See the first writing we have regarding even a possible martyrdom is 1 Clement, traditionally dated to the early 90’s CE….
As you can immediately see—the stories themselves did not circulate amongst Christians in writing prior to the very end of the First Century!…
Further, 1 Clement does not explicitly indicate Peter and Paul died martyrs, Josephus does not indicate James’ death had anything to do with Christianity, and Acts only utilizes James, son of Zebedee’s death like a Star Trek Red shirt (as I previously pointed out.) Indeed it was not until the Second Century the martyrdom tales gained their legendary legs and took off with Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul, and Second Apocalypse of James. It wasn’t until the very end of the Second Century, perhaps the beginning of the Third, that Hippolytus gave us the deaths of the other disciples.
Is he representing the evidence accurately? I and some other Christians responded to him in the thread at the Stand To Reason blog, if anybody is interested in reading it. I didn't enter the discussion until late in the thread, but I did post a few responses.
"These types of discussions reach a point of diminishing returns; let’s face it—at this point those who hold to the disciples’ martyrdom will eagerly adhere to anything you say and those not convinced already see the weaknesses in your argument."
ReplyDeleteDagoodS' argument is curious for two reasons:
1) Obviously, the logic is reversible, as I'm sure skeptics would heartily agree with DagoodS' claims
2) He also has a huge burden of proof to uphold and just appealing to an argument from silence doesn't really cut it. You can't really just arbitrarily make absurd claims about history and just expect people not to question it.
He appeals to silence where there isn't silence. And he expects the martyrdom of the apostles to be mentioned in other places where there's no reason to expect that. His arguments are tendentious and contrived. Apparently, he doesn't like the implications of the apostles' martyrdom, so he's looking for a way to dismiss it.
DeleteDagoodS is an old hack contributor to Debunking Christianity.
DeleteHere's something I just added to the Stand To Reason thread:
ReplyDelete>>>>>
I want to expand on something I said above. While we don't have to limit ourselves to J. Warner Wallace's arguments when considering the issue of the apostles' martyrdom, I think there have been some misinterpretations of what he said. As I mentioned earlier, he didn't limit all of his comments to first-century sources. And even his references to first-century sources are somewhat ambiguous, since he could be including what later sources imply about the nature of the first-century evidence (e.g., a second-century source could claim to derive its information from a first-century source, so that the second-century source would be taken as a reflection of first-century testimony). Wallace does refer to non-Christian sources, but he doesn't seem to be limiting his appeal to silence to non-Christians. It's not just a matter of early non-Christian sources not saying that Peter died of natural causes, not saying that Jesus' brother James died of natural causes, etc. Rather, it's a matter of sources in general, both Christian and non-Christian, not saying such things. There are many early sources – the New Testament documents, the patristic literature, the heretical literature, the apocryphal literature, Josephus, etc. – that could have conveyed such information. It would have been easy for a gospel, Paul, Josephus, or some other early source to refer to somebody like Peter or James having died of natural causes. Instead, the death of the apostles is repeatedly described in ways that explicitly or implicitly involve martyrdom. That seems to be what Wallace was getting at, though some of his comments are ambiguous and he may have misspoken at times. Whether that's what Wallace intended or not, it's a good argument.
>>>>>
You always do an excellent job, Jason. Nice to see you posting more often.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the encouragement.
DeleteI think the discussion is a bit oversimplified on the blog. What even is Christianity prior to 90 CE, what counts what doesn't? Who are the apostles? How hostile is one to Catholic claims about their 1st century origins. What order do you believe biblical books were written in, in particular Acts and Revelations?
ReplyDeleteIn general if you want a clear cut document that talks about the martyrdom of people therein or later identified as apostles that is unquestionably earlier than 90 CE, no such evidence exist. As for 1 Clement saying they didn't die martyrs, yeah the word isn't in there. The worst part is the confusion. Peter is taken quite often as a symbol in 2nd century literature, not as an actual person but as a mythic person. Paul is a complete mess bibliographically. How many John's are there? Which ones wrote what and which ones died martyrs?
I'd say the evidence we do have is slight but leans away from the Catholic version of events having been widely believed or understood until much later.
CD-Host wrote:
Delete"I think the discussion is a bit oversimplified on the blog."
You then go on to present your own highly simplified view, and you don't offer nearly as much of an argument for it as some of the participants in the other thread offered for their view.
You write:
"What even is Christianity prior to 90 CE, what counts what doesn't? Who are the apostles?"
If you're going to expect the discussion in the other thread to reinvent the wheel, then why don't you do the same in your own post? Instead, you make unsubstantiated assumptions about the meaning of the terms you use, what constitutes "Catholic claims", what the documents written prior to the year 90 say, etc. You make a lot of assumptions and claims that you don't argue for, yet you fault other people for doing the same.
People often carry on discussions without reinventing the wheel. They begin with some common assumptions, often unspoken ones, sometimes only granting something for the sake of argument. There's nothing wrong with that. It's an efficient way of communicating. It saves time, effort, etc. Furthermore, my series on the death of the apostles that I linked in that other thread does address issues like the ones you're raising. And we've discussed them in other posts at this blog.
