Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[DougW]

I haven't followed Carrier's latest work, but I was struck by your mention of Doherty's celestial Jesus.

Gerard Bolland^WP published that idea back in the day


Off to read more

http://www.egodeath.com/BollandGospelJesus.htm

And also to see what Carrier has to say about Bolland.

Great Bolland link, pakeha.

Interesting that Bolland, similar to others, links Jesus to Joshua. As well as placing Christianity’s origin in Hellenised Alexandria, linking it naturally to Philo’s philosophies, and subsequently in Rome, with Jesus becoming a completed fact during the second century for the forming Roman church.

Jesus’ ‘Holy Land’ setting is of course mere invention or literary licence, something Doherty, Carrier and Ehrman seem to have some difficulty coming to terms with!

I Think Bolland is wrong about Matthew being the first gospel, but that’s neither here no there. He most likely means the Sayings of Christ, as falsely attributed to Matthew.

Despite mentions to the contrary, Bolland’s assumption that the Alexandrian Gospel of the Hebrews was an Aramaic production is problematic. It was certainly the second century’s most influential gospel. That latter day scholars should nonetheless locate the canonical gospels in the first century is palpably absurd! The Gospel of the Egyptians no doubt enjoys first century roots.

As Bolland points out: “For critical scholars, it must be obvious that the formation of Catholic Christianity, starting in mid second century, effected the disappearance of Gospels deemed heretical, such as that according to the Egyptians, although the heretical Gospels were part of a Christianity that predated Catholicism.”

And: “The original Christianity, of Alexandrian style, was elitist, and not fit for the ignoble masses. Thus the original version of Christianity had to be eliminated and replaced with the Roman brand of a mass religion for simple-minded people who rejoice in the world instead of escaping it as the Gnostics do. Those who originally started Christianity were subsequently declared to be public enemy.”

And: “The evidential examples for the Alexandrian-Gnostic origin of the Gospels and many other pieces of early Christian writings have now been counted by the dozen, demonstrating the real origins of Christianity.”

Yet, as Schilling comments: “Where I differ from Bolland is his non-observation of basic literary- and text-criticism work, especially in the case of the Paulines. While correctly dissociating the Pauline letters from the first century apostle of naive legends, he ignored their textual disintegrity, which was shown by Wilhelmus van Manen, Allard Pierson, and so on.”

 

[DougW]

I think perhaps the John cult came first but was unimportant to the epistolary cults, but when the 'gospel narrative' cults developed they tried to co-opt the John cult into their own story.

Is this to be understood as indicating that Jerome believed gMatthew to be composed following gLuke?

So it is your contention that the gospels emerged late in the 2nd century AD or later?

"people like Doherty and Carrier date the canonical gospels well nigh up to a century before they actually emerged, I can’t help but wonder about their other conclusions as well..."

...would seem to be an indictment of all virtually scholars in the field whose dating pretty much conforms to earlier dates.

(not that I necessarily agree with those dates either, just curious why Doherty and Carrier should be singled out for agreeing with standard dating schemes.)

Regarding the bolded quote above: No one seems to think the authors of gLuke 'referred' to gMark but simply appropriated large sections wholesale. In modern parlance this would be plagiarism (not an issue for composers of 'gospels' as Nag Hammadi has shown).

Is it your theory that gMark, gMatthew, and gJohn stole those bits from gLuke? But then, neither do they 'refer' to gLuke in the sense of acknowledging the debt.

My own take is that not all writers of savior-cult texts necessarily knew of or need be familiar with the texts of all other similar syncretic cults - thus the authors of the epistles could be unaware of the 'gospel narrative' form just as the authors of the 'gospels' could be ignorant of the epistolary cults even if they were contemporaries.

Perhaps you are using the term 'emerged' to be different from when they were composed?

Jerome quotes Luke’s assertion that his gospel comes after many others – such other gospels happen not to include Mark, Matthew or John, hence these three were compiled subsequent to Luke’s own.

I’m saying that the canonical gospels were compiled between 170 and 180 AD, as preceded by a stream of earlier gospels and similar manuscripts.

Doherty, Carrier, and Ehrman, are probably some of the most high profile authors about. Scores of other scholars today pursue similarly flawed interpretations, not to mention countless Internet articles.

No, I’m not suggesting that Mark and Matthew ‘stole bits’ from Luke. Only that that they used many of the same preceding manuscripts, as similarly applies to some degree to Luke and Marcion’s gospel. John, in the main, is an entirely original creation.

