spin

You seem to be assuming things you need to demonstrate.

What makes you think that if there were a Jesus person -- which is in doubt, given the precedent of Ebion -- that he "was only Jewish"? The earliest indications of his life come from the undated gospel of Mark, which gives evidence to say that the work was written in Rome or some other strictly Roman centre and its pseudonymous author given a Latin name. Why does this Jewish guy of yours quote from the LXX, as is the case in the gospel of Mark? Why does the writer mix dialects of Aramaic when giving his Jesus his last words?


spin

rlogan

I'll admit I'm following Eusebius here. There is some danger in that. But at least it is an external source that has
some means of establishing a date.

I am saying that if one starts pushing it earlier than this, then one is beginning to speculate too much.

In the quote I provided (english translation, anyway) it does say "read", so I infer written gospel. Which gospel that is remains open to question.

One would propose oral tradition before written in any case, yes. The problem is too many of them, necessitating a canon.

spin

And I was attempting to say that 124 CE may be speculation as well.

In the quote I provided (english translation, anyway) it does say "read", so I infer written gospel.[/B][/QUOTE]

So, unless I can see the original here, I guess we have to trust the translator.


spin

rlogan

Yes, but don't take 124 to be "my" date. I don't believe there is any controversy about it being from the Church Forgery Mill.

So it is a matter when it was written, and the earliest candidate date is 124.

It isn't wise to put this forward as the date certain for any specific gospel, no.


True about the translator. That would be a pretty outragous mistranslation. In keeping with church tradition in general, I suppose...

spin

At the beginning of Aristides' Apology we find a reference to "Hadrian the King on behalf of reverence for God. . . . All-powerful Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus"

The emperor Hadrian's name was Publius Aelius Hadrianus. The throne name of Antoninus Pius? -- Titus Aelius Caesar Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius. Apparently we are not dealing with the Hadrian that we know, but Antoninus Pius, who had taken the names Aelius Hadrianus when he assumed the throne.

The mention of Antoninus Pius should put the apology after AP's accession.


spin

rlogan

So 138-161.

Hmm. Thank you for pointing that out. So what the hell is wrong with Eusebius here?

I need to look into that...

rlogan

OK Spin, so i dug up Eusebius Hist. Eccl. Ch IV. :

3.2 is about Quadratus. (Who speaks about people Jesus healed still playing polo and singin' rock and roll).

Then two lonely sentences about Aristides:

"Aristides also, a believer earnestly devoted to our religion, left, like Quadratus, an apology for the faith, addressed to Adrian. His work, too, has been preserved even to the present day by a great many persons."


Most of his work gives fuller references to external events. This just sticks out there almost begging for the label. You know what label. Dare I say it?

spin

Wooncha lerv summing tayngible jest fur wernce, huh?


spin

rlogan

OK, let's say this passage is wrong for argument, and given the reference you provided that is reasonable.

So there are a couple of options here. One is he's wrong and has an agenda. Another option is interpolation.

It cannot be a single interpolation because the title of that section is plural. So that is a larger interpolation. Could be the whole thing.

But I'm so out of my element here. I'm a number cruncher, spin. Ignorant of the surrounding history and the other anchors that would let me say "interpolation".

spin

Of course if you take the section out then you have no dating reference at all, do you?


spin