Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben C. Smith wrote:

TedM wrote:By KNOWING LIARS I mean people that made stuff up and KNEW that it wasn't true, not those who made it up because they figured it must be true.

I have noticed that some of the more skeptical people who post on venues such as this forum do not make that mental distinction.

True. But, there are clear cases. 2 Peter is considered by many to be such a case - where the author says he personally witnessed the transfiguration. In contrast to some, I personally would say most if not all of those writing in another's name were knowingly lying. Paul's own comments about that support me at least in the one case he mentioned. What about the author of Revelations? Can someone really hallucinate that much material? I know Stephan thinks Iraneaus was a big time liar. I haven't studied it enough to know. I lean toward not giving the benefit of doubt to those who 'figured it must be true' to serve their own purposes, or modify a previously troubling passage. They know what they are doing. Now, if it all is in the genre of 'story-telling' who they think things would have been - not really talking about things they thought happened, that's a different matter. I'm not at all convinced that's the genre of even the gospels, and of course it isn't with regard to many of the other writings.

Ok. feel free to comment but I'm rambling somewhat now - and it is off topic, I prob won't follow through on this. I do think it is a worthy topic for study. At some point too many excuses don't work for me. You call them liars or you decide maybe they actually were telling the truth.

MrMacSon wrote:

TedM wrote:

Secret Alias wrote:But once you factor in the 'bundling' effect (i.e. that the canon is a 'bundle' of texts 'adjusted' so as to speak in one voice) there aren't a lot of independent voices in that bundle. The Ignatius canon is filled with letters that were never ever sent to anyone in their current form. I have my doubts about the Pauline letters in their current form. If someone mailed me 1 Corinthians I'd seal it up and return to sender. Inappropriately long.

I wonder really how long the list of KNOWING LIARS there would be, according to our skeptical group here. I bet it would be well over 50% of the writings, dozens of people. By KNOWING LIARS I mean people that made stuff up and KNEW that it wasn't true, not those who made it up because they figured it must be true.

A lot of these writings would have been written years later in a number of situation: some written b/c propositions had 'developed' into 'facts' with re-telling, say, over a generation or two (or maybe more in some cases); some probably were written as blatant fraud eg. it's like the Ignatian letters are 3rd or 4th century polemic rhetoric.

That's reasonable. I'm very interested in the frauds. It's my own naivete' coming out I guess..

TedM wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:

TedM wrote:By KNOWING LIARS I mean people that made stuff up and KNEW that it wasn't true, not those who made it up because they figured it must be true.

I have noticed that some of the more skeptical people who post on venues such as this forum do not make that mental distinction.

True. But, there are clear cases. 2 Peter is considered by many to be such a case - where the author says he personally witnessed the transfiguration. In contrast to some, I personally would say most if not all of those writing in another's name were knowingly lying.

I agree with this.

Bernard Muller wrote:

When do you think these narratives were laid down, gentlemen?

At least no later than the 2nd century. For the immediate preaching of the disciples all over, early 2nd century at least, according to Aristides' apology (117-134): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristides_of_Athens. The interpolation in gMark ending might have been earlier, but still in the 2nd century.

Thank you for the prompt reply, Bernard.

• [As an aside; I wonder if Aristides-of-Athens, about whom little is known, other than via Eusebius, is Aelius Aristides or an elaboration of him]

Bernard Muller wrote:

1 Which Apollonius are you referring to, Bernard?

2 What do you mean by "give ... the persecution a good incentive to go away from Palestine" ??

It seems to me it was Apollonius of Ephesus (180-210)

I think the persecution was thought by the originator of the tradition as motivation for the disciples to go away from Palestine.

Thanks again. To clarify, you think that

• (a) actual persecution in Palestine was motivation for the disciples to go away from Palestine? or
  
  (b) stories of persecutions was given as a reason for the disciples to go away from Palestine?

Thanks again. To clarify, you think that

(a) actual persecution in Palestine was motivation for the disciples to go away from Palestine? or

(b) stories of persecutions was given as a reason for the disciples to go away from Palestine?

I said the author of the tradition may have thought as a).

Cordially, Bernard