Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 12-31-2006, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Theophilus cites part of the first verse of a gospel of John, but we don't know what followed it, or how he read it.

Where do you think the burden of proof lies, on him who thinks that what he refers to is a copy of the gospel of John that we know, or on him who thinks that it is a different text? Or is it a clean toss-up between the two?

Quote:

If Theophilus was a historicist, his silence about the historical Jesus seems strange.

If it is so strange, why does it happen in so many apologetic works written by historicists whom we know as such only from other works that they offered? Do you not think GDon has a point with, say, Tertullian and Ad Nationes, as well as the other texts he adduces?

Quote:

There are, of course, other possibilities.

Yes, and I can think of even more than you offered for the sake of example. Where, however, do you think the probability lies at the moment?

Ben.

S.C.Carlson · 12-31-2006, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

There has also been speculation for a long time that there was a "Gnostic" version of John that may have been before Mark, and than there was a later revision to this work around 110 or 120 to bring it in line with the synoptics.

Which scholars do you have in mind have speculated this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

This work from Theophilus could easily support that, with Theophilus working from a remaining copy of the "Gnostic John".

As soon as someone uncovers manuscript evidence for this Gnostic John, we can consider it. Otherwise, it is just special pleading against the inference that if Theophilus quotes John, he must at least be aware of a historical Jesus.

Stephen

mountainman · 12-31-2006, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The writings of Theophilus are a mystery to me, and I suspect to many.

...[trim]...

What are the possible explanations for this?

"not until the mass of inventions
labelled 'Eusebius' shall be exposed,
can the pretended references to Christians
in Pagan writers of the first three centuries
be recognized for the forgeries they are."

--- Edwin Johnson, "Antiqua Mater:
A Study of Christian Origins"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophilis

Since, then, my friend, you have assailed me with empty words, boasting of your gods of wood and stone, hammered and cast, carved and graven, which neither see nor hear, for they are idols, and the works of men's hands; and since, besides, you call me a Christian, as if this were a damning name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian, and bear this name beloved of God, hoping to be serviceable to God

.... is vaguely similar to ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius

So then, my dear friend, you find worthy of no little admiration the parallel which, embellished with many marvels, this author has drawn between the man of Tyana arid our own Saviour and teacher.....

In the wiki reference provided by Toto we have:

The silence regarding his Apology in the East is remarkable; we fail to find the work mentioned or quoted by Greek writers before the time of Eusebius.

However the commentary goes on to mention ...

Several passages in the works of Irenaeus show an undoubted relationship to passages in one small section of the Apologia (Iren. v. 23, 1; Autol. ii. 25 init.: Iren. iv. 38, 1, iii. 23, 6; Autol. ii. 25: Iren. iii. 23, 6; Autol. ii. 25, 26), but Harnack thinks it probable that the quotations, limited to two chapters, are not taken from the Apologia, but from Theophilus's work against Marcion (cf. Möhler, Patr. p. 286; Otto, Corp. Apol. II. viii. p. 357; Donaldson, History of Christian Literature iii, 66).

Toto · 01-01-2007, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Where do you think the burden of proof lies, on him who thinks that what he refers to is a copy of the gospel of John that we know, or on him who thinks that it is a different text? Or is it a clean toss-up between the two?

I don't think that burden of proof is a useful concept at all here.

Quote:

If it is so strange, why does it happen in so many apologetic works written by historicists whom we know as such only from other works that they offered? Do you not think GDon has a point with, say, Tertullian and Ad Nationes, as well as the other texts he adduces?

These are second century writers. They didn't know Jesus or anyone who knew Jesus. Either Jesus' person had become almost irrelevant to them (if Jesus existed), or the Historical Jesus was still in the process of being fleshed out (if Jesus was a myth).

Quote:

Yes, and I can think of even more than you offered for the sake of example. Where, however, do you think the probability lies at the moment?

Ben.

I see no way of determining probability.

Malachi151 · 01-01-2007, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Which scholars do you have in mind have speculated this?

