judge

Do these guys have names? Who exactly do you mean?

Vorkosigan

Vinnie, you cannot possibly understand my remarks as a "mass conspiracy theory." I sketched exactly the same idea you did, that there were a host of sects. The only difference is I do not picture them living in splendid isolation from one another developing slowly like stalagmites in the cave of history, but rather as religious groups do today, interacting and fighting, stimulating each other, pushing changes in doctrine and beliefs. This is not conspiracy but community -- an altogether different thing entirely. The difference should be clear. Tatian's own life is evidence of the speed with which communication occurred -- one moment he is in Rome, the next in Syria. These communities were all aware of each other and of their developments. Just look at all the polemics in the second century texts, against both outsiders and insiders.

Tacitus, no. That is mere speculation on my part, consistent with Luke's known method of using sources. I merely asked myself how Luke could have gotten the information, for example, on Gallo & Seneca. The answer is -- from a source like Suetonius, who mentions him (as I recall). Since Luke is writing fiction, not relating history, a source is inevitably necessary. Which source is speculation only, but there must have been one.

As for Luke's reliance on Josephus, you can download Mason's book, or I will send you a copy by email, if you PM me with your address. Or read Carrier's summary here at Infidels.

I just got Helms' Who Wrote the Gospels? from Amazon. It is not "sensationalist" but a conclusion based on a large amount of evidence. Have you read Helms' argument? It is very convincing. Later this month -- I have 250 pages of translation to deliever two weeks from now -- I will return here in full force with Helms' arguments and variious other stuff. I'm kind of surprised you haven't read it yourself. It is short and accessible and you would enjoy it very much.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

I read Helm's WHo Wrote the Gospel's and showed public disdain for his conclusion on this a while back. But I connect Luke-Acts which may be th source of our difficulties, among other things.

Vinnie

Bernard Muller

Toto:
This is assuming that GMark was important and influential right from the start. "Matthew", "Luke" and "John" did use that gospel (within 20 years!) but made considerable changes. Obviously, they did not consider it as being sacred, far from that. Actually, GMark is full of flaws, raising many doubts. I suspect "Luke" and "John" started to write their gospel in order to replace GMark.
Gospels, generally, could not have been too influential, because many epistles writers and apologists ignored them, either totally or mostly, all the way to the end of the 2nd century and possibly beyond (that is after Irenaeus made four of them quasi-canonical).
As for GMark, '1Clement' (which I date 80-81) has two "the Lord said" passages, which are cut & paste, deletion and addition of/on GMark, "modified" to serve the author's point.
This treatment is not special, because Paul earlier did the same on OT passages to satisfy his own agenda. And "Clement" does the same also on a part of 'Hebrews'. Here there are more evidence in '1Clement' the author knew 'Hebrews' (and some Pauline letters).
Papias (110-140), who did not like written "traditions", is defending the lack of order of a writing by Mark, including deeds and sayings. That would qualify GMark, more so when compared with GLuke, which claims to have been written in order. Furthermore Papias quotes a "Lord said" saying which appears only in GJohn.
The Didache refers to a gospel and draws a lot of material which show in GMatthew (somewhat modified, but that's the rule rather than the exception in early Christianity).
"Barnabas" also has a few tidbits about gospels, more so GMatthew's one.
Revelation has a whole verse which is very close to one in GMatthew.
All the three aforementioned writings are considered by many (and myself) to have been written at the very end of the first century.
(and there is plenty of internal evidence in GMatthew that it was written when Pharisees were turning into well esteemed rabbis and Jewish leaders, at the end of the time of distress, that is 85-95. Everything fits!)

And I do not know of too many church fathers before Papias, except "Clement". Roughly at the same time of Papias, apologist Aristides mentioned written "gospel" and the birth from a Hebrew virgin within two contiguous sentences.
At the same time, apologist Quadratus of Athens mentioned stories appearing only in the gospels. Papias, Aristides and Quadratus are the first fathers who wrote in their own name.

Generally speaking, the acceptance of the gospels was very progressive and took a century or more. And that's understandable, because they were flawed, anonymous and showed conflicts between each other. And in the 2nd centuries, the situation got worse, with many other gospels appearing to satisfy some particular church, with more contradictions, additions, differences, etc.

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie

I got three books in the mail today

I'll check out Carrier's summary though. Bernard seems to think Luke knew Jewish War, not Antiq. Why is that Bernard?

Its possible three authors mention Luke:

Some have suggeste that Polycarp of Smyrnia knew Acts 2:24 (cf. Phil 1:2). Polycarp also writes sometime in the first half of the second century.

Marcion uses Luke (truncated version?) during the same time period (ca 130-140 C.E.).

Martyr alslo uses a harmony of Matthew, and Luke (and Mark?) (ca 150 C.E.). Not only Justin but 2 Clement and the Gospel of the Ebionites are said to evidence this. See Koester in Ancient Christian Gospels esp @ 351 2d paragraph, 352(last sentence) into 353. Koester suggest the harmony existend in a Pre-2 Clement source.

