Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Lena Einhorn
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by Lena Einhorn »

Since a discussion about different New Testament time shift scenarios arose under a previous topic (The Woman with the Hemorrhage), it was suggested that this discussion be moved to a new topic. I will attach two of my previous posts, with some elaboration. I hope other time shift scenarios will also be discussed.

First: a question was put about a reason for even assuming that the New Testament narratives about Jesus and his disciples could have been shifted from another time -- when they actually happened -- to the times of Pilate.

The reason a): This is the same reason as the one mythicists refer to when postulating that Jesus never existed: Barring the TF, there is NOTHING in non-biblical sources from the first century corroborating Jesus's existence in the twenties and thirties CE. This is in spite of the fact that the period is covered in great detail by Roman historians, Josephus in particular. And it is in spite of the fact that the Gospels describe Jesus as a person with a great following, and one whose trial involved all the highest dignitaries of the realm.

The reason b): Despite his absence in non-biblical first century sources, when stories about Jesus do emerge, in the second century and on, also polemical sources (Jewish and non-Jewish) describe Jesus as a person with a great following, and one who had a big societal impact (see e.g. Celsus, Talmud, Sepher Toldoth Yeshu). Another common thread in these polemical sources is that Jesus "brought magic from Egypt." Thus, the early polemicists do not, as a rule, deny his existence.

The reason c): In light of the above -- that Jesus is not visible when the Gospels claim that he is, but that his existence nevertheless is attested to also by early polemicists -- it is not a far-flung thought that he may have existed at another time than when the Gospels claim that he existed.

The reason d) (the answer to "why the time shift?"): If Jesus, in reality, was not exactly the kind of person that the Gospels portray -- if, for instance, he was a rebel leader, actively partaking in, and inspiring, the violent upheaval of the times, rather than merely a peaceloving spiritual leader -- there may have been an impetus for those writing or editing the New Testament to eliminate all competing narratives of his existence. The easiest way to do this -- and still tell the story -- would have been to move him to another era than when the historical sources claim he was active. This, however, would by necessity come with a cost: making Jesus into a more or less ahistorical person.

The reason e): If there is an absolute dearth of non-biblical evidence of Jesus's existence in the 20s and 30s, there are indeed, judging by Josephus, strong parallels to the Gospel narratives in the late 40s and 50s. Not only do the number of parallels increase dramatially, from zero to more than thirty, there is a consistent theme in these parallels: they all pertain to Jewish rebellious activity. In other words, if Luke says that Jesus and his disciples were stopped in a samaritan village on their way to Jerusalem for the festivals, and that Jesus responds to a suggestion to "command fire to come down and consume them [the Samaritans]" with words of peaceful avoidance, Josephus writes that when the Galileans are travelling to Jerusalem on their way to the festivals, and are stopped in a Samaritan village, the Galilean rebels "set the villages on fire" (something which rekindles the Jewish rebellion). And when Luke describes the time of Jesus's birth as the time of the "census under Quirinius", Josephus describes the census under Quirinius as pivotal for only one reason: it sparked the Jewish rebellion, and constituted the birth of the organized rebel movement. So the birth of the rebel movement has turned into the birth of Jesus (without the mentioning of any rebellion). Thus, the defining moments of the Jewish rebellion are all there in the Gospels and Acts, but the rebellious context is mentioned only in subtext, if at all. It is important to note, however, that all the elements are still there, and the author of Luke and Acts manages to name all the major rebel leaders of the first century, up until the beginning of the war (Judas the Galilean, Theudas, "the Egyptian", Menahem (Manaen)).
In conclusion: the whole history of the Jewish rebellion is presented, mostly in subtext, in the New Testament, but the story of Jesus and his disciples are, as I see it, moved from the fifties, where the parallels between Jesus and the messianic leader whom Josephus calls "the Egyptian" are so numerous that it is very hard to attribute it to coincidence.

The means: The question, of course, is the following: if indeed a transfer of the story from the fifties to the thirties was performed (in order to eliminate competing, and more violent narratives), when was it done, and by whom? My feeling is that whereas in Mark and Matthew the time shift has been implemented more crudely, sometimes leading to strange aberrations (how could, for instance, Jesus return from Egypt as a child at the same time as John the Baptist starts preaching (Matthew 3:1), if they are the same age?!), the dual story in Luke and Acts seems much more elaborate. It is often suggested that the author of Luke had read Antiquities by Josephus. If so, he would have known what Josephus wrote. To my mind it seems likely that Luke wrote with the time shift in mind, whereas Mark and Matthew may have been changed retroactively. It is, of course, possible, however, that the whole time shift was performed by a later editor.