The Oracles or Sayings of Christ (wrongly attributed to Matthew) formed the germ for the Gospel of the Hebrews, and thence the Gospel of Matthew, whereas the Gospel of Peter laid the foundation for the Gospel of Mark. None of these gospels, however, can in any sense be considered the same, containing in many respects very different material. Marcion, a follower of Paul, claimed the sanction of that apostle in respect of his compilation.

 

[David Mo]

Apart from their very different content, the difference that I was talking about in the case of Paul's letters (vs. the gospels), is that they are at least claimed to be written by the named author himself, and are thus supposed to be his own first hand account of what he actually experienced.

This is a negligible difference. Pseudoepigrapha writings were usual in Greece and Rome. And it is usually accepted that several letters of “Paul” were apocryphal. (see your comment above). The same thing for Plato’s letters. There are not acceptable/reliable documents, according to your criteria, i.e. we don’t know who is their author.

But the reason they are still not credible as evidence of a living Jesus is that Paul makes absolutely clear that he had never known any preacher named Jesus. And apart from that one contentious never again repeated reference to “James the lords brother” in a Christian copy written 150 years later, there is no mention of Paul ever meeting anyone else who credibly claimed to have known Jesus either.

Who cares what they say if they are not reliable documents about any fact related to the historical Jesus (and historical Plato)?

And it's quite clear from Paul's letters that Paul really knew nothing at all about any earthly life of Jesus. I think Ellegard is probably correct when he says, for example, that everything that Paul says about his belief in Jesus is in fact theological rather than factual, and that in the very few places in his letters where Paul appears to speak as if he was describing Jesus as a real person, he in fact qualifies that by saying those particular statements were “according to scripture” and/or known to him by “revelation”.

So that is again, not “acceptable” (to use your word) as credible evidence that Paul ever knew a living Jesus, or ever actually knew anything about a living Jesus.

This comment is of no relevance for the case. Anyone might have written the epistles , and this one could have written anything else he can invent.

And that’s apart from the fact that whereas for most of the last 2000 years, afaik the Christian church had maintained, and almost everyone unquestioningly believed, that all 13 of Paul’s letters were genuinely written by Paul himself, now almost everyone accepts that around half of them are actually later “fakes” written by other unknown people posing as “Paul”. So that fact alone puts a huge question mark over the authenticity and veracity/truthfulness of any of that writing under the name of “Paul”.

The same thing for Plato’s letters.

But if P46 is the earliest extant example, then all we can know is what was written in P46 circa.200AD … we have no idea what Paul may have really written prior to P46. And I doubt if we can have much if any idea of what date that would be either.

The earliest manuscripts we know of Plato come from the Ninth Century (15th for the letters). It is worse than Pauline epistles. If we apply your criteria we have no idea what Plato may have really written prior to this date. Do you agree?

 

[dejudge]

Jerome quotes Luke’s assertion that his gospel comes after many others – such other gospels happen not to include Mark, Matthew or John, hence these three were compiled subsequent to Luke’s own.

Your statement is erroneous. In "De Viris Illustribus Jerome did claim gJohn was written AFTER gMatthew, gMark and gLuke.


Jerome's De Viris Illustribus

But there is said to be yet another reason for this work, in that when he had read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he approved indeed the substance of the history and declared that the things they said were true...

No, I’m not suggesting that Mark and Matthew ‘stole bits’ from Luke. Only that that they used many of the same preceding manuscripts, as similarly applies to some degree to Luke and Marcion’s gospel. John, in the main, is an entirely original creation.

You present an argument from silence. You have no actual evidence from antiquity for what you write. The DSS does not mention the story of Jesus of NAZARETH.

Where are your "preceding manuscripts", where are your sources of antiquity, which show that gMark used preceding manuscripts.

The Oracles or Sayings of Christ (wrongly attributed to Matthew) formed the germ for the Gospel of the Hebrews, and thence the Gospel of Matthew, whereas the Gospel of Peter laid the foundation for the Gospel of Mark. None of these gospels, however, can in any sense be considered the same, containing in many respects very different material. Marcion, a follower of Paul, claimed the sanction of that apostle in respect of his compilation.

Again, an argument from silence. You merely speculate and provide NO sources of antiquity.

There was NO Gospel of Peter and Marcion did NOT follow Paul.

Marcion followed the teachings of Empedocles.

See "Refutation of All Heresies 7" attributed to Hippolytus.

The Pauline Corpus was written AFTER Marcion was most likely DEAD.

The Entire Pauline Corpus was unknown by the Jesus cult up to at least c 180 CE.

See Against Heresies 2.22 attributed to Irenaeus.

See Against Celsus" attributed to Origen.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]How interesting.
Is John the Baptist going to be another historical figure used to flesh out the Jesus story, after all?

That's the way I see it - that appears to me to be what Origen is doing: 'Josephus mentions John and James, therefore Jesus'.

Origen.
Off to reread what we know about Origen.

That's odd. According to wiki

His own interests became more and more centered in exegesis, and he accordingly studied Hebrew, though there is no certain knowledge concerning his instructor in that language

Didn't he know the Gospels were written in Greek and used the Septuagint for the scriptural citations from the OT?

Off to read more.

[ . . . ]Jesus’ ‘Holy Land’ setting is of course mere invention or literary licence, something Doherty, Carrier and Ehrman seem to have some difficulty coming to terms with! [ . . . ]
And: “The original Christianity, of Alexandrian style, was elitist, and not fit for the ignoble masses. Thus the original version of Christianity had to be eliminated and replaced with the Roman brand of a mass religion for simple-minded people who rejoice in the world instead of escaping it as the Gnostics do. Those who originally started Christianity were subsequently declared to be public enemy.”

And: “The evidential examples for the Alexandrian-Gnostic origin of the Gospels and many other pieces of early Christian writings have now been counted by the dozen, demonstrating the real origins of Christianity. [ . . .]

Sorry to snip your thought-provocing post so drastically, but I only wanted to centre on the idea that in Bollard we have a scholar of great significance, one who is never mentioned or acknowledged by contemporary writers. How was it this man was so decidedly sent to Coventry?

[ . . . ]I’m saying that the canonical gospels were compiled between 170 and 180 AD, as preceded by a stream of earlier gospels and similar manuscripts. [ . . . ]
The Oracles or Sayings of Christ (wrongly attributed to Matthew) formed the germ for the Gospel of the Hebrews, and thence the Gospel of Matthew, whereas the Gospel of Peter laid the foundation for the Gospel of Mark. None of these gospels, however, can in any sense be considered the same, containing in many respects very different material. Marcion, a follower of Paul, claimed the sanction of that apostle in respect of his compilation.

Off to read more.
Thanks for the heads-up!

Proufootz wrote

[ . . . ]
My own take is that not all writers of savior-cult texts necessarily knew of or need be familiar with the texts of all other similar syncretic cults - thus the authors of the epistles could be unaware of the 'gospel narrative' form just as the authors of the 'gospels' could be ignorant of the epistolary cults even if they were contemporaries.

Yes. Though given the known hostility between the different cults, I have an impression they followed each other's ideas and preachings with a jealous obsession. Those shrill accusations and vicious claims of the anti-heretical writings make obnoxious reading, after all.

 

[IanS]

This is a negligible difference. Pseudoepigrapha writings were usual in Greece and Rome. And it is usually accepted that several letters of “Paul” were apocryphal. (see your comment above). The same thing for Plato’s letters. There are not acceptable/reliable documents, according to your criteria, i.e. we don’t know who is their author.



Who cares what they say if they are not reliable documents about any fact related to the historical Jesus (and historical Plato)?



This comment is of no relevance for the case. Anyone might have written the epistles , and this one could have written anything else he can invent.



The same thing for Plato’s letters.



The earliest manuscripts we know of Plato come from the Ninth Century (15th for the letters). It is worse than Pauline epistles. If we apply your criteria we have no idea what Plato may have really written prior to this date. Do you agree?

Just on the highlight, because all the rest you have written is complete garbage (Plato has nothing to do with either Paul or Jesus)-

- it's absolutely not a negligible difference. In fact its' completely crucial!

I've explained this to you at least a dozen times before, so this is the last time -

- the gospels would not be admissible as even fit to be considered as evidence in a jury trial, because of their anonymous hearsay nature. But, that does not apply to Paul's letters, because they are claimed not to be either anonymous or hearsay. That is a 100% crucial difference.

 

[DougW]

In De Viris Illustribus Jerome did claim gJohn was written AFTER gMatthew, gMark and gLuke, dejudge?

Jerome doesn’t claim any such thing. He merely repeats what John is supposed have said, as you’d be perfectly well aware. Neither has it anything to do with dating or ordering the gospels per se. As for all you citations, totally unreliable, and never what they seem.

Neither do you seem to have the slightest interest in exploring whatever is being discussed, other than in jealously protecting your own longstanding, ill-based assertions.

I’d need to type a multitude of passages from texts I own in order to demonstrate how the canonical gospels derive their content from particular preceding manuscripts. It would take days! But I may provide some illustrations when I’ve got more time.

But what for? Just so you can simply ignore them, quickly moving on to something else, only so as to repeat the same assertions later in order to score cheap brownie points, and as if nothing had been presented at all?

 

[DougW]

I’d again like to highlight the fatally flawed nature of much of what passes for today’s so-called scholarship.

By insisting that the canonical gospels are first-century, or early productions of the next, such scholars, in effect, are dating them prior to the very Christian manuscripts from which they were constructed, putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. As further exacerbated by combining such with Markan priority or Galilean origin.

In fact, by combining the painstaking manuscript analyses of early scholars like Schleiermacher with numerous citations, it’s possible to arrive at some reasonable approximation of second-century gospel chronology prior to the arrival of the canonical gospels (ignoring for the purposes of this illustration the many no longer extant, as well as numerous other manuscripts, including numerous Epistles, Acts, etc): Egyptians, Hebrews, Philip, Perfection, Matthaias, Judas Iscariot, Basilides, Thaddaeus, Book of James, Infancy, Nicodemus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Truth, Apelles. Tatian. Together with some others, the Epistles Peter, James, and Jude, appear to be late first-century writings.

The gospel most in use during the second century was that of Hebrews (inter alia called the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles), one still in use well into the third century, and the one most cited by the fathers as corroboration of their own works, including by Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome etc, whereas Justin’s Memoirs of the Apostles almost certainly denotes this gospel.
Which self-evidently would be extraordinary state of affairs were the canonical gospels in fact first-century creations!

It’s said to have been in circulation in Alexandria as early as the first decades of the second century and, itself a compilation of prior works, the overall structure appears to be similar to the much later canonical ones: a narrative of the life of Jesus, including baptism, last supper, crucifixion, and resurrection, largely reflecting Jewish ideas set in a Hellenistic cultural environment.

Dating the Gospels way before their actual dates, as well on insisting on Markan priority, necessarily results in all sorts of faulty associated representations and explanatory scenarios.

Merely as an illustration of this readily at hand, I repeat Doherty’s previous words: “Rather, I would regard Mark (dating it perhaps a little earlier than the end of the first century) chiefly as an allegorical and ‘lesson’-oriented piece of writing, heavily employing midrash on scripture, to embody certain outlooks and practices within a sect centered somewhere in the Galilean/Syrian region. To what extent the later evangelists building on Mark (up to around 130?) also intended their Gospels as allegory, or may have accepted elements of Mark’s fictional creation as historical, is difficult to say.”

Mark in part derives its content from the Gospel of Peter (including the Sayings of Christ already embodied within it), as well as sharing other preceding manuscripts in common with Luke and Matthew. The question of “later evangelists building on Mark (up to around 130?)”, either after or before 130, simply doesn’t enter the equation – in fact, it’s also almost certainly not even the first gospel. It was furthermore, as already noted, also mostly likely composed in Rome, well removed with anything to do with “certain outlooks and practices within a sect centered somewhere in the Galilean/Syrian region.” And so forth.

By the way, friends, other than weekends, I doubt I’ll be able to contribute.

 

[JaysonR]

Doug,

I'm interested in the comment about Mark and Rome.
How is that geography being determined?

 

[dejudge]

In De Viris Illustribus Jerome did claim gJohn was written AFTER gMatthew, gMark and gLuke, dejudge?

Jerome doesn’t claim any such thing. He merely repeats what John is supposed have said, as you’d be perfectly well aware. Neither has it anything to do with dating or ordering the gospels per se. As for all you citations, totally unreliable, and never what they seem.

Your statement is erroneous. You use the same unreliable sources and your imagination to date your Gospel of Peter and your assumed 10 Epistles published by Marcion

In De Viris Illustribus, Jerome gives an explanation for the reason gJohn was composed.

gJohn was composed AFTER the author had read gMatthew, gMark and gLuke based on the claims of Jerome in De Viris Illustribus.


