Clivedurdle

Welcome.

Norman Davies, a History of Europe, has an interesting overview of early xianity and notes several centres around the Roman sea.

In some ways I see Rome as the key city, but Constantinople.....

There is a real problem of defining xianity before the three hundreds - lots of stuff is alleged to be xian but really looks a typical Roman eclectic mix.

We are looking into a glass darkly but have been told for millenia what we are seeing!

The gospels may be well into the 100's - abomination of desolation to me does look like a reference to Hadrian.

driver8

You posted this same type bs yesterday. I recommend you be careful on your way up to the moral high ground, as it is a very slippery slope.

I give you my mormon friends as an example. Through "revelation," i.e. conversation with god, they have in years past "learned" that polygamy is a sin (to gain statehood), "learned" that drinking alcohol is a sin (during prohibition), and "discovered" that allowing membership to blacks is acceptable (during the U.S. civil rights movement). Did you mention conformity?

I'm sure your values are timeless.


Bwahahahahahahaha

driver8

Indeed.

andrewcriddle

Hi eheffa

According to Eusebius, Papias (c 130 CE) knew of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

As people on this group will eagerly point out, there are real problems with Papias' evidence, but at face value it would be the earliest reference to these Gospels by name.


Andrew Criddle

Toto

That's a low blow, GDon. All of these authors read the original language of the New Testament. Two have PhD's, one is about to get a PhD. All are attempting to make valid arguments about the field, not just prop up an existing faith with whatever arguments are handy.

Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prester_John

spin

Don't worry. It's just projection.


spin

Iasion

Greetings all,

Some time ago I searched the early Christian writings for mentions of "Gospel" - looking for references to written works, and whether author's names(s) were specified.

Here are the some relevant examples :

The Epistle of the Apostles, 140-150CE :

The BOOK which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all men. Simon and Cerinthus, the false apostles, concerning whom it is written that no man shall cleave unto them, for there is in them deceit wherewith they bring men to destruction. (The book hath been written) that ye may be not flinch nor be troubled, and depart not from the word of the Gospel which ye have heard. Like as we heard it, we keep it in remembrance and have written it for the whole world.

This is obviously referring to a written Gospel, but gives no author's names.


Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This is obvious evidence of a written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - but no name is given.

Furthermore, Aristides says this un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels.



Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE :

Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...


Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :

Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'


This is all clear and obvious evidence of written works called Gospels - but no names given.




The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE :

And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book[/b] and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no names are given.




The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - no names are given.



Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE :

With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no names are given.


Iasion

GakuseiDon

Ehrman doesn't really belong in that list, but the others certainly do. I probably don't see the word "apologetics" as being as pejorative as yourself, but still: "valid arguments about the field"? "Not propping up existing faith"? Here are parts of Price's and Doherty's review of Acharya's work, and you tell me whether they are valid statements about the field, and not just propping up the Jesus Myth:

This review by Doherty on Acharya's "Christ Conspiracy":
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/BkrvTCC.htm

"The other thing the reader comes to recognize is that Acharya S has done a superb job in bringing together this rich panoply of ancient world mythology and culture, and presenting it in a comprehensive and compelling fashion. Moreover, she grabs the reader from the first page and doesn't let go. Her style is colorful, bold, occasionally (and justifiably) indignant, even a touch reckless at times, but never off the track—a little like an exciting roller coaster ride...

The author covers an even wider range of interesting and provocative topics, with plenty of stimulating insights. Especially effective is the attention to elements of the Old Testament that one doesn't usually encounter in biblical studies: the presence of astrology in the bible, the mythological nature of much of the Old Testament material and the dubious authenticity of its "history," the falsity of the idea that the Hebrews were monotheistic, even a chapter on Sex and Drugs. She delves into Egyptian and Indian precedents for the possible derivation of many of the bible's traditions. When she ranges even further afield and notes the surprisingly widespread commonality of certain religious and cultural motifs from one end of the planet to the other, extending back into very ancient times, we are on intriguing if speculative ground, but for the most part the author simply lets the data speak for itself, and readers can draw what conclusions their own adventurous spirits might wish."

Note that Acharya speculates that the "commonality of certain religious motifs" around the planet that Doherty is referring to is due to the influence of Atlantis.

Price on Acharya's "Suns of God":
http://www.truthbeknown.com/price-sog-review.html

"The very learned Acharya S has spoken again. In a sequel to her wide-ranging The Christ Conspiracy, she has redoubled her efforts to show the solar - that is, the astro-theological - basis of all religions and mythologies, and to demonstrate that the great savior figures of the world's religions are late historicizations of the sacred sun myths. At the outset, let me make clear that I regard Acharya ("the Teacher," as she was dubbed by friends and students) as a colleague and fellow-laborer in the field of Christ-Myth scholarship. The issues over which she and I differ are secondary, though important and fascinating. In my review (which I fear has done at least as much harm as it may have done good) of her previous book, I focused on our differences, disliking to be held responsible for certain specific views set forth by one with whom I am nonetheless in fundamental agreement. Some readers have opportunistically used my review out of context in order to rebut views on which Acharya and I are in fact in basic accord. So, hoping to avoid such a reading this time out, I would like to underline the fact that our differences over secondary points are legitimate differences in the way we weigh the evidence. I hope that readers of my review will take these differences as signals of where more research is necessary on all our parts. I know Acharya has given me many new questions and much to think about. That was true of her first book and equally true of this one. I do not mind acknowledging her as my teacher as well."

Both of them mention minor quibbles about Acharya's work, but isn't the above about propping up belief in the Jesus Myth? If they were any other authors, would you have given them the time of day after such reviews?

judge

All the best with your pursuing