DCHindley

Hay Jake,

I relied on David Trobisch, First Edition of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Oxford UP, 2000)

Not sure. We don't know "who" published any of the books of the NT or early Christian literature. Even so, somebody must have. Trobisch is of the opinion that the NT itself, goes back to single exemplars of four sets of books: 4 Gospels, Apostolikon (Acts and general epistles), Letters of Paul, and finally the Revelation of John all by its lonesome, was published by Polycarp of Smyrna (ca. 69 – ca. 155).

The first preserved author to use 21-24 of the 27 NT books* was Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, now Lyons, France, in Against Heresies, ca 180.

*Irenaeus quotes:
Matthew (Book 3, Chapter 16)
Mark (Book 3, Chapter 10)
Luke (Book 3, Chapter 14)
John (Book 3, Chapter 11)
Acts of the Apostles (Book 3, Chapter 14)
Romans (Book 3, Chapter 16)
1 Corinthians (Book 1, Chapter 3)
2 Corinthians (Book 3, Chapter 7)
Galatians (Book 3, Chapter 22)
Ephesians (Book 5, Chapter 2)
Philippians (Book 4, Chapter 18)
Colossians (Book 1, Chapter 3)
1 Thessalonians (Book 5, Chapter 6)
2 Thessalonians (Book 5, Chapter 25)
1 Timothy (Book 1, Preface)
2 Timothy (Book 3, Chapter 14)
Titus (Book 3, Chapter 3)
1 Peter (Book 4, Chapter 9)
1 John(Book 3, Chapter 16)
2 John (Book 1, Chapter 16)
Revelation to John (Book 4, Chapter 20)

He may also allude to:
Hebrews (Book 2, Chapter 30)
James (Book 4, Chapter 16)
2 Peter (Book 5, Chapter 28)

He did not cite:
Philemon
3 John
Jude

Whether or not individual books circulated independently of their final publication as sub groups (codices of the time were not sophisticated enough to include all these books in a single codex), there is very little trace of them circulating independently of the groupings they have in existing NT codices.

I personally do not know if I buy into all of this, but it seems to make sense of a lot of things.

DCH

aa5874

The Pauline writings simply do not belong in the 1st century. No Gospel writer used them.

The THEOLOGY of Jesus in the Gospels do not MATCH the THEOLOGY of the Pauline Jesus which was supposed to be from the very resurrected Jesus that was on earth.

The THEOLOGY of the Pauline Jesus is detailed and precise, but the THEOLOGY of Gospel Jesus is crude and confusing, and is spoken in PARABLES so that the Jews may remain in sin.

The Gospel Jesus asked people to obey the Laws of the God of Moses, yet the Pauline Jesus, the very resurrected Jesus who was circumcised on earth, revealed to Paul that circumcision was useless.

In gMark and gLuke, the Gospel Jesus supposedly healed a leper and immediately told him to make offerings according to the Laws of Moses.

Mr 1:44 - Lu 5:14 -

1Co 7:19 - Luke 2:21-24 - The Gospel Jesus did not leave Judea and travel all over the Roman Empire, he fundamentally came to the Jews.

The Pauline Jesus, the very resurrected Jesus that was on earth, revealed to Paul that he must preach to the Gentiles.

The Gospel Jesus asked his disciples not to tell any one he was Christ.

The Pauline Jesus revealed to PaUL to preach Christ.

The Pauline Jesus essentially revealed to Paul that the Gospel Jesus was obsolete. This must mean that the Pauline Jesus was after the Gospel Jesus.

The Pauline Jesus, the REVELATON JESUS, was the NEW Messiah, and if any one preach any other Gospel let him be accursed.

Ga 1:8 -9 The Gospel Jesus is now OBSOLETE.

The Pauline writings are after the Gospels.

ApostateAbe

I apologize that I overlooked what you wrote here, gurugeorge, I am sorry that I delayed. I have heard the hypothesis that the gospel writers got their information from Josephus and Philo, it is a very specific and significant claim, it is only a hypothesis until evidence is provided, and it is just an ad hoc explanation until then. For example, the gospels would be expected to not contain any accurate information that is NOT contained in the writings of Philo or Josephus (or both, but it is more unlikely and burdensome on the claimants to propose that the gospel writers had both sources). As it happens, the gospels contain accurate information that isn't contained in either the works of Josephus or Philo. For example, the existence of Nazareth in the region of Galilee, apparently overlooked by all historical records until it grew significantly in population. If it is proposed that Nazareth didn't exist at the time, then it is yet another unlikely explanation that contradicts historical patterns and needs evidence. Further, it should be explained how the gospel authors gained access to the documents of Philo and Josephus, because the documents were not commonly available and it isn't like they downloaded them from the Internet. The explanation that is straightforward and simple is that the gospel authors knew about the social environment of Jesus through communication of the myth, oral or written, originating with Jesus and his immediate followers. That is not an assumption. That is the explanation that seems to best fit the evidence.

