Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote:

Calling it clandestine b/c it does not seem to have been known for 50-60 yrs

Calling it clandestine because all the evidence suggests the [early-] Christian tradition was preserved in secret.

I think that is a bit too convenient (somewhat of a cop-out).


anyway, Do you agree with my other attempts at clarification or nuance ? --

MrMacSon wrote:

Secret Alias wrote:I think Irenaeus was responsible for placing Christian texts (the canon, Justin Martyr and a few others) in the public libraries. This is how the orthodox texts became the definitive edition. Trobisch has been supportive of the general observation.

• You mean Irenaeus did that late 2nd century, yet portrayed those texts as if they had been earlier than when he placed them?

Secret Alias wrote:When this edition of the Christian Bible was made public all the other editions could be accused of willful forgeries bent on diminishing or denying the 'divine monarchy'. This is why it was so important for Irenaeus to identify the other sects as 'heresies.'

• or how he was able to portray other sects as heresies.

I've placed the two sentences in your next post reverse order (b/c it seems to flow better) -

Secret Alias wrote:
Because his texts were first in the libraries he effective defined Christianity according to his own terms.

According to his understanding an apostolic succession was established at Rome from the beginning.

• ^According to his 'understanding', or according to his mendacity?

I wonder whether Christianity would be defined as a religion by pagans given that there were no sacrifices. Just something that popped into my head. It is hard to say what Christianity was exactly from the pagan POV.

According to his 'understanding', or according to his mendacity?

Yes I think it was mostly bullshit but the question (never formulated unfortunately by mythicists) arises - how was complete bullshit allowed to be taken to be gospel truth? The answer has to have something to do with publication. The same attack happens today. If you aren't a published author you're just some jackass. The same goes too for a 'secret tradition.' The truth was 'locked in' when the texts were 'locked in' in published form. That publication occurred when the texts were deposited in a public library. Christianity was instantly defined, defined in Irenaeus's terms.

My hunch is that the texts were deposited at the Library of Peace (the Eirenion). The connection with Judea before the War has something to do with my hunch.

Irenaeus and the Patristic texts he plants the suggestion (mostly Justin Martyr) always makes the appeal to the existence of a census of Judea to prove the existence of a Jesus the man. Which library? The Eirenion/the temple of Peace conveniently burned at the end of Commodus's reign (maybe the claim about the presence of orthodox MSS was established immediately after the fire so the new deposit was claimed to be a 'replacement' of those texts damaged in the fire who knows). This also suggests that he used the 'planting orthodox books in the library' scheme IMHO.

Gday GakuseiDon and all

Kapyong wrote:[*]Aristides 120-130 knows of a single un-named Gospel, mentioning a virgin, which can be read somewhere.

GakuseiDon wrote:I think that Aristides tells us a little more than this. He mentions Christian writings about a half dozen times, and seems to urge Hadrian to read them. This suggests to me that Christian writings were expected to be available to the pagans of his time, even if only to the educated.

Hmm, we agree
Not sure what you are distinguishing - is it 'the Gospel' vs 'Christian writings' plural ? Did he refer to other Christian writings ?

Aristides does apparently urge Hadrian to read therein, so, yes, it must have been available, 'even if only to the educated' as you say.

The range of possibilities could be from :

• A single private copy owned by a local scholar, to
• A public copy in e.g. some city's library.

So, in terms of whether this Gospel has been 'published', or is 'available to Christians to read and quote from' ?
It's another tantalising MAYBE.

You don't seem enthused by Aristides' smoking gun - that the Gospel has only been preached for a short time. Which could mean recently arrived in Athens, or it could even be recent to Christians as a whole - which could help specifically date the publication, or even creation, of the Gospel(s). I think it is a tremendously exciting clue and one day scholars will stumble upon this passage and up-end the whole Gospel dating scheme. That's why I've been banging Aristides' drum for over a decade - I will be famous as the discoverer of the T.A. - the Testimonium Aristidean

Meanwhile, back on earth, I'd like to hear comments on that 'smoking gun'.

