What is the history of claims that Christians' accounts about Jesus were accurate?
What is the history of claims that Christians' accounts about Jesus were accurate?
I am aware that GJohn and 2 Peter 1:16 emphasize that they were written by witnesses to Jesus and that Ignatius emphasises that the events happened in Pilate's time, but Justin makes no appeal to the authors as witnesses or accurate preservers of authentic tradiutions as far as my limited awareness knows. But today, Christians regularly defend their faith by empasizing how accurate their accounts about Jesus are and that they are from traditions from Jesus's followers.
So what is the history of this claim? is Papias the earliest to make such claims outside the Christians' scriptures?
I seek answers from here.
So what is the history of this claim? is Papias the earliest to make such claims outside the Christians' scriptures?
I seek answers from here.
Re: What is the history of claims that Christians' accounts about Jesus were accurate?
I recommend Vinzent's Christian Origins, who already remarks that the later the "testimony" the earlier the alleged witness and the more details!ABuddhist wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:25 am I am aware that GJohn and 2 Peter 1:16 emphasize that they were written by witnesses to Jesus and that Ignatius emphasises that the events happened in Pilate's time, but Justin makes no appeal to the authors as witnesses or accurate preservers of authentic tradiutions as far as my limited awareness knows. But today, Christians regularly defend their faith by empasizing how accurate their accounts about Jesus are and that they are from traditions from Jesus's followers.
So what is the history of this claim? is Papias the earliest to make such claims outside the Christians' scriptures?
I seek answers from here.
Simply amazing
Papias didn't make any claims, he's a figment of Irenaeus' imagination. All of these clowns name them up as they go, and the first solid writing that we have is Justin - and he doesn't name any gospel, certainly no letters, talks exclusively about memories of the apostles and then finally uses evangelion at some point - in singular.
Christians who defend their faith can't be reasoned with - just ask them to provide names and numbers and save yourself the trouble
Re: What is the history of claims that Christians' accounts about Jesus were accurate?
Even if that be conceded, the claims attributed to Papias by Irenaeus mean that by c. 180 CE, Christians were not willing to use the tactics of Justin (C. 150 CE) in referring to anonymous undifferentiated memoirs of apostles; rather, they wanted precise authorship and accounts of how texts had been transmitted. Has anyone used this as an argument for why 1 Peter should be dated to the 2nd half of the 2nd century CE?
-
- Posts: 18362
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: What is the history of claims that Christians' accounts about Jesus were accurate?
The Marcionites denied any gospel was written by an eyewitness. The ball got rolling with Paul. It's hard to know who exactly was a "Marcionite" as the views of identified Marcionites are wide ranging. My guess is a Marcionite was someone who held only to the gospel of Paul
Re: What is the history of claims that Christians' accounts about Jesus were accurate?
But Paul did not claim to have written a gospel. For Paul, the gospel was proclaimed by him - a message not a text.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:28 am The Marcionites denied any gospel was written by an eyewitness. The ball got rolling with Paul.
Re: What is the history of claims that Christians' accounts about Jesus were accurate?
Ow now there's a thought! Thank you very much Buddhist, that is one of those proverbial stupid questions that turns out to be a cunningly brilliant one: that is one hell of a bird's eye view reallyABuddhist wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:26 amEven if that be conceded, the claims attributed to Papias by Irenaeus mean that by c. 180 CE, Christians were not willing to use the tactics of Justin (C. 150 CE) in referring to anonymous undifferentiated memoirs of apostles; rather, they wanted precise authorship and accounts of how texts had been transmitted. Has anyone used this as an argument for why 1 Peter should be dated to the 2nd half of the 2nd century CE?
Dunno is my first answer of course, but I'm now wondering about the alleged years in between these two.
Wiki says "usually agreed to be dated in between AD 155-160" for Trypho, 180 for AH.
Let's assume away and posit that Sweet Jus only knows of *Ev, no Christian writings yet - and 25 years later *Ev is incorporated into Luke, John has been sanitised and Mark has written the first Christian gospel, while Matthew closed the door on the gospels. And there are epistles in sight, more than a handful
That's a lot of stuff and development for a mere 2 decades and a bit, isn't it?
Brilliant question Buddhist
Re: What is the history of claims that Christians' accounts about Jesus were accurate?
