Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Kapyong wrote:Well, here is a summary of the evidence we all agree to (I think) :

• Papias 100-130 knows rumours of two Gospel-like writings - by Mark (from Peter), and Matthew.
• Aristides 120-130 knows of a single un-named Gospel, mentioning a virgin, which can be read somewhere.
• Justin Martyr c.150 - has several books 'called Gospels', the memoirs of the Apostles, and the memoir(s) of Peter.
• Justin Martyr dies c.163 - his pupil Tatian inherits the books
• Tatian c.172 - produces the 'FromFour' Gospel harmony, still no names.
• Irenaeus c.185 - first to name all four Gospels.

For the record, while each of the above statements may be true, I do not necessarily agree with all of them. I would have to change their wording in order to agree with them without reservation:

• Papias knows rumors of the origins of two gospel-like writings: by Mark (from Peter), and Matthew. [The extant fragments do not conclusively prove whether or not he himself possessed the texts in question.]
• Aristides mentions a single unnamed gospel, mentioning a virgin, which can be read somewhere.
• Justin Martyr has, according to our extant manuscripts, several books 'called gospels', the memoirs of the apostles, and the memoir(s) of Peter. [I have wondered aloud before whether the "gospels" phrase in Justin might not be a gloss. I still have not decided.]
• Justin Martyr dies, and his pupil Tatian inherits the books. [I suppose so.]
• Tatian possibly produces the Diatessaron, a gospel harmony; no names mentioned. [I personally have not yet decided how accurate the patristic information is that credits Tatian with the Diatessaron.]
• Irenaeus is the first on extant record to name all four gospels. [We have no surefire way of knowing whether or not he got the names of the four gospels from earlier writers or scribes, no longer extant.]

Overall, my main issue is your overconfidence in your interpretation of individual data points. We have only scraps of Papias, for example, one of which happens to quote an elder named John as to the origins of two texts, and you conclude that Papias himself did not have access to those texts. Well, you may be right. But you may be wrong. Your conclusion is not a lock, nor is it obviously superior to the alternatives. None of the extant scraps have him saying, "I have not seen these texts myself." Therefore we are down to inference and argument. A simple statement of your own interpretation is not enough.

Another issue is that your list seems to forget data already established. For example, you have Justin knowing of a memoir text named after Peter, and then you have Tatian inheriting Justin's books; but then, inexplicably, you write "still no names" for Tatian's entry on the list. This is why I added the word "mentioned" to that line; "still no names" makes it sound as if those texts do not have names, whereas, in fact, we have no way to guarantee that Tatian did not receive the name of the Petrine memoir, at least, from Justin. Also, we have no way to guarantee that Justin himself does not know the names of other memoir texts besides the one attributed to Peter. He is not writing an encyclopedia, after all.

Basically, it seems that you think you know more than any of us actually knows.

I actually think Ben's summary is fair and reasonable. One more thing though. I brought up the fact that IF one accepts the idea that the gospel was originally about Jewish gods or powers (Jesus/Ishu and Chrestos/something or other in Hebrew) and how 'the two were made one ... on the Cross' (Eph 2:14) it is hard to believe that this doctrine was openly established and 'published' (a term you use without properly understanding what that meant in the second century CE).

You said you could see why a 'gospel about the Jewish god' (I say 'gods') might be kept secret. I say it had to be kept secret not merely because of the blasphemous content (two gods being united through the Passion) but also for very practical reasons. Nietzsche once said that obscurity was essential for religion. Too many atheists in their eagerness to 'condemn' Christianity want to make it appear as if the religion was based on a 'historical' understanding or what might be described as 'ordinary reality.'

What I mean by that is that because most of these new atheists had white religious nutjobs as parents they simply project their white religious nutjob ancestors as the original audience for Christianity. Since their white religious nutjob ancestors were likely pagans at the time of the beginning of Christianity it is inferred often times by these 'reformed' white religious nutjobs that Christianity had 'pagan' roots.

But Christianity was clearly rooted in Judaism and if - as I would contend - this mystical doctrine of Yahweh and Elohim being united through a quasi-historical crucifixion were at the root of this religion it would have been counterproductive to have Christians at every street corner 'openly publicizing' the existence of this text.

