Dating Early Christian Gospels
Andrew Bernhard
This is my first post to this discussion group. I am writing because
PTET informed my that the article, "Dating Early Christian Gospels"
that I published last year in the _Journal of Biblical Studies_ had
recently been discussed here.
Apparently, my article came up in the midst of a rather length
discussion. Since I haven't been able to read the entire discussion, I
am just going to respond to the email PTET sent me. It reads as
follows:
<Start Message>
The usually reliable Roger Pearse (of http://www.tertullian.org) seems
to dismiss your article on the following basis: "...it would be
disingenuous not to observe, in so politicised a subject, that this
conclusion is one that is profoundly congenial to a great many people;
not least those professionals who engage in the study of a religion in
which they do not believe. I have severe reservations, when the
subject is highly politicised, about the value and honesty of all
this."
<End Message>
I find it more than a bit ironic that I am being accused of the very
thing I was trying to combat. It seems to me that the "consensus"
dates for gospels that are so often asserted with dogmatic certainty
are nothing more than a political compromise between warring factions
within contemporary Christianity. As I see it, the "consensus" dates
have become consensus because they can both be used by what I will
call for lack of better terminology liberals and conservative. For
instance, consider placing Mark at 70 C.E. Then, "liberals" have forty
years to work with in describing the complex literary process that
they believe colminated in Mark. Conservatives, however, are equally
able that church tradition accurately claims that Peter's disciple
Mark the gospel shortly after his death at the hands of Nero. Or
consider John around 100 C.E. Does this date not make it possible for
"liberals" to dismiss John as a later, more "theological" gospel that
has no useful information about the historical Jesus? Does it not also
harmonize with church tradition that John wrote his gospel in his old
age in the time of Trajan? I think it quite obviously does.
What I was at least trying to say in my article was that there really
is virtually no basis for these assertions. Its simpy impossible to
know. New Testament scholars trying to locate a gospel in a particular
decade seems to me about a fruitful as physicists trying to locate a
particle more precisely than allowed by the limitations described by
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If this conclusion is congenial to
many people that makes me happy. If it's not, I do not care. That is
what I honestly think.
I would be delighted to further discuss my article or related issues,
if others on this list would like to. Thank you to PTET from bring
this matter to my attention.
Kind regards,
Andrew Bernhard
John Roth
"Andrew Bernhard" <aber...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4d69684c.02061...@posting.google.com...
In other words, you're arguing for a compromise by exhaustion?
Since neither side seems able to carry the day, they've compromised
on a middle set of dates that lets them both carry on their own
agendas?
Absent some more hard evidence (words on parchment or papyrus,)
I suspect that it's all we're going to get. The debate does seem to
be circling around the same often expressed positions, using the same
often expressed arguments. And many of the debaters seem to
be quite capable of ignoring evidence or arguments that contradict
their preconceptions.
On the other hand, I'm not a scholar, so I suspect my opinion carries
relatively little weight.
John Roth
Trotter960
>What I was at least trying to say in my >article was that there really
>is virtually no basis for these assertions. >Its simply impossible to
>know.
This last word is the key word here.... "know."
How does one "know" that any text was written at any particular date in time?
Attribution to a certain historical figure?
Allusion to some event in time which is considered to be known?
What criteria do you want to use?
On one hand it may seem an insightful piece of scholarship to draw into
question
the consensus of past scholarship. On the other hand it might seem wise that
past scholars drew some sort of compromise.
Why? Does one really think that modern scholars have thought of this issue in a
way that our teachers never dreamed of?
Roger Pearse
afraid this group is not moderated, and so is one in which sensible
scholarly discussions do not tend to occur - be prepared for some very
discourteous responses!). Since I don't keep up with the consensus in
NT studies - my hobby is patristics - I am interested to hear that you
feel there is a consensus of the kind you describe, and I will
mentally docket it.
It occurs to me that in fact we are broadly in agreement on one point
- that extra-scholarly issues have infected the discpline, and led to
a bogus consensus. Admittedly I think that the ideas resulting have
likewise affected your article - but I didn't post in order to debunk
it, merely to indicate that I wasn't accepting it as an authority. I
do agree that John's gospel cannot be dated to within a decade, since
there is hardly any information about when it was written. On the
other hand many ancient literary texts can be dated to a year. It
does seem a bit woolly, doesn't it?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
aber...@yahoo.com (Andrew Bernhard) wrote in message news:<4d69684c.02061...@posting.google.com>...
Andrew Bernhard
> Attribution to a certain historical figure?
> Allusion to some event in time which is considered to be known?
>
> What criteria do you want to use?
My view is as stated in the essay: "An absolute date can be assigned
to an ancient text only if a clear relationship can be established
between the text and another writing or event from a specific, known
time. Unfortunately, such writings and events are almost entirely
lacking from the time period when the gospels were written."
I'm just saying that since our points of reference are so far apart,
between Jesus' death and the late second century when we have the
first manuscript and patristic references, we might as well
acknowledge and accept the limitations to our knowledge instead of
pretending to know things we do not.
