PTET

Hi all

It's been a while!

I have a new webpage at: PTET answers Tektonics

I'd appreciate any comments, criticisms or suggestions - if anyone can spare the time - before the link gets out into the wild.

Since it almost entirely relates to Biblical Criticism & History, I thought this would be the most appropriate forum.

Thanks in advance...

PTET

MrKrinkles

PTET,

I think you left out "with" from the following sentence segment: "posted a page attacking my website some amount of gusto."

Thanks for putting up the link to your page. I am still reading it, but I like your use of supporting information. I think you do a great job of pointing out "Holding's" illogic, fallacies and hypocrisy.

Cheers,

Brooks

Vinnie

Justin uses a harmony of Matthew and Luke around the middle of the second century.

Allowing ample time for Matthew and Luke to grow in popularity to be harmonized together and then to be recognized by JM in the middle of the second century requires, in my estimation, 1 to 2 generations of time for development.

We can shave--at the least-- thirty years off of Andrew Bernhard's upper dating of 150 for Matthew and Luke by JM's usage alone.

Plus Mark predates these Gospels and Papias testifies to Mark.

External attestation places us no later than the BEGINNING of the 2d century for these Gospels. 150 is much to late a date.

60-120 I might buy into but not 60-150.

Does he address Justin's usage at all in his article?

Vinnie

PTET

Thanks for your comments so far... I'll update my page marking significant changes as they come in...

Vinnie: Bernhard argues that we can't be sure that any references pre c. 150 CE are to the canonical Gospels in a recognizable form:

As I understand it, we can be pretty sure that Justin Martyr didn't use the canonical Gospels either:

If you have any further information, I'd be delighted to take it into account.

PTET

Vinnie

A lot of info on JM is available. Helmut Koester devotes a whole section to him in Ancient Christian Gospels. I find the notion that JM did not use the Gospels very perplexing! Can you document me any major sources actually arguing this? JM might not have been dependent on the Gospels directly but he was directly dependent on works with harmonized them.

I actually forgot a step.

1. Matthew and Luke were written.
2. They became popular or authoritative enough to be harmonized.
3. The harmonization became recognized and was used for the composition of clusters of sayings.
4. These clusters were recognized and used by JM.

If this right here is accurate then I would say one should allow about 2 generations of develmental time. This pushes Matthew and luke to ca 100 C.E. at the latest---pretty close to standard datings.

At any rate, Justin Martyr wrote in ca. 150. ad.

In Studying the Synoptics Sanders and Davies outlined this passage

Do NOT FEAR THOSE [who] kill you and AFTER THESE THINGS are not able TO DO ANYTHING, but FEAR THE ONE who AFTER KILLING [you] is able TO CAST both soul and body INTO GEHENNA

Justin, Apology 1.19.7; Matt. 10.28; Luke 12.4-5)

The text formatting is that way because in an english translation its not easy to see this. But here are the agreements and disagreements:

Justin (agrees with)
not fear those = Matt and Luke
kill you = neither
after these things = luke
are not able = Matthew
to do anything = Luke
but = Matthew
fear= Matt and Luke
the one after killing = Luke
is able = Matthew
to cast = Luke
both soul and body = Matthew
into = Luke
Gehenna = Matthew and Luke

Sanders and Davies went on to say this:

"If justin had our Gospels before him, he was very careful to alternate words in copying from Matthew and Luke, taking 'after these things' from Luke, 'are are not able' from Matthew, and so on. There are two more likely explanations. one is that he quoted from memory and naturally conflated two similar passages. The other is that he had not our gospels but a collection of sayings which itself depended on them: that he used a prepared harmony."

That Justin was conflating from memory the Gospels of Matthew and Luke is entirely unlikely. See Koester's treatment of Justin in Ancient Christian Gospels pp. 360-402 for more information.

Allowing ample time for development of the 4 stage process outlined above puts us at ca 100 C.E. as the upper limit for Matthew and Luke. These two Gospels were dependent upon Mark commonly believed to have been written ca 70 C.E.

There is nothing wrong with the communis opinio in scholarship today on dating. Even if Bernhard cut some of those 4 steps out we would still be left with at least a generation (60-120 as opposed to the very late 150!). I think the four step is accurate and 100 C.E. as the upper limit on the basis of Justin's usage alone is the most probable time frame.

This of course says nothing at all about GJohn.

Vinnie

PTET

Thanks again Vinnie... I still do not see how we can be sure that Justin was using a harmony of the canonical GMark & GLuke! But in any event, I certainly wouldn't argue with your dates for the Gospels.

You may be interested in Bernhard's defence of his article in this thread:

And now I'm off to follow up on your reading suggestions!

Kind regards

PTET

Vinnie

I left GMark out and focused on GMatthew and GLuke. I don't have time to go through more of JM's references at this point but they are in there. Koester does though if you can snag a peak at the work. At any rate, I think I share the majority opinion when I say JM makes extensive use of Gospel material found in Matthew and Luke (even if indirectly). I've never even seen anyone argue otherwise.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I checked that thread. JM was not discussed. Only mentioned twice in passing.

Vinnie

PTET

Hi Vinnie

Thanks again for your input. As I'm sure you appreciate, Bernhard's argument is not that the dating of the Gospels should be revised to c. 150 CE - it is that the dating of the Gospels is simply unclear and often influenced (on either side) by dogmatic considerations. I'll certainly update my information on Justin Martyr & the 150 CE date. You might like to contact Mr Bernhard directly, if you'd like to discuss his position further.

If there's anything else you'd like to comment on, I'd be delighted to hear from you!

PTET

PTET answers Tektonics

Bernard Muller

About Bernhard, I think because of his interest for non-canonical gospels, he would have a tendency to date the canonical ones very late, in order to lessen their relative importance.

Harmonization? Here is one example where Justin knew of several gospels and then provided a quote on the last supper which combines Paul's version with Matthew's:

1Apology LXVI "For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone."

Harmonization of several gospels? I think he was rather quoting & harmonizing from memory or by design.

I think mythicists and ultra skepticals have a very shallow idea about the gospels. If dissected (more so for GMark) they provide a wealth of information which is against the grain. They are very far from being clean literary compositions as some pure fictional stories. They had to go against realities and regardless save the day.

From GMark, this is what I found out about the some of the "problems" "Mark" had to face:

Here is an abbreviated list of items where "Mark" tried to counteract the embarrassment (E) or explain the silence (S):
a) Disciples not saying Jairus' daughter was resurrected (5:42-43) (S)
b) Rejection of Jesus in his own village (6:2-4) (E)
c) Disciples not "seeing" the miraculous feeding(s) (8:17-21) (S)
d) Disciples not claiming Jesus was Christ (8:29-30) (S)
e) Peter not comprehending (as a Christian would) Jesus' Passion (8:31-33, 9:31-32) (E)
f) Disciples not telling about the events on the high mountain (9:9-10) (S)
g) Disciples not knowing what is meant by resurrection (9:10,31-32) (E)
h) Disturbance in the temple (11:17) (E)
i) Peter saying Jesus cursed a fig tree (11:21-24) (E)
j) Disciples falling away after Jesus' arrest (14:27) (E)
k) Disciples not knowing about the empty tomb and Jesus' rising (16:8) (S)
Note: other subsequent gospels eliminated some (GMatthew, more for GLuke) or most (GJohn) of these items, one way or another (either straight deletion or "correction").

Best regards, Bernard