Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 03-17-2009, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newton's Cat

Simon of Cyrene is supposed to be understood as being Simon bar Kochba.

I read somewhere that the earliest authentic text mentioning Christians is a Hebrew text written in the late 130s.

I don't think there's any Hebrew text that mentions "Christians", but it seems as though they're referred to as "Notzrim" in the Talmud. Which had started to be compiled in 200 CE and finished around 600 CE.

Then again, these texts were subject to heavy sensoring due to the rise of Christendom so we might never know.

gurugeorge · 03-17-2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

This is really interesting. One does get the impression that there's some "fuzziness" in early Christianity as to when, precisely the Messiah was supposed to have lived, and this seems to be an example of it.

Sometimes it seems as if they didn't really care much - "oh, some time in the recent-ish past" seems to be about the size of it. I wonder if we can find any evidence of any more "punts" by early Christian writers into their relative past, as to when their Messiah lived? When did a consensus about 0-30 CE evolve, and how?

Quote:

When did a consensus about 0-30 CE evolve, and how?

I would imagine around the time Jesus of Nazareth became a historical person.......

Another example of the gospel writers composing a past and present story line is Matthew' dating for the birth of Jesus - usually given as prior to the death of Herod in 4 BC. There is no historical killing of infants by degree of Herod around that time. Go back to 37 BC and we do have Herod at the siege of Jerusalem - with its notorious slaying of infants.......(and of course, 70 years forward brings one to around 33 CE - the gospel story line for the crucifixion...).

Great stuff, I like the cut of your jib here. Has anyone gathered a bunch of these dating anomalies together in one place? This actually seems tremendously important - if one takes these writers at their word, it seems there was no consensus until there was - which was relatively late on. But if this is the case, and we do take them at their word (this is when "Luke" thought Jesus was around, this when "Mark", etc, etc.) the fuzziness is quite telling, and in favour of the general mythicist line of argument.

maryhelena · 03-18-2009, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I would imagine around the time Jesus of Nazareth became a historical person.......

Another example of the gospel writers composing a past and present story line is Matthew' dating for the birth of Jesus - usually given as prior to the death of Herod in 4 BC. There is no historical killing of infants by degree of Herod around that time. Go back to 37 BC and we do have Herod at the siege of Jerusalem - with its notorious slaying of infants.......(and of course, 70 years forward brings one to around 33 CE - the gospel story line for the crucifixion...).

Great stuff, I like the cut of your jib here. Has anyone gathered a bunch of these dating anomalies together in one place? This actually seems tremendously important - if one takes these writers at their word, it seems there was no consensus until there was - which was relatively late on. But if this is the case, and we do take them at their word (this is when "Luke" thought Jesus was around, this when "Mark", etc, etc.) the fuzziness is quite telling, and in favour of the general mythicist line of argument.

The dating anomalies? The usual way to handle these is to discredit the gospel of Luke i.e. he was just wrong in relationship to the census of Quirinius in 6 CE and wrong about Lysanias of Abilene
In other words, the historical Jesus camp has to invent another census and another Lysanias....
all this in order that the gospel of Matthew can be accepted as the more historical account. And yet Luke sets himself up as writing an orderly account - and is also accepted by this same historical Jesus camp as a historian!

JoeWallack · 03-27-2009, 07:53 AM

JW:
Continuing with Tertullian's attempt to demonstrate that Marcion had the later Gospel:

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/...#P5350_1660377

Quote:

Chapter V. ----By the Rule of Antiquity, the Catholic Gospels are Found to Be True, Including the Real St. Luke's. Marcion's Only a Mutilated Edition. The Heretic's Weakness and Inconsistency in Ignoring the Other Gospels.106

[1] On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit107 in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near108 (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly109 bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. [2] We have also St. John's foster churches.110 For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order111 of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author. In the same manner is recognised the excellent source112 of the other churches. I say, therefore, that in them (and not simply such of them as were rounded by apostles, but in all those which are united with them in the fellowship of the mystery of the gospel of Christ113 ) that Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion's Gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it known without being at the same time114 condemned. [3] It too, of course,115 has its churches, but specially its own----as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their original,116 you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or some one of Marcion's swarm.117 Even wasps make combs;118 so also these Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence119 to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means,120 and according to their usage----I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew----whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's121 whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form122 of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.123 [4] And it may well seem124 that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters.

