The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

[TedM]

Kapyong, which of the writings after the gospels were written but before Justin might one reasonably expect to have mentioned one or more of the gospels had they been known to the authors of those writings, and why or where would you expect them to be mentioned? Sometimes what looks like a powerful argument - ie NOBODY mentioned XYZ, is not as strong when we look at each of them one by one.

[MrMacSon]

Gday MrMacSon and all

Greetings all,

Considering the early Christian writings, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the Gospels were not published until c.150.

While I agree the Gospels were probably WRITTEN c.70 - c.100, their authors and origins are unknown, and they remained hidden and private. They were not available to other Christians until Justin Martyr had his hands on them c.150 ...

Someone Knew the Gospels
Yes, the authors knew them, and probably their immediate circle knew them. But they were hidden and unknown - NOT PUBLISHED.

Hi Kapyong, I think you have a problem [Houston] -

If the gospels were not available to 'other Christians', how could there be other Christians??

• ie. if people hadn't seen or heard the key or core Christian messages, how could they be Christians??

Well, there were certainly Christians before the Gospels, such as Paul.

Yes, I somewhat ignored Paul. Though I'm not sure he was as Christian as we are led to believe, or that he was spreading the 'Good' word of Jesus-based Christianity. I think he was likely to have been a Gnostic or Docetic who was later 'Christianized'.


This is interesting -

All the books I listed are considered Christian, yet show no knowledge of the Gospels, or their particular contents.

Consider Hebrews, a pre-Gospel Christian writing which has a rather heavenly view of Jesus Christ :

• 4:14 ' Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession ... '
  
  8:1 'Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven...'
  
  8:4 'Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. '

Jesus 'passed through the heavens' ? And 'if he were on earth' ? No suggestion there he ever was on earth. Some ambiguous passages do suggest a physical life on earth :

• 2:9 ' But we see him - who, for a little while - was 'made' lower than the angels, namely Jesus... '
  
  5:7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence ...'
  
  12:2 'looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who, for 'the joy' that 'was set before him', endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.'

What strange phrases - how much 'lower than the angels' ? How odd 'the days of his flesh ' (sometimes even mangled into 'the days of Jesus' life on earth ' e.g. the dubious NIV.) There is mention of death and suffering and 'enduring the cross', without the slightest hint of anything historical on earth - no dates, places, names, no empty tomb, no trial.

" ..for 'the joy' that 'was set before him' .." is particularly interesting.

.

[MrMacSon]

• Gday MrMacSon and all
  
  • < ... Snip ... >

Before Justin Martyr received four books, no Christian writer on record had his hands on a Gospel.
.

Note what Ben Smith wrote subsequently (in this thread, p.2) -

To be clear, Justin does not claim to be using a harmony ... That Justin used a gospel harmony is a scholarly reconstruction based upon his citations of materials parallel to the gospels, especially Matthew and Luke.
.

eta: Ben then wrote this in a subsequent post, in response to Secret Huller -

I am actually in favor of the notion that Justin used a harmony of some kind. Or, at least, I have nothing against the idea ... the record is clear that this proposition is an inference, not an actual claim from antiquity ..

Huller's alias had written -

[That Justin used a gospel harmony is] a logical inference for open-minded people, given that his student Tatian was intimately associated with a 'harmony.' I know scholars distinguish between the two harmonies but, as Crawford notes, those who used this 'Tatian harmony' simply referred to it as 'the gospel' and, we may infer, had no means of distinguishing it from 'the gospel' of Tatian's tradition (i.e. the tradition of Justin).

The fact that few (rather than 'no') Johannine elements are found in Justin* does not exclude a relationship between the two harmonies. One, and perhaps the most obvious after the discovery of Mar Saba 65, is that the Johannine elements were only present in the 'secret' version of the gospel. It might also explain many of the odd statements (the plural form) that Justin uses occasionally to speak of the gospels.

To fully represent Ben, he says, in between my [cheerily] cherry-picked passages, that he is "relying upon those who have done the spadework, until I can do that work for myself. But as soon as I make sure, for no other purpose than pinpoint accuracy in our argumentation, the record is clear that this proposition is an inference, not an actual claim from antiquity".


* "The fact that few ... Johannine elements are found in Justin" might have implications for independence and [late] timing of the Johannine texts(?)

.

[MrMacSon]

.
These points are very pertinent to clarifying early Christian history -

Even then, some Christian writers did NOT include Jesus Christ in their version of Christianity :

A letter from Mathetes To Diognetus c.140 has plenty to say about the Word, the Son of God, but no mention they had anything to do with a Jesus Christ, who is never mentioned.

Minucius Felix' Octavius c.150 describes a Christianity without any Jesus Christ, and even seems to reject the Gospel stories by insisting Christians do NOT worship a 'criminal crucified on a cross'.

Tatian c.160 (just before his mentor Justin Martyr died c.163) wrote an 'Address to the Greeks' describing Christian beliefs in terms of the Logos, the first-born Son of God - without mentioning Jesus Christ.

Athenagoras c.170 wrote a Plea for the Christians which says much about the Logos, the Son of God, but nothing of Jesus Christ. Athenagoras even wrote a lengthy work 'On the Resurrection' in which he discusses Christian beliefs about resurrection - without ever once mentioning Jesus Christ or his resurrection.

[MrMacSon]

I think it is important to note, and I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this, that Eusebius' chronology appears to date Papias to the late first century....

Eusebius writes in the Chronicle:

Irenaeus and others report that John the theologian and apostle remained in life until the times of Trajan, after which his ear-witnesses Papias the Heirapolitan and Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, became known.

And he writes in History of the Church 3.34.1-3.36.2:

34.1 In the third year of the reign of the emperor, mentioned above [= Trajan], Clement committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus, and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all.

