Originally Posted by aa5874

My analysis was based on the reconstructed version of the Diatesaron. Now, if the reconsruction of Diatessaron is erroneous, it will further complicate the dating of gMark as we have it today.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

The alleged Greek Fragment of the Diatessaron is online at http://www.archive.org/details/MN41439ucmf_4

It think that it is important to note that the fragment contains only 20 complete words in the 14 lines of text. About 40 more words are filled in by the article's authors, who put in 1 to 7 letters that are not visible in order to get these particular words.

According to Kirsopp and Silva Lake's critical apparatus on page 52, the words in 5 of the 14 lines do not match any of the four canonical gospels in any of their known variations.

Of the remaining 9 lines:
4 lines match some words found in Matthew and Luke,
2 lines match some words found only in Luke,
1 line matches some words found in Matthew, Mark and Luke,
1 line has the word γενομένης found only in Matthew and Mark, and
1 line has the words ὢν μαθητὴς τοῦ which is found only in John.

Since about 40% of the fragment is original and 50% is found in Luke, as well as 50% found in Matthew, this could be a source gospel for Luke (perhaps Marcion's?), or a source gospel for Matthew, or it could be an original version of Matthew that Luke used, or it could be a very loose copy of Luke made by anybody in the Third, Second or First centuries with a bit of Matthew and John added in, or a loose copy of Matthew with some Luke and John thrown in.

If the archaeologists who found it are wrong, as Pete suggests here, it could be later.

The authors admit that this text does not match any of the medieval manuscripts that lay claim to being Tatian's Diatessaron but propose that it is possible to derive those from this text with sufficient changes. However, with sufficient changes, no doubt we could also get any of the gospels or even a version of Shakespeare's Othello from this text.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Originally Posted by aa5874

And further, the claim that gMark was the first written gospel is problematic, since since one must assume that a character called Jesus did exist or that there was some oral tradition of Jesus.

If Jesus did not exist, then there would not have been any oral tradition, yet gMark is written as though the reader already is aware of a character called Jesus.

If Jesus did not exist then gMark was not the first Jesus story to be written, since the author wrote as though Jesus was already known to have existed and introduced the character as Jesus Christ, the son of God, in the very first verse without any other pertinent details of the character.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Yes, I think a post-135 date conforms to the latest evidence. We may take Detering's arguments plus the fact that there are insufficient external references/evidences to place it earlier. As Joe Wallack points out,there is no First century evidence. The evidence only starts to be significant as we head towards the latter part of the Second century.

This makes sense from another point of view. It is only after the Bar Kokhba revolt that Christians would need an Anointed Messiah named Jesus from Nazareth.

Let us say that the Christians before the Bar kokhba only have a vague idea of Jesus Christ, as Paul and the writers of the Apostle letters do. He is primarily a name given to a future Messiah. He will have the same name, Jeshua, as the man who God/Moses annointed to liberate Israel from the Canaanites.

The Christians have been predicting the coming of Jesus to liberate them from the Romans from the time of John the Baptist. Bar Kokhba persecutes these Christians because they refuse to recognize him as their predicted Messiah/Son of David.

After the war, the Christians would be seen by the followers as traitors who refused the true Messiah - Bar Kokhba, and went over to the side of the Romans. The position of the followers of Bar Kokhba towards the Jesus Christ worshipping Christians would be something like, "The true Messiah came and you Christians did not recognize and worship him. Because of you faithless Christians, we Jews were defeated and our Christ crucified by the Romans." The first Christian response would be, "But he was not the true Messiah, he was the false Messiah. God will send the Messiah in the future and his name will be Jeshua/Jesus." The Jewish response must have been something like, "If God did not send a Messiah to avert this incredible disaster involving the destruction of nearly all his people and his holy city of Jerusalem, then he will never send a Messiah, and even if he did, after all the signs that Bar KoKhba did, and you still did not recognize him, how would you recognize him in the future.

The Christians needed to prove two things: 1)God would send a Messiah and 2)it was the faithless Jews, not the Christians who would not recognize him. But how can we know that this will happen? The ancient farming communities had a cyclical view of nature. We can only know things in the future because they happened in the past.

The Solution was the invention of Jesus of Nazareth and the gospels.

The solution was to go back to the time of the last great prophet, John the Baptist, in the previous Century. It turns out that there was a little known Messiah, little known because he was from a small town named Nazareth in Galilee and only preached for about a year. The Jews did not recognize him and in fact, on one faithful passover, they turned him over to the Romans for execution.

The Christians needed to come up with an historical figure to match Bar Kochba's popularity. They had none, so they invented one. They had no histories of him, so they created the gospels.

This is the basic explanation of why the mythic Jesus was invented. It explains how Christianity came about. It is a theory that the historicists claim the mythicists do not have.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Originally Posted by Toto

I think you refer to Stephen's speech to the Sanhedrin before they stoned him.

Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."

Originally Posted by Fenris_Wulf

That would be the one, thanks. :notworthy: So the parallel is there that I was thinking of though being set in Acts it would fit PJ's Bar Kochba timeframe as well when Christians were being persecuted by the Councils.

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Pre-70 for me via Papias whose literary activity I date to ca. 105 c.e.

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Pre-70 for me via Papias whose literary activity I date to ca. 105 c.e.