JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with the Evidence concerning 1st vs. 2nd century Dating of the Canonical Gospels:

External:

1) Extant fragments of Gospel text

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Earliest fragment is P52 mid-range date of c. 165

2) No other fragment with mid-range in 2nd century.

2) Church Father References

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Irenaeus c. 180

Familiar with all 4 Canonical Gospels

2) Justin Martyr c. 155

Familiar with Synoptics

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

3) The Epistula Apostolorum c. 145

One paragraph on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

Now on to the next earlier Evil & Wicked Early Church Writing, 2 Clement, which ECW dates c. 145.

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

JW:
Here we are down to one sentence on the supposed Passion Narrative, no evidence of "The Simontic Problem" and not even mention of the supposed crucifixion. 2 Clement does sound like a Sermon so it's certainly possible that the author chose not to mention the above. On the other hand, how well does it/will it fit the trend?



Joseph

"Statistics remind me too much of the 6 foot tall man who drowned in a river who's average depth was 3 feet." - Woody Hayes

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Ben C Smith

Out of curiosity, how would you treat the following passage if John postdates Justin? Apology 1.61.4-5:

Και γαρ ο Χριστος ειπεν· Αν μη αναγεννηθητε, ου μη εισελθητε εις την βασιλειαν των ουρανων.

For Christ also said: Unless you are born again, you shall not go into the kingdom of the heavens.

Οτι δε και αδυνατον εις τας μητρας των τεκουσων τους απαξ γεννωμενους εμβηναι φανερον πασιν εστι.

But that those who have once been born are unable to enter into the maternal womb is apparent to all.

Confer John 3.3-4:

Jesus answered him: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into the womb of his mother and be born?

There is also Dialogue 88.7a:

Ιωαννου γαρ καθεζομενου επι του Ιορδανου και κηρυσσοντος βαπτισμα μετανοιας, και ζωνην δερματινην και ενδυμα απο τριχων καμηλου μονον φορουντος, και μηδεν εσθιοντος πλην ακριδας και μελι αγριον, οι ανθρωποι υπελαμβανον αυτον ειναι τον Χριστον· προς ους και αυτος εβοα· Ουκ ειμι ο Χριστος, αλλα φωνη βοωντος.

For, as John was situated at the Jordan and preaching a baptism of repentance, and bearing only a skin belt and clothing out of hairs of a camel, and eating nothing except locusts and wild honey, men took him to be the Christ. He himself also shouted to them: I am not the Christ, but rather a voice shouting.

Confer John 1.20:

And he confessed and did not deny, and confessed: I am not the Christ.

(I am sure you have seen these before; I just am interested in the trajectory here if the gospel of John is unknown at this time.)

Also, in narrowing the materials down to the passion narrative at Justin Martyr, before discussing the epistula apostolorum, you have inadvertently eliminated a pretty good witness against the possibility that the gospel of John had not been written by the time of Justin. For the epistula has gospel material extant only in John (the miracle at Cana, for example, and the naming of Nathanael).

Furthermore, I am curious about your search for negative references to Peter (your Simontic problem). How would their presence or absence help date the gospels? If the gospels are late, are negative references to Peter supposed to be present in later authors (if so, whom?) but absent in earlier ones? Or what?

Finally, it seems we have progressed from late century II all the way back to before 150 very, very quickly. Where are the other witnesses to gospel materials from 150 to 200? Where is Theophilus of Antioch? Apollinaris of Hierapolis (according to the preserved fragments, of course)? Melito? Tatian? The Dura-Europos fragment? The Muratorian canon? Ptolemy (according to Irenaeus, although I see you did touch on the heretics briefly in that connection)? The so-called anti-Marcionite prologues (date debated, of course, but surely worth a mention)? (I apologize if you were planning on touching on these potential witnesses, but it seemed as if you were proceeding in reverse chronological order.)