As soon as someone uncovers manuscript evidence for this Gnostic John, we can consider it. Otherwise, it is just special pleading against the inference that if Theophilus quotes John, he must at least be aware of a historical Jesus.

Stephen

Quote:

The external evidence fixes the terminus ad quem for the Gospel of John. Irenaeus of Lyons made use of John (c. 180), and Tatian included the Gospel of John in his harmony (c. 170). The Gospel of John is also mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (c. 170-200). Justin Martyr (c. 150-160) and the Epistula Apostolorum (c. 140-150) may have made use of the Gospel of John. But the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostic circles. These include the Naassene Fragment quoted by Hippolytus Ref. 5.7.2-9 (c. 120-140), the Valentinian texts cited in Clement of Alexandria's Excerpta ex Theodotou (c. 140-160), a Valentinian Exposition to the Prologue of the Gospel of John quoted in Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. 1.8.5-6 (c. 140-160), and the commentary of Heracleon on John (c. 150-180, quoted in Origen's own commentary). The oldest fragment of the New Testament, known as p52 or the John Rylands fragment, attests to canonical John and is dated paleographically c. 120-130 CE.
...
Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

S.C.Carlson · 01-01-2007, 09:05 AM

OK, none this, however, indicates that scholars thought there was a different gnostic text of John (i.e., outside of the Alexandrian and Western text streams of our John), just early use of the John we have.

gstafleu · 01-01-2007, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Whatever Theophilus believed about the word, it seems to have been able to talk and be seen, and able to appear in the one place.

So what we have is a case where we see something that might be more than a purely spiritual Jesus, but, given the lack of outright HJ instances, something less than a fully human version. Could it be that Theophilus is an intermediate stage in the formation of the Jesus story?

The sayings you quote seem Q-like, and thus could be pre-gospel (at least pre Matt and Luke). (I found the divorce->adultery bit and "love your enemies" in a search of Mack's translation of Q (here), the other two, though related, I didn't find).

Gerard Stafleu

Roger Pearse · 01-01-2007, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think that Christians claim that Theophilus was aiming his arguments at a pagan audience, so he used pagan sources. And of course we might not have everything that he wrote.

Jerome, De viris illustribus c. 25:

Theophilus, sixth bishop of the church of Antioch, in the reign of the emperor Marcus Antoninus Verus composed a book Against Marcion, which is still extant, also three volumes To Autolycus and one Against the heresy of Hermogenes and other short and elegant treatises, well fitted for the edification of the church. I have read, under his name, commentaries On the Gospel and On the proverbs of Solomon which do not appear to me to correspond in style and language with the elegance and expressiveness of the above works.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 01-01-2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I agree. Just as it is strange for Tertullian in Ad nationes not to mention Jesus, not even the names "Jesus" nor "Christ". As well as others in the first few centuries:
...
It's strange, but perhaps not uncommon.

Not very strange. Jesus was a figure of fun to pagans, not the figure above any aspersion that we are familiar with today.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 01-01-2007, 10:44 AM

Malachi 151, the use of the word 'Gospels' in Theophilus writings may mean that the books were not yet named. And the use of the word 'Gospels' also introduce another problem, could mean that Theophilus is refering to 'Gospels' that are non-extant, today.

And by the way, were all writings about Jesus Christ called 'Gospels' before cannonization in the 4th century?

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

01-01-2007, 09:05 AM	#16
S.C.Carlson Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 1,307	OK, none this, however, indicates that scholars thought there was a different gnostic text of John (i.e., outside of the Alexandrian and Western text streams of our John), just early use of the John we have.

01-01-2007, 10:44 AM	#20
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Malachi 151, the use of the word 'Gospels' in Theophilus writings may mean that the books were not yet named. And the use of the word 'Gospels' also introduce another problem, could mean that Theophilus is refering to 'Gospels' that are non-extant, today. And by the way, were all writings about Jesus Christ called 'Gospels' before cannonization in the 4th century?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.