GakuseiDon wrote:If that is a reference to a virgin-birth, then that eliminates the Gospel of Mark and Gospel of John as his only sources, at least in the form we have them today.

Sure, that sounds like G.Matthew or G.Luke. But you make it sound like that means he knew G.Matthew and/or G.Luke AND G.Mark AND G.John. His reference to 'the Gospel' singular doesn't sound like that.


Kapyong

Secret Alias wrote:

• Christianity was instantly defined: - defined in Irenaeus's terms.

I think there's a good chance you're right.


^ Irenaeus explaining that

• "by 'becoming man', Christ restored humanity to being in the image and likeness of God"

is code for Irenaeus writing theology; writing doctrine.

• It would seem, from that, that Irenaeus was key to the anthropomorphization/euhermization of Christ into Jesus.

Secret Alias wrote:
Because [Irenaeus's] texts were [the] first [texts placed] in the libraries, he effective defined Christianity according to his own terms.

According to his 'understanding', an apostolic succession was established at Rome from the beginning.

Mr MacSon wrote:
According to his 'understanding', or according to his mendacity?

Secret Alias wrote:
Yes I think it was mostly bullshit, but the question (never formulated, unfortunately, by mythicists) arises -

• how was complete bullshit allowed to be taken to be gospel truth?

The answer has to have something to do with publication. The same attack happens today. If you aren't a published author you're just some jackass. The same goes too for a 'secret tradition.' The truth was 'locked in' when the texts were 'locked in' in published form.

That 'publication' occurred when the texts were deposited in a public library.

I thought about one bit of 'positive' evidence - that Greek fragment of Irenaeus from Egypt was VERY early and came from a library (wasn't a codex).

to Kapyong,

The evidence shows that NO-ONE apart from Papias knew any names of authors before Justin.

Ptolemy (140-160), possibly before Justin, attributed gJohn to a "John, disciple of the Lord" and quoted extensively the beginning of gJohn http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ptolemy.html.
Also in his letter to Flora http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/flora.html, he provided quotes from gMatthew, gJohn and the Pauline epistles.

Cordially, Bernard

Gday Ben C. Smith and all

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.

Ben C. Smith wrote: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.
Overall, my main issue is your overconfidence in your interpretation of individual data points. ... Your conclusion is not a lock, nor is it obviously superior to the alternatives. ... Therefore we are down to inference and argument. A simple statement of your own interpretation is not enough.
Basically, it seems that you think you know more than any of us actually knows.

Thank you very much Ben C. Smith
I appreciate that constructive criticism, and others too. I hear you. I will respond by :

• Being more careful to distinguish between - the actual evidence, well accepted implications, and MY conclusions or speculations.
• Being more clear about 'publishing' and being available etc. - which are key points

I do sometimes make a claim from speculation in a way that makes it sound like a fact - sorry, I will address that (I usually imagine the unspoken proviso 'in my opinion' added unless otherwise noted.)

BTW - there is a view that I am pushing my 'pet theory'. I reject such a silly notion. Everyone here has a view on the issues, based on their reading of the evidence.

The Gospels were only Published C.150 is really a HYPOTHESIS, which we are testing -
I'm arguing for, others are arguing against.

But as we go, I am learning and responding and even adjusting my argument and claims in response. Isn't that the normal way ? If I am shown wrong, then I change my claims to match. I used to champion the Air Beneath the Moon Hypothesis - now I don't. My hypothesis in it's current form is still firm :

The Four Gospels were not publically available until c.150.

I added 'Four' because I thought that was clearly implied by the plural form, but hadn't been clarified before.
I have changed to 'publically available' as a clearer form of my argument.

I will update my list with those suggestions, I think we are close to having an agreed summary of the evidence to argue from

Kapyong