Desposyni

Originally posted by Leroy Do you have any historical evidence that the four Gospels included in the canon of the New Testament were edited with an agenda in mind or is your opinion, stated as fact, based on an evaluation? The gnostic gospels are without historical value not because they were edited (I do not claim or know if they were) but because they lack any sort of connection to the apostolic period or the people associated with the apostles (such as Ignatius or Polycarp whom contradict them). They were actively opposed from the very beginning by Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp, for historical reasons: these [gnostic] doctrines, the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions of the apostles, did not deliver to you. So the historical evidence is quite clear that the gnostic gospels have nothing to do with the relevant people or period. They had been written in roughly the time the NT ones were written, so have absolutely the same claim to be treated in the same way as the NT one are. No, they were written decades after and most of them at least a century. How is all this relevant historically? With all due respect, but we are having a historical discussion?

That the NT gospels were edited is obvious - they were selected among all others circiulating around writings for a reason. What was this reason - because they fit or didn't contradict what was emerging as a Christian doctrine, as molded with whatever agendas in mind. Which is OK - history is not exact scoence, and each historical POV has one agenda or another - that's why a historian measure them and cross them with each other to weed out the agendas.

It's not necessary the gospels to have been connected with the apostles per to show what variety of people were thinking about Jesus and his story. In the case, the Gnostic gospels show what the gnostic were thinking about it.

And yes, we are having a historical discussion, not a theological one, and the first duty of a historian is to doubt his sources, /especially those that were frankly religious or political, in the case the Nt gospels are both/, and treat all of them in the same way, exstracting from them what can possibly be historically true and recognize what is fantastic and impossible. And in the case of your example, Mary being and staying a virgin is as impossible and fantastic as Jesus killing his playmates and blinding their parents.

Anyway, in the same way in which you use writings of the early church fathers to show that certain people at that time were thinking that Mary was a virgin, one can use the Gnostic ones to show that other people weren't thinking that at all. In the case Sidney proved quite convincingly that the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin is a late idea, possibly from 4th century AD, and has nothing to do with the early Christian movement.

The Early Church Fathers are with nothing more reliable than the Gnostics were - both groups of thinkers show what people with different interests and POV were thinking about teh matter. The first one poured Greek philosophy in their POV, the second poured bunch of Hermetic, Mitraistic, Zoroastrian, etc elements. Both groups can only show what people though about Mary, not what Mary really was, and as such they have the same value. That one of the groups made an organized religion, and the other withered and vanish means nothing as to the claim of truth in their works.

I'll find info on exactly how old which gospel is, and how do they compare with each other.

Well, Leroy, the Book of Mormon is as human written as the NT gospels, and the connection between the NT gospels and the apostles is as imagined as is a possible one between the gnostic ones and the apostles, or the Book of Mormon and them. The NT gospels weren't written by apostles, we don't know who wrote them, nor were they written by one person to start with. Most of them were copied from Mark, and Mark was edited as it's end. So, there is no apostolic  connection between the gospels and apostles, and the Book of Mormon only shows how religions are made - by humans with agendas. The NT gospels are as 'sacred' as the Book of Mormon is, and it's only faith, not objective info, that makes people to think otherwise. I told you, I put all religions in one and the same bag - the Catholic or any other Christian doctrine is not anything more special, more valid, or more true than the Mormon one is, or the cult of John Frum, for that matter - it's all mythology. There are like 38,000 Christian denominations, and each one claims some unique license on truth - and I don't know how many other religions, cults, etc, in the history of humanity - and they have exactly the same right to claim what they see as truth as you and the Early Church Fathers have, So, let's keep theology away from historical discussion, shall we?

All the NT gospels were written decades after the events:
1. Matthew, ascribed to the apostle Matthew, was actually written at the end of the 1st century - and was drawn from 3 sources, Mark included - if it was written by an actual apostle, it would not need other 3 sources to draw from.

2. Mark - written in 70 AD, the earliest one, relies on several underlining sources, and wasn't written in the tradition of Peter's preaching; it was written in Syria or Palestine and later incorporated in the tradition. Also, the earliest  original we have was edited, with his last page most probably torn off, since the text ends in verse 16:8 with a conjunction, and no one ends a text like that; the verses 16:9-20 were added later, as to show how the gospels were edited to fit agendas - this is the only historical proof we have of that, but it's telling enough; who knows how many editions the other gospels had we don;t even suspect about.

