Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote:
to Kapyong,

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

All we know about Papias we get from Eusebius -

"Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel."

Chapter XXXIX.—The Writings of Papias http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201 ... xxxix.html

Papias is reporting the words of a presbyter, John; but, we don't know who that is. Eusebius says that Papias says that he never spoke to any of the Disciples, so 'Presbyter John' is not one of the Twelve (he'd have been too old, anyway).

Papias is said to have said or written that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew. A Hebrew copy of Matthew has never been found.

Gday all,

Here is the latest evidence summary, with additions from Ben C. Smith -

According to our extant manuscript record -

• Papias 100-130 is aware of the origins of two Gospel-like writings - by Mark (from Peter), and Matthew.
• Aristides 120-130 mentions 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 probably inherits the books.
• Tatian c.172 - possibly produces the 'FromFour' Gospel harmony, but mentions no authors' names.
• Irenaeus 180-190 - first to name all four Gospels.

The qualifier 'according to our extant manuscript record' applies to everything, so I put it up top. I also changed Papias to being 'aware of' rather than 'rumours of' responding to Bernard Muller.

What do readers think about that ?


Kapyong

About Aristides,
I am not sure that Aristides sent his apology to the emperor (who probably would not have wasted time to read it, if it was allowed to get to him). That may be a trick to make his apology more of interest (I find rather suspicious that the emperor would be addressed as "king"). He certainly kept a copy, which was likely duplicated and available to Christians or potential converts. And that's how we know about it. Eusebius said there were many copies available during his time.
I think now "gospel" can mean something like Christian "good news", which can also be read in Christian writings, which Aristides mentioned often. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... s-kay.html

"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"

"Take, then, their writings, and read therein, and lo! you will find that I have not put forth these things on my own authority, nor spoken thus as their advocate; but since I read in their writings I was fully assured of these things as also of things which are to come."

That "gospel" was taught and preached, not necessarily read. What is to be read is the Christian writings. And what is taught and preached can be found in the writings. And what I showed in italics certainly appears in the written gospels.

And certainly, Aristides was advertising Christian writings.

What about "a short time"? Aristides could not admit the "gospel" had been taught and preached for a long time. Acknowledging a long delay would leave doubt about any happening of the second coming:
"So shall they appear before the awful judgment which through Jesus the Messiah is destined to come upon the whole human race."
BTW, I would not say that to an emperor. That looks like a threat.

Cordially, Bernard

Papias is reporting the words of a presbyter, John; but, we don't know who that is. Eusebius says that Papias says that he never spoke to any of the Disciples, so 'Presbyter John' is not one of the Twelve (he'd have been too old, anyway).

Papias is said to have said or written that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew. A Hebrew copy of Matthew has never been found.

Presbyter John was not John the disciple of Jesus, one the 12. I think presbyter John, first as a Jew, wrote the Jewish Revelation, then after becoming a Christian, added up Christian stuff in it. And the Jewish Revelation, added on, became our canonical one.
http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html

About Matthew, I already stated that Papias was not referring to a gospel, but rather a collection of sayings like Q.

Cordially, Bernard

Gday Secret Alias and all

Secret Alias wrote:I actually think Ben's summary is fair and reasonable.

Great There's something else we agree on.

Secret Alias wrote: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'

Thank you for agreeing with me about an originally private and secret Gospel.

Secret Alias wrote:(a term you use without properly understanding what that meant in the second century CE).

Who Secret Alias ?
You didn't quote anyone, you didn't name anyone - for several posts now.
I assume you are talking to me, Kapyong ? I look like this :

My name is Quentin David Jones, a polite, smart, and friendly gentleman with a mental age of 75

Why don't we start over
I'm not a newbie, a gumbie, a muggle, some average layman who read a book and thinks he knows it all. You're a smart guy, there are some very intelligent and well-informed people here, that's what I came here - to be challenged and tested, to learn and to grow.

I have been engaging my high IQ in practicing, learning, studying and researching about Jesus Christ since the 1960s and have considered and studied very many widely different views on Jesus Christ. After some decades I rationally concluded that the Jesus Myth was the best conclusion. Show me wrong, and I will change my view. Point out a mistake, and I will fix it. Catch me in personal abuse, and I will apologise.

See - I'm a pretty smart guy too. I just don't back it up with alpha-male aggression.

Can you please politely engage with me by name like a normal person Secret Alias ?
Perhaps even apologise for calling me biased atheist, or being ignorant of Justin's harmony, which is nothing more than speculation from the Gospel Division Theory which you won't talk about.

Secret Alias wrote: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.

Excellent I'm glad you support my argument.

Secret Alias wrote: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.

Another good reason supporting my argument.

Secret Alias wrote: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.