Best,
Andrew
PTET
aber...@yahoo.com (Andrew Bernhard) wrote in message
news:<4d69684c.02061...@posting.google.com>...
> Hello,
>
> This is my first post to this discussion group. I am writing because
> PTET informed my that the article, "Dating Early Christian Gospels"
> that I published last year in the _Journal of Biblical Studies_ had
> recently been discussed here.
> [snip]
>
> I find it more than a bit ironic that I am being accused of the very
> thing I was trying to combat. It seems to me that the "consensus"
> dates for gospels that are so often asserted with dogmatic certainty
> are nothing more than a political compromise between warring factions
> within contemporary Christianity...
This doesn't just affect our understanding of the Gospels... An
article last year in "The History Teacher" complains about the poor
teaching of just how inaccurate the Bible is as a source of history
[1].
> ...As I see it, the "consensus" dates
> have become consensus because they can both be used by what I will
> call for lack of better terminology liberals and conservative. For
> instance, consider placing Mark at 70 C.E. Then, "liberals" have forty
> years to work with in describing the complex literary process that
> they believe colminated in Mark. Conservatives, however, are equally
> able that church tradition accurately claims that Peter's disciple
> Mark the gospel shortly after his death at the hands of Nero...
> [snip]
>
> What I was at least trying to say in my article was that there really
> is virtually no basis for these assertions. Its simpy impossible to
> know... [snip]
What surprised me about Andrew's original article [2] was that it
rejected any positive first-century dating for the canonical Gospels.
The original thread [3] had been discussing whether Marcion's Gospel
was effectively earlier or later than GLuke - and Andrew's conclusion
on that point was that it is impossible to say.
So how is it, exactly, that so many scholars [4] can "confidently"
date the canonical Gospels to before 90 BCE?
PTET
http://dreamwater.net/PTET
=====
[1] Cargill, Jack, Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks. "The
History Teacher" 34.3 (2001): 37 pars. 19 Jun. 2002
<http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/34.3/cargill.html>
[2] Andrew Bernhard, "Dating Early Christian Gospels", Journal of
Biblical Studies 1:4 (2001)
<http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm>
Trotter960
>My view is as stated in the essay: "An >absolute date can be assigned
>to an ancient text only if a clear >relationship can be established
>between the text and another writing or >event from a specific, known
>time. Unfortunately, such writings and >events are almost entirely
>lacking from the time period when the >gospels were written."
Yes, I read that comment of yours in the article. You next go on to discuss a
terminus post quem.
And I don't have any problems with what you wrote given the fact that you said
that
you were referring to an "absolute" date.
Then you went on to offer your own operational definition of "only if a clear
relationship...."
What I have a problem with is the fact that
you then go on to say that such evidence is lacking from this "time period when
the gospels were written."
What bugs me is that this comment suggests that this time period is aberrant
and not part of the norm. I don't think that's true. I think it is a comment
you made with your eye focused upon the thesis for your paper and not one made
after considering
any number of other time periods.
What I think one finds if one pushes for your idea of "absolute" dating is that
it is seldom accomplished. In Antiquity, one might be able to establish the
absolute dating that you ask only once in a great while. At this point I ask
myself: "So what is new?"
Scholars have a lot of spilt ink over the date
of GJohn among other topics. Scholars are like that. Scholars sharpen their
teeth after almost every presentation at the annual SBL meeting.
But despite their surface tenaciousness,
they know the tenuousness of their arguments. They may not admit them, but they
know; I think our teachers knew.
So I think that leaves your article stating the obvious or asking for something
which
usually can not be done. If so, then like the Sophist Testicles said, " I dunno
it."
Personally, I think we need to get past this
sort of nihilism.
Trotter960
>My view is as stated in the essay: "An absolute date can be assigned
>to an ancient text only if a clear relationship can be established
>between the text and another writing or event from a specific, known
>time. Unfortunately, such writings and events are almost entirely
>lacking from the time period when the gospels were written."
Oh, I forgot. On this newsgroup we have an expert on what the earliest gospel
was?
Have you met him? <G>
The "D"
and overheard Roger Pearse saying
> Thank you, Andrew, for that comment, which was interesting. (I'm
> afraid this group is not moderated, and so is one in which sensible
> scholarly discussions do not tend to occur - be prepared for some very
> discourteous responses!). Since I don't keep up with the consensus in
> NT studies - my hobby is patristics - I am interested to hear that you
> feel there is a consensus of the kind you describe, and I will
> mentally docket it.
But, if you have surfed other groups where such things are discussed such as
groups in the alt.christnet.* chain you will find us more "scholarly" than
other groups. By this, I mean simply that there is more evidence discussion
and debate and less petty name calling. In fact, if I don't go back to
coding I may do some research on a post I'm going to do in response to an
earlier thread, since my "opponent" is sure to find the places where I
didn't do my homework ^_~
> It occurs to me that in fact we are broadly in agreement on one point
> - that extra-scholarly issues have infected the discpline, and led to
> a bogus consensus. Admittedly I think that the ideas resulting have
> likewise affected your article - but I didn't post in order to debunk
> it, merely to indicate that I wasn't accepting it as an authority. I
> do agree that John's gospel cannot be dated to within a decade, since
> there is hardly any information about when it was written. On the
> other hand many ancient literary texts can be dated to a year. It
> does seem a bit woolly, doesn't it?