You write:
"What order do you believe biblical books were written in, in particular Acts and Revelations?"
I tend to be suspicious of people who put an "s" at the end of Revelation. Some people deserve the benefit of the doubt, but I don't know enough about you to give you that benefit. And your comments so far aren't promising. I'm suspicious.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou write:
"In general if you want a clear cut document that talks about the martyrdom of people therein or later identified as apostles that is unquestionably earlier than 90 CE, no such evidence exist."
As I explained in the other thread, a conclusion doesn't have to be "clear cut" in order to be probable. You complain about the quality of the discussion in the other thread, but you're repeating an objection that's already been addressed there.
You write:
"As for 1 Clement saying they didn't die martyrs, yeah the word isn't in there."
So what? Why don't you interact with what I've already said on that subject?
You write:
"The worst part is the confusion."
You don't tell us much about the supposed confusion you have in mind. But if you're thinking of differences among historical sources, so what? Witnesses of the Titanic's sinking disagreed over whether the ship was intact when it sank. That doesn't prevent us from concluding that the Titanic sank. After Osama bin Laden's death, there were conflicting accounts about what happened in the closing moments of his life. That didn't prevent us from concluding that he had died, that some members of the American military had killed him, etc. In the case of Peter's life, if a second-century apocryphal document or a third-century church father makes a dubious claim about his death, for example, does that problem with such a source prevent us from trusting other sources? No. Does it even prevent us from trusting other, more credible claims within the same source? No.
You write:
"Paul is a complete mess bibliographically."
The same principles I mentioned with regard to Peter apply to Paul. The issue we're focused on here is Paul's death. I've cited a few early sources on his death that are consistent on the subject. I could add many later sources to that list. That's not a "complete mess". If it was a complete mess, I doubt that so many people, including so many scholars and people as anti-Christian as Bart Ehrman, would be acknowledging the historicity of Paul's martyrdom.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou write:
"How many John's are there? Which ones wrote what and which ones died martyrs?"
My series on the death of the apostles, which I cited in the other thread, addresses the issue of other Johns and whether the son of Zebedee died as a martyr. (The issue of other Johns is only addressed indirectly, through an article linked within the series. For some of my past discussions of the subject, see here and here.) The issue of the authorship of the Johannine documents has been addressed in previous posts at this blog. But it's not the subject of this thread. Why do you keep bringing up such irrelevant issues?
In my series on the death of the apostles, I cite three sources on the martyrdom of John. Every one of them identifies him as the son of Zebedee. Why are you ignoring that evidence and asking whether some other John might have been in view? That's a nonsensical question to ask if you have much familiarity with the evidence. But you don't have much familiarity with it, apparently.
You write:
"I'd say the evidence we do have is slight but leans away from the Catholic version of events having been widely believed or understood until much later."
You've given us no reason to agree with your conclusion. And your "much later" comment is absurd. You haven't cited any sources who deny the martyrdom of the individuals in question, whereas Christians have cited many sources in support of apostolic martyrdom from the first century onward.
So what? Why don't you interact with what I've already said on that subject? [of 1Clement]
DeleteBecause the original post asked a simple question. It presented a paragraph and asked be to comment if it was accurate. I was concurring with, "1 Clement does not explicitly indicate Peter and Paul died martyrs,". I have no idea what you wrote on that. But what you wrote doesn't change what Clement wrote.
As I explained in the other thread, a conclusion doesn't have to be "clear cut" in order to be probable. You complain about the quality of the discussion in the other thread, but you're repeating an objection that's already been addressed there.
I don't think it is probable either. For example on Paul you use 2Tim which I don't think can be plausibly dated to before 90 CE if one is taking a hostile position. Virtually every secular scholar rejects it for stylistic and theological reasons of being early. Historically 2Tim isn't even Marcion's canon and 1Tim (6:20-21) has what is likely a direct reference to Marcion. As for Peter your argument makes critical use of 21st chapter of John. You seem to be aware of the problem there, though the 2006 discovery of MS. Copt.e.150 finally provides some hard evidence of John 21 being later than the rest of John. It is hard to date most of gospel of John definitely before 90 much less John 21.
So I've read what you wrote and it doesn't fix the problem with 90 CE.
You don't tell us much about the supposed confusion you have in mind. But if you're thinking of differences among historical sources, so what? Witnesses of the Titanic's sinking disagreed over whether the ship was intact when it sank. That doesn't prevent us from concluding that the Titanic sank.
The sources we have on the titanic agree in almost every detail. When, who, what ship, who owned it... They may disagree on a few details, I haven't studied the titanic. The sources on the apostles are much more vague and remain that way for centuries. With Peter for example there is no possible way to construct a when he was in Antioch and when he was in Rome timeline. With Paul we have sources which unequivocally state he spent years establishing the church in Rome, he spent years helping Peter govern from Rome, and sources which don't even have him in Rome ever. There isn't disagreement remotely like that for the titanic.