You talked about the patterns of religions, which I appreciate, because it is my belief that Christianity followed the normal expected observed pattern of almost all of the rest of religions, originating as either a radical human cult (Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Rastafarianism, Scientology and Mormonism) or a tribal mythology (Judaism, Hinduism, Greek/Roman religions). These two groups I will assign the names: cult-genesis and mythology-genesis. You said,
Yes, you are right. My model is that Christianity is a cult-genesis religion. Like you said, it is a religion where "X has a vision in which deity/spirit/demon Y gives him a 'message', and he brings it back to the world." No disagreement, because that seems to be true for Christianity, where Jesus was that person X. But you think that Jesus was actually just a character in that initial deception or myth or fiction. This breaks the pattern of cult-genesis religions, because in all such religions where the evidence is accessible (Scientology, Mormonism, Rastarianism, Islam), the figure of the initial cult leader remains the mythical leader of the succeeding religion. In the MJ model, Christianity would have to be the special exception! It would be much more complex and difficult for a cult leader to weave a story that involves a non-existent human figure living in an existent human social environment, it would be unlikely for the cult leader to ask his followers to adhere to the will of the invented figure instead of his own self, and it would be much more unlikely for the followers to believe it, or take it seriously. I apologize if my premises do not match your theory, because there are many theories on how the mythical-Jesus started.

Why not believe that Christianity follows the normal pattern? Why believe that Christianity is the exception to the pattern? If you have the evidence, then believe it. If you do not have the evidence, then the default position is whatever fits the patterns of history. And if the evidence is against the theory (which it seems to be), then...

aa5874

The Jesus story appears to be abnormal and did not follow a normal pattern.

Jesus was placed in Judea and executed after he was considered a blasphemer by the Jews.

Now, it was quite abnormal for the Jews to deify a Jew. The Jews do not worship men as Gods.

Philo in his writing "Embassy to Gaius" was chosen by Jews to go to Rome to argue AGAINST the placing of statues in the Holy places of Jews and wrote that Jews do not worship even deified Emperors as Gods.

Gaius even admitted in writing that of all the Nations only the Jewish did not deify him.

This is Gaius in Philo's "On the Embasy to Gaius" The deification of Jesus in Judea was virtually impossible, it was the only nation on the face of the earth that did not deify humans, even Emperors.

Jesus was just an abnormal fiction story not history.

show_no_mercy

Well the gospel narratives also contain inaccurate geographical information. In Mark 5, Jesus drives out the demon "Legion" into some pigs at Gerasa. These pigs then flee into the sea of Galilee. The sea that they were supposed to run into is about 30 miles from where Gerasa is at! What kind of farmer/herder would stand around and wait for his pigs to run 30 miles to drown themselves in a lake and then complain about it?

Mark (and Luke) must have thought that Gerasa was within walking (running?) distance to the lake. Matthew corrects this to Gadara, but that is still six miles from the lake.

Though I don't necessarily think that Mark et. al. got their information from Philo and Josephus. There were other Jewish authors of that time (like Justus) who's works are no longer extant which might have served as a source.


I don't follow this. People can't simply make up towns for their characters/heroes to hail from? Nazareth might simply be a self-fulfilling prophecy of some sort. The current Nazareth might have been created/settled due to the popularity of the fictional Nazareth. And Jesus being "from" Nazareth is later than Mark (I think Mark 1:19 is an interpolation from whoever read Matt 21:11, as Matt is the first author to emphasize that Jesus was "from" Nazareth to fulfill some spurious prophecy) since he only uses the word "Nazarene" which doesn't seem to derive from Nazareth.

ApostateAbe

So what effect do you think that the fact of inaccurate information in the gospels has on the argument that: the gospels contain accurate information of the social environment of Jesus, ergo the accounts of Jesus, his family and his disciples are likewise expected to be accurate? If you were arguing with conservative Christians, they may find that fact to be troublesome. But, since you are arguing with a model that accepts that the gospels contain both accurate history and inaccurate myth, then the fact seems a bit irrelevant. The accurate portions of the gospels seem to have hefty significance. If the synoptic gospels got the social environment of Jesus correct, then they would be expected to get the family and disciples of Jesus correct, and the inaccurate portions of the gospels seem to have little or no bearing on the argument. We know that the Apostle Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, are part of the accurate portion, because the names are corroborated in Paul's letter to the Galatians. How do you explain the accurate portions of the gospels? A substantial theory of Jesus seems to require it.
Anything is possible. But what matters is probability, and it is vastly improbable that Nazareth was founded as a self-fulfilling prophecy, because we have no other example of such a thing happening in history, and it is far more likely that Nazareth existed at the time it was cited by the gospels. Because of that, it is evidence that the gospels contain information that was not contained in the writings of Josephus nor Philo. Yeah, maybe it was contained in the writings of Justus, but, again, unlikely. A competitive theory needs evidence, not possibility.

spin

Where did you get this theory that there is accurate information in the substance of the gospels and on what evidence is it based?

