Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Kapyong wrote:I think the best conclusion is that Minucius Felix :

• Knew the Gospel stories, but
• did NOT accept them as Christian beliefs.

Then why does he write about Christians as a single block? Why does he not distinguish his beliefs from those of the gospel-toting Christians? Did he not realize that they called themselves Christians, too?

Gday GakuseiDon and all

GakuseiDon wrote:So we go onto the two charges we are interested in:

• "You worship a wicked man who was killed for his crimes!" "No, we don't worship a criminal. No criminal nor any mortal man could be believed to be god. But the Egyptians used to take a man and claim he is god!"
• "You worship actual crosses. Fitting altars for wicked men!" "No, we don't worship or wish for crosses. But the shape of the cross is used by you guys! You can see the shape of the cross 'when a man adores God with a pure mind, with handsoutstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it.'"

Now, think of those responses coming from a proto-orthodox Christian like Justin Martyr or Tertullian. Wouldn't the responses be consistent with their beliefs? He is defending all Christians, not just his group. If so, why is this non-orthodox Christian giving the orthodox Christians a free pass?

I don't think I understand your argument, sorry
Perhaps M.Felix considers non-historical HJers like him to be real Christians,
but those who believe these new-fangled Gospels are not real Christians ?

GakuseiDon wrote:But I have to ask: why is M. Felix defending the sign of the cross? Isn't it those other Christians who use the cross in their beliefs? What is he trying to accomplish here?

An important question that I will have to address.

GakuseiDon wrote:Yes, that's right. It's not because M. Felix tells us that, it's because it is the simpler conclusion: we know that there were Christians who believed in a crucified God in M. Felix's time. M. Felix's statements are consistent with such beliefs. Thus, in the absence of further evidence, I conclude that it is most likely that M. Felix held beliefs consistent with the orthodox of the day.

But there were also Christians who did NOT believe that, and M.Felix's statements are more consistent with that view.

GakuseiDon wrote:No doubt that it is confusing that the author doesn't mention 'Jesus' or 'Christ', but we do have the example of Tertullian's letter I gave above where we see the same thing. (I argue that Tatian is another example but that can be for another day.) If you can think of a reason why Tertullian doesn't do it but that can't be used to explain M. Felix, I'd be interested to hear it.

Fair enough
I'll have to read both carefully, one day.


Kapyong

Gday MrMacSon and all

Kapyong wrote:Well, according to modern versions of MSS from the middle-ages, of the 4th century writings of Eusebius, Papias around the beginning of the 2nd century, claimed it was THE Mark who was a secretary of Peter in Rome late first century.

MrMacSon wrote:Ah, ok: Mark the hearer of Peter(?)

Yup.
Although it's hardly a solid chain of evidence, is it ?


Kapyong

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Kapyong wrote:I think the best conclusion is that Minucius Felix :

• Knew the Gospel stories, but
• did NOT accept them as Christian beliefs.

Then why does he write about Christians as a single block? Why does he not distinguish his beliefs from those of the gospel-toting Christians? Did he not realize that they called themselves Christians, too?

Perhaps he was not writing about orthodox Jesus-following Christians. Perhaps, like Pliny-the-Younger and Seutonius (and perhaps Tacitus), he was writing about a poorly-described and thus poorly-defined group or sect?

MrMacSon wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Kapyong wrote:I think the best conclusion is that Minucius Felix :

• Knew the Gospel stories, but
• did NOT accept them as Christian beliefs.

Then why does he write about Christians as a single block? Why does he not distinguish his beliefs from those of the gospel-toting Christians? Did he not realize that they called themselves Christians, too?

Perhaps he was not writing about orthodox Jesus-following Christians. Perhaps, like Pliny-the-Younger and Seutonius (and perhaps Tacitus), he was writing about a poorly-described and thus poorly-defined group or sect?

All that matters for my question to Kapyong is that the group(s) in question used the gospels. Definition beyond that is unnecessary thus far.

Kapyong wrote: No Christian writer on record had his hands on Gospels before Justin. They are not found in the public record. There is no evidence there were available to anyone. I call that not published.

TedM wrote:Hi, I don't know what your point is about publishing if you agree that various gospels were known among Christians well before Justin. Can you please explain this? You said 'published' means to you: <<Released publicly for review and comment and quotation>>. What does 'released publicly' 'mean to you and how is that significant to you?

The Gospels were obviously known to four people (at least.)
But they did not release, publish, publicise, or announce them publically.
No-one on record before Justin had the Gospels in hand.