CD-Host wrote:
Delete"Because the original post asked a simple question. It presented a paragraph and asked be to comment if it was accurate."
No, I didn't ask you to comment on the subject. Rather, I posed the question, then I provided a link to a discussion where I and other Christians answered the question. You've ignored that other discussion, and you've provided a deficient answer to the question I posed.
You write:
"But what you wrote doesn't change what Clement wrote."
I didn't suggest that my comments change what Clement wrote. Rather, my comments were addressing the significance of whether Clement was explicit.
You write:
"I don't think it is probable either. For example on Paul"
You're responding to a comment I made about First Clement by discussing the Pauline literature. That doesn't make sense.
You write:
"For example on Paul you use 2Tim which I don't think can be plausibly dated to before 90 CE if one is taking a hostile position. Virtually every secular scholar rejects it for stylistic and theological reasons of being early. Historically 2Tim isn't even Marcion's canon and 1Tim (6:20-21) has what is likely a direct reference to Marcion. As for Peter your argument makes critical use of 21st chapter of John. You seem to be aware of the problem there, though the 2006 discovery of MS. Copt.e.150 finally provides some hard evidence of John 21 being later than the rest of John. It is hard to date most of gospel of John definitely before 90 much less John 21."
First of all, there's no good reason to set a cutoff date of 90. That's your arbitrary standard, which you haven't justified.
Secondly, you aren't making any effort to interact with the counterarguments of those who disagree with you. Your comment about "virtually every secular scholar" is ludicrous. Why limit the discussion to secular scholars? And how do you know which ones are secular? If we include all scholars, which makes more sense, the picture is much different than what you've portrayed. See here, for example. Commentaries written by scholars who accept Pauline authorship give many examples of other scholars who hold that position. They're more than the tiny minority you refer to. And a lot of scholars are undecided on the subject, which means that it would be misleading to say that they "reject" Pauline authorship. Furthermore, the traditional view that affirms Pauline authorship has the support of nearly universal external attestation in the early centuries of Christianity and centuries of scholarly support prior to the modern change in scholarly opinion. Simply citing a modern scholarly pessimism on the subject, especially when you limit it to secular scholars, doesn't prove much.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteAnd the weakness of your position is illustrated by the facile arguments you cite. To single out Marcion's view of 2 Timothy, while giving so little weight to what the vast majority of other ancient sources said on the subject, is irrational. You say "even Marcion's canon", as if we should expect him to accept 2 Timothy. He's the same Marcion who cut out other portions of Paul's writings he didn't like. The same Marcion who edited Luke as well. The same Marcion who rejected the other writings of the apostles, even though there's such strong evidence that those other apostles were supported by Paul and had comparable evidence for the canonicity of their writings. See my article here regarding the unreasonableness and unreliability of Marcion. And you want us to believe that 1 Timothy 6 has "a direct reference to Marcion"? Prove it. Nothing in the text or context implies that conclusion. And placing 1 Timothy in the time of Marcion makes the document's widespread acceptance as Pauline very difficult to explain. If a document originated in the middle of the second century, it's doubtful that so few people would have been skeptical of its authenticity. There are allusions to 1 Timothy in the literature of the early second century. Who was concerned with responding to Marcion at that point?
Furthermore, my argument doesn't depend on Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy, much less 1 Timothy. Even if 2 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, it's an early source that makes historical claims about the apostle.
The same is true of John 21. Besides, your comment on the manuscript that lacks John 21 is misleading. See here, including the comments section of the thread. To cite one incomplete fourth-century manuscript to overturn all of the evidence in support of John 21 is typical of your false priorities and the speculative nature of your reasoning.
And you're ignoring the other sources I've cited, which are widely accepted as predating the year 90 (Matthew, Mark, Acts). But, again, the 90 cutoff date is yours, not mine, and I see no reason to accept it.
You write:
"The sources we have on the titanic agree in almost every detail. When, who, what ship, who owned it... They may disagree on a few details, I haven't studied the titanic. The sources on the apostles are much more vague and remain that way for centuries. With Peter for example there is no possible way to construct a when he was in Antioch and when he was in Rome timeline."
You're changing the subject. I wasn't addressing how much information we have about the Titanic. We tend to have more information about events that are more recent. I didn't deny that. The point is that disagreement among Titanic sources on some issues doesn't prevent us from believing some of them on those issues and all of them on others.
The issue with Peter isn't whether there are some ambiguities or disagreements about Peter's life. I was addressing his martyrdom, and we have multiple early sources that are consistent on the subject. To cite some other subject where there's ambiguity, such as the timing of Peter's presence in Antioch, is irrelevant. Much like your earlier comment about the authorship of the Johannine literature. You keep bringing up such irrelevant issues while ignoring things that are more relevant.
First of all, there's no good reason to set a cutoff date of 90. That's your arbitrary standard, which you haven't justified.