Interesting that you are back here, knowing that there are great problems in assuming that Peter was mentioned by Paul and that the reference to James the brother of the lord refers to a sibling of Jesus. Assumption is not a good source to build an argument on. So you are still apparently talking rot.

And wow you've got a great range of accuracy in the literature: Galatians mentions Jesus's brother James and Peter! Let's forget that this is assumption and wonder just how remarkable your claim is. Not much to wonder, is there?

You need to demonstrate accurate portions of the gospels and you've had plenty of time to do so since you've been waving the historical Jesus flag, but you have constantly failed to provide any substance.

I guess that includes the modern state of Israel.

That in no way adds to the veracity of the gospel information. You must do better than this. So far you've got nothing.

Any theory needs evidence and you are so empty-handed, you spend your time trying to show where others are lacking in order to hide your deficiency. Negation of one theory doesn't validate another. You have to demonstrate your theory.

As a banner boy for Jesus historicism, you're flagging.


spin

ApostateAbe

"Where did you get this theory that there is accurate information in the substance of the gospels and on what evidence is it based?"

Both Philo and Josephus describe the society and politics of Jerusalem and the surrounding area, and many bits of fact match what is mentioned in the synoptic gospels, such as Pontius Pilate, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the Passover, the valley of Hinnom and the temple.

"Interesting that you are back here, knowing that there are great problems in assuming that Peter was mentioned by Paul and that the reference to James the brother of the lord refers to a sibling of Jesus. Assumption is not a good source to build an argument on. So you are still apparently talking rot."

Ad hoc explanations can be made for both Peter and James in Paul's letter to the Galatians, but, like I keep saying, what really matters are evidence and probability, because unlikely ad hoc explanations can make any weird theory consistent. My arguments are often stated with no regard for the various unlikely explanations that advocates of JM have put on the table, or else I would have to repeat myself even more.

"I guess that includes the modern state of Israel. "

That is an excellent point, and I don't wish to dismiss it as unreasonable, because it is a very good counterexample. If Israel can be re-founded (not founded) as a self-fulfilling prophecy, then maybe Nazareth in Galilee could have likewise been founded only after the Christian fiction of Nazareth in Galilee. I am afraid it remains only a possibility, and the theory that Nazareth existed when the gospels cited it remains much more probable, but at least that is progress.

spin

And the Satyricon mentions Augustus and Tiberius as well as known locations in various parts of Italy. Will you argue that the Satyricon contains accurate information in the substance of the gospels? We are not interested in the frills, but the substance.

Labeling something as ad hoc doesn't change the fact that you are both overinterpreting data in order to claim to know more than that data betrays and overlooking the evidence that some of the data is not consistent with the context where it is found. That you are blatantly giving ad hoc responses doesn't help your plea here.

(In your parenthesis, you are confusing the theoretical Israel of the bible with the historical kingdom based on Samaria. The former is a literary creation and is the basis of modern Israel.)

I personally don't support any notion of Nazareth not existing when the gospels started talking about Nazareth. I merely indicated that you were working on an overgeneralization. However, any claims of the relevance of Nazareth to the origins of Jesus are simply misguided and not cognizant of the biblical data. The earliest evidence we have -- from the gospel of Mark -- is that the home of Jesus was believed to be Capernaum, a belief that both the Matthew and Luke traditions had to deal with, though differently, the Matthean tradition accepting it and manipulating it, while the Lucan tradition rejected it and reorganized to discount it.


spin

ApostateAbe

And the Satyricon mentions Augustus and Tiberius as well as known locations in various parts of Italy. Will you argue that the Satyricon contains accurate information in the substance of the gospels? We are not interested in the frills, but the substance.

OK, I don't know much about the Satyricon, but the answer is yes, the Satyricon contains accurate information in the substance of the gospels, though I wouldn't carry the analogy too far. What do you take to be "frills"?

(In your parenthesis, you are confusing the theoretical Israel of the bible with the historical kingdom based on Samaria. The former is a literary creation and is the basis of modern Israel.)

OK, maybe I don't understand what you mean. You seem to be saying that the Israel of the Bible is only a literary creation. Can you clarify? Sorry.

I personally don't support any notion of Nazareth not existing when the gospels started talking about Nazareth. I merely indicated that you were working on an overgeneralization. However, any claims of the relevance of Nazareth to the origins of Jesus are simply misguided and not cognizant of the biblical data. The earliest evidence we have -- from the gospel of Mark -- is that the home of Jesus was believed to be Capernaum, a belief that both the Matthew and Luke traditions had to deal with, though differently, the Matthean tradition accepting it and manipulating it, while the Lucan tradition rejected it and reorganized to discount it.

My argument is that the synoptic gospels name and locate Nazareth in Galilee, a place which was not known by either Josephus or Philo, so it is more unlikely that the synoptic gospels used Josephus or Philo as a source, and apparently the synoptic gospels got some things right.