3. Like - written 75-100 AD, drew on Matthew, Mark and 2 other sources, is written in Greek for a non-Greek audience, by a person who was educated in  Hellenic tradition.
4. John was written in 90-100 AD by a person who was acquented with the Greek philosophy and the was Philo of Alexandria connected  Plato's Logos with the Hebrew god, and references the O from it's Greek translation, the Septuaginta - he wasn't an apostle, because he was too well educated, probably Greek, and not the ordinary people Jesus picked up to be his apostles.

A detailed analysis of the NT gospels can be found in "The Historical Jesus" by Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, 1996; I access it on Questia but I cannot copy from it, most lamentably. Anyway, according to it Mark,  and the source "Q" that can be reconstructed from the gospels, together with other material which went in Matthew and Luke, each of those sources represents a independent tradition, whether oral or written /pg. 25/. The content of those sources is related, that's why they say roughly the same story. Also, Mark we know from 3rd century forward wasn't the only version of him available - and this is proven through the instability of the text, etc, - so there were several Marks to go around - this is circumspective proof that what we have was edited, more than once, so get to the result we have. Also, on pg. 26 it's comperehensively proven that the text wasn't written in Rome by Peter /as the Catholic tradition claims/, but in Syria, in 70 AD, during the Jewish-Roman War, by an unknown person, maybe theologian, who collected some versions and combined them in one. So, the facts coming out as a result of textological analysis prove that Mrk is not written by Peter, nor by an apostle, not is it a evewitness by any means. The story of the other gospels is similar, the whoever penned them using Mark as a base plus some other lore; so, there is no apostolic tradition or authority  in them.

So, none of them were written by an apostle, and none of them actually claims to be written by such, this is a myth that they were.
The Gnostic Gospels found in Nag Hammadi were dated between 3 and 4 century, but those are the dates of the buried manuscripts only; Thomas was compiled circa 140 AD, the oral material for it is is most probably older, from 50-100 AD "... But recently Professor Helmut Koester of Harvard University has suggested that the collection of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, although compiled c. 140, may include some traditions even older than the gospels of the New Testament, "possibly as early as the second half of the first century" (50-100)--as early as, or earlier, than Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John...." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html

The Protoevangelicum of James that we cited dates 145 AD, the same date as the Gnostic Thomas. Thank you for your post on Clement, /I haven't read him/, but no matter who said that Mary was a virgin, I cannot accept this a a possible proof for her being so, because reality shows differently; it can only testify what people thought about that; and Clement lived 150-215 AD, so, we was born 1 year after the Gnostic Thomas was compiled, and the Nag Hammadi library was dated. So, I don't see with what the Protovenajelicum of James is more valid than the gnostic Thomas - except that one one is considered "heretical" and the other not, with is a theological distinction, not a historical one' Clement, if everything, is later that whoever wrote Thomas.

So, no, the virgin birth doctrine doesn't predate the Gnostic gospels, on the opposite, it came about later that the time  they were written, let alone the time the oral material for them was collected. The Virgin birth doctrine was solidified by Christian phisolophers how lived in 4th century, like Athanasius, Epiphanius, etc, even Hyppolitus lived in the 3rd. There isn't any reason why I have to accept a philosophical doctrine that is based on nothing else but human musing, done by people with very earthly interests and agendas. I see the Gnostic gospels with the same value as the writings of the said and quoted by you Christian philosophers.



Edited by Don Quixote - 11-Apr-2012 at 22:09

I don't have much free time currently. I'll try address both post posts this weekend. 

Sorry for the late response, I have less free time now that I work for a living.

Yes, the Book of Mormon is as humanly written as the canonical Gospels. My point is that the Book of Mormon, like the gnostic gospels, has no connection to the period or the people it writes about. How can late second and third century gnostic gospels have the same level of historical value as first century Christian writings concerning first century events?

There are like 38,000 Christian denominations, and each one claims some unique license on truth - and I don't know how many other religions, cults, etc, in the history of humanity - and they have exactly the same right to claim what they see as truth as you and the Early Church Fathers have,

How many of those denominations were existent in apostolic times? What does it matter?

So, let's keep theology away from historical discussion, shall we?

I do not view history from a naturalistic perspective, but where did I make a theological argument?

All the NT gospels were written decades after the events:

I agree.

