How mainstream is the claim that the 4 Canonical Gospels were Written during the 2nd Century CE?

[ABuddhist]

What stock can be put in this and its dating?

Just throwing out an idea here, but might Aristides have been guided by a minimalistic Account based upon the Ascension of Isaiah?

[maryhelena]

Both gMark and gMatthew have Herodias married to Philip. Antiquities does not have Herodias married to Philip. However, Slavonic Josephus has Herodias married to Philip. A possible indication that both gMark and g Matthew were written prior to Antiquities.

One of the dangers of placing all gospel writing in the second century is that Josephus, as it were, is left off the hook. Since Josephus is the main historical source... backup... for a historical Jesus interpretation of the gospel story, it is perhaps to shortchanged ourselves to place all gospel writings post Josephus.

There was no historical gospel Jesus...... of any variant..... Consequently, it is surely foolhardy of mythicists were they to use this reality as an excuse to put gospel writing as far away from the first century as they can.

Dating manuscripts does not date the origin of the story they relate. In the case of the so called church fathers..... all one has achieved with dating is an approximate time by which the gospel Jesus story had become viewed as a historical story. There is no reason to assume that a historical Jesus interpretation of the gospel story was the earliest interpretation of the story.

[rgprice]

Both gMark and gMatthew have Herodias married to Philip. Antiquities does not have Herodias married to Philip. However, Slavonic Josephus has Herodias married to Philip. A possible indication that both gMark and g Matthew were written prior to Antiquities.

One of the dangers of placing all gospel writing in the second century is that Josephus, as it were, is left off the hook. Since Josephus is the main historical source... backup... for a historical Jesus interpretation of the gospel story, it is perhaps to shortchanged ourselves to place all gospel writings post Josephus.

There was no historical gospel Jesus...... of any variant..... Consequently, it is surely foolhardy of mythicists were they to use this reality as an excuse to put gospel writing as far away from the first century as they can.

Dating manuscripts does not date the origin of the story they relate. In the case of the so called church fathers..... all one has achieved with dating is an approximate time by which the gospel Jesus story had become viewed as a historical story. There is no reason to assume that a historical Jesus interpretation of the gospel story was the earliest interpretation of the story.

I agree, which is why I've long argued for dating Mark to around 70-80 CE, which allows Mark to be the source of the ideas that people held about Jesus.

But, I have growing difficulty placing any kind of recognizable Gospel in the first century. Something like what we read in Vision of Isaiah could be from the first century, but I have a hard time believing that a story like Marcion's Gospel of Mark was circulating in the first century, given that there essentially no witnesses to such a story at that time.

[maryhelena]

Both gMark and gMatthew have Herodias married to Philip. Antiquities does not have Herodias married to Philip. However, Slavonic Josephus has Herodias married to Philip. A possible indication that both gMark and g Matthew were written prior to Antiquities.

One of the dangers of placing all gospel writing in the second century is that Josephus, as it were, is left off the hook. Since Josephus is the main historical source... backup... for a historical Jesus interpretation of the gospel story, it is perhaps to shortchanged ourselves to place all gospel writings post Josephus.

There was no historical gospel Jesus...... of any variant..... Consequently, it is surely foolhardy of mythicists were they to use this reality as an excuse to put gospel writing as far away from the first century as they can.

Dating manuscripts does not date the origin of the story they relate. In the case of the so called church fathers..... all one has achieved with dating is an approximate time by which the gospel Jesus story had become viewed as a historical story. There is no reason to assume that a historical Jesus interpretation of the gospel story was the earliest interpretation of the story.

I agree, which is why I've long argued for dating Mark to around 70-80 CE, which allows Mark to be the source of the ideas that people held about Jesus.

But, I have growing difficulty placing any kind of recognizable Gospel in the first century. Something like what we read in Vision of Isaiah could be from the first century, but I have a hard time believing that a story like Marcion's Gospel of Mark was circulating in the first century, given that there essentially no witnesses to such a story at that time.