35.1 But when Symeon also had died ... a certain Jew by the name of Justus succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands of the circumcision who, 'at that time', believed in Christ.

36.1 'At that time' Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord. 2 And, 'at the same time', Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.

Trajan's third year should be about 101.

I think Eusebius is embellishing there -ie. writing (or possibly just re-writing) history. I think that, by naming Papias and Ignatius as 'bishops', he is creating the illusion that there was an established church hierarchy then. Ignatius seems to be a sock-puppet.

I think references to 'at that time' is part of the embellishment.

[GakuseiDon]

2:9 ' But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, ' 5:7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. ... 12:2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

What strange phrases - how much 'lower than the angels' ? How odd 'the days of his flesh

"Lower than the angels" is probably a reference to Psalm 8.5:

• 4 What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?
  5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

In other words, Jesus is a man.

Minucius Felix' Octavius c.150 describes a Christianity without any Jesus Christ, and even seems to reject the Gospel stories by insisting Christians do NOT worship a 'criminal crucified on a cross'.

Christians don't worship a criminal crucified on a cross. For in that you attribute to Christians the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man.

[Kapyong]

Gday Secret Alias and all:)

But K don't you think that if you are (a) an atheist who (b) embraces radical positions like the gospels did {not} exist until the latest possible date (or first attestation of their existence) that (b) might be prompted by (a)? I mean really.

Well,
a) I am not an atheist (but why should it matter ?)
b) I am not embracing the radical position that the Gospels did not exist until c.150.

Perhaps you skimmed over my OP in a hurry ?

My argument is that they were not PUBLISHED until c.150, based on the evidence.

The first girl I ever dated was Jewish and overweight. That's a fact. I never mention her much or think about her much because quite frankly it was something of an embarrassment (not because she was overweight but because she shattered the narrative I had made for myself when I was growing up i.e. that I would have a Jewish wife). I am just saying that things are complicated. You can't just start from the assumption that the earliest attestation for something is the beginning of that something. I mean really, how many people's first sexual experience was with a member of their extended family? It's yucky but true. Ever see the Ted Danson movie Cousins? Not everything that happens in history makes it to public history. I'd say most of history up until fairly recently remained veiled in obscurity because it was private history.

So, you're claiming that early Christians would have avoided mentioning the Gospels due to embarassment similar to admitting your first sexual experience was with a 'member of their extended family' or with a fat Jewish girl ?

This is some sort of a joke, right ?


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday TedM and all

Hi Kapyong,
What do you mean by published?

Released publically for review and comment and quotation.

The writers of Luke and Matthew knew of GMark, and some say so did GJohn. There may have been other gospels written -we know of quite a few later at least, and GLuke mentioned the 'many' before it, but not mentioned either by those various books. Some of those books have no reasonable need to mention them. But why didn't GLuke, GMatthew, or GJohn mention GMark or the others?

Because they were competing versions of the story.

These works weren't written in a vaccum - there must have been knowledge of other gospels and their contents.

Yes, at least four authors knew about the Gospels. But they remained private and hidden and unknown to any Christian writer until Justin Martyr. Not published. There is no evidence of other Gospels then.

If you take the view that the 3 (or more) gospels after GMark didn't mention the others they knew about because they disagreed with parts of it, or conflicted, then perhaps that is part of the answer to a lack of widespread consensus: The likelihood that until Justin came along there were various books circulating and it was well known among the community that they conflicted with each other in some ways - some of which may have been considered very serious. What do you do with that problem? You try to form some kind of consensus - some kind of harmony.

Pardon ?
You're claiming the total silence on the Gospels was because writers knew the Gospels conflicted ?
Well -
How would anybody know they conflicted, if nobody ever discussed it ?
How would anybody know there even WERE Gospels, if no-one ever discussed it ?
How would anybody know which version anyone else supported, if no-one ever discussed it ?
Sorry, that's a ridiculous claim

There WAS a battle to form consensus - it started AFTER Justin Martyr.
After Irenaeus, there were centuries of conflict over the discrepancies which were endlessly argued over.

Perhaps it took 50 years to come up with a harmony of sorts that was agreed upon more or less, and that's why Justin is the first to reference it.

There is no evidence of that at all.
Justin Martyr did NOT receive a harmony, he received four un-named Gospels.
His pupil Tatian produced the first harmony twenty years later, called 'FromFour' (still no names.)

The evidence supports my claim :
The Gospels were not published until c.150


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday Secret Alias and all

As soon as you find yourself fixed to a conclusion too long flee from that opinion. You are mistaking comfort for true knowledge.

Hmmm...
How long have you held that opinion ?


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday gmx and all

MrMacSon & Kapyong,
I think it is important to note, and I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this, that Eusebius' chronology appears to date Papias to the late first century, not the early-mid 2nd century, and secondly, the often-repeated late dating of Papias has been challenged on the basis of confusion over the names Papylas & Papias. Any dating of Papias to the mid-100s should be accompanied with a fairly indulgent caveat.

Well, the evidence in Eusebius is not clear apparently -

• First he says Papias was around the time of Ignatius,
• but he also implies before 109.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

I see wiki says :
The work of Papias is dated by most modern scholars to about 95–120.[5][6]
Later dates were once argued from two references that now appear to be mistaken. One dating Papias' death to around the death of Polycarp in 164 is actually a mistake for Papylas. Another unreliable source in which Papias is said to refer to the reign of Hadrian (117–138) seems to have resulted from confusion between Papias and Quadratus.

I'd never heard of Papylas before either

Anyway -
even if we date Papias to 95, it doesn't change things -

Papias knew rumours of Gospel-like writings, but never saw them.


Kapyong
(This post is a bit out-of-date now, considering discussion about 101.)