Bernard Muller

Iason wrote:
"...and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it."

I am very much doubting Aristides did address the emperor (around 125), despite the pretences. The apology looks more like a Christian tract circulated among Christians and potential converts rather than a personnal letter to Caesar.
That's why we know about it, in Greek & Syriac, with obviously interpolations to fix "problems" and adapt it to changing times.
If the apology had been addressed only to the emperor, it would have gone in some emperial waste basket, and nobody would know about it.
What is strange about your quote, is that there is no indication the "Gospel" is being sent to the emperor with the apology, which would make a lot of sense. Instead we have, as implied, find that Gospel yourself!
So the Gospel here is more likely thought as an ideal written gospel. Having more than one gospel then, possibly a good half dozen, with all kinds of conflicts & differences was an embarrassment and a Christian writer was likely to use 'gospel' singular.

Gospel of the Ebionites:
“...the Gospel (so-called), current among them..."

Where does that come from? Irenaeus, Eusebius? Indicate the origin of your quote next time.
In any case, that proves a particular written specific gospel can be addressed as "the gospel", rather than be given a name, even towards the end of the 2nd century if not later.

Justin Martyr :
“...in the so-called Gospel”

I think your quote is put by Justin in the mouth of Trypho, and therefore the expression is understandable in that context:
Trypho X "Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them."

Justin Martyr also used 'gospels' plural, also called 'memoirs of the apostles' when quoting passages which are found in GMark, GMatthew or GLuke.
1Apology LXVI "For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them;"

Here we see 3 authors, mid 2nd century, use this phrase - which seems to indicate the term "Gospel", as a written work, is new in that time.

The Didache, minus the Christian additions, refers also to a written "gospel" (ch. 11: "act according to the decree of the Gospel") which is very much drawn from GMatthew (likely a subset of it). That Didache was written around 95.

Also, one Ignatian letter, 'to the Smyrnaeans', has gospel material drawn from GLuke (& embellished) and possibly GJohn (& 'Acts'); and also mentions 'gospel' as a written text. I dated this letter 125-145.

Here are extracts:
'To the Smyrnaeans':
"But certain persons ignorantly deny Him, ... and they have not been persuaded by the prophecies nor by the law of Moses, nay nor even to this very hour by the Gospel ..." (5:1)
"... but should give heed to the Prophets, and especially to the Gospel, wherein the passion is shown unto us and the resurrection is accomplished ..." (7:2)
"... He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptized by John ... truly nailed [Jn20:25 & only here] up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch [Lk3:1,19 & only here] ..." (1:1-2)
The next quote paraphrases a passage of GLuke (24:36-39):
"... He was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body ..." (3:2)


I understand you disagree that the Gospels were originally anonymous - I thought this was largely settled:

Yes the gospels were not named then, and not sacred either, with writers using them as material quoted approximately, sometimes referring to them under the umbrella word of 'the gospel'. And to make things more complicated, 'gospel' was also used as "good news" or more generally 'Christian message' (as in Paul's epistles and in the next quote). It took some time for gospels to mean (a genre) of Christian writings.

... the passage is found on p.4 ll.1-2 of Harris' Syriac edition, and he translates as:
'This is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken among them as being preached'.

Here the "Gospel" appears as 'Christian message', but immediately next, it will become a written text. That's very fluid!

In the first part of the second century, a Christian writer would not want to say that the good news were first preached long ago, because the Kingdom was still supposed to happen soon after the crucifixion. And Aristides was still thinking about the Day:
"So shall they appear before the awful judgment which through Jesus the Messiah is destined to come upon the whole human race." (note: sounds like a threat: not something to say to a pagan emperor!)
So it was good policy to invoke "little time", even if the lapse was almost one century by then. That's what I think.

As in 'Hebrews':
Heb10:35-37 "So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. For in just a very little while, "He who is coming will come and will not delay.""
Aristides could not imply the author of 'Hebrews' was wrong !!!

Best regards, Bernard

Roger Pearse

Always good to talk to you.

I agree that some written text must be suggested here.

No, because Marcion was a heretic, not a member of the church. Aristides was not a Marcionite.

Isn't Aristides a bit early, anyway?

I remember.

This might work, but at this point in the sentence, Aristides is referring to something that can be preached/proclaimed -- that to me must be 'gospel-as message' rather than 'gospel-as-book'.

Consequently, whatever is meant by 'read therein', I don't see that we can be very confident what is meant. The meaning of 'gospel' is shifting in the sentence (or so I read it).

If he had four gospels, he might well just refer to 'the gospel' (message) and then 'read therein'. If he had only one, possibly your point would have weight; however, we must remember that he is addressing a pagan emperor, and the last thing he wants to do is suggest that there are other possible forms of the Christian message.

Well, I'd want to research it, but surely all that is required is that the pagan audience be unsure?

It may be consensus among NT scholars for all I know -- I hope they haven't been that daft, but the profession is capable of anything -- but it certainly is not what the data before us says, all the same. Whenever the gospels are identified, they are identified by the names we know.

We have a standard of comparison: Hebrews was anonymous in its transmission in that period. How do we know? we can tell this, because patristic writers give a variety of authors ascribed to it. No such evidence appears for the gospels.

