Gospels no case for Jesus

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

Rufus Atticus suggested the Bible is the case for [Jesus] Christ.

However,
the evidence does not support this view -


No Gospels or Jesus of Nazareth known in 1st century

We should distinguish between the Gospels and the rest of the NT – the NT epistles and Revelation and Acts show no clear knowledge of the Gospel events or Jesus of Nazareth, merely high spiritual formulae.

Not one single Christian writer in the first century makes ANY mention of the Gospels or these major elements of the Gospel stories :

Joseph, Mary, Bethlehem, Nazareth, the Magi etc.
the miracles and healings of Jesus
the sermon on the mount
the triumphal entry into Jerusalem
Pilate, the trial of Jesus
Calvary, Gethsemane
the empty tomb

All we see in the earliest Christian writings is the crucifixion which happened in the same place Attis was cut - in the spiritual dimension.


Gospels Not by Eye-witnesses

Its clear G.Mark was not by an eye-witness :
the writer is often ignorant about the geography of the region
the writer is often ignorant about the customs of the locals
Papias c.130 explains Mark was not an eye-witness
Clement and Irenaeus and Tertullian agree Mark was not an eye-witness.

G.Matthew and G.Luke both copied large amounts of G.Mark word-for-word – so they can hardly have been eye-witnesses either.
They also changed, deleted and added to G.Mark to suit differing purposes and audiences – showing they did not represent historical events, but religious mythology.
The many contradictions and in-consistencies between the Gospels shows they were not written as history.


Manuscripts of the Gospels are a century or more late

The Gospels manuscripts are NOT CLOSE IN TIME to the alleged events, in terms of manuscripts we have :
a few WORDS possibly of G.John from early 2nd century
most of G.John from c.200
several verses of G.Matt from c.200
several chapters of synoptics from 3rd century

The substantial manuscripts of the synoptic Gospels are TWO CENTURIES or more after the alleged events.


Late citations and naming of the Gospels

The modern 4 Gospels are not clearly quoted until mid-late 2nd century, and the names of the four Evangelists were not known until Ireneaus in late 2nd century.

A Chronology of the Gospel mentions follows :


the early 3

Clement
Barnabas
the Didakhe

All show only scant knowledge of a few sayings and some elements of the Gospel story (along with stories at variance with the later Gospels), without any mention of formal Gospels or writings of any such kind.

This argues that the Gospels were unknown in the early 2nd century, but that some varying elements of passion events were told and passed through an oral tradition.


Ignatius

The writings of "Ignatius" were either :
really written by Ignatius in c.107
forged c.130

Whoever wrote these letters is exhorting believers to die so that they also may "attain to Christ", and they explicitly assure readers that Jesus was "truly born" and was "truly crucified". The writer is trying to convince readers his account of Jesus Christ is the true one - he explicitly tells his readers to stop their ears ...

... when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate;

If this writer, arguing the case for Jesus, knew of the Gospels, he would certainly have cited them to support his version of the story - the fact that no mention of the Gospels is made argues strongly that the writer did not know any Gospels.

This view is supported by the tiny amount of detail of the Gospel accounts to be found in Ignatius - only a few details more than in Paul - again arguing the Gospels were not known at that time.


Consider also where Ignatius says the crucifixion took place :

He was truly crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth.

This hardly sounds like history - its more the mythic dimension that Earl explains in his page about Where Christ was Crucified.


Aristides

One oft-overlooked clue is the comment by Aristides - about the Gospels being preached "a short time". This comment is probably from the 120s or 130s, but may be later.

This suggests that the Gospels were recent in the early-mid 2nd century.


Papias c.130

Papias does not seem to be aware of documents called Gospels, but he does mention writings. He does mention the names Mark and Matthew, but not as titles in the form "kata Markon" or "kata Matthion". Papias mentions Matthew wrote in Hebrew, which cannot be our modern G.Matthew as it was written in Greek.

I agree with Peter Kirby, that this evidence argues that the Gospels had no names at this time.


Justin's Dialogue c.135

At this apparently early stage of his writing, Justin seems generally aware of the Gospel traditions, he refers vaguely to writings and "the Gospel" - but not to any formal title "kata (name)". He gives some stories and sayings of the Gospel tradition, but includes other material at variance with the Gospels - e.g. he calls Jesus an "Angel" and says he rose on the "eighth day".

This argues that Justin was unaware of formal Gospels in this period, and that variant stories were circulating.


Marcion c.140

Marcion published a Gospel that had no "seed of David" nor any genealogies and seems to have been called merely "the Gospel". It was never called Kata Marcion nor Kata anybody as far as I am aware.

I think the argument that the four Gospels were later named to distinguish them carries some weight - thus the fact that Marcion called his just "the Gospel" may suggest it was published before the other four were widely known.


Justin's 1st Apology

Justin makes no mention of formal writings until the VERY END of the first apology. He refers to "the memoirs of the Apostles" called "Gospels" but does not give their names. The 2nd Apology does not mention the Gospels at all.

The fact that he did NOT give names strongly argues they HAD no names in this period.

Also, Justin seems to give the name "memoirs of Peter" to the Gospel of Mark - strongly arguing that the Gospels were not yet formally named in this period.


the diaTessaron c.170

This crucial document is a key piece of the puzzle - it's name means "from Four", being an early musical term I believe, thus implying "a harmony of Four".

Tatian compiled this document from four proto-Gospels - it is extremely signficant that he gave no names to the source documents, yet he explicitly numbers them as four in his title.

This argues for two important points :
these particular four Gospels were considered special in some way
these four Gospels were still NOT NAMED

The Gospels must have still been anonymous at this stage - Tatian could not possibly have ignored or removed titles of the very Apostles names. To be named simply "from Four" means he knew these FOUR sources were special, but un-named.

This is convincing evidence that the Gospels were originally anonymous, and still so in Tatian's time.


Celsus c.178

Attacks the Gospels as "fiction" and "based on myth", thus arguing they were late fiction.


Irenaeus c.185

He was the first to name the four, and he justifies that there ARE four - its a reasonable assumption that he named them himself.


In sum,
the Gospels were unknown until early 2nd century, and did not receive their final forms and names until late 2nd century.

Note also that in 70CE The Temple was destroyed to the last stone, and the city of Jerusalem was razed to the ground.
in 130CE what was left was scattered, the Jews who lived thru the wars were expelled, and the province was erased from the map.

It was just AFTER these disasters that the Gospels arose - a CENTURY after the alleged events - after the destructive fist of the furious Romans fell on Temple, the city, the Jewish people, and the very province of Judaea - the Gospels arose from that wreckage.

The Gospels are spiritual mythology, based partly on OT midrash and partly on pagan ideas - they are not history.

Iasion

[MaxTresmond]

Am I the only one who can take this guy on? Or will someone else help me, as I do not have as much time. JP?

[undead]

Irenaeus (AD 120-190)

Irenaus was a pupil of Polycarp, a disciple of John, records that:

'Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.'

[MaxTresmond]

Yea, but next they are going to attack the reliability of Papias. Any thoughts? JP, do you have any comments, or would anyone want me to drop the daisycutter?:smile:

[Epoetker]

I am not JP, but why shalt thou consign thyself to stopping to ask before unleashing heaven's fury? This is a perfect opportunity for a budding young apologist to distinguish himself. Have at 'em, little buddy.

[MaxTresmond]

Gospels are untrustworthy? :rofl:

You should be embarassed at your poor scholarship.

We have:

1. No evidence that Jesus was a "copycat" myth

2. No reasons to doubt the early church testimony-gospel authorship simply was not in question.

3. By the way, Mark came BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem, because there is no reference to the fulfilled prophecy.

If you are about to whip out your "synoptic problem", it won't work, because Mark was an intepreter of Peter.

Also, the synoptic problem is just a theory.

[Blake Reas]

Do not answer a fool according to his folly! But in this case I am game! I will help when I have the time. There was so much misinformation in that post it would make Arcaharya S blush!

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[ACFaith.Com]

Gospels are untrustworthy? :rofl:

You should be embarassed at your poor scholarship.

Strange how you are laughing at virtually every mainline NT and HJ scholar out there. Ever wonder why Crossan, Meier, Sanders and others have to come up with criteria or strict methodologies in order to reconstruct the historical Jesus? I think someone forgot to read the Gospels horizontally.

1. No evidence that Jesus was a copycat myth

And that makes the Gospels reliable how?