TedM wrote:How is an author different than a writer?

No different.
But the authors/writers of the Gospels did not release, publish, publicise, or announce them publically.
No Christian writer on record, before Justin, had the Gospels in hand.

Kapyong wrote:You're claiming the total silence on the Gospels was because writers knew the Gospels conflicted ? How would anybody know they conflicted, if nobody ever discussed it ?.. Sorry, that's a ridiculous claim

TedM wrote:Well, you are claiming that the other Gospel authors DID know about the other works but didn't comment on them because they were writing 'competing' works. What's the difference with my claim?

The difference is clear and significant -
G.Mark is a narrative about man-God Jesus Christ.
When G.Luke copied (plagiarised) and updated G.Mark - where would that plagiarising fit in the narrative ?
WHY would G.Luke indicate he plagiarised G.Mark ?

But Christian writers who knew the Gospels and their conflicts have no reason to avoid that at all. Later Christians who did know the Gospels and their contradictions DID discuss them and argue them at length.

TedM wrote:Common sense tells me that if several other authors knew about it then MANY MORE also knew about it and it was openly discussed.

Your claim of 'common sense' is not evidence.
It was NOT openly discussed - until Justin Martyr c.150.

TedM wrote:Why wouldn't they talk about it? You seem to be placing a LOT of emphasis on silence by writers, having to resort to claims of hidden works.

They did NOT talk about it on record - until Justin Martyr c.150.

My claim is directly based on the evidence :

• the Gospels were NOT released, published, publicised, or announced publically before Justin Martyr.

TedM wrote:I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories - you yourself provided the explanation - why talk about a competing book in your own? THAT ALONE reasonably explains the silence in those cases.

A 'conspiracy theory' ?
You're fucking kidding me ?!
Then you agreed with me anyway ?


Kapyong

Gday TedM and all

TedM wrote:Re Justin and harmonization, I think that several facts considered together provide some basis for him using a harmony:
1. Psychologically, there was a 'need' for a harmonization, especially when there are competing arguments for authority. Those arguments would have been greatest early on, soon after the works first appeared and started to be compared.

I'm glad you agree with me
The works appeared with Justin, then afterwards were harmonised by Tatian.

TedM wrote:2. Scholars believe it was a harmonization.

Really ?
Perhaps you can clarify if that's like :

• Drs Carrier and Price believe Jesus Christ was a myth, or
• scholars believe the earth orbits the sun.

I looked at the page Secret Alias cited as information on 'Justin's harmony', and found it to be just one scholar citing himself with useless arguments. Then I remembered that Stephan Huller has a strange theory that the Gospels somehow started out as a harmony or something, then were DIVIDED into four Gospels (then later harmonised by Tatian.) Now, I may not be as well-read as some other posters here, but I don't think that Gospel Division Theory has scholarly support. Perhaps Secret Alias will tell us a bit more about it

TedM wrote:3. The term 'Memoirs of the Apostles' implies strongly that there was more than one gospel at that time. This weakens the idea that Justin was using one book written by one author. As does the lack of any other reference to a single book considered by all to be the 'gospel'.

I'm glad you agree with me
Justin had multiple books, plural.

TedM wrote:So either he used multiple books and referred to them generically, or he used a harmonization also referred to generically that someone else had created (he likely would have taken credit for such harmonization had he done it himself).

Generically ?
He refered to memoirs, and Gospels, plural.
NOT to a harmonisation, singular.

TedM wrote:4. The use of the term 'Memoirs of the Apostles' without attributing any one of them specifically. I think it is unlikely that they had no author attribution within the communities that were reading them. Papias' comments argue in favor of known attribution prior to Justin. Why would Justin not reference them by name if he was using them individually, preferring a generic term 'Memoirs of the Apostles'?

Because they did not have individual names until Irenaeus. They were known as a group as 'Memoirs of the Apostles', and one of them was also known as the 'Memoirs of Peter' - probably G.Mark, although it's conceivable that Justin didn't actually know which one was Peter's. The term 'Memoirs' (ὑπομνήματα, hypomnemata) is a category of writings - meaning a reminder, a note, a public record, a commentary, an anecdotal record, a draft, a copy etc. An example is the Pythagorean Hypomnemata by Alexander Polyhistor early 1st CBC.

But they were 'called Gospels', as a title. Having no individual author's names yet (except Peter maybe.)

TedM wrote:5. Tatian, his student, used a harmonization - widely. Since scholars believe that Justin too used a harmonization it isn't a large step to conclude that Tatian was influenced by an earlier use of a harmonization by Justin and others.

