Mythra

Okay - after a little digging, here is the approximate when :

Chaereas and Callirhoe. - Believed to have been written in the mid first century. With a latest possible date of 200 C.E. Certainly could be considered a text that was a contemporary of the gospel stories.

Leucippe and Clitophon written by Achilles Statius, believed to be mid to late second century.

Daphnis and Chloe written by Longus, second century C.E.

Satyricon , a Roman novel written by Gaius Petronius, early to mid first century C.E.

The Golden Ass, a.ka. The Metamorphoses of Lucius Apuleius, a Latin novel, written mid second century, C.E.

So, if Price was claiming outright that the gospels were borrowed from these works, I'd consider that enough to think Price untrustworthy. Since some of these writings clearly post-date the gospels. But that really isn't Price's claim. (at least I don't believe that to be the case)

dog-on

Jeffery, you recomended this! You have got to be kidding me...(but ol Mr. Lewis should be very pleased with the rehash...gone, but not forgotten, I say)...

(Of course, there may be some good data, hidden in with this tripe...maybe I'll even pony up for it and read it while simultaneously re-reading 'The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man'.)

Jeffrey Gibson

But known in the middle east?

Excellent. But may I ask what your source was for these dates?

There's something else to look up!

Jeffrey

Mythra

Well, you are certainly thorough.

Apuleius, Lucius; Adlington, William (Trans.) (1996). The Golden Ass. Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, Wordsworth Ed. Ltd.: Ware, GB.

Edmund P. Cueva (Fall 1996). "Plutarch's Ariadne in Chariton's Chaereas and Callirhoe". American Journal of Philology 117

Morgan, J. R. (2004). Longus: Daphnis and Chloe, Aris and Phillips Classical Texts. Oxford: Oxbow Books

Smith, William, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, "Achilles Tatius", Boston (1867)

Catholic Encyclopedia, "Petronius"

Michael

Mythra

And how is it that we know the gospels were not written in Rome or Greece?

I don't mean to challenge you, Jeffrey. I'm well aware of your status here. But, I've never seen anything that could pinpoint the place where the gospels were authored from.

Michael Dravis

dog-on

Is this a quiz? The Gospels, of course (Midrash Rabbah is written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic, so ... no...) ...

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"[d]—which means, "God with us."

This is what Matthew says...

Now Jeffery, either Jesus was born of a virgin, or the author recast Isaiah to say the messiah would be so born.

So I will ask again, why is there a problem with this:

Finally, P. follows Earl Doherty in holding that the stories about Jesus are midrashic creations from OT precedents rather than actual events of Jesus' life that evoked the OT parallels.

Midrash: A rabbinic interpretation of scripture with exegesis, (usually verse by verse), to relate a specific and or fuller understanding of the divine voice...

or, for our purposes;

A rewriting/reinterpreting of Jewish stories to create Christian ones...

dog-on

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm ... Greece? Care to be more specific?

Challenge away. But please do so on the basis of an informed perspective.

And all your "I've never seen" indicates is that you are not very widely read in the critical commentaries on each of the Gospels, in the periodical literature that deals with the place the Gospels' writing, in monographs written on the subject (i.e., Meier and Brown's Antioch and Rome), or in the standard introductions to the NT (i.e., those of Kummel, Brown, Schnelle, Johnson, Halliday, Moffatt, Koester, etc.) where the place of writing and the evidence that lets us do such "pinpointing" is discussed.

Just what is it you have "seen" beyond the work of Price when it comes to matters NT?

Jeffrey

Mythra

I've already told you at the beginning of our discussion that I'm not a scholar. Not even close. I'm just a person who is eager to learn. But if it makes you feel good to step on my neck, feel free.

Two books that I haven't read cover to cover but I have them and refer to them often are Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)" and Everett Ferguson's "Backgrounds of Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)".

I'm not a scholar, Jeffrey. But I'm also not a complete idiot. And no one knows the place where the gospels were authored.

Michael Dravis

Jeffrey Gibson

Rather circular, isn't it. My evidence for the Gospels being midrash are the gospels which are midrash.

Have you actually looked at the form of Midrash Rabbah -- which is available in English -- and compared it to the Gospels?

You neglect the fact that, as Bob Miller has shown in his Born Divine (or via: amazon.co.uk) and as Crossan and Borg now argue (First Christmas (or via: amazon.co.uk)) Matthew does not exclude human participation in Jesus conception and that the emphasis in Matthew is not the "virginal conception" but that Jesus is Immanuel.

Apart from your ignoring the fact that Matthew thought he was creating a Jewish story, I note that you've defined things to suit your claims. On your own definition of midrash, the Gospels are formally not what you say they are.

And what is wrong with the statement above is that assumes not only what what it needs to prove, but a gospels construction technique that is both anachronistic and something that such scholars as Mark Goodacre (in his "Prophecy Historicized or History Scripturized? Reflections on the Origin of the Crucifixion Narrative.), D.I Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE [Tubingen, 1992]), M.A. Powell ("Authorial Intent and Historical Reporting: Putting Sprong's Litearization Thesis to the Test", JSHJ 1 [2003] 225-49), R.T. France "Jewish Historiography, Midrash, and the Gospels" in Gospel Perspectives 3: Studies in Midrash and Historiography (Sheffield, 1983] 119-20), and now Eddy and Boyd in their subsection of their The Jesus Legend titled "Assessing the Gospels as Midrash Thesis" (where they review Earl's claims) have shown not to be the the case as far as the gospel writers are concerned.

Jeffrey