2. No reasons to doubt the early church testimony-gospel authorship simply was not in question.

There was no early church testimony. Gospel dating:

Mark ca 70 ad.
Matthew 80-90 ad
Luke 80-90 ad
John 90-100 ad Redaction 100-110

Gospel attributions come in the late second century.

3. By the way, Mark came BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem, because there is no reference to the fulfilled prophecy.

Yeah, Mark dates circa 70 ad. That does not mean the Gospels are reliable.

If you are about to whip out your "synoptic problem", it won't work, because Mark was an intepreter of Peter.

The evidence of this?

Also, the synoptic problem is just a theory.

Do you know what the synoptic problem is? It is not a theory, it is an empirical fact.

The Gospel of Mark has 661 verses, Matt has 1,068, and Luke has 1,149. Eighty percent of Mark is found in Matthew and sixty-five percent in Luke. This is called the triple tradition. It is not a theory, its data.

The theories come in when we try to explai nthe data.

To add to the data, I cite Raymond Brown "The approximate 220-235 vv. (in whole or in part) of nonMarcan material that Matt and Luke have in common is called the "Double Tradition." In both instances so much of the order in which that common material is presented, and so much of the wording in which it is phrased are the same that dependence at the written rather than simply at he oral level has to be posited.

You can argue against the necessity of written dependence but no one will take you seriously.

Vinnie

[ACFaith.Com]

No Gospels or Jesus of Nazareth known in 1st century

Lets not overstate the silence here. We have four Gospels and their posited sources that all date to the first century. Paul also offers us some info about the HJ. Other might add in more sources as well.

We should distinguish between the Gospels and the rest of the NT – the NT epistles and Revelation and Acts show no clear knowledge of the Gospel events or Jesus of Nazareth, merely high spiritual formulae.

Do you dispute that Acts was written by the author of Luke? Paul shows us evidence of a historical Jesus though aspects of his life were not the important part for Paul.

Paul's evidence occurs in the first stratum as well. This makes is pretty solid especially when attested by Gospel material. Paul mentions the twelve, the last supper, Jesus' teaching on divorce, says he knew Jesus' brother named James who is mentioned by Josephus and GMark.


Joseph, Mary, Bethlehem, Nazareth, the Magi etc.

Paul mentions James. It shows some continuity with Mark's naming of Jesus' family. The historicity of the Magi and Bethlehem birth is only taken seriously by conservative apologists so whats the point of this?

the miracles and healings of Jesus[quote]

You are stretching the silence beyond credibility. Mark mentions miracles, Matthew and Luke mention miracles that Mark does not have and Matthew and Luke each have their own miracles not found in on another and John has miracles as well. How many different different sources does it take for you to concede that Jesus was seen as a miracle worker in the first century? There is also evidence of an early miracle list (see Crossans The historical Jesus pp. 429 number 11).

[quote] the sermon on the mount

Paul echoes Jesus teachings. Who said the sermon was historical? Or even if it was, who said Paul did or didn't know it? Failure to write does not equal failure to know.

the triumphal entry into Jerusalem

And?

Pilate, the trial of Jesus

and? how do you discard hard data (gospels) in favor of silence? This looks like very poor history to me.

the empty tomb

Paul says Jesus was buried doesn't he? Also, his belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus kind presupposes that something happened to the body doesn't it???

All we see in the earliest Christian writings is the crucifixion which happened in the same place Attis was cut - in the spiritual dimension.

No, that happened on earth. That Jesus was crucified is beyond dispute.

Its clear G.Mark was not by an eye-witness :
the writer is often ignorant about the geography of the region

Agreed. mark is not an eyewitness and Makes at least two geo blunders.

the writer is often ignorant about the customs of the locals

I don't remember this. I know the author has to explain certain customs which shows he was not writing to Jews but what do you have in mind?

Papias c.130 explains Mark was not an eye-witness

Your certain Papias was referring to canonical Mark?

G.Matthew and G.Luke both copied large amounts of G.Mark word-for-word – so they can hardly have been eye-witnesses either.

No critical scholar does.

They also changed, deleted and added to G.Mark to suit differing purposes and audiences – showing they did not represent historical events, but religious mythology.

Agreed but you should know that Chriustian creativity was limited. For documentation on this in the synoptic gospels see the work of Sanders/ Davies called 'Studying the Synoptic Gospels'.

The many contradictions and in-consistencies between the Gospels shows they were not written as history.

Yes, they are faith documents.


Manuscripts of the Gospels are a century or more late

The Gospels manuscripts are NOT CLOSE IN TIME to the alleged events, in terms of manuscripts we have :
a few WORDS possibly of G.John from early 2nd century
most of G.John from c.200
several verses of G.Matt from c.200
several chapters of synoptics from 3rd century

The substantial manuscripts of the synoptic Gospels are TWO CENTURIES or more after the alleged events.

This normally does not make bona fide scholars highly skeptical of the NT text does it? I think most conservatives overstate their case but the NT is not all that suspect in my opinion. Besides, wouldn't Marcan priority at least help us a little bit? ;)


The modern 4 Gospels are not clearly quoted until mid-late 2nd century, and the names of the four Evangelists were not known until Ireneaus in late 2nd century.

Ignatius was indirectly dependent upon a redactional emphasis found twice in GMatthew's account concerning JBap. Ignatius dates to about 110 ad. Matthew is clearly in use earlier than the mid-late second century. This says Matthew was in use in the very late first century towards the very beginning of the second century.

Also, Justin Martyr wrote in ca. 150. ad.

In Studying the Synoptics Sanders and Davies outlined this passage

Do NOT FEAR THOSE [who] kill you and AFTER THESE THINGS are not able TO DO ANYTHING, but FEAR
THE ONE who AFTER KILLING [you] is able
TO CAST both soul and body INTO GEHENNA
Justin, Apology 1.19.7; Matt. 10.28; Luke 12.4-5)

The text formatting is that way because in an english translation its not easy to see this. But here are the agreements and disagreements:

Justin (agrees with)
not fear those = Matt and Luke
kill you = neither
after these things = luke
are not able = Matthew
to do anything = Luke
but = Matthew
fear= matt and Luke
the one after killing = Luke
is able = matthew
to cast = luke
both soul and body = matthew
into = Luke
Gehenna = Matthew and Luke

Sanders and Davies went on to say this:

"If justin had our Gospels before him, he was very careful to alternate words in copying from Matthew and Luke, taking 'after these things' from Luke, 'are are not able' from Matthew, and so on. There are two more likely explanations. one is that he quoted fro memory and naturally conflated two similar passages. The other is that he had not our gospels but a collection of sayings which itself depended on them: that he used a prepared harmony."

Justin (150) possessing knowledge and conflating Luke and Matthew would push both works back to the first half of the first century at the very latest. A prepared harmony of the gospels would do the same if not push them further back (depending on how much time we allow for them to pass around, be recognized and then harmonized and so fourth!) This is just the latest possible dating of Matthew and Luke. Mark, whom they both cited is earlier still!

The synoptic gospels were known and used in the early 2d.

Vinnie

[Blake Reas]

Here is my contribuition!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings all,

Rufus Atticus suggested the Bible is the case for [Jesus] Christ.

However,
the evidence does not support this view -


No Gospels or Jesus of Nazareth known in 1st century

We should distinguish between the Gospels and the rest of the NT – the NT epistles and Revelation and Acts show no clear knowledge of the Gospel events or Jesus of Nazareth, merely high spiritual formulae.

Not one single Christian writer in the first century makes ANY mention of the Gospels or these major elements of the Gospel stories :

Joseph, Mary, Bethlehem, Nazareth, the Magi etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is a problem here. I would like to ask why Paul should have to mention any of the people you mentioned above or the places? You lack the understanding of authorial intent. Paul was writing to congretations of Churches who had already accepted the Gospel and had probably already read documents like Q or proto- Matthew or proto-Luke. Paul did not need to discuss historical events he was addressing problems in the Church at Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Rome, etc.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the miracles and healings of Jesus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well gee that is a new revelation! May I ask why we would expect Paul to mention the miracles of Jesus?




