mountainman

These UNDATED manuscripts have been palaeographically dated.

The one secure C14 dating (gJudas 220-340) however does not necessarily refute the claim.

It is still feasible that the palaeographic dating is inaccurate, and that the fragments being passed off as "Early" are simply 4th century scribal practice, at a date when copying the Greek Canonical Bible was a well paid business.

mountainman

We dont.



We dont.



We dont, but it is quite reasonable to expect that Constantine celebrated his 20th year of LONG SERVICE with a big VICTORY party.

GakuseiDon

Your points above may reflect western cultural assumptions on how we write, rather than how people back then wrote. Western societies are "low context", where we tend to spell things out. It would be a mistake to regard this as "human nature", something common across societies throughout time. Ancient cultures were "high context", where a shared background knowledge was assumed in communications. (Think of "inside jokes" within a family, which may not make any sense to those outside the family.)

A number of scholars set up The Context Group which examines ancient societies from that perspective. From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Context_Group

The Context Group is an international team of scholars that merges historical exegesis and the social sciences to interpret the Bible in its social and cultural contexts. It initially organized in 1986 as the "Social Facets Seminar," headed by John H. Elliott as Chair, meeting in conjunction with The Jesus Seminar under the direction of Robert W. Funk and the Westar Institute...

At the root of the Context Group's social-scientific method is the belief that biblical scholars have taken western cultural assumptions for granted when interpreting the Bible, an ancient document produced in a much different culture.

The key difference is that the modern western world is an individualistic, industrial society, whereas the society of the ancient Mediterranean world was collectivistic and agrarian.

The ancient Mediterranean was also a high-context society, where discourse took shared cultural values for granted. This contrasts with the modern western world, which is a low-context society in which discourse tends to be more specific and specialized (i.e. to particular groups, subcultures, etc.). According to the Context scholars, the interpreter must learn the cultural assumptions and values behind the text in order to understand it correctly.

So I think your points are salient, but your analysis should be informed by what they would have written within their own cultural values, rather than by how we would expect them to have written.

Duvduv

I think the argument is basically based on apologetics to strengthen the argument based on reasons to explain what is NOT there, and is an exaggeration.

I would not be asking Justin for a full sociology text to discuss the evolution of his sect or an anthropological discussion about his community. ALL I would be asking for is SOMETHING. Something that one would expect.

I think the way you are describing the argument would also challenge arguments from silence in the epistles themselves. After all, one would say, you cannot expect writers in the 1st or 2nd century to write the way someone would write in the 21st century. So the fact that the epistles mention none of the important elements of the gospel stories is meaningless. Indeed, one COULD just as easily assume that the readers DID know everything about the HJ, and the fact that the epistles are silent is no proof of anything at all.

Again, in these circumstances I think it is something of apologetics. Justin is trying to ARGUE on behalf of his group, but even then should be able to tell his august reader SOMETHING about the group he is advocating for.
And he doesn't, not even a little bit as I described. He doesn't even do as "good" a job of this as Irenaeus or others.

GakuseiDon

This goes back to what you wrote before: you would expect that Justin would mention these things, but he didn't, adding evidence to the idea that the letters were written much later by a forger... who also didn't mention these things.

At the least, I would say that the lack of details does not supply evidence of forgery, unless you are assuming that the forger didn't share the same cultural values as Justin. I.e. if you argue that Justin should have mentioned these things, but the (much later) forger would not.

That is in fact what some people do argue. The question is whether it is consistent with a "high context" society, which is what societies in that time period were known to be. Regardless whether it is Justin or a much later forger, the author is not concerned with giving details. He/she obviously knows about the "memoirs of the apostles", but gives no details. Similarly for the other points in your list. Nothing about his colleagues, predecessors, leaders or communities (couldn't the forger just make them up? Why did the forger leave them out?). Nothing about the Old Man. Lots of cites from the Hebrew Scriptures, but none from the Gospels (again, couldn't the forger just make them up? Surely the FORGER knew about the Gospels)

Well, have you read Irenaeus? Here is the start of his five book "Against Heresies". See the parts I've highlighted below. Who is he talking about?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...eus-book1.html

1. Inasmuch1 as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says,2 "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge;3 and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.

2. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself. One4 far superior to me has well said, in reference to this point, "A clever imitation in glass casts contempt, as it were, on that precious jewel the emerald (which is most highly esteemed by some), unless it come under the eye of one able to test and expose the counterfeit. Or, again, what inexperienced person can with ease detect the presence of brass when it has been mixed up with silver? "Lest, therefore, through my neglect, some should be carried off, even as sheep are by wolves, while they perceive not the true character of these men, -because they outwardly are covered with sheep's clothing (against whom the Lord has enjoined5 us to be on our guard), and because their language resembles ours, while their sentiments are very different,-I have deemed it my duty (after reading some of the Commentaries, as they call them, of the disciples of Valentinus, and after making myself acquainted with their tenets through personal intercourse with some of them) to unfold to thee, my friend, these portentous and profound mysteries, which do not fall within the range of every intellect, because all have not sufficiently purged6 their brains. I do this, in order that thou, obtaining an acquaintance with these things, mayest in turn explain them to all those with whom thou art connected, and exhort them to avoid such an abyss of madness and of blasphemy against Christ.

1. Who is the apostle, according to Irenaeus?
2. Who is the one who is "far superior" to Irenaeus?
3. Who is the friend?
4. Who is the friend connected with, to whom the friend should exhort to avoid blasphemy?

If you have read through them, you will find that they have much the same approach with how they regard events and people. They seem to be written from a "timeless" perspective. That is why it is so hard to date virtually ANY early letter. Other than certain hints provided by names or events mentioned, the general date range is often estimated across 50 or more years (see the date range offered on the earlychristianwritings website).

Let's say everything in the first four centuries were forged, say by Eusebius. You still get the same situation in the letters. Lack of details and silence, whatever meaning you get out of them, does not support the idea of forgery.

aa5874

Your statement is self-contradictory. Manuscripts that have been dated by Paleography are NOT undated--Paleography is a method employed to DATE Texts of antiquity.

You know that C14 dating is NOT the only means of Dating Texts of antiquity. Texts dated by Paleography show that the Jesus story was most likely known BEFORE the 4th century.

But, then you very well know that the C 14 Dating may not be 100% foolproof. It cannot be ruled out that gJudas was written earlier than the C 14 dating.

If you do not accept the Texts DATED by Paleography then you still will NOT be able to make any reasonable argument. The C 14 date for gJudas also support the claim that the Jesus story was KNOWN BEFORE 220 CE which is supported by non-apologetic sources.

Duvduv

He may not be forging in the sense of pretending to be someone else but just a primitive writer whose writings were added to along the way without much sophistication in terms of consistency or thoroughness.
But the primitiveness still has contradictions in context.

aa5874

Irenaeus did a "good" job??? Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age when he supposedly was a Presbyter of the Church, was in Rome, and supposedly had or was aware of the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

All the bogus information about the authorship, dating and chronology of books of the NT Canon are found in writings attributed to Irenaeus.

It was Irenaeus who supposedly claimed Pilate was a Governor in the reign of Claudius.

Writings attributed to Irenaeus are products of FRAUD since they are NOT compatible with the DATED Texts.

aa5874

Those dates on the earlychristianwritings website are based on OPINION not Paleography or C14 dating.

No Texts have been recovered and Dated by Paleography or C14 to the 1st century and before c 70 CE about Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

It is most remarkable that ALL the main characters of the Jesus stories VANISHED without a trace even though there should have been 27 books about the Jesus character and the 12 Apostles, with Paul, Barnabas, and many other people who PREACHED about the Jesus story ALL over the Roman Empire.

All we have left of Jesus, the disciples and Paul are FORGERIES in Antiquities of the Jews and the Paul/Seneca letters.

4321lynx

Does all this really matter? Some atheists seem as obsessed with proving Jesus was an invention as the creationists are about creation being a fact.

In the 1st century the xtians were probably thought by the rest of the population to be Jews, and likely did their preaching etc in some degree of secrecy. They, as Jews and later as goyim converted to a Jewish heresy ie Jesus worship, were hated because of their refusal to recognise and worship all the other gods of the Roman Empire, especially not the various Caesars.

I find it easier to believe that some sort of Jewish messianic heresy was around and was based on real characters than to believe that it was all an invention sucked out of somebody's or "many somebodys'" thumb or thumbs a few hundred years later.