Iasion

Greetings Clive,

No.
But he is the first to name all four.

Interestingly,
IF Tatian really wrote the diaTessaron in the 170s,
then this means the Gospels were possibly
NUMBERED before they were NAMED.

Iasion

Iasion

Greetings Andrew,

Indeed,
he may have read G.Matthew.

But
the more I read and study Ignatius,
the less I am certain of anything...

What do you think about the dating and authenticity of the Ignatiana?

Iasion

Iasion

Greetings Peter,

What are your views on the date and provenance of the Ignatiana?

How do you re-concile the dates of the Gospels with the rather later first mentions of them?

If G.Mark was written 65-80, why do you think no Christian shows knowledge of it until much later?



Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

Well,
Peter wouldn't blow his own trumpet,
but you might like to check his excellent e-Catena project :
http://earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/

I think it is clearly wrong to say we have quotes of the complete NT by 2nd century.

Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

Not the actual Gospels,
their CONTENTS - the Gospel stories.

No 1st century Christian shows knowledge of :
* Joseph and Mary and Bethlehem and Nazareth,
* the birth stories, the Magi, the Star, the flight to Egypt,
* Herod and the massacre of the infants,
* John the Baptist or the baptism in the Jordan,
* the trial before Pilate (and Herod?),
* the raising of Lazarus or any miracles of Jesus,
* the cleansing of the temple, the trumphal entry,
* the Sermon on the Mount or any teachings by Jesus,
* the passion of Jesus, or the transfiguration,
* Peter the rock and "the keys",
* the denial by Peter, or betrayal by Judas,
* the empty tomb !!

Why?

Iasion

angela2

Raymond Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind His thesis is that specific 1st cen. churches were followers of specific traditions, for example, a church that followed the Johannine tradition.

I can't recall if he deals with this or not, but it's possible that specific 1st cen. churches were in possession of only the writings of that tradition.

judge

OK why would we expect Paul to mention any of these things in letters he wrote to people?

Peter Kirby

As Zahn demonstrated long ago, the long recension is not the one known to Eusebius. The spurious letters attributed to Ignatius, written contemporary to or after Eusebius, may have been written by the same person as the redactor of the seven authentic letters. Their provenance, I do not know.

The seven letters known to Eusebius, in the shorter recension, were written by one Ignatius who is called Theophorus in the early second century (prior to A.D. 117, per Hist. Eccl. 3.36). They were composed from Asia Minor by the bishop of Antioch.

First, it is a pseudo-problem until a demonstration is given that a preserved mention actually would follow immediately upon composition.

Second, the question contains a false assumption. As Gundry indicates, Papias wrote in the first decade of the second century. He knew an elder who related the account that Mark wrote from the preaching of Peter. Since Papias attributes this to a tradition of an elder, this takes us back to the first century.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Iasion

Greetings Judge,

Paul wrote to preach his religion, to convince others to be good Christians.

Of course we would expect Paul to mention the FOUNDING events and figures of the religion.

Paul DOES mention the crucificion and resurrectiion often (as spiritual events)

Paul DOES mention various minor figures associated with early Christianity.

But somehow,
the most important events and people are completely missing.

Paul could instantly have solved some issues by saying
"Jesus did this" or "Jesus said this".

But he didn't.

The only reasonable explanation is that Paul had never heard of a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Consider later Christian writings (say, the 3rd century) -
almost every document mentions numerous people and events from the Gospels - often at mind-numbing length.

But yet,
the 1st century writings show NO MENTIONS at all.

The people allegedly closest in time show the LEAST knowledge of the Gospel stories.

But starting 2nd century, people who never met Jesus start to tell a few stories about him.

From 3rd century, VAST bodies of work are written about Jesus and the Gospel stories.

This is the standard pattern for legendary development.


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings Peter,

Thanks for your informative reply :-)

Well,
I always found the story of Ignatius hard to swallow :-)

Do you think Eusebius is reliable about this?
Would you call that statement above almost certain? or probable? or just possible?

What do you think about Bernard's argument (and others) that it was forged in the 130s?



Immediately after?
No.

Soon after?
Yes.

The question is HOW soon.
I see figures of 5, 10 or 20 years bandied about.
But the evidence shows a delay rather longer.

I find it odd that the first quotes of the Gospels arrive so much later than their purported writing.

What do you think Peter?
Why do you think the late 1st century / early 2nd documents show no knowledge of the Gospels?

The first clear quotes of Gospels seems to be about 140-150CE or so (Ep.Apostles, Justin)
That's 60 years or more after their alleged writing.


Ah yes - I see Gundry's argument on EBLA.

Fair enough - this would seem to probably be evidence for knowledge of (proto) Gospels in 1st century.

But it all seems rather slim pickings -
One much later account about someone said to be stupid (Papias) who heard an esentially unknown someone say something about the Gospels.


Iasion