spin

Thanks, I'm interested, but take your time. No point busting a gut.


spin

Bernard Muller

The point I was making is it did not make any difference if Jesus was brought up in one village or another, and consequently not important to report. Don't you think, if the gospels were written so late, (after Marcion's), the gospelers would have arranged to have him raised in a well known place? Furthermore "Nazareth" in GMark is not even qualified as being a town or village, just a place of origin.
Justin in his two apologies does not even mention Nazareth & Mary. But these details, and others, appear in Trypho. Tertullian in his apology & 'answer to the Jews' does not mention also "Nazareth". However in the later, 'Mary' is mentioned several times.

I do not agree with that. Many texts are unreliable (that is proved to have errors) but still can be used, with critical analysis and caution (such as Iliad, used by Shliemann to find Troy). And I have many reasons to trust that GMark had to contend with eyewitness' testimony, which gave the author many problems. And then, if GMark was written so late, why would the writer make such a fuss of the destruction of Jerusalem? And NO, there was no redestruction in 132-135, because Jerusalem was never rebuilt in between. And how to explain GMark was derived from Marcion's (GLuke-like) gospel? And if written so late, why did the author not have Jesus predicting true events after 70. After all, he had Jesus very accurate up to 70: why stop there?

I make a distinction about oral gospel (as for Paul's) and written document. The word 'gospel' took some time before meaning what it does today. Even Justin preferred to refer to them as 'memoirs'.

I do not see the relevance of your comments on the Didache. It is certain that oral gospels were important along the 1st century. But 'gospel' means "good news" and not necessarily a GMark kind of narration. Paul's gospel, I am sure you agree with me, was not GMark like.
Marcion's gospel is far from being clear-cut: it is reported first by Irenaeus (not by Justin, who knew about Marcion, still alive then) (according to the writings available to us), that is some 40 years after being written. We only have reconstruction of it but they are contested: the main source is Tertullian, but he spent most of his energy into preaching the catholic theology/christology, rather that commenting verse by verse. So the situation on Marcion's gospel is not much different than for the canonicals.

Papias said a writing, attributed to Mark, had deeds and sayings, in disorder (but does not "Luke" claimed to have his/her gospel in order?). That's unlike GThomas, which has no deeds in it. Maybe Justin was picking on the same writing as mentioned by Papias! After all, Justin quoted a passage appearing only in GMark. Also Justin quoted a lot of Q material from "the memoirs of the apostles". Justin did not quote GThomas, but neither GJohn (and Paul).

Best regards, Bernard

spin

Perhaps they had a convention.

We may simply be seeing the evolution of the traditions. You imply you accept the tradition had already been solidified. Why?

And what exactly did Schliemann find at Hissarlik? No-one will ever know, I don't think.

However, you're right, when there can be external confirmation of the data. It is not appropriate in our case.

Why did the writer of Daniel make such a fuss about Nebuchadnezzar and Darius "the Mede" if writing over 300 years after the fact? You can't assume what you don't know enough about.

Tertullian makes some accurate comments about the period as well. Perhaps, he was really writing then as well.

Justin makes clear reference to knowledge of gospel material. Some more substantial forms were available to him.

The Didache gives clear evidence of oral tradition still being disseminated at the time of its writing. But the evangelical content found in the Didache is strictly liturgical and nothing recognisably from written gospel (and yes, the Lord's Prayer, for example, is liturgical).

Justin was dealing with Marcion, ie they were both in Rome at the same time. Irenaeus is dealing with the implications of Marcion. So must we. He talks of a Luke-like gospel but with less material, which he assumes was removed, though we tend to see less material meaning earlier with fewer additions.

What Papias is given to say about GMt is quite similar to GTh.

What is written about mark certainly doesn't fit the description of Gmk. Gmk is a literary creation with its own internal literary structures: it is in no way reflective of a memoir. It also contains literary material to which Peter was not privy, such as the first 16 verses of the gospel, Jesus's prayer in Gethsemene, Jesus's meetings with Pilate and the priests. The disciples are a literary device in Gmk, used when needed, often to show how stupid they were for the gospel's audience not to emulate.

The applicability of the Papias material to the present day gospels is non-existent.


spin

NOGO

Christians tend to read into these texts.

The first-born of the father for example refers to the birth of the Word of God before the world was created. It has nothing to do with the Gospel's virgin births.

rlogan

Absolutely.

I think G.D. that the general response to your OP is that if we buy into conventional wisdom then we can reject Doherty out of hand. The popint is to go back over original source material and piece by piece re-evaluate.