Anyway, according to it Mark,  and the source "Q" that can be reconstructed from the gospels, together with other material which went in Matthew and Luke, each of those sources represents a independent tradition, whether oral or written /pg. 25/.

The Q source hypothesis is based on inductive reasoning, so it is not a logical or epistemically justified conclusion

Also, Mark we know from 3rd century forward wasn't the only version of him available - and this is proven through the instability of the text, etc, - so there were several Marks to go around - this is circumspective proof that what we have was edited, more than once, so get to the result we have.

The textual variations are minor, one or two letters in a few words and a minor variation in a place name. There is one other early version, the difference being that it has a shorter ending of Mark (chapter 16). There are some differences to be found in fourth century manuscripts, but those are fourth century manuscripts.

Also, on pg. 26 it's comperehensively proven that the text wasn't written in Rome by Peter /as the So, the facts coming out as a result of textological analysis prove that Mrk is not written by Peter, nor by an apostle, not is it a evewitness by any means. The story of the other gospels is similar, the whoever penned them using Mark as a base plus some other lore; so, there is no apostolic tradition or authority  in them.

Inductive reasoning.

So, none of them were written by an apostle, and none of them actually claims to be written by such, this is a myth that they were.

I am not arguing for direct authorship (see my post on authorship).

The Gnostic Gospels found in Nag Hammadi were dated between 3 and 4 century, but those are the dates of the buried manuscripts only; Thomas was compiled circa 140 AD, the oral material for it is is most probably older, from 50-100 AD "... But recently Professor Helmut Koester of Harvard University has suggested that the collection of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, although compiled c. 140, may include some traditions even older than the gospels of the New Testament, "possibly as early as the second half of the first century" (50-100)--as early as, or earlier, than Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John...." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html

Not most probably, unless you have a confirmation bias. Only one fragment of the Gospel of Thomas can be dated before 200. There are no references to the Gospel of Thomas before 222-235. No one dates the Gospel of Thomas to the first century. If you read Helmut Koester (thanks for the reference) and other so-called early camp scholars (see list on Wikipedia) you will see that they are actually dating the composition of a hypothetical Q source, and not the Gospel of Thomas which they hypothesize may have preserved some of Q's non-existent text. By comparison, the Gospel of Mathew is generally dated to between 62 and 69. The Gospel of Matthew is directly quoted in the Didache (50-100), by Ignatius (35-108), and Polycarp (69-155). Papias (before 69-?) identifies Matthew as its author.

Thank you for your post on Clement, /I haven't read him/, but no matter who said that Mary was a virgin, I cannot accept this a a possible proof for her being so, because reality shows differently;

How do you prove history?

As for my argument, from historical evidence and the lack of it, it was to show that Mary did not have any other children than Jesus or that there is at least there is no reason to assume that she did. Maybe I'm wrong, you are invited to correct me by using earlier historical sources than mine.

So, I don't see with what the Protovenajelicum of James is more valid than the gnostic Thomas - except that one one is considered "heretical" and the other not, with is a theological distinction, not a historical one' Clement, if everything, is later that whoever wrote Thomas.

Clement most likely died a few decades before the Gospel of Thomas was written (not that it matters). The exact date for the Gospel of James is not known, the estimation is based on a parallel tradition found in St. Justin Martyr (100-165). The Gospel of James has some importantance because it does not contradict earlier (or later) writings and is connected by tradition, unlike the gnostic gospels.

So, no, the virgin birth doctrine doesn't predate the Gnostic gospels, on the opposite, it came about later that the time  they were written, let alone the time the oral material for them was collected.

The virgin birth is clear from the canonical Gospels and the early writers such as Ignatius (35-117) Smyrnaeans 1, 1 (truly born of a virgin), Ephesians 19, 1 (hidden were the virginity of Mary). Maybe you are confusing it with Mary's continued virginity, in which case you are still mistaken by at least a century (see previous posts, Irenaeus (130-202), Heresies, 5, (The human race . . . is rescued by a virgin; balanced . . . by virginal obedience), Clement (150-215), Stromata, 7, 16 (which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin), Gospel of James). Even outside of the context of the birth of Jesus, the early Fathers continue to call Mary the Virgin or the Virgin Mary in their writings. This does not make any sense if she was not supposed to have continued a virgin.

Nick, I will respond to your message when I have some free time again. I've read the Gospel of Philip, it actually says that Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. By the way, the gospel (fourth century manuscript) is dated late third century by its translator, third century seems to be the general consensus. What gnostic gospels actually say or imply that Mary was not a virgin or did not continue to be one? I would like to read them and see if there are any first or early second century references to them.

