How do we know when the Gospels were written?

Because Justin spoke ... Latin? See my Message 75

Greetings,

quote:

---

It seems to me that someone is making the big mistake of assuming that a quote of Clement should read like our modern English translations. Clement probably had the original Greek, and whoever translated Clement used different English to render it. Obviously the meaning is identical, although the phrasing differs.
  —Faith

---

Nonsense.
This has nothing to do with minor issues of word order etc.Clement does NOT quote any Gospel, a quote would say something like
"remember the words of Jesus from our Gospel of Matthew..."
And,
the supposed "quote" as found in Clement is NOT found in G.Matthew.Instead, two different passages from Matthew, eight CHAPTERS away from each other, with similarities to the Clement quote, are re-arranged, modified, and put back together.Then, apologists claim Clement "quoted" this re-hashed conflation of two widely separated passages.What nonsense.In reality of course, the facts are clear :
* Clement did NOT even use the word "Gospel"
* Clement did NOT even mention any Gospel or author, anywhere.
* Clement did NOT even mention any WRITING.Instead we get a SAYING, attributed to Jesus.
This saying is NOT found, as quoted, in Matthew.
It is merely SIMILAR to TWO widely separate passages in G.Matthew.Then, this saying is later found in OTHER DIFFERENT versions in other Gospels - clear evidence it was merely a SAYING, a Chinese-whisper, which grew and changed over the years.As for Gospels dates - the first mention of the Gospels is from early-mid 2nd century, they were still being changed during the 2nd century, and were only finally named late 2nd century.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

Because Justin spoke ... Latin?
  —Faith

---

Hmmm...
You think that translations CHANGE the meaning of words do you?Consider that Justin said Jesus rose on the EIGHTH day!So,
your argument is that "eight" is the Latin translation for "three" in Greek is it?What nonsense.Justin quotes Gospels which are NOT quite like ours and which were NOT yet named.They were still in a state of flux in that period - changes were still being made, such as the change of the words of GOD(!) at the baptism in the Jordan from
"..this day have I begotten thee"
to
"...in thee I am well-pleased".Because the first version (straight from Psalms) smacked of heresy, so it was changed.The Gospels arose long after the time of Jesus, from anonymous hands, of people not living in Jerusalem. They were not finalised and named until late 2nd century.Iasion

I'm okay with you arguing that Clement MIGHT have been quoting something other than Mark. That's a reasonable enough assertion, but it is simply not true that your link "shows that Clement did NOT quote a written Gospel at all."Clement quoted everything loosely. There weren't Bibles available at local bookstores back then. He might well have been quoting a written Gospel. I'm okay with your asserting that.Ignatius and Polycarp don't quote the Gospel of John. That's a big deal, because they were bishops in John's churches.It's hard to push anything back much later than that, though, because Irenaeus knows of the four Gospels, and while he wrote in AD 185, he was in his 60's at the time, and combined with Justin's knowledge of "the memoirs of the apostles, known as the Gospels" there's really not any doubt they were all written in the early first century AT THE LATEST.I jumped all over chapalot's posts because there was so much nonsense in them. I don't mind reasonably looking at these issues, as long as we're being reasonable. Chapalot is being an evangelist for an imaginary gnostic/Jewish combined religion.

I did notice these things, and my guess is that there was no reason to mention the names of the Gospels, and that Justin was quoting from memory. That is what is normally assumed when quotes are not given word for word accurately, which is what is normal for that time.Your point, I assume, is that the Gospels Justin mentioned might be different from our four. That seems extremely unlikely, given that a 60-year-old Irenaeus, who lived in Gaul, but hailed from Smyrna and interacted often with Roman bishops (where Justin was from), knew about the four Gospels by name and spoke as though it had always been like that.You can argue that Justin doesn't give the names, so his reference doesn't prove it's the same four. True enough, but it does prove that there was more than one Gospel in his time, written down, that he assumed to be by the apostles. Irenaeus' age makes him a relatively contemporary reference to Justin, and he does give the names. He only wrote 30 years later, and in Irenaeus time the references to the Gospels and their having been around a long time are universal.

