Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Gday Ben C. Smith and all

Ben C. Smith wrote: Very good. Thanks for that. It would appear that the English translation is misleading, as your David Taylor seems to be saying when he writes that "the exact meaning of the sentence is slightly different from the translation."

Indeed.
Perhaps this is a case where the translation has been slightly 'bent' to avoid the obvious conclusion that the gospel was newly arrived. (Of course "was preached a short time", could not possibly mean that they preached it for a short time, and then stopped.)

Surprisingly -
I have never once previously seen a scholar address this comment of Aristides in regard to dating the gospel, or their spread. So I am glad to see the topic being discussed here

Because it looks like a smoking gun to me -
Either the gospel was new in Athens, or new to Christians in general - in the time of Aristides (which is maddeningly unclear - maybe ~125, maybe 140?)


Kapyong

Kapyong wrote:Perhaps this is a case where the translation has been slightly 'bent' to avoid the obvious conclusion that the gospel was newly arrived. (Of course "was preached a short time", could not possibly mean that they preached it for a short time, and then stopped.)

Why couldn't it possibly mean that they preached it for a short time, and then stopped? Just wondering why you are so sure on this. (If that is the translation, then perhaps it could be a hint of a general persecution that Pliny the Younger seems to suggest. The timing would be about right.)

Kapyong wrote:Surprisingly -
I have never once previously seen a scholar address this comment of Aristides in regard to dating the gospel, or their spread. So I am glad to see the topic being discussed here

Because it looks like a smoking gun to me -
Either the gospel was new in Athens, or new to Christians in general - in the time of Aristides (which is maddeningly unclear - maybe ~125, maybe 140?)

Kapyong, I'm not quite sure why this is surprising, or even what this is a smoking gun for. Can you explain more your thinking on this please?

For my part: The consensus is that the Gospels were written between 70 CE (gMark) to beyond 100 CE (gJohn). Even then, if Papias is to be believed, oral transmission was regarded as more reliable (spiritually) than the written word. So that the Gospels weren't considered authoritative until some time afterwards is reasonable.

Kapyong wrote:Because it looks like a smoking gun to me -
Either the gospel was new in Athens, or new to Christians in general - in the time of Aristides (which is maddeningly unclear - maybe ~125, maybe 140?)

Alas, nothing is ever that simple. And I have learned with experience that there are no smoking guns in this business.

For one thing, how recent is recent? Is it recent compared to the career of Christ in the immediate context? Or is it recent compared to the origins of the other 3 races, which is the broader context, Christians being the most recent of the four (the other three being Barbarians, Jews, and Greeks)?

For another, it appears that this line is missing both from the Greek version (preserved in Barlaam and Josaphat) and from the Armenian version. Here are the Armenian and the Syriac side by side:

Syriac

Armenian

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 [ago] 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.

But the Christians reckon their race from the Lord Jesus Christ. He is Himself Son of God on high, who was manifested of the Holy Spirit, came down from heaven, and being born of a Hebrew virgin took on His flesh from the virgin, and was manifested in the nature of humanity the Son of God: who sought to win the entire world to His eternal goodness by His life-giving preaching. He it is who was according to the flesh born of the race of the Hebrews, by the God-bearing virgin Miriam. He chose the twelve disciples, and He by his illuminating truth, dispensing it taught all the world, and was nailed on the cross by the Jews. Who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and sent forth His disciples into the whole world, and taught all with divinely miraculous and profoundly wise wonders. Their preaching until this day blossoms and bears fruit, and summons all the world to receive the light.

The Greek and Syriac versions can be compared online as well. The Greek lacks this entire section.

J. Armitage Robinson had this to say by way of comparing the versions (Armenian and Syriac): "Phrases which are only found in the Armenian, or only found in the Syriac, may be dismissed as possibly the inventions of the respective translators."

It would seem that we cannot be sure that Aristides even penned this line.

Gday GakuseiDon and all

Kapyong wrote:Surprisingly -
I have never once previously seen a scholar address this comment of Aristides in regard to dating the gospel, or their spread. So I am glad to see the topic being discussed here

Because it looks like a smoking gun to me -
Either the gospel was new in Athens, or new to Christians in general - in the time of Aristides (which is maddeningly unclear - maybe ~125, maybe 140?)

GakuseiDon wrote:Kapyong, I'm not quite sure why this is surprising, or even what this is a smoking gun for. Can you explain more your thinking on this please?

For my part: The consensus is that the Gospels were written between 70 CE (gMark) to beyond 100 CE (gJohn). Even then, if Papias is to be believed, oral transmission was regarded as more reliable (spiritually) than the written word. So that the Gospels weren't considered authoritative until some time afterwards is reasonable.

Yup, I agree with the consensus, and with Papias' comment, and that the Gospels came late to the scene.

But the issue here is when the written Gospel first became known, not when it became authoritative (I note your point about 2nd C. apologists being aware of the Gospels, but still arguing from philosophy instead.)

This seems to be the one and only example of an early Christian writer giving us an actual date for the appearance of a single un-named written gospel - potentially a valuable clue.

So I am surprised that no scholar has picked up on this datum.

It seems somewhat more likely to me that Aristides meant the gospel was new to the Christian community in Athens, rather than Christians in general - it would be obvious to the Athens Christians that the gospel had only arrived in Athens a 'short time' ago, but how would they know the gospel was new to Christians in general ?
But I could easily be wrong there - perhaps when the gospel arrived in Athens, it came with the explanation that it was new to Christians in general.

Of course, the uncertainties surrounding Aristides leaves us with only a slight wisp of smoke.