I'm on the last 1/4 pf the "Magdalene Legacy" by Laurence Gardner, and I have to admit that it's gets quite improbable, even though not as much as the NT gospels, etc. The gist of it as I see it, is that Jesus was from the regal line of David, and his parents were Essenes, that he didn't die on the cross, instead live a long good life, having daughter first and then a son, who became, as time went, the forebears of the Fisher kings, and eventually, King Arthur.  He interprets many things in the NT in a purely symbolical ways, for which I would like to see his sources.

The whole story reads like a good novel, but I have to admit that it has it's inner logic, and, all in all, tells bout things of life - people are born, get married, die, etc; he connects quite a few legends, /like Joseph of Arimathea ending up in Britain/, art symbolism, medieval lore and poems, and they somehow make sense. Does that makes his book history - I don't think so; but then, more does the NT have any right to pass itself as history per se, nor any theological work based on it.

In short, I tend to consider the "Jesus Bloodline" theory as  more probable than the Christian theory on the matter, at least it doesn't contradict the basic realities of life. OTOH, there is too much symbolic interpretations on events that don't seem to need such treatment - something that is spread too thin, as they say in Bulgaria "feels like someone sucked it from her fingers".
If anyone has read it and has an opinion on it, I'd be grateful if he/she shares it here.




Edited by Don Quixote - 24-Apr-2012 at 23:27

Re; The New Testament vs Gardner

The early Christian mythologising of Jesus was part of an expectation within their contemporary literature and beliefs. It was often customary for a hero to have a divine father, or divine approval of their birth, and to have portents surrounding their career and death (Alexander the Great, Pythagoras, Romulus, Vespasian, Appollonaris, Augustus, etc). It is not surprising that stories like this were attached to Jesus (whether you believe he ever existed or not). You can trace some of these stories as they snowballed and expanded down through the centuries (including IMO the divine nature of Christ, the virgin birth, the harrowing of hell, the career of John the Evangelist, etc). Early Christians claimed Jesus as someone special, and presented what their peers expected from the biography of someone special.

Laurence Gardner however is claiming to be an academic historian, yet is not doing what his peers would expect of him. He is not consitantly critical about his sources, is not adverse to misquoting or making misleading re-translations, makes statements without adequate proof, presents his personal musings as generally accepted ideas, and gives as definate facts things that are only just slim possibilities or interpretations. At least that was the impression I had after reading his Magdalene book.


Edited by Sidney - 25-Apr-2012 at 10:33

Another Desposyni claimant (although it is a very late attribution with no evidence that the individual named, or any of his close contemporaries, made the connection) is St. Servatius. According to the "Golden Legend" by Jacobus de Voragine, written in 1275, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the daughter of Anne, and Anne had a sister called Hismeria.

"Hismeria had two daughters, named Elizabeth, and Elind. Elizabeth was mother to John Baptist, and Eliud [sic] engendered Eminen. And of Eminen came St. Servatius, whose body lieth in Maestricht, upon the river of the Meuse, in the bishopric of Liège."

Another tradition says that Hismeria, the aunt of Mary, was the mother of a son called Eliud, who in his turn had a son Emyu. Emyu married Memelia and was the father of Servatius. Other traditions then dispense with Emyu, and say Eliud himself married Memelia and fathered Servatius.

According to historians the Servatius who is buried in Maastricht was bishop of Tongeren, and died c.384 AD. But according to Church tradition St. Servatius succeeded St. Maternus as bishop of Tongeren. This Maternus was also bishop of Triers and Cologne, had been raised from the dead by St. Peter, and died in 128 AD, putting Servatius in the early-mid 2nd Century AD.

As stated, Servatius as a Desponsyi is a late tradition, but if he was around in 128 AD, that would fit chronologically as the son of a cousin of John the Baptist.

As a late attribution, its interesting his relationship to Jesus is established through Mary, whereas most early claims to being Desposyni were through Joseph the carpenter. By the 13th Century Mary's perpetual virginity was well established, so all relatives of Jesus had to be via her (even to the extent of having the 'brothers' of Jesus turned into cousins descended from Mary's sister, when some earlier beliefs had made them Joseph's sons by a previous marriage).

Edited by Sidney - 24-Feb-2013 at 13:06