In the next post I elaboate about why I believe Jesus may have been identical to "the Egyptian" -- a messianic leader Josephus claims emerged in the 50s
Lena Einhorn
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by Lena Einhorn »

Below, I will briefly, provide the reasons for suggesting that Jesus of the NT is identical to "the Egyptian", described at length by Josephus in both Antiquities and War. The text in Antiquities goes as follows:

"There came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more."
Antiquities of the Jews 20.169-172

The text in War is similar but more negative, and adds that "the Egyptian" came to the Mount of Olives from "the wilderness", where he had gathered his followers.

Now there are a number of similarities to the Jesus of the NT, and some diffferences. First the similarities:
 Like Jesus, ”the Egyptian” had previously lingered in “the wilderness” or “desert” (eremia, in Greek).
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” had lived in Egypt.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” spoke of tearing down the walls of Jerusalem.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” is described as a messianic leader with a great following.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” is perceived as a major threat by the authorities.
• Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” seems to have been betrayed—at least the authorities were informed beforehand about his plans.
 And last, but not least, ”the Egyptian” is defeated on the Mount of Olives, which is the place where Jesus was arrested.

But there are three differences:
1. It happened in the 50s rather than the 30s.
2. "The Egyptian" was defeated on the Mount of Olives in a battle, whereas Jesus was simply quietly awaiting his arrest with his disciples.
3. "The Egyptian" was defeated and then vanished. Jesus was crucified, resurrected then vanished.

All three differences are, however, accounted for also in the NT text:
1. Almost all the parallels to the NT that can be found in Josephus pertain to times of rebellion, and most of the them to the time period between 44 and 55 (the death of Theudas, the activityof robbers, a conflict between Galileans and Samaritans (initiated in a Samaritan village), a procurator killing Galileans, two co-reigning high priests, crucifixions of Jews, a conflict between the procurator and a Jewish king, the killing of a man names Stephanos on a road outside Jerusalem, etc. etc.)
2. If one reads the original version of John 18, there WAS a battle when Jesus was arrested on the Mount of Olives. The original greek says that the people meeting him were from the Jewish Council, accompanied by a speira with their chiliarchos. A speira is a cohort of one thousand Roman soldiers! Chiliarchos means "leader of one thousand."
3. In the Gospels, there is someone who is NOT crucified on that fateful day when Jesus was. His name is Jesus Barabbas. The name is aramaic, and means "Jesus son of the Father."

Incidentally, the last messianic rebel leader mentioned by Josephus before "the Egyptian" is Theudas. And this is what he writes about him (Antiquities 20.97-99):

"Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem."

That sounds a lot like someone else who had gathered his followers by the Jordan river, and was later decapitated ...
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by Charles Wilson »

Time Shift Scenarios:

1. The Hasmoneans: With the exception of the mis-match in Luke, there are Time-Markers that all align with the events of 8/9 CE that lead to the Passover in 9 CE. Hannah the Prophetess, Antigonus, Hyrcanus, "The Woman Bent Over for 18 Years", "Jairus' Daughter" and the "Woman with the 12 Year Issue of Blood". The last 2 look at the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE, detailed in Josephus in Antiquities, 17, 9, 3+ and Wars, 2, 1, 3+. Josephus, who claims Priestly and Hasmonean Descent, does not appear to know who performs Sacrifices in the Temple or who would fill the role of a High Priest who would be of "...greater piety and purity". "Who could those little peasant people possibly be referring to...?"

2. Alexander Jannaeus and Salome: Salome is identified with "Hannah the Prophetess". Jannaeus is also in various places in the NT and with a bit of Logic and Reasoning (No help from Josephus...) you can unpack the SynApoc as the battle between Jannaeus and the Greek General Demetrius Eucerus, who camps at Shechem, near the Temple at Mount Gerizim.

Matthew 15: 24 (RSV):

[24] He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

This is Jannaeus, who has greater ambitions for the Kingdom of Israel.