Yes, I tend to go with the middle and end of the 1st century dating, but
that's mostly because that is what I've been taught. I wonder also if any
conservative has answered the "synoptic problem" satisfactorily. If not, I
think that maybe because we don't really understand it. It seems to be a
non-issue if you believe that the persons the gospels are attested too were
actually either first or second hand accounts for the most part and you
don't have to follow a complex chain of sources. But then again, that is
based on the conservative understanding of the "problem," perhaps someone
could clarify?
--
The "D"
<andy> moo spelled backwards is moo
<andy> no wait
Feel free to spam me at will. I set up the email account for that anyway.
Andrew Bernhard
> you then go on to say that such evidence is lacking from this "time period when
> the gospels were written."
>
> What bugs me is that this comment suggests that this time period is aberrant
> and not part of the norm. I don't think that's true.
I appreciate your feedback, especially as nobody has raised that point
with me before. I have to disagree with you on this point. I think the
time period in which the gospels were written, which I suspect was the
first century after Jesus' death, is one of the lease well documented
periods in Christian history. Of course, there are less written
documents for all of history up until the invention of the printing
press. However, the first century of the Christian movement was
particularly bad. The manuscript evidence is virutally non-existant;
the only possible manuscripts from this time period are P52 and
P.Egerton 2 and that's debatable. The primarily work of one of the
most prominent leaders in the early Christian movement, namely Papias
of Hierapolis, has been lost and is only known from ambiguous
quotations. From the time of Justin Martyr's writings on, ca. 150
C.E., I think Christianity is much better documented. First, because
the nature of Christian writing shifted to long theological treatises
and better records were kept. Compare the descriptions Irenaeus gives
of his opponents with the descriptions Paul gives of his. Second,
because at least some manuscripts have been preserved. I must maintian
that the first century of the Christian movement is aberrant in the
amount of documents that have been preserved.
> But despite their surface tenaciousness,
> they know the tenuousness of their arguments. They may not admit them, but they
> know; I think our teachers knew.
I agree. They know. But that just begs the question, why do they
pretend not to know. Why do they state guesses as fact.
> So I think that leaves your article stating the obvious or asking for something
> which
> usually can not be done. If so, then like the Sophist Testicles said, " I dunno
> it."
>
> Personally, I think we need to get past this
> sort of nihilism.
Personally, I think we should reconsider the questions we are asking
about early Christianity and perhaps, more importantly, consider why
we need to ask them in the first place. And while we are quoting the
ancients, I think we might be well advised to heed the words of
Socrates, that true wisdom consisting in not thinking you know what
you do not know.
Best,
Andrew
Andrew Bernhard
> you then go on to say that such evidence is lacking from this "time period when
> the gospels were written."
>
> What bugs me is that this comment suggests that this time period is aberrant
> and not part of the norm. I don't think that's true.
I appreciate your feedback, especially as nobody has raised that point
with me before. I have to disagree with you on this point. I think the
time period in which the gospels were written, which I suspect was the
first century after Jesus' death, is one of the lease well documented
periods in Christian history. Of course, there are less written
documents for all of history up until the invention of the printing
press. However, the first century of the Christian movement was
particularly bad. The manuscript evidence is virutally non-existant;
the only possible manuscripts from this time period are P52 and
P.Egerton 2 and that's debatable. The primarily work of one of the
most prominent leaders in the early Christian movement, namely Papias
of Hierapolis, has been lost and is only known from ambiguous
quotations. From the time of Justin Martyr's writings on, ca. 150
C.E., I think Christianity is much better documented. First, because
the nature of Christian writing shifted to long theological treatises
and better records were kept. Compare the descriptions Irenaeus gives
of his opponents with the descriptions Paul gives of his. Second,
because at least some manuscripts have been preserved. I must maintian
that the first century of the Christian movement is aberrant in the
amount of documents that have been preserved.
> But despite their surface tenaciousness,
> they know the tenuousness of their arguments. They may not admit them, but they
> know; I think our teachers knew.
I agree. They know. But that just begs the question, why do they
pretend not to know. Why do they state guesses as fact.
> So I think that leaves your article stating the obvious or asking for something
> which
> usually can not be done. If so, then like the Sophist Testicles said, " I dunno
> it."
>
> Personally, I think we need to get past this
> sort of nihilism.
Personally, I think we should reconsider the questions we are asking
Trotter960
>
>I appreciate your feedback, especially as nobody has raised that point
>with me before. I have to disagree with you on this point. I think the
>time period in which the gospels were written, which I suspect was the
>first century after Jesus' death, is one of the lease well documented
>periods in Christian history.
While I would agree with you that the 1st century is one of the least well
documented
of Xianity, I would maintain that this time period is just as well documented
as many others.
With what other time periods are there with which would you care to compare?
