Freethought & Rationalism Archive

eheffa · 02-01-2008, 01:03 PM

This is all quite incredible when one compares this data to the "orthodox / evangelical" positions of the likes of William Lane Craig et al who argue and base many of their "proofs" of the reliability of the Gospel accounts on the notion that the Gospels were written practically contemporaneously with the still-alive disciples etc. The statements that the disciples were all martyred is supposed to provide credibility for their beliefs as well but where is the evidence that these disciples were martyred or even existed?

Can I assume from this discussion & sources presented that there is truly no 3rd party evidence for the existence of any of the 4 canonical gospels until ~140-150 CE?

Where do the hard-liners get their evidence to date the Gospels to the first century, let alone the 50 - 90 CE dates I have seen thrown around?

-evan
:wave:

andrewcriddle · 02-02-2008, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

Can I assume from this discussion & sources presented that there is truly no 3rd party evidence for the existence of any of the 4 canonical gospels until ~140-150 CE?

I'm not sure what you mean by 3rd party evidence.

There are various Christian writers (proto-orthodox and heretical) eg Ignatius Polycarp Basilides Papias who seem to be using or referring to material from the canonical gospels and who are usually dated in the first 3rd of the 2nd century CE.

(As this discussion and other threads should have made clear both the dates of these writers and their use of the canonical gospels can be questioned although some of these criticisms are IMO rather implausible. )

If you mean by 3rd party evidence, evidence from non-Christian writers about the canonical gospels then this is rather late (probably no earlier than Celsus) but this is not surprising.

Andrew Criddle

schilling.klaus · 02-02-2008, 06:31 AM

[QUOTE=andrewcriddle;5129753]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

Can I assume from this discussion & sources presented that there is truly no 3rd party evidence for the existence of any of the 4 canonical gospels until ~140-150 CE?

there's less than zilch evidence, and those who believe in canonical gospels before mide second century are downright naive

Quote:

There are various Christian writers (proto-orthodox and heretical) eg Ignatius

Ignatius is a later forgery by churchfathers

Quote:

Polycarp

another fraudulent forgery by churchfathers

Quote:

Basilides

there are no surviving writings by Basilides,
only polemic slander against the same by much later churchfathers

Quote:

Papias

Raskin already proved this as thoroughly misquoted by Eusebius

Quote:

(As this discussion and other threads should have made clear both the dates of these writers and their use of the canonical gospels can be questioned although some of these criticisms are IMO rather implausible. )

no, they are absolutely plausible once one understands that the
canonical gospels require an established Roman Catholic church
after the defeat of Shimeon bar Kohbah

Klaus Schilling

JoeWallack · 02-02-2008, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

This is all quite incredible when one compares this data to the "orthodox / evangelical" positions of the likes of William Lane Craig et al who argue and base many of their "proofs" of the reliability of the Gospel accounts on the notion that the Gospels were written practically contemporaneously with the still-alive disciples etc.

JW:
eheff & a!

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

Can I assume from this discussion & sources presented that there is truly no 3rd party evidence for the existence of any of the 4 canonical gospels until ~140-150 CE?

JW:
By "3rd party evidence" you mean External evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

Where do the hard-liners get their evidence to date the Gospels to the first century, let alone the 50 - 90 CE dates I have seen thrown around?

JW:
God knows. As Julian has pointed out 70 CE seems to be an unspoken compromise. Liberals get the concession that it's post Temple, to remove predictive prophecy, and conservatives get a date within "this generation" (or so they think). Ironically, the strength of the 1st century dating argument is the overall weakness of dating to a specific century as we lack all the basic answers here for Good evidence:

1) Who?

2) What?

3) Where?

4) When?

5) Why?

6) How?

In the Big picture having 2nd century Gospel Christianity looking for evidence of 1st century Gospels and coming up with Nothing suggests there was Nothing. When we look at the Specifics of the evidence as this Thread is doing there appears to be no Direct evidence for 1st century dating.

As Malachi has pointed out an earlier "Mark" is actually a bigger problem for Christianity as it is Primarily Fiction and the basis for the basic Gospel Narrative. With Apologies to Bauckham, the earlier "Mark" is, the less Historical witness went into the basic Gospel Narrative.

