Toto

Explain your reasoning.

You produce the naked class notes from a Catholic professor that give the date of 95 CE for 1 Clement. This trumps a lengthy, evidence based analysis? Who is up a creek?
No it's not. Secular scholars tend to date Acts into the second century; and it does not count as multiple attestation if it is not an independent source. There are enough points of correspondence between Acts and the epistles to conclude that the author of Acts knew of Paul's epistles and mined them for factoids and themes.

Please stop using this term "credibility." It is a personal attack. We are only interested in facts and arguments here. Besides, you have yet to demonstrate that you can judge credibility.

Besides - Ms. Valdiva's education consists of

B.A., Interdisciplinary Humanities, University of San Diego
M.A., Practical Theology, University of San Diego
Ph.D. Candidate, Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Claremont Graduate University.

Her training is in theology, not history.

Have you done a survey?

I am quite focused. I focus on the fact that you do not seem to know that multiple attestation requires at least two independent sources.

jakejonesiv

Dear aa5874,

Thank you for your expected reply. I have eliminated your references to Genesis and Joseph Smith since these have nothing to do with your assertions.

I did not ask about the theory of Markan priority. That only concerns the composition of the synoptic gospels. You are making the claim that the gospel of Mark found in Codex Sinaticus is the earliest Christian writing. You keep calling this in a fit of indifference "short gMark."

You say the Pauline writings mention the Jesus story of the gospels.

But I will point out to you that you :horsecrap: cannot be correct that gMark in Codex Sinaticus is the earliest Christian writing. Why? Because gMatthew preceeds it in that very Codex. So you must mean that an earlier copy of gMark identical to that of Codex Sinaticus is the earliest Christian writing.

You tell me now:

• Who wrote gMark
• Where
• When

(what century?)

Jake

ficino

If the Christian cult began with gMark after 70, what do we do with references in Tacitus (Ann. 15.44) and Suetonius (Nero 16) to a persecution of Christians in Rome under Nero?

jakejonesiv

The gospels have been scrubbed through so many times that no simple straight line theory is likely to be right.

When we look at the literature comparing between the Two or Four source hypothesis vs. the Farrer-Golder-Goodacre Hypothesis, the proponents of each one are better at finding the flaws in the competing hypothesis than they are in explaining the flaws in their own. (proof texts aren't an effective way to disuss the problem, any one can produce an isolated text to support their pet theory).

It think that the priority of Mark only indicates that canonical Mark more closely reflects an urgospel than canonical Luke and canonical Matthew. Dr. Matthias Klinghardt Professor für Biblische Theologie Dresden has argued that canonical Luke and canonical Matthew are both based on Marcion's text. Markion vs. Lukas: Plädoyer für die Wiederaufnahme eines alten Falles, in: New Testament Studies 52 (2006), S. 484-513.
The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion, in: Novum Testamentum 50 (2008), S. 1-27. See Christopher Hays response ZNW 99/2 (2008).

I asked Mark Goodacre what he thought of Klinghardt's work, and he replied, "I am familiar with Matthias Klinghardt's work. His Synoptic model is actually not that far from mine, though he has the major new element of Marcion in there, which I do not regard as necessary. I probably can't do justice to Matthias's work in a brief email, but I have found it stimulating even if I am not yet persuaded by it."

I think that is a fair assessment, which IMHO makes it as good as any simplified synoptic solution.

Jake

jakejonesiv

We need to consider if Tacitus Annals 15:44 is even authentic. The text of Tacitus Annals 15:44 is NOT anti-Christian. Christians love to wallow in sado-maso tales of violation, torture and death where their steadfastness in the face of unjust accusation proves their faith and draws sympathy from public onlookers.

The Neronian persecution is martyrological fantasy, a fiction of the Church. For this report to be accepted as history we would have to believe that by the time of Nero that Christians (Chrestianos) were well known and hated for their “abominations” by the population of Rome at large. We are told they were well known and despised prior to the charge of arson for their “hatred of mankind” and thus were easy scapegoats. And the number of Christians would have to be so large that vast numbers of Christians were subjected to the most exquisite tortures.

These pains and penalties included:
Mockery of every sort
Covered in animal skins and torn to pieces by dogs
Nailed to crosses
Made into human torches to burn and serve as nightly illumination

Nero himself (allegedly) took center stage in these spectacles, using his gardens, and exhibited the sufferings of the Christians as a show in the circus, while he presided among the spectators dressed a charioteer or stood aloft in his car. (And Pliny the Younger never heard of Christians? ha ha).

The end result of this fantasy was precisely that desired by Christian martyrs; to suffer similarly to Christus who suffered the extreme penalty himself under Pontius Pilate. And the end result was to be pitied by the population for their cruel treatment.

