The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

[Kapyong]

Gday GakuseiDon and all

Minucius Felix' Octavius c.150 describes a Christianity without any Jesus Christ, and even seems to reject the Gospel stories by insisting Christians do NOT worship a 'criminal crucified on a cross'.

Christians don't worship a criminal crucified on a cross.
"For in that you attribute to Christians the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man."

Yes, but he does NOT go on to say that they actually worship e.g. the son of God crucified on a cross instead.

I argue that he means :
We do not worship anybody who was crucified on a cross, certainly not a criminal like the rumours say we do. Because our worship has nothing to do with a mortal man.

Am I correct that you argue he means something like this ? :
We do not worship a criminal who was crucified on a cross - because Jesus Christ crucified was not a criminal, but the Son of God who was not really a mortal man.


Kapyong

[GakuseiDon]

I argue that he means :
We do not worship anybody who was crucified on a cross, certainly not a criminal like the rumours say we do. Because our worship has nothing to do with a mortal man.

Am I correct that you argue he means something like this ? :
We do not worship a criminal who was crucified on a cross - because Jesus Christ crucified was not a criminal, but the Son of God who was not really a mortal man.

Yes, that's correct. Remember, the charge by the antagonist Caecilius is this:

".. he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve."

IOW, Christians are evil because they worship a wicked man. Octavius's response is that Christians don't worship a criminal, in fact they don't even worship a man.

Note that the author refers to "Christians" quite a few times throughout the letter, without referring to any other groups of Christians. Yet we know by the time that M. Felix wrote that there were Christians who thought that Christ had been crucified on the cross. Keeping that in mind, let's revisit your thought on what the writer meant:

• We do not worship anybody who was crucified on a cross, certainly not a criminal like the rumours say we do. Because our worship has nothing to do with a mortal man.

Wouldn't a response "Hey, Christians don't worship anybody who was crucified" be confusing to those pagan and Christian readers who had heard those rumours about Christians with such beliefs? Whereas if the rumours were that Christ was a crucified mortal wicked man, which is the actual charge being made, my reading of the response makes sense.

(Edited to add) Actually, there are two charges there: Christians worship (1) a criminal, and Christians worship (2) his cross. Octavius responds to those two charges separately. For the first, he says that Christians don't worship a criminal ('a man punished... for his wickedness'), and for the second, he says Christians don't worship or wish for (actual) crosses, but he defends the sign of the cross.

[Kapyong]

Gday Ben C. Smith and all

Found it! Lightfoot surmised that a copyist confused Papias and Papylas in the Chronicon Paschale:
https://archive.org/stream/essaysonwork ... 8/mode/2up.

Good work
It's always satisfying to recover a remembered needle in the internet hay-stacks like that.

I read that page, and the conclusion looks good.

Remember before the internet ?
Trying to track down some tiny comment remembered in some book, somewhere ... trawling the university library stacks, looking at index cards even Ah, the good ol' days


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday Secret Alias and all

Polycarp a man of eminence (at age 32),

Why do mythicists treat the foundational texts of Christians as historically unreliable documents but these later sectarian texts as somehow more historically reliable?

Oh, is that what you think mythicists do ?
(Perhaps I should have been careful with adding my usual caveats - 'apparently' or 'it seems'.)

I don't think that - Eusebius is not necessarily historically reliable, he's often called the 'Master Forger'. His comments about Polycarp and Papias and Ignatius etc. may not be accurate. But he is certainly more likely to be historically reliable when recounting who was prominent when, in a history book; than is an unknown author writing a narrative about a super-natural god-man based on tropes from the Tanakh and themes from the Greek mysteries.

The early Christians texts aren't historically unreliable because they began as myths. I don't know that they were 'myths.' They might have been. But I don't think we can uncover strong evidence about anything. The reason why the texts are so unreliable is that they were repeatedly transformed and reworked.

Sure, we all agree that they are unreliable.

Can't we just agree on the unreliable nature of ALL Christian texts before the third century?

They are unreliable.
Do you think that means worthless ?

Why pretend we can know when the gospels were first published?

