The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

[Kapyong]

Gday Ben C. Smith and all

34.1 In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above [= Trajan], ...
36.1 At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord. 2 And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.
Trajan's third year should be about 101.

Good research
That seems to show - Polycarp a man of eminence (at age 32), Papias becoming well-known, and Ignatius becoming well-known - in 101.

Note Polycarp to Philippians is usually dated 110-140.
Ignatius' books maybe 107, more likely 130s.

Papias' words about proto-Gospels could date from 95 - 140.


Kapyong
(' books Added later for clarity.)

[Ben C. Smith]

I see wiki says :
The work of Papias is dated by most modern scholars to about 95–120.[5][6]
Later dates were once argued from two references that now appear to be mistaken. One dating Papias' death to around the death of Polycarp in 164 is actually a mistake for Papylas. Another unreliable source in which Papias is said to refer to the reign of Hadrian (117–138) seems to have resulted from confusion between Papias and Quadratus.

I'd never heard of Papylas before either

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

[Secret Alias]

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? 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.

Lightfoot and others (it's hard to keep track of all the opinions) all acknowledge that that one of (a) Polycarp (b) Ignatius and (c) Peregrinus are interchangeable figures. I favor the hypothesis that all three are different sides of the same underlying historical figure. But however you slice it Polycarp's association with Smyrna and Ignatius's association with Antioch are at best exaggerations. Can't we just agree on the unreliable nature of ALL Christian texts before the third century? Why pretend we can know when the gospels were first published? The logical inference from the interest in the destruction of the temple is that they were written around the time of the destruction? I don't think any of the 'historical' information contained in Acts is substantive. I don't think the biographical information in Paul's letters are original to the texts. But in the end that just leaves me doubting we can know any thing substantive about the origins of Christianity? Why am I incorrect being so skeptical?

[Kapyong]

Gday TedM and all

Hi Ben, I know Justin doesn't say he is using a harmony, he does refer to the 'memoirs of the Apostles' as opposed to the 'memoir of the Apostle', if I recall correctly. This implies that he knew he was referencing more than one memoir and more than one Apostle had written about Jesus (unless one thinks that they colluded together in writing one document.

Yes, it's quite clear he is refering to multiple books - the 'memoirs of the apostles', and the 'memoir of Peter'. Which are 'also called Gospels'.

There is no evidence he had a harmony.

In any case, my post above was based on the idea that Justin maybe called them the 'memoirs of the Apostles' because he was using what he knew to be a harmony or was at the least too uncertain to claim that any one particular Gospel should be named by its presumed author, and that the reason for this was likely the differences between co-existing gospels at that point in time.

Pardon ?
Another total silence on critical issues explained away ?

The reason Justin did not use any author's names for the Gospels is because they had no names yet. He specifically wrote that they are 'called Gospels'. If he knew author's names he would certainly have used them. Justin Martyr does not seem concerned about contradictions in the Gospels, and gives no hint he has a harmony.

Since we know there were attempts to create a harmonization gospel around the time Justin wrote, this seems to be a reasonable position to me. Why harmonize unless there is a perceived NEED to harmonize?

Around the time ?
Tatian, Justin's pupil created the influential DiaTessaron (FromFour) in 172.

The chronology was :

1. before Justin Martyr - no-one has their hands on any Gospels at all
2. Justin Martyr c.150 - receives several books 'called Gospels', no names
3. Justin Martyr dies c.163 - his pupil Tatian inherits the books
4. Tatian c.172 - produces the 'FromFour' Gospel harmony, still no names.
5. Irenaeus c.185 - first to name the four Gospels.

The evidence is clear :

• Justin Martyr received four un-named Gospels, the first Christian on record to have them in hand c.150.
• Tatian created the first Gospel harmony (the 'FromFour') c.172
• Irenaeus first named the Gospels c.185

Kapyong

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

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

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

That Justin used a gospel harmony is a scholarly reconstruction based upon his citations of materials parallel to the gospels, especially Matthew and Luke.

And a logical inference for open minded people given that his student Tatian was intimately associated with a 'harmony.' I know scholars distinguish between the two harmonies...