Tatian DID make a harmonisation - the "FromFour (Gospel)".
Almost certainly because he inherited four UN-NAMED books from Justin.
Tatian did NOT update a previous harmonisation with, say, the "Better (Gospel)", or the "Second (Gospel)", or similar.

The evidence is clearly against Justin having harmony. The argument that he had one just because his pupil Tatian had one twenty years later is spurious. If Justin had one, then Polycarp had one, so Ignatius had one too, thus Clement had one ...

No.
Things start somewhere, creations begin with an author.
Tatian was first to make a harmony.


Kapyong

Kapyong wrote:I don't think I understand your argument, sorry
Perhaps M.Felix considers non-historical HJers like him to be real Christians,
but those who believe these new-fangled Gospels are not real Christians ?

That's right, and that's what you are claiming. But think of what the author states:

• For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God.

Isn't that consistent with the Gospels? Certainly the Gospels don't portray Jesus as a criminal, nor that Christians worship actual crosses. IOW, why think that this is other than orthodox Christian belief? Did the orthodox Christians of that time believe that Christians worshipped a criminal (a 'wicked man') and worshipped actual crosses on which people were crucified?

Kapyong wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote:But I have to ask: why is M. Felix defending the sign of the cross? Isn't it those other Christians who use the cross in their beliefs? What is he trying to accomplish here?

An important question that I will have to address.

It's part of the same question as above. Why does the author appear to be making statements that are consistent with the "Gospel" Christians, if the author is aware of such Christians but has different beliefs? Why defend the sign of the cross at all?

Gday gents

Kapyong wrote:I think the best conclusion is that Minucius Felix :

• Knew the Gospel stories, but
• did NOT accept them as Christian beliefs.

Ben C. Smith wrote:Then why does he write about Christians as a single block? Why does he not distinguish his beliefs from those of the gospel-toting Christians? Did he not realize that they called themselves Christians, too?

MrMacSon wrote:Perhaps he was not writing about orthodox Jesus-following Christians. Perhaps, like Pliny-the-Younger and Seutonius (and perhaps Tacitus), he was writing about a poorly-described and thus poorly-defined group or sect?

Ben C. Smith wrote:All that matters for my question to Kapyong is that the group(s) in question used the gospels. Definition beyond that is unnecessary thus far.

I'll answer more fully to GakuseiDon, but in a nut-shell -
To Lucky Minucius, Christianity was all about morality, and based on the heavenly.
He'd heard stories about the new-fangled Gospels - tales of a miraculous god-man on earth - but thought them ridiculous, especially the central premise of a God being crucified, just like a common criminal.

Please see my post at bottom of page 10 for more examples of M.Felix rejecting core Christian concepts.


Kapyong

Gday GakuseiDon and all

Hey thanks for persevering with me GakuseiDon I think you have identified our Gordian Knot.

GakuseiDon wrote:Did the orthodox Christians of that time believe that Christians worshipped a criminal (a 'wicked man') and worshipped actual crosses on which people were crucified?

No,
that was simply M.Felix's dismissive take on the newly arrived Gospels.

Not like he knew of two camps : Gospel Christians and Non Gospel Christians - and argued for his Christian team, while disparaging t'other.
Rather : his Christianity was based on morality and beliefs in God - not on ANY crucifixion, NOR any Jesus Christ. One camp.

All he knew of the new-fangled Gospels was rumours, he didn't particularly care about the details because the whole idea was ridiculous and he knew they'd never catch on

This does open up that strangest of rabbit-holes though : Christianity without Jesus Christ. The second century writers who expound on Christianity at length WITHOUT any Jesus Christ. Not just small books which might not be relevant, but several large books which explicitly described Christian beliefs at length - including Athenagoras' Resurrection of the Dead - without ANY mention of Jesus Christ. I dare say you've read every one Mathetes, Theophilus, Tatian To the Greeks also. I add Lucky Minucius.

That does mean that I identify five groups of early Christian believers about Jesus Christ :

• A heavenly spiritual Jesus Christ, e.g. Paul.
• A spiritual phantasm on earth, e.g. Marcion.
• Bizzaro Gnostic beliefs, e.g. G.Egyptians.
• NO Jesus Christ at all, e.g. Athenagoras.
• Orthodox Jesus Christ, e.g. Irenaeus.

Does that clarify my ideas for everyone ?
We'll make this Gordian Knot not


Kapyong