'Pretend' ?
I'm just trying to draw the best conclusion from the evidence.
Conflicting, corrupt, patchy evidence.

You don't have to take part if you don't want to


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday Ben C. Smith and all

Irenaeus first named the Gospels c.185

Theophilus of Antioch's text to Autolycus is generally dated to about 180-185. Do you date it later than that? Theophilus writes in To Autolycus 2.22.2:

Whence the holy writings and all those borne by the spirit teach us, from among whom John says: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, showing that at first God was alone and the word was in him. Then he says: The word was God; all things came to be through him; and apart from him nothing came to be.

Well, they were both about the same time, but I should have said :

• Irenaeus was first to name all four Gospels c.185

Also, Justin Martyr attributes one of the memoirs to Peter, and already says that they were written by "the apostles and their followers".

He did indeed (presumably G.Mark ?) Did I overlook that somewhere ?


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday GakuseiDon and all

I'm not sure if you have mentioned the Apology of Aristides:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... s-kay.html

He wrote, around 120-130 CE:

• . . . All-powerful Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus, venerable and merciful, from Marcianus Aristides, an Athenian philosopher...
  The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

"And you also if you will read therein" suggests to me a document that Aristides expects to be available publicly at that time.

Other snippets from Aristides:

• But the Christians, O King, while they went about and made search, have found the truth; and as we learned from their writings, they have come nearer to truth and genuine knowledge than the rest of the nations...

Those snippets don't refer to any specific writings like the Gospels, but they do seem to imply that the writings were available somehow, and not something that the Christians were trying to keep in-house.

Crikey ! No, I haven't yet (he's on my web-page), thanks for mentioning him
Aristides is a fascinating piece of the puzzle, who appears to give a clue to the date of Gospel publishing.

He knows of :

• a single Gospel,
• with no author's name,
• that mentions a virgin,
• can be read somewhere,
• and has only been preached for a short time !

The highlighted phrase is intriguing, so I asked in the Syriac forum.
I received a reply from a David Taylor which included the following comments :

... the passage is found on p.4 ll.1-2 of Harris' Syriac edition, and he translates as:
'This is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken among them as being preached'.

This is not terribly elegant but it is not too bad (perhaps better to read '...ago, it is said among them, was proclaimed').
The phrase 'a little while ago' is literally 'which before a little time'.

I would thus suspect that the sense of the Syriac is that the Christians acknowledge that the Gospel was only proclaimed / revealed publicly for the first time a short time before. So yes, the text states that the Gospel is relatively new, though the exact meaning of the sentence is slightly different from the translation you quote.

So a fuller chronology might be :

• Papias 100-130 knows rumours of two Gospel-like writings - by Mark (from Peter), and Matthew.
• Aristides 120-130 knows of a single un-named Gospel, mentioning a virgin, which can be read somewhere.
• Justin Martyr c.150 - has several books 'called Gospels', the memoirs of the Apostles, and the memoir(s) of Peter.
• Justin Martyr dies c.163 - his pupil Tatian inherits the books
• Tatian c.172 - produces the 'FromFour' Gospel harmony, still no names.
• Irenaeus c.185 - first to name all four Gospels.

Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday Bernard Muller and all

Thanks for joining in Bernard,
I appreciate your thoughtful input

Considering the early Christian writings, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the Gospels were not published until c.150. While I agree the Gospels were probably WRITTEN c.70 - c.100, their authors and origins are unknown, and they remained hidden and private. They were not available to other Christians until Justin Martyr had his hands on them c.150.

What do you mean by "published"?

Publically available to Christians (or anyone else too) to read and quote from.

Just because Justin was the first one to use extensively the three synoptic gospels (with some elements of gJohn) in order to expound his views of Christianity does not mean these gospels were made public only then.