Justin didn't mean eight days later, he meant that Jesus rose on Sunday. It's the same terminology used by both Barnabas and Ignatius in their letters. I can see someone asserting this. Stating it like it's fact and that the Gospels were still changing in his time is a large presumption. Do you have any references suggesting the Gospel was changed from "this day I have begotten thee?" at Christ's baptism. Who are you saying quoted it that way or what manuscript are you saying has it that way?

truthlover wrote:

quote:

---

Do you have any references suggesting the Gospel was changed from "this day I have begotten thee?" at Christ's baptism. Who are you saying quoted it that way or what manuscript are you saying has it that way?

---

I can supply a way to find out about this and other similar changes in excruciating detail. Many of them are carefully laid out and discussed in the book “the Orthodox corruption of Scripture”, available here: shortened link
It’s by a world renowned bible scholar who refers to the manuscripts by name, and often shows the greek. It helps to be able to read greek, but I found that even without knowing greek it was quite accessible, and not so long as to be daunting. One thing I learned is that the KJV preserves the largest number of known changes compared to the newer bible translations, which are based on older manuscripts.The one discussed here (“today I have begotten you”) is discussed, along with the evidence for and against it, and the different possible ways to look at the evidence. Many, many others are discussed. Dozens of them are quite well supported by the evidence, while more than that are only poorly supported by the evidence. The Author is clear in which appear well supported and which don’t (he doesn’t try to make one that’s poorly supported seem likely).Also - quotes have been done carefully or sloppily by people throughout history. I don't think that the standard was to use sloppy quotes in the time period we are discussing. For instance, the DSS, which are a little older, contain tons of very careful instances of quoting the OT while discussing the scripture. To pass the sloppyness of some church fathers/gospel writers off as "the norm for the time" seems like a stretch.Enjoy!-Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

truthlover wrote:

quote:

---

It's hard to push anything back much later than that, though, because Irenaeus knows of the four Gospels, and while he wrote in AD 185, he was in his 60's at the time, and combined with Justin's knowledge of "the memoirs of the apostles, known as the Gospels" there's really not any doubt they were all written in the early first century AT THE LATEST.

---

I largely agree - the Irenaeus evidence seems pretty solid, and while I don't think Justin shows evidence of the gospels in final form, it does show that something was going around that would evolve into our four gospels. I think this shows an easily missed point about dating the gospels - it seems very likely that they started in one form, and were each changed a little over time. So which date is THE date of writing? When the first parts were written that eventually ended up in, say, G. John (probably 90s CE) or when the most recent additions that we preserve were written (for G. John, chap 8 was probably written in the middle ages). Same for the last chaper of mark - its well known to be a later redaction.Based on that spread of dates, I'm not surprised when fundamentalists claim the earliest date (referring the earliest start) as the date of the whole thing. P52 is a good example, reliably dated to 120-130, I've heard fundamentalists use it's existence to claim that the whole gospel of John was done before that time, even though P52 is a tiny scrap with only a few sentences on it.Have a fun day-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Thanks for the info. There are some question marks with Josephus. There are two places where Josephus mentions Jesus. One of them clearly is embedding in a long and well known Christian forgery. The debate is whether or not both are complete forgeries, or if any little fragment of either goes back to Josephus. As I understand it, we don't have extrememly ancient MSS.However, if we do, and your information that they don't contain the passages at all is correct, then Josephus indeed fails to support the idea that Jesus existed, and our only extrabiblical source about Jesus from the whole first century would be gone.

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Faith wrote

quote:

---

Oh well, if you're going to discount the Book of Acts and all the other things Christians rely on, and bring up the rumor game we all played in grade school as if it never occurred to us, there's no discussing anything with you. Have a good day..

