Acts 5:15-16, Mark 7:1-5 with Luke 11:37-38; Mark 7:30 with Luke 7:10; Mark 8:11 with Luke 11:16,53-54; Mark 8:15 with Luke 12:1). Such reminiscences suggest that Luke knew the material in the omitted section of Mark and that there is no need to posit a Proto-Mark (Urmarkus) without Mark 6:45-8:26.” Pg 589 NJBC

Looking at one of these references is very enlightening. In Mark 6 Jesus is in his hometown until he takes a boat across the water to Bethsaida in verse 6:45. In the feeding miracle in Mark 6:30-44 it is called a lonely place and the name Bethsaida is never said in Matthew or Mark. Luke calls this place Bethsaida, the location Jesus goes to immediately following both feeding miracles in Mark. This bit of editorial fatigue gets Luke into trouble. Bethsaida is not a lonely, desolate place such as the locations the feeding miracles take place in. It is a city [ala Goodacre's fatigue article!]. Luke 9:12 says “12 Late in the afternoon the Twelve came to him and said, "Send the crowd away so they can go to the surrounding villages and countryside and find food and lodging, because we are in a remote place here." But they are already in a city where food and lodging would be found if they were in Bethsaida. Mark has Jesus and the disciples go to Bethsaida immediately after each feeding miracle. Luke, in a bit of editorial fatigue seems to show knowledge here of the double feeding miracle in Mark by with his mix up in placing the location of it in the city of Bethsaida. The miracle account would actually make little sense in geographical location that Luke put it in.
Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 10:23 AM   #45
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
Personally, I will not discuss historical issues with anyone who dates the entire Pauline corpus post 70 C.E. You are too far gone to have a reasonable discussion with on Christian origins.

Vinnie
Why is that? Even if for sake of argument, 1 Clement and the Ignatiana are deemed authentic, we still don’t have external attestation to any Pauline epistle before the very late first/early second century. And then it is limited to the single epistle 1 Corinthians, where the opponents appear to be the Cerinthians.

Please allow me to ask a very simple question to illustrate my point. When is the very first time that the epistle to the Galatians is mentioned by name?

Best,
Jake Jones IV
The epistles being questioned or under scrutiny cannot be the external attestation of themselves. 1st Corinthians cannot be an external attestation when it was in possession of the Church.

The Church writers claimed some character called Paul wrote 13 episles, yet it has been deduced that more than one person used the name Paul to write letters.

It must be obvious that the Church writers did not really know who wrote the letters or wanted to fool their audience into thinking that only one person wrote all the letters.

Once it is admitted that there were more than one person using the name Paul, then there are two fundamental position.

1.Paul wrote some.

2.Paul wrote none.

Now, there is no external corroborative source for Paul.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 10:52 AM   #46
Vinnie
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Quote:
Once it is admitted that there were more than one person using the name Paul, then there are two fundamental position.

1.Paul wrote some.

2.Paul wrote none.

Now, there is no external corroborative source for Paul.
Except for the person or people who wrote in Paul's name, the actual documentary evidence (the extant Pauline epistles with autobiographical details), Acts of the Apostles and a host of late first and early 2d century sources (e.g. Ignatius, Clement) along with a host of other considerations. But I suppose, naturally, Ignatius was forged and Clement dates to 140 along with Acts, in your view,

At any rate, they all corroborate the historical Paul and scholars are confident he wrote 7-10 of the New Testament letters attributed to him, with several of them being possible conflations along with the potential for numerous lost ones. Not to mention collections of Paul's letters in the early second century.

You are throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Vinnie is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 11:03 AM   #47
jakejonesiv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
... UrMark would have lacked the "great omission" material in Luke
In a bit of editorial fatigue Luke evinces knowledge of the Bethsaida section. When coupled with a probable disdain for the doublets in Mark the omission is understandable. I had evaluated Mark's textual integrity here but have redone this recently and found Koester's analysis to be a bit weaker.
Vinnie

Hi Vinnie,

In the link you provided, you state "Furthermore, it should be noted that Matthew and Luke may have had different versions of the text of Mark itself. Luke may have had a version of Mark lacking the Bethsaida section of Mark which he does not reproduce (Mark 6:45-8:26). Luke 9:17 is the same as Mark 6:44 while Luke 9:19 is the same as Mark 8:27. Luke may have had a version of Mark that had accidentally lost a few pages. However, some scholars believe there are enough peculiarities in the text which differentiate this section from the rest of Mark."

I agree with you backing away from the editorial faitgue angle, and that that this section should be distinguished from the rest of Mark. Indeed, it contains most of the geographical errors in GMark.

Jake Jones IV
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 11:19 AM   #48
jakejonesiv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post

Hi Vinnie,

You are correct that terminus ad quem is the latest possible date for something.

The terminus ad quem for a work is determined by by the appearance of external corroboration. For Papias, this is determined by Irenaeus mentioning him ca. 185 CE in AH.

Will you correct the useage of the term in your articles?

Best,
Jake Jones IV

If my usage was incorrect I would but since Irenaeus calls him a companion of Polycarp, hearer of John and an ancient or early man a date some time in the first half of the second century is necessary. The terminus ad quem on the basis of Irenaeus is most certainly not 180 or 185 C.E. It is about where I placed it. The 30's or possibly the 40's if you want to assume Papias lived to 80 and wrote on his death bed.

Vinnie
Vinnie,

No. The terminus ad quem is not determined by evaluating what the external source said (which may or may not be factually wrong), but when the source was written.

Best,
Jake
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 11:37 AM   #49
jakejonesiv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
Except for the person or people who wrote in Paul's name, the actual documentary evidence (the extant Pauline epistles with autobiographical details), Acts of the Apostles and a host of late first and early 2d century sources (e.g. Ignatius, Clement) along with a host of other considerations. But I suppose, naturally, Ignatius was forged and Clement dates to 140 along with Acts, in your view,

At any rate, they all corroborate the historical Paul and scholars are confident he wrote 7-10 of the New Testament letters attributed to him, with several of them being possible conflations along with the potential for numerous lost ones. Not to mention collections of Paul's letters in the early second century.

You are throwing out the baby with the bath water.
If that is true why did Papias not know of a single Pauline epistle? Why did Justin not know of a single Pauline epistle? Why did the author of Acts not mention a single Pauline epistle? Whay did 1 Clement and Ignatius show sure knowldge of only 1 Corinthians? :huh:

There is something very wrong with the traditional time line.

Jake Jones IV
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 12:31 PM   #50
jakejonesiv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default A chain made entirely of Weak Links

Let us remember that Eusebius was not an unbiased reporter of history. He had a bias and an agenda. It is stated at the beginning of “Ecclesiastical History.”

It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own;” EH 1.1.1

Thus he produces the “testimony of Papias” which is at best the “gossip of Papias” if not outright Eusebian fabrication. Papias’ gossip concerning the Gospel of Mark is tenuous. We don’t have any copies of the alleged books by Papias, only the quotation by Eusebius E.H. 3.39.1ff. (Irenaeus AH 5.33.4 does not mention the Gospel of Mark in connection with Papias).

The Gossip of Papias is most similar to the “Friend of a Friend” transmission of urban legends.

Peter -> Mark -> John the Elder -> Ariston? -> Papias -> Eusebius

I still don't know why Ariston is in the list!
jakejonesiv is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:00 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.