Iasion

Greetings all,

Clement's (of Rome) supposed citations of the Gospels are sometimes said to prove the Gospels were known in the late 1st century.

I have put together a brief listing of the citations in Clement's epistle so the evidence can be more easily analysed - it can be found here:

<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/ClementRome.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/ClementRome.html</a>

In summary, there are 5 possible citations of the Gospels, along with a 100 or so to the NT epistles, and about another 100 or so to the OT.

Of the 5 possible Gospel citations, 1 is just a common quote from the OT, but the other 4 do show similarities to the Gospels.

Clement does not directly quote the Gospels in any of these and uses forms which suggest he is using sayings from an Oral tradition.

He also uses the word "Gospel" twice, in a way which suggest he means the basic meaning of good news or teachings of Jesus.

In short, the evidence does NOT at all support the claim that Clement actually knew of the Gospels in a formal sense.

I welcome comments and suggestions about this page, or my main Gospel page at:

<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html</a>

Quentin David Jones

Haran

Quentin,

On your current subject, I have to concur that Clement may only have been aluding to oral tradition. However, it is possibly, perhaps even probable, that he was quoting from memory and conflating his sources, the gospels.

I took a look at your website as well. You quote some very reputable sources: Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman, etc. However, you mix in some rather questionable, and in my opinion rather biased and dishonest, sources. I believe you may want to reexamine some of your sources.

From your website, I discovered the reason for your moniker: Iasion. I have given a long treatise here on the origin of Jesus name, but I don't have the time to do it again and I can't seem to find it anymore to link to it. Suffice it to say that Iasion would better translate into English as Jason, not Jesus.

The Hebrew name Joseph was occasionally turned into the Greek name IASWN. However, this was because the names were similar sounding. IHSOYS, however, is what one would call a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshu or Yeshua. It was a very common transliteration as one can see from a perusal of the Greek that underlies Josephus. In other words, IHSOYS (Jesus), was Hebrew/Aramaic in origin, not Greek.

Still on the subject of Jesus name, you mention Clement of Alexandria as referring to this Iasion, but the information that you have (more than likely from another source) is rather biased and somewhat dishonest, IMO. Here is what you say:

First of all, someone has cut out a lot of the text in this quote from Clement. Clement is not being selective in this instance as there are several other Gods mentioned in the actual unmodified quote. Also, if it is significant that Clement uses the from HETIWN here (p. 30 of <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/loeb/" target="_blank">Loeb Library Greek-English Edition</a>), then why does he use the form IASIWN later in the same chapter (along with many other Greek gods). In both instances, Clement is decrying the sexual immorality of the Greeks and their gods. This is no apology for the origins of Jesus.

Finally, I feel that much of the information on your website could be better if it wasn't tinged so with some of these more biased (and occasionally incorrect) sources.

One more instance of error is in your timeline section where you mention p52. I covered this in another thread already, but I will do so again here because what you have quoted on your website is false (not biased, false...).

First of all, you mention the dates 125-150 C.E. (Christian Era ), to be conservative. I'm not sure in what way you mean conservatively dated. If you mean conservatively dated in the sense that p52 could be earlier, then I agree (especially earlier than 150 A.D.). If you mean conservatively dated in the sense that it is later (which you probably do), then I disagree. Most scholars that I know of seem to have no problem dating this NT papyrus to circa 125 A.D. It is, I believe, stated exactly so in the sigla to both the NA27 and UBS4th critical editions of the Greek NT and in the two most prominant introductions to NT textual Criticism (by the Alands and by Metzger).

This is not my main problem, however, the problem is the incorrect statement: "it [p52] has no two complete sequential words."

I don't know what your source for this was, but there is a UK Atheist website that has almost this exact same incorrect statement. I hope that this was merely a mistake on their part and not intentional bias to make this find seem insignificant. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they were perhaps referring to 7Q5 from Qumran which does not seem to have two complete consecutive words on it.

There are at least two instances of "two complete sequential words" on p52. I have created a picture, outlined the words, and defined them above on <a href="http://dreamwater.org/bccox/index.html#BPM" target="_blank">my website</a>. You will see the pictures at the bottom of the Biblical Papyri section (each picture begins with "P52 - ".