DeleteThe quote which you originally posted on which this debate is about has the cutoff date of 90 CE. That ain't my arbitrary standard that. That quote, which includes that date, is the thesis. And it isn't really all that arbitrary I don't think Stand to Reason skeptic guy doesn't believe there was a fairly developed mythology about the apostles by say 490 CE. The question is not did a mythology exist at some point in the ancient past but rather is the evidence consistent with these beliefs having existed since the first century. Going one generation later isn't a bad number for separating out later historical myth from earlier reporting.
Stand-to-reason was quite clear that he was rejecting later testimony. I don't know his logic for picking the date 90 CE. I don't think I have to defend the validity of the thesis. But it is a reasonable date for historical information.
Secondly, you aren't making any effort to interact with the counterarguments of those who disagree with you.
I'm weighing how much effort to make. I'm clearly making some as I'm still responding to your points and reading your articles.
Your comment about "virtually every secular scholar" is ludicrous. Why limit the discussion to secular scholars?
Because if someone is rejecting the martyrdom of Peter, they are rejecting the veracity of Christian claims about their own early history. Historians that assume that Christian claims about their own history are valid are by definition begging the question. Your assertion was hopefully something more than just "if you assume Christian religious history which says the apostles were martyred then the apostles were martyred". That means you can't assume Christian religious history, which means you generally can't assume Christian scholarship. That's not saying all of it has to rejected immediately when looking at these questions, but certainly something on which the secular audience is unified against, like Pauline authorship of 1/2Tim can't be used as fact.
See here, for example
Which links to an article which links to an article by Paul Forester at a divinity school about 2 Thessalonians. That's not a pastoral epistle.
Simply citing a modern scholarly pessimism on the subject, especially when you limit it to secular scholars, doesn't prove much.
It proves that the opposite can't be assumed. That's all needed to be proven.
To single out Marcion's view of 2 Timothy, while giving so little weight to what the vast majority of other ancient sources said on the subject, is irrational.
DeleteI didn't single out Marcion's view. I singled out Marcion's canon. And I did so because it was the first New Testament canon and the only with any possibility of being near 90 CE. The claim doesn't work in the direction you would like it to. Paul's mainstream release comes from Marcion. The idea of a New Testament comes from Marcion. Galatians even 150 years later is still seen as coming from Marcion.
If you are going to try and argue for the pastorals being authentic, the first question is why doesn't Marcion know about them? And the major themes about church life and church structure are things Marcion would have approved of not disapproved of. So the "he knew about them but censored them" doesn't cut it.
He's the same Marcion who cut out other portions of Paul's writings he didn't like. The same Marcion who edited Luke as well.
We don't know that. You have no idea which versions were older. And in terms of Luke, Marcion's Gospel of the Lord meets most of the criterial for Ur-Lukas that the development hypothesis for the synoptics had speculated should exist. Moreover Acts has post Marcionic themes in it. So what's far more likely is that Luke/Acts was a reworking of Gospel of the Lord not that Gospel of the Lord is a shortening of Luke. Marcion And The New Testament by John Knox is the standard on this question.
As for your article on Marcion, the no manuscript evidence for Gospel of the Lord we don't have any of Marcion's manuscript. We also don't have Luke from that time period either. So that's a scratch. But we have to church fathers who did line by line discussions of Marcion's GoL vs. canonical Luke to the extent we can reconstruct it.
And placing 1 Timothy in the time of Marcion makes the document's widespread acceptance as Pauline very difficult to explain.
Not really hard to explain. The pastoral epistles are pro an organized structured authoritative church. The people who objected to an organized structured authoritative church mostly did reject the pastorals even while accepting Paul: Valentinus, Heracleon, Naassenes etc... Who else would object?
CD-Host wrote:
Delete"The quote which you originally posted on which this debate is about has the cutoff date of 90 CE."
No, the quote refers to "the early 90’s CE" as the date for First Clement. The quote then makes claims about the second century. How are you getting a cutoff date of 90 from that?
You write:
"That quote, which includes that date, is the thesis."
No, I didn't limit the discussion to that one quote. I also cited the article it came from and a thread at Stand To Reason.
You write:
"Stand-to-reason was quite clear that he was rejecting later testimony. I don't know his logic for picking the date 90 CE."
Stand To Reason isn't a person who's been posting on this subject. It's the name of a Christian apologetics organization. And the person I quoted, who isn't part of Stand To Reason, didn't give the 90 cutoff date that you've given us.
You write:
"Historians that assume that Christian claims about their own history are valid are by definition begging the question."
Christians aren't obligated to "assume that Christian claims about their own history are valid". Christians reject a large number and variety of claims made by Christians of the past, including the early Christians. Christian scholars argue for conclusions like Peter's martyrdom. There's nothing about being a Christian that requires them to begin with an assumption of the martyrdom of Peter. I haven't just assumed Peter's martyrdom. I've argued for it.
Besides, it's not as though secular scholars are the only non-Christians. Your suggestion that we should limit ourselves to secular scholars doesn't make sense. And you still haven't demonstrated your claim about what secular scholars believe. Why should we think you're accurately representing them?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou write:
"Which links to an article which links to an article by Paul Forester at a divinity school about 2 Thessalonians. That's not a pastoral epistle."