The claim by the Disciple Andrew here that "Ignatius Polycarp Basilides Papias" are evidence of the Canonical Gospel in their supposed time is exactly the Type of unsupported Assertian this Thread is trying to avoid. To respond in kind, not only do they Likely not show evidence of Canonical Gospels, they also Likely do not show evidence of Canonical Gospels. Traditionally, Christian Bible scholarship has looked at it one way, only looking for evidence of 1st century.

The best evidence in this Thread so far for 1st century is Marcion. But note the serious weaknesses of Marcion = 2nd century, subsequent sources and nothing from Marcion. If Marcion is the best evidence for 1st century dating but is opposed by the weight of the other evidence than it is Likely that "Mark" was 2nd century.

Joseph

SCRIPTURES, n.
The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

eheffa · 02-02-2008, 04:36 PM

My apologies. I guess my terminology was a little vague.

By "third party", I meant corroborative external or even possibly "Christian" sources that would verify the existence of these Canonical gospels during these earlier time periods where they supposedly existed & were considered to be authoritative.

It is clear that the book of "Acts" has created the impression that an orthodox Christian movement arose within 40 days of Jesus' ascension and that this constituted the beginnings of the Orthodox Christian movement as we know it today. If Acts is understood to be suspect and non-historical, then it is truly remarkable how little other data we have on the history of the early Church of the first century. i.e. there is virtually no supportive data to corroborate the Acts version of this movements' beginnings...

As a recent de-converter, I am astonished to learn these things as this is very different from the party line that I was led to believe that maintains that the Gospels are authoritative on the grounds that they were first-person, eyewitness accounts for which the original authors paid the ultimate price...

-evan

JoeWallack · 02-03-2008, 06:50 AM

JW:
Continuing with the Evidence concerning 1st vs. 2nd century Dating of the Canonical Gospels:

External:

1) Extant fragments of Gospel text

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Earliest fragment is P52 mid-range date of c. 165

2) No other fragment with mid-range in 2nd century.

2) Church Father References

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Irenaeus c. 180

Familiar with all 4 Canonical Gospels

2nd century Indirect evidence

2) Justin Martyr c. 155

Familiar with Synoptics

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

3) The Epistula Apostolorum c. 145

One paragraph on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

4) 2 Clement c. 145

One sentence on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) Marcion c. 135

Consists of a version of "Luke" Narrative but gives No Attribution

Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

No Infancy Narrative

6) ARISTIDES c. 125

One sentence referring to Jesus' Death and one sentence referring to Jesus' Resurrection. No direct quotes from any Canonical Gospel.

7) Papias c. 125

Aware of written Sayings of Jesus by Peter/"Mark" and "Matthew"

No Evidence of "The Passion"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

No Evidence of Paul

8) Polycarp c. 125

Aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "The Cross"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

Evidence of Paul

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

To All The Gods I've Loved Before

9) Ignatius - Ephesians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Aware of a few pieces of Infancy information.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Magnesians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

Now on to the next Possibly/Probably Forged Epistle of Ignatius:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ans-hoole.html

Quote:

The Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Trallians

...

0:1 Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, to the holy Church which is at Tralles, in Asia, beloved by God, the Father of Jesus Christ, elect and worthy of God, at peace by the flesh and blood and the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, our hope in the resurrection unto him; which I salute in the fulness, after the Apostolic manner, and pray that it may rejoice greatly.

...

9:1 Be ye deaf, therefore, when any one speaketh unto you apart from Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David, who was born of Mary, who was truly born, ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died, in the sight of the things that are in heaven and on earth and under the earth;

9:2 and was truly raised from the dead, his Father having raised him up; according to the similitude of which also his Father shall raise up us who believe in him in Christ Jesus, apart from whom we have not the true life.

JW:
Once again it's difficult to find much above that sounds Canonical that does not come Directly or indirectly from Paul. Therefore, I think it Likely that Ignatius here was not familiar with the Canonical Gospels and:

1) Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

2) Not Aware of specific Sayings of Jesus.

3) Aware of the Cross and suffering of Jesus.