1st century CE Xianity was bad?
I'll agree. But with what do you compare?
And then... after we have agreed on this
prior issue, let's talk epistemology. How do you know it?
>I agree. They know. But that just begs the question, why do they
>pretend not to know. Why do they state guesses as fact.
Here it's me who must say I dunno. All I can say is that I have seen a lot of
scholars
sound firm about issues about which they
merely intended to promulgate their own
theories.
Does this sound strange? If so, let's go back and read some of the "assured
results of scientific scholarship" which was the result scholars who subscribed
to some form of the Doc.Theory.
>Personally, I think we should reconsider >the questions we are asking
>about early Christianity and perhaps, >more importantly, consider why
>we need to ask them in the first place.
I noted that in your article. But today I was reading an article about the
relationship of some DSS documents. Why do we need to talk about them in the
first place? Maybe we should not, but I want to note that scholars studying the
DSS raised the same issues.
And I think that is just an example.
So the real question is one of how do you now what you claim to know.
Kater Moggin
> Personally, I think we should reconsider the questions we are asking
> about early Christianity and perhaps, more importantly, consider why
> we need to ask them in the first place. And while we are quoting the
> ancients, I think we might be well advised to heed the words of
> Socrates, that true wisdom consisting in not thinking you know what
> you do not know.
Especially good advice for those who like hemlock-flavored
drinks.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn
Roger Pearse
> Of course, there are less written
> documents for all of history up until the invention of the printing
> press. However, the first century of the Christian movement was
> particularly bad. The manuscript evidence is virutally non-existant;
> the only possible manuscripts from this time period are P52 and
> P.Egerton 2 and that's debatable.
May I comment on the admixture of MSS survival into the discussion at
this point? The mention of the survival of manuscripts from a period
as evidence of whether or not we today are well informed about that
period makes me nervous. These seem to be different things, to my
ignorant eyes.
In general the quantity of MSS survivals for literary texts (ignoring
fluctuations in *production*) seems to be related to the calendar;
longer ago means fewer survivals. Likewise material from the
pre-parchment era is scarce, since old papyrus is fragile. The change
in book-making methods from the roll to the codex itself is a barrier
to the onward preservation of earlier MSS, since at that point the
older MSS would tend to be copied and discarded as obsolete. Finally
most of the material comes from Egypt, and the chances and mischances
of a society which was different in many respects from the rest of
antiquity, and which is not excavated systematically even today. Will
not all of this make it very difficult to do a sensible statistical
analysis based on survival?
As an example, I wouldn't like to say that the 5th century was a
period of mass literary production on the basis that 5th century
codices are extant. These codices have reached us by chance; but one
could rationalise their existence on the basis that they were in the
same physical form as subsequent books, and so could still be used,
and were made of a material which didn't simply fall apart in the
subsequent years.
All of this is true for every form of literature, and I don't feel
comfortable, therefore, in discussing manuscript survivals as if they
were evidential about the quantity of literature in an era. What 1st
century MSS of 1st century literary texts exist, tout court? Not very
much, I think. As such, I don't see how this aspect can be used here.
(Of course they do act as a terminus for date of composition, and
evidence of the circulation of the text in question, and are of the
highest interest).
> From the time of Justin Martyr's writings on, ca. 150
> C.E., I think Christianity is much better documented. ...
> because at least some manuscripts have been preserved.
MSS: I am unfamiliar with any 2nd century MSS of 2nd century patristic
works, with the possible exception of a fragment of Irenaeus dateable
to ca. 200AD (itself exciting - only 20 years after composition! I've
had a photograph made which I hope to get online once I've grappled
with the politics involved). Do we not owe our knowledge of the
majority of the Greek apologists to a single 10th century codex, the
Arethas codex, and that only to the chance that a Byzantine offical
was interested in apologies, so a subordinate made a collection to
curry favour?
Of course if you know of some, I'm very interested. The lists of MS
witnesses on gospels.net is one of the great qualities of your site,
and I at least appreciate it greatly.
> I must maintian
> that the first century of the Christian movement is aberrant in the
> amount of documents that have been preserved.
I wonder. Does it not have the amount we would expect for its
position in the timeline? We'd need to count heads and do some sort
of analysis of comparable literary survivals to get a graph.
> And while we are quoting the
> ancients, I think we might be well advised to heed the words of
> Socrates, that true wisdom consisting in not thinking you know what
> you do not know.
I agree entirely with this last - well said.
Roger Pearse
>
> But, if you have surfed other groups where such things are discussed such as
> groups in the alt.christnet.* chain you will find us more "scholarly" than
> other groups. By this, I mean simply that there is more evidence discussion
> and debate and less petty name calling.
Glad to hear it. Actually I try to avoid NT-related stuff, since I
really don't see the point in adding to the pile of stuff on it.
> In fact, if I don't go back to
> coding I may do some research on a post I'm going to do in response to an
> earlier thread, since my "opponent" is sure to find the places where I
> didn't do my homework ^_~
The funniest thing one ever sees on usenet is two posters, each trying
to get the other to do the homework which neither has done.