JW:
Let's try to sort out Tertullian's assertians regarding the supposed origin of the Canonical Gospels:

"that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit107 in the churches of the apostles."

A bold (bald?) statement by Mr. T. Either the originals or at least accurate copies have been maintained in the original churches or even original church of the apostle. Of course if that were even thought to be the case by OCD than why would OCD edit what they thought was original?

"what utterance also the Romans give, so very near108 (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly109 bequeathed the gospel"

The implication is Peter's original Gospel (via Mark) has been maintained in Rome and Paul's original Gospel (via Luke) has also been maintained in Rome.

The implication for "Matthew" and "John" is general. The originals have been maintained in apostolic churches.

So presumably Tertullian means a combination of the specific assertian that originals have been maintained in a specific Church (although "specific" here may just be a city and not individual physical location of one Church) and the general assertian that originals have been maintained in apostolic churches in different cities.

Tertullian tries to clarify here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian11.html

Quote:

CHAP. XXXVI.--THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES THE VOICE OF THE APOSTLES, LET THE HERETICS EXAMINE THEIR APOSTOLIC CLAIMS, IN EACH CASE, INDISPUTABLE. THE CHURCH OF ROME DOUBLY APOSTOLIC; ITS EARLY EMINENCE AND EXCELLENCE. HERESY, AS PERVERTING THE TRUTH, IS CONNECTED THEREWITH.

Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!

"run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally."

Mr. T is either saying the originals have been preserved or at least accurate copies. If original, than a specific location is likely meant. If copies than a general location may be meant.

"Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus."

Presumably Mr. T is referring to Paul's Epistles here.

"Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves)."

This refers to "Mark" and "Luke" I guess.

Note that in all this Mr. T never refers to a specific manuscript in a specific location. Apparently what he is referring to are copies and if his manuscript assertian is not specific than his locations assertians are probably not either (i.e. Church of Rome refers to an institution and not physical address).

As always Mr. T can not identify any early OCD user of these Gospels. Ironically, the first user of any Gospel that he can identify is Marcion.

In conclusion, to try and make an argument for an early dating of "Mark" through Marcion's supposed early use of "Luke" you have to rely primarily on Tertullian who's conclusions are not supported by his arguments. Tertullian asserts that OCD use of the Gospels is earlier than Marcion's but Tertullian is wrong about everything:

1) His traditions about the Gospel origins are fiction.

2) He does not realize that the original Gospel purpose ("Mark") is to discredit Peter. Marcion does.

3) He claims to prove that OCD Gospel usage goes back to the apostles but is unaware of any original manuscripts.

4) The earliest attributed user of a Gospel he can identify is Marcion.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

PhilosopherJay · 03-27-2009, 01:19 PM

Hi JoeWallack,

Yes, at the end of the day, all Tertullian's arguments are just rhetorical. He offers no real proof that any of the gospels existed before Marcion.

His dating of Marcion is helpful:

Quote:

more complete and orderly treatment. For the time it must suffice
to follow up bur present argument so far as to prove, and that in
few words, that Christ Jesus is the representative of no other god
than the Creator. 'In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar Christ
Jesus vouchsafed to glide down from heaven, a salutary spirit.'
In what year of the elder Antoninus the pestilential breeze of
Marcion's salvation, whose opinion this was, breathed out from
his own Pontus, I have forborne to inquire. But of this I am sure,
that he is an Antoninian heretic, impious under Pius. Now from
Tiberius to Antoninus there are a matter of a hundred and fifteen
and a half years and half a month. This length of time do they
posit between Christ and Marcion. Since therefore it was under
Antoninus that, as I have proved, Marcion first brought this god
on the scene, at once, if you are in your senses, the fact is clear.
The dates themselves put it beyond argument that that which
first came to light under Antoninus did not come to light under
Tiberius:

Antoninus Pius was emperor from 138-161, so this is the only date that Tertullian gives us for Marcion. Outside of this, it appears that Tertullian only knows that he came from Pontus and owned ships.

