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: 8944
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 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:19 am

Secret Alias wrote: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?
No, we are not. It is an analogy.
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?
No. Rather, so that I can see your argument for it.

This is one of those cases in which I would like to be shown that Marcionites attributed the penning of the Marcionite gospel (directly) to Paul. That would be a step forward in my/our understanding. But I do not want to take that step without evidence, or based upon fuzzy feelings about how Marcionites must have worked.

The example of "my gospel" meaning Luke to various patristic authors is a caution to me. A statement from them about Paul which is as undetailed as the statementy by Origen about Marcion would tend to lead me to believe that they, too, were attributing a written gospel directly to Paul. And, of course, I would be wrong. I am also curious, granting your argument as valid, how many of the Marcionites interpreted the phrase in this way, and how soon.

My question to you was a challenge. Not a "this is silly" challenge; not a "no way in the world" challenge; but a real, good faith "show me" challenge. An invitation to discuss. No more, no less.
There is only answer - Origen is saying that the Marcionites thought they had a first century gospel written by Paul by his own testimony. .... 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.'
This is a good start. I can see your point. I am persuadable on this. I just wish I did not have to wade through the rants to get there. I am accustomed to digging through garbage for nuggets of understanding, but you often wrap yours in venom.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:25 am

to Kapyong,
Justin Martyr DID have access to them, for sure and certain - he obviously had his hands on them.
But
'Other Christian writers were most likely to'
is just, like, your opinion only, y'know ? :)
So what is your opinion? Is it "Other Christian writers were not likely to".
If yes, can you prove that? So if not from the gospels, from where these authors would get their gospel-like material or indication?

My list of authors/writings: I added up 1 Timothy, because of 5:18 & 6:13, and the Naassene fragment (120-140):
"Luke", "Matthew", "John", "Q", 1 Clement, "Barnabas", Didache, Revelation, Cerinthus, Papias, Aristides, Quadratus, Basilides, Marcion, "Ignatius", 1 Timothy, Naassene fragment, Polycarp, the secret book of James, the gospel of Thomas, Epistula Apostolorum.
All of them show knowledge of gospel-like material. And that's a high proportion among the writings we know from before Justin's times (and after 80 AD).

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13434
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:11 am

Sorry. So we're on the same page then - the Marcionites were saying that the apostle - the guy we call 'Paul' - said 'my gospel' because he wrote what they thought was the original written gospel. This is important because it adds to Justin's statement about 'the apostles' writing a gospel. The idea that 'the gospel' was written written in the first century rather than 150 CE has multiple attestations. What that text/those texts was/were is up for interpretation. But the Marcionites did not think that Paul used a gospel called 'according to Luke' and when he said 'my gospel' they did not think this meant 'according to the gospel that Luke my beloved wrote.'
“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
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Kapyong » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:06 pm

Gday Ben C. Smith and all :)
Ben C. Smith wrote:Ted can obviously speak for himself here if he so chooses, but he has also said that he is busy with other matters. For my part, challenging the historical accuracy of the gospels does not require personal memory of the events related therein. Even now, nearly two millennia later, people are still challenging the historical accuracy of the gospels. Celsus challenged it, as well, as did Porphyry; neither of them relied upon personal memory.
Fair comment :)
I thought it was clearly implied, but that was probably because I have argued over this many many time, and I had forgot to explicitly mention it. That is in fact a part of my over-all argument :
  • Believers claim the Gospels would have been rejected by sceptics as non-historical when they were released, because people knew it never happened - largely due to personal memory of the times.
  • The evidence suggests The Gospels were not publically available until c.150 (maybe one with Aristides 120-130.)
  • Therefore the could NOT have been rejected by sceptics as non-historical when hey were released, and people knew it never happened - due to personal memory
I agree I have have accidentally mis-represented TedM as meaning 'due to personal memory', when he didn't specify that.

My apologies for my mistake TedM :)


Kapyong

User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Kapyong » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:10 pm

Gday Secret Alias and all :)
Secret Alias wrote:I realize that people have busy lives ...
Indeed.
I responded all day every day for seven days straight, then I said I was 'off to do something else', and took a day off. So now you accuse me of disappearing ?
Secret Alias wrote:but the manner in which you have behaved in the thread
The way you behaved in this thread was childish and dis-honest.


Kapyong

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13434
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:25 pm

Good research never starts with a pregnant desire.
“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
spin
Posts: 2075
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by spin » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:23 pm

Secret Alias wrote:Sorry. So we're on the same page then - the Marcionites were saying that the apostle - the guy we call 'Paul' - said 'my gospel' because he wrote what they thought was the original written gospel.
Just out of curiosity... the term "gospel" we can see having gone through a few evolutionary steps in the Jesus religion,
first literally understood as good news (concerning salvation?),
second, after a fair amount of development, the story of the deeds of Jesus, and
third, a written account of the relevant moments in Jesus' life.

Paul was at phase #1 in his use of "gospel". I gather these Marcionites were not. When do you think the term got to mean #2?
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13434
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:42 pm

I haven't done a lot of thinking about the meaning of the Greek terminology. I have always been struck by the reading of Isaiah 61:2 which in Clement's gospel isn't a literal 'reading' but rather an allusion:
"And in the fifteenth of Tybi, 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."
At the beginning of this gospel Jesus's ministry begins with an echo of the Jubilee concept. As such I am intrigued by the connection between the 'gospel' terminology and the announcement of the Jubilee:
The Samaritan Arabic commentary on the Torah, on Leviticus XXV:9. Slightly condensed translation. “The High Priest and the King acting together are to send heralds out on the Day of Atonement to go into all countries over the next six months blowing the shofar in every land and region [not just Canaan] with the announcement [bashâ’ir, plural of bashîrah] of the information of the approach of the Jubilee Year and the release of captives”. The Arabic bashîrah = the Hebrew bassorah. The person doing it is the mubashshir = Hebrew mevasser, or the bashîr. Notice carefully that the bashîrah is not the information, but the announcement of it. This is the connotation of the Greek euangelion. Notice that the meaning only becomes clear and sharp in the context of the Samaritan halachah.

As said, the Samaritans never use the expression “Land of Israel”. It is always Canaan in a religious context and Palestine in a geographical context, whether writing in Hebrew or Aramaic or Arabic.
Boid later acknowledged that the period of announcement might even be the entire previous year. The earliest demotic dating by Philadelphus is Year 2, Tybi 6 (= 7 March 281), the earliest Greek (P. Eleph. 5), Year 2, Tybi 23 (= 24 March 281).
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 13434
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:56 pm

Euangelion ultimately comes from the numerous instances of the verb always in the pi’el and the derived pi’el participle mevasser מבשר. It has a special meaning associated with the Jubilee.
“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
spin
Posts: 2075
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

Post by spin » Sun Oct 30, 2016 12:27 am

Secret Alias wrote:Euangelion ultimately comes from the numerous instances of the verb always in the pi’el and the derived pi’el participle mevasser מבשר. It has a special meaning associated with the Jubilee.
Geez, that was an effort wasted not responding the issue I tried to raise as clearly as possible. You cannot reasonably claim ευαγγελιον ultimately comes from מבשר though it probably equates to it. You have no idea that that meaning was not simply from the Greek that the writer used. We have the Greek, nothing prior.

In the Greek we are observing the change of meaning before our eyes and we are not grasping the significance. The changes need explanation and paying them no heed means we make understanding harder for ourselves. Our received understandings of terms such as ευαγγελιον and εκκλησια are from the period once the language had reached its reflection of orthodoxy, from pre-christian significance to orthodoxy.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

Post Reply