---

It’s not that I discount it, it’s that I treat it the same way I treat any other claim, be that the magna carta, the DSS, the Odyssey, the Qu’ran, a campaign commercial, you name it. All are subject to logical testing based on the evidence. I don’t mollycoddle one source just because my parents told me to (though they did tell me to, I was raised Christian).What alternative is there? Why not just accept everything hook, line and sinker? After all, it’s easier to just believe Acts hook, line and sinker than to evaluate it. Because then I’m living in a fantasy world, with no solid footing in reality. Or, as Jefferson put it:

quote:

---

Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.

---

-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.Have a good weekend-

Equinox, that link didn't help much, because I don't want to buy a book. I did do a search on Google, found a reference that Clement of Alexandria quoted it that way, and then I found it in The Instructor Book I, Ch. 6. The name normally given for that writing is Pedagog..., but I can't ever remember how to spell the rest of the word.It's also found that way in the Gospel to the Hebrews (is that still extant??), according to a web site that says it's based on the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica. Well, I'm just speaking from experience. I've read the first three volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers set all the way through and most of the first two volumes I've read at least twice. Even for Paul's letters and especially Hebrews in the Bible, you better not be hoping for word for word quotes, even from the LXX. Matthew's Gospel conflates two prophecies, one not from Jeremiah and the other a stretch, and attributes them to Jeremiah.It is common enough to have affected me as I read both the NT and the fathers to make me not expect exact quotes. By "the norm," I don't mean every time. I'm sure some were great at quoting, and actually, Justin is one of the best, overall, the quotes are not word for word more often than not, I'd say. Clement's letter is one of the worst.Edited by truthlover, : Fixed a code and added reference to Encyclopedia Britannica

quote:

---

It's also found that way in the Gospel to the Hebrews (is that still extant??),

---

Apparently not, it appears the original gosel was about the size of Mt, but now only a few quoted lines are available.Gospel of the HebrewsI remember that most the data suggest that was the original form, but don't have book with me.

quote:

---

Well, I'm just speaking from experience. I've read the first three volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers set all the way through and most of the first two volumes I've read at least twice. Even for Paul's letters and especially Hebrews in the Bible, you better not be hoping for word for word quotes, even from the LXX. Matthew's Gospel conflates two prophecies, one not from Jeremiah and the other a stretch, and attributes them to Jeremiah.

​

It is common enough to have affected me as I read both the NT and the fathers

---

Yeah. It may be an early-Christian subcultural thing that was not the case in wider society, since all the writings you mention are from that subculture.have a fun weekend, I won't be back until monday-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Have a good weekend. I'm often not available on weekends, either.It's been a pleasure discussing with you, even though I suspect we'd disagree on our whole worldview, it's nice talking to someone who seems to want to say what's so rather than what he wishes were so.

Greetings,

quote:

---

I'm okay with you arguing that Clement MIGHT have been quoting something other than Mark.
  —truthlover

---

Hmmm...
I did not say that. I would appreciate if you would read my comments properly.I said Clement repeats SAYINGS of Jesus. He does NOT "quote" the Gospels.

quote:

---

That's a reasonable enough assertion, but it is simply not true that your link "shows that Clement did NOT quote a written Gospel at all."
  —truthlover

---

I think it does, I invite other readers to look.
I offered an argument with facts, you simply replied with an opinion with no facts or argument.

quote:

---

Clement quoted everything loosely.
  —truthlover

---

No he didn't.
You didn't even read my page on Clement did you?I showed that Clement quotes :
* the Tanakh as WRITTEN scripture about 100 times.
* Paul as wise WRITINGS about 100 times.Sometimes he specifically NAMES the Tanakh BOOKS and the BOOKS of Paul he is quoting.So, your claim is wrong - Clement DOES quote, 100s of times from BOOKS of which he NAMES the source.

quote:

---

There weren't Bibles available at local bookstores back then. He might well have been quoting a written Gospel.
  —truthlover