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the sermon on the mount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Your ignorance betrays you here, I think that you have uncritically read things by Christ-Mythers instead of New Testament Scholarship. You need to read the book of James, it is basically an exposition of the Sermon on the Mount. There are also mentions of Jesus’ teaching in the letters of Paul. Read: Romans 12:9- 13:10 which parallels Matthew Ch. 5-7. Also the Return of Jesus 1&2 Thessalonians see Matthew 24. I think you need to make a better case than you have.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the triumphal entry into Jerusalem
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What reason would the Epistles of Paul (which where situational) or the general epistles which where also situational need to mention this? Also do you expect the book of Revelation to be talking about the coming kingdom and then say “Oh yeah we need to tell you about the triumphal entry!” That is ridicoulous.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilate, the trial of Jesus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To save myself the redundancy I will say one thing. Even if as you suppose Acts was written late which goes against the scholarly consensus which dates Luke-Acts anywhere from 64 to 75, the sermons of Paul and Peter have been shown to portray the beliefs of the early Church. In fact if you would read the sermons of Peter you would find that he does mention Pilate. You will probably just reject this with out question though. Also it is most of the time assumed that Luke the companion of Paul DID write the Gospel of Luke. If Luke did in fact write it early, which I will reply to in your hyper skeptical dating of the sources, that would mean that Luke would have been in the Apostles company since he was a companion of Paul.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvary, Gethsemane
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ok I do believe that Paul mentions crucifixtion many times in his letters. Unless you want to go the route of Earl Doherty (which I suspect you will) then you could always explain everything away by appealing to the “heavenly realms” which can only be established with the slight of hand of the times Paul does speak of the earthly Christ which would be the early hymn in Phillipians.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the empty tomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I guess that is why Paul always proclaimed the resurrection? Paul assumes the risen Christ through out his writings. Also he says that if Christ did not rise we should be pitied above all men! I guess you want him to break down in the middle of a discourse about how to run a Church and then have him go into a expose of how the tomb was empty? Even in sermons today pastors do not mention the empty tomb.


All we see in the earliest Christian writings is the crucifixion which happened in the same place Attis was cut - in the spiritual dimension.


Gospels Not by Eye-witnesses

Its clear G.Mark was not by an eye-witness :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the writer is often ignorant about the geography of the region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I am sure you are wrong about this but you need to give us the scripture passages and why it contradicts the geography of Palestine.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the writer is often ignorant about the customs of the locals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again I ask what customs and what verses!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Papias c.130 explains Mark was not an eye-witness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That is correct, he was an interpreter of Peter, who told him everything to write down. If it is an account of what Peter remembered then it is eye- witness.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clement and Irenaeus and Tertullian agree Mark was not an eye-witness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I need a citation of where they say this, if it just recites that Mark wrote down everything Peter said don’t bother.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.Matthew and G.Luke both copied large amounts of G.Mark word-for-word – so they can hardly have been eye-witnesses either.
They also changed, deleted and added to G.Mark to suit differing purposes and audiences – showing they did not represent historical events, but religious mythology.
The many contradictions and in-consistencies between the Gospels shows they were not written as history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, actually Matthew and Luke used more than Mark. They probably used “M” and “L” and “Q” and Mark. Also Matthew and Luke add a lot of their own material which does not make it unhistorical especially if Luke was a companion of Paul and Matthew was in fact the tax collector as all of Church tradition shows. How does writing a history to help with the community you are writing to take away from historical significance? After all the Jews are the ones that make known the tragedies of the Holocaust they have bias but that does not mean what they say is false does it? Most History writing has a purpose. Also you need to supply the list of contradictions because I have not seen any that are convincing also even if there are minor discrepancies it does not take away from the historical significance of the Gospels. As any Historian will tell you it heightens the historicity of an event!



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuscripts of the Gospels are a century or more late

The Gospels manuscripts are NOT CLOSE IN TIME to the alleged events, in terms of manuscripts we have :
a few WORDS possibly of G.John from early 2nd century
most of G.John from c.200
several verses of G.Matt from c.200
several chapters of synoptics from 3rd century

The substantial manuscripts of the synoptic Gospels are TWO CENTURIES or more after the alleged events.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Do you really think that this is the only way to date a Gospel or a work of antiquity? I hope not because if so you are mistake badly. This actually works against you considering the manuscript you cited about the Gospel of John shows that it was widely in circulation. Circulation took time in the ancient world, this goes with the other “Late Manuscripts” you cited. Also the gospels of Matthew Mark and Luke could possibly be dated before 70 A.D. because they really give not significant attention to the fall of Jersualem in A.D. 70. And if we go along with what John A.T. Robinson said about the fact that many people prohesised the fall of Jerusalem before the time of Jesus the supposed occurrences of the mention of the destruction of Jerusalem which Jesus prohezsised do not make a good case for the post 70 date may give to it. I will write more on the dates of the Gospels in a later post.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Late citations and naming of the Gospels

The modern 4 Gospels are not clearly quoted until mid-late 2nd century, and the names of the four Evangelists were not known until Ireneaus in late 2nd century.

A Chronology of the Gospel mentions follows :


the early 3

Clement
Actually Clement wrote at the end of the 1st century or the beginning of the 2nd century not the mid to late 2nd.

Barnabas
Can’t make a comment here.

the Didakhe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again it is earlier than you suppose, John A.T. Robinson actually makes the case that it is earlier than what most date it. Although I do not agree with him the rest of his arguments have not been refuted satisfylingly that I know of.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All show only scant knowledge of a few sayings and some elements of the Gospel story (along with stories at variance with the later Gospels), without any mention of formal Gospels or writings of any such kind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What you wrote only shows blind assertions with out any evidence to back it up. You just went against the scholarship of over 200 years! I would recommend you read something by N.T. Wright, John P. Meier, Robert Stein, or others.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This argues that the Gospels were unknown in the early 2nd century, but that some varying elements of passion events were told and passed through an oral tradition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is blatantly false, although I agree with Oral Traditon which has been shown to be extremely accurate in the ancient world! Clement actually quotes from the Gospels many times and he did write in the late 1st century!

[ACFaith.Com]

I am sure you are wrong about this but you need to give us the scripture passages and why it contradicts the geography of Palestine.

Mark Fails geography

From Chapter 5:

“They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes. When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit came from the tombs to meet him . . . 11A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them." He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.”

Raymond Brown highlights the problem with this account quite well in his Introduction to the NT (p. 134 n. 17) “There is a major geographical problem in Mark’s location of the scene where the pigs can run down the embankment and drown in the sea. Gerasa is a site over thirty miles from the Sea of Galilee, and the alternative reading Gadara is no real help since that is about six miles from the sea.”

On page 160 (n. 83) Brown relays more information on Mark and his confusion of Palestinian geography. “Mark 7:31 describes a journey from Tyre through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the midst of the Decapolios. In fact one goes SE from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee; Sidon is N of Tyre, and the description of the Sea of Galilee in the midst of the Decapolis is awkward. That a boat headed for Bethsaida (NE side of the Sea of Galilee) arrives at Gennesaret (NW side 6:45,53) may also signal confusion. No one has been able to locate the Dalmanutha of 8:10, and it may be a corruption of Magdala.”

A charitable concession for this one could be that Mark was condensing a larger passage. But this wouldn't touch on the earlier passage and overall, it seems to me that Mark clearly betrays confusion regarding Palestinian Geography.

Vinnie

[ACFaith.Com]

Even if as you suppose Acts was written late which goes against the scholarly consensus which dates Luke-Acts anywhere from 64 to 75,

That is not true. 80-90 ad is the actual consensus dating.

[ACFaith.Com]

Also you need to supply the list of contradictions because I have not seen any that are convincing also even if there are minor discrepancies it does not take away from the historical significance of the Gospels.

I find it somewhat strange that you would say that and then suggest to a person that they should read John Meier :huh:

Vinnie

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

Iasion, I enjoyed reading your summary of the lack of evidence of Jesus and the gospel stories in the first century. If you will put it in a form you would like to have published, I would be happy to publish it on my server and put a link to it on my web page.

[undead]

It seems that the only evidence for a late date of origin is a "lack" of cross-reference, rather than any positive evidence, and when weighed against the testimony of Irenaeus, who was only a 2nd generation disciple, and a disciple of one of the greatest Christian saints, Polycarp, that circumstantial "evidence" must amount to nothing of any significance.

I guess, speculators, you had better try harder!

[wienerdog]

Colin Hemer's book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History sifts through Acts, and through verification with archaeological/payriological discoveries, determines that Luke was writing history, and much more accurately than most other ancient historians.

Also, the consensus of scholarship dates the creed which Paul cites in 1 Cor 15:3-8 to within five or six years after the crucifixion. This creed cites that Jesus died, was buried, rose from the dead and appeared to various people. Thus, the statements to this same effect in the gospels would seem to have very early corroboration.

[ItalianGold]

As the posters on this thread are arguing from a scholarly position in general, I thought they might be able to answer a question for me.