4) No Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

6) Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

Again, what's especially interesting here is that the author refers to the supposed birth, passion, and resurrection which happened in the time of Pontius Pilate as Key Articles of Faith. Compared to the Canonical Gospels, Birth and Resurrection Narratives are lacking in "Mark" but have been provided in "Matthew" and "Luke" even though "Matthew" and "Luke" have different ones. These additional Articles of Faith as evidenced by Ignatius, belief in Birth and post-Resurrection may have been the Fuel for the related stories in "Matthew" and "Luke" with "Matthew" the Jewish one and "Luke" the Gentile one.

Joseph

"Statistics remind me too much of the 6 foot tall man who drowned in a river who's average depth was 3 feet." - Woody Hayes

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

JoeWallack · 02-04-2008, 07:19 AM

JW:
Continuing with the Evidence concerning 1st vs. 2nd century Dating of the Canonical Gospels:

External:

1) Extant fragments of Gospel text

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Earliest fragment is P52 mid-range date of c. 165

2) No other fragment with mid-range in 2nd century.

2) Church Father References

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Irenaeus c. 180

Familiar with all 4 Canonical Gospels

2nd century Indirect evidence

2) Justin Martyr c. 155

Familiar with Synoptics

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

3) The Epistula Apostolorum c. 145

One paragraph on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

4) 2 Clement c. 145

One sentence on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) Marcion c. 135

Consists of a version of "Luke" Narrative but gives No Attribution

Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

No Infancy Narrative

6) ARISTIDES c. 125

One sentence referring to Jesus' Death and one sentence referring to Jesus' Resurrection. No direct quotes from any Canonical Gospel.

7) Papias c. 125

Aware of written Sayings of Jesus by Peter/"Mark" and "Matthew"

No Evidence of "The Passion"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

No Evidence of Paul

8) Polycarp c. 125

Aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "The Cross"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

Evidence of Paul

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

To All The Gods I've Loved Before

9) Ignatius - Ephesians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Aware of a few pieces of Infancy information.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Magnesians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Trallians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

Now on to the next Possibly/Probably Forged Epistle of Ignatius:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-roberts.html

Quote:

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE ROMANS

...

CHAPTER VI.--BY DEATH I SHALL ATTAIN TRUE LIFE.

All the pleasures of the world, and all the kingdoms of this earth, shall profit me nothing. It is better for me to die in behalf of Jesus Christ, than to reign over all the ends of the earth. "For what shall a man be profited, if he gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?''
...

CHAPTER VII.--REASON OF DESIRING TO DIE.

The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be ye on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet set your desires on the world. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be ye persuaded to listen to me, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you. For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

JW:
As always it's difficult to find much above that sounds Canonical that does not come Directly or indirectly from Paul. Therefore, I think it Likely that Ignatius here was not familiar with the Canonical Gospels and:

1) Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

2) Seems Aware of a few specific Sayings that are close to Sayings of Gospel Jesus.

3) Aware of the Cross and suffering of Jesus.

4) No Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

6) Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

Ignatius gets closer here to a few specific Sayings of Gospel Jesus but not any Narrative so all this does is help support Papias that at this time there was awareness of supposed Jesus Sayings but not any Gospel Narrative. It is therefore Likely that these Sayings were a Source for subsequent Gospels. This closing of the gap towards Canonical Gospels is offset by the credibility problem here of writing a letter instructing a city which was his final destination (so to speak) and where he was in the hands of his enemies not to prevent him from killing himself.

Joseph

"Statistics remind me too much of the 6 foot tall man who drowned in a river who's average depth was 3 feet." - Woody Hayes

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

Ben C Smith · 02-04-2008, 10:40 AM

My apologies, Jay, but I am going to be unable to respond to your most recent posts. Things in 3D have become hairy all of a sudden.

Ben.

PhilosopherJay · 02-04-2008, 12:49 PM

Hi Ben,

No problem, take your time. I'm also finding the real world constantly dragging me off the case to take care of the mundane like a steady food supply and shelter.

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

My apologies, Jay, but I am going to be unable to respond to your most recent posts. Things in 3D have become hairy all of a sudden.

Ben.

JoeWallack · 02-05-2008, 07:02 AM

JW:
Continuing with the Evidence concerning 1st vs. 2nd century Dating of the Canonical Gospels:

External:

1) Extant fragments of Gospel text

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Earliest fragment is P52 mid-range date of c. 165

2) No other fragment with mid-range in 2nd century.

