gurugeorge

MJers wouldn't have looked on nascent HJ stuff as heretical, just a bit odd. (Like filling in extra curlicues on a diagram - "whatever floats your boat!", the MJers might have said, to the early proponents of a specific time and place in Palestine. This is because, as someone else said, the essential emotional impact of the Christian message doesn't lie in its historicity, but elsewhere - its a side-issue.)

The requirements of a politically useful dogma were the driving force for the ascendancy of the HJ sub-sect. It was necessary, in order for MJ Christianity to be made useful to Constantine, that it be purged of the notion that the God-man is Everyman. (Supposing, as seems likely, that this was the central point of the old pagan philosophy generally, and of the Mysteries, and of their later exotercisation in the more plebeian God-man myths - that YOU are the centre, the way, the truth, the light, you are responsible for yourself, you are the caretaker of an Eye for the Universe to see Itself with.)

No, the politically useful God-man had to be an entity who existed once and once only, in historical time. It's sort of a bizarre, twisted reflection of the Jewish idea of monotheism. That there is only One. The old pagan syncretism, and its raison d'etre, were forgotten - in its place, a peculiar notion tying monotheism to a historical occurrence.

There was only one of Him, He incarnated once and once only, and we are forever shut off from His grace - except through the line of Apostolic Succession. That is our closest point of contact with God.

At which point the MJ position becomes heretical from the HJ point of view.

GakuseiDon

Afraid not - this is obviously compatible with HJ beliefs, as the AoI redactor left such views in.

Again, not incompatible with HJ beliefs, as all these epistles were valued by the orthodox church. How can you tell they weren't written by HJers?

Sounds like the HJ to me. Why should the author have mentioned Mary, Joseph, etc? Why should the author even call Jesus "Son of man"?

This is what is in the Epistle:
Isn't the implications of this clear? We have definite HJ statements in an epistle that Doherty says is evidence for an MJ. If the indicators exist in HJ letters, how can Doherty point to ANY letter with confidence?

Name them, and let's see how many of them fall under the HJ umbrella. Tatian is so obviously a HJer, so you don't need to include him.

Yet again, not a problem for the orthodox HJ church. Why is that, do you think?

How about we use the dates on earlychristianwritings? If anyone disagrees with a particular date, then we can discuss it.

The fact is, the gospels and early apologists like Papias, Ignatius and Justin Martyr arguably predate most of the materials Doherty uses.

Yep. As Christianity increased, we can see more materials.

Notsri

Philippians 2:7,8: "...taking the form of a bond-servant, [he (Jesus) was] made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." The "made in the likeness of men" & the "being found in appearance as a man" assume not only the divine nature to which Paul refers elsewhere (e.g., immediately prior in v. 6; 2:9; Col. 1:16,17, et al.), but, IMO, clearly indicate an HJ. If Christ was not an HJ in this context, the entire passage would become meaningless.



You've the missed the context in Barnabas. "Barnabas" means to show, beginning at least as far back as ch. 7, that the gospel of Jesus Christ had been foretold in OT scripture: from the coming & manifestation of Jesus, to specific details such as the death on a cross. Beginning at 12:8 Barnabas records a supposed conversation between Moses and Joshua (Jesus). Moses tells Joshua to record what we know as Ex. 17:14, but Barnabas interpolates the words "Son of God" into the v.: "the Son of God will cut off...the house of Amalek," it says in v. 9. And so in v. 10, where your quote begins, Barnabas makes the point that Christ even as true Son of God had been foretold in scripture; and at this point, I believe - I may be wrong, though - the "revealed in the flesh in a figure" refers to the foreshadowing of Christ in the person of Joshua, who, of course, in the Greek is called Jesus (cf. v. 8, there: "what does Moses say to 'Jesus' the son of Nun when he gave him this name, etc.").
In any event, the Christ of Barnabas is certainly an HJ. In fact, 12:11, the very next verse you quote, presupposes that fact: "they [Israel] were going to say that the Messiah is the son of David..." - referring to Christs appearance in human form, and presumably as a descendant of David, in order to fulfill OT prophecy.
I would also mention vv. like Barnabas 5:6: "it was necessary that he [Jesus] be manifested in the flesh"; and 5:10,11: "For if he [Jesus, the Son of God] had not come in the flesh, men could in no way have been saved by looking at him...Therefore the Son of God came in the flesh for this reason..."

Amaleq13

I said "faithfully preserved" which, based on what has survived through intent rather than luck means multiple copies. We only know that parts survived until the 4th and probably 9th centuries.

The standard I have offered is faithful preservation of the Gospel stories and, by that standard, their efforts to preserve Papias fall far short.

Exactly. Why wasn't a collection of sayings Jesus is said to have spoken and obtained from disciples of the Disciples considered as significant to them as anonymous stories? Either they were fully incorporated into the stories or they weren't considered significant enough to warrant the same effort.

Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

What evidence do you have suggesting Eusebius didn't have a full copy of Papias? You'd think Eusebius might have said something if he didn't.

That he doesn't cite the entirety of Papias is quite irrelevant, we have no reason to expect him to. Eusebius was writing his own work, remember?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

The same evidence we have that he did (ie zero).

Even if we assume he did have a complete copy of the books and also assume that Irenaeus did, that gives us two copies at the most. That still leaves a significant difference in how this source of information about Jesus was "faithfully preserved" compared to the Gospels.

Maybe but that speculative possibility doesn't seem like enough to carry the weight of assuming he had a full collection.

I agree that citation is not relevant but preservation certainly is and the works were not preserved despite their apparent inherent significance to Christian faith.