We agree on a great deal, Secret Alias Thanks. I think the mysteries tradition was very strong in early Christianity, and that certainly helped to keep it secret.

Secret Alias wrote: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.

I entirely agree. I've abandoned that poorly chosen word 'published' following your feedback and others'. The division as I now see it goes like this :

• privately available to a group of Christians in secret, vs
• publically available to anyone e.g. a public library in Rome.

With the help of Secret Alias, that is a much clear way of expressing my argument -

The Gospels were initially SECRET, known in private only to select Christians.
(My inference or conclusion drawn from the evidence.)

I infer that during this secret period, individual Christians may have visited a (presumed) private library somewhere and read a Gospel. Perhaps even more than one Gospel. Individual stories may have spread and leaked verbally. All possible.

But Justin Martyr clearly had direct personal access to several Gospels (fact.)
He was the first Christian writer on record to do so (fact.)

I conclude that the Gospels were initially only known to a select few Christians.

I infer that the Gospels were not released from this secrecy, and into public availability, until just before Justin Martyr.


Kapyong

Bernard Muller wrote:I find rather suspicious that the emperor would be addressed as "king"

Yohanan ben Zakkai greeted Vespasian as king (Avot de Rabbi Nathan A 4:5) and someone called Sarapion of Alexandria wrote a "Panegyric to King Hadrian", so I'd think that problem of nomenclature was restricted to Romans.

to Kapyong,

But Justin Martyr clearly had direct personal access to several Gospels (fact.)
He was the first Christian writer on record to do so (fact.)

No, there is no evidence for that. Other Christian writers were most likely to have access to one or several gospels:
Here is a list of potential candidates, who were dealing in their writings with material which appears in the gospels, before Justin:
"Luke", "Matthew", "John", "Q", "Clement", "Barnabas", Didache, Revelation, Cerinthus, Papias, Aristides, Quadratus, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, "Ignatius", Polycarp, the secret book of James, Epistula Apostolorum.

I conclude that the Gospels were initially only known to a select few Christians.

You do not have evidence for that. Any gospel were available to other Christians, if they manage to have it copied or copied it themselves. There is nothing against that.

I infer that the Gospels were not released from this secrecy, and into public availability, until just before Justin Martyr.

You cannot say the gospels were quasi-secret before Justin. You do not have evidence for that.

Cordially, Bernard

Gday Secret Alias and all

Secret Alias wrote:Instead of wasting your time...

Who ?
Is there some reason you cannot even write my NAME ?

Secret Alias wrote:... on Bernard

Are you rude to everyone ? Or just members you disagree with ?

Secret Alias wrote:why not simply answer the question I have been raising time and again in this thread -

Really ? Where ?
Is it near the post where you falsely accused me of being a biased atheist ? Or accused me of being ignorant of Justin's harmony ? Or the post where I noted it was just a figment of your Gospel Division Theory, which you seem to have silently dis-owned ?

Secret Alias wrote: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.

Nope.
I argue :

• Gospels written 70-100, available secretly in private to some Christians.
• Only released publically (just before) Justin Martyr c.150.

Kapyong

Kapyong wrote: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.

Not a 'maybe' in my opinion. The Gospel is available as a single private copy owned by a local scholar? What's the point of asking Hadrian to read them if the author thought it was hidden away as a private copy owned by a local scholar? I'd suggest that, if that was the case, the author might like to have informed Hadrian where that was. I'd make it more like 'probably available to the public' rather than a 'maybe'.

Kapyong wrote: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'.

Here are some quotes from the letter leading up to the Gospel reference (my bolding below):

• This is clear to you, O King, that there are four classes of men in this world:--Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians. The Barbarians, indeed, trace the origin of their kind of religion from Kronos and from Rhea and their other gods; the Greeks, however, from Helenos, who is said to be sprung from Zeus. And by Helenos there were born Aiolos and Xuthos; and there were others descended from Inachos and Phoroneus, and lastly from the Egyptian Danaos and from Kadmos and from Dionysos.
  
  The Jews, again, trace the origin of their race from Abraham, who begat Isaac, of whom was born Jacob. And he begat twelve sons who migrated from Syria to Egypt; and there they were called the nation of the Hebrews, by him who made their laws; and at length they were named Jews.
  
  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

Aristides seems to be acknowledging the short existence of the Christians, as compared to the other three races. I suspect that by 'gospel' he means the good news of the story of Christ, rather than a particular written document. But even if not the case, 'Christian writings' would have to include something close to a written Gospel (since he writes about content found in some of the Gospels), and something publicly available enough that an Emperor could be expected to find it. Certainly Aristides himself passes himself off as a pagan philosopher who came to be converted to Christianity from reading the writings of Christians.

Kapyong wrote: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

Sure. It's a nice topic, and it would be better to approach it from a fresh angle I think.

Cheers. And much respect to you also!