Vinnie

Excellent post Bernard.

Vinnie

Al Kafirun

Yeah, what Bernard said.

GakuseiDon

I don't think the evidence supports you. Where do you get that idea?

Looking at all the "Christ Myth" authors listed by Doherty for the 2nd C, we find these dates (taken from earlychristianwritings):

175-185 Theophilus
175-180 Athenagoras of Athens
130-200 Epistle to Diognetus
160-170 Tatian
160-250 Minucius Felix (Doherty's 'smoking gun')

So all the authors Doherty uses for evidence except Diognetus are dated as being written into the second half of the 2nd C. (Doherty has "most scholars lean towards 130" for Diognetus, but the notes on earlychristianwritings seem to lean towards a later date).

On the other hand, we have these writers giving details about a historical Jesus in the first half of the 2nd C (dates again from earlychristianwritings):

105-115 Ignatius
110-140 Papias
120-130 Aristides

These fragments also contain one or more references to historicity:

120-130 Quadratus of Athens:
120-140 Basilides

Yes, which is why I highlighted some of his comments like "if one leaves aside Justin, there is a silence in 2nd C apologists..." He's already admitted to Ignatius and Aristides!

I used to criticise Doherty for relying on speculation, but I never blamed him, since I thought he was extrapolating from the little evidence available. Now I put him a little higher than Freke and Gandy. Perhaps it's time to stop being so fair to Doherty...

spin

As we are at best dealing with literary traditions, yes, of course it would make a difference if Jesus were born in Nazareth or some other place. When traditions prove to be unreliable, it is a purely arbitrary process of deciding what you would like to keep as being representative of the "true" tradition. That is the process followed by those euphemistically called historical jesusers has no value whatsoever, when the source materials continue to prove themselves unreliable. There is no objective way of separating "good" content from "bad".

If by gospels you mean written gospels then I think you are in never-never-land talking about them being from the start of the 2nd c. Naturally, there were various versions going the circuits. Paul indicated such. Didache warns against travelling preachers who earnt their living off telling communities what they wanted to hear in exchange for food and lodging. Oral gospel there seems to have been in not small quantities. However, the first gospel to have come down to us in written form is an expanded version of Marcion's gospel, called post hoc by Irenaeus a reduction of Luke, but is more likely the source for the Lucan material. Whatever the reality, we at least have a guaranteed attestation of Marcion's gospel.

Before that we have a guaranteed conflict between what is attributed to Papias by that most reputable of church fathers, Eusebius, and the gospels we have. What is cited of Papias does give the impression of works similar to the gospel of Thomas or perhaps even our hypothetical Q, the sort of material we would expect to be picked up by the narrative gospel writers and also to be cited by Justin.

What we have with the development of the Nazareth tradition is either the loss of the earlier nazarhnos/nazwraios tradition or a deliberate obscuring of it. Either way, the earliest traditions have been occulted and what people are doing generally is the arbitrary sorting of later traditions in an effort to get what is that grain of "true" tradition while always being at least one layer above it.


spin

spin

Be nice, Signor Sapone, and give a few highlights of what you see as relevant in the good father's tome. (I will soon [mid-May] be in transit from this wilderness to a strange foreign land, so I won't get an opportunity to go book hunting for quite a while.)


spin

spin

The dates from earlychristianwritings are the conventional wisdom. I challenge you to show the relevant source materials to date Ignatius to 105-115 CE. I have already argued here at II that he was still alive in 160 CE along with Polycarp.

The Papias materials are citations from that trustworthy soul, Eusebius and in one instance a citation from Irenaeus, this latter telling us that he was a hearer of John (but John who? disciple, evangelist, elder, writer of Revelation, presbyter, or some other?) and a companion of Polycarp (but when? Polycarp died after 160 CE). Have you heard of a disciple of the Lord called Aristion? Is he a 13th disciple? (Eusebius is now a suspect of having forged the Testimonium Flavium. And has been charged with willing being deceptive with the truth... if it might lead a person to salvation. )

As to Aristides, the dating is simply wrong. It is based on the lack of understanding of the onomastic data supplied in the name of the Roman emperor, the name given as "Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus". While Hardian never ever called himself that (being Publius Aelius Hadrianus), all these names form part of the throne name of Antoninus Pius, ie Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Pius. So, we must place Aristides later than 138 CE; he is starting to come into the middle part of the century when written gospel material is starting to appear.

His gospel is not any of those which we know. His killers of Jesus were the Jews, for "he himself was pierced by the Jews", ie he knows nothing about Pontius Pilate or the Roman involvement in Jesus's death. At least some of his information is oral tradition as indicated with the phrase "as it is said". Incidentally, a later version of the text, known strangely as "Barlaam and Josaphat", is totally without the gospel material. Is this latter version more reflective of the original text of Aristides? After all, we are relying on fragments of Syriac and Armenian translations.

As Quadratus is tied by Eusebius to the time of Aristides, then Eusebius is probably wrong about his dating as well.

It is interesting that one uses the plainly gnostic Basilides here, but I guess all roads lead to Rome.

Both coming onto the scene much later than you would like, Gak.


spin

Here is the relevant part of Aristides' Apology:

GakuseiDon

I used the dates from earlychristianwritings precisely because I believed them to be conservative. If the conservative view is wrong, fair enough. As soon as Peter Kirby updates the date ranges, I'll update my post.

spin

Gak, your dating system is therefore useless. Whatever you say using data you can't justify you may as well not say. Peter merely supplies conventional wisdom. He is not your yardstick and you cannot be so slack as to depend on other people's compromises and expect to make sense. Dating matters are serious, especially when you try to build arguments based on dating. Now, I suggest you do the work and not rest on the questionable laurels of wishful scholarship.


spin

Vinnie

I'll post some specifics. Brown tends to provide an overview to some of the issues and he covers a few different areas. I need some time though. I'm working doubles since boss in on vacation and I have to draft up a response to Robert in the debate. So give me a few days and I'll post his comments.

Vinnie

Vinnie

GK, your dating range is off for Papias. You should put 100-140 with the lower have being more likely. I just posted a thread on this somewhere around here,

Vinnie