Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 02-13-2003, 11:39 AM

Next example until I get back to the Didache (I'm busy!)

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 sould 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 fro 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."

Justin (150) possessing knowledge and conflating Luke and Matthew would push both works back to the first half of the first century at the very latest. A prepared harmony of the gospels would do the same if not push them further back (depending on how much time we allow for them to pass around, be recognized and then harmonized and so fourth!) This is just the latest possible dating of Matthew and Luke. mark, whom they both cited is earlier still! In fact, my view is that the latest possible sober dating of any of the Gospels should be no later than very early 2d century and any such second century dating, no matter how early, would seem unreasonable for GMark.

He quoted that from something called the "memiors of the apostles:" He referred to the Old Testament as scripture but not these anonymous documents. This further indicates that they had not been named yet. As Sanders/Davies says, "Christian tradition by then included our Gospels (as we shall see), but Justin seems not to have cared for each document as a canonical text."

I'll post something on Luke and something on Celsus later and get back to the Didache stuff.

Vinnie

* minor grammar edit

Vinnie · 02-14-2003, 09:08 AM

If you notice on the main page there is a thread called "The generation of Jesus's return. "

It hardly makes sense for 2d authors to be writing that Jesus said (ca 30 AD) that "some standing here would not taste death".

The apologetically progression across the texts outlined by E.P. Sanders fits in better with a 1c dating for the gospels.

This was in a slightly dofferent context but it outlines the argument well:

Quote:

�If Jesus expected God to change the world . . . it arose very early in Christianity. This is the most substantial issue in the earliest surviving Christian document, Paul�s letter to the Thessalonians. There, we learn, Paul�s converts were shaken by the fact that some members of the congregation had died; they expected the Lord to return while they were still all alive. Paul assured them that the (few) dead Christians would be raised so that they could participate in the coming kingdom along with those who were still alive when the Lord returned. The question of just how soon the great event would occur appears in other books of the New Testament. A saying in the synoptics (discussed more fully below) promises that �some standing here� will still be alive when the Son of Man comes. In the appendix to the Gospel of John (ch. 21), however, Jesus is depicted as discussing with an anonymous disciple, called �the disciple whom Jesus loved�, with Peter: �If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?� The author then explains, � So this rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but �If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?�� (John 21.21-3).

The history of these adjustments to the view that God would do something dramatic while Jesus� contemporaries were still alive is fairly easy to reconstruct. Jesus originally said that the Son of Man would come in the immediate future, while his hearers were alive. After his death and resurrection, his followers preached that he would return immediately � that is, they simply interpreted �the Son of Man� as referring to Jesus himself. Then, when people started dying, they said that some would still be alive. When almost the entire first generation was dead, they maintained that one disciple would still be alive. Then he died, and it became necessary to claim that Jesus had not actually promised even this one disciple that he would live to see the great day. By the time we reach one of the latest books of the New Testament, II Peter [dated circa 130 Ad], the return of the Lord has been postponed even further: some people scoff and say, �Where is the promise of his coming?� but remember, �with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day� (II Peter 3.3-8). The Lord is not really slow, but rather keeps time by a different calendar.

This is an internal argument which would put the gospels in the late first century.

Further:

Quote:

1 Thess 4.15-17 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left untill the appearance of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a command, with the voice of an archangel and with a trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be snatched up with them in the clouds to greet the Lord in the air.

Matt. 24.27g. The sing of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming on clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a trumpet of great voice, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one side of heaven to the other.

Matt. 16.27f. The Son of man is about to come in the glory of his father with his []i]angels[/i], and then he will repay each according to his or here deeds. Truly I say unto you, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death, until they see the son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Paul and Matthew have essentially the same component parts. if we delete from Paul's version of the saying his new concern about the dead in Christ, if we deleteed from the synoptic saying the apparent modification that only some will still be alive, and if we equate 'the Son of man' in the synoptics with 'the Lord' in Paul, we have the same saying.�

Sanders goes on to argue that the most likely explanation for the constant revising by Christians on this issue is that the idea of an immediate return goes back to Jesus himself. One page 182 he articulates the notion that �scholars who try to �test� the sayings of Jesus for authenticity will see that this tradition passes with flying colors.� He hits three major points in defense of his statement: 1)The predicted event did not happen. What Christian would purposefully hold on to or create a spurious prophecy? 2) It is early and has double independent attestation (Paul and the synoptics. 3) Finally, even thought it was a little embarrassing for the synoptic authors they kept it which seems to indicate it was firmly embedded tradition.

