spin

Oh, please do, Ben C., or otherwise I'll completely bite down my fingernails in anticipation and you'll be to blame!


spin

Ben C Smith

Well, I certainly would not want an incident like that on my conscience, so here goes.

Let us start with Theophilus of Antioch, apparently writing during the principate of Commodus (of Gladiator fame; refer to chapter 27 of book 3), in To Autolycus 2.22.2:

Οθεν διδασκουσιν ημας αι αγιαι γραφαι και παντες οι πνευματοφοροι, εξ ων Ιωαννης λεγει· Εν αρχη ην ο λογος, και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, δεικνυς οτι εν πρωτοις μονος ην ο θεος και εν αυτω ο λογος. επειτα λεγει· Και θεος ην ο λογος· παντα δι αυτου εγενετο, και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδεν.

Whence the holy writings and all those borne by the spirit teach us, from among whom John says: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, showing that at first God was alone and the word was in him. Then he says: The word was God; all things came to be through him; and apart from him nothing came to be.

Theophilus thus attributes John 1.1 to someone named John.

Other passages of interest include To Autolycus 3.12, 13, 14:

Ετι μην και περι δικαιοσυνης ης ο νομος ειρηκεν, ακολουθα ευρισκεται και τα των προφητων και των ευαγγελιων εχειν, δια το τους παντας πνευματοφορους ενι πνευματι θεου λελαληκεναι.

Moreover, concerning also the justice of which the law has spoken, it is found that there are attending details both in the prophets and in the gospels, on account that all of them spoke, spirit-borne, by one spirit of God.

....

Η δε ευαγγελιος φωνη επιτατικωτερον διδασκει περι αγνειας, λεγουσα· ∏ας ο ιδων γυναικα αλλοτριαν προς το επιθυμησαι αυτην ηδη εμοιχευσεν αυτην εν τη καρδια αυτου. και ο γαμων, φησιν, απολελυμενην απο ανδρος μοιχευει, και ος απολυει γυναικα παρεκτος λογου πορνειας ποιει αυτην μοιχευθηναι.

And the evangelical voice teaches more urgently concerning chastity, saying: Every one who looks upon another woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. And the one who marries, it says, a woman divorced from the man commits adultery, and whoever divorces his wife except by reason of fornication makes her commit adultery.

....

Το δε ευαγγελιον· Αγαπατε, φησιν, τους εχθρους υμων και προσευχεσθε υπερ των επηρεαζοντων υμας. εαν γαρ αγαπατε τους αγαπωντας υμας, ποιον μισθον εχετε; τουτο και οι λησται και οι τελωναι ποιουσιν. τους δε ποιουντας το αγαθον διδασκει μη καυχασθαι, ινα μη ανθρωπαρεσκοι ωσιν. Μη γνωτω, γαρ φησιν, η χειρ σου η αριστερα τι ποιει η χειρ σου η δεξια. ετι μην και περι του υποτασσεσθαι αρχαις και εξουσιαις, και ευχεσθαι υπερ αυτων, κελευει ημας ο θειος λογος, οπως ηρεμον και ησυχιον βιον διαγωμεν. και διδασκει αποδιδοναι πασιν τα παντα, τω την τιμην την τιμην, τω τον φοβον τον φοβον, τω τον φορον τον φορον, μηδενι μηδεν οφελειν η μονον το αγαπαν παντας.

And the gospel says: Love your enemies, and pray on behalf of those who revile you. For, if you love those who love you, what kind of reward do you have? Even the thieves and tax-collectors do this. And it teaches those who do good not to boast, lest they become pleasers of men. For it says: Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Moreover, also concerning subjection to rulers and authorities, and prayer on their behalf, the divine word gives us orders, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life. And it teaches to render all things to all, honor to whom honor, fear to whom fear, tax to whom tax, [and] to owe nothing to anyone except only to love all.

Refer to Matthew 5.28; Matthew 5.32 = Luke 16.18; Matthew 5.44, 46 = Luke 6.28, 32; Matthew 6.3; 1 Timothy 2.2; Romans 13.7-8. These are, of course, anonymous quotations of materials from what Theophilus calls gospels.

