DCHindley

There is a rather good analysis of the use of, and the changes of meaning associated, with the term "Gospel," in Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1990).

1. The Term "Gospel"
1.1 The Origin of the Term "Gospel" (Greek Usage, usage in OT, Use in Imperial Inscriptions)
1.2 Use in the Pauline Tradition (Letters of Paul, Letters of Ignatius, Deutero-Paulines & Acts)
1.3 Term in the Gospels of the NT
1.4 "Gospel" in the Apostolic Fathers (1 Clement & Ep of Barnabas, Didache, 2nd Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Polycarp of Smyrna)
1.5 Term in Gospels from Nag Hammadi
1.6 Why written documents come to be called "Gospels"
1.7 From the Oral tradition to the written Gospel (Earliest authorities, Papias, Marcion, Justin Martyr)
1.8 Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels (The Prevailing Prejudice, Criteria for the definition of "Gospel," writings which are not to be counted as Gospels)

Sorry it does not include Aristides, but I do not think it is profitable to interpret his use of the term out of context of these other factors. This is basically a college textbook, but aimed at the undergrad level reader. Above section comprises just 48 pages, not really too much text to absorb, even for those who are averse to reading academic level books.

DCH

JoeWallack

Fools you have no perception.
the stakes we are gambling,
are frighteningly high.
We must crush it completely,
so like Irenaeus' (credibility) before him,
this Eusebius' must die.


JW:
Spin has pointed out that the dating from the Syriac clear:

Apology of Aristides

JW:
With apologies to Pete, Eusebius has traditionally been responsible for dating
Aristides here to c. 125 The Papias Smear, Changes in sell Structure. Evidence for an Original 2nd Cent Gospel

We know that in general Christian Apologists such as E are motivated to try and find orthodox Christianity earlier, rather than later. Do we have direct evidence of this here in E's writings?:

Chapter 3. The Apologists that wrote in Defense of the Faith during the Reign of Adrian.

JW:
Indeed we do. E is careful to use all the key words:

"clear proofs"

"apostolic orthodoxy"

"early date"

"even to our day"

to promote Quadratus and than sells Aristides as cohort here to Quadratus. We know from the Syriac though that contra E, Aristides addressed a different and later Adrian. There are a number of possibilities here:

1) E knew that A meant the later Adrian but used falsehood to promote C.

2) E knew that A referred to the later Adrian but thought the later reference might be a mistake.

3) E knew that A referred to the later Adrian but thought the later reference was a mistake.

4) E had contradictory evidence as to which Adrian was referred to and choose the earlier.

5) E relied on someone else who did one of the above.

6) The Syriac reference to the later Adrian is the mistake.

All we can be sure of is that this is another one for the list:

Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected

More importantly, all of these errors of Eusebius that keep being dug up from the early centuries, regarding Pete's theory of Eusebius' evolution, keep reminding me of Fundamentalists claiming that it was the devil that planted fossils in order to trick us.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Roger Pearse

I think I can summarise what I was saying more briefly!

1. The Syriac text is a copy of the work of Aristides.

2. The Greek text is not a copy of the work of Aristides. It is a different work, a piece composed by someone else, that happens to contain long extracts, presumably mostly word-for-word, from the lost Greek text of Aristides; but subject to whatever changes the author of Barlaam, in exercising his creative prerogative, chose to make.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Query about the Armenian: as far as I can tell, neither fragment from the Armenian quotes the passages of interest.

vid

That's interesting. According to your introduction, it should contain first two chapters of Apology. Is there some english translation of Armenian fragments available online?

Roger Pearse

I'm really sorry, but I just don't have the time to look into this. A translation of one of the Armenian fragments into English is in one of those introductions; a Latin version of another in the same file.

andrewcriddle

aristides introduction actually contains an English translation of both chapters of the Armenian Fragment.

The introduction to the fragment reads ie the Armenian regards this as addressed to Hadrian not Antoninus Pius.

The passage about the Gospel reads It is generally accepted that the Armenian is an independent translation from the Greek not a translation from the Syriac.

(As well as the sources listed in this thread there are also two 4th century Greek papyrus fragments of parts of the apology, but they do not cover the passages I have quoted above.)

Andrew Criddle

avi

Nothing quite like a tiny bit of much needed correcting....

avi