Either you're being careless or you're being dishonest. The post I linked explains that Foster's article has an appendix. The appendix addresses scholarly views of the authorship of the pastoral epistles.
By the way, not only have you badly misrepresented the post I linked, but you've also misspelled Foster's name. That's similar to your misspelling of Revelation earlier. You don't seem to pay much attention to details.
You write:
"It proves that the opposite can't be assumed."
When did I say that we should just assume Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy? I didn't.
You write:
"I didn't single out Marcion's view. I singled out Marcion's canon. And I did so because it was the first New Testament canon and the only with any possibility of being near 90 CE."
I was referring to Marcion's view of the canon, so distinguishing between his view and his canon doesn't make sense.
You brought up Marcion in the context of discussing Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy. Why would a cutoff date of the year 90 apply to that context? You've falsely claimed that DagoodS gave that cutoff date in my quote of him above. Now you're taking that cutoff date you falsely attributed to him, and you're applying it to a consideration of who wrote 2 Timothy. That makes no sense. Then you try to justify the citation of Marcion by saying that his canon "has a possibility" of being "near" the year 90. But if the cutoff date is 90, how would coming within a few decades of 90 be sufficient? You're not making any sense.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou write:
"Paul's mainstream release comes from Marcion."
I don't know what you're talking about. What's Paul's "mainstream release"?
You write:
"The idea of a New Testament comes from Marcion."
See my article on Marcion that I linked earlier, which argues against that conclusion.
You write:
"And the major themes about church life and church structure are things Marcion would have approved of not disapproved of."
That's an assertion, not an argument. And the pastoral epistles address far more than "church life and church structure". The pastoral epistles' positive references to various Old Testament themes, for example, would be objectionable to Marcion. And since the pastorals are all addressed to individuals, it would be easier to dismiss them if somebody wanted to. They weren't as public as Paul's other letters. (Even Philemon addresses itself to a group of people, including a church in Philemon's house. The letter to Philemon wasn't as private as the pastorals.) Since the large majority of church leaders were opposing Marcion, he'd potentially have that motive for disliking documents that emphasize church authority to such an extent.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou write:
"Marcion And The New Testament by John Knox is the standard on this question."
The article on Marcion that I linked cites more recent scholarship, including scholarship that's critical of Knox and mentions him by name.
You write:
"As for your article on Marcion, the no manuscript evidence for Gospel of the Lord we don't have any of Marcion's manuscript. We also don't have Luke from that time period either."
We have a lot of other evidence to go by, and the article I linked discusses some of it. You're ignoring the large majority of the evidence.
You write:
"The pastoral epistles are pro an organized structured authoritative church."
The church is "organized" and "structured" in the other Pauline letters (ranked offices in 1 Corinthians 12:28, bishops and deacons in Philippians 1:1, etc.). And the structure we see in the pastorals is different than what developed in the second century. There is no monepiscopate and a three-tiered system, which was popular in the second century, but instead two offices listed (1 Timothy 3) and an equating of bishops and presbyters (Titus 1:5-7). That's why later sources writing about the monepiscopate, like Jerome, concede that church offices underwent development after the time Paul wrote. See my article on the subject here. The church office structure in the pastorals is evidence against your late-dating rather than evidence for it. What we see in the pastorals is less developed than what we see in Ignatius in the early second century.
And it's not as though the apostles couldn't have implemented different church structures in different places, depending on the circumstances, and couldn't have allowed church structures to develop over time. Why would they not have allowed developments? It's not as though church offices existed in full form when Jesus ascended after his resurrection. There had to be some degree of development. Even if somebody thinks that the structure in the pastorals is more developed than in other Pauline letters, it wouldn't follow that Paul didn't write the pastorals.
Furthermore, your hypothesis assumes an implausible level of dishonesty on the part of a large number of Christians. I've written some articles about the evidence we have for the high moral character of the early Christians, including the Christians of the second century (here, for example). Even if they had been dishonest enough to do what you're suggesting, why would they have refrained from doing it again in later generations and on a much broader range of topics? Why not forge more letters in the name of Paul against Gnosticism in the late second century, against Modalists in the third century, against Arians in the fourth century, etc.? The most likely explanation for why they didn't keep on producing such forgeries is that they honestly wanted to limit the canon to apostolic documents. And if the pastorals didn't appear until the middle of the second century, nearly a hundred years after Paul's death, it would have been easy to identify them as forgeries. Even if some people would have been deceived, it's highly unlikely that the vast number of people who accepted the pastorals would have been.
You're wasting our time. This thread is about the martyrdom of the apostles, and you haven't said much about that subject. Instead, you keep misrepresenting the context of the discussion, like with your ridiculous 90 A.D. cutoff date, and bringing up highly tangential issues, like the authorship of the Johannine documents and Marcion's relationship with 1 Timothy. Either improve the quality of your posts or stop posting.
CD Host,
ReplyDelete"...Marcion's canon and 1Tim (6:20-21) has what is likely a direct reference to Marcion"
It's notable you think this:
>>>O Timothy, protect what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the profane chatter and absurdities of so-called “knowledge.” By professing it, some have strayed from the faith. Grace be with you all.