Koester also argues @ 370 for three stages: 1) systematic harmonization of Mt and Lk. That harmony resulting in the composition of clusters of sayings and finally Justin's usage.

Section 5 of Koesters work (349 - 430) centered on "The Harmonization fo the Canonical Gospels).

You simply are not positing enough developmehntal time for this three stage process to occur. No later than the beginning of the 2d century is what the external attstation of Luke (collectively) demonstates. Lukes reference to the temple and depndence on Mark puts him at least at 80 C.E and up and also Luke's introduction shows him to be at least a third generation Christian (the disciples are long dead and many already tried to write accounts of what happened) and he is definately at a remove away from the material he narrates in Acts.

There are reasons for placing Luke late as well. I would agree that 80, when all is said and done appears a pinch too early for Luke. I think 85-110 is the most probable time location on this basis alone.

I'll try to summarize an internal argument for Luke later.

Vinnie

Bernard Muller

I agree with Vorkosigan and Helms that GLuke was written by a woman.
I got a page on that:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appf.html

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie

""""Certainly this gospel goes so much out of its way to be appealing to women (especially middle-class influential ones), featuring many of them, that it can be postulated the author was likely a woman:"""""""

Is that it? Thats all the argumentation I see. Women are prominent in Luke, thus it can be postulated Luke was written by a woman.

The great omission (from your article) in Luke is explainable by two other purposes other than a woman didn't like Jesus dennigrating a woman. In fact, Jesus statement is directed at Gentiles, NOT women so this exegesis is not very convincing.

What about these two "postulations":

Luke knows of Mary Mag's authority and popularity and decides to denigrate her by stating that she had not one but SEVEN demons. Later commentators and skeptics certainly picked up on this chief witness being a former crazed demoniac so severely inflicted. Nice witness. Just ask Celsus in the 2d century.

What about Crossan who argues that Luke subordinated the women when deciding who was to be Jesus' official witnesses to the world, see Revolutionary Biography @ 173-174. When I critiqued Helm's sensationalism after I first read it here a while back I appealed to this as well.

If Luke considers women to be disciples and is so pro women why does she never use the singular form of the noun mathetes or the equivalent feminine form mathetria to a specific group of women?

Maybe Luke simply wasn't a complete misognyst whereas a strong contast is set up the the others who adopted the patriarchal culture of their era and were.
Maybe Luke had a lot of prominent women friends.
Maybe Luke was just writing to a community with a lot of Prominent women.
Maybe Luke was a male-identified lesbian.

I have no idea but this use of "gender of author detectable by contents" is not very convincing when you have equal theories with the same explanatory scope. All you are left with is a curious possibility.

Helms also raises some material about the women at the end and the Rez in Luke 24. Apparently, his sensationalism caused him to engage in eisgesis and most problematically overemphasis and overapplication:

In Luke 24 the women are denigrated in that they are wondering where Jesus is. The apostles too but all much less so than in Mark since Luke esteems them more as evident by his alteration. At any rate they don't understand like they should (if Luke has predictions of Jesus in his Gospel). They go back and tell the male disciples but their words (presumably all frantic in light of what occured) "seemed like nonsense" so Peter being a good boy goes and checks. The women only know when an angel tells them.

And of course, Luke is adopting this framework from Mark which originally ended at 16:8 (thats why everyone John Mt and Luke diverges so wildly after it) so its only natural not to have the women go away "telling NO ONE" but to narrate the women going to the male disciples (who become the authorities of the tradition in Acts 1) which is what they do.

Even if you find the denigration of Mary Magdalene in Luke unlikely in favor of another explanation (I don't know why you would since Mark and John do it as well) and find Crossan unconvincing on Acts smoothing over the open-ended egalitarianism of Luke, these statements would still have as much persuasive potential as Luke being written by a woman.

Can we posit that the single, unknown woman who gets is right and anoints Jesus in the Gospel of Mark was obliquely signing her narrative?

These are curious possibilities, there is nothing solid here. The gospels are expliclty anonymous as far as gender and names go and implicitly, as good proponents of historical probability, one should probably assume they were written by males until demonstrated otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I would actually get great joy out of a woman writing Mark and Luke. I'd incorporate into anti-apologetics immediately. But there is nothing solid here.

Michael, its amazing how you can be so skeptical of everything else, but fall for this bit of sensationalism.

Vinnie

spin

As late at least as 155 CE, ie circa Justin.

And what makes you so sure that Luke is not a development of Marcion?

This has yet to be established here. We may for example be dealing with a form of Q. Who knows?

How much time does a community need, upon receiving a faith text it didn't quite agree with or which didn't include the materials that the community shared, to produce a more acceptable one? A week?

The Didache talked of itinerant preachers and these were responsible for spreading or creating ideas about the faith in order to gain the support of a gullible xian community. Fertilisation and cross-fertilisation can only be expected.

There is no reason I can see to forbid a turn-around time of literary production in the Roman world of a few years, if that, needing only someone carrying a new text into a community, say from Corinth to Rome for example a matter of a couple of months in transit, how much would that necessarily mean from original production, if it were produced say in Corinth, till it was assimiliated in Rome??