3. The 4 BCE Atrocity is a report on a Coup that was supposed to occur against Herod, who dies about one week too soon. This points to the Priests of the Temple Service (Mishmarot, 1 Chronicles 24) and references the Groups never discussed in NT Studies. The High Priest and his cronies are appointed Stooges after Herod murders the 46 members of the Sanhedrin and the rest of the Hasmoneans in the Court. The Priests are the only people who can carry out a Counter-Revolution against the Herodians and the Romans. The main Group who proceeds with the Coup is the Group "Immer", which has a Natural Hebrew Word-Play with the Hebrew word "Lamb". "Lamb of God" et.al. carries a common Semitic heritage that goes back at least 1000 years prior to this. See Pettinato, Ebla. The character "Jesus" is a creation built on the Group Immer. John was of the preceeding Mishmarot Group Bilgah.

4. After the Road Grading of Judea and the Destruction of Jerusalem, Titus is deified and the first of "Signs" that prove godhood are assembled. John carries the "Signs Gospel" which reflects this and the first sign is the "Water into Wine", which parallels what is described by Josephus as Titus' "onset". On this view, Vespasian, who could eat anything, anywhere (Thus he pronounced all food clean...), is the "Wine Steward", who looks proudly at his son's accomplishments.

5. Domitian wants to hold the pen last, and writes of himself as the Last Power in the New Religion. He is murdered before the Document is finished and those who came after refer to Domitian - Damnatio'd, bodiless and without any attributes - as the "Holy Spirit". This can be no earlier than 98, probably more towards 110, as the Empty Tomb segment is complete. The Empty Tomb is probably authored by Pliny the Younger and Tacitus.

How many more Time Shifts do you need to construct the NT?

Best,

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Sun Jul 24, 2016 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by neilgodfrey »

Lena Einhorn wrote: Now there are a number of similarities to the Jesus of the NT, and some diffferences. First the similarities:
 Like Jesus, ”the Egyptian” had previously lingered in “the wilderness” or “desert” (eremia, in Greek).
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” had lived in Egypt.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” spoke of tearing down the walls of Jerusalem.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” is described as a messianic leader with a great following.
 Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” is perceived as a major threat by the authorities.
• Like Jesus, “the Egyptian” seems to have been betrayed—at least the authorities were informed beforehand about his plans.
 And last, but not least, ”the Egyptian” is defeated on the Mount of Olives, which is the place where Jesus was arrested.
Hi Lena

What about an alternative perspective on these points?

Josephus describes a number of false prophets who led people astray. These stood in contrast to himself who compared himself to God's true prophets, such as Jeremiah.

As false prophets they (like Josephus) modeled themselves on past prophets. The wilderness trope was part and parcel of the prophetic career. Compare Moses, Joshua and Elijah. Moses was the prophet par excellence (Deuteronomy 34:10) who led the people out of Egypt, into the wilderness and was then replaced by Joshua to take them into the promised land. Does not the Egyptian look like he is imitating the expectations of a Prophet to come, one like Moses (Dt 34:10)?

Josephus does not suggest the Egyptian is a messianic figure but the way he describes him does point to him acting as a prophet, in particular a false one in Josephus's eyes. The expectation that the walls of Jerusalem would collapse might be seen to have more in common with an extension of hopes inspired by Moses' first successor at Jericho. Jesus' prophecy, on the other hand, is not about defences collapsing to enable conquest, but rather complete destruction so that the old Jerusalem will be no more.

As for the authorities stamping out his movement, that was nothing more than a sign to Josephus that he was indeed a false prophet, contrasting with Josephus's own experience as the true prophet like Jeremiah.

Now Jesus was also portrayed as a prophet. His episode on the Mount of Olives reminds us of another who was considered a prophet, David. His wilderness experience has also been compared with the career of Moses.