Yuri Kuchinsky
It's been quite a few years since we've discussed these things last...
Hope everything is well with you.
Andrew Bernhard <aber...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
: It seems to me that the "consensus"
: dates for gospels that are so often asserted with dogmatic certainty
: are nothing more than a political compromise between warring factions
: within contemporary Christianity. As I see it, the "consensus" dates
: have become consensus because they can both be used by what I will
: call for lack of better terminology liberals and conservative. For
: instance, consider placing Mark at 70 C.E. Then, "liberals" have forty
: years to work with in describing the complex literary process that
: they believe colminated in Mark. Conservatives, however, are equally
: able that church tradition accurately claims that Peter's disciple
: Mark the gospel shortly after his death at the hands of Nero. Or
: consider John around 100 C.E. Does this date not make it possible for
: "liberals" to dismiss John as a later, more "theological" gospel that
: has no useful information about the historical Jesus? Does it not also
: harmonize with church tradition that John wrote his gospel in his old
: age in the time of Trajan? I think it quite obviously does.
Yes, you're making quite a few good points here.
: What I was at least trying to say in my article was that there really
: is virtually no basis for these assertions. Its simpy impossible to
: know. New Testament scholars trying to locate a gospel in a particular
: decade seems to me about a fruitful as physicists trying to locate a
: particle more precisely than allowed by the limitations described by
: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If this conclusion is congenial to
: many people that makes me happy. If it's not, I do not care. That is
: what I honestly think.
But there's also a related issue in all this that I find interesting.
Namely, it has amazed me for quite some time that, about 100 years ago,
biblical scholarship was clearly a lot more radical than it is now...
For example, the late dating was rather common at that time. Nowadays,
there's a lot more conservatism among mainstream biblical scholars!
Sure sounds counter-intuitive, doesn't it?
And if someone wants to trot out P52, and how this tiny scrap of writing
has "changed everything", I will just answer, humbug. Because anything
based on this tiny, unprovenanced shred of papyrus will have a very
shaky foundation indeed...
So why this recent wave of neo-conservatism, at least since WWII (but
maybe already since the 1920s)? I think there must be some sort of a
political explanation here.
Could it be, for example, because of the Communist Revolution in Russia,
and then the rise of Fascism in Europe? Indeed, perhaps the general
feeling in the Western societies was that "we now need some secure
anchor in history to fight all these modern and very threatening-looking
socio-political movements". Thus, "Cut out with all that radical
biblical scholarship stuff, and let's try to revert to basics?"
Just an idea...
And also, if what I say is accepted, the corollary may be that, since
the Communism is now all but over, perhaps the mood in society will go
the other way?
Best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick
Yuri Kuchinsky
:>From: aber...@yahoo.com (Andrew Bernhard)
:>I appreciate your feedback, especially as nobody has raised that point
:>with me before. I have to disagree with you on this point. I think the
:>time period in which the gospels were written, which I suspect was the
:>first century after Jesus' death, is one of the lease well documented
:>periods in Christian history.
: While I would agree with you that the 1st century is one of the least
well : documented : of Xianity, I would maintain that this time period
is just as well documented : as many others.
: With what other time periods are there with which would you care to
compare? : 1st century CE Xianity was bad? : I'll agree. But with what
do you compare?
Simple. Compare it with the 2nd century of Xianity! The difference is
immense.
: And then... after we have agreed on this
: prior issue, let's talk epistemology. How do you know it?
No, thank you. From my point of view, epistemology may be the last
resort of scoundrels... :)
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
Jim Upchurch
> But there's also a related issue in all this that I find interesting.
> Namely, it has amazed me for quite some time that, about 100 years ago,
> biblical scholarship was clearly a lot more radical than it is now...
> For example, the late dating was rather common at that time. Nowadays,
> there's a lot more conservatism among mainstream biblical scholars!
What happened to your "90% of scholars say..." business ? I knew you were
bluffing but it's nice to see it revealed so soon and so clearly.
> Sure sounds counter-intuitive, doesn't it?
> Yuri.
Sure, if it counters your mindset.
jim
Yuri Kuchinsky
It's been quite a few years since we've discussed these things last...
Andrew Bernhard <aber...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
: It seems to me that the "consensus"
: dates for gospels that are so often asserted with dogmatic certainty
: are nothing more than a political compromise between warring factions
: within contemporary Christianity. As I see it, the "consensus" dates
: have become consensus because they can both be used by what I will
: call for lack of better terminology liberals and conservative. For
: instance, consider placing Mark at 70 C.E. Then, "liberals" have forty
: years to work with in describing the complex literary process that
: they believe colminated in Mark. Conservatives, however, are equally
: able that church tradition accurately claims that Peter's disciple
: Mark the gospel shortly after his death at the hands of Nero. Or
: consider John around 100 C.E. Does this date not make it possible for
: "liberals" to dismiss John as a later, more "theological" gospel that
: has no useful information about the historical Jesus? Does it not also
: harmonize with church tradition that John wrote his gospel in his old
: age in the time of Trajan? I think it quite obviously does.
