Bernard Muller

Dear Jake,
I do not see the fuss here. Marcion named his gospel, orthodox Christians did not declare yet an author for gLuke.

I looked at AH 3.7 but did not see what you are talking about. The closest I found was that, AH I, XXII, 2:
"Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself. But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judaea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator. Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. In like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord"

We have few writings from Papias, who, BTW, was not fond of Christian writings (except his own!).
Papias' known writings do not say nothing about John. And for Matthew, it looks these "logias" are not a gospel.

Acts utilizes Josephus but only Wars (see an earlier posting -- I'll come back to that).
I do not see how Acts was written to counter Marcion. It is certainly written to show how such a great apostle was Paul, which could be considered in favour of Marcion's views. And it is fully explanable without putting Marcion in the mix.

Sure, but the same can be explained by Marcion removing from gLuke things he did not like. We would get to the same result.

I do not follow you. What is this Sondergut? Provide the verses. Why make you think that Sondergut was not in the original gLuke?

I do not think the nativity in gLuke is a late addition: Valentinus was wrestling with that (actually, according to Hypolytus of Rome, Basilides and Valentinus knew about the gospels).

The fact that these stories about the nativity are different in gLuke & gMatthew are easy to explain if the two gospels were written at about the same time with an author not knowing about the other.

Marcion, Marcion, Marcion. That's an obsession. Of course, one can also say the reverse: Marcion contradicted what is in gLuke by deleting strategically and modifying.

And Luke's wording about ghost can be explained to counter people in his/her community who thought Jesus reappeared as a ghost (apparition as a ghost after death was widely believed then and therefore not exceptional).

Furthermore, Marcion did not show his docetic Jesus as a ghost when on earth but looking as physical as the next guy. Actually, Jesus reappearing to his disciples was in Marcion's gospel according to Tertullian and reconstructions I got from the internet.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

To Tenorikuma and Bingo the clown-O,

For a long time, I also thought "Luke" knew about Josephus' Wars and Antiquities. But little by little I had to step back from this position (knowing 'Antiquities") because I kept bumping into evidence to the contrary.

I already posted on this forum (yesterday) one example which shows that very neatly (about Ananias wrongly the high priest during Felix's rule in Judea).
I have others here
If you click on the link, you will see I addressed Carrier's argument about Judas of Galilee and Theudas (I even reproduced Carrier's whole argument!).
Essentially, I said that someone would need atomistic tunnel vision to see only two names in the passage and nothing else. And more ...

Certainly, "Luke" put stuff in the gospel and Acts which shows also in 'Antiquities" and not in 'Wars'. But there are big differences in the two versions.
Also, "Luke" used historical stuff which are not in any of Josephus' works, which prove "Luke" had other sources.

But my main point is: If "Luke" had known about 'Antiquities', he/she would not have made several big mistakes. These errors were made by reading or browsing 'Wars', but 'Antiquities' would have prevented them, even by only browsing it.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Dear Jake,
hum, no answer yet.

Anyway I want to show my reason for dating gMatthew in the 1st century:

gMatthew was written when the Pharisees (and teachers of the Law) had become well respected among Jews & Jewish Christians:

Mt 5:20a "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Mt 23:2-3a "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. [however “Matthew” added:] But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”

Because the emerging Rabbis were seen as enemies by Jewish Christians (“Leave them; they are blind guides” Mt 15:14), "Matthew" made up virulent diatribes against them, such as:

Mt 23:6-7 "they love the place of honour at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.' But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers."

Mt 23:13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.”

Note: Pharisees are "second fiddle" to the teachers of the law in gMark but become predominant in GMatthew, written latter.
"Pharisees"/"teachers of the law": gMark = 12/20, gMatthew = 28/19

gMatthew describes a time when Pharisees had already become righteous & respected leaders of the Jews, and also having a lot of influence on those (and therefore competition for Christian preachers).

And this is exactly how Josephus described them in 'Antiquities of the Jews' (published 93), XVIII, I, 3:
"... on account of which doctrines, they [the Pharisees] are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction; insomuch the cities gave great attestations to them on account to their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also..."


