On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

[Kapyong]

Gday,

So the first step might be to sort the theories into types, and then weight each theory's dating structures based on your holistic assessment of plausibility.

I see what you mean - a table for each theory type, allowing easy visualisation of each one's documentary record.
The chronological scale would change for each theory, and so could some of the subject matter searched for...

Good idea
a lot of work

For example, in my own 'internal model' (and many others), The Apocalypse of John is undoubtedly older than Acts of the Apostles. Yet the latter is traditionally dated earlier than the former.

Well, I'll sit on the fence and date them both 90s for now.

Kapyong

[theomise]

Gday,

So the first step might be to sort the theories into types, and then weight each theory's dating structures based on your holistic assessment of plausibility.

I see what you mean - a table for each theory type, allowing easy visualisation of each one's documentary record.
The chronological scale would change for each theory, and so could some of the subject matter searched for...

Good idea
a lot of work

I'm suggesting that you explore the various theories on your own, and produce a detailed table on that basis.

Bottom line is, it is impossible to produce an objective AND detailed table based on the textual data currently available.

You can certainly make an objective and epistemically-skeletal ranking (e.g., "Origen's Contra Celsum was written after the Gospel of Mark"), but in order to achieve a detailed, granular ranking, there's just no way around taking a stance on various theories.

[neilgodfrey]

The point is guys that you can argue that the Catholic tradition 'corrupted' the original understanding of the gospels being created in the second century but the claim becomes more difficult to accept once it becomes clear that the 'supernatural Jesus' tradition also doesn't know anything about this nonsense. It is a modern construct. Ancient sources assumed that the apostle was a historical figure who lived in the first century. I can understand and sympathize with the idea that Jesus was supernatural. This view is attested from the very beginning of our earliest records. But the idea that the apostle was also a fiction - or at least 'ahistorical' - begins to sound rather desperate. The Marcionites clearly believed in a different 'Paul' from the Catholics but he was firmly rooted in the first century. Sorry, this isn't going to work.

Also Celsus in the second century clearly reports the existence of those who thought Jesus was a phantasm and those who thought Jesus was a historical person but there is no controversy about the gospels being 'invented' in the second century. Surely if Celsus had access to this tradition (he seems to know everything else) he would have used it to discredit Christianity.

Establishing a most likely date for the composition of the gospels does not need to rely upon what people have always believed about their date of composition (include our earliest references to the gospels) without good arguments. That would be a less than seriously critical analysis.

[neilgodfrey]

. . . . And then the Marcionites became a real issue - they don't really fit in any where that makes sense.

It's a failed experiment - the Gospels don't fit in the early-mid 2nd century. . . . .

But it doesn't work, you can't fit the Gospels and their developments and their references and the Marcionites into a LATE period after all.

I've reviewed the arguments leading up to this conclusion but I seem to have missed something critical. I don't see how the inputs preceding this led to this conclusion.

[MrMacSon]

It might be worthwhile documenting

• 1. the time-frame the text-in-question likely started (or the time period it was likely seeded)
  2. likely time-period it was finalised

[Stephan Huller]

Establishing a most likely date for the composition of the gospels does not need to rely upon what people have always believed about their date of composition (include our earliest references to the gospels) without good arguments. That would be a less than seriously critical analysis.

But again, if two separate - and ultimately hostile traditions - agree on a first century date, how is that supposed to be ignored? I don't think it necessarily proves the collection (evangelic and apostolic) was written in the first century. But surely it requires (a) a comprehensive attempt to understand what the Marcionite tradition was and (b) a massive effort to debunk both and its and the Catholic traditions acknowledgement of a first century date. I don't see (a) even being completed yet. And to this end I think we have to leave the whole question of a second century dating to the side.

Indeed knowing the evidence the way I do, I don't see how we would ever be in a position to 'debunk' the Marcionite understanding. In that sense I mean, we might be able to come to a positive conclusion as to what the tradition promoted as a concept or a series of concepts. But the evidence is so murky about something as 'what they believed' I don't think there are enough scraps left on the floor to help us determine how much of it was true. But then again, how detailed does first hand testimony have to be? The apostolic record (= Paul) claims to be an eyewitness testimony to the founding revelatory experience of Christianity (i.e. the apostle's ascent to heaven and coming back as the apostle). There certainly were figures who had similar experiences in the second and third (and seventh) centuries but they were obviously building upon an original experience shared by this apostle (cf. Mani's declaration in the Acts of Archelaus).

But again, lurking in the background of Paul's experience is that of those who claim to have seen this god in the flesh firsthand. Please take a second look at Celsus's Jew in Origen's work (the first two chapters of Against Celsus). Celsus's work was written c 177 CE. He was clearly drawing on a work written a generation earlier, one which criticizes an extremely early non-Marcionite community who use a Gospel like Matthew (with birth narrative) and who believe that Jesus was nevertheless claiming to be a god). If we are talking about an actual historical work written c 140 - 150 CE by a Jewish author criticizing converts to a specific non-Marcionite form of Christianity how is it likely that we have two different gospels - one which argues for Jesus the supernatural god, the other Jesus born of the virgin Mary all within twenty years or so of the alleged foundation of Christianity in 120 CE?

I just think we need time for these two competing forms of Christianity to have developed side by side and ultimately against one another c 140 - 150 CE. Justin would also have emerged here in a closely related but ultimately separate form of Christianity from Marcionitism.

[Bernard Muller]

go back to the date known to the 'pagan' Acts of Pilate or 21 CE

The Pagan Acts of Pilate was a piece of anti-Christian propaganda created in early 4th century. And how could Pilate crucify Jesus in 21 CE when he became governor over Judea not before the fall of 26 CE?
Reference: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspilate.html

whether the original reference to his visionary experience in 2 Corinthians actually happened in 21 or 22 CE.

According to my analysis, that part of 2 Corinthians, actually 3 different letters combined together, was written in 56 CE. Fourteen years before, the alleged vision in heaven by Paul, would be in 42 CE, which is when Paul got picked up by Barnabas to be his partner and therefore apostle also (according to Acts). Paul was trying to justify, that despite his drawbacks, he was a legitimate apostle, against all the doubts raised on this issue by Christians then: he claimed to have been officially chosen by Jesus to be an apostle, at the very onset of his apostolic years.
For the ones interested, here is my webpage where I explained most of that, with links to other webpages which explain the rest:
http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Stephan Huller]

The Pagan Acts of Pilate was a piece of anti-Christian propaganda created in early 4th century. And how could Pilate crucify Jesus in 21 CE when he became governor over Judea not before the fall of 26 CE?

It was an official government document. The Catholic dating only comes from Luke which is clearly a reactionary (anti-Marcionite) text of unknown provenance. A companion of Paul DID NOT write Luke and Acts. It was a literary fraud so of what value is the testimony when compared with an official government document? It is like debating whether Obama was born in Kenya with, on the one hand, an official government birth certificate and on the other, a Tea party website.

It is worth noting that Clement cites a variant of 'fifteenth of Tiberius' which argues against this being a reference to a specific year but rather a month 'fifteenth (month of) Tybi' (Strom 1). If Luke developed from Mark (as is commonly agreed) Luke added the year as well as information gleaned from Josephus. The reality is that 'the gospel' did not specify the year of the crucifixion. I believe that the fact it was 'the gospel' already made the link explicit that it was a Jubilee for reasons I have repeated here too many times. In other words, the only thing that mattered for Christians was that Jesus was announcing the year of favor (= jubilee). It is only from Imperial sources that the actual year in REAL TIME is made explicit. It is also worth noting that the date of 21 CE is supported in Christian documents too.

[Stephan Huller]

According to my analysis, that part of 2 Corinthians, actually 3 different letters combined together, was written in 56 CE. Fourteen years before, the alleged vision in heaven by Paul, would be in 42 CE, which is when Paul got picked up by Barnabas to be his partner and therefore apostle also (according to Acts). Paul was trying to justify, that despite his drawbacks, he was a legitimate apostle, against all the doubts raised on this issue by Christians then: he claimed to have been officially chosen by Jesus to be an apostle, at the very onset of his apostolic years.
For the ones interested, here is my webpage where I explained most of that, with links to other webpages which explain the rest:
http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html

That's very nice but the Catholic tradition was a reaction against Marcionism. The question that is being raised here is specifically related to the Marcionite tradition (hence my involvement - I couldn't care less about Catholic texts). Acts was a fraud and the 'personal notes' at the end of the letters of Paul (= addresses to various 'companions') wasn't original. Tertullian explicitly mentions that no personal information appeared in the Marcionite recension of the apostolic letters i.e. you couldn't learn anything about the identity of the apostle. That was the original state of the material. The Catholics deliberately worked to fit Paul within the Twelve, unsatisfactorily I believe but that is a point which can be debated.

The argument was made - Marcionism helps establish a second century dating for the gospel. I have demonstrated no, that isn't true. As I said I don't care about Acts, said to be fraudulent by Marcionites and Tatian's Encratites. I am avoid taking the Catholic epistles as decisive wherever the contradict what is known about the Marcionite originals. This is a conversation that you can have with like-minded people (i.e. those who actually believe the four gospels and the fourteen epistles are 'authentic' representations of first century Christianity). They aren't 'authentic' IMO but I still believe that Christianity was established in the first century for the reasons described.

Indeed getting back to your original point - this is why I have such mistrust for the 'fifteenth of Tiberius' reading. It is obviously part of the expansion of the original Markan text. How could that be argued? So of what value is it? Serious historians accept the dating as authentic and have proposed a number of theories which assume among other things a Christian rewritings of Josephus:

http://books.google.com/books?id=rd5OB4 ... 22&f=false

[Bernard Muller]

to Stephan,
you wrote:

It is worth noting that Clement cites a variant of 'fifteenth of Tiberius' which argues against this being a reference to a specific year but rather a month 'fifteenth (month of) Tybi' (Strom 1)

From Clement of Alexandria stromata 1

And our Lord was born in the twenty-eighth year, when first the census was ordered to be taken in the reign of Augustus. And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel. Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus; so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered. And from the time that He suffered till the destruction of Jerusalem are forty-two years and three months;

BTW, (I just discovered) Clement put the suffering of Jesus in 28 CE. It is just like as I did.

A few sentences later, Clement commented on what the followers of Basilides believed:

And the followers of Basilides hold the day of his baptism as a festival, spending the night before in readings.
And they say that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, the fifteenth day of the month Tubi; and some that it was the eleventh of the same month, And treating of His passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, on the twenty-fifth of Phamenoth; and others the twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi and others say that on the nineteenth of Pharmuthi the Saviour suffered. Further, others say that He was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi.

So I do not see where you got "It is worth noting that Clement cites a variant of 'fifteenth of Tiberius' which argues against this being a reference to a specific year but rather a month 'fifteenth (month of) Tybi' (Strom 1)"

Cordially, Bernard