andrewcriddle

IIUC the Exegetica date from c 130 CE.

IMS (and it is some time since I checked) Hegemonius claimed that Basilides referred to a some sort of rich man Lazarus parable which he (Basilides) interpreted allegorically. I don't think that Luke is mentioned by name.

Andrew Criddle

ETA

There is an online version of Hegemonius in the ANF eg http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.txt which represents the passage as The modern translation makes the allusion to the parable in Luke much clearer.

ETA2

IIUC the issue is one of text rather than translation.
A proper text of the Acta Archelai could only be produced after Traube's discovery of the Monacensis manuscript. The ANF translator was using a very bad text. See http://www.iranica.com/newsite/artic.../v2f3a040.html

Julian

No, it is simply that I hate to sound like I am sure about something that I cannot be certain about. However, since Barnabas says that he saw it written then I can certainly give him the benefit of the doubt, having no immediate cause to suspect differently. I just don't want to come across as if I am saying that something is the TRUTH^TM.
As do I, but vanishingly small though the probability may be, it isn't zero. It is not a serious consideration, of course.


Julian

Julian

Which is kinda what I meant.

Julian

Thanks, Andrew. As an added quick note, please note that I very much appreciate your posts because they many times contain references that I am not familiar with. As such they are extremely helpful, so a big thumbs up from me on your posts in general. Keep it up.

I will look into the sources you have given. I am also trying to hunt down a vaguely remembered reference on transmission speed of written materials. You also mention that the sparsity of Christians would have slowed down MS propagation. One could easily argue that since it was sparse, literary materials weren't readily available and therefore copying would have been even more important and hence prioritized higher. It is not so much the number of people that count as it is their dedication to text propagation. More later...

Julian

Ben C Smith

Fair enough. Thanks for explaining.

You may have already seen it, but I have dedicated a thread on the term logia to you.

Ben.

patcleaver

This is not in best interests of our Jesus myth argument to disclose this, but since I found it - here goes.

see http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/mark.htm

Fictional Mark probably had to be substantially revised (or written) after the Bar Kochba uprising of 132-136 CE.

1) In fictional Mark, Jesus has to explain why the Jewish war that ended in 73 and the Bar Kochba uprising that ended in 136 CE did not result in the end times. In Mark 13:7 Fictional Jesus says " when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet."

2) In fictional Mark 13:9, Jesus says "for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten…"

It was not until the 90s that the Jews first introduced a curse upon ‘apostates’ and Jewish hostility to the Jewish/Christian heretics was greatest between 100 - 120 AD.

3) In fictional Mark 13:22 Jesus says "false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect."

The best fit of a false Christ that showed signs and wonders was Simon ben Kosiba (called 'Bar Kochba' or ‘son of the star’ by his followers) who claimed to be the messiah and with the blessing of the High Priest, he led the war against Rome from 132-136. Among the wonders that he performed, he spewed fire from his mouth. "That famed Bar Chochebas, the instigator of the Jewish uprising, kept fanning a lighted blade of straw in his mouth with puffs of breath so as to give the impression that he was spewing out flames." --- Jerome (Against Rufinus, 3.31).

4) In fictional Mark 13:14-18 Jesus says "The abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: …And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter."

The abomination of desolation of Mark did not occure until the Bar Kochba uprising that ended in 136 CE when the temple was defiled, the Jews were expelled from Judea, and Judea was renamed Palistine.

The abomination of desolation in Daniel 9.27, 11:31, 12:11 originally referred to Antiochus profaning the Temple of Jerusalem c.165 BC, with an image of Zeus.

In 132 CE Hadrian referring to himself as Antiochus, erected not merely a statue of Zeus/Jupiter, along with his own image, but an entire temple to the god on the former site of the Jewish Temple (destroyed in 70 CE). This was the catalyst for the second Jewish revolt (the Bar Kochba uprising).

The parenthetical phrase, 'Let him that readeth understand' does not make any sense in relation to the first Jewish War ending in 73 CE, but clearly fits the Bar Kochba uprising ending in 136 CE. If Mark called the temple of Jupiter (erected in 132 CE) 'an abomination' it would have been regarded as seditious.

The phrase "let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: …And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter." Does not make any sense in relation to the first Jewish War that ended in 73 CE, but clearly fits an event during the Bar Kochba war that ended in 136 CE, when during the winter, the Roman armies partially withdrew to regroup, making a flight to the mountains possible.

