Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5243
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Theophilus and Antioch

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:26 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:08 pm

Theophilus is clearly Theophilus of Antioch.
.
MrMacSon wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:23 pm

There was supposedly a Theophilus of Caesarea (†195), a bishop, and allegedly a teacher of Clement of Alexandria.
........................

otherwise,

Theophilus of Antioch (d. 181) Apology to Autolycus in 3 Books; 1st mention of notion of the Trinity, but no mention of Jesus Christ
  • supposedly born near Tigris & Euphrates rivers, so either born in Anatolia or in Persia (Apologia ad Autolycum i. 14, ii. 24.)

    [could Theophilus 'of Antioch' have been born near or in Antiochia in Commagenez (which became Samosata)]
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:41 am
MrMacSon wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:23 pm
There was supposedly a Theophilus of Caesarea (†195), a bishop, and allegedly a teacher of Clement of Alexandria.
That is also possible, however I consider Luke, chapter one, verses one to four, to be original of a Diatessaronic text, whose purpose was to bridge relations with the western church of Ephesus, and Syrian churches in the east. Antioch, being right in the middle, would be the perfect place to set up this unified church, and why Antioch is the baptism place for the new Christian religion proper in Acts of the Apostles.

The author/editor of this text--or passage, I guess--I suspect was Hegesippus/Polycarp. (Note: Peregrinus was not Polycarp.)

I have previously been intrigued by the name Antioch http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 726#p36726

and, as part of a series of posts starting with that one^ -
MrMacSon wrote:
Tue Jun 09, 2015 7:04 pm

... it seems that ...
Seventeen ancient cities in Turkey were named Antioch, but only two are remembered by any but scholars today. One is Antakya (the ancient Antioch in Syria) and the other is Antioch in Pisidia, Asia Minor. http://www.allaboutturkey.com/yalvac.htm
Also

Antiochia (or Antiocheia, Antiochea or Antiokheia) may refer to any of several Hellenistic cities in the Near East which were founded or rebuilt by the several rulers named Antiochus during the Seleucid Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochia

and
MrMacSon wrote:
Tue Jun 09, 2015 7:04 pm

The role of 'Antioch' in the development of Christianity might have started with Ignatius (if he spent any time in an Antioch), or possibly with Theophilus 'of Antioch'1 or Tatian. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, a School of Antioch supposedly started around or shortly after the deaths of Theophilus of Antioch and Tatian (both d. ~ 180 AD/CE). http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... of-Antioch
  • 1 Theophilus was born near the Tigris & Euphrates rivers, according to his Apologia ad Autolycum (i. 14, ii. 24.), so either born in Anatolia or in Persia. Theophilus could have been from or associated with a local Antioch -
    • Antiochia in Commagene (on the west bank of the Euphrates); later Samosata - now Samsat, Adıyaman Province, Turkey
    • Antiochia in Sittacene, in ancient Sittacene, between the Tigris and Tornadotus
    • Antiochia in Susiana, later Charax, near the confluence of the Tigris and the Choaspes rivers
It's interesting that Wikipedia says
Epiphanius relates that Tatian established a school in Mesopotamia, the influence of which extended to Antioch in Syria, and was felt in Cilicia* and especially in Pisidia.
    • * Antiochia in Cilicia ? now Adana, Adana Province
      . Antiochia ad Taurum ?
      . Antiochia ad Pyramum?
What were the relative roles of the two main Antiochs - Syria and Pisidia - and the others? - and who was really where?? ....
.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5243
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:27 pm

The place-name Antiocheia is used 19/20 times in the NT - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 997#p36997

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Charles Wilson » Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:44 pm

Kapyong wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:16 pm
But somehow ~125 has stuck in the popular imagination.
Howdy neighbor --

You are correct. For me the 125 date is helpful even in its inexactitude :eh: . Even the 110 date for the initial Markan beginnings is not very precise. The purpose of these dates is to show that the composition of the NT is later than most expect. The OP is for "Evidence of when...". I don't find evidence of Bar Kochba since "my" dates look back from 110 (for the Roman part). Therefore, look from 110 to 135/140-ish.

This makes the idea of a New Religion composition very compressed on a Time Line. "Paul" didn't write in the 40s since the Template for Paul is Mucianus. Mucianus loved Titus and promoted him after the Fall of Jerusalem. The Sign's Gospel came after that - Up to the 80s, perhaps?. Domitian held the pen last and redirected the Project. Domitian was voted Damnatio Memoriae after his death and, as he was featureless and without body, became the Holy Spirit - Up to late 90s. The Empty Tomb is from the Offices of Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, who spoke at Verginius Rufus' funeral. We are now at about 100. Mark and John appear to have used the same Stories though John "answers" Mark, correcting the record in various places.

So: In the popular view, the John Fragment is around 125. That's OK with me.

Thanx,

CW

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Jax » Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:55 pm

Charles Wilson wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:44 pm
Kapyong wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:16 pm
But somehow ~125 has stuck in the popular imagination.
Howdy neighbor --

You are correct. For me the 125 date is helpful even in its inexactitude :eh: . Even the 110 date for the initial Markan beginnings is not very precise. The purpose of these dates is to show that the composition of the NT is later than most expect. The OP is for "Evidence of when...". I don't find evidence of Bar Kochba since "my" dates look back from 110 (for the Roman part). Therefore, look from 110 to 135/140-ish.

