andrewcriddle

The translation here http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ar...s_05_trans.htm has IMHO It seems to be emphasising the recency of the first preaching of the Gospel message not the time when it was first written down.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

The Apology is only fully preserved in Syriac (alternatively the Syriac has been heavily expanded) see http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ar...s_02_trans.htm and http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ar...7_appendix.htmThe passage we are discussing is not present in the Greek.

Andrew Criddle

Ahab

Thanks for the explanation. From the little reading I've done, you point about the differences between ancient and modern views is well taken.

RPS

That relates to the listing of references how?

That there's no necessary definitive answer only means that the historian's task is tougher, not that s/he should abandon the effort altogether. Plus, they don't likely change the subject, they move on to Wheasley, Arabic versions and the "brother of James" reference.

Even if everything you say here is correct, it relates to real peer review how?

I have already suggested the motive I see as most likely.

Toto

That source is biased and unreliable. I found Layman's description of France's arguments slanted towards validating historicism, and I expect the rest of his summaries have similar deficiencies. And I see no reason to assume that the publication of the books listed there was in any way definitive in settling the question in scholar's minds.

No - it means that the historian's task is impossible. The Arabic version is derivative and does not solve any questions. The Antiquities contains the "James the brother of Jesus" reference. It is a slim reed.

"Peer review subjects an author's work or ideas to the scrutiny of one or more others who are experts in the field. " - That's what happened here, even if it was not pre-publication.

You are so, so wrong.

Iasion

Greetings andrew,

I brought this up with people in the Syriac group.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...ight=Aristides


The view there was that this phrase meant the (written) Gospel had only been preached for a short time.

It is hardly possible that the Gospel was written earlier and then NOT preached from until Aristides time.


Iasion

copernicus

Then you clearly paid no attention to what I wrote. I did not endorse Gandy and Freke's scholarship. I said that it, like Josephus, was a polemical work. Unlike Josephus, it was at least chock full of references that could be examined. We have no idea of the sources that Josephus used for his Christian references, let alone the sources of more reliable scholars such as Tacitus.

The entire case for the historicity of Jesus seems to rest on Christian textual sources and a handful of questionable non-Christian textual sources that post-dated the events in question by several decades. Moreover, those non-Christian sources contained no information that could not have been gotten from contemporary Christians at the time the authors wrote. To challenge the historicity of Christ is no small matter in a society that treats it as a foundational belief. I much appreciated freigeister's point that he would see it as equivalent to rejection of a fundamental tenet of science. That really is why your argument from the popularity of a belief among authorities is particularly flimsy.

youngalexander

I am not a Christian, I am an atheist. That does not make me anti-Christian. It is just that I do not accept the claims of Christians.

I was brought up in a predominately Christian community. The 'Christian worldview' was the prevailing outlook, as it has been in 'western societies' for the past 1600 years. I and my family are the recipients of that evolutionary legacy, on the whole it has been a beneficial development (altho deficient in many respects). I do not seek 'to attack the Christian worldview' and resent the accusation! The Christian ethical and moral view is, for the most part, admirable. I certainly do seek to promote a rational and naturalistic worldview. That clearly conflicts with the underpinnings of traditional Christianity. Welcome to Secularism!

All adult humans struggle with the question 'what does it all mean?'. Theists look for an answer - since there are many such they have no difficulty in finding one. Skeptics wish to know.

I am not part of an anti-Christian movement. I am interested in the origin of Christianity, because it has been the major influence upon the culture into which I was born, have lived and in which my descendants will live. You take too much upon your beliefs. They are merely a part of the great discussion of humanity and its place in the multiverse.

HJ/MJ is a minor point in the more interesting question of the origin of Christianity. Effectiveness.
The discussion is about ideas - not political/religious agendas.

Understand that we wish to know. It is not a matter of playing intellectual games in order to score points for... what? The pity is that we (all of us) will die not knowing, just as every other human who has ever lived, is living, and will live for the foreseeable future will die in a similar state of 'unknowing'.

A council of despair? No. Provided that we do not give up and accept 'an answer', but truly strive to seek, to find, and not to yield, then future generations may indeed have some hope of 'knowing'.

In the meantime, if this makes one part of a 'fringe group', so be it. Better that, than delusion.

Now, I still wish to see your evidence for an historical Jesus.

I do not understand this, could you please elucidate? I would have thort that a denial of Jesus' divinity would be far more upsetting. Or are you subscribing to Toto's rationalisation?
I realise that you were responding to:

I have often thort similarly after reading Crossan, Borg or particularly Spong. It's like that old Peggy Lee song 'Is that all there is?'. What is it that these guys actually believe in?

Iasion

Greetings Amaleq and Julian,

The two English translations are somewhat unclear.

So I asked the Syriac people (see the link I posted above for details.)

I received a reply from David Taylor which included the following comments:

In short, it does mean preached for only a short time, up till now. (The Christians have certainly never stopped preaching.)

The passage does not refer to Jesus preaching the good news - it clearly refers to Christians preaching a written Gospel.

Note the key words : preaching a Gospel "which you may read".


So, what we have in Aristides is :
* a singular written Gospel (you may READ there-in)
* which is named simply "the Gospel" (the Gospel as it called)
* which had only been preached for a short time
* in 138-161 (note the mixup of Caesars' names.)


Iasion

Roger Pearse

I agree. IMHO the context is the general Roman reverence for antiquity and contempt for whatever is newly invented. Someone somewhere refers to the customs of the Jews as 'highly peculiar' but then goes on to accept them on the basis that they are merely following the customs of their ancestors. (Unfortunately I no longer remember where I read it). That's the Roman attitude, and explains why Aristides feels obliged to try to take that argument out of his opponents hands.

All the best,

Roger Pearse