Yes, you're making quite a few good points here.
: What I was at least trying to say in my article was that there really
: is virtually no basis for these assertions. Its simpy impossible to
: know. New Testament scholars trying to locate a gospel in a particular
: decade seems to me about a fruitful as physicists trying to locate a
: particle more precisely than allowed by the limitations described by
: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If this conclusion is congenial to
: many people that makes me happy. If it's not, I do not care. That is
: what I honestly think.
But there's also a related issue in all this that I find interesting.
Namely, it has amazed me for quite some time that, about 100 years ago,
biblical scholarship was clearly a lot more radical than it is now...
For example, the late dating was rather common at that time. Nowadays,
there's a lot more conservatism among mainstream biblical scholars!
Sure sounds counter-intuitive, doesn't it?
And if someone wants to trot out P52, and how this tiny scrap of writing
has "changed everything", I will just answer, humbug. Because anything
based on this tiny, unprovenanced shred of papyrus will have a very
shaky foundation indeed...
So why this recent wave of neo-conservatism, at least since WWII (but
maybe already since the 1920s)? I think there must be some sort of a
political explanation here.
Could it be, for example, because of the Communist Revolution in Russia,
and then the rise of Fascism in Europe? Indeed, perhaps the general
feeling in the Western societies was that "we now need some secure
anchor in history to fight all these modern and very threatening-looking
socio-political movements". Thus, "Cut out with all that radical
biblical scholarship stuff, and let's try to revert to basics?"
Just an idea...
And also, if what I say is accepted, the corollary may be that, since
the Communism is now all but over, perhaps the mood in society will go
the other way?
Best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
Yuri Kuchinsky
: "Yuri Kuchinsky"
:> But there's also a related issue in all this that I find interesting.
:> Namely, it has amazed me for quite some time that, about 100 years ago,
:> biblical scholarship was clearly a lot more radical than it is now...
:> For example, the late dating was rather common at that time. Nowadays,
:> there's a lot more conservatism among mainstream biblical scholars!
: What happened to your "90% of scholars say..." business ?
Nothing at all!
: I knew you were
: bluffing but it's nice to see it revealed so soon and so clearly.
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about now, do you, Jim?
Well, let me explain it simply then, especially for you... Yes, there
_was_ a big wave on neo-conservatism in NT studies in the last 50-70
years. And yet, _in spite of this_, 90% of scholars still say that 1 and
2 Timothy were not written by Paul.
Get it now?
:> Sure sounds counter-intuitive, doesn't it?
:> Yuri.
: Sure, if it counters your mindset.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices -=O=- William James
Jim Upchurch
> Jim Upchurch
> : "Yuri Kuchinsky"
> :> But there's also a related issue in all this that I find interesting.
> :> Namely, it has amazed me for quite some time that, about 100 years ago,
> :> biblical scholarship was clearly a lot more radical than it is now...
> :> For example, the late dating was rather common at that time. Nowadays,
> :> there's a lot more conservatism among mainstream biblical scholars!
> : What happened to your "90% of scholars say..." business ?
> Nothing at all!
> : I knew you were
> : bluffing but it's nice to see it revealed so soon and so clearly.
>
> You really don't have a clue what you're talking about now, do you, Jim?
> Well, let me explain it simply then, especially for you... Yes, there
> _was_ a big wave on neo-conservatism in NT studies in the last 50-70
> years. And yet, _in spite of this_, 90% of scholars still say that 1 and
> 2 Timothy were not written by Paul.
> Get it now?
> Yuri.
You say there is alot more conservatism among todays biblical
scholars and yet 90% of them think 1 and 2 Timothy are forgeries ?
I am unclear how you reconcile the two statements, sorry.
jim
Zimri
news:3d16...@news.turbotek.net...
Okay, I'm not usually the one to defend Yuri, but in this case I have to
step forward...
"Conservatism" in scholarship means "unwillingness to upset the ruling
paradigm". It is not to be confused with biblical fundamentalism, and
*neither* are to be confused with *political* conservatism.
The consensus that 1-2 Timothy (and Titus) are forgeries is an old one, and
I have not seen anything to upend that consensus.
Therefore, considering the epistles "1-2 Timothy" and "Titus" pseudepigrapha
is, at this time, a *conservative* position.
A non-conservative position concerning the Pastoral Epistles would be a
modern movement to bring them back under Pauline authorship. Or a claim that
Ignatius of Antioch wrote them. Or anything else NOT in the mainstream of
scholarship.
Now, as for the current dating of the Gospels, there seem to be four schools
of thought.
The first is the Christian claim of apostolic authorship, lately revived by
Carsten Thiede. No-one is taking this seriously outside the "Josh MacDowell"
market. Yuri isn't talking about them, either.
The second is the radical school. This lot claim the Gospels were written
slightly before 2 Clement and Justin Martyr... who used *harmonies* of the
Gospels... in the mid second century.
