Dating the Protoevangelium, Didakhe and others

[fineca]

There was a long thread about the authenticity of the Protoevangelium of James here, but I would like to get a short summary: is it worth it to mention this document as historical support for eg. the perpetual virginity as the CA tract does?
Second, and more important, where do we (or CA) get the date 120 AD from? A Lutheran bishop here claimed that this work was probably composed around/after 200AD and certainly not before 150. He also said that the Didakhe was written in the early second century, but CA dates it to aroun 70 AD. Why are there so many differing datings, is there really no consensus, what evidence is there, who should we trust?

Thanks

 

[whowantsumadebo]

The Infancy Gospel of James can be confidently ascribed to the early second century for several reasons: it betrays little direct knowledge of Judaism and Israeli geography, indicating it was written by a non-jew past the first couple Christian generations; the author shows vast interest in Mary and her perpetual virginity, though his mariology is not very developed. He also tries to ‘fill in the blanks’ for certain questions that had arisen by the second century, such as “who were Jesus’ brothers?”. He says they were children of Joseph from a former marriage.
The Didache on the other hand is a different story all together.
Many scholars have dated it at very opposite ends: some relegating it to the 4th century, others to the late 1st. But in very recent times, a growing school, including me, sees it as being much earlier than anyone could have previously imagined.
It seems to tell of a time when Christianity had “prophets” as well as Apostles. This is similar to situations Paul speaks of in Corinthians. The Didache is a Christian instruction manual particularly aimed at Gentile converts. It exemplifies a Christianity fully entrenced in Jewish culture, trying to figure out how to expand and allow non-jews into the fold. This recalls the famous Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts where Peter and James decide on whether gentiles must become Jews before becoming Christians. Thus I would date the Didache to the year 50 AD or earlier, composed even before many books of the New Testament! Crazy.

 

[fineca]

James:

You seemed to argue why it can’t be dated earlier than the early 2nd century, but I wanted to know why we can date it as early as the early 2nd century and not necessarily 3rd century or 150AD earliest as a Lutheran bishop told me.

Didakhe:

Apostles and prophets have always bothered me. St. Paul mentions them together frequently, as fundaments of the church, but we don’t have them! He sounds more Mormon than Catholic. What did Paul mean by prophets and why did they disappear? I don’t think he meant simply the people with the gift of prophecy, since those people were never hierarchical cornerstones of the church. I appreciate your help. Thanks, E

 

[Aureole]

Fineca, we can’t really place an exact date on certain things since we simply don’t know the exact date. We can only estimate based on bits of evidence available. Who you trust for the dating should be based on the evidence available. That Lutheran ought to have reasons for dating the way he did; look at his evidence and weigh it against those who date otherwise.

I have heard something similar to whowantsumadebo for the dating of the Didache. I think Mike Aquilina provides evidence for dating the Didache around A.D. 50, you may want to check out some of his books.

Finally, about prophets: Who can say they have disappeared? I’ll be willing to bet that many people would claim there are many modern day prophets: Mother Teresa, John Paul II, etc. What is a prophet if not someone who speaks the Word of God?

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Pertaining the the Protoevangelium, Origen makes reference to it in the early 3rd century, and he seems to suggest it had been around for a while: But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, 5264 as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,” 5265 that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/009/0090368.htm

As for the prophets in the Didache and Paul’s writings, this is sort of an obscure piece of Christian history. We know of prophets from the Book of Acts, such as ch.21:10-11. Apparently prophets remained in the Christian community well after the Apostolic period, several Church fathers make reference to them, as does at least one critic (I don’t have a quote yet.)
Mormonism didn’t exist until the 1800’s, so don’t worry about that.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Infancy Gospel of James can be confidently ascribed to the early second century for several reasons: it betrays little direct knowledge of Judaism and Israeli geography, indicating it was written by a non-jew past the first couple Christian generations; the author shows vast interest in Mary and her perpetual virginity, though his mariology is not very developed. He also tries to ‘fill in the blanks’ for certain questions that had arisen by the second century, such as “who were Jesus’ brothers?”. He says they were children of Joseph from a former marriage.

It is as historically valuable as a “Superman” comic, a DVD of “The Simpsons”, or the last five minutes of “Planet of the Apes”.​

All of those things are interesting as evidence of US culture, but none of them is of the any value as a recital of historical fact - “Planet of the Apes” contains evidence which favours the hypothesis that the Statue of Liberty was a monument familiar to people in the USA in 1967 (when the film was made) - but it is worthless as evidence for the biography of Tyler the astronaut, or for his journey through time, because Tyler the astronaut, & his journey, are both fictitious - they have no more historical reality than Bilibo the hobbit. The only biographies those five minutes illustrate at all are those of Charlton Heston & Kim Novak.

The Protevangelium is of the same sort of historical value - it tells us what a part of the Church thought about certain Christian things at a particular date. But as an account of the BVM’s life, or as evidence of Jewish cultic practices, it is worthless - it even manages to name as High Priest someone who was not High Priest. No doubt somebody in years to come will use “The West Wing” as solid evidence for the existence of a President Bartlet, and will account somehow for the difficulty that the supposed President was in office during the tenure of Presidents already known to exist as historical figures.

bible-history.com/HighPriests/NTHIGHPRIESTSList_of_Jewish_High_Priests.htm
17. Jesus, son of Phiabi, ? -22 B.C.
18. Simon, son of Boethus, 22-5 B.C.
19. Matthias, son of Theophilus, 5-4 B.C.
20. Joseph, son of Elam, 5 B.C.
21. Joezer, son of Boethus, 4 B.C.
22. Eleazar, son of Boethus, 4-1 B.C. - (Appointed by Herod Archelaus)
23. Jesus, son of Sie, 1 - 6 A.D.
24. Annas, 6-15 A.D. (Appointed by Quirinius)
25. Ishmael, son of Phiabi I, 15-16 A.D.

