Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 09-01-2009, 11:32 PM

Section mostly finished, a few sources in this time frame will be added later when discussing other gospels:

http://ecwar.org/

Added in a discussion of Athenagoras and Celsus and the Gospels, Tatian with a small Discussion of the Dura Parchment and Justin Martyr's use of Gospel Harmonies. I think the Dura Parchment is another witness to the Diatessaron and not evidence of another Gospel harmony.

After this was done I posted a summary of attestation from 200-150.

I'll get up the more interesting and more difficult first half sometime soon (hopefully a week or two) but that depends on my course load at school which is looking ridiculous right now...

Vinnie

GakuseiDon · 09-02-2009, 01:01 AM

How about Theophilus of Antioch? He seems to reference directly to the Gospel of John, as well as a few other references generally to "Gospels".

avi · 09-02-2009, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiki

Theophilus's testimony to the Old Testament is copious. He quotes very largely from the Pentateuch and to a smaller extent from the other historical books. His references to Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, and Jeremiah are copious, and he quotes from Ezekiel, Hosea and other minor prophets. His direct evidence respecting the canon of the New Testament does not go much beyond a few precepts from the Sermon on the Mount, a possible quotation from Luke 18:27, and quotations from Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy. More important is a distinct citation from the opening of the Gospel of St. John (1:1-3), mentioning the evangelist by name, as one of the inspired men by whom the Holy Scriptures were written.

This description of Theophilus suggests, to me, rather the contrary, i.e. that he was unfamiliar with the four gospels. There isn't much of substance in John 1:1-3.

Vinnie · 09-02-2009, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

How about Theophilus of Antioch? He seems to reference directly to the Gospel of John, as well as a few other references generally to "Gospels".

Jerome reports that he wrote a harmony of the gospels, or is that a different Theophilus? I mention that a bit later in the total summary of 2d attestation. I'll look into another segment.

Vinnie

spamandham · 09-02-2009, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

After this was done I posted a summary of attestation from 200-150.

Not a bad summary, but I think you are making way too many assumptions when you state :

The use of the gospels, their authority and harmonization places the time of composition of the synoptic gospels no later than the very early second century (ca. 125) on the basis of the above authors.

Large periods of time to account for both the spread and acceptance of authority of the gospels are not required. A few years is more than enough time.

aa5874 · 09-02-2009, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiki

Theophilus's testimony to the Old Testament is copious. He quotes very largely from the Pentateuch and to a smaller extent from the other historical books. His references to Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, and Jeremiah are copious, and he quotes from Ezekiel, Hosea and other minor prophets. His direct evidence respecting the canon of the New Testament does not go much beyond a few precepts from the Sermon on the Mount, a possible quotation from Luke 18:27, and quotations from Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy. More important is a distinct citation from the opening of the Gospel of St. John (1:1-3), mentioning the evangelist by name, as one of the inspired men by whom the Holy Scriptures were written.

This description of Theophilus suggests, to me, rather the contrary, i.e. that he was unfamiliar with the four gospels. There isn't much of substance in John 1:1-3.

Theophilus of Antioch indeed did not appear to be familiar with gJohn where Jesus became flesh, transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven.In fact, Theophilus never mentioned the word Jesus or Christ and further stated that the son of God was not born of a woman.

Theophilus' son of God, the Word, was strictly philosophical.

This is Theophilus of Antioch in To Autolycus 2.22

Quote:

You will say, then, to me: "You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise?" Hear what I say.

The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam.

For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God.

For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of 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 in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

From the 3 books to Autolycus, it is clear that Theophilus did not appear to be aware of Jesus, he never mentioned the name or any event with respect to Jesus or any of his followers, or his teachings.

And further it cannot be assumed that gJohn as found today existed in the 2nd century because words found in "To Autolycus" appear similar.

It must be considered that both Theophilus and the author of gJohn may have copied the same source. And based on Athenagoras of Athens there might have been a source called the LOGOS or the words of the Logos.

Athenagoras in Plea to the Christians 10.

Quote:

But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter

Again, Athenagoras who never mentioned Jesus in his writings or any event surrounding Jesus, claimed that the Logos was an idea.

.

Quote:

This is Athenagoras in Plea for the Christians
.......for the Logos again says to us, "If any one kiss a second time because it has given him pleasure, [he sins];" adding, "Therefore the kiss, or rather the salutation, should be given with the greatest care, since, if there be mixed with it the least defilement of thought, it excludes us from eternal life."