The third is, I think, Yuri's "neo-conservative" school. The majority. They
do not think these books were apostolic. Ultimately they don't want to be
bothered with the unanswerable question of when, exactly, these books, which
weren't cited properly until Irenaeus in the late second century(!), were
written. So they pluck numbers out of the air, whose only purpose is to
assign everything into a sequential order. As long as the trail goes - Mark
& Egerton, Matthew & Luke, and finally John - they'll stick a fork in it and
call it done.
And the fourth is the Dark Side, of blind faith in the One True Theory Of
Everything, and that is the neo-conservative's deepest fear.
Which is why I'm a neo-conservative, until I'm done with my own research.
-- Z
Roger Pearse
>
> > > Well, let me explain it simply then, especially for you... Yes, there
> > > _was_ a big wave on neo-conservatism in NT studies in the last 50-70
> > > years. And yet, _in spite of this_, 90% of scholars still say that 1 and
> > > 2 Timothy were not written by Paul.
> >
> > scholars and yet 90% of them think 1 and 2 Timothy are forgeries ?
> > I am unclear how you reconcile the two statements, sorry.
>
> Okay, I'm not usually the one to defend Yuri, but in this case I have to
> step forward...
I'm nervous that this is defining the disagreement in terms of
semantic differences. Is this going to be helpful?
> "Conservatism" in scholarship means "unwillingness to upset the ruling
> paradigm".
I don't think this is right; or, at least, I do not see it used that
way in Tertullian studies. I would understand it as meaning a
reluctance to depart from the data, or the general consensus down the
generations. That all the scholars in the late 19th century adopted
one position would not make that view 'conservative' at the time.
At all events, I don't think the usage specified is a useful one. It
is too far from the related meanings of conservative to avoid
confusion.
> It is not to be confused with biblical fundamentalism, and
> *neither* are to be confused with *political* conservatism.
True.
> The consensus that 1-2 Timothy (and Titus) are forgeries is an old one, and
> I have not seen anything to upend that consensus.
>
> Therefore, considering the epistles "1-2 Timothy" and "Titus" pseudepigrapha
> is, at this time, a *conservative* position.
This I feel involves using language in a counterintuitive manner.
> A non-conservative position concerning the Pastoral Epistles would be a
> modern movement to bring them back under Pauline authorship. Or a claim that
> Ignatius of Antioch wrote them. Or anything else NOT in the mainstream of
> scholarship.
See what I mean?
Incidentally, one feature of religious studies I have noticed with a
wry smile is the manner in which 'radical' or 'liberal' writers seem
to feel this continual need to appropriate the labels adopted by those
from whom they differ. This has had risible consequences, sometimes.
So in Victorian England, unbelievers wanted to be called 'Christians'.
"Who are you to say who is, and is not, an Christian?", they cried?
The consequence was that those who to that time had called themselves
Christians used the label 'Evangelical'. The next step was that some
of these unbelievers then found that if they weren't called
'Evangelical' people didn't take them seriously as believers - so they
started using the term, and abusing any who denied their right to it.
The consequence was that the real evangelicals now started to call
themselves/be called 'Conservative Evangelicals'!
Quite how long this game would have gone on I do not know, but of
course when times changed, the 'liberal evangelicals' all vanished,
and things went back to stage 1.
I wonder if 'conservative' is undergoing the same process? :-)
[snip]
Jim Upchurch
> See what I mean?
>
> Incidentally, one feature of religious studies I have noticed with a
> wry smile is the manner in which 'radical' or 'liberal' writers seem
> to feel this continual need to appropriate the labels adopted by those
> from whom they differ. This has had risible consequences, sometimes.
> So in Victorian England, unbelievers wanted to be called 'Christians'.
> "Who are you to say who is, and is not, an Christian?", they cried?
>
> The consequence was that those who to that time had called themselves
> Christians used the label 'Evangelical'. The next step was that some
> of these unbelievers then found that if they weren't called
> 'Evangelical' people didn't take them seriously as believers - so they
> started using the term, and abusing any who denied their right to it.
>
> The consequence was that the real evangelicals now started to call
> themselves/be called 'Conservative Evangelicals'!
>
> Quite how long this game would have gone on I do not know, but of
> course when times changed, the 'liberal evangelicals' all vanished,
> and things went back to stage 1.
>
> I wonder if 'conservative' is undergoing the same process? :-)
> Roger Pearse
Good points Roger. Confusing your 'enemy' is an old game, and I doubt
that too many people are going to understand that 'conservative scholarship'
equates to the more liberal viewpoint simply due to numbers. That's assuming
that they have the numbers in the first place. Perhaps 50 years down the
road you could make that claim but at this point I believe it is nothing less
than an attempt to obfuscate.
jim
Roger Pearse
>
> Good points Roger. Confusing your 'enemy' is an old game, and I doubt
> that too many people are going to understand that 'conservative scholarship'
> equates to the more liberal viewpoint simply due to numbers.
A good point also. I'd rather we all used language in a way that
promotes understanding, rather than as Newspeak, a tool to control or
manipulate others.