This makes the idea of a New Religion composition very compressed on a Time Line. "Paul" didn't write in the 40s since the Template for Paul is Mucianus. Mucianus loved Titus and promoted him after the Fall of Jerusalem. The Sign's Gospel came after that - Up to the 80s, perhaps?. Domitian held the pen last and redirected the Project. Domitian was voted Damnatio Memoriae after his death and, as he was featureless and without body, became the Holy Spirit - Up to late 90s. The Empty Tomb is from the Offices of Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, who spoke at Verginius Rufus' funeral. We are now at about 100. Mark and John appear to have used the same Stories though John "answers" Mark, correcting the record in various places.

So: In the popular view, the John Fragment is around 125. That's OK with me.

Thanx,

CW
When you make authoritative statements like the above you come across as a fundamentalist preacher type.

Just thought I'd mention it.

Lane

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Charles Wilson » Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:37 pm

Thanx, Jax --

Not intentional, more of a summary. Each statement above has a number of Posts behind it. Don't be offended, plz.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Jax » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:01 pm

Charles Wilson wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:37 pm
Thanx, Jax --

Not intentional, more of a summary. Each statement above has a number of Posts behind it. Don't be offended, plz.
Not offended. Just FYI.

Lane :)

User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Kapyong » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:01 pm

Gday Charles Wilson,
Charles Wilson wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:44 pm
So: In the popular view, the John Fragment is around 125. That's OK with me.
Well,
I prefer to go with the scholarly view - that P52 is more likely late 2nd, or possibly even early third C.

Kapyong

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Jax » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:09 pm

Kapyong wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:01 pm
Gday Charles Wilson,
Charles Wilson wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:44 pm
So: In the popular view, the John Fragment is around 125. That's OK with me.
Well,
I prefer to go with the scholarly view - that P52 is more likely late 2nd, or possibly even early third C.

Kapyong
I took Charles to task and you're up now.

Michael BG
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Michael BG » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:21 am

Charles. Thank you for your welcome back. I am not sure it will be for very long as another site takes up lots of my time.

The term “Holy Spirit” appears in the Old Testament – Isaiah 63:10 and 11 and Psalms 51:11 which pre-date Domitian.
Kapyong wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:16 pm
Gday Charles Wilson :)
Charles Wilson wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:39 am
3. For my part, the fragment of John, dated to around 125-ish *may* show that some finished form may have been around then.
125-ish ?

P52 has been variously dated :
  • 100-199
  • 100-150
  • 125-175
  • c.200
But somehow ~125 has stuck in the popular imagination.

Kapyong
Kapyong wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:01 pm
I prefer to go with the scholarly view - that P52 is more likely late 2nd, or possibly even early third C.

Kapyong
I had recalled the c 125 date but I don’t think such a precise date can be given using paleographic evidence. Hence my "based on paleographic evidence it can be dated from about 100 to 200 CE". I don’t think many scholars would give such a late date as the third century.
Charles Wilson wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:44 pm
I don't find evidence of Bar Kochba since "my" dates look back from 110 (for the Roman part). Therefore, look from 110 to 135/140-ish.
CW
There are some scholars who do date New Testament books (including Matthew and Mark) after the Bar Kokhba revolt.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Charles Wilson » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:22 am

1.
Michael BG wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:21 am
The term “Holy Spirit” appears in the Old Testament – Isaiah 63:10 and 11 and Psalms 51:11 which pre-date Domitian.
Yep. It's just that, for me, the Logic Line leads to Vespasian => Father, Titus => Son and Domitian => Holy Spirit. When the whole thing was set up, the evidence leads to the Roman Transvaluation.

I feel at times like Lord Dorwin in Asimov's Foundation Trilogy:

"Hardin remained silent for a short while. Then he said, ‘When did Lameth write his book?’
‘Oh- I should say about eight hundwed yeahs ago. Of cohse, he has based it lahgely on the pwevious wuhk of Gleen.’
‘Then why rely on him? Why not go to Arcturus and study the remains for yourself?’
Lord Dorwin raised his eyebrows and took a pinch of snuff hurriedly. ‘Why, whatevah foah, my deah fellow?’
‘To get the information firsthand, of course.’
‘But wheahs the necessity? It seems an uncommonly woundabout and hopelessly wigmawolish method of getting anywheahs. Look heah now, I’ve got the wuhks of the mastahs- the gweat ahchaeologists of the past. I wigh them against each othah- balance of the disagweements- analyze the conflicting statements- decide which is pwobably cowwect- and come to a conclusion. That is the scientific method. At least’- patronizingly- ‘as I see it..."

2.
MBG wrote:
Charles Wilson wrote:I don't find evidence of Bar Kochba since "my" dates look back from 110 (for the Roman part). Therefore, look from 110 to 135/140-ish.
There are some scholars who do date New Testament books (including Matthew and Mark) after the Bar Kokhba revolt.
I know that and there are problems with it for me. I'm going to start another Thread on that soon.

Thnx.

Post Reply