Which individuals, institutions, bodies are considered to be "Biblical scholars?" I'm not talking about any element that has an obvious agenda of evangelism OR of anti-creationism. I'm talking about scholars who are actively involved in discovering as much as possible about the historical Christ and his times.

I have done searches which probably would have yielded better results before all the special interest groups became so entrenched online. What I want to know is, if a Buddhist wanted to learn as much as possible about early Christianity, who would he trust? Are there ANY bodies currently recognized and respected as Biblical scholars by the majority of the educated world?

[Blake Reas]

03-08-2003 @ 05:26 AM
ACFaith.Com:



That is not true. 80-90 ad is the actual consensus dating.

Actually there are many who would date Acts to 64 to 80 is what I should have put. I do know of quite a few people who hold to a date of 80-90 but I do believe that there are quite a few who would date it earlier. For instance the death of Paul is not recounted in Acts if it was written in 80-90 why wouldn't Luke write about it?

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

P.S. I will have to get a list for you about scholars who date it between 64 and 80. Sorry I cannot name them off the top of my head. Here are a few: Robert H. Stein (best researcher on the synoptic problem), N.T. Wright, John A.T. Robinson, D.A. Carson, John B. Polhill, Dunn, John Wenham, Colin Hemer (wrote the best book on Acts), Adolph Von Harnack who later in life switched to the 64 date. I will post more if you want. There is a group of very good scholars who date it early. Also I think Fitzmyer dates it in the 70's ( I could be wrong on this one)

[Blake Reas]

03-08-2003 @ 05:30 AM
ACFaith.Com:



I find it somewhat strange that you would say that and then suggest to a person that they should read John Meier :huh:

Vinnie
Vinnie,
Just because I have read some Meier does not mean that I accept all of his conclusions. Surely you do not accept everything someone says do you? I surely hope not! Also he up holds the intergrity of the NT. I do not need an inerrant scripture to believe in Christ (Although I do believe in Inerrancy).

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

03-08-2003 @ 09:35 PM
ItalianGold:

As the posters on this thread are arguing from a scholarly position in general, I thought they might be able to answer a question for me.

Which individuals, institutions, bodies are considered to be "Biblical scholars?" I'm not talking about any element that has an obvious agenda of evangelism OR of anti-creationism. I'm talking about scholars who are actively involved in discovering as much as possible about the historical Christ and his times.
Well what you just said really makes no sense. All people start with a bias, in NT scholarship either you are a Christian or you are not. I am afraid you cannot get away from Bias here! Also most scholars who are Christians right Commentaries and are also respected by other NT scholars who are not Christians. A good example of a Biblical Scholar who is a Christian and is well respected would be N.T. Wright and also D.A. Carson. There are many more but remember if the person is not a Christina they have a bias also.

I have done searches which probably would have yielded better results before all the special interest groups became so entrenched online. What I want to know is, if a Buddhist wanted to learn as much as possible about early Christianity, who would he trust? Are there ANY bodies currently recognized and respected as Biblical scholars by the majority of the educated world?

Well, I would just read a wide range of literature on the subject and draw my own conclusions!

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake:thumb:

[ACFaith.Com]

The Buddhist would be in a bad state. There are as many Jesuses as there are exegetes.

I would start with Crossan, Meier, and Sanders for key HJ players. And mainline scholars do have widespread agreement concerning certian facts of Jesus' life (e.g. baptism by JBap, that Jesus was crucified etc.).

There is no one authoritative group but the Sanders/Meier category is probably the strongest.

Vinnie

[Blake Reas]

03-09-2003 @ 06:20 AM
ACFaith.Com:

The Buddhist would be in a bad state. There are as many Jesuses as there are exegetes.

I would start with Crossan, Meier, and Sanders for key HJ players. And mainline scholars do have widespread agreement concerning certian facts of Jesus' life (e.g. baptism by JBap, that Jesus was crucified etc.).

There is no one authoritative group but the Sanders/Meier category is probably the strongest.

Vinnie

I think that Wright/Ben Witherington are pretty strong also I like Robert Stien (he teaches at my school so I am biased :brow:

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

[ACFaith.Com]

03-09-2003 @ 06:22 AM
Blake Reas:



I think that Wright/Ben Witherington are pretty strong also I like Robert Stien (he teaches at my school so I am biased :brow:

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

Tom Wright describes himself as being a part of the category of Meier/Sanders ;)

I haven't read Witherington yet. I am busy reading stuff from Raymond Brown right now.

Vinnie

[Iasion]

Greetings Max et al,

Max - "1. No evidence that Jesus was a "copycat" myth"

Wrong.
There is considerable evidence to show that the Jesus Myth was a reformation of the pagan son-of-God myth, placed into Jewish context by including elements from the OT.

Some sites which deal with the pagan evidence include :

http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/

http://www.acu.edu.au/Earlychr/runia.htm

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/christian.htm

Seriously,
if you have never heard of this evidence, you are ill-informed.


Max - "2. No reasons to doubt the early church testimony-gospel authorship simply was not in question."

There is much reason to doubt, which I adduced earlier -

* no Christian author mentions all our FOUR Evangelists until Irenaeus c.185, showing a late development of the four names.

* The very FIRST Gospel - Marcion's - had no author's name, showing the earliest Gospel was anonymous.

* Tatian's diaTessaron clearly uses FOUR Gospels before they were named - showing they were originally anonymous writings.


Max - "3. By the way, Mark came BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem, because there is no reference to the fulfilled prophecy."

Perhaps.
But it could have been written afterwards, and made to look like it was written before then - many early Christian documents were forged later, to look like earlier works (e.g. the Pastorals, 1 Peter, the deutero-Paulines, the Johannine epistles, the Epistle of the Apostles, the Constitution of the Holy Apostles, etc. etc.)

What the documentary evdience shows is that NO Christian clearly quotes from our modern G.Mark until mid-late 2nd century.


Max - "Also, the synoptic problem is just a theory.

No,
as another writer pointed out -
the synoptic problem is a fact.
There are many THEORIES to account for it.

Iasion
(Quentin)

[Iasion]

Greetings Blake,

Thanks for your reply.

Blake - "There is a problem here. I would like to ask why Paul should have to mention any of the people you mentioned above or the places? You lack the understanding of authorial intent. Paul was writing to congretations of Churches who had already accepted the Gospel and had probably already read documents like Q or proto- Matthew or proto-Luke. Paul did not need to discuss historical events he was addressing problems in the Church at Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Rome, etc.

I just can't accept this.
Paul wrote at length to convince various churches that his preaching was the right way, he adduces various OT texts in support of his views, yet in every case when he could bolster his argument with the example of Jesus or the very WORDS of Jesus, he FAILS to do so.

Earl has an excellent list of cases where Paul consistently fails to mention Jesus or the Gospel events, even when the context cries out for it -
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/siltop20.htm

e.g. Paul discusses the cleanliness of food and fails to mention Jesus word's on this very subject.

e.g. Paul argues for resurrection and fails to mention the classic case of Lazarus (which MUST have been famous if it happened, or a well-known story).

e.g. Paul wrote, at Rom. 16:25 : "Glory be to God who has strengthened you, through my gospel and proclamation about Jesus Christ, through his [God’s] revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages, 26now disclosed and made known through the prophetic writings at the command of the eternal God that all nations might obey through faith—27to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ. Amen"

There is no room for a historical Jesus here - the mystery ABOUT Iesous Christos is now revealed by Paul's interpretation of the writings. Here and elsewhere Paul clearly argues the secret mystery has finally been revealed - by PAUL - there is no mention of a historical Jesus giving any teaching.

As far as we know Paul is the first Christian preacher - how did these churches get their information about Jesus before Paul? There is no evidence of any Gospel-like writings in these early years.

Paul explicitly talks of Christian preachers who teach ANOTHER JESUS - why does he not give the words of Jesus to support his case? Why does he never mention the actions of Jesus when they are RELEVANT?

Later Christians repeat the miracles and words and actions of Jesus ad nauseum, yet the very earliest writers say nothing about the teachings of Jesus or his miracles or healings etc.


Blake - "Well gee that is a new revelation! May I ask why we would expect Paul to mention the miracles of Jesus?

Because Paul is preaching Jesus - he is arguing at length about his version of Iesous Christos - yet he never once mentions famous Christian legends even when entirely apposite (e.g. Lazarus when arguing for resurrection).

Why do later Christians repeat these same details endlessly, yet the early Christians closest to the evnts, all say NOTHING?