Solitary Man

Considering that Judea had been experiencing wars for quite some time before the Bar Kokhba event, this argument seems to hold no sway at all.

Non sequitur.

However, there were other Messianic pretenders, some well before Bar Kokhba. There's no reason to assume it was talking about this one Messianic pretender when Josephus, writing before Bar Kokhba, alludes to others.

This is idle speculation. It's actually much easier to refer to the Jewish War of 70 CE when the temple was destroyed. How the Temple was defiled in 136 CE when it was destroyed almost 70 years earlier is beyond me.

But Mark didn't call the Temple an abomination. He may have alluded to it, but superficially, it escapes notice. Most early Christians, some writing before Bar Kokhba, thought that Mark wrote down what Peter the disciple preached...the same disciple who could not have possibly been alive during the Bar Kokhba revolt according to Christian chronology.

Furthermore, Christian theology is largely a reaction to the destruction of the Temple and the replacement of the Temple cult with the new Jesus soter cult. Such a reaction would have made more sense in lieu of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and not the destruction of Jerusalem in 135 CE.

patcleaver

Yes, your right there is no reason that this part had to be written more than a few years after 70 CE.


Even according to early Christian sources, the Christians were welcome in the synagogues until the 90s, thus the author could not have known about beatings in the synagogues until after that time.

Yes there were lots of messiahs before the Bar Kochba war, but Simon ben Kosiba claimed to be the messiah and the High Priest anointed him to lead Isreal through the war, and at least a large number of the Jews certainly thought he was the messiah and followed him in the war, and he really performed wonders unlike most of the other false messiahs.


The site of the destroyed temple was sacred ground to the Jews. The Jews wanted and expected to rebuild the temple. The building of a pagan temple on the Jewish Temple site meant that the Jews would never be able to rebuild their temple. The defilement of the grounds of the destroyed Jewish Temple by the erection of the pagan temple is the act that instituted the Bar Kochba uprising.

The temple was destroyed in 70, but Jerusalem was not desolated until the Bar Kochba uprising.


Mark could not say that the building of the Temple to Jupiter on the holy grounds of the destroyed Jewish Temple was an abomination, because the Romans would have killed him, so he referred to Daniel and hinted 'Let him that readeth understand'.

What you said is just idele speculation. Mark could not have been written until after 136. There is no reason to think that the Mark that we know was written before the 4th century. The only evidence that anyone named Mark knew anyone named Peter is some rumor supposedly passed on by Ignatius.

The real evidence indicates that Mark is almost certainly just fiction. The other gospels are just as certainly just fiction. Paul was probably fiction, and if Paul actually existed then he probably was not writing about any Jesus of Nazareth, but just some pagan sun god he called Jesus Christ.

There is no reliable evidence of any Christian movement based on a Jesus of Nazareth before the late fourth century. Paul and the other epistles simply fail to indicate that they were writing about or were even related to any Jesus of Nazareth. According to Eusebius, Papias (c 130 CE) knew of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, but there is no indication that these Gospels are the same ones that we have today or that Eusebius is not simply lying about it - just like everything else Eusebius claimed.

Solitary Man

You're right. There are other clues for that.

Do you know what non sequitur means?

Oh, jeez, really? Jesus was also have said, even by Josephus, to have performed wonders. Bar Kokhba was also a persona non grata after he failed against the Romans.

First of all, concerning the first statement, even after Bar Kokhba there existed Jews who wanted the Temple to return. Read the Talmud. Concerning your second statement, do you have any evidence for it?

Still a non sequitur.

So this is just your interpretation, and so far it's not holding up.

Idol speculation? What idols have I been speculating about? Idle speculation is you and your junk website. I try after the weighty tomes and scholarly commentaries. You listen to some amateur who doesn't even know Greek and has actual lies on the website.

Evidence?

Rumor?

Evidence?

OK, now you've moved into the realm of mountainman. Sorry bud, I stopped arguing with people like you.

andrewcriddle

Beeson's critical edition 1906 renders the text of the bolded portion as However all manuscripts read parvulam which is difficult to make sense of and has been replaced by the conjectural emendation parabolam making the first part of the quote read something like "In writing the thirteenth book of our Tractates, the wholesome word furnished us with the necessary and fruitful word through the parable of the rich (man) and the poor (man).............". This emendation seems likely and is mostly (but by no means universally) accepted by modern scholars and if accepted seems to point definitely to the parable in Luke. However it is an emendation.

Andrew Criddle