I am finding as we scrap over even Tertullian - supposedly solid canon representative - that the conventional wisdom takes at every turn the apologetic "interpretation".


Some individual items have been taken on here. I'll comment on one -

Bernard, I'm sure you're aware the Didache at 95 C.E. is a generous grant.

Al Kafirun

I don't want to sound like I'm defending Doherty, but that applies to all the standard texts utilized by Christians (unless something has slid under my radar). Its either honest mis-interpretation, wishful thinking, or pious interpolation.

Never as clear as the smoking gun that Doherty wishes it was, but...

Vorkosigan

Vinnie, first you would have to demonstrate that we are discussing history here. Then you could call upon the embarrassment criterion. The embarrassment criterion assumes the conclusion in the argument. If it is fiction, the embarrassment criterion does not apply.

Bernard Muller

Spin:
This is what I wrote into dating the non-Christian Didache:

>> 6.2 Dating:
A passage of the last chapter is most unflattering for the title of "Son of God":
Ch.16 "... and then shall appear the deceiver of the world as a son of god [also translated as "the Son of God". Ancient Greek has no capital letters], and shall do signs and wonders
[in Mt24:24, "great signs and wonders"will be given by false christs & false prophets, right before the "end"]
` and the earth shall be given over into his hands and he shall commit iniquities which have never been since the world began [Mt24:21].
... And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet [Mt24:31]. And third, the resurrection of the dead"
Here, a "son of god" is Satanic and the quoted 1st part of the passage is in the same frame of mind as elements of 'Revelation', with the "beast" and its "false prophet" (Rev19:20).
The "deceiver" is most likely emperor Domitian (81-96C.E.), the one of the great tribulation of 93-96: Domitian asked to be called "lord and god" during his rule. Also, he was the son of Vespasian, deified earlier (80C.E.) by Titus.
Suetonius (69-122), Roman historian, 'The Lives of the Caesars', Book VIII, Domitian XIII:
"With no less arrogance he [Domitian, early in his reign] began as follows in issuing a circular letter in the name of his procurators, "Our Lord and our God [Latin: 'Dominus et Deus noster'] bids that this be done." And so the custom arose of henceforth addressing him in no other way even in writing or in conversation."
So "deceiver of the world" and "son of god" are most justified for Domitian (from a "Didachee" point of view!).

Because the "end" (and Kingdom) was supposed to be in the days of this great deceiver, it appears the Didache (the one with chapter 16 and minus a few later interpolations) was published then, that is before Domitian's death (Sept. 96C.E.).

PS: the later interpolations (probably made around 140-170C.E.) would be:
- Whole of chapters 7, 12 & 15
- Part of verses 9:9 ("through Jesus Christ", with "power" & "glory" reversed), 10:2 ("and immortality"), 10:5 ("and eternal life") and 14:1 ("Lord's" out of "Lord's day of the Lord", the accurate translation from the Greek)
(chapter & verse according to J.B. Lightfoot's translation) <<

Best regard, Bernard

spin

Bernard, I don't know why my name appears in your last message, but while I'm here I 'd just like to take the opportunity to say that I don't think there is any solid basis for your (and whoever else's) musings on the Didache.

Didache 16:4
For as lawlessness increaseth, they shall hate one another and shall persecute and betray. And then the world-deceiver shall appear as a son of God; and shall work signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands; and he shall do unholy things, which have never been since the world began.

This is all pretty standard fare for the bad guy. How you can decide from it that it relates to Domitian is not based on any fact whatsoever. One can see some relation to the bad guy in Revelation, you know, the second beast, which performs great wonders.

Musings on Nero long after his death are well known in xian literature and one contender here is Nero. You say it's Domitian. Hey, your guess is as good as the next guy's.


spin

Bernard Muller

Spin:
I do not think 'Daniel' makes a fuss about Neb and that unhistorical Darius the Mede, no more than for John the Baptist, Herod Antipas and Poncius Pilate in GMark.
What is important in the dating is to look about the last events mentioned.
In 'Daniel', I (and most critical scholars) am sure there are multiple references to Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) who brought destruction in Jerusalem in 168 and the killing of Jews the next year. Then there is a call for the Kingdom to come very soon afterwards, which, of course, it never did.
Same situation for GMark: The mini apocalypse, culminating by the destruction of Jerusalem (with some word from 'Daniel' (13:14)) and soon after the second coming (13:26-27) and these words:
13:30 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." NASB
Of course, the second coming did not happen but the destruction of Jerusalem did. So my dating 70-71.
About the 'book of Daniel', my own page: Daniel
About dating of the gospels through the internal evidence:
Gospels dating, internal evidence
About dating the gospels through the external evidence (the two ways of dating complement each other):
Gospels dating, external evidence

But I do not think Tertullian wrote the Kingdom was to happen right after the destruction of Jerusalem. And certainly not as an alleged prophecy from Tertullian himself. Josephus also reported on that in the greatest details. So Tertullian and others (like Tacitus). So what! It was not like as in GMark, that is a Jesus' prophecy with a sense of great urgency, followed by a great event soon after, which did not happen.