The Latin prologues name names, but their date is disputed. A lot of people put them in century II, though I have my doubts.

The Muratorian canon is broken off at the beginning, but it names Luke as the third gospel and John as the fourth. It probably dates to late century II, or possibly early century III, since it regards the episcopate of Pius of Rome as recent.

Polycrates of Ephesus (quoted by Eusebius in History of the Church 3.31.1-3):

Και γαρ κατα την Ασιαν μεγαλα στοιχεια κεκοιμηται, ατινα αναστησεται τη εσχατη ημερα της παρουσιας του κυριου, εν η ερχεται μετα δοξης εξ ουρανου και αναζητησει παντας τους αγιους, Φιλιππον των δωδεκα αποστολων, ος κεκοιμηται εν Ιεραπολει, και δυο θυγατερας αυτου γεγηρακυιαι παρθενοι, και η ετερα αυτου θυγατηρ εν αγιω πνευματι πολιτευσαμενη εν Εφεσω αναπαυεται· ετι δε και Ιωαννης, ο επι το στηθος του κυριου αναπεσων, ος εγενηθη ιυρευς το πεταλον πεφορεκως και μαρτυς και διδασκαλος, ουτος εν Εφεσω κεκοιμηται.

For in Asia also great luminaries have fallen asleep, which shall resurrect on the last day of the advent of the Lord, in which he is coming with glory from heaven and shall seek out all the saints, such as Philip of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two daughters who grew old as virgins, and the other daughter who conducted herself in the holy spirit and rests in Ephesus; and there was also John, who rested upon the breast of the Lord, who became a priest who wore the plate, both martyr and teacher; he sleeps in Ephesus.

This letter identifies the beloved disciple with someone named John. He certainly seems to know some version of our gospel of John.

Next, Ptolemy. His work has been lost, but Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies 1.8.5:

John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things so as to explain how the father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle.... And he expresses himself thus: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God; the same was in the beginning with God. .... Such are the views of Ptolemy.

The flourit of Ptolemy is usually dated to around 150, but this depends at least in part on identifying him with the Ptolemy mentioned by Justin in his second apology, which seems not at all secure to me. Nevertheless, it seems clear that his flourit predates Irenaeus by some interval.

Heracleon, whose lost commentary is frequently quoted by Origen and who dates to before Irenaeus, had to have known a text very much like our gospel of John. I do not recall offhand whether anything Origen quotes from him tells us that he attributed the gospel to someone named John, but the text he is using is certainly some form of our canonical gospel. A sample, from Origen, On John 10.9:

But Heracleon, dealing with the words after this he went down to Capernaum, declares that they indicate the introduction of another transaction, and that the words went down are not without significance. Capernaum, he says, means these farthest out parts of the world, these districts of matter, into which he descended, and, because the place was not suitable, he says, he is not reported either to have done anything or said anything in it.

This describes John 2.12, where Jesus is reported to have gone to Capernaum, but no event is described there. (This is just one of rather many examples.)

A fragment of Apollinaris is preserved in the Chonicon Paschale:

There are, then, some who through ignorance raise disputes about these things, though their conduct is pardonable, for ignorance is no subject for blame, rather needing further instruction, and they say that on the fourteenth day the Lord ate the lamb with the disciples, and that on the great day of the feast of unleavened bread he himself suffered; and they quote Matthew as speaking in accordance with their view. Wherefore their opinion is contrary to the law, and the gospels seem to be at variance with them.

Apollinaris is dated to the principate of Marcus Aurelius (who died in 180).

Ben.

PhilosopherJay

Hi JoeWallack,

Good points in your thread, thanks.

Just a footnote, that the dating of Irenaeus and Justin come from Eusebius. He, unfortunately, cannot be taken as an accurate source, as he is often inaccurate in other datings, e.g., the letters of Abgar of Edessa.