Note: In 'Wars', written some fifteen years earlier than 'Antiquities', the corresponding section in II, VIII, 14 does not describe the Pharisees as either teachers, or leaders, or having any appeal on other Jews.

The passage from 'Antiquities' indicates also that in 93 (or years before) the time of distress of the Jews (following the destruction of Jerusalem & its temple) was over with. And this is exactly what “Matthew” alluded to in his gospel, when he was writing it:
24:21a “For then [after Jerusalem destruction] there will be great distress ...”
24:29a "Immediately after the distress of those days [advent of the kingdom]...”

This is a sure sign the gospel was written before 93.

A first century date is also justified by:
Mt 16:28 “Verily I say unto you, There be some [among Jesus' disciples] standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
Mt 24:34 “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things [which include the advent of the Kingdom (24:30-31)] be fulfilled.”

Cordially, Bernard

jakejonesiv

OK, Marcion and Tertullian had the same text, so it has no relevance to the discussion. As far the rest of it, you are just making stuff up to rationalize an apparent contradiction in the text. That is OK, you are free to believe whatever you want. However, you are so far outside the realm of higher criticism that it is a poor use of my time to continue this discussion.

Best Regrds,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

The writing called "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian and the writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus are forgeries.

There is is NO credible corroborative evidence at all that Marcion knew of Pauline writings when Apologetics living at the time of Marcion wrote NOTHING of the Pauline letters.

We have a most strange situation where some apologetics in the 2nd century know NOTHING of Paul, the Pauline Revealed Teachings and the Pauline letters to Churches yet Irenaeus and Tertullian knew of every Pauline letter to the Church found in the Canon.

Justin Martyr and Octavius in Minucius Felix did NOT rely on the Pauline letters at all when Justin himself was converted and Octavius did NOT use a single sentence from the Pauline letters when he converted Caecillius to the Jesus cult.

Celsus, in Origen's "Against Celsus" c 160 CE wrote NOTHING about the Pauline letters when he ARGUED against the Christian Teachings in "True Discourse".

In the very Canon, the author of Acts, who supposedly was a companion of Saul/Paul did NOT ever corroborate a single Pauline letter.

The Pauline letters are NO earlier than the mid-2nd century.

Not one writing that mentioned Paul has even been found and dated to the 1st century and all writings that mention Paul and that he wrote letters to Churches are not credible, or are forgeries or manipulated.

The Ignatian letters, 1st Clement, the writings of Irenaeus and writings attributed to Tertullian are either forgeries or were manipulated.

The claim that Jesus was Equal to God as found in the Pauline letters was NOT taught in the Churches up to the mid 2nd century.

mountainman

It also occurs to me for the sake of completion that the list needs to make reference to the Correspondence of Paul and Seneca.

It would seem to fit into the category:
BOTH PAUL AND EPISTLES KNOWN
with a date in the 4th century.

aa5874

Luke and Acts are riddled with names and events that are ONLY found in Antiquities of the Jews composed c 93 CE.

The Taxing of Cyrenius is found ONLY in Antiquities of the Jews 18. See Luke 1

The death of Herod is found ONLY in Antiquities---See Acts 12.
Now, examine Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

The Pauline writings were composed AFTER c 93 CE.

James the brother of Jesus is found ONLY in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1--- See Galatians1.


The authors of gLuke, Acts and the Pauline writings were AWARE of Antiquities of the Jews.

jakejonesiv

:hobbyhorse::hobbyhorse::hobbyhorse:


Before the Hobby Horses entirely over run the thread, I will refer the interested reader to a couple of earlier posts:

Slandering Marcion

Marcion and Paul


Jake

Bingo the Clown-O

Jake (or anyone else who knows),

Just curious. Who wrote this?

Is this Robert M. Price? Or Hermann Detering?

Or is it you?

- Bingo

Bingo the Clown-O

Jake,

Your posts are great – except when you call me a “Hobby Horse”.

In your opinion is there any relationship between 1 Corinthians 15:9 and Matthew 5:19?

- Bingo