Consider Romans 6:2-4, discussing the importance of Christian baptism - Paul is emphasizing the centrality of baptism in Christian faith - but gives not the slightest hint of the Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan.

The only explanation is that Paul had never heard of it.


Blake - "Your ignorance betrays you here, I think that you have uncritically read things by Christ-Mythers instead of New Testament Scholarship.

Please avoid crude ad hominems, Blake.


Blake - "You need to read the book of James, it is basically an exposition of the Sermon on the Mount.

Wrong.
The letter of James gives not the slightest hint it is expounding on the Sermon on the Mount. It only even MENTIONS the name Iesous Christos ONCE (to say they should hold to the faith of JC) without ONCE giving the slightest impression that these teachings came from Jesus.

Yes,
it has some vague similarities of ideas and some similar turns of phrase, but thats it. It is more likely that this letter represents a phase when these ideas were coallescing, to be later included in the Gospels.


Blake - "There are also mentions of Jesus’ teaching in the letters of Paul. Read: Romans 12:9- 13:10 which parallels Matthew Ch. 5-7.

Indeed there are similarities, buts thats all.
Paul does NOT attribute these teachings to Jesus, it is more likely these Christian ideals were LATER placed in the mouth of Jesus when the Gospels were written.

Furthermore, consider Romans 13 "Rulers hold no terrors to those who do right. . . If you wish not to fear the authorities, then do what is good and you will have their approval, for they are God’s agents working for your good."

How could anyone who knew what the authorities did to Jesus write this?


Blake - "Also the Return of Jesus 1&2 Thessalonians see Matthew 24.

Pardon?
Vague similarities of opinions on what might happen in the future?
So what?


Blake - "What reason would the Epistles of Paul (which where situational) or the general epistles which where also situational need to mention this? Also do you expect the book of Revelation to be talking about the coming kingdom and then say “Oh yeah we need to tell you about the triumphal entry!” That is ridicoulous."

Numerous later Christian writings do exactly that, Paul never does - why not?


Blake - "To save myself the redundancy I will say one thing. Even if as you suppose Acts was written late which goes against the scholarly consensus which dates Luke-Acts anywhere from 64 to 75,

I think you must mean "the consensus of faithful Christians who agree with you".
Other scholars date Acts much later, even late 2nd century - there is NO CITATIONS of Acts until late 2nd century. What is your evidence for Acts being written 1st century?


Blake - "the sermons of Paul and Peter have been shown to portray the beliefs of the early Church. In fact if you would read the sermons of Peter you would find that he does mention Pilate.

The letters of "Peter" were FORGED, the reference to Pilate in 2 Peter dates to early-mid 2nd century, the same period when the Gospel stories were arising.


Blake - "Also it is most of the time assumed that Luke the companion of Paul DID write the Gospel of Luke. If Luke did in fact write it early, which I will reply to in your hyper skeptical dating of the sources, that would mean that Luke would have been in the Apostles company since he was a companion of Paul.

Luke copied his Gospel from G.Mark, there is no evidence he was part of any company of Apostles (most of the twelve appear to be fictional ayway).


Blake - "Ok I do believe that Paul mentions crucifixtion many times in his letters. Unless you want to go the route of Earl Doherty (which I suspect you will) then you could always explain everything away by appealing to the “heavenly realms” which can only be established with the slight of hand of the times Paul does speak of the earthly Christ which would be the early hymn in Phillipians.

No.
Paul gives no earthly details of Jesus or the crucifixion (dates, places, times, names) and speaks in entirely spiritual terms.


Blake - "I guess that is why Paul always proclaimed the resurrection? Paul assumes the risen Christ through out his writings. Also he says that if Christ did not rise we should be pitied above all men! I guess you want him to break down in the middle of a discourse about how to run a Church and then have him go into a expose of how the tomb was empty? Even in sermons today pastors do not mention the empty tomb.

Oh, rubbish!
I have heard many Christians, on very many occasions, go on about the empty tomb as if it was a proven fact - yet NOT ONE single Christian mentions this key issue for over a CENTURY after the alleged event.

Paul argues at length for the resurrection - if he knew of the empty tomb of course he would have mentioned it, just like numerous Christians DID mention it once the story had become known.


Blake - "I am sure you are wrong about this but you need to give us the scripture passages and why it contradicts the geography of Palestine.

Wrong again Blake.
G.Mark's errors of Geography are well known - I note others have picked up on this issue.


Blake - "Again I ask what customs and what verses!

Well-covered elsewhere, go look it up.


Blake - "That is correct, he was an interpreter of Peter, who told him everything to write down. If it is an account of what Peter remembered then it is eye- witness.

Hmmm..
The actual facts are -
Eusebius (in the 4th century) wrote that Papias (who he called stupid) had supposedly heard from presbyters who had apparently heard that Mark had apparently been the interpreter of Peter and written down his words (not in order).

And this is your evidence for an eye-witness account?
What a laugh!


Blake - "This is blatantly false, although I agree with Oral Traditon which has been shown to be extremely accurate in the ancient world!

Really? Where and when has it been shown?


Blake - "Clement actually quotes from the Gospels many times and he did write in the late 1st century!

Rubbish.
Clement quotes the writings of the OT about 100 times, often explicitly mentioning the book, and often calling it scripture.

Clement quotes the writings of Paul about 100 times, often explicitly mentioning the book, and calling it "wise writings".

He does NOT cite the Gospels, or even mention any Gospels, or name any of the Evangelists - he merely gives TWO sayings introduced with "remember the words of Jesus" which are somewhat similar to the Gospel stories.

This claim that Clement "quotes the Gospels" is patently and demonstrably false, yet oft-repeated by Christians.

This suggests you have not checked your facts at all, Blake.

Iasion
(Quentin)

[Iasion]

Greetings Vinnie,

Thank you for your detailed and measured reply.

Vinnie - " Lets not overstate the silence here. We have four Gospels and their posited sources that all date to the first century. Paul also offers us some info about the HJ. Other might add in more sources as well.

Well, I think its a strong case -
The datings of the NT writings, and the related Fathers, are known within bounds of usually decades or two.
This allows a chronology to be formed.

This chronology shows a profound silence at every decade of almost the first CENTURY of Christian writing.

Critics often claim the argument from silence is weak. Yet it is the silence of the very foundation documents of Christianity that is so deafening - it is a CHRISTIAN silence. I do not count vague spiritual formulae regarding Iesous Christos as references to a HJoN unless there is a clear earthly reference.

Here is the early Christian record, IN ORDER as best I can:

60-70ish - Hebrews - Nothing about a historical Jesus of Nazareth (vague spiritual references)
70-80ish - Colossians - Nothing about a HJoN.
80-90ish - James, 1 John - Nothing about a HJoN.
c.90 - 2 Thessalonians - Nothing about a HJoN.
90-100ish - Ephesians, 1 Peter, Revelation - Nothing about a HJoN.
c.95 - Clement - Nothing about a HJoN, some Sayings Jesus.
100-110ish - Jude, the Didakhe - Nothing about a HJoN.
110-120ish - Barnabas - A few vague references e.g. the first "pierce", among variants (e.g. NOT the son of David)
120-130 - 2,3 John - Nothing about a HJoN.

Aristides mentions the Gospels, preached "a short time among them", suggesting it was RECENT in his time (120s?)

c.135 Jerusalem and Judaea erased.
Basilides apparently refers to many of the stories and parables told by Jesus.
c.142 Marcion produces the FIRST Gospel - it has NO Genealogies, nor "son of David", it was somewhat like our G.Luke
c.150 Justin Martyr. clearly knew Gospel variants or proto-Gospels of sorts.

Aside - I don't think Justin shows evidence of the Gospels prior existence - you have it backwards here - Justin stands at the time JUST as the Gospels are coallescing.

c.172 Tatian's diaTessaron knew FOUR Gospel, without names.
c.185 Irenaeus clearly knew our modern four Gospels by name.


I think this chronology makes it pretty clear that the Gospel stories of Jesus of Nazareth :

* Were TOTALLY UNKNOWN before early 2nd century,
* Grew rapidly early the 2nd century.
* Became well-known in mid 2nd century.
* Reached maturity as our four accepted Gospels in late 2nd century.


Do you dispute that Acts was written by the author of Luke? Paul shows us evidence of a historical Jesus though aspects of his life were not the important part for Paul.

Acts was unheard-of until late 2nd century and has much clearly mythical elements, I don't think it is evidence of much at all, whoever wrote it.