2) Church Father References

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Irenaeus c. 180

Familiar with all 4 Canonical Gospels

2nd century Indirect evidence

2) Justin Martyr c. 155

Familiar with Synoptics

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

3) The Epistula Apostolorum c. 145

One paragraph on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

4) 2 Clement c. 145

One sentence on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) Marcion c. 135

Consists of a version of "Luke" Narrative but gives No Attribution

Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

No Infancy Narrative

6) ARISTIDES c. 125

One sentence referring to Jesus' Death and one sentence referring to Jesus' Resurrection. No direct quotes from any Canonical Gospel.

7) Papias c. 125

Aware of written Sayings of Jesus by Peter/"Mark" and "Matthew"

No Evidence of "The Passion"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

No Evidence of Paul

8) Polycarp c. 125

Aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "The Cross"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

Evidence of Paul

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

To All The Gods I've Loved Before

9) Ignatius - Ephesians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Aware of a few pieces of Infancy information.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Magnesians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Trallians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Romans c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Aware of a few specific Sayings that are close to Sayings of Gospel Jesus.

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

Now on to the next Evil and Wicked Early Christian Writing, First Clement, that ECW dates c. 110

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...t-roberts.html

Quote:

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE ROMANS

...

CHAPTER 13 -- AN EXHORTATION TO HUMILITY.

Let us therefore, brethren, be of humble mind, laying aside all haughtiness, and pride, and foolishness, and angry feelings; and let us act according to that which is written (for the Holy Spirit says, "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, neither let the rich man Story in his riches; but let him that glories glory in the Lord, in diligently seeking Him, and doing judgment and righteousness" ), being especially mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus which He spoke, teaching us meekness and long-suffering. For thus He spoke: "Be merciful, that you may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven to you; as you do, so shall it be done to you; as you judge, so shall you be judged; as you are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you; with what measure you measure, with the same it shall be measured to you." By this precept and by these rules let us establish ourselves, that we walk with all humility in obedience to His holy words. For the holy word says, "On whom shall I look, but on him that is meek and peaceable, and who trembles at My words?"
...

CHAPTER 16 -- CHRIST AS AN EXAMPLE OF HUMILITY.

For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, and not of those who exalt themselves over His flock. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared regarding Him. For He says, "Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have declared [our message] in His presence: He is, as it were, a child, and like a root in thirsty ground; He has no form nor glory, yea, we saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness; but His form was without eminence, yea, deficient in comparison with the [ordinary] form of men. He is a man exposed to stripes and suffering, and acquainted with the endurance of grief: for His countenance was turned away; He was despised, and not esteemed. He bears our iniquities, and is in sorrow for our sakes; yet we supposed that [on His own account] He was exposed to labour, and stripes, and affliction. But He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we were healed. All we, like sheep, have gone astray; [every] man has wandered in his own way; and the Lord has delivered Him up for our sins, while He in the midst of His sufferings opens not His mouth. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before her shearer is dumb, so He opens not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away; who shall declare His generation? For His life is taken from the earth. For the transgressions of my people was He brought down to death. And I will give the wicked for His sepulchre, and the rich for His death, because He did no iniquity, nor was guile found in His mouth. And the Lord is pleased to purify Him by stripes. If you make an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed. And the Lord is pleased to relieve Him of the affliction of His soul, to show Him light, and to form Him with understanding, to justify the Just One who ministers well to many; and He Himself shall carry their sins. On this account He shall inherit many, and shall divide the spoil of the strong; because His soul was delivered to death, and He was reckoned among the transgressors, and He bare the sins of many, and for their sins was He delivered." And again He says, "I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All who see Me have derided Me; they have spoken with their lips; they have wagged their head, [saying] He hoped in God, let Him deliver Him, let Him save Him, since He delights in Him." You see, beloved, what is the example which has been given us; for if the Lord thus humbled Himself, what shall we do who have through Him come under the yoke of His grace?

...

CHAPTER 25 -- THE PHOENIX AN EMBLEM OF OUR RESURRECTION.

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

...