Well, trying to pin it down to an exact year of publishing is not feasible, no. Having TRIED to pin it down, here is the result so far :

• Papias 100-130 knows rumours of two Gospel-like writings - by Mark (from Peter), and Matthew.
• Aristides 120-130 knows of a single un-named Gospel, mentioning a virgin, only recently preached, which can be read somewhere.
• Justin Martyr c.150 - has possession of several books 'called Gospels', the memoirs of the Apostles, and the memoir(s) of Peter.
• Justin Martyr dies c.163 - his pupil Tatian inherits the books
• Tatian c.172 - produces the 'FromFour' Gospel harmony, still no names.
• Irenaeus c.185 - first to name all four Gospels.

Justin Martyr was the first Christian writer on record to have his hands on the Gospels, and it seems very likely he had four.

To call that being 'published' might be a bit strong, especially considering the times, but not un-reasonable. (I have even speculated that it may have occured as a response to the final disaster of Bar Kochbar, after the Kitos troubles, following the Temple catastrophe.)

For example "Luke", "Matthew" & "John" knew about gMark. Do you think each of these writers were working from the same original gMark manuscript (which you qualify as hidden and private), not yet used to make copies?

Not at all.
The Gospel authors were clearly connected, they must have been aware of each other and their work. But who-ever and where-ever they were, they were hidden from all other Christians on record. The Gospels were not available to anyone to compare with history.

BTW, these writers did not say they were using gMark or any already written gospel, and the same goes for many other authors who wrote before Justin: using the gospels for material, extracting from them quotes or paraphrasing parts of them, without naming their sources.
Cordially, Bernard

Well, on the subject of other Christian writers who used the Gospels as sources, I see you name quite a few before Justin Martyr. Allow me to post my diagram of your theories on that :

(If you can't see the right hand side of the diagram, shrink your text (i.e. Ctrl + MouseWheel))

I do not agree with all of your dependencies, I think some are merely common beliefs and stories which did not come from written Gospels.


Kapyong

[Ben C. Smith]

Gday Ben C. Smith and all

Irenaeus first named the Gospels c.185

Theophilus of Antioch's text to Autolycus is generally dated to about 180-185. Do you date it later than that? Theophilus writes in To Autolycus 2.22.2:

Whence the holy writings and all those borne by the spirit teach us, from among whom John says: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, showing that at first God was alone and the word was in him. Then he says: The word was God; all things came to be through him; and apart from him nothing came to be.

Well, they were both about the same time, but I should have said :

• Irenaeus was first to name all four Gospels c.185

Also, Justin Martyr attributes one of the memoirs to Peter, and already says that they were written by "the apostles and their followers".

He did indeed (presumably G.Mark ?) Did I overlook that somewhere ?

Well, not exactly, but, when you say that Irenaeus was the first to name the four gospels, it can sound like those texts did not have names before Irenaeus. But to assert that one of the memoirs hails back to Peter and that some hail back to apostles and to followers of the apostles seems pretty specific, and seems to me to imply that people in Justin's time did have names for these texts. Whether they were the same names as Irenaeus knew is perhaps an open quetion: does Justin's statement imply that one was called the gospel/memoirs of Peter, for example?

It was just not quite clear to me what you meant by Irenaeus being the first to name the gospels.

[Kapyong]

Gday Secret Alias and all

Some more things to read about Justin's gospel harmony:
https://books.google.com/books?id=kbe9C ... ny&f=false

You mean Justin's speculated harmony.
Here is the key argument (I added the '1)' and '2)' and '{by me}' ) :

The most recent study of the matter {by me}, which compared Justin's gospel citations with their parallel passages in the Diatessaron, found textual agreements both in 1) the sequence of harmonisation and in 2) variant readings, some of which are unique. These agreements admit only two explanations: either Tatian knew and used Justin's harmony, or both relied on the same pre-existing harmonised source.

Not so -

1) Tatian knew Justin's work and simply followed the same sequence.
2) Tatian's DiaTessaron used the very same MSS as Justin used - of COURSE they have the same variant readings.

