maryhelena

So, looks like Melito was blowing with the wind.....

The death story under Pilate is the gospel JC story.
'Paul' does not date his Christ crucified death story to Pilate - 1 Timothy is not considered a genuine 'Paul' writing.

sotto voce

You're very kind.

What is referred to is that same Hebrew canon, with the addition of the New Testament, the composition of which there is little dispute today among people calling themselves Christians.

Unlike Catholicism, Protestantism recognises the authority of no mere human. That which was written by humans, but under divine inspiration, it canonises, and uses as sole final arbiter. Luther and Calvin never had universally agreed authority, and indeed their formulae were rapidly contested and arguably superseded by biblical interpretation far more accurate than that of either of those two men.

But 'Jews' believe in justification by works, that the NT condemns. Catholics believe in justification by works, that the NT condemns. Muslims believe in justification by works, that the NT condemns. Protestants alone believe that only their belief is Abrahamic, because Abraham was considered righteous because he believed God. He did not need to be circumcised. He did not need to be baptised or regularly absolved, as Catholics believe necessary. He did not need to fast, pray in any particular direction, go on any pilgrimage, as Muslims believe necessary. He did not need to flagellate, make vows of abstinence, prostrate himself, crawl to shrines, light candles, or anything else held necessary or desirable to win God's favour. Protestants are pro Testamentum; they believe that the Bible's testament is to a Messiah who has made belief in any and all of that entirely nugatory; indeed, they say it is impediment to spiritual fulfilment. So there is a world of difference between Protestants and others.

Hindus vary, of course. But if one lights a candle in order to please Krishna, it's working for salvation.

That's not the case. True Protestants (as opposed to political ones) never engage in premeditated violence on behalf of their faith. They may join a national army, or a police force, for non-religious reasons, but never to promote or defend their faith. That would be absurdity.

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Sorry for the length of this post, but I did want to add this additional information on the dating of the epistula Apostolorum. It adds to my hypothesis that the text was written in the early years of the Third Century.

Darrell D. Hannah, in a recent article in Journal of Theological Studies, (NS, Vol. 59, Pt 2, October 2008) proposes an early dating for the Epistula Apostolorum. He bases this on two arguments. First, only two heretics are named in the work, Simon and Cerinthus, Simon from the First century and Cerinthus from the early Second century. Based on the lack of mention of any later heretics, he concludes that the text must have been written in the early Second century. Secondly, he concludes from dating of the time Jesus says he will return that the original text said 120 years and was predicting a return around the year 150. Thus both of these arguments point to a date before 150.

This shows two types of errors that theologians are apt to make. The first involves confusion of the setting of the story within a text with the date of production of the text. The second involves a convoluted hypothesis which ignors pertinent facts. In this case that the 50 days between Passover and Pentecost are clearly part of the dating prediction.

Regarding Hannah’s first hypothesis, he ignors that the text is being written by the Apostles and therefore is taking place within the lifetime of the apostles. It would not make narrative sense to mention any of the heretics who came after the lifetime of the apostles. In adv haer, III.3.4, we find that John was still alive in the time of Cerenthius:

This matches the epistula’s text quite closely:

Quite obviously, if you are writing a story written by apostles, you cannot have them talking about heretics who lived after they died. Thus the fact that only two heretics who lived during the lifetime of the apostles are mentioned does not tell us when the text was written, but simply when the text was set. It also tells us that the hypothetical writer of the text was meant to be the Apostle John, the writer of the Gospel According to John. That is why the narrator says “we heard it, we both committed it to memory and wrote it for all the world.” We can also gleem from this passage that the writer almost certainly knew Irenaeus’ text claiming that John met Cerinthus.

Thus we may dismiss Hannah’s first dating criteria as a confusion of narrative with history.