The information that he once belonged to the Apostolic Roman Church seems to be a rhetorical invention of Tertullian's. It is curious that Tertullian knows nothing about his death and does not give a single story about his life.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

[QUOTE=JoeWallack;5868938]JW:
Continuing with Tertullian's attempt to demonstrate that Marcion had the later Gospel:

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/...#P5350_1660377

Quote:

Chapter V. ----By the Rule of Antiquity, the Catholic Gospels are Found to Be True, Including the Real St. Luke's. Marcion's Only a Mutilated Edition. The Heretic's Weakness and Inconsistency in Ignoring the Other Gospels.106

{snip}

Quote:

CHAP. XXXVI.--THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES THE VOICE OF THE APOSTLES, LET THE HERETICS EXAMINE THEIR APOSTOLIC CLAIMS, IN EACH CASE, INDISPUTABLE. THE CHURCH OF ROME DOUBLY APOSTOLIC; ITS EARLY EMINENCE AND EXCELLENCE. HERESY, AS PERVERTING THE TRUTH, IS CONNECTED THEREWITH.

Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!

"run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally."

Mr. T is either saying the originals have been preserved or at least accurate copies. If original, than a specific location is likely meant. If copies than a general location may be meant.

"Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus."

Presumably Mr. T is referring to Paul's Epistles here.

"Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves)."

This refers to "Mark" and "Luke" I guess.

Note that in all this Mr. T never refers to a specific manuscript in a specific location. Apparently what he is referring to are copies and if his manuscript assertian is not specific than his locations assertians are probably not either (i.e. Church of Rome refers to an institution and not physical address).

As always Mr. T can not identify any early OCD user of these Gospels. Ironically, the first user of any Gospel that he can identify is Marcion.

In conclusion, to try and make an argument for an early dating of "Mark" through Marcion's supposed early use of "Luke" you have to rely primarily on Tertullian who's conclusions are not supported by his arguments. Tertullian asserts that OCD use of the Gospels is earlier than Marcion's but Tertullian is wrong about everything:

1) His traditions about the Gospel origins are fiction.

2) He does not realize that the original Gospel purpose ("Mark") is to discredit Peter. Marcion does.

3) He claims to prove that OCD Gospel usage goes back to the apostles but is unaware of any original manuscripts.

4) The earliest attributed user of a Gospel he can identify is Marcion.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

the_cave · 03-27-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Antoninus Pius was emperor from 138-161, so this is the only date that Tertullian gives us for Marcion.

Yet Clement of Alexandria (writing at the same time as Tertullian, if not earlier) tells us that Marcion was an older contemporary of the first gnostics. Stromata, 7.7.17:

Quote:

And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the eider, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter.

Don't forget that Tertullian is trying to establish distance between Jesus and Marcion. He may be exaggerating that distance.

PhilosopherJay · 03-27-2009, 05:57 PM

Hi the cave,

Unfortunately, this passage of Clement has been screwed up in transmission, and now makes no sense. It makes far more sense if the phrase "an old man with the younger heretics" was applied to Simon instead of Marcion. Thus we get:

Age of
Antoninus - Hadrian - Nero

Basilides - Glacias - Peter
Valentinus - Theudas - Paul
Marcion - Simon - Peter

This would bring it more in line with what the other Church fathers write, but it would show a direct line from the major heretics to Peter and Paul. This might be a bit embarassing, so the messing up of the text may have been deliberate.