How does one distinguish pre-Lucan material from Lucan gospel material??


spin

Bernard Muller

Vinnie:
You are misrepresenting me here. You make it look I do not have evidence to back it up. Right after that I wrote:

a) Lk16:18 "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery."
Divorced women are never at fault! This is not the case in Mark's version:
Mk10:12 "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

b) Lk21:16-18 "You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death. And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But [B]not a hair of your head shall be lost[B] [last sentence only in GLuke!]."
Let's compare this with:
1Co11:6b " ... if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head."

c) In a story appearing only in GLuke:
Lk2:48 "When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son [boy Jesus], why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.""
Here, Mary is doing the talking, not only for herself, but also in behalf of her husband, an unthinkable behavior for a Jewish woman then:
Josephus 'Against Apion', II, 25 "for, says the Scripture, "A [Jewish] woman is inferior to her husband in all things.""
Also, let's note that the first two chapters of the gospel "stars" a remarkably emancipated Mary, conversing very calmly with an angel (1:26-38), not objecting to become pregnant without a husband to show for, deciding to travel on her own (1:39 "At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea ..."), etc.
Not Jewish at all, but very much in the tradition of Roman/Macedonian women of good standing!

d) Lk10:39-42 "She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!" "Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.""
Only in GLuke is this (non theological) charming story advocating it is better for a woman to listen to the "word" (or just plainly relax) rather than doing house work. And Jesus says it himself!

e) In this passage found only in GLuke, feminine sensuality is overwhelming:
Lk7:44b-47a "You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven--for she loved much."

f) And even if Jesus does not appear to have been fond of his mother, "Luke" found a way to remind the readers about her:
Lk11:27 "As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.""

g) Lk8:1b-3 "The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means."
Let's compare this with the parallel passage in Mark's gospel:
Mk15:40b-41a "Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs."

h) In a passage which appears only in GLuke, Jesus is very compassionate for a widow who lost her mean of support:
Lk7:12-15 "... a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother; and she was a widow. ... When the Lord saw her, He had compassion on her and said to her, "Do not weep." Then He came and touched the open coffin, ... And He said, "Young man, I say to you, arise." So he who was dead sat up and began to speak. And He presented him to his mother."

i) Influential women are also indicated in 'Acts' (written by the same author). Let's notice that the women are mentioned before the men:
Ac13:50a "But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city"
Ac17:4 "Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women."
Ac17:12 "Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men."

AND I do not think a woman as author of gospel is "sensational". There were educated women then, half of the Christians were likely women, so what's the big deal?

I agree the statement is mostly directed at Gentiles, who just happened to be represented by a woman in the story:

But then, if GLuke (and 'Acts') was written for Gentile "Pauline" Christians led by prominent women, the following story, found in the middle of the missing block, would have been devastating:
Mk7:26-29 "The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter.
But Jesus said to her, "Let the children [of Israel, the Jews] be filled first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs.
[the Gentiles, here represented by a Syro-phoenician Greek (speaking) woman]"
And she answered and said to Him, "Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children's crumbs." Then He said to her, "For this [very humiliating] saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.""

That was likely against what the Philippian Christians had been hearing from their local leaders. It was also contrary to the preaching of Paul (whom the author vehemently defended in 'Acts'), who had claimed many times that Jews and Gentiles were equal "in the Lord":
Ro2:10-11 "but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism."
Ro10:12-13 "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile --the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.""

And Mk7:27-28 was in line with what the local Christians of the time may have heard from some "Judaizers" or Jewish Christians (who were certainly not fond of prominent women!). In conclusion, if the local believers would know about this particular passage, many doubts were bound to surface and even a splitting of the Christian community could occur.

Actually, in GLuke, Mag is just one woman among other women following Jesus from Galilee (and supporting him & disciples). Others are named among them. The 7 demons shows it does not matter how much of a sinner someone was, he/she can still be Jesus' followers (Christian). It is a major theme in GLuke.
And let's forget about what followed: "Luke" did not have any control on that.

"Luke" had to take in account GMark and a Jewish environment for Palestine. That's would explained it.

What about the easiest solution: "Luke" was a woman. I do not see why you are so hanged up against that.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Vinnie:
Luke 24 is a big improvement over GMark: the women remembered Jesus' words (8), as repeated by the angels and go and tell the disciples (9). I do not see anything denigrating here. And you are interpreting "seemed like nonsense" as because of the women. It is to the men that does not make sense. By the way, verse 12 does not appear in some ancient manuscripts, which probably means it is a harmonization/interpolation from GJohn.
The women know when the angels tell them. But a tomb found opened and empty does not spell 'resurrection' either.

I think you are imagining the denigration of the women in GLuke, when so much of the Lukan material is greatly about and in favor of women.

That woman is not named and there is no reason from Mk14:9 to have her composing a gospel. What she would be remembered for, according to the verse, is preparing Jesus' body for burial.

I happen to disagree totally with you. The evidence is overwhelming.

Best regards, Bernard