What of the possibility that both the Egyptian and Jesus either saw themselves as prophets and/or were deliberately portrayed as prophets (either true ones or as foils against an author who wanted to set up the contrast with himself), and that this is an alternative explanation for some of the similarities you identify between the Egyptian and Jesus?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Lena Einhorn
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by Lena Einhorn »

Hi Neil,
Well, when a pattern arises -- made up of many separate elements -- it is always possible to find alternative explanations for each individual element. But if all the elements are part of a consistent picture -- if there are parallels between an episode in the Gospels and one in Josephus where almost all the elements fit as part of one and the same picture -- it makes much less sense to look for alternative explanations for each separate element.
In addition, the parallels between Jesus and "the Egyptian" are part of a much bigger picture, with multiple parallels between the Gospels and Josephus occurring with the same delay ( 28-36 vs 44-55)
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by Charles Wilson »

Lena Einhorn wrote:Well, when a pattern arises -- made up of many separate elements -- it is always possible to find alternative explanations for each individual element. But if all the elements are part of a consistent picture -- if there are parallels between an episode in the Gospels and one in Josephus where almost all the elements fit as part of one and the same picture -- it makes much less sense to look for alternative explanations for each separate element.
I'm not being snippy here, but that is exactly what my Thesis lays out.
Have you ever looked at the Mishmarot Priesthood?

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by MrMacSon »

neilgodfrey wrote:
Hi Lena

What about an alternative perspective on these points?

Josephus describes a number of false prophets who led people astray. These stood in contrast to himself who compared himself to God's true prophets, such as Jeremiah.

As false prophets they (like Josephus) modeled themselves on past prophets. The wilderness trope was part and parcel of the prophetic career. Compare Moses, Joshua and Elijah. Moses was the prophet par excellence (Deuteronomy 34:10) who led the people out of Egypt, into the wilderness and was then replaced by Joshua to take them into the promised land. Does not the Egyptian look like he is imitating the expectations of a Prophet to come, one like Moses (Dt 34:10)?

Josephus does not suggest the Egyptian is a messianic figure, but the way he describes him1 does point to him acting as a prophet, in particular a false one in Josephus's eyes.

The expectation that the walls of Jerusalem would collapse might be seen to have more in common with an extension of hopes inspired by Moses' first successor at Jericho. Jesus' prophecy, on the other hand, is not about defences collapsing to enable conquest, but rather complete destruction so that the old Jerusalem will be no morea.

As for the authorities stamping out his movement, that was nothing more than a sign to Josephus that he was indeed a false prophet, contrasting with Josephus's own experience as the true prophet like Jeremiah.

Now Jesus was also portrayed as a prophet.a His episode on the Mount of Olives reminds us of another who was considered a prophet, David. His wilderness experience has also been compared with the career of Moses.


What of the possibility that both the Egyptian and Jesus either saw themselves as prophets and/or were deliberately portrayed as prophets (either true ones or as foils against an author who wanted to set up the contrast with himself), and that this is an alternative explanation for some of the similarities you identify between the Egyptian and Jesus?
a I think looking at prophecy, as Neil does here (and as he has also commented on this forum and on his own blog) is a useful exercise; particularly with respect to whether such 'prophecy' had actually been written after the fact --ie. time-shifted to before the events thus alluded to.

1 The key things, for me, at least, however, is not how Josephus described or portrayed various entities, such as the Egyptian, or even himself (some of his own 'history' seems far-fetched); but when & how the gospel writers might have interacted with Josephus's texts, and whether & how they might have used Josephus's narratives --ie. post War (post ~75-85 AD/CE) and post Antiquities (post c. 95 AD/CE)
Lena Einhorn
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by Lena Einhorn »

To Charles:
I invite you to lay out your thesis here. I know it's complicated to summarize, I struggle with it too. But it is probably the only way to get an actual discussion going.

To MrMacSon:
I agree, the issue of if and if so when the Gospel authors interacted with Josephus is pivotal. I believe the whole reason for an implemented time shift is to do with either the Gospel authors or later editors having read Josephus (and possibly Justus of Tiberias), and realizing they have parallel -- and competing -- narratives. Eliminating these could only be done through a time shift of the NT text. As is often discussed, much points to the author of Luke/Acts having read Antiquities by Josephus, something which, if true, would put the authoring of Luke/Acts in the 90s at the earliest. As I've mentioned before, I believe Luke/Acts are written with the time shift already implemented, whereas Mark and Matthew, which have some crude chronological mistakes, where time shifted retroactively.

Incidentally, look at Acts 1:21-23. To me, this looks suspiciously like a statement of the fact that the author(s) had read Josephus and Justus! Josephus's real name was Joseph son of Matthias. Justus real name was Justus son of Pistus (pistus=to beat, to pound, to crush; Barsabbas: unclear, but possibly "son of fighting, swelling")
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by MrMacSon »

Lena Einhorn wrote:
I believe the whole reason for an implemented time shift is to do with either the Gospel authors or later editors having read Josephus (and possibly Justus of Tiberias), and realizing they have parallel -- and competing -- narratives.
Sure, 'eliminating [knowledge or awareness of] these [parallel narratives] could only be done through a time shift of the NT text', but it seems there might or could be more to it than that.

