The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kapyong wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:I suspect that by 'gospel' he means the good news of the story of Christ, rather than a particular written document.
I don't agree there. He says the reader may 'read there-in', refering to the Gospel. Seems like a fairly clear reference to a single written un-named Gospel, with some details we recognise e.g. a virgin.
You might want to consider the Didache in this light, as well, then. You wrote:
Didakhe et al 70-150 mention some Gospel details, but show no clear access to Gospels.
Yet the wording of Didache 15.3-4 seems to me to imply knowledge of a gospel text:

And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

"As you have it in the gospel" sounds like the readers are able to consult something. Also, as Alan Garrow points out, all four mentions of the gospel in the Didache refer to material that can be found in the gospel of Matthew (the Lord's Prayer, receiving apostles and prophets, reproving others, and praying and giving alms). This is certainly no lock, but it may be something to bear in mind as a distinct possibility.

That said, I am not sure how much this would affect the dating of anything, since the Didache is also widely acknowledged as chronologically layered text, and the "refer to the gospel" layer may be late.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Secret Alias »

Origen says that the Marcionites took "according to my gospel" (Philocalia) in Paul in a similar light - i.e. that the apostle (whoever or whatever he was called) wrote and published a gospel which the Marcionites preserved. This was the gospel from which all the other texts emerged according to them. I think the Marcionites are right and the fact that their gospel behaved like Mark means (a) 'Paul' was known as Mark within their group and (b) they had an ur-Mark gospel. But the point for this discussion is that the Marcionites are clear witnesses to a first century gospel. People keep forgetting that but then again humanity is what humanity is.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote:Origen says that the Marcionites took "according to my gospel" (Philocalia) in Paul in a similar light - i.e. that the apostle (whoever or whatever he was called) wrote and published a gospel which the Marcionites preserved. This was the gospel from which all the other texts emerged according to them.
What is the reference?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I find this in the Philocalia:

To demonstrate this I will add an apostolic saying not understood by the followers of Marcion, who therefore reject the Gospels; for whereas the Apostle says, "According to my gospel in Christ Jesus," and does not speak of gospels, they oppose us, and maintain that if there were several gospels the Apostle would not have used the word in the singular. They do not understand that as He is one, so the Gospel written by its many authors is one in effect, and the Gospel truly delivered by four evangelists is one Gospel.

But I do not see anything specific here about Paul being the author of this gospel. After all, other Christians thought that, whenever Paul used the words "according to my gospel", he meant the gospel of Luke; their attribution of authorship to Paul was indirect at best, mediated through Luke.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Bernard Muller »

What about the gospel of Thomas, normally dated earlier than Justin's times? It is full of elements which appear also in our canonical gospels.
I made an extensive study on it here http://historical-jesus.info/thomas.html.
I concluded that gThomas is dependent on the gospels and written around 115 AD.
One more to put on my list: "Luke", "Matthew", "John", "Q", "Clement", "Barnabas", Didache, Revelation, Cerinthus, Papias, Aristides, Quadratus, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, "Ignatius", Polycarp, the secret book of James, the gospel of Thomas, Epistula Apostolorum.
All these texts allude to gospel stuff, one way or another. What are the odds these authors did not know about one or several gospels? if they did not, from where would they get their gospels-like stuff?

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Maybe someone here has already pointed this out but I don't feel like going through 23 pages here so:

The pivot for orthodox Christianity transitioning from oral sects to written appears to be Papias verses Marcion c. 140.

The only direct dating evidence we have for Papias places him likely post Hadrian c. 139. Papias famously writes:

http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html[Per Eusebius]
[Papias continues:] And if anyone chanced to come along who had followed the elders, I inquired as to the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter had said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord [had said], the things which both Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did not suppose that things from books would profit me as much as things from a living and remaining voice.
c. 140 Papias is aware of Gospels but he knows, you know, Bob Dole knows and the Armenian Republic knows that these Gospels are largely fiction. Papias is early enough that his brand of Christianity still has and claims an oral tradition going back to that man. Marcion, following Paul, who never knew Jesus, wants to discredit the oral tradition of crediting the disciples. What he needs to do so is a Gospel. Just like Paul needed Epistles. Because they had no oral tradition supporting discrediting of Disciples. Two generations have passed so that there is no longer anyone who knew someone who knew Jesus. It's all in the timing.

Enter orthodox Christianity. Having Paul/Marcion promote an Impossible Jesus is a much better Marketing tool than having an oral tradition of largely possible Jesus (Q). Just convert the Disciples as being credited with impossible Jesus promotion. Very simple, very easy, very nicea. The RotS as they say is (fake) history.