Unless any of these claims are can be validly disputed I think the progression which finalizes in the outlook of 2 Peter and has continued to this day in Christian circles indicates that the Gospels are 1st century. That appears to be the most natural and plainest way to read the data.

Thoughts?

Vinnie · 02-14-2003, 09:49 AM

Celsus wrote a polemic against Xianity in ca 178 ad. called True Discourse. Though the work is lost we have extensive citattions from Origen's famous counterblast Contra Celsum.

Origen tells us that Celsus had heard a story fro ma jew about Jesus' illigetimate birth

Taken from John Meier:

Quote:

"According to the story, jesus fabricated the account of his birth from a virgin. In reality, jesus' mother was driven out by the carpenter husband to whom she was betrothed because she had committed adultery with a soldier named Panthera (cf. the Ben pantere of Jewish sources). Left poor and homeless, she gave birth to jesus in secret. Jesus later spent time in egypt, where he hired himself out as a laborer, learned magic, and so came to claim the title of God.

Celsus' account is important because it is the first clear and clearly datable report of such accusation among the jews. Every other suggested source is either later in time, unclear in its reference, or clearly dependnet on and reacting to the Gospel Infancy Narratives. Since Celsus is reporting what Jew told him sometime before 178, we may presume that such a story was already circulating among certain Hellenistic Jews of the Diaspora around the middle of the 2d century. Most likely such a source does nto date earlier than this, since Justin martyr argues without Trypho ever being represented as replying with the charge of illigitimacy. however, the fact that the story is first attested among Diaspora and not palestinian jews, and not unti laround the middle of the 2d century, raises the possibility that the story is a polemical Jewish parody of the Christian account of the virginal conception, especially as presented in Matthew's gospel.

That Matthew's version should be the major target of the parody is hardly surprising. Matthew--the supposedly "Jewish Gospel" --is much clearer in its affirmation of the virginal conception than is Luke, and by the middle of the 2d century Matthew was fast becoming the most popular Gospel in mainstream Christianity. In fact, when we put Matthew's Infancy narrative alongside Celsus' story, it becomes highly likely that the former is in some way the source of the latter, since Celsus account relfects traits uniqu to Matthew in the entire NT. matthew, not luke intimates the consternatio of joseph when mary is found to be pregnant and his plan to divorce her (Matt 1:18-20). Matthew alone recounts the flight into Egypt (2:13-15), which comes on the heels of the story of the Magi (magoi; cf. Celsus' connection of Jesus' stay in Egypt with magic). Matthew also joins the story of the flight into Egypt with his first affirmation that Jesus is the Son of God (2:15; cf. Celsus' connection of Egypt, magic and the claim to be God). Moreover, within the whole of the NT, Matthew alone refers to Joseph as a carpenter (matt 13:55). This last point is especially worthy of note, since the designation of Joseph rather than Jesus, as the carpenter seems to come from Matthew's redactional alteration of Mark 6:3. hence it is likely that the Jewish story reported by Celsus is reacting, directly or indirectly, to Matthew's Infancy Narrative.

All that the story of Celsus really tells us, therefore,is that by the middle of the 2d century A.D. some Diaspora Jews had become aware off the claims matthew made in 1:18-25 and tried to refute them by pardoy . . ."

Celsus account seems to be dependent either directly or indirectly on GMatt and this is then another external evidence telling us to date Matthew no later than some time in the first half of the 2d. Further through Marcan priority we know Mark predates it at any rate.

I think I remember some claiming here that the Gospels are late 2d works. Such a view does not cohere well with the external evidence. Furthermore, I believe the internal evidence pushes us back into the 1st century for Matthew Mark and Luke and I accept the critical dating consensus (Mark ca. 70 ad, Matthew and Luke normally 80-90 AD).

I'll post more later on the synoptics (I'm bringing Luke in) and internal evidence and their dating.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 02-14-2003, 09:55 AM

I'm interested in what many here would make of Sander's argument about the progression across the texts above. I said above that a 1c dating of the Gospels is the most natural and plainest way to read the data but I would also argue that such data appears to cohere much better with an actual movement founder thought to be the Messiah shortly after his death who said during his public life that he would return soon as opposed to a mythical-non-existent imaginary historical Jesus who thus effected history. In short, I would use that as an argument for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth but this probably deserves its own thread.