I do not agree at all that Paul gives evidence of a HJ - he gives a large number of spiritual formulae, some of which CAN be interpreted historically by readin later Christian dogma into his writing. As a Gnostic student I think its patently clear Paul is arguing a spiritual entity, the first emanation from the unseen godhead, an image of which suffers the cdricifixion of incarnation in the physical plane as the immortal soul of every human.

I see a few vague references in Paul, which at best HINT at a historical person - there is never any sense of time or place - no dates or places, no names, no attempt to fit events into a framework of cause and effect, or show how they affected those around him.

In truth, I am just amazed that anyone can see a physical human being in Paul's Iesous Christos.


Paul's evidence occurs in the first stratum as well. This makes is pretty solid especially when attested by Gospel material. Paul mentions the twelve, the last supper, Jesus' teaching on divorce, says he knew Jesus' brother named James who is mentioned by Josephus and GMark.

But all so vague, so many IFs and BUTS - IF you think "Lord" means Jesus, and IF "brother" means that... etc, etc....
Nothing solid at all.



Paul says Jesus was buried doesn't he? Also, his belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus kind presupposes that something happened to the body doesn't it???

Yes,
Paul says Christos is buried - in the tomb of the physical body - crucified on the cross of matter, suffering under the dense sea of the material plane.

Yes,
Paul says Iesous Christos is raised - by our returning at death back up to the spiritual planes from whence we came.


No, that happened on earth. That Jesus was crucified is beyond dispute.

My dear Vinnie,
that is EXACTLY what we are disputing
right here.

Jesus was crucified allright, as our souls, incarnated in the cross of matter (our bodies, born of woman) which we inhabit on earth as sons of David.

But nothing in Paul, or the first century Christian writers says any more than what I have just clearly laid out here as spiritual allegory for how our souls descend into bodies.

Only later,
AFTER the records were lost,
and all the people had left or died,
only THEN did the stories that Jesus actually LIVE among men start to arise.

Ignatius started it, it seems (or at least the clever man, or coterie who forged the writings).


Your certain Papias was referring to canonical Mark?

Nothing is certain with Papias, thats whay I don't place much weight on his words.


Ignatius was indirectly dependent upon a redactional emphasis found twice in GMatthew's account concerning JBap.
Pardon?
For now let me say that Earl's latest essay concerns Ignatius and I think he argues convincly that Ignatius could NOT have known the Gospel.

Ignatius dates to about 110 ad.
I doubt it - I don't swallow that crazy tale about Ignatius, writing all those letters to people he is visiting on the way to being martyred, do you?

The writings of Ignatius were forged, and to be frank, I think they hold to key to the mystery.


Matthew is clearly in use earlier than the mid-late second century. This says Matthew was in use in the very late first century towards the very beginning of the second century.

I don't think that is shown - what is seen is merely the early Oral tradition transmogrifying into the first crude written Saying of Jesus, the various competing proto-Gospels etc. This fertile cloud of writings later came to coallesce INTO the Gospels aroud mid 2nd century, to fully crystallize only in late 2nd century.


Do NOT FEAR THOSE [who] kill you and AFTER THESE THINGS are not able TO DO ANYTHING, but FEAR
THE ONE who AFTER KILLING [you] is able
TO CAST both soul and body INTO GEHENNA
Justin, Apology 1.19.7; Matt. 10.28; Luke 12.4-5)
<...snip...>
into = Luke
Gehenna = Matthew and Luke

Sorry, this doesn't fly with me - perhaps Crossan's Bible Code program will parse it?

Justin seems to have gained access to the "memoirs of the Apostles" part way through his writings and then peppers his work with quotes from them.

BUT they are clearly NOT our Gospels - his quotes MISMATCH more than they match our Gospels word-for-word.
Justin has what can only be called proto-Gospels, but -
they are NOT yet formally NUMBERED as Four,
they are NOT yet given author's names,

This nicely rounds out the chronology -

* Gospels TOTALLY UNKNOWN before early 2nd century,
* Gospels grew rapidly early the 2nd century.
* Gospels became well-known by mid 2nd century.
* Gospels NUMBERED between Justin (c.150) and Tatian (c.172)
* Gospels NAMED between Tatian (c.172) and Irenaeus (c.185)


Justin (150) possessing knowledge and conflating Luke and Matthew would push both works back to the first half of the first century at the very latest. A prepared harmony of the gospels would do the same if not push them further back (depending on how much time we allow for them to pass around, be recognized and then harmonized and so fourth!) This is just the latest possible dating of Matthew and Luke. Mark, whom they both cited is earlier still!

I just don't agree - you have the cart before the horse.
The Gospels are forming AROUND Justin.
Justin and others of his time knows nearly ALL of the Gospel stories elements.
BUT they are still in VARIANT form, UN-numbered and UN-named.

Shortly after Justin, Irenaeus names the FOUR Gospels of Tatian and our modern Gospels are born.

Iasion
(Quentin)

[Iasion]

Greetings Joe,

Thank you for your kind words :smile:

I rather enjoyed your web pages, I'd link to add a link from my page if I may.

I can't commit to polishing anything of my work up to any particular standard right know, but if you wish to link to or excerpt from my pages, you are most welcome to :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/index.html

Phew,
well, its almost midnight, I started todays writing and posting about 15 hours ago (and its been a very hot day in Perth - 111 degrees actually - Bilbo's number, eleventy-one today, hurray!)
:hrm:

regards,
Iasion
(Quentin)


Iasion, I enjoyed reading your summary of the lack of evidence of Jesus and the gospel stories in the first century. If you will put it in a form you would like to have published, I would be happy to publish it on my server and put a link to it on my web page.
JOE ALWARD

[Celsus]

Hi Iasion,

Slightly off-topic, but I'm curious--what your views are on Ellegård's dating of the NT?

Joel

[ACFaith.Com]

Pardon? For now let me say that Earl's latest essay concerns Ignatius and I think he argues convincly that Ignatius could NOT have known the Gospel.


I think you missed the "in". This is what I said (note the bold):

Ignatius was indirectly dependent upon a redactional emphasis found twice in GMatthew's account concerning JBap.

What is the evidence that the writings of Ignatius were forged?

Vinnie

[Jaltus]

Good grief! I go away for the weekend and we get somebody on here who has no idea how to date the NT!

60-70ish - Hebrews - Nothing about a historical Jesus of Nazareth (vague spiritual references)
70-80ish - Colossians - Nothing about a HJoN.
80-90ish - James, 1 John - Nothing about a HJoN.
c.90 - 2 Thessalonians - Nothing about a HJoN.
90-100ish - Ephesians, 1 Peter, Revelation - Nothing about a HJoN.
c.95 - Clement - Nothing about a HJoN, some Sayings Jesus.
100-110ish - Jude, the Didakhe - Nothing about a HJoN.
110-120ish - Barnabas - A few vague references e.g. the first "pierce", among variants (e.g. NOT the son of David)
120-130 - 2,3 John - Nothing about a HJoN.

First off, the very first fragment of the GJ is from 95-120 AD, with nearly ALL scholarsdating the fragment to 100 AD (this is a new development, it used to be dated to about 120). What is so interesting is that it is quite obviously a fragment from a larger whole.

As for dating 2-3J, you might want to read Brown on that one again, as he has them dated circa 100 according to his ABC. He is the latest dater of them I can find. Most other scholars have them 95ish.

As for James, I have NEVER read a commentary or anything else that dates it later than 65 AD, with the exception of Dibelius and Kummel., and most date it to 48ish. After all, most critical scholars do not doubt it was written by James the Just, or at least it contains his teaching, hence most see it as mid to late first century.

As for Hebrews having nothing about a historical Jesus, it does mention Him as there and it does mention what His death accomplished, which are two very important things.
No way to debate the dating on that one, everybody says pre 70 AD.

What I find interesting is that you neglect I Corinthians, which contains the death and resurrection of Christ, and would be dated within 20 years of Jesus death by EVERYONE. There are explicit mentions to His death and resurrection, including His post resurrection appearances. Kind of a big one to miss.

I deny that Colossians was written by someone other than Paul, and most commentators of the last 20 years are going to side with me on that one.

I John claims to be an eyewitness of the Christ event, try reading I John 1:1.

Ephesians and I Peter were both written much earlier.

Your main beef is about the gospels, and since you do not have thhem list, one must wonder about when you would date them. Since we know for a fact that John was around in some form before 100 AD (since we have manuscript evidence) it would seem that your case is quite weak. As for the lat dating of the gospels, nearly everyone has them done BEFORE 100 AD, though some do date the final redaction of GJ a little later (this theory is starting to be left behind, see Schnackenburg, Carson, and especially Brown).