"likely" refers to Marcion while simultaneously arguing that Clement is too nebulous.
You comments vis-a-vis the Titanic further demonstrate your inability to evaluate historical evidence. What sources say Paul spent a long time in Rome? Their dates? Where were they written? What were their sources?
It's not enough to say that certain sources differ from other sources, therefore it's a mess. Surely you know that people like Robin Gardiner have been asserting for years that the ship that sank was really the Titanic's sister ship, the Olympic. So no. Everyone does not agree. Titanic studies is a mess.
Derek --
DeleteThere is a greek word for "absurdities" and 1Timothy doesn't use it. The word it uses is antitheses which means pairs of oppositions in contradictions. It also happens to be the title of Marcion's book. The rest of your translation is far too figurative as well. Try this.
O, Timothy, guard the precious deposit recoiling from profane and empty jabbering and the Antitheses of the falsely labeled ‘gnosis’ for some who profess it have shot wide of the faith ”
___
As for the Titanic and Robin Gardiner. I don't know anything about the titanic. But I'm happy to exclude tiny fractions when talking about a consensus view.
As for what sources say Paul spent a long time in Rome, there are Catholic sources that have assisting Peter in setting up the church, Acts of Peter for example. There are also Ebionite sources that have him battling Peter in Rome.
CD-Host wrote:
Delete"There is a greek word for 'absurdities' and 1Timothy doesn't use it. The word it uses is antitheses which means pairs of oppositions in contradictions. It also happens to be the title of Marcion's book."
That argument has been refuted in the scholarly literature for a long time (e.g., William Mounce and Luke Johnson's commentaries on the pastorals).
The term used in 1 Timothy 6:20 would make sense in that context even if Marcion had never written a book by that title. Marcion's title consists of a term that would be applicable in many contexts. If I gave a title like Life or Grief to a book, it would be absurd to conclude that documents referring to life and grief are making reference to my book just because they use those terms.
Similarly, Paul's use of "knowledge" in 1 Timothy 6:20 isn't enough to support your argument, since a large number of ancient groups claimed to possess some sort of significant knowledge. That doesn't single out Marcion.
Furthermore, 1 Timothy 6:20 couples "worldly and empty chatter" and "the opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge". The first of those two terms doesn't resemble the title of any book by Marcion. It doesn't seem to be referring to any book, whether by Marcion or anybody else. A more natural way to read the two phrases is to take both of them as references to what's spoken by the individuals in question. Both their "worldly and empty chatter" and their "opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge" should be avoided. The passage reads more awkwardly if we take the second phrase as a reference to a book title while not taking the first phrase that way.
In 2 Timothy 2:16-17, some of the promoters of "worldly and empty chatter" are mentioned by name (Hymenaeus and Philetus). We don't need to speculate that Marcion is in view in 1 Timothy 6:20. 2 Timothy gives us some alternatives, and those alternatives don't require a second-century date for 1 Timothy. Earlier in 1 Timothy, Paul had named some men who had departed from the faith (Hymenaeus and Alexander), and departure from the faith is another theme in 1 Timothy 6:20. Again, there's no need to appeal to Marcion to explain the passage.
I wouldn't call Mounce scholarly literature.
DeleteThat being said I agree the term used makes sense in context to some extent. The problem with the theory that he isn't using a proper noun here is then the sentence becomes rather vague, whose gnostic contradictions are we talking about? Most gnostics are synthesizers they aren't drawing pairs of opposites but rather tending to be harmonizing things. So he is talking about someone and in reference to most Gnostics the verse would just be false. REmember the context that "Paul" worried that Timothy is likely to be attracted to just some random collection of empty jabberings and contradictions? That would be like me telling you to avoid the pothole on 17th and Pine out of nowhere. Who is he talking about?
The theme is all over the place in the pastorals. We know that 2Tim 1:15 who is "Paul" talking about? Encraities, Gnostics, Marcionites are the groups over Asia Minor. Who is he worried about. What large group is he worried that Timothy is going to fall in with?
Your context doesn't make sense.
In general your theory is that Paul decided to write a book using 2nd century language language which doesn't appear anywhere else in his writings or other 1st century and early 2nd century Christian language. This book contains 2nd century themes. We should ignore the fact that the book is unknown in the early 2nd century as unimportant.
At what point do you just say. Its a second century book. It contains 2nd language and themes because it was written then.
You can keep with the "it is possible", "it is possible".... type defense. Anything is possible, it just becomes successively less likely. If there is a real heresy of the 50-60 CE range in Asia Minor that meets the descriptions that Paul throws around in the Pastorals then I'm interested. Hymenaeus, Philetus and Alexander fine. We know they obviously don't pose a meaningful threat they get excommunicated and their movement becomes nothing. But lets assume it is them that are in view. Why does Paul need to use different language? Why does he use the term King of the ages (eons), which is a standard 2nd century Catholic reply to King of the aions? Do Hymenaeus and Alexander preach on aions? What is the nature of the opposition here if not Marcionic Christianity?