They are very bad arguments, Secret Alias.
But I remember now that you have a strange theory that flies in the face of the evidence - that the Gospels started as a large harmony, but were then SPLIT into the four :

The first gospel was profoundly rooted in this same theological and cosmological understanding. It's deliberate dividing into four was clearly done to imitate the oneness of the universe (i.e. it was made after a world which was already understood to have four regions viz. 'north, east, west and south') ...
it becomes plainly obvious that not only the earliest Church Fathers but their 'enemies' the Marcionites both used single, long gospels with passages readily identified from our 'according to Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' and 'John.' ...
I believe that this text that was known to Papias, Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria and its continued existence caused an irrevocable 'split' in the early Church until Irenaeus 'brought peace' once more.

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com.au/20 ... -paul.html

I believe that's a load of bulldust which bears little resemblance to the evidence.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday GakuseiDon and all

The weather here is almost apocalyptic: rains and very strong winds for the last few weeks. Trees crashing down through houses and parked cars. Yet it is supposed to be spring.

Indeed. The End of The World is Nigh. The Anti-Christ stalks the land. WW3 aproacheth with gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. But seriously - tree-fall is actually a significant risk in Oz - more than shark-bite, but much less feared

Did you see I have a real web-site now ?
...
Kapyong says it happened in Paradise in the Third Heaven

I had a look at your webpage. I don't have time to critique it I'm sorry; but off-hand, I like your idea better than Dr Carrier's "outer space" -- which is so vague as to be useless, since the term incorporates the lower heavens and the upper heavens -- and Doherty's "world of myth", which IMHO is not an idea that can be found in ancient texts.

Thanks. No worries all good, you've already been of help.
I actually spoke (wrote, on Vridar IIRC) with Dr Carrier, specifically criticising him for that term - it's not just vague, but anachronistic and just plain silly - it suggests Jesus the Space Alien. You can well imagine the friendly and accommodating response from the humble and mild Dr - " I've already explained in my book why I am right ".

But a non-Platonic "Paradise in the Third Heaven" might work, since it incorporates non-heavenly and heavenly elements.

Seeing both Doherty and Dr Carrier fail to credibly nail down the crucifixion to some NON earthly location, I came to see this as the central issue - where exactly DID Paul imagine the spiritual Jesus Christ to have been crucified ? (I had given up on the Air Beneath the Moon, given up on the Vision of Isaiah - largely thanks to you even )

Which made me wonder - where COULD Paul have imagined it happened ? What special heavenly places would even be on his list ? Looking at it that way soon lead my muse to tell me the obvious place - Paradise in the Third Heaven - the place he boasted that he travelled out-of-body to learn un-speakable secrets.

I think the Book of Adam is the key - it connects the burial of Adam with Paradise in the Third Heaven (PTH), possibly provided the origin of PTH for Paul, and explains Paul's contrasting Jesus with Adam in 1 Cor. 15:22 -

" For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. ...
" So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However that which is spiritual isn't first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the one made of dust, such are those who are also made of dust; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. As we have borne the image of those made of dust, let's also bear the image of the heavenly. "

Paul describes Jesus Christ, the second Adam, (and the resurrection of the dead) like this :

• in Christ all will be made alive,
• raised in incorruption, glory, power,
• a spiritual body,
• became a life-giving spirit,
• is the Lord from heaven,
• is the heavenly (not of dust - made of heavenly stuff?),
• is spiritual,
• is the image of the heavenly.

[/color]
In comparison to the first Adam, who is described like this :

• in Adam all die,
• sown in corruption, dishonor, weakness, sown a natural body,
• a natural body,
• became a living soul,
• of Earth,
• made of dust.

[/color]
Clearly Adam is an earthly man, but Jesus Christ is a heavenly being.

Most of the remaining ideas on your webpage I have problems with, I'm afraid. But I'm pretty sure we've covered those ideas in the past, so you know where I'm coming from.

Many, yes Amazingly, I've been doing this since the previous millenium. Anyway - I hope you'll continue to contribute to this thread.

I've found you to be an honest seeker of truth, and wish you well in the development of your theory!

Well, thank you very much kind sir That is much appreciated. I do try - and if I'm shown wrong, then I admit it and change my view. In fact, being shown wrong is a good thing - it means learning something. (Shown, not just claimed to be.)


Kapyong