If you read the writings of Clement and Origen and the Alexandrian tradition there is latent sense that Mark kept his doctrines secret to resemble the 'mysteries' (that Jews had such mysteries is also confirmed). To this end it wasn't just for 'negative' reasons (i.e. afraid of getting beaten up by angry Jews) that Christians kept the original gospel of Mark secret, religious mysteries cultivated secrecy to add mystery and interest about the doctrines of their religion.

Once you acknowledge that Jesus himself speaks and confirms that a mystery is present in the gospel the cult of secrecy must also been present in the spread of the gospel and the modern mystery as to why the gospel is only mention in the second century but was 'published' in the first is now solved.

Another point too. If you accept that the gospel originally took on this 'god doctrine' (i.e. that Jesus was one god and Christ another and the two became one on the Cross) you need a few generations to explain how Irenaeus managed to transform this text and doctrine into one which makes it appear that Jesus was a man from wherever he was.

The Teaching of Addai has many of the basic features of Marcionism:

Assemble me tomorrow all the city, and I will sow in it the word of life by the preaching which I will address to you— about the coming of Christ, in what manner it was; and about Him that sent Him, why and how He sent Him; and about His power and His wonderful works; and about the glorious mysteries of His coming, which He spoke of in the world; and about the unerring truth of His preaching; and how and for what cause He abused Himself, and humbled His exalted Godhead by the manhood which He took, and was crucified, and descended to the place of the dead, and broke through the enclosure Ephesians 2:14 which had never been broken through before, and gave life to the dead by being slain Himself, and descended alone, and ascended with many to His glorious Father, with whom He had been from eternity in one exalted Godhead.

to Kapyong,

FFS Bernard Muller !
I just said explicitly that no-one really KNOWS. I specifically noted I just think it's the best conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. I did NOT say I "KNOW" for 100% sure and certain, I clearly said the exact opposite.

I simply made a statement, like you do, like everyone does. When you challenged me on it I clarified it was just a conclusion, that I did not know for sure. Then you bizarrely responded by abusing me for claiming to KNOW !

What dishonest bullshit. Do you believe it's OK to use stupid arguments against mythicists because they are all stupid ? Or do you really think you have a good argument there Bernard Muller ?

But if "I did NOT say I "KNOW" for 100% sure and certain, I clearly said the exact opposite." and "no-one really KNOWS", why do you keep your statement as if you were 100% certain Papias only knew about only rumors of gospels? I call that dishonest.

Well, we all know where YOU think he did, don't we Bernard Muller ?
Because this is your well-known peculiar bias :

Papias mentions Judas.
The Gospels mention Judas.
Therefore, Papias MUST have taken it from the Gospels.
Even though Papias' Judas story is different to the Gospels.

But you still did not answer my question: from where Papias got Judas the traitor?

Really ?
How do YOU know Papias' intent Bernard Muller ?
How many other ancient authors' intents do you know ?

Our G.Mark is NOT out of order. What was Papias explaining do you think ?

Papias' intent is to explain the disorder in the writing of Mark. Papias did explain the disorder. Mission accomplished. Papias' intent fulfilled. No need to provide quotes.
Some elements of our gMark are out of order as compared with the other gospels, including gLuke (whose author claimed that his/her gospel is in order), as I explained on my webpage http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

Well :
It does not yet have the title 'Gospel',
Papias says it is out of order, but ours is in order
It is still named for Peter from Mark, like Justin, but from Irenaeus on it is just G.Mark.

How do you know that "gospel" should be the title for gMark?

But anyway, it could conceivably have been an almost fully developed G.Mark, I'm NOT making a specific claim about the particular version that Papias knew.

(BOLDING MINE)
If so, if possibly so, then why do you still state that Papias knew only about rumors of gospels?

I do not see why you said that. No-one claimed Papias 'had to' provide quotes. The issue is that Papias did NOT provide quotes, and did not give a good description. Papias is aware of those two books, but he does show any sign of actually seeing or accessing them himself.

(BOLDING MINE)
But if Papias not providing quotes does not prove or disprove anything, why do you mention it?
So now, Papias is aware of those two books. What happened to rumors of gospels?
For the record, I do not think the Logias of Matthew were a gospel, but more like Q material, more so because some of the Q sayings show signs to have been translated from Aramaic (which does not mean they are necessarily authentic).