Basically, I would feel up to debating you on the dating of gospels, as I see most of what you are saying as pure conjecture backed by very little evidence. The biggest flaw I noticed is that you note Clement as 95 AD and neglect to realize that GJ was quoted by Clement (see Brown).

[jpholding]

Seems folks here have things well in hand, so I'll just issue two challenges:

Iso -- I have already challenged you in another thread to debate the Christ myth. You had best do better than regurgitate Doherty, Taylor, etc. because if you don't, you'll be down and out faster than you can blow your nose.

Vinnie -- when you gonna stop running from me, Peanut? That Anemic, Contaminated Faith will get you nowhere but Roadkill City. I challenge you to debate the dates and authorship of the gospels in the Gym, starting with Matthew. Got the guts, or is cut and paste all you do?

[wienerdog]

The following is from Craig Blomberg's article "Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?" in Jesus Under Fire.

Many people have cited Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon River as he returned from Gaul to Italy in 49 BC as a model of an incontrovertible historical fact from the ancient world that also had historic significance: with that deed Caesar committed himself to civil war, and the course of the Roman empire was forever altered. What is often overlooked is that we are not absolutely sure of the date of the crossing or the location of the Rubicon. And, as with the Gospels, we have four accounts of the event from later historians--Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Appian. Only the first of these was even born before the mid-first century after Christ. All apparently relied on one eyewitness source, that of Asinius Pollio, which has disappeared without a trace. Yet the four accounts vary at least as much as the Gospels do when reporting the same event. One writer, Suetonius, attributes Caesar's decision to cross the Rubicon to seeing "an apparition of superhuman size and beauty," who was "sitting on the river bank, playing a reed pipe."

When this kind of miraculous detail appears in a Gospel account, the entire story is usually rejected as mythical. Here it appears in an account of an event that is regularly cited as one of the most well-established historical facts of antiquity! Clearly a double standard is at work here.

[jpholding]

Well, Wiener,

You said a mouthful there. The double standard is all over the place when it comes to the Gospels. In fact, I'll add to my Gospel challenge above and state that I challenge anyone to dispute the authorship of the Gospels, by first explaining to us why we should believe Tacitus wrote the Annals and Histories, and then using the same standards to determine who wrote the Gospels.

BTW Vinnie that Marcan geography bit is lamer than a dead horse. I'll bring it to bear if you take my dare.

BTW also Wiener, maybe you should start a thread in one of the "personal fun areas" of TWeb for all of us to brag on our dogs. :smile:

[wienerdog]

As for the mythological parallels to Christ...

I was weaned on Joseph Campbell, and thought that these parallels were totally valid. As a non-Christian I sought to confirm them and discovered that 1) the vast majority, if not all of them, post-date Jesus (sometimes this involved a pre-Christian myth taking on the characteristics in question after Christ). 2) The mythological parallels to Christ are incredibly contrived. One has to force Christian concepts onto texts in which they don't fit. And 3) for these reasons, no scholar has taken these parallels seriously for nearly a century.

Since becoming a Christian, I have realized that even if such parallels were totally valid, they would be irrelevant. There are mythological parallels to Abraham Lincoln that are at least as valid as those to Christ. Ultimately, the historicity of a personage or event is determined by the historical evidence. All a series of mythological parallels could do is simply warn you to be careful in your historical method. It doesn't trump them.

[wienerdog]

BTW also Wiener, maybe you should start a thread in one of the "personal fun areas" of TWeb for all of us to brag on our dogs.

It's already there, but your dog may have to exhibit certain sausage-like properties: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1533

[ACFaith.Com]

Vinnie -- when you gonna stop running from me, Peanut? That Anemic, Contaminated Faith will get you nowhere but Roadkill City. I challenge you to debate the dates and authorship of the gospels in the Gym, starting with Matthew. Got the guts, or is cut and paste all you do?

Anemic, contaminated, peanut, running, guts, cut and paste?

And you expect me to formally debate you?

You and Doherty are on my list of articles as far as Gospel dating goes. I plan to do a double critique in the near future. Your early view on Gospel dating and Doherty's later view on dating. You'll have to wait until then to cross views.

Vinnie

[Blake Reas]

03-11-2003 @ 03:06 AM
ACFaith.Com:



Anemic, contaminated, peanut, running, guts, cut and paste?

And you expect me to formally debate you?

You and Doherty are on my list of articles as far as Gospel dating goes. I plan to do a double critique in the near future. Your early view on Gospel dating and Doherty's later view on dating. You'll have to wait until then to cross views.

Vinnie

Whats wrong does JP's satire make you cry :bawl:? If you are so good at dating the Gospels and things let's see you take JP on. You could dethrone him in one post and amaze us all! Better yet why don't you challenge Jaltus? I am sure he would pound you also.:rofl:

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

[ACFaith.Com]

03-11-2003 @ 03:21 AM
Blake Reas:



Whats wrong does JP's satire make you cry :bawl:? If you are so good at dating the Gospels and things let's see you take JP on. You could dethrone him in one post and amaze us all! Better yet why don't you challenge Jaltus? I am sure he would pound you also.:rofl:

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

Do I look like I am crying? Do you endorse JP's style? It is rude, disrespectful and totally unnecessary. Maybe the fact that you agree with him makes you numb to this fact? It is unethical in my book. Its probably the equivalent to me of what calling him a *bleepin* moron here publicly would be seen as to you. I thought that back then when I agreed with virtually all the same positions that he does and I think it now when I disagree with those positions.

In order to "dethrone" JP he would have to be some sort of authority on the subject. Unfortunately, he is not. He might be an authority to uninformed Christians on the internet but certainly not in the world of critical scholarship.

If JP and Jaltus are as good as you say they are, tell them to go publish in peer-reviewed journals if they aren't doing so now. Why waste their time on a little fish like me? Oh wait, they couldn't spread their misinformation to educated scholars :doh:

Vinnie

[ACFaith.Com]

On second thought, my apologises to Jaltus. I don't know him at all. You brought him into this and I should not have followed your suit and included him in my comments. Again, my apologies to Jaltus for doing so.


Vinnie

[spl_cadet]

03-10-2003 @ 07:47 PM
ACFaith.Com:
Do I look like I am crying? Do you endorse JP's style? It is rude, disrespectful and totally unnecessary.

Also makes for a nice read. Besides, it's simply what the atheists do with us most of the time. Nice to see them get their own back at them.


In order to &quot;dethrone&quot; JP he would have to be some sort of authority on the subject. Unfortunately, he is not.

:grabs a mitre from the local bishop and goes up to JP stating "I hereby annoint thee an authority in the subject of whatever thou happen to be debating in.":


He might be an authority to uninformed Christians on the internet but certainly not in the world of critical scholarship.

And I take it you represent the world of critical scholarship? If not, then we can simply have an amateur smack down.

[spl_cadet]

03-10-2003 @ 07:06 PM
ACFaith.Com:
Anemic, contaminated, peanut, running, guts, cut and paste?
And you expect me to formally debate you?

You actually cared about what he said about you? Are you really thin-skinned or do you just not want to debate him? I mean come on, I've been routinely called idiotic by some of the people I debate (people who also couldn't recognize a logical argument if it came up and bit them on the rear). Heck, I've been called a devil worshipper, though that didn't stop me from refuting their stuff (never had the pleasure of debating Jack Chick though).

[ACFaith.Com]

Besides, it's simply what the atheists do with us most of the time. Nice to see them get their own back at them.

The old "but he started it" defense? What about repaying curses with blessings? I don't always live up to that but surely its worth pursuing? Its easy to stoop down to someones level and I have fallen victim to this myself. Its much harder and more admirable to not do so.

Also makes for a nice read.

Opinions may vary.

Are you really thin-skinned or do you just not want to debate him?

I'm not thin-skinned at all. I thought about debating it but decided not to. Holding's style was part of the reason. Another is that I think that it would be a waste of time that could be better spent elsewhere. I can debate the evidence for dating with skeptics who date them all 2d and with Christians who date them pre-70 ad until I'm blue in the face. I'm not sure what this would accomplish though.

My site opened not too long ago and I have a lot of things I want to write on. A formal debate will take up too much of my time at the moment. When my article is up on dating Holding can respond to it if he sees fit. Why is that not good enough?

And I take it you represent the world of critical scholarship?