Joseph

Son Control - Mark's 2nd Amendment. Was "son of God" Added Later to Mark 1:1? The Greek Patristic Evidence.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Gakuseidon,
Here are some quotes from the letter leading up to the Gospel reference (my bolding below):

This is clear to you, O King, that there are four classes of men in this world:--Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians. The Barbarians, indeed, trace the origin of their kind of religion from Kronos and from Rhea and their other gods; the Greeks, however, from Helenos, who is said to be sprung from Zeus. And by Helenos there were born Aiolos and Xuthos; and there were others descended from Inachos and Phoroneus, and lastly from the Egyptian Danaos and from Kadmos and from Dionysos.

The Jews, again, trace the origin of their race from Abraham, who begat Isaac, of whom was born Jacob. And he begat twelve sons who migrated from Syria to Egypt; and there they were called the nation of the Hebrews, by him who made their laws; and at length they were named Jews.

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them

Aristides seems to be acknowledging the short existence of the Christians, as compared to the other three races. I suspect that by 'gospel' he means the good news of the story of Christ, rather than a particular written document. But even if not the case, 'Christian writings' would have to include something close to a written Gospel (since he writes about content found in some of the Gospels), and something publicly available enough that an Emperor could be expected to find it. Certainly Aristides himself passes himself off as a pagan philosopher who came to be converted to Christianity from reading the writings of Christians.
I agree with you 100%. I think your explanation on "a short time" makes even more sense than mine and is better documented.
Aristides knew about Christian writings, and some of them contained gospel material (coming from more than one of our gospels).
According to Aristides, these Christian writings were somewhat available to everyone, even the emperor. No secretive books here.
Papias also acknowledged Christian writings, but contrary to Aristides, showed little interest in them.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Bernard Muller »

it appear at least as if you only had an interest in one outcome and when that outcome was demonstrated to be less than likely it seemed as if you left the discussion.
How true. I see Kapyong as the captain of a ship going through a storm. The ship has many leaks and is in danger of sinking. The captain tries to fix a few of these leaks but not completely. Furthermore he ignores the other leaks and continues as if his ship is still intact and not being flooded. And then he disappears.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Secret Alias »

Ben

This epitomizes our mutual frustration with one another:
To demonstrate this I will add an apostolic saying not understood by the followers of Marcion, who therefore reject the Gospels; for whereas the Apostle says, "According to my gospel in Christ Jesus," and does not speak of gospels, they oppose us, and maintain that if there were several gospels the Apostle would not have used the word in the singular. They do not understand that as He is one, so the Gospel written by its many authors is one in effect, and the Gospel truly delivered by four evangelists is one Gospel.
Sometimes I think I am showing you tits and you see an ass. Is there any other possibility given what we know from other sources that the Marcionites thought Paul was saying 'my gospel' meant that he wrote the ur-gospel? I am not asking you for HOW THE OTHER CHURCH FATHERS EXPLAINED THE PASSAGE. I am asking you for what is possible given the Marcionites denied did not know a gospel according to Luke what is possible for this passage. Seriously it's like mistaking ass for tits. They short of have the same shape except for a number of other prominent things besides their general shape.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Secret Alias »

Just like there are things that you made clear annoy you about me this seems to be to be a lazy, bullshit statement on your part that you know has no place in a discussion about Marcion:
After all, other Christians thought that, whenever Paul used the words "according to my gospel", he meant the gospel of Luke; their attribution of authorship to Paul was indirect at best, mediated through Luke.
This is so utterly pointless. Are we discussing the Christians who thought this? I mean, does any of this seem likely attributable to the Marcionites? So why bring it up? Just to oppose what I say for the sake of opposing it?

So great we lose track of the original argument (i.e. that the Marcionites clearly demonstrate a first century tradition of gospel writing associated with Paul) and get off on a tangent. Why? Why is putting up meaningless arguments against the plain meaning of 'my gospel' in a Marcionite setting (i.e. the group who thought he was THE apostle i.e. the only one)? What are you defending? It makes no sense to me what the point of all this? There is only answer - Origen is saying that the Marcionites thought they had a first century gospel written by Paul by his own testimony. I couldn't give a flying fuck how the Church Fathers interpreted this passage for the moment. It's important to make plain how the Marcionites evidently read the passage. Why? Because the plain interpretation of a passage is usually the right one. 'My' means 'mine.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply