The Gospels Were Not Published Until c.150

[Kapyong]

Gday Ben C. Smith and all

Kapyong, unless you referred to the wrong post by mistake (page 13, first post), you have misrepresented Ted here. Ted made no claim about Aristides basing his challenge of the gospel upon his own memory of events a century earlier. You added that part, and Ted is not to blame for disowning the result.

Thanks for your feed-back.

I thought the 'from his own memory' was clearly implied, having already been mentioned, as the only way a Gospel COULD be denied as non-historical. But conceivably there ARE other ways. I will think that over, consider TedM's response, and obviously apologise if I stuffed up


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday Secret Alias and all

I don't see how kapyong can argue that the evidence supports a 150 CE publication date. It's a stupid theory.

Thanks for using my name Almost correctly too.

Actually,
I agree with your argument that the Gospels were secret, not publically available, until (just before presumably) Justin.

We gave up the ambiguous word 'publication' pages ago


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

to Kapyong,
On Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:32 am, you posted: "Papias 100-130 knows rumours of two Gospel-like writings"
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2696&start=150#p60464

Then on Thu Oct 27, 2016 2:02 am, that is 30 minutes later, you posted: "Papias 100-130 is aware of two Gospel-like writings"
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2696&start=150#p60466

Did you make a correction?

Cordially, Bernard

Yes.

[Kapyong]

Gday Bernard Muller and all

The evidence shows that NO-ONE apart from Papias knew any names of authors before Justin.

Ptolemy (140-160), possibly before Justin, attributed gJohn to a "John, disciple of the Lord" and quoted extensively the beginning of gJohn http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ptolemy.html.
Also in his letter to Flora http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/flora.html, he provided quotes from gMatthew, gJohn and the Pauline epistles.
Cordially, Bernard

Yes, Ptolemy is a possible, but considering his date 140-160, with Justin c.150, it didn't seem significant.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday Bernard Muller and all

But Justin Martyr clearly had direct personal access to several Gospels (fact.)
He was the first Christian writer on record to do so (fact.)

to Kapyong,No, there is no evidence for that. Other Christian writers were most likely to have access to one or several gospels:
Here is a list of potential candidates, who were dealing in their writings with material which appears in the gospels, before Justin:
"Luke", "Matthew", "John", "Q", "Clement", "Barnabas", Didache, Revelation, Cerinthus, Papias, Aristides, Quadratus, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, "Ignatius", Polycarp, the secret book of James, Epistula Apostolorum.

Justin Martyr DID have access to them, for sure and certain - he obviously had his hands on them.
But
'Other Christian writers were most likely to'
is just, like, your opinion only, y'know ?


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all

Phew !
I FINALLY reached the end of the thread !

What an interesting and challenging and stimulating experience. I have been answering posts here on this thread now for seven days straight. Check the times on this post and the OP

I'm off to do something else for a while ...


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday GakuseiDon and all

So, in terms of whether this Gospel {Aristides'} has been 'published', or is 'available to Christians to read and quote from' ? ...
It's another tantalising MAYBE.

Not a 'maybe' in my opinion. The Gospel is available as a single private copy owned by a local scholar? What's the point of asking Hadrian to read them if the author thought it was hidden away as a private copy owned by a local scholar? I'd suggest that, if that was the case, the author might like to have informed Hadrian where that was. I'd make it more like 'probably available to the public' rather than a 'maybe'. ...
Certainly Aristides himself passes himself off as a pagan philosopher who came to be converted to Christianity from reading the writings of Christians.

Fair point But Bernard Muller pointed out that it may not be literally directed at the Emperor (or 'King'), but presumably to the educated and elite instead ?

Anyway, upon reflection, I agree with your analysis, and will summarise him like so -

• Aristides 120-130 (or 140) knew of a book called a 'Gospel', otherwise un-named, mentioning a virgin, which was probably available to the public.

Aristides seems to be acknowledging the short existence of the Christians, as compared to the other three races.

Maybe I probably won't get famous as the discoverer of the T.A.

I suspect that by 'gospel' he means the good news of the story of Christ, rather than a particular written document.

I don't agree there. He says the reader may 'read there-in', refering to the Gospel. Seems like a fairly clear reference to a single written un-named Gospel, with some details we recognise e.g. a virgin.

So, here is my Friday night list :

According to our extant manuscript record -

• Gospels 70-100 first written.
• Didakhe et al 70-150 mention some Gospel details, but show no clear access to Gospels.
• Papias 100-130 is aware of the origins of two Gospel-like writings - by Mark (from Peter), and Matthew.
• Aristides 120-130 (or 140) knew of a book called a 'Gospel', otherwise un-named, mentioning a virgin, which was probably available to the public.
• Justin Martyr c.150 - has several books 'called Gospels', the memoirs of the Apostles, and the memoir(s) of Peter.
• Justin Martyr dies c.163 - his pupil Tatian probably inherits the books.
• Tatian c.172 - possibly produces the 'FromFour' Gospel harmony, but mentions no authors' names.
• Irenaeus 180-190 - first to name all four Gospels.

Kapyong

[GakuseiDon]

I suspect that by 'gospel' he means the good news of the story of Christ, rather than a particular written document.

I don't agree there. He says the reader may 'read there-in', refering to the Gospel. Seems like a fairly clear reference to a single written un-named Gospel, with some details we recognise e.g. a virgin.

Well, here I am going way beyond the limits of my knowledge; in other words, buyer beware! Just relooking at the sense of the entire passage:

• The Jews, again, trace the origin of their race from Abraham, who begat Isaac, of whom was born Jacob. And he begat twelve sons who migrated from Syria to Egypt; and there they were called the nation of the Hebrews, by him who made their laws; and at length they were named Jews.
  
  The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

I wonder if what the author means is: Christ was born of a Hebrew virgin, was crucified and ascended to heaven, etc, as taught in the gospel "which a short time was preached among them", with 'them' being the Hebrews. So for a short time the gospel message was preached to the Jews (and then rejected). Afterwards, the twelve disciples took the religion throughout the world. This would be consistent with what we see in early Christian writings.

Anyone with better language skills than mine have any thoughts on this? If I am on the right track, this has undoubtedly been suggested before. It doesn't resolve the issue of the meaning of 'gospel', but it does resolve what the confusing "a short time was preached among them" means.

[Ben C. Smith]

Gday Ben C. Smith and all

Kapyong, unless you referred to the wrong post by mistake (page 13, first post), you have misrepresented Ted here. Ted made no claim about Aristides basing his challenge of the gospel upon his own memory of events a century earlier. You added that part, and Ted is not to blame for disowning the result.

Thanks for your feed-back.

I thought the 'from his own memory' was clearly implied, having already been mentioned, as the only way a Gospel COULD be denied as non-historical. But conceivably there ARE other ways. I will think that over, consider TedM's response, and obviously apologise if I stuffed up

The relevant line, again, was:

People certainly could have challenged the Gospels as not historical prior to Justin.

Ted can obviously speak for himself here if he so chooses, but he has also said that he is busy with other matters. For my part, challenging the historical accuracy of the gospels does not require personal memory of the events related therein. Even now, nearly two millennia later, people are still challenging the historical accuracy of the gospels. Celsus challenged it, as well, as did Porphyry; neither of them relied upon personal memory.

So it is possible that you and Ted had very different conceptions either of what "historical" means or of what "challenging" means, or both. But I feel pretty certain, in any case, that Ted's conception does not involve people living to more than a century of age and remembering back.

[Secret Alias]

Kapyong

I realize that people have busy lives but the manner in which you have behaved in the thread makes it appear at least as if you only had an interest in one outcome and when that outcome was demonstrated to be less than likely it seemed as if you left the discussion. Most of the better participants in this discussion group have no horse in the race. We come almost on a daily basis to the forum to see where the evidence leads. This doesn't mean that all the participants are 'believers' or people 'struggling' with issues. As Ben noted there just isn't enough information to make definitive conclusions with any great detail about early Christianity. Keep that in mind the next time you demonstrate you are only interested in certain outcomes from your research.