If we are to trust anything, I would trust the clear sentence of Tertullian as opposed to a mangled sentence in Clement.

Unfortunately, there is too little here to be conclusive in our dating of Marcion.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Antoninus Pius was emperor from 138-161, so this is the only date that Tertullian gives us for Marcion.

Yet Clement of Alexandria (writing at the same time as Tertullian, if not earlier) tells us that Marcion was an older contemporary of the first gnostics. Stromata, 7.7.17:

Quote:

And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the eider, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter.

Don't forget that Tertullian is trying to establish distance between Jesus and Marcion. He may be exaggerating that distance.

andrewcriddle · 03-28-2009, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Antoninus Pius was emperor from 138-161, so this is the only date that Tertullian gives us for Marcion.

Yet Clement of Alexandria (writing at the same time as Tertullian, if not earlier) tells us that Marcion was an older contemporary of the first gnostics. Stromata, 7.7.17:

Quote:

And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the eider, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter.

Don't forget that Tertullian is trying to establish distance between Jesus and Marcion. He may be exaggerating that distance.

There is discussion of this and other issues at ...Marcion Early ?

Andrew Criddle

the_cave · 03-28-2009, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There is discussion of this and other issues at ...Marcion Early ?

Alternate readings are very interesting--I'd be intrigued to hear more of them. Though the text as it stands is coherent when read a certain way.

Quote:

It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger . And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter.

The first "they" refers to "those who invented the heresies". The second and third "they", and the "them" (in the second paragraph) all refer to the same group. "For Marcion...with the younger" can be read as a paranthetical. Leaving "And after him" to refer, not to Marcion, but rather to the preceding "him", namely, Theudas. (But then I am working from the English here.)

This would leave us with:

Quote:

Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. (For Marcion, who arose in the same age with [those who invented the heresies], lived as an old man with the younger). And after [Theudas] Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter.

It does make you wonder, though, if the second sentence above is Clement, or a later interpolator.

But again, Tertullian is trying to establish as much distance between Jesus and Marcion as possible. We don't know when Marcion wrote his gospel. It was probably no later than around 140. But it could have been earlier.

show_no_mercy · 03-31-2009, 07:25 AM

How about another piece of evidence (or at least a motivation) for dating the writing of the gospels during or after Bar Kochba:

Quote:

Emperor Hadrian
According to the Babylonian Talmud,[49] after the war Hadrian continued the persecution of Jews. He attempted to root out Judaism, which he saw as the cause of continuous rebellions, prohibited the Torah law, the Hebrew calendar and executed Judaic scholars (see Ten Martyrs). The sacred scroll was ceremonially burned on the Temple Mount. In an attempt to erase the memory of Judaea, he renamed the province Syria Palaestina (after the Philistines), and Jews were forbidden from entering its rededicated capital. When Jewish sources mention Hadrian it is always with the epitaph "may his bones be crushed" (שחיק עצמות), an expression never used even with respect to Vespasian or Titus who destroyed the Second Temple.

Might Mark have been written as a definitive attempt to separate Christians from Jews? Since this environment is an environment that's hostile to Jews and Jewish customs, the author of Mark might have set out to write something that shows that Christians are something different than Jews, and that Jews rejected the Christian Christ while the Romans actually accepted the Christian Christ (such as the situation with Barabbas/Pilate symbolically washing his hands, the centurion who proclaims "this really was the Son of God" etc.).

Mark is basically saying to the Romans "Hey - we're on the same side!". Mix this in with a bit of what Philosopher Jay mentioned, and I think this is a pretty good case for a post-Bar Kochba revolt composition. Marcion then took this a logical step further and said that the Christ of Christianity represents a wholly different god from the Jews altogether.

View Poll Results: When Was "Mark" Written Based On The External Evidence?
Pre 70	3	8.11%
70 - 100	14	37.84%
100-125	4	10.81%
Post 125	16	43.24%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.