Detering, etc.

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Peter,

I don't think we have proof of pre-70 Christianity. The few possible indications fall short of proof, e.g.,

(1) The texts of Suetonius and Tacitus refer to Christians / Chrestians assigned blame for the fire in Rome in the 60s.
[Counter arguments: (a) fake, (b) false]
(2) The text of the epistle to the Hebrews represents a Christian author and refers to the Temple cult as active.
[Counter arguments: (a) fake, (b) misunderstood]
(3) et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

(a) fake, (b) false; (a) fake, (b) misunderstood; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera: Now I know why some on this forum put the start of Christianity in the 2nd, or 3rd or 4th century.

About your article on Detering about 1 Clement (your posted blog post), I answered all the points he made in the comments section of your blog post.
I got my own blog post about dating 1 Clement:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p56.htm
Of course Detering thinks Marcion created Paul and ten of his epistles, then the orthodox Christians added on text on these epistles and generated three others.
Also, in his explications about the fabricated Paul, I remember reading Detering had gMatthew written before gMark (correct me if I am wrong).
PS: Actually, on another article:
http://www.radikalkritik.de/Mk13%20JHC.pdf Page 164
Detering has gMatthew written before gMark. Certainly, I do not buy any of his 20 arguments to "prove" that. And as I can remember, Detering used that as an important point for demonstrating his fabricated Paul.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

Hi Peter,

I don't think we have proof of pre-70 Christianity. The few possible indications fall short of proof, e.g.,

(1) The texts of Suetonius and Tacitus refer to Christians / Chrestians assigned blame for the fire in Rome in the 60s.
[Counter arguments: (a) fake, (b) false]
(2) The text of the epistle to the Hebrews represents a Christian author and refers to the Temple cult as active.
[Counter arguments: (a) fake, (b) misunderstood]
(3) et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

(a) fake, (b) false; (a) fake, (b) misunderstood; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera: Now I know why some on this forum put the start of Christianity in the 2nd, or 3rd or 4th century.

I'm sorry. I think you may have mistaken my emphasis here. I'm actually marginalizing the counter arguments, just like you are.

[Peter Kirby]

About your article on Detering about 1 Clement (your posted blog post), I answered all the points he made in the comments section of your blog post.

It was a real bang up job you did. You got him good.

I got my own blog post about dating 1 Clement:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p56.htm

I got a blog post too: http://peterkirby.com/a-study-in-1-clement.html

You had some nice comments on that. So when does the letter of the church of Rome to Corinth actually date? I take the Jewish part (delineated in the post) to date before the fall of Jerusalem. I don't think we have anything solid to put the rest of it (the letter itself) in the first century AD.

Of course Detering thinks Marcion created Paul and ten of his epistles, then the orthodox Christians added on text on these epistles and generated three others.

I'm not sure he attributes it to Marcion or a Marcionite milieu (as I recall, though, the latter?). I might be wrong or confusing him with Price. Price or both, however, has said that Marcion might have had his hand in Galatians (but not, on the same hypothesis, the rest). I do see the pastorals as anti-Marcionite fabrications. I'm stuck with doubt about the others.

Also, in his explications about the fabricated Paul, I remember reading Detering had gMatthew written before gMark (correct me if I am wrong).

I don't know.

[Peter Kirby]

Tidying threads. Let me know if you want a different title.

[MrMacSon]

Price or both, however, has said that Marcion might have had his hand in Galatians (but not, on the same hypothesis, the rest).
I do see the pastorals as anti-Marcionite fabrications. I'm stuck with doubt about the others.

any idea who might have fabricated the pastorals, Peter?

[Peter Kirby]

An anti-Marcionite, of course!

If we want to pin it down, it seems to me that the only really very useful tool to use is stylometry. If none of the suggestions for an identification with another known author pan out, then I would just say that we don't know who it is.

Also it is quite possible that the pastorals were not created all at once and that one of the letters has a different author. (That was Schleiermacher's original idea when he floated the idea to his colleagues that Paul didn't write them... as Price reminds us.)

[MrMacSon]

touché! I was wondering what the anti-Marcionite communities were & who was 'known' in them.

[Peter Kirby]

Justin Martyr comes forward in his apology as anti-Marcion.

Polycarp appears as anti-Marcion according to Irenaeus... as does Irenaeus.

Hegesippus comes across as anti-Marcion in the quotations from Eusebius.

If you accept my suggested identification for Hegesippus, that means that Papias of Hierapolis (the same?) could have been collecting his oral traditions in preference over reliance on books (along the lines of the accusation that Irenaeus levels against heretics--that they have only books, and then just a few that they misunderstand, not knowledge of the apostolic tradition).

Justin Martyr was in Rome but came from Palestine. Hegesippus travelled to Corinth and from Corinth to Rome in order to confer with people. Papias and Polycarp were in Asia Minor, although Polycarp also travelled to Rome according to Eusebius (in connection with the quartodeciman controversy). So from the statements we have, there may have been some kind of axis against Marcion that started from Asia Minor with persons such as Polycarp, Papias, and/or Hegesippus. I say starting from there because that is the direction of the travel (->Rome) and because that is the place where the decisive outcome is supposed to have happened (rejecting the donation of Marcion in Rome). This would make Justin, perhaps, more of a passive participant holding the line the bishop of Rome adopted under the influence and aim of unity with the bishops of Asia Minor. Of course, Pontus on the Black Sea, just north of the bishops of Asia Minor, is the place where Marcion is supposed to have originated. Clement of Alexandria says that Marcion was the elder heretic in a way that suggests his activity could have begun at the very outset of the second century.

That's the more-maximalist speculative/tentative version, of course. The minimalist version is that Justin Martyr's account is the only direct reference from a contemporary writing while Marcion was alive (and, yes, Justin's text does say that Marcion was still around and doing his business mucking about under the Christian name).

[Duvduv]

This is hard to understand. Justin was allegedly in Rome at the same time is Marcion, but never mentions a word about Marcion's text, community, gospels or epistles. Nothing about origins, background or anything else of significance. Probably for very good reason in that the author of Justin didn't have any information on someone for whom no evidence existed of existence in the second century. The elaborate sand castle theories are rooted in pure speculation.

[Peter Kirby]

This is hard to understand. Justin was allegedly in Rome at the same time is Marcion, but never mentions a word about Marcion's text, community, gospels or epistles. Nothing about origins, background or anything else of significance.

Probably for very good reason in that the author of Justin didn't have any information...

That's what you believe. But it is not the only possibility. You know what that is called. That's right: speculation. Welcome to the party. You can park your high horse from which you have characterized plausible (even reasonable) speculation, much like your own, as so-called "FAITH" over at the stables on the right. And, please, do continue to contribute your ideas on the plausible origins of Christianity, just like most everyone else here is trying to do.

Unless, of course, you know... you can prove it.