These narratives associated with the First Jewish-Roman War could have been foundational, and the Gospel writers may have drawn on several characters from that time. They would have wanted to hide that. Especially as the Jewish revolutionaries were largely failed revolutionaries, apart from the two in the following account from the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Even Justus of Tiberias could be considered as the basis for aspects of the NT Jesus's character based on what says about him -

"By his oratorical ability he [Justus of Tiberias] prevailed on the Tiberians (who felt themselves slighted by the favor which Agrippa II and Rome had shown at their expense to the people of Sepphoris) to revolt.

"An unnamed brother helped him in this task. ;)

"With his followers Justus burned the villages that belonged to Gadara and Hippos (Josephus, "Vita," § 9), whose people had always been ill-disposed toward the Jews. Soon afterward Josephus came as governor to Galilee, and he persuaded the chief people of Tiberias, among them Justus, to demolish the palace of Herod the Tetrarch because it was ornamented with figures of animals. Josephus himself says he had to force the people to it (ib. § 12).

"From this it follows conclusively that the actual rebellion in Galilee was instigated mainly by Josephus rather than by Justus. Later, out of fear of the Romans, neither historian wished to admit in his writings his part in the matter; and each blamed the other."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... f-tiberias
There's a Jesus in the Justus story, too -

"At one time Josephus caused the Tiberians who had been arrested, among them Justus and Pistus, to be taken out of prison; and while eating with them he suggested that it would be wiser for them to surrender to the Romans at a suitable opportunity. He reminded Justus that before he (Josephus) had entered on his office, the brother of Justus had had his hands cut off by the Galileans, who claimed that he had forged letters, and that furthermore Jesus, Justus' sister's husband, had had to suffer from anarchy. The next day he let Justus and his followers go free (ib. § 35). Jesus and the sister of Justus were killed in Gamala (ib. § 37). Still Justus continued to agitate against Josephus (ib. § 54).

"When Galilee was subdued, the inhabitants of Decapolis, primarily those of Gadara and Hippos, denounced Justus before Vespasian, and demanded his punishment. Agrippa was ordered to put him to death; but on the plea of his sister Berenice he merely imprisoned him (ib. §§ 65, 74)."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... f-tiberias
Perhaps one or the other (or both) wrote 'another account' of the rebellion ...... :cheeky:
  • Lena Einhorn wrote:
    Incidentally, look at Acts 1:21-23. To me, this looks suspiciously like a statement of the fact that the author(s) had read Josephus and Justus! Josephus's real name was Joseph son of Matthias. Justus real name was Justus son of Pistus (pistus=to beat, to pound, to crush; Barsabbas: unclear, but possibly "son of fighting, swelling")
____________________________________________________________________________________
Lena Einhorn wrote:
As is often discussed, much points to the author of Luke/Acts having read Antiquities by Josephus, something which, if true, would put the authoring of Luke/Acts in the 90s at the earliest. As I've mentioned before, I believe Luke/Acts are written with the time shift already implemented, whereas Mark and Matthew, which have some crude chronological mistakes, where time shifted retroactively.
Another factor to consider is the recent arguments of Markus Vinzent and Matthias Klinghardt that the Synoptics were written post-Marcion; and Joseph Tyson previously argued that Luke and Acts were post Marcion -