Ther are many other passages in the Didache which also appears in GMatthew:

>> 6.1 Dependency on GMatthew:
Ch.8 "And do not pray as the hypocrites, but [what follows is according to Mt6:9-13, with minor variations] as the Lord commanded in his Gospel, pray thus: "Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, as in Heaven so also upon earth; give us to-day our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into trial, but deliver us from the Evil One
[above words of prayer in bold are specific to GMatthew and not found in Luke's version (11:2-4)]
for Thine is the power and the glory for ever
[those same words appear in chapter 10 and possibly (before an interpolation) also in chapter 9. This expression is therefore typical of the Didache. However, some ancient manuscripts of GMatthew show the same words (plus "Thine is the Kingdom and power" &, at the very end, "Amen") at the end of the prayer. What does that suggest?
GMatthew prayer was first, then copied in the Didache with the addition put at the end, then later copyist(s) "harmonized" the gospel according to the Didache version (and then added up some more!)]."
Ch.11 "And concerning the Apostles and Prophets, act thus according to the ordinance of the Gospel [what follows is an elaboration of Mt10:8b-14] ..."

There are other items from the Didache which appear only in GMatthew among the canonical gospels:
a) Ch.1 "If someone impresses you for one mile, go with him two
["And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two." (Mt5:41)]."
b) Ch.8 "And do not pray as the hypocrites
["And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites." (Mt6:5a)]"
c) Ch.9 "... did the Lord say, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs
["Do not give what is holy to the dogs" (Mt7:6a)].""
d) Ch.10 "Hosanna to the God of David
["Hosanna to the Son of David" (Mt21:9&21)]"
e) Ch.16 "the false prophets ... the sheep shall be turned into wolves
["Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves" (Mt7:15)]"
f) Ch.16 "then the sign of the sound of the trumpet
["with a great sound of a trumpet" (Mt24:31)]"

Generally speaking, all gospel-like material in the Didache have parallels in GMatthew (such as Mt5:39-44,46-47 (mainly "Q" for chapter 1). Some material in chapter 16 is shared by all the synoptics.
In other words, each of the gospel parallel in the Didache appears either in all the synoptics, or in both GLuke & GMatthew only ("Q"), or solely in GMatthew. ...

b) Let's go back to:
Ch.10 "Hosanna to the God of David
["Hosanna to the Son of David" (Mt21:9&21)]"
"Son of David" is a favorite title in GMatthew (Mk = 3, (Q = 0), Mt = 10, Lk = 4, Jn = 0). "Matthew" had Jesus called David's Son by (only in GMatthew) blind men (9:27), a crowd (12:23), a Gentile Canaanite woman (15:22) and children in Jerusalem temple (21:15). So it is very predictable he would have Jesus also acclaimed as "Son of David" by the crowd during the all important "triumphal entry" (21:9).
Therefore, the expression "Hosanna to the ... of David" originated most likely from GMatthew (with "Matthew" getting the very odd word 'hosanna' (Hebrew for "save") from Mk11:9). And with the wording extracted from GMatthew, "Son" was substituted by "God" in the Didache. It looks the author did not like that a someone be called "the Son of David"! <<

There are even a lot more on what I listed from GMatthew in the Didache.

I do not think Papias qualified Mark's writings as 'memoir'. But GMark is the gospel the most written from the outlook of Peter, despite the absence of Peter in some important scenes. I am not advocating GMark was written by Mark, but many Christians accept the story of Papias about the writing of GMark, so I think it was the same in the time of Papias.

Not all the time, far from that. Peter knows the one on the high mountain are Moses and Elijah, quite a feat! And Peter knows that Jesus is the Christ. The problem, him and the disciples are told to shut up about that. And Jesus is also shown stupid, as in the episode of the fig tree (11:13), and when he asked his disciples to feed 5000 (6:37a). Actually here, the answer of the disciples is very smart (6:37b). According to my analysis, "Mark" did not hesitate to make anyone stupid in order to get around a problem. And he makes the disciples look ultra smart when it is to his avantage.

Best regards, Bernard

spin