Clivedurdle

which are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Doesn't this show a rather late date for this saying, after arrest and martyrdom was reasonably common?

If we discount Nero - I think he was moaning about builders - we have to be talking second century.

darstec

Mark contains none of the beatitudes, nor does John. Luke does have them but does not have this one. There are some that are common to both Matthew and Luke and are considered part of Q, however this one you quoted is not among them.

GThomas does however include this one. based on the earliest fragment of GThomas, POxy 1, dated by the style of writing to around 200 CE, it would be reasonable to date this beatitude at least that late date, unless Thomas copied Matthew. GThomas 69:1 renders the saying as "Jesus said, 'Congratulations to those who have been persecuted in their hearts: they are the ones who have truly come to know the Father.'"

Of course the earliest fragments for Matthew, {P}64, formerly known as {P}Magdalen Gr. 18, and so listed in Van Haelst's Catalogue and renumbered as Gr. 17, is also dated to 200 CE based upon paleography by scholars, except for Thiele's 1st century dating. But his reasoning seems wanting.

Luke, Matthew and Thomas all have a similar beatitude about persecution on account of Jesus, which is usually considered part of Q. If that is the case then either the persecution does not refer to killing, or Q is also quite late. To bad we have not even a snippet nor fragment of Q. {Where is Oden Golan when you need him?}

As to referring to 'Christian" persecutions, it seems that Diocletian's campaign in 303 CE was the only widespread one, excepting a minor incident here and there.

Chris Weimer

Hrm, tough call Clivedurdle. It could have been borrowed from the Maccabean wars and the general Roman persecution of Judaism.

Clivedurdle

I think there are probably loads more examples like this! What is probably happening is that we accept an HJ timeline too easily, instead of starting with an open mind and asking what do we actually see here?

If the beatitudes were not complete to at least 200 and possibly 300 CE Jesus definetely becomes a very ghostly concept!

Chris Weimer

Clivedurdle - The Beatitudes were in all possibility around at the turn of the second century CE. They have a strong Jewish origin to them (cf. 4Q525 and the War Scroll).

darstec

Are you sure you meant CE? Certainly there is precedence in Psalm 1 or The Wisdom of ben Sirach which date as early as 75 BCE, is there not? However none (AFAIK) of those including "The Demon of Death" nor the War Scroll have a beatitude mentioning the blessedness of being persecuted. Do you have any leads on the dating of 4Q525?

It seems that what you are saying is analogous to saying that Coleridge's Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner is very, very old because we can trace poetry back that far. Or at least by mentioning an earlier date for the beatific format, it sheds no light upon Clivedurdle's question on the dating of the persecution ones.

Julian

Being persecuted for righteousness' sake was a common theme in the greek philosophical tradition of staying true to ones philosophical teachings even in the face of death. Since the beatitude does not imply anything christian it could conceivably be standard greek fare pre gospels.

Julian

andrewcriddle

IMHO the probable context is persecution of early Jewish followers of Jesus by their fellow Jews.

(Paul claims a/ to have persecuted early Christians before his conversion b/ to have suffered sanctions from rabbinic courts (39 strokes) after becoming a Christian)

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer

No, because there's precedent in them. Clivedurdle is arguing over them for being late because of the persecution. That would make sense but the Beatitude style fell out of use shortly thereafter. If you notice, even Luke doesn't use the style. It's not determinative, but suggestive.