This little piece of the NT is significant because it is a little window on the text. Via stichometry, the text can be reconstructed with good confidence to show that this part of the passion story (the latter part of the book of John) existed in largely the same text as that in the NA27 and UBS4 critical Greek texts of today.

This means that if the passion of Jesus existed in part (in the early 2nd century!), largely the same as what we have, then it probably existed in whole significantly the same as what we have. It could be that only the passion text existed at this time, but that is unlikely to me considering that other full gospels were supposed to have been written before the book of John. I believe the book of John as we know it was around then and before. So this "tiny" little piece of papyri is pretty significant.

As far as the lack of early NT papyri, much of it was destroyed in the persecutions, especially that of Diocletian. I wish it still existed to appease those who do not believe, but it does not and there is nothing I can do to retrieve it.

Haran

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Haran:

As far as the lack of early NT papyri, much of it was destroyed in the persecutions, especially that of Diocletian. I wish it still existed to appease those who do not believe, but it does not and there is nothing I can do to retrieve it.

Diocletian? First I've heard of this claim. What's your source?

Michael

CX

No manuscripts are explicitly dated in the 27th edition of Nestle & Aland I have in front of me. P52 is identified with an asterix in Appendix I.a. CODICES GRAECIas a "consistently cited witness of the first order" (see introduction to NA27) and a saec. II text . Unfortunately the fragment is so small that it is not in practice used for the critical edition. Still I think that mainstream opinion dates this fragment between 110 and 125 which probably puts it in very close proximity to the autograph (closer than any other MS. we have presently) which makes it a very valuable find. It is of little value for text criticism since owing to its fragmentary nature it attests both the pure Alexandrian text and some trivial variants.

Other than that the rest of your analysis seems spot on.

P.S. Without making accusations of plagiarism I am pretty sure I have seen much of the present argument verbatim somewhere else. It could be that I have visited Iasion's website in the past. I'd be curious for him to cite his sources here.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

CX

BTW here is a link to the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000104&p=" target="_blank">original discussion of the John Ryland's fragment</a> we had a few weeks back. You need to scroll to the bottom of the page to get to your original outstanding argument.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

Iasion

Greetings Haran (and others),

Thanks for your helpful comments on my site, your criticisms are well taken.

The Iasion page was the starting point for my interest in the mythical Jesus argument, and it does show some weaknesses (I would be most interested to read your ideas about the name Iasion etc). I note that while Iasius seems to be the same name as Iasion and Eetion, it seems the jump to Iesous is a bridge too far. I will amend this and also my comments about Clement and Eetion.

As to sources, I decided early on not to clutter my page with direct sources for every statement so as to keep the page (relatively) clean - this was probably a mistake as I don't always remember the origin of all items

For example - P52 - the comment that it has no 2 complete sequential words is certainly wrong - I thought I had fixed that (I can't remember the source now) and will do so immediately.

As to the dating of P52 - I think a fair dating would be 100-150 (or c.125), which seems to represent the consensus (some say 120-130).

And to CX -
you refer to seeing the present argument "verbatim" - if you mean the Clement supposed Gospel citations, then I can assure you that I only wrote my Clement page in the last few days, as part of a debate which you can observe for yourself on soc.religion.christian.bible-study (under my name Quentin David Jones vs a EgwEime). If you mean other issues like Iasion then its certainly possible you have seen my page or arguments before. You ask for me to cite my sources, but I am not sure to what you refer - if you mean the Clement issue, I used the online Fathers of the Church site and I explicitly cite this at my page - its analysis therein is all my own original work.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Iasion ]</p>

CX

I would like to formally retract the implied accusation I made. I realize now that I was thinking of one particular sentence about P52 havung no two consecutive words. I saw this at Steven Carlson's page, but that hardly constitutes grounds for suspecting plagiarism. I apologize.

Haran

The Diocletian persecution (or so-called "Great Persecution") is relatively well-known. I haven't done an internet search on the topic yet, but I would imagine there is something out there. Diocletian was emperor from 284-305 A.D.