There is no other external or internal evidence to date the writings of Irenaeus to 180. In fact, they are marked by a suspicious lack of internal evidence for dating, as if any dating evidence has been erased. Justin does have internal evidence in his works that give the settings around the mid-second century C.E., but if the works are simply rhetorical, then the date of the settings do not indicate the real date. Many of the works of Plato are set 50-100 years in the past from when he wrote them.

The first works that can be dated with reasonable assurances, as they mention contemporary events, are some of Tertullian's and Clement of Alexandria, circa 200-215. It is quite possible, in my opinion that the writings attributed to Irenaeus and Justin Martyr also come from this period or after.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

JoeWallack

JW:
ECW mid-ranges T & A to 183. T & A doesn't do much for the early dating argument. In the Big picture T & A looks like a Philosophical argument rather than a Historical argument. Justin so far, looks like the Transition from Philosophical arguments to Historical arguments being mainly Philosophical but adding in some supposed Gospel history. The Canonical Gospels look like the Fuel for Historical arguments.

Irenaeus looks like the first to use the Fabled Four Fuel for HA (Historical Argument) but was Irenaeus c. 180? Eusebius attributes The Apostolic Preaching to Irenaeus but apparently never bothered to look at it or even describe it? The Apostolic Preaching is a Mixed Philosophical/Historical "Recapitulation" Argument with scholarship noticeably worse than Against Heresies.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/irenaeus_02_proof.htm

I doubt that Irenaeus wrote both unless he wrote The Apostolic Preaching much earlier and, similar to Justin, made a Transition from Philosophical to Historical arguments. Other Fathers after 180 continue to use Philosophical arguments. So what is the relationship between the Type of argument made by a Father and the existence of the Canonical Gospels:

1) Used Philosophical Argument because Canonical Gospels did not exist?

2) Preferred Philosophical Argument even though Canonical Gospels existed because Canonical Gospels were not considered Authoritative?

3) Preferred Philosophical Argument even though Canonical Gospels existed and were considered Authoritative?

It also looks like preference for PA (Philosophical Argument) Verses HA has some Geographical determination. The East goes longer without the Canonical Gospels being a major part of Arguments until Origen(?) while popularity of the Canonical Gospels looks to start in the West with Justin and Irenaeus. Could it be that the East, being closer, preferred supposed Legends (Papias) while the West, being farther away, needed writings, and that it was also the West (Rome) that established a Center for an Empire and therefore needed a Canon for Uniformity (and a counter to Marcion's Canon)? Ben, Peter asked me to ask you what do you think?



Joseph

It ain't no Mistries
whether it's Politics, Religion or Histries.
The thing you gotta know iz,
Everything is Show Biz.

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

Ben C Smith

Well, no, but the topic of this thread is evidence of dating the gospels to the second century, right? I am at this point just adding second century fathers who refer to the gospels.

I agree with that, I think, but I am not certain what the basis of your philosophical versus historical argument distinction is. What does it do for us to call Justin a transition, for example, if some three decades later we can still have a Theophilus who is almost strictly philosophical yet has a couple of clear references to the historical gospels?

Irenaeus appears to be the first to make an issue of the number 4, but is he in the case of any one of those four actually being innovative? He himself claims that others before him accepted each one of the gospels he accepts.

I think Theophilus disproves this idea soundly.

I think Theophilus also disproves this one; he appears to consider his gospels authoritative.

Yes, this is the ticket. I think they used philosophical arguments because they were educated Greeks who were writing apologies to people who wanted to see philosophical arguments.

East and west get mixed up in the cases of Justin and Irenaeus. Justin hailed from Flavia Neapolis in the east and moved to Rome in the west; Irenaeus hailed from Asia Minor in the east and moved first to Rome, then to Lyons in the west.

Well, since it is Peter asking and not you....

My tendency has been to see this as a function primarily of time, not of space. I doubt it was any harder or easier to get traditions about Jesus in, say, Syria than it was in Rome.

Papias is writing about a time when, apparently, traditions could still be gleaned by asking people who knew other people. That time was, however, breathing its last, and so Papias commits what he has to writing himself (this explains the apparent irony of Papias preferring oral traditions yet choosing to write a book; it was not oral tradition per se that he preferred, but rather the living voice, but that voice was dying quickly by the time he wrote).