CHAPTER 42 -- THE ORDER OF MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

...

CHAPTER 46 -- LET US CLEAVE TO THE RIGHTEOUS: YOUR STRIFE IS PERNICIOUS.

Such examples, therefore, brethren, it is right that we should follow; since it is written, "Cleave to the holy, for those who cleave to them shall [themselves] be made holy." And again, in another place, [the Scripture] says, "With a harmless man you shall prove thyself harmless, and with an elect man you shall be elect, and with a perverse man you shall show thyself perverse." Let us cleave, therefore, to the innocent and righteous, since these are the elect of God. Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear to pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that "we are members one of another?" Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, "Woe to that man [by whom offences come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones. Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continues.

JW:
As always it's difficult to find much above that sounds Canonical that does not come Directly or indirectly from Paul. Therefore, I think it Likely that Clement here was not familiar with the Canonical Gospels and:

1) Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

2) Seems Aware of a few specific Sayings that are close to Sayings of Gospel Jesus.

3) Aware of the supposed suffering and sacrifice of Jesus.

4) No Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) No Evidence of an Infancy Narrative.

6) Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical attitude.

For anyone with a Legal background, this is the point where the Judge says, "I've heard enough." Clement, like Ignatius, gets closer here to a few specific Sayings of Gospel Jesus but not any Narrative so all this does is help support Papias that at this time there was awareness of supposed Jesus Sayings but not any Gospel Narrative. It is therefore Likely that these Sayings were a Source for subsequent Gospels.

Clement makes especially clear that at his time there was no Gospel Narrative:

1) "For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, and not of those who exalt themselves over His flock. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared regarding Him. For He says, "Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have declared [our message] in His presence: He is, as it were, a child, and like a root in thirsty ground;"

Jesus' supposed Passion is described using The Jewish Bible.

2) "CHAPTER 25 -- THE PHOENIX AN EMBLEM OF OUR RESURRECTION."

Clement uses Philosophical argument to support the supposed resurrection rather than Historical witness.

3) "The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand."

Supposed Apostles Preaching Jesus is The Gospel for Clement.

4) The Details of Clement's Jesus come from Paul and the Jewish bible.

Joseph

"Statistics remind me too much of the 6 foot tall man who drowned in a river who's average depth was 3 feet." - Woody Hayes

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

02-01-2008, 01:03 PM	#61
eheffa Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Posts: 84	Very fascinating thread...comment & questions This is all quite incredible when one compares this data to the "orthodox / evangelical" positions of the likes of William Lane Craig et al who argue and base many of their "proofs" of the reliability of the Gospel accounts on the notion that the Gospels were written practically contemporaneously with the still-alive disciples etc. The statements that the disciples were all martyred is supposed to provide credibility for their beliefs as well but where is the evidence that these disciples were martyred or even existed? Can I assume from this discussion & sources presented that there is truly no 3rd party evidence for the existence of any of the 4 canonical gospels until ~140-150 CE? Where do the hard-liners get their evidence to date the Gospels to the first century, let alone the 50 - 90 CE dates I have seen thrown around? -evan :wave:

02-02-2008, 04:36 PM	#65
eheffa Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Posts: 84	Thank you Andrew, Klaus & Joe My apologies. I guess my terminology was a little vague. By "third party", I meant corroborative external or even possibly "Christian" sources that would verify the existence of these Canonical gospels during these earlier time periods where they supposedly existed & were considered to be authoritative. It is clear that the book of "Acts" has created the impression that an orthodox Christian movement arose within 40 days of Jesus' ascension and that this constituted the beginnings of the Orthodox Christian movement as we know it today. If Acts is understood to be suspect and non-historical, then it is truly remarkable how little other data we have on the history of the early Church of the first century. i.e. there is virtually no supportive data to corroborate the Acts version of this movements' beginnings... As a recent de-converter, I am astonished to learn these things as this is very different from the party line that I was led to believe that maintains that the Gospels are authoritative on the grounds that they were first-person, eyewitness accounts for which the original authors paid the ultimate price... -evan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2008, 10:40 AM	#68
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	My apologies, Jay, but I am going to be unable to respond to your most recent posts. Things in 3D have become hairy all of a sudden. Ben.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.