Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 06-01-2012, 05:16 PM

Hi Earl,

Yes, I do agree that there were probably earlier forms or elements of the New Testament gospels before 150. However, the actual writers, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John (whatever their real names were) I take to be from the second half of the Second century.

Perhaps an analogous example of this type of slow, long development can be found in the story of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears."

The first publication of the story was in 1831 by the poet Robert Southey. He had been telling the story at least since 1813 and claims to have heard it as a child from an Uncle. If true, and I see no reason to doubt him, the story must have been around since at least the 1780's. However, the main character of Goldilocks was not part of the story. In Southey's version, it is an ugly old women who stumbles on the home of the three bears. Many variants of the story followed. Charles Dickens had three Hobgoblins instead of bears. Another reported version in the 1850's had a fox visiting the three bears.

In 1849, Joseph Cundall wrote the story with a little girl named Silver Hair entering the house instead of Southey's old woman. Wikipedia notes this:

Quote:

Once the little girl entered the tale, she remained – suggesting children prefer an attractive child in the story rather than an ugly old woman.[9] The juvenile antagonist saw a succession of names:[16] Silver Hair in the pantomime Harlequin and The Three Bears; or, Little Silver Hair and the Fairies by J.B. Buckstone (1853); Silver-Locks in Aunt Mavor's Nursery Tales (1858); Silverhair in George MacDonald's "The Golden Key" (1867); Golden Hair in Aunt Friendly's Nursery Book (ca. 1868);[11] Silver-Hair and Goldenlocks at various times; Little Golden-Hair (1889);[15] and finally Goldilocks in Old Nursery Stories and Rhymes (1904)

"Silver Hair" becomes "Little Silver Hair" becomes "Silver-Locks" becomes "Goldenlocks" becomes "Little Golden Hair" becomes "Goldilocks"

Thus, the basic story of the Three Bears is in circulation probably around the 1780's and first gets written down in 1831. However the significant lead/title character in the story does not get a name that sticks until 1904.

When asked "When was Goldilocks and the Three Bears written?", there is not a simple answer. One can say that some version of the story is at least as old as the 1780's, but the first version of the story was written and published in 1831. However, the version that we are now familiar with and has become canonical is the 1904 version.

In the same way there were probably some "John the Baptist and his New Kingdom Apostles" stories going back to the First century. Then in the first half of the Second century there may have been a revised storyline and some "Jesus and the Apostle" stories. Here is where the "Memoirs of the Apostles" known to Justin Martyr and Celsus comes in. However, I still suspect that it was not until the Second Half of the Second century that the four gospels more or less in the form that we know them were first written and started to circulate.

This is the basic way I see the evidence pointing.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Joe,

This is an excellent listing of probable/possible anachronisms in the NT gospels.

These would not mean much if we had writers from the Second century quoting the gospels. It is the fact the we do not have Christian writers quoting from the qospels in the Second century that makes these anachronisms important.

We are told that Irenaeus around 180 quotes from the gospels, but it is only on Eusebius' say so that we place his "Against Heresies" around 180. Since other writers like Lucian, Celsus, Miletos of Sardis, Athenogorus, Appelles etc. don't know a thiing about any gospels, it is much more reasonable to place Irenaeus with Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian who seem to be the first ones aware of the NT gospels in the early 200's.

This suggests that the four gospels were put together around 150-200. This hypothesis would fully explain the anachronisms.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

I'm not sure why you are leaving out Justin's references to "memoirs of the apostles" (in the 150s) which may not be equivalent to the canonical versions, but certainly shows that such accounts were known in some circles. And even Tatian around the same time, in his Apology, suggests that he knows of some "stories" which we can identify with early Gospels, though he doesn't regard them as historical records, but places them on the same footing as the Greek mythical tales.

And I doubt that Marcion's use of some form of Luke is entirely a fiction created by Tertullian. We may not be able to securely date Marcion's Apostolicon, but these indicators would tend to place some kind of Gospel(s) before 150. And Ignatius' letters (even if forged some time after his death) also point to basic knowledge of the Gospel 'life' in the first half of the 2nd century. As you may know, I cannot see any justification for dating the basic Ignatian letters as late as 160, as some do.

And I can't see arguing that Celsus knew nothing of any Gospels. That is pretty clearly the source of his 'knowledge' about Christianity.

I also can't see ignoring the indicators in successive Gospels that the Synoptics cannot be a virtually simultaneous creation all within a few years (either by the Romans or anyone else) but show redaction and evolution of ideas over a certain amount of time, with the character of Mark hardly inviting a date for them starting in the second half of the 2nd century. One example is the imminence of the End and the coming of the Son of Man, both of which look to be virtually dead issues before the middle of the second century.

P.S. On the subject of anachronisms, they may be useful to disprove the early standard dating by scholarship (70-100), but they are less effective in disproving dates of 90-130, let's say. And if the Gospels were originally written as allegorical symbolism, we may be able to excuse the evangelists for not paying enough attention to strict historical application of certain things.

Earl Doherty

View Poll Results: What Does An Anachronistic Crucifixion of Jesus Demonstrate?
That "Mark" is Certainly 2nd Century	1	11.11%
That "Mark" is Almost Certainly 2nd Century	1	11.11%
That "Mark" is More Likely Than Not 2nd Century	0	0%
Why FRDB Thinks "Mark" is 2nd Century	2	22.22%
Whatever spin says it does	3	33.33%
That JW is the foremost authority on the dating of "Mark" or thinks he is	2	22.22%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.