As far as I'm aware Marcion does not have Herodias married to Philip. Since that story is a big element in Mark and Matthew and is dropped in Luke's gospel... a gospel taking a cue, as it were from Antiquities, I would think Marcion is perhaps a later writing.... unless one wants to argue that the 15th year of Tiberius is the earlier gospel dating structure.

No doubt the Jesus story underwent many changes and updates. Resulting in which element is the oldest becoming a neverending fascination. Perhaps we don't have dated manuscript evidence from a first century Christian writer.... but expecting such maybe is to place too much confidence in Acts. What we have from the first century
are the writings of Philo and Josephus. Two Jewish writers. Methinks it here that our attention should be focused. Church fathers were late to the party on top of which they failed to comprehend the theme of the party. Perhaps not altogether surprising once Hasmonean history had faded from view and the focus became universalism not nationalism.

[Giuseppe]

My not least reason to think that the gospels have to be dated when someone mentioned them the first time is that the gospel, by construction, "requires" independent corroboration, it requires that its entry in the historical record was interpreted as a miracle. The Gospel Jesus is said to surprise by his new message, his teaching done "with authority", etc. In short, the Parable of Lamp in sociological terms. What kind of Lamp it would be, if when it is shining, none signaled its presence ?


While a minimalistic historical Jesus could allow his being totally ignored by a Josephus or a Justus of Tiberias (but not by a Paul), the same effect is not possible, inside the Christian world, for the first gospel.

[davidmartin]

The Aristides apology smells proto-orthodox
it doesnt mention Paul only 12 disciples going out
the aim of the messiah isn't accomplished on the cross but by the spreading of his teachings
Pagan gods who die/get captured are condemned, but this happens to Jesus?
the whole thing is a bit crude. i dont think the author was really a Christian himself
mysterious sayings are alluded to
it just makes it look like the orthodoxy we find in irenaeous simply didn't exist in 125

[ABuddhist]

The Aristides apology smells proto-orthodox
it doesnt mention Paul only 12 disciples going out
the aim of the messiah isn't accomplished on the cross but by the spreading of his teachings
Pagan gods who die/get captured are condemned, but this happens to Jesus?
the whole thing is a bit crude. i dont think the author was really a Christian himself
mysterious sayings are alluded to
it just makes it look like the orthodoxy we find in irenaeous simply didn't exist in 125

Why would a non-Christian author write a proto-Orthodox defense of Christianity? That having been said, I am open to the idea that it was a later text attributed to an earlier time.

[neilgodfrey]

On the date of the Apology of Aristides, Markus Vinzent has written in Writing the History of Early Christianity: From Reception to Retrospection. Cambridge University Press, 2019, p. 259, after a 63 page discussion of what is known about the Apology.....

If one were to attempt to locate where and when Aristides’ Apology was
first written, it seems to have been in the post-Bar Kokhba setting, where
there was a need to distance oneself from the Jewish rebels and their
Roman opponents, and it made sense to insist on being neither Jewish
nor Greek, neither Barbarian nor Egyptian, but to define oneself instead as
a third (or fourth) group (without openly criticising the Romans).

[andrewcriddle]

....................................

And there is testimony about the Gospel story that apparently pre-dates JM as well. The apology of Aristides seems to rely on a Gospel account similar to the canonical ones. How reliable is the dating of this testimony?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/aristides.html

According to Eusebius, both Quadratus and Aristides presented Christian apologies to the Emperor Hadrian at Athens, probably in 124 C.E. Aristides was unknown to scholars for many years, though his work survived in at least two 4th-century papyri (POxy. 15: 1778).

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. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

What stock can be put in this and its dating?

Some have argued from the dedication in the Syriac

Here follows the defence which Aristides the
philosopher made before Hadrian the King on behalf
of reverence for God.

. . . All-powerful Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus,
venerable and merciful, from Marcianus Aristides,
an Athenian philosopher.

that this work was actually written in the time of Antoninus Pius (Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Pius) not the time of Hadrian. IMHO this is unlikely. (It is easier to have an Athenian writer presenting an Apology to Hadrian who certainly visited Athens than to Antoninus Pius who AFAIK did not go to Greece while Emperor.)

Andrew Criddle