Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

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

It would be interesting to cross-reference those writers/texts with "believed in a historical Jesus". If they believed in a HJ but not referencing the Gospels, then does this suggest another source of data? Papias certainly suggests that oral transmission was important up until his time.

I'd also be interested in any writer who actually disapproves of the Gospels. By "disapprove", do you mean "not treat as authoritative"?

I've expanded your list with others up to 155 CE. Many of the dates I've taken from either my review of Doherty's J:NGNM or the Early Christian Writings website. I've changed the underlining to reflect "Refers to written 'Gospel(s)'", since the use of 'gospel' doesn't necessarily refer to written sources.

Text	HJ Statements?	Date
Didache	Yes	50-120
Barnabas	Yes	95-125
1 Clement	?	96
Cerinthus	Yes	100?
2 Peter	Yes	100-160
1 Timothy	Yes	100-150
Ignatius	Yes	105-115 (Shorter)
Papias	Yes	110-130
Polycarp	Yes	110-140
Basilides	Yes	120-140
Quadratus	Yes	120-130
Aristides	Yes	140
Acts of Apostles	Yes	80-130
2 Clement	?	130-160
Justin	Yes	150s
Minucius Felix	?	160?

Green = Refers to written 'Gospel(s)'

Notes:
1. Some of the texts refer to 'gospels' but not as apparently written sources (e.g. Didache, Barnabas). I didn't underline them above.
2. Some of the texts appear to quote from our extant Gospels, but they don't cite Gospels as their source (e.g. Ignatius). I didn't underline them above. See also Richard Carrier's "Formation of the NT Canon" for reference.
3. Some of the authors were gnostics, but I have marked them as 'Yes' in the HJ column if they believed that their Jesus Christ interacted with people on earth.
4. I put a question mark for M. Felix, but I would put a 'Yes' in that column personally! 1 and 2 Clement also appear to make HJ statements (e.g. 1 Clement appears to refer to Jesus Christ being a descendent of Judah), but they are ambiguous.

to Gakuseidon,
I think the author of 1 Clement knew about gMark, but used it only as a source for his material (he seems to have a low opinion of that gospel):
See http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html and then "find" on >> 5. Did '1Clement' (to the Corinthians) know about GMark? <<

Also the Didache refers to a gospel before quoting the Lord's prayer:
See http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html and then "find" on >> 6. The Didache, dependency and dating: <<
There is another mention of "gospel" in the Didache (in chapter 11), introducing an elaborated Matthean passage..

Cordially, Bernard

Hi Bernard, yes, I agree with you that it is likely that they knew a written source that is probably the extant gospels. A strong case can easily be made, which is one reason I put in a link to Dr Carrier's article on the formation of the NT Canon (where Carrier works fom Metzger and others). Carrier writes on the Didache:

• Next comes the Didakhê (did-a-KAY), a manual of Christianity, which cannot be certainly dated, though it is believed to follow 110... It does not name any written sources, but quotes exactly the Gospel of Matthew as just the "Gospel" of Jesus (M 50). No references are made which show any clear connection with the epistles, but the OT is quoted a few times. It is worth noting that the book attributes its ultimate source to unnamed itinerant evangelists (M 51), showing that anonymous oral tradition was still king when the Didakhe was written.

On 1 Clement, Carrier writes:

• The first Christian text that did not become canonized but was respected as authentic is the first epistle of Clement of Rome, reasonably dated to 95 A.D. (M 40), and contained in many ancient Bibles and frequently read and regarded as scripture in many churches (M 187-8). This is relevant because even at this late date two things are observed: Clement never refers to any Gospel, but frequently refers to various epistles of Paul. Yet he calls them wise counsel, not scripture--he reserves this authority for the OT ("Old Testament"), which he cites over a hundred times (M 41-3). On a few occasions he quotes Jesus, without referring to any written source. But his quotations do not correspond to anything in any known written text, although they resemble sayings in the Gospels close enough to have derived from the same oral tradition. This suggests that the Gospels were not known to Clement. Yet he was a prominent leader of the Church in Rome. If they had been written by then, they must have not made it to Rome before 95. It is possible that they had not been written at all. In the case of Mark, for example, it is often thought that he was writing for an audience in Rome, thus it is most remarkable that Clement would not know of this, supposedly the earliest, Gospel. But it is also possible that he simply chose not to quote Mark, though knew the book--although why he would ignore Mark (even in his quotations of Jesus) and yet refer to numerous epistles of Paul is difficult to explain.

The pattern is consistent with a tradition of oral transmission in the First Century, and eventually moving towards seeing the Gospels as becoming authoritative later in the Second Century.

I may edit or add to this

Apart from omissions from the Early Christian Writings website, I'm not sure what the purpose of the thread's list is...

I would happily accept corrections and additions that belong on the website of course.

(Not that you can't remake a mouse trap - maybe it'll even be a better one...)