---

What?
He DOES quote from Tanakh and Paul as WRITINGS.But, when it comes to the Gospels, all we get is a couple of SAYINGS which are NOT quite like the bible. This is clear evidence he is not quoting a Gospel.A quote would be like
"remember the words of Jesus written in the Gospel of Matthew..."If Clement knew any Gospels, he would have quoted them endlessly, like later writers do. Instead we get merely 2 or 3 conflicting SAYINGS of Jesus which do NOT match the Gospels.

quote:

---

I'm okay with your asserting that.
  —truthlover

---

I showed it is reasonable conclusion with facts and argument. You just ignored my argument entirely - e.g. you totally ignored the fact that the passage supposedly from Matthew is found in two places EIGHT chapters apart. And the words don't evern match properly.

quote:

---

...and while he wrote in AD 185, he was in his 60's at the time, and combined with Justin's knowledge of "the memoirs of the apostles, known as the Gospels" there's really not any doubt they were all written in the early first century AT THE LATEST.
  —truthlover

---

What the?
You jumped from 185 straight to 1st century without ANY argument at all. Pure wishful thinking. NT scholars do NOT agree with your faithful claims.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

I did notice these things, and my guess is that there was no reason to mention the names of the Gospels,
  —truthlover

---

He DOES mention the names of the books -
He says they are the "memoirs of the apostles".
He also says thay are "called "Gospels"
He also calls the Gospels of Mark the "memoirs of Peter".
This is clear and present evidence that the books he quotes were not yet named for the four evangelists.Anyway - this idea that someone would not "need" to mention the evangelists.Hello?
These people were the founding fathers of your religion. Later Christians name them endlessly, with even LESS "need", because they are hugely important authorities for Christians. Later writers have less "need" but mention the names repeatedly, but somehow the earliest writers (who obviously had the most "need") failed to.It's obvious - these early writers had never heard of the names of the Gospels. It is becoming a consensus that the Gospels were only finally named by Irenaeus c. 185. Before that, they were anonymous.

quote:

---

and that Justin was quoting from memory.
  —truthlover

---

Why?
Did Justin LOSE these famous books?

quote:

---

That is what is normally assumed when quotes are not given word for word accurately, which is what is normal for that time.
  —truthlover

---

Nonsense.
You are assuming your conclusion.
The evidence shows that Justin had variant Gospels, un-named.

quote:

---

Your point, I assume, is that the Gospels Justin mentioned might be different from our four.
  —truthlover

---

I said that the Gospels Justin quotes do NOT match ours exactly. That is what the facts shows.

quote:

---

That seems extremely unlikely, given that a 60-year-old Irenaeus, who lived in Gaul, but hailed from Smyrna and interacted often with Roman bishops (where Justin was from), knew about the four Gospels by name and spoke as though it had always been like that.
  —truthlover

---

Irenaeus is the first to name the Gospels.
He does NOT claim it had "always been like that" at all.
His reason for there being four Gospels is because their are four winds, four cherubs etc.

quote:

---

You can argue that Justin doesn't give the names, so his reference doesn't prove it's the same four.
  —truthlover

---

You misunderstood. I said the Gospels Justin quotes from are NOT EXACTLY like ours - the quotes he gives do NOT always match our Gospels exactly. I did NOT claim he had a different 4.

quote:

---

True enough, but it does prove that there was more than one Gospel in his time, written down, that he assumed to be by the apostles.
  —truthlover

---

Um, we already know there were DOZENS of Gospels by this time. Didn't you know that?

quote:

---

Irenaeus' age makes him a relatively contemporary reference to Justin, and he does give the names. He only wrote 30 years later,
  —truthlover

---

Irenaeus NAMES the Evangelists, Justin does NOT name them.
Yet you really think Irenaeus's naming them proves that 30 years before, Justin (who did NOT name them) knew their names, even though he did NOT ever mention them.Why do you think that?

quote:

---

and in Irenaeus time the references to the Gospels and their having been around a long time are universal.
  —truthlover

---

Please cite your evidence for that.What about Aristides who claims the Gospel had only been preached a short time in the period 139-161 ?Iasion