Considering the silence concerning Neronian perseuctions until the 5th century and any citation of alleged text of Tacitus Annals 15:44 until the fifteenth century I consider the authenticity of this text to be doubtful.

How can it be that Annals 15.44 as we read it now was never credited to Tacitus by the Catholic Church who allegedly had it in their possession for well over 1000 years?
We don't have any external confirmation that the text of Annals 15:44 before 1437.

You may want to read that last sentence again.

Every single mention of Tacitus' alleged reference to Chrestians and Christ derives from ONE manuscript. Supposedly, this solitary manuscript was copied at Monte Cassino during the 11th century. The Abbot of Monte Cassino from 1058-1086, was Desiderius who, along with his friend Archbishop Alfano, oversaw the transcriptions of ancient documents at Monte Cristo. Desiderius became Pope (Blessed) Victor III in 1086. But none of these Catholic worthies commented on seeing the witness to Christ!

To add to the strange silence of the other “holy” witnesses we shall add Paulus Venetus, Bishop of Puzzuoli, who allegedly saw the manuscript at Monte Cassino sometime between 1331 and 1344, but did not mention the testimony to Christ and the early human torch martytrs!

This is important so I will reiterate it. If the text of Annals 15.44 as we have it now is authentic, it had been in possession of the Catholic church and studiously preserved for over 1,000 years before being copied at Monte Cassino. Yet not a single church reference was made to this text existing in the writings of Tacitus up before the extant manuscript was supposed to be copied. No mention of the text at the time it was supposed to be copied, and no mention for a couple of centuries after that.

So where was this manuscript between the 11th and 15th centuries? It appeared mysteriously from a maze of potential master forgers and Catholic apologists. No one can even say how it was taken away from Monte Cassino!

Supposedly, Boccaccio acquired it by illicit means, and upon his death left it to a monastery in Florence. The elusive document then turns up in the hands of Niccolo Niccoli, who allegedly sent it to Poggio Bracciolini for inspection. Bracciolini then gave a document back to Niccolo, who subsequently died in 1437, and the mysterious document passed to the Medici's where it is today, in the Laurentian library in Florence, where it is number 68.2. Every citation of Tacitus Annals 15:44 comes from this single document and copies made from it.

Even the most credulous historist should pause for a moment before endorsing a text in which the chain of custody has been broken so often and by such nefarious characters. There are more twists and turns here than in a Dan Brown novel, and it does not inspire confidence in the veracity of one of the main proofs of the existence of Jesus. We shouldn't under-rate the skill of forgers. (I doubt Secret Mark too).

But as I said, the chain of custody is weak in many places, and a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. If you trust master forgers of the middle ages and you trust Pope (Blessed) Victor III and his minions ..... :devil1:

Take a pass on Tacitus.

Jake Jones IV

PS. In the oldest manuscript of Tacitus, in the famous Annals 15:44 passsage, we do see Christus, but there is another anomoly. The text actually mentions Chrestianos. An ultraviolet photograph of the manuscript reveals that someone changed Chrestianos to Christianos. There is also a marginal gloss, in a completely different hand, that notes Christiani.

. See “The Chrestianos Issue in Tacitus Reinvestigated,” by Erík Zara, Th.D. (rel. expt), © 2009
http://www.textexcavation.com/docume...hrestianos.pdf

aa5874

What??? You knew what I meant all along yet you keep asking me :horsecrap:

You don't appear credible at all.

Well, well, well!!!

Please examine your OWN OP :hitsthefan:

Please, tell me where you got your dates of composition for the books of the Canon??

Revelation was written BEFORE the Gospels??

Where did you get all your dates ?? :hitsthefan:

You have the originals??

Who wrote the books in the Canon?? Where, When?? :hitsthefan:

aa5874

It is a well exposed fallacy that only people of the Jesus cult were called Christians.

Please, you must understand that the word Christian has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Jesus.

There would have been and there were Christians who did NOT accept the story of Jesus. There were Christians who BLASPHEMED the name of Jesus. See Dialogue with Trypho XXXV

Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras called themselves Christians and did NOT mention the name of Jesus or Jesus Christ.

In "First Apology" Simon Magus and Menander were called Christians even though Magicians.

The word Christ did NOT derive from the story of Jesus.

The word Christ PREDATES the story of Jesus by Hundreds of years.

The word CHRIST is derived from the Greek word meaning Anointed.

David was Christ [Anointed].

Jewish Kings were Christ [Anointed].

Jewish High Priests were Christ [Anointed].

Now, Tacitus Annals with Christus is an interpolation based on the writing of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus Histories, Suetonius, the short gMark and the apologetic writer Sulpitius Severus.