CD-Host wrote:
Delete"I wouldn't call Mounce scholarly literature."
That's another irrational assertion that you've given us no reason to agree with.
You write:
"The problem with the theory that he isn't using a proper noun here is then the sentence becomes rather vague, whose gnostic contradictions are we talking about?"
See the passages in 1 and 2 Timothy where Paul names some individuals, the passages I documented earlier. Even if he hadn't named anybody, it wouldn't follow that we should see a reference to Marcion's work in 1 Timothy 6:20. The New Testament authors, like other authors, often advance general principles without getting into much detail. We see that repeatedly in Paul's other letters. If Paul's audience knew some of the details he had in mind, there wouldn't be a need for him to discuss many of those details.
You write:
"The theme is all over the place in the pastorals."
Paul addresses a large variety of themes in the pastorals. There isn't any one group that aligns with every concern he addresses. Given how little we know of the heresies and individuals working against orthodoxy in the first century, we can't identify many of the details that made up the background to Paul's letters. He sometimes names some of the people he has in mind, discusses some of his experiences with them, and describes their location or other details, but a lot is left unsaid as well. We have better evidence for a first-century date than a second-century one (the two-tier system of church government, the absence of the individuals Paul names in second-century history, the widespread external attestation to the letters' first-century date, their widespread influence on second-century sources, etc.).
You write:
"In general your theory is that Paul decided to write a book using 2nd century language language which doesn't appear anywhere else in his writings or other 1st century and early 2nd century Christian language. This book contains 2nd century themes. We should ignore the fact that the book is unknown in the early 2nd century as unimportant."
You're putting words in my mouth that I never said or suggested. I even said the opposite of what you claim I said concerning the pastorals' presence in the early second century. You're not making much of an effort to accurately represent what I've said or to interact with the arguments against your position.
You write:
"You can keep with the 'it is possible', 'it is possible'.... type defense."
That's another misrepresentation. My position is that Pauline authorship is probable. I've given reasons for holding that position, most of which you've ignored.
ReplyDeleteIf a document originated in the middle of the second century, it's doubtful that so few people would have been skeptical of its authenticity.
And you base that one what?
There are allusions to 1 Timothy in the literature of the early second century. Who was concerned with responding to Marcion at that point?
The proto-Catholic church which is either coming out of the Marcionic movement or competing with it. The early 2nd century is the height of Marcionic Christianity. The later decades Montanism becomes a more serious problem.
Furthermore, my argument doesn't depend on Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy, much less 1 Timothy. Even if 2 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, it's an early source that makes historical claims about the apostle.
Not earlier than 90 CE
And you're ignoring the other sources I've cited, which are widely accepted as predating the year 90 (Matthew, Mark, Acts).
I can accept Mark as being very likely pre-90 CE. Matthew is borderline and Acts I'd reject.
The point is that disagreement among Titanic sources on some issues doesn't prevent us from believing some of them on those issues and all of them on others.
I agree. We look at the extent of the disagreement.
I was addressing his martyrdom, and we have multiple early sources that are consistent on the subject.
You were asking about sources that are disagreeing with each other's accounts. If the timelines don't match up so that effectively some sources have him running a church in Antioch at the same time others have him dead in Rome that's disagreement between the sources which before you were claiming wasn't the case.
CD-Host wrote:
Delete"And you base that one what?"
If a document supposedly written by Paul doesn't appear until about a century after his death, it's not difficult to discern that the document is suspicious. I've written an entire series of posts on the New Testament canon, including some articles on the reliability of the early Christians' canonical judgments. See here. And here's a broader index of posts on canonical issues.
You write:
"The proto-Catholic church which is either coming out of the Marcionic movement or competing with it."
You've given us no definition of "the Marcionic movement", much less have you given us evidence of its alleged presence in the opening years of the second century.
You write:
"Not earlier than 90 CE"
All you've cited in justification of the 90 date is your misreading of a quote I provided from a skeptic's blog. He didn't set that cutoff date, and I wouldn't be obligated to abide by it even if he did. 2 Timothy would be a relevant source even if it originated after 90. And you've given us no reason to date it later than 90 anyway.
You write:
"I can accept Mark as being very likely pre-90 CE. Matthew is borderline and Acts I'd reject."
So what? You're not giving us any reason to agree with you.
You write:
"We look at the extent of the disagreement."
Which you haven't done with regard to the martyrdom of the apostles. That's the topic of the thread, and you aren't saying much about it. As I said above, either improve the quality of your posts or stop posting. You're wasting everybody's time.
You write:
"If the timelines don't match up so that effectively some sources have him running a church in Antioch at the same time others have him dead in Rome that's disagreement between the sources which before you were claiming wasn't the case."
The sources I cited on Peter's martyrdom, in my series on the death of the apostles, don't disagree in the manner you're describing. Even if they did, it wouldn't follow that any of them, let alone all of them, are wrong in saying that Peter was martyred.
You've given us no definition of "the Marcionic movement", much less have you given us evidence of its alleged presence in the opening years of the second century.