From <a href="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-13.htm#P4883_2233983" target="_blank">Eusebius' History of the Church(Book 8 Ch. 2)</a> (my source is actually the <a href="http://www.penguinclassics.com/" target="_blank">Peguin Classics</a> edition of Eusebius):

"It was the 19th year of Diocletian's reign and the month Dystrus, called March by the Romans, and the festival of the Saviour's Passion was approaching, when an imperial decree was published everywhere [my note: these decrees/edicts were posted in public places, I believe that I read somewhere that they were at least occasionally bronze plaques...please correct if wrong], ordering the churches to be razed to the ground and the Scriptures destroyed by fire, and giving notice that those in places of honour would lose their places, and domestic staff, if they continued to profess Christianity, would be deprived of their liberty. Such was the first edict against us. Soon afterwards other decrees arrived in rapid succession, ordering that the presidents of the churches in every place shouud be first committed to prison and then coerced by every means into offering sacrifice."

According to Eusebius, there were other similar persecutions in the past by Valerian, Decian, etc. There are stories sprinkled throughout the text which I can't seem to find at the moment about certain Christians who valiantly tried to hide the Scriptures during persecution. Some were partially successful but many were not.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0800619315/qid=1016860245/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/102-8319029-5266544" target="_blank">W.H.C. Frend's The Rise of Christianity</a> has <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0800619315/reader/4/102-8319029-5266544#reader-link" target="_blank">a chapter (glance at Ch 13 headings here)</a> devoted to Diocletian's reign and the "Great Persecution".

Here is what he has to say:

pp. 457-460 "During 303 the pattern of events resembled that of the Decian persecution [previous page says: The persecution resembled Valerian's more than Decius's]. The first reaction of the Christians of Cirta was flight. Many made for the Chettaba hills (Mons Bellona) about five miles south of the city. In Egypt Bishop Peter of Alexandria left his city for Oxyrhynchus. Meantime, all over the empire the authorities set about burning down Christian churches and collecting copies of the Scriptures. [previous page says: The edict he - Diocletian - promulgated on 24 February ordered that throughout the empire churches were to be destroyed, and the sacred books of the Christians handed over to be burned. Also: The attack was concentrated on the organization of the church its life as represented by the Scriptures and buildings, and on its influential members.]"

Frend mentions that there is "good documentation" that in "proconsular Africa...the first thing people knew of the emperor's orders was the sight of churches going up in flames..." He goes one to provide the formal text for what he calls an "oft-quoted diologue" between a Bishop and curator in which the persistant curator pushes to find any scriptures that the church might have hidden.

Finally, it is mentioned in a prominent introduction to textual criticism, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802840981/qid=1016861710/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-8319029-5266544" target="_blank">Kurt and Barbara Aland's The Text of the New Testament</a> on pp. 64-65:

"But the period of [Diocletian's] persecution which lasted almost ten years in the West and much longer in the East was characterized by the systematic destruction of church buildings (and church centers), and any manuscripts that were found in them were publicly burned. Church officials were further required to surrender for public burning all holy books in their possession or custody. Although clergy who submitted to the demands of the state were branded as traitors and defectors from the faith, their number was by no means small. ..........The result was a widespread scarcity of New Testament manuscripts which became all the more acute when the persecution ceased..........."

According to the Alands, this scarcity of NT MSS after the Great Persecution led to an explosion of NT MSS being created. This, they say, gave rise to the major text types we see today - Byzantine, Western, etc.

There you have it... I contend that the earliest NT MSS either "weathered away" in every location but the papyri-preserving deserts of North Africa or were destroyed during the merciless persecutions of Christians in the early years.

Haran

Haran

BTW, the two serious sources I quote above are not conservative scholars by any stretch of the imagination. Read the comments on Amazon... Just thought I'd add that since I sometimes quote relatively conservative scholars.

Thanks,
Haran

Haran

You are correct. I was in a hurry to get to work this morning and wrote the above without looking at my sources. I thought that the tiny insert for the NA27 mentioned p52 as c.125A.D., but it only has "II" for second century. Since the insert for the UBS4th has c.125A.D., and the Alands mention the date as c.125A.D. in their Text of the New Testament, I just assumed they also had it this way in the NA27 insert. I don't usually assume things, sorry...

I can agree with the dates you have set forth and Iasion also replied with.

Haran