Compare that with the Protevangelium

No rational person would publish a history of the “Daily Planet” and its named staff using the Superman comics as a source, because the Daily Planet, like its editor, anchorman, and other employees, has no existence outside the Superman story. One cannot use fiction as evidence of the historical accuracy of that fiction. ##

The Didache on the other hand is a different story all together.
Many scholars have dated it at very opposite ends: some relegating it to the 4th century, others to the late 1st. But in very recent times, a growing school, including me, sees it as being much earlier than anyone could have previously imagined.
It seems to tell of a time when Christianity had “prophets” as well as Apostles. This is similar to situations Paul speaks of in Corinthians. The Didache is a Christian instruction manual particularly aimed at Gentile converts. It exemplifies a Christianity fully entrenced in Jewish culture, trying to figure out how to expand and allow non-jews into the fold. This recalls the famous Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts where Peter and James decide on whether gentiles must become Jews before becoming Christians. Thus I would date the Didache to the year 50 AD or earlier, composed even before many books of the New Testament! Crazy.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Chill brother Geer,
I never implied it had any historical value, save its mention of Mary’s folks by name, I suppose.
This brings up a question: was it the author’s intent for the Protoevangelium to be ‘religious fiction’ (which it obviously is)? What was he trying to do?

The didache on the other hand, I believe, has immense historical value, more so than any other extra-biblical work from the early Christian period.

 

[fineca]

No rational person would publish a history of the “Daily Planet” and its named staff using the Superman comics as a source, because the Daily Planet, like its editor, anchorman, and other employees, has no existence outside the Superman story. One cannot use fiction as evidence of the historical accuracy of that fiction.​

But that’s exactly the difference: the Blessed Virgin, Joseph and other DO have a historical existence outside of the work in question.

 

[fineca]

Pertaining the the Protoevangelium, Origen makes reference to it in the early 3rd century, and he seems to suggest it had been around for a while: *But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, *[

Is this the only piece of evidence that makes CA date this work to 120 AD? 170 could be just as good…]("http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/.[/QUOTE)

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Is this the only piece of evidence that makes CA date this work to 120 AD? 170 could be just as good…

Hmmmmmmm… Ok, I will concede that we can’t be totally sure which decade of the Second century it was composed in, but scholars generally agree it was written between 120-170, so no later than 170.
The Infancy Gospel does show familiarity with popular beliefs about Jesus and Mary at the time. For instance, it says Jesus was born in a cave, and Justin Martyr has the same tradition.
It makes a huge deal over Mary’s virginity at a time when it was being questioned by anti-christian critics like Celsus.
I will say this of my own conjecture: The Infancy Gospel makes use of only Matthew and Luke, alos with language echoing the Septuagint; it has as a source no other Christian writing, suggesting that it is the earliest of the Infancy Gospels. It depicts a time when Matthew and Luke had gained virtual canonical status, or at least trustworthiness, but other works still had to go through the testing process.
Infancy Gospels sort of sprang up in the 2nd century and then the fervor for such literature seems to die out afterward.
That’s the best I can do for now.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But that’s exactly the difference: the Blessed Virgin, Joseph and other DO have a historical existence outside of the work in question.

So does krypton outside the Superman story; but as an element in the periodic table - not as a planet. Just as the USA exists in reality outside both the Superman story, and outside the story in “Planet of the Apes”. But it would be very rash to reason from the reality of the USA and of the Statue of Liberty and of the element krypton, to the reality of Jor-El or Lex Luthor. the props in a fiction can be real (Superman wears a jacket and tie; so do lots of men) but it doesn’t follow that the story they occur in is a recital of fact.​

There may be many places in the USA called Metropolis - it doesn’t follow that any of them is the scene of the events in the Superman story; it’s equally possible that the fictional place with its fictional events and fictional characters & fictional paper, borrowed the place-name from them.

The reality of St.Joseph, or of much else - such as the Temple, say - is no guarantee of the reality of the events in the Protevangelium of James. Any more than the reality of Jesus Christ is a guarantee of the reality of the events in the “Da Vinci Code” or “Jesus on Mars”. Any more “The West Wing” must be real history merely because it is plausible in various ways - the fact is that there is no President Bartlet, and that is all there is to be said; to insist there must be, because of the verisimilitude in detail, is simply irrational, because there is not a jot of historical evidence for that President. To insist there must be such a President, is like insisting on the historical reality of Pope Joan - she is a fiction: end of story. We know that Pres. Bartlet is a fiction - whether our successors in 4000 or so will know this, is another matter, & not one that can be taken for granted; if he is thought to be historical, doubtless there will be some way of explaining how there were incumbent Presidents during his seeming tenure of office (assuming that lists of Presidents survive until then). We won’t be around to “blow the gaffe”.

Verisimilitude of detail is not evidence of being fictional, or of not being fictional. And one can perfectly well have non-historical accounts of real people - which is why the cherry-tree story about George Washington may or may not be true, without affecting the certain fact that he existed. ##