Oh, so anyone who concludes otherwise is not open minded, Secret Alias ?

In fact -
There is NO clear evidence that Justin Martyr used a harmony. Just speculation.
There IS clear evidence that his student Tatian, a couple decades later, DID create a famous harmony FromFour, based on the books he inherited from Justin. Thus it is clear he is making the first harmony, based on Justin's four books - he is not making a BETTER harmony than Justin's.

Infering Justin had a harmony is not supported by the evidence,
indeed it contradicts the evidence.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday TedM and all

Kapyong, which of the writings after the gospels were written but before Justin might one reasonably expect to have mentioned one or more of the gospels had they been known to the authors of those writings, and why or where would you expect them to be mentioned? Sometimes what looks like a powerful argument - ie NOBODY mentioned XYZ, is not as strong when we look at each of them one by one.

Good point
I don't have a full analysis on that (yet.)

But there are clearly quite a few that should be expected to mention the Gospels, and their contents, had they been known - such as the Didakhe which has a ritual supper with no mention of Jesus' last supper. It is obvious that the author had never heard of the Gospels or their stories.

Of course, that tangles up mentioning of the Gospels, with mentioning their stories. But the striking thing is that most Christian writers show little knowledge of the details of Jesus until AFTER they receive the Gospels.

Justin is the first to mention : Virgin Mary(*), Nazareth, river Jordan baptism by John, the Empty Tomb, the Last Supper e.g.

(*) The Epistle of the Apostles, just before Justin Martyr, seems to be a leak of the Gospel stories.


Kapyong

[MrMacSon]

Gday Ben C. Smith and all

34.1 In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above [= Trajan], ...
36.1 At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord. 2 And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.
Trajan's third year should be about 101.

Good research

That seems to show - Polycarp a man of eminence (at age 32), Papias becoming well-known, and Ignatius becoming well-known - in 101.

Note Polycarp to Philippians is usually dated 110-140.
Ignatius maybe 107, more likely 130s.

Papias' words about proto-Gospels could date from 95 - 140.

I think all that shows is that Eusebius was fluffing up these entities to be more than they were: especially Papias & Ignatius. I think the Ignatius story is implausible for that time.

What Secret A wrote is pertinent -

Lightfoot and others ..all acknowledge that one of (a) Polycarp (b) Ignatius and (c) Peregrinus are interchangeable figures. I favor the hypothesis that all three are different sides of the same underlying historical figure. But, however you slice it, Polycarp's association with Smyrna and Ignatius's association with Antioch are at best exaggerations ...

[MrMacSon]

... Can't we just agree on the unreliable nature of ALL Christian texts before the third century? Why pretend we can know when the gospels were first published? The logical inference from the interest in the destruction of the temple is that they were written around the time of the destruction? I don't think any of the 'historical' information contained in Acts is substantive. I don't think the biographical information in Paul's letters are original to the texts. But in the end that just leaves me doubting we can know any thing substantive about the origins of Christianity? Why am I incorrect being so skeptical?

I don't think you're 'incorrect in being so skeptical', but we should keep trying and delving into these texts to try to work out what might have happened; even if we can only infer or induce.

[GakuseiDon]

The chronology was :

1) before Justin Martyr - no-one has their hands on any Gospels at all
2) Justin Martyr c.150 - receives several books 'called Gospels', no names

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 Jews, again, trace the origin of their race from Abraham, who begat Isaac, of whom was born Jacob. And he begat twelve sons who migrated from Syria to Egypt; and there they were called the nation of the Hebrews, by him who made their laws; and at length they were named Jews.
  
  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...
  
  And as for their words and their precepts, O King, and their glorying in their worship, and the hope of earning according to the work of each one of them their recompense which they look for in another world,-you may learn about these from their writings...
  
  Take, then, their writings, and read therein, and lo! you will find that I have not put forth these things on my own authority, nor spoken thus as their advocate; but since I read in their writings I was fully assured of these things as also of things which are to come...
  
  Thus far, O King, I have spoken; for concerning that which remains, as is said above, there are found in their other writings things which are hard to utter and difficult for one to narrate,--which are not only spoken in words but also wrought out in deeds...

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.