Vinnie

Yuri Kuchinsky · 02-14-2003, 10:45 AM

Vinnie,

Here's my take on these things. Below, each of the three main text types of NT gospels is treated separately. The Western text clearly came first.

WESTERN (SYRO-LATIN) TEXT

50-100 the earliest source texts are being
produced
80-120 first separate gospels are assembled
together from them
120-140 earliest gospel synopsis/harmony (not
including John as yet)
150-170 the 1st Roman edition of the separate
gospels (after ca 160 including John)
170-250 subsequent modifications
350-450 our existing Old Latin & Syriac
gospel MSS

ALEXANDRIAN GREEK TEXT

150-170 the 1st Roman edition of the separate
gospels (after ca 160 including John)
180-250 early edition is being produced, based on
Western text.
350-450 fully formed Alexandrian Greek text
450-600 Alexandrian text has been abandoned by
the Church
1800s Alexandrian text is resurrected by
Tischendorf, Westcott & Hort, etc..

And so, this late and highly corrupt text is now "the gold standard" for the NT guild, as well as for most of the Christian world.

BYZANTINE (KJV) TEXT

350-450 early edition is being produced based
on Western & Alexandrian texts
450-600 minor modifications
600-1800s this was the main text of the gospels until Alexandrian text was rescued from the dust-bins of history.

=========

IMHO, the question is not whether or not our Mt contains some early 1c material. Most likely it does contain such material.

The main question is, how early Mt as a whole can be dated. And from this point of view, our canonical Alexandrian Mt is clearly a 4c text.

All the best,

Yuri.

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

02-13-2003, 11:39 AM	#11
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Next example until I get back to the Didache (I'm busy!) 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 sould 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 fro 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." Justin (150) possessing knowledge and conflating Luke and Matthew would push both works back to the first half of the first century at the very latest. A prepared harmony of the gospels would do the same if not push them further back (depending on how much time we allow for them to pass around, be recognized and then harmonized and so fourth!) This is just the latest possible dating of Matthew and Luke. mark, whom they both cited is earlier still! In fact, my view is that the latest possible sober dating of any of the Gospels should be no later than very early 2d century and any such second century dating, no matter how early, would seem unreasonable for GMark. He quoted that from something called the "memiors of the apostles:" He referred to the Old Testament as scripture but not these anonymous documents. This further indicates that they had not been named yet. As Sanders/Davies says, "Christian tradition by then included our Gospels (as we shall see), but Justin seems not to have cared for each document as a canonical text." I'll post something on Luke and something on Celsus later and get back to the Didache stuff. Vinnie * minor grammar edit

02-14-2003, 09:55 AM	#14
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	I'm interested in what many here would make of Sander's argument about the progression across the texts above. I said above that a 1c dating of the Gospels is the most natural and plainest way to read the data but I would also argue that such data appears to cohere much better with an actual movement founder thought to be the Messiah shortly after his death who said during his public life that he would return soon as opposed to a mythical-non-existent imaginary historical Jesus who thus effected history. In short, I would use that as an argument for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth but this probably deserves its own thread. Vinnie

02-14-2003, 10:45 AM	#15
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	Vinnie, Here's my take on these things. Below, each of the three main text types of NT gospels is treated separately. The Western text clearly came first. WESTERN (SYRO-LATIN) TEXT 50-100 the earliest source texts are being produced 80-120 first separate gospels are assembled together from them 120-140 earliest gospel synopsis/harmony (not including John as yet) 150-170 the 1st Roman edition of the separate gospels (after ca 160 including John) 170-250 subsequent modifications 350-450 our existing Old Latin & Syriac gospel MSS ALEXANDRIAN GREEK TEXT 150-170 the 1st Roman edition of the separate gospels (after ca 160 including John) 180-250 early edition is being produced, based on Western text. 350-450 fully formed Alexandrian Greek text 450-600 Alexandrian text has been abandoned by the Church 1800s Alexandrian text is resurrected by Tischendorf, Westcott & Hort, etc.. And so, this late and highly corrupt text is now "the gold standard" for the NT guild, as well as for most of the Christian world. BYZANTINE (KJV) TEXT 350-450 early edition is being produced based on Western & Alexandrian texts 450-600 minor modifications 600-1800s this was the main text of the gospels until Alexandrian text was rescued from the dust-bins of history. ========= IMHO, the question is not whether or not our Mt contains some early 1c material. Most likely it does contain such material. The main question is, how early Mt as a whole can be dated. And from this point of view, our canonical Alexandrian Mt is clearly a 4c text. All the best, Yuri.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.