Bar Kokhba could be a trigger, that is measures were taken then and still the outcome wasn't satisfactory. I'm just riding the wave here!
135 all Judaics banned from Judea; in my theory that should take away the fuel to the Chrestian fire yet only in one little place across the Roman empire. And if I'm correct and Chrestianity started in Egypt, then Bar Kokhba wouldn't have put great weight into the scale - yet perhaps it served as a proof of concept nonetheless
Fast forward 20 years and Trypho gets written: 155 CE
Fast forward another 20 and we have the almost full Monty
It's just a very, very small window really - and we're assuming Christian dates even
135 all Judaics banned from Judea; in my theory that should take away the fuel to the Chrestian fire yet only in one little place across the Roman empire. And if I'm correct and Chrestianity started in Egypt, then Bar Kokhba wouldn't have put great weight into the scale - yet perhaps it served as a proof of concept nonetheless
Fast forward 20 years and Trypho gets written: 155 CE
Fast forward another 20 and we have the almost full Monty
It's just a very, very small window really - and we're assuming Christian dates even
-
- Posts: 1589
- Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm
Re: What is the history of claims that Christians' accounts about Jesus were accurate?
freeze things at mid/late 2nd century - there is 1 Peter + Acts and the Luke prologue...booooom about the time eye witnesses start to come forward!
Justin's on the cusp. Before him - the Shephard of Hermas has no gospels, or Hebrews or the pastorals or the apostle or revelation.
Even Acts has no gospels or epistles
Either these gospels and epistles didn't exist yet or they did but were not acceptable yet to purists
I say the latter. The epistles were too hot, way too near Marcion for Acts (Paul's words are basically anti-Marcionite in here)
The gospels were too hot, too much used by others 'that were not them'. Phase #1 - Rewrite Luke and meddle with John. Still not good enough. Here's Matthew Just in time for Irenaeus to say, that's the way it's always been
This actually supports the gospels inc. Thomas, they are the only eye witness accounts there are - and they were not acceptable until re-written
Chrestianity was fine example of Judaic esoteric spirituality before gentiles got hold of it
Justin's on the cusp. Before him - the Shephard of Hermas has no gospels, or Hebrews or the pastorals or the apostle or revelation.
Even Acts has no gospels or epistles
Either these gospels and epistles didn't exist yet or they did but were not acceptable yet to purists
I say the latter. The epistles were too hot, way too near Marcion for Acts (Paul's words are basically anti-Marcionite in here)
The gospels were too hot, too much used by others 'that were not them'. Phase #1 - Rewrite Luke and meddle with John. Still not good enough. Here's Matthew Just in time for Irenaeus to say, that's the way it's always been
This actually supports the gospels inc. Thomas, they are the only eye witness accounts there are - and they were not acceptable until re-written
Chrestianity was fine example of Judaic esoteric spirituality before gentiles got hold of it
Re: What is the history of claims that Christians' accounts about Jesus were accurate?
But GMark and GMatthew and GLuke do not claim to have been written by eyewitnesses.davidmartin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 2:02 am This actually supports the gospels inc. Thomas, they are the only eye witness accounts there are - and they were not acceptable until re-written
-
- Posts: 1589
- Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm
Re: What is the history of claims that Christians' accounts about Jesus were accurate?
Well, Luke claims the eyewitnesses gave it to his people at the same time as acknowledging other gospels existed. I read this as meaning the other, older, gospels were not reliable and here is one that is. They wouldn't have put that in Luke if there wasn't a problem with gospels. So it's like an official stamp of approvalBut GMark and GMatthew and GLuke do not claim to have been written by eyewitnesses.
Matthew's 'eye witness' is the Hebrew prophets themselves, I think the scripture heavy stuff in there is like their version of an eye witness that's the only ones they need. The prophets, problem solved!
Mark's murkier and older history predates the time the church is struggling in accepting gospels and never got much of a final edition, i'm trying to duck out of seeking an answer on Mark i don't know. i don't think anyone knows
I suppose in their own way they are claiming some kind of eye witness when they're named after an apostle. The gospel of Mary is interesting for the way it bases it's authority on her. But we can see I think how the church only starts accepting gospels pretty late on in the day. Why are there four? Internal pressure. Too many popular ones so they put their favourite one first