Yuri Kuchinsky
> "Jim Upchurch" <fl...@snip.net> wrote in message
That's right, Zimri. But what I said about a wave of neo-conservatism
in NT studies, at least since WWII, is certainly not just my opinion.
I've also seen this matter mentioned a few times by others.
But of course there's no surprise that "Jim Upchurch" would be unaware
of these things...
> Now, as for the current dating of the Gospels, there seem to be four schools
> of thought.
>
> The first is the Christian claim of apostolic authorship, lately revived by
> Carsten Thiede. No-one is taking this seriously outside the "Josh MacDowell"
> market. Yuri isn't talking about them, either.
Correct.
> The second is the radical school. This lot claim the Gospels were written
> slightly before 2 Clement and Justin Martyr... who used *harmonies* of the
> Gospels... in the mid second century.
Actually, my view as to the dating of the gospels is taken straight
out of Loisy. I'm _not_ saying that they were written "slightly before
2 Clement and Justin Martyr". Rather, Loisy thought that they were
completed (for the most part) just before Irenaeus.
According to him, Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn all had earlier shorter editions
that go back to late 1c, but that these early editions were still
Jewish-Christian. These textual developments were still in full swing
at the time of Justin, who seems to have preserved for us parts of
these earlier versions. As to 2 Clement, Loisy didn't accept it as
authentic.
Now, the most interesting thing is that Loisy's thesis is in fact
confirmed by the Magdalene Gospel! Because this new text does contain
an awful lot of Jewish-Christian elements.
> The third is, I think, Yuri's "neo-conservative" school. The majority. They
> do not think these books were apostolic. Ultimately they don't want to be
> bothered with the unanswerable question of when, exactly, these books, which
> weren't cited properly until Irenaeus in the late second century(!), were
> written. So they pluck numbers out of the air, whose only purpose is to
> assign everything into a sequential order. As long as the trail goes - Mark
> & Egerton, Matthew & Luke, and finally John - they'll stick a fork in it and
> call it done.
But I don't see why you had to bring in Egerton here. I don't think
that, for mainstream scholars, Egerton enters into the picture much.
Myself, I don't think it's so early.
> And the fourth is the Dark Side, of blind faith in the One True Theory Of
> Everything, and that is the neo-conservative's deepest fear.
If anyone in NT Studies is still looking to find the One True Theory
Of Everything, Loisy would pretty much be it. I think that his work in
this area is still unsurpassed.
But of course, I don't accept on faith everything he said. Some parts
of his legacy need to be updated in light of new evidence.
> Which is why I'm a neo-conservative, until I'm done with my own research.
Yours,
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
For every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill.
Zimri
news:3a88eeea.02062...@posting.google.com...
I didn't think I was using Newspeak... I was trying to define terms as
strictly as possible, which is anti-Newspeak if anything.
"Conservative" describes a tendency, not a program. Fidel Castro, having
stifled any change in his island prison for 40 years, is perhaps even *more*
conservative than the ayatollahs in Iran. A conservative is just one who is
enamoured of existing evils, whatever they might be. As opposed to the
reformer, who desires to replace them with others.*
What is "conservative" in 13th century Europe is not going to be the same as
what is "conservative" in 21st century America. Likewise, what is
conservative biblical scholarship in 2002 is going to differ from
conservative biblical scholarship at the time of Spinoza.
As for sounding counterintuitive... that just follows from lingering
connotations with political conservatism and biblical fundamentalism. I
warned you against that already.
--
zimriel sbc dot
at global net
*Ambrose Bierce, "Devil's Dictionary", 1900 or so.
Jim Upchurch
>A conservative is just one who is
> enamoured of existing evils, whatever they might be. As opposed to the
> reformer, who desires to replace them with others.*
See ? It's simple when you get your mind right. Conservative=evil,
liberal=good. Even a child can understand that !
> As for sounding counterintuitive... that just follows from lingering
> connotations with political conservatism and biblical fundamentalism. I
> warned you against that already.
> zimriel sbc dot
I didn't quite understand the prophecy here but I'm sure it had
something to do with the evil nature of people who disagree with you.
jim
Zimri
From: "Jim Upchurch" <fl...@snip.net>
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: "conservative"
> "Zimri"
>
> >A conservative is just one who is
> > enamoured of existing evils, whatever they might be. As opposed to the
> > reformer, who desires to replace them with others.*
>
>
> See ? It's simple when you get your mind right. Conservative=evil,
> liberal=good. Even a child can understand that !
I was aiming that particular comment at people of an age group which would
be expected to recognise satire. Which school year are you currently
attending?
-- Z
Jim Upchurch
> > "Zimri"
> -- Z
You said it right after making the below comment.
Zimri:
I didn't think I was using Newspeak... I was trying to define terms as
strictly as possible, which is anti-Newspeak if anything.
"Conservative" describes a tendency, not a program. Fidel Castro, having
stifled any change in his island prison for 40 years, is perhaps even *more*
conservative than the ayatollahs in Iran. A conservative is just one who is
enamoured of existing evils, whatever they might be. As opposed to the
reformer, who desires to replace them with others.*
What school year are YOU in ?
jim
Jim: