spin

Sorry, I think my original statement was misleading in that I cited too much of the original statement. It should have read something like

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 it's narrative?

Frills are things that are not in themselves the body of the discourse/narrative. The argument is that accurate information is not indicative of anything about the work as a whole unless it involves the substance of the work.

The bible portrays a past that doesn't seem to reflect reality, ie a unified Israel and Judah. The claims about this unified kingdom based on Jerusalem and reaching the Euphrates in the 10th c. BCE are patently wrong. Jerusalem was not an important center in the 10th c. BCE. In fact Judah doesn't appear in history until a few centuries later, when it started paying tribute to the Assyrians, apparently gaining power in the vacuum caused by Samaria's difficulties with Assyria. Israel in the meantime had been sending out trading caravans through the area of Judah as though it didn't exist and there is at least one trading post set up in the far south that was Samarian. Biblical Israel does not represent any known reality, but a conflation of two separate entities.

The issue has been discussed in Philip R. Davies' seminal work, In Search of "Ancient Israel".

Aren't you still talking about frills? I have already argued on this forum that Nazareth is not a part of the gospel tradition, but appeared after the finish of Mark (despite the current state of Mk 1:9). None of the synoptics show knowledge of the place where the others do. Hence whether Nazareth existed or not is irrelevant to the original Jesus stories. I've said elsewhere that I'd say that a Nazareth probably existed, as it explains why the linguistically understandable Nazara was changed to Nazareth. That makes Nazareth at least third generation in gospel development.


spin

jakejonesiv

That establishes a date of ca. 180 CE, not 150 CE. You have not demonstrated a "canon" before Marcion, and the proto-orthodox canon was arguably a redaction and reaction to his.

Jake

jakejonesiv

Just to follow up, other alleged historical markers for Paul are also weak. The trial of Paul in front of Gallio (Acts 18) is pure fiction, a story of religous propaganda. It is ludicrous to believe that the Jews rose up together in concerted action and seized Paul and brought him in front of a Roman proconsul with the charge "this man is inducing people to worship God contrary to the [Jewish] law! The details of the tale are entirely spurious. Of course, this doesn't prevent Pauline historicsts from asserting that the "trial" really happened anyway (details be damned) and working out elaborate timelines of Paul's alleged life based on the premise.

Jake Jones IV

ApostateAbe

OK, thank you for explaining that to me, it is interesting. I looked up Philip R. Davies in Wikipedia, and it says that he is a "minimalist," so I looked up that, and "minimalism" is also known as "The Copenhagen School" of biblical exegesis, which holds that, "archaeology should be used for reconstructing history, and the Bible has no value for that." I sense that you are something like a minimalist, though not completely, because, though you think "Nazareth" is a mistranslation or whatever, it would have the potential of describing history if only it were not a mistranslation. But you seem to lean toward minimalism, which may be why you think "substance," the main narrative, is the only important stuff, and "frills" are not important at all.

As you know, my perspective is drawn largely from Ehrman, and he seems to place tremendous importance on "frills," because, to him, the background information, the things said in passing, the choices of words and names irrelevant to the argument, the data revealed on the side with disinterest or distraction or reluctance--those are the points that are most likely to be historically accurate. Whereas, what you call the "substance," the main points of argument, the points that the writer would love the reader to believe, typically the central points of the narrative--those things are the most affected by the prejudices of the authors. To me, Ehrman's method seems to make a lot sense.

Do you have criticisms of that way of thinking? And did I get your perspective right or wrong?

spin

If being "minimalist" means attempting to reduce the amount of assumptions one makes about the past, then I am certainly that.

Certainly not a mistranslation, but a form that needs explaining. There is a simple if apparent relationship between nazarhnos (mentioned several times in Mark) and nazara (mentioned in both Matt and Luke). That's natural, as the two use Mark, so nazarhnos probably existed in the tradition before nazara. Nazareth, which is the winning form comes along later (just purely on the grounds of lectio difficilior nazara was the original reading). The easiest way to explain both nazara and Nazareth is because on research a town called Nasareth (as the Greek form should be) was found to exist and nazara wasn't, so the two forms were combined as a natural organic solution .

One should talk about horses for course. Frills can be important, especially to text scholars (as Ehrman is), but we are trying to deal with history contained in the substance of texts, not in the frills. There is no problem in say an ancient fictional work talking of Augustus and the bulk still being fictional. Encolpius and Ascyltos remain outside the realm of history despite Crotona existing.

How would you go about showing the historicity of Encolpius?

Strangely enough, Ehrman is working in a different time and area of history from us. He is dealing with the history of the text and its relationship with the developing and at times divergent beliefs of the growing religion. When he talks about Jesus per se, he is actually only talking about the earliest traditions of Jesus. The history of the text is not the historicity of its contents. One cannot simple hope to remove all the encrustations and hope to find the reality beneath. There is no way to know when encrustations end. Ultimately, you need ancient historical indications for the central figures of the text, for those figures to be considered historical. Nothing else will suffice. It is that simple and that strict.


spin

PhilosopherJay

Hi jakejonesiv and DCH,

Irenaeus is only dated to 180 based on the writings of Eusebius. Eusebius is creating a mythological history of a church that never existed. There is no reason to accept the date of 180 for Irenaeus, based on the word of Eusebius.

Since there is no internal evidence in Against Heresies to date the work Against Heresies and Tertullian mentions the same heresies as Irenaeus, should we not date the work to the first decade of the Third century when Tertullian's work is dated. The alternative is to believe that not a single heresy arose between 180 and 200.

This is an example of how the fictions of Eusebius still determine what we believe about Christian history.

One should ask, beside the evidence of Eusebius, what is the reason to date Against Heresies to 180 rather than 190 or 200 or 210?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

So, there is no reason to accept the dates of the Pauline writings.

But, how was Tertullian's work dated to the early third century.

Since, Tertullian contain many of the same errors as Irenaeus then it is likely that they were all written around the same time.

It is hardly like that Tertullian and Irenaeus could have INDEPENDENTLY made the same errors about a non-existing early church.

It would appear to me that writings under the name Tertullian and Irenaeus were written at about the time Church History was written by the so-called Eusebius.

Eusebius NEEDED a source for his mythological church. And Eusebius, by some stroke of luck, found the writings of Irenaeus with every detail that he desired for his mythological church.

Irenaeus was too good to be true.

Or even later. Irenaeus was definitely NEEDED for the fictions of Eusebius' Church History.

DCHindley

I thought the question before you and I was when the NT was published. I cited David Trobisch proposing Polycarp and a certain Crescans. Polycarp is said to have died in either 155 or possibly 166 CE, and his Martyrdom has him claim to be 86 at that time, giving a birth between 69 and 80 CE. Figure he probably published no earlier than age 20-40 (89-109, or 100-120 CE).

Marcion's "canon" of the gospel of Luke and 10 Pauline letters was likely published after 142/143 CE, and before his death sometime between 155 & 165 CE.

If the NT canon was published in reaction to Marcion's, it was published between 142 and 165 CE. The median is 153-154 CE.

If the NT was published 1st, and Marcion's canon was a reaction to it, then the date of publication was between 89 and 165. I am leaning to the latter end of that date range. We only know that Irenaeus seemed to use it in 180. How long does it take to travel from Smyrna in Asia Minor (near Ephesus) to Lugdunum in Gaul (in the heart of Europe), a distance of 1,200+ miles as the crow flies, and be well known enough there for Irenaeus to cite it without any need of explanation? Lets say 30 years, bringing the date back to 150 CE.

What's the problem?

DCH

Clivedurdle

Or it might have only been a month or so.

Remember the Roman Empire was dependent on moving huge amounts of grain around, moving a few scrolls and nutty religionists around is the equivalent of spreading an infection worldwide on a jetliner now.

DCHindley

Oh, I don't know about that. The only long distance movment of grain was by sea or navigable waterways, not land. No one moved grain overland more than 75 miles in those days.

True, Lugdunum was the administrative center for military operations in Gaul and Germany, and I have to suppose trade existed along with movement of troops. The fast track for travel would be with Rome. Both Germanicus (Caligula's daddy) and Claudius were born there.

However, you won't find too many direct roads between Smyrna (not labeled here, but near Ephesus) and Lugdunum.


Map above is ca 125 CE.

DCH