Joseph B Tyson (2006) Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle. University of South Carolina Press -
  • - makes a case for not only Luke but also Acts being a response to Marcion, rather than Marcion's gospel being a rewrite of Luke.
Vincent M (2014) 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' (Studia patristica supplement 2) Leuven: Peeters.
  • Summary: Are the Synoptic Gospels at odds with Early Christian art and archaeology? Art and archaeology cannot provide the material basis 'to secure the irrefutable inner continuity' of the Christian beginnings (Erich Dinkler); can the Synoptic Gospels step in? Their narratives, however, are as absent from the first hundred and fourty years of early Christianity as are their visual imageries. 'Many of the dates confidently assigned by modern experts to the New Testament documents', especially the Gospels, rest 'on presuppositions rather than facts' (J.A.T. Robinson, 1976). The present volume is the first systematic study of all available early evidence that we have about the first witness to our Gospel narratives, Marcion of Sinope. It evaluates our commonly known arguments for dating the Synoptic Gospels, elaborates on Marcion's crucial role in the Gospel making, and argues for a re-dating of the Gospels to the years between 138 and 144 AD.
"One of the most important insights of my 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' (2014) was the discovery that Marcion’s Gospel existed in two different versions: first as a pre-published, presumably stand-alone draft: and, secondly as a published edition with the framing of the Antitheses and the 10 Pauline Letters. How did I derive to this conclusion? The key text in this respect is Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem IV 4,2 which, in a second step, I’d like to put into the broader frame of Tertullian’s discussion of Marcion’s Antitheses and his Gospel in Adversus Marcionem IV 1-5, so that we can follow Tertullian’s arguments ..." continued -

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com.au/20 ... ospel.html
Matthias Klinghardt (2015) Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien
  • Band I: Untersuchung | Band II: Rekonstruktion, ÜberSetzung, Varianten. (German) Perfect Paperback. Francke a Verlag, publisher
  • title translation:
    The oldest gospel, & the emergence of the canonical Gospels: Volume I: Investigation | Volume II: Reconstruction, Translation, Variants
  • (via Google Translate) "Volume I: The oldest gospel is The Gospel, which was in the 2nd century by Marcion and [which] others received. The exact reconstruction of this text, as well as proof that all canonical gospels are dependent on him, allow significant insights for important fields of New Testament scholarship: The origin, tradition, and history of the Gospels, the New Testament textual history, the emergence of the canon of the New Testament, and the history of Christianity in the 2nd century. Volume 1 contains the investigation that determines the relationship between Luke and the oldest gospel, and a model for the development of the Gospels up to the canonical four gospels book designs. Volume II: The reconstruction of the oldest Gospel is the basis of the examination of the canonical Gospels tradition of/for the oldest version to the canonical four gospels book. Volume 2 contains the meticulous reconstruction of the Gospel with the establishment of the text, the distortion of the witnesses, and the interpretations. In the explanation of each reconstruction decision shall be fully explained and the single logia and pericopes Überlieferungsweg traced. This is complemented by a reconstruction translation and a list of variants of the canonical Gospel of Luke, which touch with the text of the oldest gospel."
Matthias Klinghardt (2008) 'The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion' Novum Testamentum; 50(1):1-27.
  • Abstract: 'The most recent debate of the Synoptic Problem resulted in a dead-lock: The best-established solutions, the Two-Source-Hypothesis and the Farrer-Goodacre-Theory, are burdened with a number of apparent weaknesses. On the other hand, the arguments raised against these theories are cogent. An alternative possibility, that avoids the problems created by either of them, is the inclusion of the gospel used by Marcion. This gospel is not a redaction of Luke, but rather precedes Matthew and Luke and, therefore, belongs into the maze of the synoptic interrelations. The resulting model avoids the weaknesses of the previous theories and provides compelling and obvious solutions to the notoriously difficult problems.'

    Full article: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B75F1hK ... edit?pli=1

    notes: presents an argument that the Marcionite Evangelion text ('the Gospel of the Lord') more than likely preceded the canonical Gospel of Luke. Klinghardt deduced that the 'Gospel Marcion' had influenced the formation of both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.
  • Christopher M. Hays (2008) Marcion vs. Luke: A Response to the Plädoyer of Matthias Klinghardt
    • Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und Kunde der Älteren Kirche. 99(2): pp. 213–232.
      ISSN (Online) 1613-009X, ISSN (Print) 0044-2615, DOI: 10.1515/ZNTW.2008.017
More on recent literature about Marcion here - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 180#p38180

.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Time Shift scenarios and the New Testament texts

Post by MrMacSon »

.
Regarding -
  • Vincent M (2014) 'Marcion & the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' Leuven: Peeters.

    Summary: "... the Synoptic Gospels' narratives ... are as absent from the first hundred and forty years of early Christianity as are their visual imageries. 'Many of the dates confidently assigned by modern experts to the New Testament documents', especially the Gospels, rest 'on presuppositions rather than facts' (J.A.T. Robinson, 1976)."
- I have seen this absence referred to as the 'Synoptic Gap'. I read something brief about the concept once, but it is not a commonly espoused one.
Post Reply