DeleteMarcion has established a major church that lasts for several centuries and has had political problems in and outside the church. He is dead either by 144 or 160. We know by the 120 Pauline writings are circulating and from anti-Paulinists we know that Marcion is the source. We know that he is older than Valentinus and established by the time Valentinus starts preaching and teaching. And those fights start most likely by 118 CE.
And I do not think I need to establish basic facts about Christian history.
____
If you want to shift the date to 99 CE for cutoff that's fine. He did say "90s" not "90".
So what? You're not giving us any reason to agree with you [on dating of Acts and Gospels]
This runs the other way. You are the one making the affirmative case here that there are early witnesses. You are the one who needs them dated early. That being said, I'm not choosing an unusually late date for Matthew I'm pretty mainstream there in saying it is borderline.
As I said above, either improve the quality of your posts or stop posting. You're wasting everybody's time.
Fine with me. You are sort of an asshole.
CD-Host wrote:
Delete"Marcion has established a major church that lasts for several centuries and has had political problems in and outside the church. He is dead either by 144 or 160. We know by the 120 Pauline writings are circulating and from anti-Paulinists we know that Marcion is the source. We know that he is older than Valentinus and established by the time Valentinus starts preaching and teaching. And those fights start most likely by 118 CE. And I do not think I need to establish basic facts about Christian history."
You're not giving us "basic facts". You're giving us an unsupported summary of your view that's too vague at critical points and relies on some disputed claims. What are the "Pauline writings" you refer to? How do we "know from anti-Paulinists" that "Marcion is the source"? In what way was Marcion "established"? Etc.
You write:
"If you want to shift the date to 99 CE for cutoff that's fine. He did say '90s' not '90'."
Where are you getting 99 from? I quoted a skeptic who said that First Clement is traditionally dated to "the early 90's". It doesn't follow that we should have a cutoff date of 99 for sources on the apostles' martyrdom. You continue to frame this discussion in a way that doesn't make sense and relies on distortions of something I quoted from a skeptic's blog. Why should we take that skeptic's comments as our standard for a cutoff date, and why do you keep misrepresenting what that skeptic said?
You write:
"This runs the other way. You are the one making the affirmative case here that there are early witnesses. You are the one who needs them dated early. That being said, I'm not choosing an unusually late date for Matthew I'm pretty mainstream there in saying it is borderline."
You've made affirmative claims as well, including about the dating of the documents. In my series on the martyrdom of the apostles, I point the readers to some resources on issues like authorship and dating. As I explained to you early in this discussion, there's no need to reinvent the wheel. Given how irrational, inconsistent, and evasive you've been so far, I don't see the sense in expanding upon the sources I've already cited. You keep expecting your opponents to do far more work than you're willing to do, and you irrationally ignore or dismiss so much of what they do provide you.
You've now shifted your cutoff date from 90 to 99. Earlier, you said that Matthew's dating within the 90 timeframe is "borderline". Are you now saying that whether Matthew was written in the year 100 or later is borderline as well? If so, calling that position "pretty mainstream" is pretty duplicitous.
You write:
"You are sort of an asshole."
That sort of comment tells us more about you than about me.
You still haven't said much about the apostles' martyrdom, which is the focus of this thread. You continue to waste everybody's time. Don't post again, here or anywhere else on the blog.
CD-Host,
ReplyDeleteSeveral problems:
“There is a Greek word for "absurdities" and 1Timothy doesn't use it.”
The word means “contradictions.” It makes sense in the context it appears in. The NET translators rightly decided that such a wooden translation doesn’t sound right in English. Others who wrote in Greek before Marcion used the word, its not like he invented it.
“The rest of your translation is far too figurative as well. Try this.”
I can read Greek. I’ve checked the NET translators (who are more qualified than you) work against the Greek text. You, like the people whose position your endorse, try too hard to make the epistle sound ethereal.
“As for the Titanic and Robin Gardiner. I don't know anything about the titanic. But I'm happy to exclude tiny fractions when talking about a consensus view.”
Not when it comes to things you disagree with, apparently (canonical Luke being an extension of Marcion’s Gospel rather than Luke being the Gospel that Marcion took a razor too). We can’t even be sure which ship sank. That’s the point. That’s way more serious than difficulties in reconciling chronologies.
“I wouldn't call Mounce scholarly literature.”
Your ignorant problem.
“That being said I agree the term used makes sense in context to some extent. The problem with the theory that he isn't using a proper noun here is then the sentence becomes rather vague, whose gnostic contradictions are we talking about?”
Nonsense. Paul’s talking about contradicting, false knowledge. False teachers existed in the first century. You’re reading a first century epistle through second century, heretical eyes.
“In general your theory is that Paul decided to write a book using 2nd century language language which doesn't appear anywhere else in his writings”
We do not posses a sufficient amount of writing from Paul to make this sort of argument. Paul wasn’t a robot. His language changed with time. His language changed based on who he was writing to.
Said to Jason: “Fine with me. You are sort of an a######.”
Meh. At least Jason can write a coherent sentence.