This is a good idea for a thread, and I am looking forward to your take on Basilides, Polycarp, the preaching of Peter, the infancy gospels of Thomas and of James, Papias, Ignatius, the Didache, Barnabas, the gospels of Thomas and of Peter, the apocalypse of Peter, 2 Peter, and Quadratus as evidence for a century II date for the gospels.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
When I say "direct knowledge of "John"" I mean evidence that the author of "John" was John. Justin provides no evidence that he knew or thought the author of "John" was John. When I say "indirect knowledge of "John"" I mean evidence of the existence of "John". Simply presenting a few sound bits from Justin that match or are close to matching bits from "John" and than posturing that this proves the existence of "John" at the time of Justin is bad scholarship. Specifically for "John", considering that most of the Passion Narrative was copied, the Jewish Bible was a major source and "John" shows evidence of copying from itself, such posturing is something worse than bad scholarship (see Bauckham).

In order to provide quality evidence of the existence of "John" you would need a Methodology. What are the relative percents for references to Gospels? What are the relative percents for material unique to a Gospel? Especially important would be major themes unique/special for a Gospel. What is unique to "John" are the Signs. What was unique to "Mark" (at the time) was the Passion Narrative. "John's" reaction to "Mark" is to delegate the Passion as just another Sign. It looks like Justin does not refer to a single unique Sign in "John". On an Informal basis, without a Methodology, this tells me that Justin was probably unfamiliar with "John". In comparison note that Justin refers much more to material in The Protevangelium of James and The Gospel of Peter. Evidence that in Justin's time he had no Scientific way to distinguish what was linked to Historical witness (supposedly "Apostolic"). He simply used the Criteria of the time to determine what was Authoritative, what it said.

When I get to it I think the best Indirect argument for 1st century Dating is Marcion. If he has circumcised (love that tern here, it's so judgmental coming from Christians who considered circumcision mutilation but thought castration was a holy act) "Luke" c. 140s and at the time enough time has passed so that no one can prove who the original author was and "Luke" was written after "Mark"... But the question is which came first? "Marcion" has the original Beginning from "Mark" (none). Who is closer to the original ending? Neither Marcion or "Luke" have a post-resurrection appearance to Peter as an individual. If the Source "Mark" had no post-resurrection appearance to anyone than the Copier is free to write whatever he wants. So why doesn't "Luke" write in Peter here? Because the basic story was copied from Marcion?



Joseph

"Statistics remind me too much of the 6 foot tall man who drowned in a river who's average depth was 3 feet." - Woody Hayes

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Ben C Smith

Okay, I agree with that. But this is not all that you are doing with the gospels on this thread. You go on to state:

But the bit that Justin has about being born again is just as unique to John as the signs are. Why this distinction between unique parts of a gospel?

Also, since you are emphasizing direct witness (that names the author), I am still left with most of my question as to why you left out so much between Irenaeus and Justin. Theophilus offers direct witness (by your definition). So does Apollinaris. So does the Muratorian canon, and it even cites the signs that you say are the most unique part of John. So does Ptolemy. So do the anti-Marcionite prologues, though of course their date is debatable. Tatian offers an it is written formula without actually naming names.

Your assessment of Bauckham is quite mistaken.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
I really think in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses he has Crossed the Lion between bad scholarship and dishonesty. When he started Asserting in Chapter 3 that the Differences in women supposedly witnessing the Tale end of the Passion represented Agreement in Witness rather than Disagreement and that specifically "Mark" described the same Mary in different ways, I completely lost interest in his book and couldn't even read any more:

JW:
As always, where the hell is Jeffrey Gibson when you really need him? At least even a Truth-challenged Advocate for Jesus such as Holding would only present the above as a Possibility and not a Fact.