A book like the Didakhe e.g. clearly fits :
the authors should know the Gospels, as they've apparently been around for up to 30 years,
the authors have a very strong motive to mention the Gospels and their teachings, such as the Lord's Supper

I still do not know what you mean here.
Are you saying because the gospels had been around for decades, Christian writers had to mention the gospels?
If so, I do not see the gospels as being considered sacred from the time they were written. And just because you have a capital "G" for "Gospels", that does not make them canonical and authoritative from the get go.
Certainly, they are full of flaws and differences (even conflicts) among themselves and full of Pagan-like legendary items. It took time for them to be considered as authoritative (at the end of the second century). So I am not surprised that Christian authors avoided to be close to them, even if they quoted them, paraphrased them, extracted particular wordings from them, used them in any ways (such as writing a gospel of their own) or completely ignored them.

the authors have a very strong motive to mention the Gospels and their teachings, such as the Lord's Supper

Why should these authors have a strong motive to mention the gospels and their teachings even if they read them? I do not see your point.

You think if someone read gMark, he/she had to write a new gospel. So if someone did not write a new gospel, that means that this person was not aware of gMark!

Sorry that's crazy talk. I don't believe that at all.

So what do you believe in?
Is it along this line: if someone read gMark, he/she did not have to write a new gospel.
If not, so what do you believe in?

Cordially, Bernard

Gday Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby wrote:Hey, sorry about getting off on the wrong foot and all that.

Thank you for your apology
I accept it unreservedly, and respect you for it.

I hope you will find time to join in discussion here, particularly about how an Argument from Silence can be valid IF :

• the author should know the information
• the author has a motive to mention it.

There is also various positive evidence to consider, such as Papias -> Justin -> Irenaeus (G.Mark from Peter), and the comments of Aristides.


Regards,

Kapyong

And Celsus (Contr. Cels. Book 1) confirms that Christians were a secret association. So it becomes extremely unlikely IMHO that the gospel was ever 'openly published' before Irenaeus.

Gday TedM an all

IMO some things just don't require evidence Kapyong.

Belief without evidence is called FAITH.
You seem to have a strong faithful belief in all this, regardless of the evidence.

Do you have faith in Jesus Christ TedM ?


[quote=""Kapyong"] You tried to argue that e.g. Aristides...[/quote]

TedM wrote:wasn't me.

Yes it was, back on page 13, first post, you wrote :

TedM wrote:... That Aristides knew about written gospels. They were all before Justin.

Now you just flatly deny it

Look TedM -
you have a rude and adversarial attitude, you blame me for your comprehension errors, your arguments are based on faith, and you make false claims like that. You are only here to attack me, possibly because I challenge your faithful beliefs. I do not wish to have a conversation like that here, I've had plenty on religious forums.


Kapyong

Instead of wasting your time on Bernard why not simply answer the question I have been raising time and again in this thread - doesn't your theory about dating for the gospel assume that it was openly published? A secretly transmitted book could have been written at any time.

All boldfacing is mine:

Kapyong wrote:Christian believers would obviously NOT reject the Gospels as non-historical would they ? You tried to argue that e.g. Aristides the new Christian convert was an example of someone who could have rejected the Gospel as non-historical, based on his full memory of all the events in Jerusalem back in the 30s. As if a Greek from Athens around the 120-130 (or maybe 140) would remember Jerusalem from a century prior !

TedM wrote:wasn't me.

Kapyong wrote:Yes it was, back on page 13, first post, you wrote :

TedM wrote:... That Aristides knew about written gospels. They were all before Justin.

Now you just flatly deny it

This is what Ted wrote (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2696&p=60285#p60285):

TedM wrote:The evidence shows that the authors of GLuke and GMatthew (and probably GJohn) knew about GMark. That Papias knew about gospels by Mark and Matthew. That Aristides knew about written gospels. They were all before Justin. People certainly could have challenged the Gospels as not historical prior to Justin.

Kapyong, unless you referred to the wrong post by mistake (page 13, first post), you have misrepresented Ted here. Ted made no claim about Aristides basing his challenge of the gospel upon his own memory of events a century earlier. You added that part, and Ted is not to blame for disowning the result.

to Secret Alias,
Do you think the Christians and Christianity were accepted by the authorities from Irenaeus to Constantine? Were they not persecuted then at times?

Cordially, Bernard