Correct and here is a source that was considered quite valuable to both Eusebius and Irenaeus because of the substantiation it allegedly provided for a continuous tradition from the mouth of Jesus to the pens of both men. Yet it is only the references to him that have survived and not the source, himself. If he was everything he was claimed to be, I find that rather difficult to understand. The few fragments we do have certainly do not suggest to a modern eye that he was a reliable source so it seems reasonable to wonder if the early Christians didn't think the same (ie he was useful only as a partially referenced source but not as an intact, extant piece of evidence).

Peter has suggested that the early Christians preserved those texts which they considered most significant. I tend to agree and that seems to support my conclusion that the early Christians must not have considered Papias' collection to be a reliable source of the actual words spoken by Jesus.

Or is it unreasonable to assume that a reliable source of the actual words spoken by Jesus and a continuous tradition would be considered significant enough by early Christians to "faithfull preserve" it?

Rick Sumner

You haven't given me a reason to think he had zero.

Why does that leave as two at most? It seems to me you've got it backwards. We have two at least. Over two centuries or so. In days before the printing press. That's pretty impressive.

If something is quoted, it is generally presumed the author has the full version unless otherwise specified. You have to give me a reason to think otherwise.

Peter noted the Clementine example, which we have very little idea of how well preserved it was. It survives in copies over a *millenia* late, and nothing before that. Based on ancient evidence, one might well presume it wasn't valuable to Christians. One would be wrong.

How relevant is what early Christians thought? And why is Papias different from Clement in this regard?

It doesn't support your conclusion at all. The texts they considered most important were canonized. That doesn't mean that no non-canonical book was important, just that it wasn't as important. Peter has suggested that books that early Christians would likely have considered important, and that we blessed with hindsight would consider important, were nonetheless poorly preserved. That isn't arguing for you.

Aren't you a proponent of Q? Am I to presume you've changed your mind?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

I think you need to read my post again. I said we have zero evidence for either conclusion (ie full copy or only partial).

Because we only have evidence of two (Irenaeus and Eusebius). If there are references to other copies, then "at least" would be appropriate.

Considering the inherent value of a collection of Jesus' sayings obtained from disciples of Disciples (or disciples of disciples of Disciples) and the related establishment of a continuous tradition, I am underwhelmed.

I've already stated that it doesn't seem to matter whether we assume that both Irenaeus and Eusebius held complete copies. I'm also not terribly interested in convincing you of anything so feel free to think whatever you wish.

It seems pretty relevant to their decisions with regard to what texts were faithfully preserved and what texts were not.

Could you be more specific? I don't see where Peter referred to Clement so you've lost me with this reference.

[QUOTE]The texts they considered most important were canonized.[QUOTE]

How is canonization relevant? They were faithfully preserved prior to being canonized and some that were not canonized were also faithfully preserved.

Does it require hindsight to think that a collection of Jesus' sayings based on Disciple-to-disciple oral tradition would be considered important to early Christians? We can see that Eusebius considered Papias important in establishing a continuous tradition from Jesus' mouth to his own beliefs. Yet the actual text establishing this tradition was not considered important?

I think the arguments for it are compelling enough to presume it, yes. The lack of faithful preservation of Q can be understood as due to the fact that it was incorporated in the Gospel stories and, thus, no longer necessary on its own. I have already asked if this might be the reason Papias' collection was not as faithfully preserved as the stories so I don't understand the point of your question.

Rick Sumner

Firstly, your math is screwed up. It's impossible to have an upper-limit. We know there were two copies, there could have been more that aren't referenced. We don't know if there were more. We do know there were two. It provides a bottom end--an "at least."

Apologies, I'd meant Martyr. Typing faster than I'm thinking.

It's a gauge of what was considered most important. You'd stated that the measuring stick of what is "faithfully" preserved is the gospels. There is nothing outside the canon that is more multipliy preserved, which seems to be what you mean by "faithfully." There is no reason to expect Papias to break this trend.

Papias was clearly faithfully preserved prior to the establishment of the canon too--we've just allowed Iraenaeus and Eusebius to have a copy. What we need is a reason to think, as you've claimed, that "early" Christians didn't faithfully preserve Papias. If, as you've allowed, Eusebius and Iraenaeus had a copy, they did faithfully preserve it, they just don't seem to have had as many copies as they did the gospels. That doesn't mean it wasn't preserved, it means it wasn't preserved by as many communities.

You've still given me no reason to think it wasn't. Eusebius had a copy. It was considered important enough to survive up to Eusebius for sure, and probably past him up to the ninth century. Youi stated that you are "underwhelmed," because it wasn't as faithfully preserved as the gospels. Papias didn't write a gospel, it shouldn't be as faithfully preserved--no Christian text is as multiply preserved as the gospels.

Are you aware of any early fragments of Josephus? Are we to presume that early Christians didn't consider him important because of that?

I suppose, before we continue, you should define what is meant by "early" Christians. Are Christians after Eusebius "early"? How about Christians after the ninth century?

The problem, it seems, isn't that "early" Christians didn't preserve it--they did, we know of at least three who had it all the way up to ninth century. It would appear that the problem is what later Christians did.

Clearly it was considered important. Again, Eusebius had a copy.

Using your reasoning, we should expect Mark to have disappeared as well. But it didn't. Why?

The point of the question is that sometimes it really comes down to blind luck.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

Magdalyn,
By which scholars? What do you consider to be the weakest points in the arguments for Pauline authorship for Hebrews?

Gdon,
I think I will simply await your review of the Jesus Puzzle. This thread was about archons and you did not even respond to the problems with interpreting archons to mean Pilate.

Amaleq and Rick, I have my heavy mod stick high in the sky and may not bring it down if you stop derailing "my" thread, or if you open a Papias Preservation thread.