Based of Athenagoras, there appeared to have been writings from the LOGOS in the 2nd century.

Vinnie · 09-03-2009, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

After this was done I posted a summary of attestation from 200-150.

Not a bad summary, but I think you are making way too many assumptions when you state :

The use of the gospels, their authority and harmonization places the time of composition of the synoptic gospels no later than the very early second century (ca. 125) on the basis of the above authors.

Large periods of time to account for both the spread and acceptance of authority of the gospels are not required. A few years is more than enough time.

Richard Carrier:

"This thesis, if correct, entails two things. First, it undermines the historicity of certain details in the Christ story unique to Luke, such as his account of the Nativity, since these have been drawn from Josephus, who does not mention them in connection with Jesus, and thus it is more than possible that they never were linked with Jesus until Luke decided they were. This does not prove, but provides support for the view that Luke is creating history, not recording it. Second, it settles the terminus post quem of the date Luke-Acts was written: for in order to draw material from the Jewish War, Luke could not have written before 79 A.D., and could well have written much later since the rate of publication in antiquity was exceedingly limited and slow, requiring hand copies made by personal slaves (though at first oral recitations would be more common than written copies); and in order to draw material from the Jewish Antiquities, as he appears to have done, Luke could not have written before 94 A.D., and again could have written much later for the same reason."

Mark has to be written anonymously to a local community. Be used and become known and spread to regions beyond its own community. Two different evangelists use the works of Mark and Q and make their own gospels that circulated anonymously in their own communities. These works spread, travel to regions they were not written in and became popular. These gospels were probably chosen against many other gospels to be the primary sources used by the harmonization school of JM. They are considered memoirs of the apostles by Justin who harmonizes them and who had access to pre-prepared harmony. Justin also does not stand at the beginning of Gospel authority. He exists in between Irenaeus and A Clement on one end, and the Christians before Marcion who used writings differently.

Justin wrote 156 and I think giving 30 years for Mark was a rather conservative estimate for this process. I think it can apply to Matthew and Luke as well, as these anonymous works written for local communities both need time to be copied, travel to different regions and become popular and authoritative to the degree we see in Justin (Memoirs). Though given time for Marcan priority maybe it should become. [ 120 (Mark) and 130 (MT Lk) or 125 (Mark) and 135 (Mt Lk) ].

In addition, the traditions has to be broad enough to have infiltrated into the writings of all the other individuals mentioned.

This will be more obvious when I consider manuscript evidence, four other gospels dependent upon Matthew and the attestation from 150-100.

Vinnie

spamandham · 09-03-2009, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

and could well have written much later since the rate of publication in antiquity was exceedingly limited and slow,

Buried in this, is an implicit assumption that the texts spread passively. Mark was written and then just sort of spread around. Then someone decided to revise it and wrote Matthew which then also just sort of spread around passively...and so on.

Is there a reason to think this is how it happened? We should not allow our unjustified assumptions to force the dates.

Quote:

Mark has to be written anonymously to a local community. Be used and become known and spread to regions beyond its own community...

Why must this be how it happened?

Quote:

regions and become popular and authoritative to the degree we see in Justin (Memoirs). Though given time for Marcan priority maybe it should become. [ 120 (Mark) and 130 (MT Lk) or 125 (Mark) and 135 (Mt Lk) ].

Justin knows about the Memoirs. And Justin quotes from the Memoirs. These quotes, we recognize from the 4 Gospels as well as from Revelation. So, we've established a common source between what Justin knew as the Memoirs and the canonical Gospels (+Revelation).

What methodology has been used to determine which is primary?

09-01-2009, 11:32 PM	#1
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	External Attestation of the Gospels 200-150 Section mostly finished, a few sources in this time frame will be added later when discussing other gospels: http://ecwar.org/ Added in a discussion of Athenagoras and Celsus and the Gospels, Tatian with a small Discussion of the Dura Parchment and Justin Martyr's use of Gospel Harmonies. I think the Dura Parchment is another witness to the Diatessaron and not evidence of another Gospel harmony. After this was done I posted a summary of attestation from 200-150. I'll get up the more interesting and more difficult first half sometime soon (hopefully a week or two) but that depends on my course load at school which is looking ridiculous right now... Vinnie

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

09-02-2009, 01:01 AM	#2
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	How about Theophilus of Antioch? He seems to reference directly to the Gospel of John, as well as a few other references generally to "Gospels".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.