Kapyong

I think that a Christian writer (writing around 120/130 AD) could not admit that about 60/80 years (assuming the gospels were believed then to have been written around 50/60 AD) was a long time, during which the expected parousia still did not happen, raising many doubts about the authenticity of Christianity. So Aristides, as an apologist, would interpret these 60/80 years as a short time.

Cordially, Bernard

Kapyong wrote:This seems to be the one and only example of an early Christian writer giving us an actual date for the appearance of a single un-named written gospel - potentially a valuable clue.

Yes, it is interesting the hints and clues that can be picked up from the early writers. With Aristides, we can go a little further perhaps. Aristides writes:

• 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.

But which of our Gospels, if any, does this relate to? gMark and gJohn don't have a virgin birth. gLuke and gMatthew don't have God Himself coming down and being clothed in flesh, if that is what Aristides means. It is a single written text, it is no longer extant. If the statement of the twelve disciples refers to Acts of the Apostles, then it might be that by "gospel", Aristides is talking about a mash of written materials as a single one.

Gday GakuseiDon and all,

Kapyong wrote:Perhaps this is a case where the translation has been slightly 'bent' to avoid the obvious conclusion that the gospel was newly arrived. (Of course "was preached a short time", could not possibly mean that they preached it for a short time, and then stopped.)

GakuseiDon wrote: Why couldn't it possibly mean that they preached it for a short time, and then stopped? Just wondering why you are so sure on this. (If that is the translation, then perhaps it could be a hint of a general persecution that Pliny the Younger seems to suggest. The timing would be about right.)

Another good question actually
I did not think any Christians ever stopped preaching the Gospel - they continue to this day.
But yes, it could conceivably be a hint at general persecution - it just doesn't seem like the natural reading though.

I also note Bernard interprets it as apologising for the delayed parousia. But Aristides doesn't actually make any such apology that I can find.

Upon reflection, I think he actually is referring to the wider Christian community, not just Athens :

' 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. '

That is - I think he is explicitly saying that there was a new wave in Christianity - the Gospel(s), that have only been preached for a 'short time'. That the Gospels were specifically seen by Christians as a new expression of Christian beliefs, that came with (new) 'power'.

Perhaps not unlike Josiah finding the new (old) scroll.


Kapyong

to Kapyong,

I also note Bernard interprets it as apologising for the delayed parousia. But Aristides doesn't actually make any such apology that I can find.

I did not say Aristides was apologizing by writing "short time". But he had to take in account the elapsed years and made them fit Christian belief (the parousia happening soon after Jesus & Paul preaching, at least before the last of their generation died) (I know, around 125 AD, it was a bit of a stretch).
I doubt Aristides' apology was sent to the emperor. But obviously it circulated among Christians and was copied. Aristides was not providing historical information to people like us, many centuries later, but concerned about his audience not losing hope about the second coming.

That is - I think he is explicitly saying that there was a new wave in Christianity - the Gospel(s), that have only been preached for a 'short time'. That the Gospels were specifically seen by Christians as a new expression of Christian beliefs, that came with (new) 'power'.

You might be right here. The gospels might not have been used much as a basis of preaching in the last part of the 1st century but may have become just that sometime at the beginning of the 2nd century. We have evidence for that from Aristides himself, who seems to know about each Synoptics and gJohn (as argued by Gakuseidon).
Other evidence in that regard would come from:
a) Cerinthus, an early Gnostic/Ebionite (late 1st to early 2nd century)
According to Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', book I, chapter XXVI, 1:
"Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, ... He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles ..."
b) Quadratus of Athens (120-130 AD):
Quadratus of Athens wrote also an apology at the same time of Aristides' one, according to Eusebius. A small fragment is preserved, containing probably the first reference (outside the gospels) of healing & resurrections by an earthly Jesus:
"Our Saviour's works, moreover, were always present: for they were real, consisting of those who had been healed of their diseases, those who had been raised from the dead; who were not only seen whilst they were being healed and raised up, but were afterwards constantly present. Nor did they remain only during the sojourn of the Saviour on earth, but also a considerable time after His departure ..."
c) Papias (110-140 AD) who knew about most likely gMark and had to explain why it looked out of order (probably as compared with gLuke, which claims to be in order).
d) Gnostics, such as Basilides & Valentinus ("teaching" from 120 AD), according to Hippolytus of Rome and Irenaeus:
See http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html under >> Basilides <<

Cordially, Bernard

Gday Ben C. Smith

Ben C. Smith wrote: Alas, nothing is ever that simple. And I have learned with experience that there are no smoking guns in this business.
...
It would seem that we cannot be sure that Aristides even penned this line.

Indeed.
Like many of our sources, the very text itself is un-certain - let alone meaning or date.
I got excited - but it's not much of a smoking gun after all.

Yet maybe it can add something to our knowledge.


Kapyong

Gday Bernard Muller

Kapyong wrote:That is - I think he is explicitly saying that there was a new wave in Christianity - the Gospel(s), that have only been preached for a 'short time'. That the Gospels were specifically seen by Christians as a new expression of Christian beliefs, that came with (new) 'power'.

Kapyong wrote:You might be right here. The gospels might not have been used much as a basis of preaching in the last part of the 1st century but may have become just that sometime at the beginning of the 2nd century. We have evidence for that from Aristides himself, who seems to know about each Synoptics and gJohn (as argued by Gakuseidon).

Yes, we may be able to see a pattern as the Gospels spread and gain acceptance,
a rough list might start like this :

Barnabas, 1 Clement, Didache
Cerinthus
2 Peter
1 Tim.
Papias
Quadratus
Aristides
Ignatius
Ep.Apostles
2 Clement
Justin
Minucius Felix

Where :
Green = knows and approves of Gospel(s),
Red = knows and dis-approves of the Gospel(s).


Kapyong