Bauckham here Ignores that only having women present is probably a Literary device to show up the Disciples in a a peace of Literature with a priMary theme of showing up the Disciples. Bauckham Ignores here that "Mark" was the priMary source for "Matthew" and "Luke". Bauckham Ignores that per "Mark's" account there is no reason to think there were any other women present. Bauckham Ignores that where "Matthew" and "Luke" don't have "Mark" to follow in Narrative, they are completely different. Bauckham Ignores that the account as a whole is Impossible. Most important of all, Bauckham Ignores that the author of "Mark" never identifies himself and never identifies his sources and has an anti-historical witness attitude. Despite all this Bauckham assures us that these Marys are and have given us eyewitness testimony. Even though "Mark" the Creator of the account, Explicitly says they told no one.

In SumMary than, Bauckham states as Fact the the Text does not mean what it Explicitly says and that it definitely means what it does not say. The lack of criticism by Christian Bible scholarship so far to Bauckham's Deception is APauling. Trying to defend him just illustrates your Bias Ben. Carlson apparently took to heart Jesus' supposed words that no man can serve two Masters. What about you?



Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

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

Ben C Smith

I think the quotation you provide from page 49 is, indeed, a bad conclusion. I remember it, in fact, because it stood out to me when I read the book (which I do not, BTW, own). Bad conclusions (or even arguments), however, are not what make bad scholars.

But the quotation on page 50... what do you see as truly bad stuff in that one? Am I misremembering the context here? Is he not merely saying that the Mary in Mark 15.40 is the same as the Mary in 15.47 and 16.1? Is he not merely disagreeing with the supposition that Mark must have had either two Maries in mind or two sources, one with Mary the mother of Joses and the other with Mary the mother of James, which he has harmonized as Mary the mother of James and Joses? Unless I am missing something crucial in context, I agree with him completely here. The easiest conclusion is that Mark has the same Mary in view all three times; he introduces her more fully as the mother of two named sons, then, forced to keep qualifying her in order to keep her separate from Mary Magdalene, chooses to abbreviate down to one son each time.

I doubt Bauckham agrees with your assessment that this is the primary theme. I know I disagree with your assessment, though I of course agree (as you know) that Mark is hard on Peter in many cases.

I agree with you... for the first quotation you gave, but not the second. He does not reckon with the notion that Matthew may have only Mark as source for these women, which to my mind is a little surprising since Bauckham elsewhere seems to deny Matthew the same appreciation as a genuine receptacle of eyewitness tradition he gives to Mark and John.

He may, but I do not see how this follows from the quotations you gave.

It is impossible that women saw where Jesus was buried? Or are you letting all the details fall because of a few? (If so, that is simply bad method on your part.)

Told no one... for how long? I agree that to make them run off to tell the disciples right then like Matthew does is illegitimate. But years later? Come, now.

Question for you: Why did Mark identify this Mary by her sons (an unusual practice in antiquity)? And why did he identify Simon of Cyrene by his? What is going on there, in your opinion?

I have no idea how this relates to anything on this thread. Carlson, IIRC, used that line in his blog in a nonserious manner to let his readers know that he would be devoting himself full time to religious studies at Duke rather than splitting his time between religious studies and legal practice. What does that have to do with anything? What two masters do you have in mind?

I am going to put this to you as clearly as I can, Joe Wallack. If you are insinuating that I still think Mark has an appearance planned for Peter because I am trying to retain some shard of traditionality, you could not possibly be more mistaken.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxi.html

JW:
Considering the quality of the above as evidence that Justin knew "John":

1) Justin gives no Direct evidence, such as Attribution, that he was aware of "John". This leaves the possibility that the Source for the above is not "John".

2) The subject matter, Baptism, is one of the most popular for Christianity, making it less likely that you can identify a related excerpt as coming from a specific work.

3) Justin's key excerpts above have no specific reference to the context of the claimed verses in "John" (Nicodemus).