Sanders is unknown to me, but doesn't seem to see the non sequitur in that quote. Is every work referred to without a citation anonymous, then? Is use without a citation evidence of anonymity, and how do we know? Is the Iliad anonymous in authors of the second century AD, then?

It is remarkable what these intelligent men can be led to assert, without knowing whether it is true or not.

I understand now, tho, why you thought this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yuri Kuchinsky

So here we have one example of Roger declaring (or at least implying strongly) that mainstream scholars are "daft" without actually having read them!

Quote:

but doesn't seem to see the non sequitur in that quote. Is every work referred to without a citation anonymous, then? Is use without a citation evidence of anonymity, and how do we know? Is the Iliad anonymous in authors of the second century AD, then? It is remarkable what these intelligent men can be led to assert, without knowing whether it is true or not. I understand now, tho, why you thought this. All the best, Roger Pearse

All the best,

Yuri.

Roger Pearse

<smile> Actually I was responding to the snippets presented to me, as evidence.

I realise you are joking, but I'm not sure I shouldn't say something in response here.

From time to time I do run across the arguments of NT scholars, although I don't go out of my way to look for them. The reason, simply, is that like most intelligent people, I apply certain questions to all I read -- simple questions like, 'how do I know this is true', 'on what ancient data is this based', 'does this work if we do the same for other documents of the period,' etc.

Whenever I have a book from NT scholarship before me, a lot of the time I find myself growing impatient of the evident failure to answer these basic questions, or willingness to assert matters for which there is no data in the historical record.

This does not produce respect in the reader for the discipline. Indeed my own degree is in Chemistry, and it was not until I came across T.D.Barnes' book "Tertullian" that I came to have much respect for the humanities as a group (wrongly -- but browse some of the things they produce, speculation dressed as fact, etc -- and see how you feel).

When one knows -- as we both do -- that the discipline was able to manufacture a consensus that the gospels were to be dated to ca. 170, a consensus for which not the smallest evidence existed, then I feel no compunction in saying that the profession is capable of being daft. So, indeed, is every politicised discipline with a static data base. The statements made about anonymous gospels sound like a good example, if true.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yuri Kuchinsky

OK, so let's just agree then that the NT scholars are daft. At least we agree on something...

Yuri.

Roger Pearse

That much I think we can agree on.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Iasion

Greetings all,

Thanks for your replies gentlemen, probably the best conclusion from all this is that Quentin is an amateur who is out of his depth :-)

One thing I am really struggling with is the the conflict between :
* the fallacy of argument from authority
vs
* the scholarly principle of building on the work of predecessors
Tricky.

Well, I'd agree its a pretense, or more properly a literary device of the times - addressing it the Caesar of the day as a convention.
Well, David from Syriac list seemed sure it was from the time of Antoninus Pius, making it 138-161 (with "Hadrianus" being a title adopted from his predecessor, not the earlier emperor himself).

Was he wrong on that issue?

Hmm .. that does seem reasonable.

This does indeed seem to refer to a written (proto)Gospel, but isn't the dating still rather uncertain for this document?

I agree that Ignatius is late and forged, and I'd say the writer was aware of (proto)Gospel material, even if he didn't have it in front of him.

Hmm .. I find it hard to agree a century could be seen as a "little time", even allowing for the problem of the end times - I'd like to see more details about the Syriac word translated as "preached/proclaimed".

Aristides could mean the recent change from early, informal gospel meaning "message" to later written "Gospel" which was then "proclaimed" as the official version - c.f. G.Luke which mentions previous accounts as inspiring him to put pen to paper (presumably to write the definitive version.)

I think I'll start a new thread on this vexed question.

regards,
Iasion

Iasion

Greetings Bernard,

Sorry -
from Peter Kirby,
from M.R.James,
from Epiphanius.

Iasion

Roger Pearse

Epiphanius, Panarion, section 30, 16:5. '[5] As their so-called gospel says, "I came to abolish the sacrifices..."' (Tr. Williams, vol. 1, p.132).

This gospel is firmly identified by Epiphanius as a recension of Matthew:

[3:7] "They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. ... they too use it alone. They call it 'According to the Hebrews' and it is true to say that only Matthew put the setting forth and the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament in the Hebrew language and alphabet."

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Well, I too am just an amateur, and only know about whatever has crossed my path.

It is, isn't it? I haven't a simple solution to offer. Myself, I am willing to accept an authority on something non-controversial. For matters where political or religious interest may enter in, I would always want to verify whatever was involved.

The title of the Syriac text addresses Antoninus, but Eusebius tells us it was directed to Hadrian, the apology seems to be generally regarded as the first extant Christian apology (150 would be contemporary with Justin), and I find in Altaner's Patrology that 'internal evidence' (unspecified!) favours the earlier date (pre 138).

I don't know, actually!

Is there any reason to suppose Smyrneans late or forged?

I think it was an ancient perception, tho, and probably a pagan argument against the Christians. I wish I could remember Christian apologetic elsewhere on this one -- I vaguely recall the same idea present in later apologists. Probably Tertullian says something along these lines.

All the best,

Roger Pearse