PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Nice thread, thanks.

When considering the Apologies of Aristides and Justin, we have to consider that they were not real apologies actually delivered to any emperor, but represent literary constructions within a fantasy genre.

It is nice to know that Pagan Emperors running massive countries had time to sit back and listen for a half hour or an hour to abstract religious- philosophical speeches. One would have thought that daily life and state decisions would have occupied more of their time. With hundreds of Mystery Cults, I'm sure that the emperors enjoyed inviting representatives of each one to explain their uniqueness.

Since the Emperor was not only the head of state but the head of the Roman State Religion, one can only be amazed at how liberal they were to sit and listen to people denounce their religion and their gods repeatedly as false and stupid, and hear other gods that were totally alien to them praised and adored. One might compare the situation to be as likely as The Pope inviting Anton Levey, the founder of the Church of Satan to the Vatican and allowing him to give a speech denouncing Catholicism and Christianity.

Actually, this would not be a quite appropriate analogy because the Pope does not have the power to put people to death as the Emperor had. We have to imagine Emperors with the power to put not only the speaker to death, but the speakers' relatives, children, friends and all Christians to death. So we have to admire the openness and honesty of the Christians giving long speeches that would be as offensive as possible to Pagan Emperors knowing that those Pagan Emperors could kill them for saying even a single inappropriate or offensive word.

Probably the closest analogy would be imagining a Jew giving a speech to Adolf Hitler, telling him how evil and disgusting the Nazis are and how he should convert and become a Jew. It is a good fantasy, but never happened and it is difficult to imagine circumstances where it could have happened.

One might consider that these were fantasy documents that were written for the emperor, but circulated only in private among Christians. But imagine the hell to pay if the documents had gotten in the hands of Roman officials. In fact, the circulation of such works even 20 or 30 years after the Emperors had died would still have been dangerous. It is hard to imagine that either of these documents were written until the the Emperors in question had been dead for 40 or 50 years at the minimum. Then such works could be enjoyed for their historical absurdity and treated as a funny joke.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Petergdi

It is nice that you can state your beliefs as if they were incontestable.
Who else agrees with you on this?

Peter.

Toto

I am thinking in particular of gLuke - Irenaeus appears to use the "we" passages in Acts to identify Luke:

AH 14.4.1]

Petergdi

How does he appear to do anything of the sort in the quoted passage?

Irenaeus' purpose is to show, contra the marcionites, that Acts and thus also canonical Luke were written by Paul's most intimate companion who was thus privy to Paul's understanding of the Gospel. His point is that the orthodox have got Paul right and we know this because we have the account of Paul's best travel companion.

But his point doesn't seem to be to show who wrote Acts, which he seems to take as a given, but rather to stress that the person who wrote Acts was particularly close to Paul.

Peter.

Toto

Except that Luke wasn't Paul's closest travel companion (he's only named in two letters) and is not named in Acts. Perhaps I am just reading between the lines, but it appears that he builds his case that the orthodox have got Paul right by attributing Acts to an allegedly close traveling companion of Paul.

Roger Pearse

True, but also we have to ask what evidence demands this conclusion. The answer, of course, is "none".

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Petergdi

He is taking the orthodox attribution as a given. He is using it together with the mentions by Paul to build the case that Luke was particularly close to Paul. As you say, he isn't mentioned particularly often in the letters.

Peter.

Roger Pearse

We can certainly look, but I think you will find that none of these say that the gospels are anonymous; they merely do not give specific names. Quite how that shows that they had no names is never explained, especially since all those who DO discuss their names state what we know now.

Nothing in this discusses the names of the text or texts or their authors.

I am unable to see anything which justifies these comments in the passage quoted. That Christianity was a novelty -- one of the problems that pagans raised -- is a standard issue in the apologists.

I'm afraid placing your speculation in capitals does not give it the force of fact.

Nothing in this discusses the names of the gospels. Perhaps you could explain to me, when you quote "the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels" -- you say the gospels didn't have names, because none are listed; do the apostles not have names either, on the same argument?

None of this is evidence, except of attempts to argue from what is not said and in contradiction to every author who DOES discuss it and has 100 times more literature to hand than we do.

Indeed. Quite how that is evidence that it did not have one you do not say.

Indeed. Quite how that is evidence that it did not have one you do not say.

Indeed. Quite how that is evidence that it did not have one you do not say.

But not of their authorship, except in generalities.

Not that I can see.

I'm sorry that my post disturbed you so greatly. If I ever talk twaddle, I shall be glad to hear of it, with appropriate evidence, of course.

But since there is no evidence whatever of anonymity associated with the gospels -- merely arguments from passages where the question is not discussed -- then I can only reply that I prefer evidence.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

PhilosopherJay

Hi Peter,

My appeal is directly to reason by common sense and analogy. You ask for an appeal to authority.

Saying that Roman emperors would not have listened to these types of discourses is about as obvious as there being no flying carpets and no genies inside magic lamp. These stories are simple wish fulfillments which form the basis of many fictional literary genres.

An analogy can be found in Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" where due to absurd coincidences, Chaplin has a Hitler double give a speech over the radio to the German people denouncing fascism and praising democracy. If you are familiar with history, you know that this never happened, but it does represent a wish fulfillment for Chaplin.

In the same analogous fashion, one can say that the Christian wish fulfillment of delivering an address to the Roman Emperor denouncing Greek, Roman and Jewish religions and praising Christianity never happened, but makes perfect sense as a fictional literary genre.

Since the Koran tells us that genies exist, no doubt you could find many Islamic authorities who will tell you that Alladin and his magic lamp could have been a true story. You could probably find many rug merchants who are authorities on carpets who will say that that when they have stared at the intricate patterns on rugs, they have been transported to many parts of the world, and thus flying carpets are not at all absurd. I would be hard pressed to find scholars arguing that these specific stories are not true stories.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

avi

In the second century time period under discussion, we lack evidence of the anonymity of the Gospels. We don't know whether they were anonymous back then. We do know that they are anonymous to us, living today. As we extrapolate back in time, century by century, asking the question, if originally, i.e. at the time of Justin Martyr, these "Gospels" possessed named authors, when did they become anonymous, as they most certainly are today? Even more incredible, why did a named, authored document become anonymous?

Roger, can you posit any rationale for anyone to purge the authorship of a document as important as the "gospels"?
Umm, not that it matters a whit, but I agree completely with Philosopher Jay. I find his writings on this forum to be superb, logical, thorough, precise, accurate, and easily read. In this particular narrative, it is my opinion, that Jay sought to offer a perspective which is somewhat difficult for us, living in the affluent, liberal, tolerant west to appreciate: in those days, two millenia ago, writing ANY part of the messages found on this forum, would have led to immediate death.

Those guys who became emperor of Rome were not all insipid, foolish, silly, weaklings. Some of them were generals, who had LED their troops into battle. Some of those Roman emperors had suffered wounds of battle. Those guys had zero tolerance for any challenge to their authority. One obeyed, or one died. End of story. Jay's perspective that the narratives were clandestine, and thus, anonymous for safety, makes a lot of sense, in that era, if not our own.

avi