4) "For Christ also said: Unless you are born again, you shall not go into the kingdom of the heavens." [Justin]

Verses:

"Jesus answered him: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." ["John"]

It's easy to find this idea in Paul/Forged Paul:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Romans_6

6:3 "Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

6:4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

6:5 For if we have become united with [him] in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of his resurrection;"


Colossians 2:12 "having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

2:13 And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, [I say], did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses;"


Titus 3:5 "not by works [done] in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,"

and Gospellers have been known to take Paul's words and put them in Jesus' mouth.

5) "But that those who have once been born are unable to enter into the maternal womb is apparent to all" [Justin]

Verses

"Nicodemus said to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into the womb of his mother and be born?" ["John"]

JW:
It think this by itself and in combination with the previous quote fits "John" better than any other known Early Christian writing. The weakness though is that it is the logical explanation for the saying so Logic may be the source here for Justin rather than "John". Also note that in First Apology the comparative religious context is Gentile Baptism while in "John" it is Jewish.

In Summary you make a Righteous observation that "John" is the best possible source we are aware of and therefore, it has to be evidence that Justin was aware of "John". As far as quality though it isn't very much evidence by itself because:

1) No Direct evidence of Attribution to corroborate specific quotes.

2) Popular subject matter.

3) No specific reference to the Context of "John".

4) The idea is found in Paul and Christian authors have been known to transfer Paul's writings to Jesus' mouth.

5) The most unique part of the quote (re-entering) is a Logical explanation of the first part (not unique).

6) Justin's religious context is Gentile while "John's" was Jewish.

7) Some of the Greek words are different. There's no exact match for an extended phrase.

Considering the size of "John's" Gospel and the Theme of dissing "The Jews" we would expect Justin to use it (heavily) since he specifically chose Trypho to diss. Why wouldn't he use "John" a lot more if he was familiar with "John" and thought it was real history?



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

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

Ben C Smith

I can appreciate all of this, and certainly agree that Justin nowhere names John as the author of a gospel text.

Would you like me to go ahead and post the relevant portions of Tatian, Theophilus, et alii, for the sake of completeness?

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
This one is lesser evidence than the previous one because the Synoptics have already provided everything except the Explicit statement at the end:

http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-6gv.htm

JW:
"Luke's" JtB denies that he is the Christ so it is a shorter Puttristic to get to Justin putting a direct denial in JtB's mouth.

What you've mentioned here is relatively little evidence that Justin was familiar with "John", especially for a Gospel with so many Signs of Copying/Redacting. That's why it's misleading to take a few words that match or are close to matching and posture that it means Justin was familiar with "John" in Canonical form (not Saying you're doing this).

As a side note, look at the great Literary Style of "Mark" here which gradually gets molded into supposed history:

JW:
Note that per the original, at the Start, before Jesus, Everyone is confessing their sins. All of Judea and all of Jerusalem. JtB confesses as well (the Confessor confessing, nice touch). Jesus comes with a Mission of getting everyone to confess their sins and at the End No one is confessing their sins and Everyone (including God) has left Jesus. Now what's that word to describe this? Doug? More evidence that "Mark" intended to communicate that the Original Jesus' movement was a Failure (an eventual Thread).

"Matthew" as usual follows "Mark" closest here but just changes the Ending so that Jesus does have followers at the end.

"Luke" though, who has carefully investigated, sees the problem:

JW:
Now it's not Everyone who gets there before the Messiah does confessing their sins.

"John" has even more time to think about the problem:

Now it's not even the multitudes coming to JtB and the Motivation is no longer Positive.

The attitude of orthodox Christianity towards the Jewish Bible is that it was a Practical Joke on "The Jews", assuring them of Salvation while God knew that it could never Save. Based on the above it looks like God played the same practical joke on the Christians. The Original Gospel was written to demonstrate that the original Jesus' movement was a Failure but subsequent Christianity (mis)took it as the Primary source for success of the original Jesus' movement.



Joseph

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

Ben C Smith

Not to be a bother or anything, but again, would you like me to go ahead and post the relevant portions of Tatian, Theophilus, et alii, for the sake of completeness?

Ben.