Gday gents

A few comments :

Dis-approval of Gospel stories -
2 Peter 1:16 - "For we did not follow cleverly devised fables ..."
1 Tim. 1:4 - "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies"
Papias - prefers a 'living voice'.
Minucius Felix - "when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth"

Ignatius -
Does anyone believe the Ignatius story ? IMHO Bernard seems right with a date around 130. BTW Bernard - your page here is broken :
http://historical-jesus.info/ignatius.html

1 Clement -
I do not think the author knew a written Gospel :
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/ClementRome.html

Aristides -
I see opinion on dating is still split between 125 (according to Eusebius naming Hadrian) and 140 (based on the Syriac.)


Perhaps our table should have columns showing :

• if they know an HJ
• if they know a written Gospel
• if they approve of a written Gospel

Kapyong

to Kapyong,

Ignatius -
Does anyone believe the Ignatius story ? IMHO Bernard seems right with a date around 130. BTW Bernard - your page here is broken :
http://historical-jesus.info/ignatius.html

It is fixed. My dating is 135 +- 10 years, except for 'to Polycarp' (around 160-170).

1 Clement -
I do not think the author knew a written Gospel :
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/ClementRome.html

Too bad! But I read your article and I found you do not address some of my arguments. And there are certainly a lot of Markan material in the epistle.

Minucius Felix - "when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth"

Felix might have meant (Jesus as) a criminal (because of the cross) is far from the truth.

Cordially, Bernard

Kapyong wrote:Gday gents
1 Clement -
I do not think the author knew a written Gospel :
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/ClementRome.html

Kap,

Malwarebytes keeps displaying a notice that it has blocked a malicious website when I click on this link. It says the website http://kapyong.5gbfree.com is pure evil!

What's up with that? You don't look too dangerous.

DCH

Gday DCHindley

DCHindley wrote: Kap,
Malwarebytes keeps displaying a notice that it has blocked a malicious website when I click on this link. It says the website http://kapyong.5gbfree.com is pure evil!
What's up with that? You don't look too dangerous.
DCH

Crikey !
That's news to me

My pages have nothing but text and images, I really don't think they are infected.
Can you give any more detail about Malwarebytes complaint ?

Meanwhile, I'll do some scans at this end.


Kapyong

Kapyong wrote: Ignatius -
Does anyone believe the Ignatius story ? IMHO Bernard seems right with a date around 130...

I think the Ignatius story is implausible; both for

1. a then anti-Roman heretic/'atheist' being taken on a letter-writing tour of duty before being executed ceremoniously in Rome; and
2. for the implication there was, this early, a church (i) widespread through Asia/Galatia/Anatolia, and (ii) with a hierarchical structure.

Kapyong wrote: 1 Clement -
I do not think the author knew a written Gospel :
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/ClementRome.html

Again, this is an early document that gives the impression there was a well-structured Christian church with bishops, presbyters, etc.

I think it's a document designed to mislead.

On 1 Clement, Carrier writes:

• ...Clement never refers to any Gospel, but frequently refers to various epistles of Paul. Yet he calls them wise counsel, not scripture --he reserves this authority for the OT ("Old Testament"), which he cites over a hundred times (M 41-3). On a few occasions he quotes Jesus, without referring to any written source. But his quotations do not correspond to anything in any known written text, although they resemble sayings in the Gospels close enough to have derived from the same oral tradition. This suggests that the Gospels were not known to Clement. Yet he was a prominent leader of the Church in Rome. If they had been written by then, they must have not made it to Rome before 95. It is possible that they had not been written at all. In the case of Mark, for example, it is often thought that he was writing for an audience in Rome, thus it is most remarkable that Clement would not know of this, supposedly the earliest, Gospel. But it is also possible that he simply chose not to quote Mark, though knew the book --although why he would ignore Mark (even in his quotations of Jesus) and yet refer to numerous epistles of Paul is difficult to explain.

Gday Bernard

Kapyong wrote:1 Clement -
I do not think the author knew a written Gospel :
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/ClementRome.html

Bernard Muller wrote: Too bad! But I read your article and I found you do not address some of my arguments. And there are certainly a lot of Markan material in the epistle.

I have read your page on the Gospels, and considered your argument about 1 Clement using G.Mark.

You have certainly shown commonalities between G.Mark and 1 Clement.
But I see two problems :
1. The commonalities are weak
2. You have not shown they went FROM G.Mark TO 1 Clement

Consider -
1Clement, ch.13 "...with what measure you measure, with the same it shall be measured to you"
cf
Mk 4:24 NASB "...By your standard of measure it will be measured to you"

That looks much more like a saying about measuring from an Oral Tradition than a textual dependency - especially when introduced with 'remember the words of Jesus'.

So too -
1Clement, ch.13 "...forgive, that it may be forgiven to you"
cf
Mk11:25 NASB "...forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you"

Looks like there is a saying about forgiveness going around. Looks nothing like a textual copying.

Not to mention the addition of 'stripes' to a saying from the Tanakh - apparently from G.Mark. But a simple idea like that can easily have come from elsewhere than the flogging scene in G.Mark.

All the similarities are quite weak, and do not show a pattern of textual copying, but rather variable sayings.

In short Bernard -
you have not shown a clear dependence of 1 Clement FROM G.Mark - just loose similarities.
The evidence better supports the conclusion that 1 Clement drew on popular traditions, probably oral, without knowing G.Mark.
Those traditions then later ALSO made it into G.Mark.


Kapyong