By the time of Justin and Irenaeus, there was no way to ask a living elder what Andrew or Peter or Thomas had said. There were no longer any former disciples of Jesus such as Aristion and John the elder around to ask questions of. Written works were all that could be relied upon.

Ben.

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"

3) 2 Clement c. 145

One sentence on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

Now on to the next earlier Evil & Wicked Early Church Writing, Marcion, which ECW dates c. 135.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha...7/Gospel1.html

JW:
And so Marcion evidences c. 135:

1) A version of "Luke".

2) No Infancy Narrative (but strong incentive to circumcise it if it existed).

3) Q

4) "The Simontic Problem"

5) The Passion Narrative

Marcion looks to me to be the best evidence for an Indirect argument for Early Dating because at c. 135 presumably enough time has passed so that no one can prove original "Luke" and enough time had passed that no one realized original "Luke" was copied from "Mark".

So at c. 135 it's looking like:

1) Strong Indirect evidence for "Mark".

2) Weak Indirect evidence for "Matthew".

3) Direct evidence for "Luke".

4) No quality evidence for "John".



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

There may be something to the first argument (that no one in 135 could prove which Luke was original), but I do not think the second argument is a very good one for an early dating of Luke. I do not think many ancient authors should be expected to write at this point in history about authors copying from one another; that, AFAICT, was just not what they tended to talk about when evaluating texts. IOW, even if somebody in 135 knew exactly what had happened between Mark and Luke, I am not at all sure he or she would have mentioned it.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Let me supplement your Marcionite evidence for Luke with two observations.

First, Marcion does indeed seem to have known a gospel that he placed in his canon; he does not seem to have fully composed this gospel himself. Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.4.3-4:

Quod ergo pertinet ad evangelium interim Lucae, quatenus communio eius inter nos et Marcionem de veritate disceptat, adeo antiquius Marcione est quod est secundum nos, ut et ipse illi Marcion aliquando crediderit, cum et pecuniam in primo calore fidei catholicae ecclesiae contulit, proiectam mox cum ipso, posteaquam in haeresim suam a nostra veritate descivit. quid nunc, si negaverint Marcionitae primam apud nos fidem eius, adversus epistulam quoque ipsius? quid si nec epistulam agnoverint?

So then meanwhile, as concerns the gospel of Luke, seeing that the use of it shared between us and Marcion becomes an arbiter of the truth, our version of it is to such an extent older than Marcion that Marcion himself once believed it. That was when in the first warmth of faith he presented the catholic church with that money which was before long cast out along with him after he had diverged from our truth into his own heresy. What now, if the Marcionites are going to deny that his faith at first was with us, even against the evidence of his own epistle? What if they refuse to acknowledge that epistle?

Certe Antitheses non modo fatentur Marcionis, sed et praeferunt. ex his mihi probatio sufficit. si enim id evangelium quod Lucae refertur penes nos, viderimus an et penes Marcionem, ipsum est quod Marcion per Antitheses suas arguit ut interpolatum a protectoribus Iudaismi ad concorporationem legis et prophetarum, qua etiam Christum inde confingerent, utique non potuisset arguere nisi quod invenerat.

Certainly the Antitheses of Marcion not only admit this, but even make a show of it. Proof taken from them is good enough for me. If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke, and we shall see whether it is [accepted by] Marcion, if that is the same that Marcion by his Antitheses accuses of having been falsified by the upholders of Judaism with a view to its being so combined in one body with the law and the prophets that they might also pretend that Christ had that origin, evidently he could only have brought accusation against something he had found there already.

Nemo post futura reprehendit quae ignorat futura. Emendatio culpam non antecedit.

No one passes censure on things afterwards to be, when he does not know they are afterwards to be. Correction does not come before fault.