I never said I did so I am not sure how you gleaned that.

I've been routinely called idiotic by some of the people I debate

Good for your you. What do your experiences have to do with me?

never had the pleasure of debating Jack Chick though

This is where we differ. I don't want the pleasure of debating Jack Chick as much as I disagree with him. I'm not sure why you you want that "pleasure" either.

Vinnie

[jpholding]

Oh well, Chicken Vinnie on the run. :rofl: I expect more cutting and pasting from single sources, followed by response to refutations after the manner of, "Oh yeah, so what?"That's generally all you get from people with no grasp on the lit other than what they picked up yesterday.

[Jaltus]

Actually, I will not begin publishing until next semester due to my busy class schedule. I am working on my first article for publication this summer, probably entitled "A Balanced View of God: Attributes in Harmony".

I plan on debunking the idea that God can have a single overriding principle, one that dominates "how God works," as it were.

As for publishing on dating, again just read Carson, Moo, Morris Introduction to the New Testament and you will see where at least some of my argumentation comes from.

[Jaltus]

What, no response, Iason?

[Iasion]

Greetings Joel,

Slightly off-topic, but I'm curious--what your views are on Ellegård's dating of the NT?

Well, I'm still reading Ellegård (actually, I JUST got my hands on it, I had dismissed it before as I reject his primary thesis).

But in short, what I know so far about dates, I tend to AGREE -

* Clement, Hebrews, Didakhe, Hermas, (Barnabas) early
* Ignatius the phase change
* Gospels late

But,
I disagree on :
* Jesus based on dim memories of 1stC.BC. Essene T.ofR.
* Ignatius being genuine in c.107 (I think forged a little later)

Iasion

[Iasion]

Greetings again Vinnie,

Ignatius was indirectly dependent upon a redactional emphasis found twice in GMatthew's account concerning JBap.

Well, perhaps you could explain?

What is the evidence that the writings of Ignatius were forged?

Actually, there's a good article over on RadikalCritik on that very subject :
"1 Clement and the Ignatiana in Dutch Radical Criticism "
http://www.radikalkritik.de

See below a quote covering some of the issues.

Iasion



1° The seven letters attributed to Ignatius have only the outward and artificial form of true letter writing, and this is particularly clear in the case of the letter of Ignatius to Polycarp. Again and again, where „Ignatius“ could have mentioned a detail concerning his personal relationship with Polycarp, he instead gives instructions in the form of sayings that would be appropriate on any ocassion. Instead of appearing to be a letter jotted down hurriedly during a trip to martyrdom (so VAN LOON, De Kritiek, P. 302), the letter to Polycarp is carefully designed[xxviii]. HILGENFELD showed that the letter to Polycarp is obviously a companion piece to the Pastoral Epistles[xxix]. But if this letter is forged, then the authenticity of the rest of the Ignatian corpus, to which it has strong ties, must be put in question.

2. In anticipation of the outcome of the journey to martyrdom the author, ‘Ignatius’, tends to designate himself as „Theophoros“ or „Christophoros“ It is unlikely that Ignatius used such terminology which at the time would only be used for a martyr after his death. It is more likely that a later person, as was the custom in those times, wrote a number of letters under the name of the legendary martyr bishop and thereby used the title „Theophoros“, which had been given to Ignatius in the aftermath of his martyrdom[xxx].

3. Ignatius writes of „Magnesia on the Maeander,“ „Tralles in Asia,“ „Philadelphia in Asia,“ „Smyrna in Asia,“ and „Ephesus in Asia“ in the introduction of the letters that are written to the Churches. Does Ignatius need to remind people in these churches that these places are to be found in Asia and not in Europe[xxxi]?

4. If the letters of Ignatius were collected only some time after they had been written, we have to ask in what way this collection was undertaken. The answer is that the letters were conceived from the start as a collection, as individual parts of a single whole. „Each letter presupposes the previous letter in the order given by Eusebius. [Eusebius, HE, Book III, Chapter XXXVI. Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, Polycarp.] In the epistle to the Magnesians, 1,2 the hope is expressed that the churches show a threefold union: union of the flesh and of the spirit of Jesus Christ, union of faith and of love, and union with Jesus and with the Father. This is a short recapitulation of some of the main points in the letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 7:7, 14:1 f., 19:1 f.). Eph. 20,1 says that the author has plans 'to write a second booklet', which is then the letter to the Magnesians, and in chapter 13 the contents of the letters to the Ephesians and Magnesians are summarized. Trall. 7.1, which states that ‘Anyone who does anything without the bishop or the presbyters or the deacons does not keep a good conscience’, gets new light from the letter to the Magnesians, where in chapter 4, those that appear ‘not to keep a good conscience’ are the ones that have the bishop’s name on their lips, but in everything act apart from him.”[xxxii]

[Iasion]

Greetings Jaltus

First off, the very first fragment of the GJ is from 95-120 AD, with nearly ALL scholars dating the fragment to 100 AD (this is a new development, it used to be dated to about 120). What is so interesting is that it is quite obviously a fragment from a larger whole.

Rubbish.
Manuscripts can perhaps be dated to 1/2 century or so.
The tiny fragment P52 is usually dated to 1st half 2nd century, i.e. 100-150CE.
Some authors date it late 2nd century or even later.

You appear to quote Christian authorities who date it earlier - so what? These are all OPINIONS, and this opinion has shifted back and forth many decades.

That is not proof of anything.

If you claim a specific dating breakthrough, please produce your case.


After all, most critical scholars do not doubt it was written by James the Just, or at least it contains his teaching, hence most see it as mid to late first century.

Rubbish.
I think you mean most Christian scholars who agree with you.
I don't care for your authorities, its obvious on the face of it that this work was not written by James the Just.

James supposedly ruled the Jerusalem church - there is no evidence of that in the work.
James supposedly GREW UP with Jesus - there is no evidence of that in the work - he only even mentions the name ONCE.

In fact there is NOTHING in James to suggest anything about a historical Jesus existing at all - from a man who supposedly lived with him, then took over his church after his crucifixion.


What I find interesting is that you neglect I Corinthians, which contains the death and resurrection of Christ

What makes YOU think its a reference to a historical event?

He uses spiritual terms, religious formulae and platonic allegories - there is NOTHING of a historical nature at all - no dates, no places, no names, no connections.


I John claims to be an eyewitness of the Christ event, try reading I John 1:1.

I have read 1 John 1:1, it says nothing about the Christ event at all.

Here is a man who has just had a spiritual experience, relating his joy, and explaining what he has learned.

He says explicitly what the message was "concerning the word of life" which was "made manifest", which possibly means spiritual knowledge came through to him.

And then he tells us the message -
1:5 "THIS is the MESSAGE ...
that God is light..."

There is NOTHING in here that mentions a historical Jesus or the Christ event, he says nothing about any Christ event, merely a "word of life" which was"made manifest" (which could mean MANY things) - it is merely YOUR misreading what you want to.


Since we know for a fact that John was around in some form before 100 AD (since we have manuscript evidence)

Rubbish.
P52 maybe 100-15CE.
No one refers to or quotes the Gospel of John until mid 2nd century.


The biggest flaw I noticed is that you note Clement as 95 AD and neglect to realize that GJ was quoted by Clement

Rubbish.
I have shown elsewhere that Clement does NOT quote the Gospels. If YOU claim he does - PRODUCE the QUOTES.

Seriously Jaltus,
your idea of debate is to quote your favourite Christian "scholar" - how about some arguments based on facts that can be verified, not opinions of your precious Christian authorities.


Iasion

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Wow Quentin,

Excuse me, but if Christian authorities are not to be used, or treated with contempt, (as is how I read your argument by going 'rubbish', above) then why have you cited Celsus elsewhere, whose works are ONLY known via Origen, or Justus, who is only known (AFAIK) via Photius.

Your response to Jaltus appears inconsistent with what you have written, elsewhere. Comments...? :brow:

from Guy

[Jaltus]

Let me put it this way, Iason,

The editors of the Editio Critica Maiaor date P 52 to 100 AD. The Alands date P 52 to 100 AD.

Maybe you should read something written in the last 20 years, it might help you.

As for knowing this stuff, I believe I have solid qualifications. I have 2 degrees in Greek and am currently working on my third. Do you have any similar qualifications, or are you just pulling info off of the internet? Bottom line is that 100 AD or a bit after is now the accepted view by 99% of all text critical scholars. The writing was shown to be inconsistent with letter formation of the latter 2nd century.

In other words, try again.