Tacitus Annals with Christus completely CONTRADICTS the story of Jesus in the short gMark.

In the short gMark, there was NO Jesus cult of Christians at the time of Pilate.

In fact, in gMark the Jewish Populace and Pilate did NOT even know that Jesus was Christ and the Jesus of gMark demanded that NO-ONE was told Jesus was Christ.

And further, the Jesus in gMark did NOT want the outsiders to be converted but to Remain in Sin.

But, the blantant forgery in Tacitus Annals is continuously exposed when it is found in the short gMark that the disciples of Jesus either Betrayed, Abandoned or Denied Jesus up to the day he died.

Effectively, in the short gMark, there were NO Jews who were known to be Christians before and on the day Jesus was crucified.

All claims that there was a Messianic ruler of the Jews called Jesus must be a forgery since we have the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus Histories and Suetonius Life of Vespasian.

aa5874

The argument that Pauline letters were composed before the death of Nero c 68 CE is the weakest of weak arguments or weaker.

It is most blatantly obvious.

Those on this very forum who spout that the Pauline writings were early so far have offered virtually Nothing in this thread in support of their long held baseless assumption.

When we examine the very Canon we are faced with the FACT that Not even the Pauline writers ever offered any date of composition for their own writings.

Why are the readers of the Pauline letters left empty-handed to assume and invent the time of composition only to learn that some of the letters have been deduced to have multiple authors??

It is completely illogical and absurd to assume the Pauline writings are early when it has been deduced that writings under the name of Paul were manipulated.

Once it is agreed that there were Multiple authors using the name of Paul giving the false impression that they wrote to Churches that probably did NOT exist at all or had NEVER received those letters then it is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable to invent early dates for the Pauline letters without a shred of evidence and without a shred of corroboration.

Remember the Pauline writers NEVER admitted they wrote BEFORE c 68 CE--NEVER.

The Pauline writers left the reader with NOTHING.

Why?? Why??

None of the Pauline letters were composed BEFORE c 68 CE or else the authors would have told us so.

We are told EVERYTHING about the Activities of Paul after his conversion EXCEPT one thing--the date of composition.

No author of the Canon, not even the Pauline writers, dared to say when the letters were composed.

Mankind were deceived for hundreds of years into thinking that ALL LETTERS under the name of Paul were composed before c 68 CE.

That was the precise reason why NO Pauline writer admitted when they composed their letters--they were meant to DECEIVE mankind.

The very same thing was done to ALL the books of the Canon--there are NO dates of composition in ALL the books of the Canon.

No author of the Canon admitted their true Identity.

No author of the Canon admitted Where they wrote.

No author of the Canon admitted When they wrote.

This cannot be a coincidence.

This was deliberate.

Mankind was supposed to ASSUME themselves that the NT Canon was historically accurate and authentic.

Mankind was DUPED.

Those days are OVER.

The Entire Canon can now be shown to have been most likely composed AFTER the death of Nero and that there was NO Jesus cult of Christ before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

We have copies of the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, the short gMark, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Municius Felix, Arnobius, Julian the Emperor, Ephrem the Syrian, the Muratorian Canon, Sulpitius Severus and Rufinus.

The Pauline letters were UNKNOWN up to at least the writing of Against Heresies 2.22 attributed to Irenaeus or up to 180 CE and later.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
For points 1 & 2, there are similarities but differences also. You make it sound one story is a carbon copy of the other. For example, in one story, the three died on their cross but one will resurrect. In the other story, the three are extracted from their cross still alive, but two will die later.

For point 3, that only proves that 'Jesus' was a common name then. Certainly the Jesus of the gospels did not do what that other Jesus did.

For points 4, 5, 6 & 10, why do you think the gospelers had to get all their information from Josephus complete works?

For point 7, Caiaphas is not in gMark, and gLuke has two high priests during Jesus' last year, Caiaphas & Annas. Only gMatthew gets it right: Caiaphas and only him.
However in 'Antiquities' it is very clear that Caiaphas was only the high priest then (Caiaphas in not in 'Wars').
That's a point I made: if "Luke" had 'Antiquities', he/she could not have made that mistake. Another (and better) example here

For point 8, the taxing in question under Cyrenius (with Judas of Galilee revolt) is also in 'Wars', which I am certain "Luke" had.

For point 9, I agree, but there are big differences between the two renditions.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller

to Jake,

Pliny the Younger knew about Christians before coming to the city with that "Christian problem". He was aware of examinations of Christians even if he did not participate in them.

Suetonius and Tertullian and Eusebius (HofC, II, 25) wrote about persecution of Nero against Christians (in Rome for Tertullian & Eusebius)

Cordially, Bernard