If it is true that in the Antitheses Marcion accused the Judaizers of contaminating a gospel, then Marcion must have known (at least) two gospels in all, the one being the gospel that he accepted into his canon, the other being a gospel that he thought was a contamination of it. (Tertullian and others, of course, returned the favor and accused Marcion of doing the contamination; so Marcion can have composed only one of these gospels, not both, and he may have composed neither.)

I note in passing that I should modify my last post slightly, since this is an example of ancient writers speaking of one writer modifying another; when the issue was interpolation or contamination, the ancient were not mute. Mere plagiarism, on the other hand, I am not convinced was all that common to point out.

Second, Marcion is not evidence for the name of Luke being attached to the gospel. Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.2.3:

Contra Marcion evangelio, scilicet suo, nullum adscribit auctorem, quasi non licuerit illi titulum quoque affingere cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere.

Marcion, however, as you may know, ascribes no author to his gospel, as if it were not allowed for him to affix a title to that of which it was not a crime to overturn the body itself.

Is Marcion the chicken or the egg? Fun stuff.

Ben.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

You conclusion that Theophilus of Antioch (circa 170-180) is referring to canonical texts seems to me unwarranted.

Here is the full passage from http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lus-book2.html
that is allegedly from the canonical Gospel of John:

Theophilus is explaining how God can be said to "walk in paradise". Theophilus explains that it is the word of God that walks in Paradise "is found in a place".

One expects that if he knew anything about a Jesus on Earth, he would be paralleling that event to the event of God walking in Paradise. He does not.

We may assume that he is talking about a text by someone named John. We may assume that The gospel writers used this text soon after Theophilus demonstrated that it can be used to justifiy the idea of God being on Earth.

We know that the cult of John the Baptist predated the cult of Jesus. We may take it that Theophilus is simply quoting a text from John the Baptist and the writers of the canonical gospel of John did the same.

In the above case we have Theophilus referring to a text but not a gospel.

In the next example, he refers to a gospel or gospels, but does not name a text.This indicates that gospels (announcements) existed before 170 that he puts on the same level as the prophets. We know that John the Baptist made gospel announcements. Here again, there is no reason to suspect the Theophilus is talking about anyone but John the Baptist. If we are to combine the two passages at all, since he mentions a John in the first passage, we must assume it is still John the Baptist's gospel that he is talking about.

The next quoted passage does not curiously name Jesus, but talks about the evangelical voice:

John the Baptist was considered an evangelical voice concerning chastity and he was well known for his stand against divorce. Here again, when we tie the passages together, it seems most probable that he is talking about a passage from a text concerning John the Baptist.

The final quoted passage again talks about a gospel, but does not give it a name. The text as quoted seems to be a conglomeration of a number of different passages.

Notice that the text does not use the term "Jesus said." It simply talks about a gospel. It is odd that Theophilus is emphasizing the sayings instead of the person/God making the saying. In other words, he is making the sayings have authority on their own and not attributing it to the authority of Jesus. This would seem bizarre if he was quoting a person he believed to be God. On the other hand, if he was quoting the prophet John the Baptist, a disreputable character, and simpy a sock puppet of God, it would make sense. Keep in mind that he has already associated the Prophets with the gospels and that John the Baptist was considered a prophet.

Thus we have an alternative hypothesis to the quoting of canonical texts hypothesis. Theophilus was quoting and referring to a gospel of John, but not the canonical Gospel of John, but an earlier gospel of John the Baptist. Much of the text of which was incorporated into the canonical gospels.

One could say that this alternative hypothesis does not fit the logical rule of Occam's razor that we should not multiply elements unnecessarily to explain the facts. However this addition of the element of a lost gospel of John explains why Theophilus never refers to Jesus or anything that he did in the canonical gospels; while the hypothesis that he is quoting directly from canonical gospel gives us no explanation of this fact. Thus the supposition that such a text existed is necessary to explain all the facts.

This explanation of Theophilus' gospel references may be conjoined to the arguments I give in the book "Evolution of Christs and Christianities" for the existence of such a pre-canonical John the Baptist gospel text.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

One thing is certain; your expectations and mine are altogether different. I find yours bizarre, and I suspect you might view mine similarly.

Cheers.

Ben.