His second dating criteria, as mentioned, involves the date of Jesus’ return in the epistula Apostolorum. As he notes the three text we have,
Syriac, Ethiopian and Latin give quite different dates in the same passage:

Hannah dismisses the incomplete Latin text. He presumes that the 100th part and 20th part in the Coptic text was the original prediction and thus 120 years should be added to the time of Christ’ death circa 30 CE to get a date for the prediction of 150 CE. When it did not come true circa 150, the prediction was changed to 150 years (circa 180) in the text that the Ethiopians copied.

It seems to me that Hannah’s method is more wishful thinking than critical thinking. The Coptic says the coming of the father will be “the hundredth part and the twentieth part have been completed, between Pentecost (penthkost0) and the Feast of Unleavened Bread” The time between Pentecost and the Feast of Unleavened Bread would be fifty days. If the 100 and 20 parts are between the death of Jesus (The Feast of Unleaven Bread) and 50 days later (Pentacost) we are given a prediction of 100 Plus 20 plus 50 or 170 days total. The use of term “parts” is so the reader will know that 170 years not days are meant. The Ethiopian text loses the twenty years, (unreadable manuscript perhaps?) but correctly gives the 50 days between Pentecost and Passover as 50 years. The Ethiopian writer was clarifying the text as best he could, correctly taking the 50 days as years and adding them to the prediction date.

On his hypothesis, Hannah does not explain why 50 years the exact same number as the days between Passover and Pentecost was included. He does not explain why Passover and Pentecost should be mentioned at all. On my hypothesis, in the Ethiopian text, the 20 years has simply been lost due to the text becoming unreadable with time, and the 50 years was always meant to be part of the prediction.

If we take 170 years as the original prediction, we get at least the year 200 for the date of the return of Christ from his death in 30 CE. However Irenaeus has Jesus dying under Claudius. Since the author seems to know Irenaeus’ story about Cerenthus and John, we should consider it probable that he knows Irenaeus story of the death of Jesus dying under Claudius (circa 42 CE). the fact that he does not correct it and does not tell us that Jesus died under Tiberius is significant. This gives us a date of 170 years from 42 CE or 212 CE for the predicted return of Christ. Since long term predictions beyond a few years are boring, and writers rarely make them, we may take it that this passage suggests a composition date for the text of approximately 210.

This fits in well with the historical data in my previous post.

Warmly,


Jay Raskin

Huon

True Scotsman ...

sotto voce

As absurd as that.

maryhelena

I'll keep that in mind.....:wave:

Adam

That's it?

And you call out someone else for having bad arguments?

Geisler's arguments are good arguments. I didn't say that they were irrefutable arguments. Toto can explain then away, with special pleading. And Pervo can give counter-arguments that presume to win. His arguments from Josephus seem quite strong to me, but most scholars seem to dismiss them. There are other interpretations, of course, even that Josephus used Luke. What surprises me is that no one argues that the Josephus parallels are just interpolations in the text of an earlier (62 CE) Acts. The usual attribution is to a common source used by both Luke and Josephus.

andrewcriddle

One indication of a rather early date for the Epistula Apostolorum is that it presents a rather primitive understanding of Easter. An understanding that is widely regarded as Quartodeciman and is certainly both eschatological (linked to the return of Christ) and strongly associated with the Jewish festivals of Passover and Pentecost. However this understanding of Easter is presented without any trace of controversy or polemic. If the Epistle of the Apostles was written after Victor of Rome made the date and understanding of Easter a matter of controversy one would expect this controversy to have left its mark. This seems to indicate a date well before the end of the 2nd century.

Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver

I said they were circular arguments. Can you demonstrate the contrary? Can you show how his premises entail his conclusion without incorporating the conclusion into the premises?

Not a problem. I'm assuming we're talking about probabilities rather than certainties.

Toto

What special pleading? Geisler's arguments seem to be based on the logical error that the events described in the narrative are proof of the date of its writing. Why is it special pleading to point that out?

Have you done a survey of scholars? The only scholars that I have seen dismiss the parallels with Josephus are evangelicals committed to an early date for Luke-Acts/