De Viris Illustribus

John, the apostle whom Jesus most loved, the son of Zebedee and brother of James, the apostle whom Herod, after our Lord's passion, beheaded, most recently of all the evangelists wrote a Gospel, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics and especially against the then growing dogma of the Ebionites, who assert that Christ did not exist before Mary.

On this account he was compelled to maintain His divine nativity.

But there is said to be yet another reason for this work, in that when he had read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he approved indeed the substance of the history and declared that the things they said were true....

Jerome claimed gMark was composed since the time of Philo or BEFORE c 50 CE [before the 8th year of Nero]

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus

Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome .......... So, taking the gospel which he himself composed, he went to Egypt and first preaching Christ at Alexandria he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of Christ to his example.

Philo most learned of the Jews seeing the first church at Alexandria still Jewish in a degree, ....... he recorded that he saw was done at Alexandria, under the learned Mark.

The version of the Jesus story in gMatthew, gMark and gLuke were composed BEFORE gJohn.

Jesus of Nazareth as the Logos and God Creator who was from the beginning was a LATE Invention.

 

[dejudge]

The gospel most in use during the second century was that of Hebrews (inter alia called the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles), one still in use well into the third century, and the one most cited by the fathers as corroboration of their own works, including by Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome etc, whereas Justin’s Memoirs of the Apostles almost certainly denotes this gospel.
Which self-evidently would be extraordinary state of affairs were the canonical gospels in fact first-century creations!

What??? You are using the same sources that you admit are UNRELIABLE.

Please, you are not making much sense.

You accept the writings of Justin Martyr, Origen, Jerome as reliable but simultaneously argue that they were manipulated.

Plus, your argument that the version of the Jesus in gJohn is earlier than gMark is an extreme fringe position, is a failure of logic and is without actual evidence from antiquity.

The authors of gMatthew, gMark and gLuke show ZERO influence by the Johanine Gospel and made zero reference to a single verse in gJohn.

Most Apologetics of antiquity place gJohn as the LAST written Gospel.

1. Irenaeus placed gJohn as the LAST written Gospel in Against Heresies 3

2. Origen place gJohn as the LAST written Gospel in Commentary on Matthew 1.

3. Eusebius placed gJohn as the LAST written Gospel in Church History 6.25.

4. Jerome placed gJohn as the LAST written Gospel in De Viris Illustribus.

Irenaeus' Against Heresies

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Church History 6.25

4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.

5. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.'

6. And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts.

Last of all that by John.

 

[dejudge]

It is extremely easy to logically deduce that the version of the Jesus story in the SHORT gMark is the earliest written Gospel in the Canon.

The discovery of the SHORT and LONG gMark in Codices clearly show the LATER additions.

The SHORT gMark ends at the 8th verse of the 16th chapter and contains NO Birth and post Resurrection Narratives.

The LONG gMark ADDED 12 verses of Post Resurrection narrative and ends at the 20th verse of the 16th chapter.

ALL versions of the Jesus story with POST-RESURRECTION Narratives were composed AFTER the SHORT gMark.

Effectively, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Entire Pauline Corpus were composed AFTER the SHORT gMark.

The Jesus of Nazareth character in the SHORT gMark did NOT even know that he would be crucified and become a Sacrifice for Remission of Sins because of God's LOVE to mankind.

The Gospel, the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth, in the SHORT gMark was that the Kingdom of God was at Hand.

1Mark 1

4 Now after that John was put in prison , Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying , The time is fulfilled , and the kingdom of God is at hand : repent ye , and believe the gospel.

The Gospel in gJohn is a LATER invention.

John 3:16 KJV

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.

 

[proudfootz]

Origen.
Off to reread what we know about Origen.

That's odd. According to wiki

Didn't he know the Gospels were written in Greek and used the Septuagint for the scriptural citations from the OT?

Off to read more.

Based on what I understand from Origen's work it would appear that Josephus doesn't mention Jesus at all.

http://www.textexcavation.com/anaorigjos.html

In lieu of mentions of Jesus, Origen talks about mentions of John and James and tries to tie Jesus to their existence.

Yes. Though given the known hostility between the different cults, I have an impression they followed each other's ideas and preachings with a jealous obsession. Those shrill accusations and vicious claims of the anti-heretical writings make obnoxious reading, after all.

I don't doubt there was a certain amount of this keeping an eye on the competition. On the other hand I have the impression that there weren't a lot of manuscripts lying around - they were expensive to produce and expensive to copy in the world before the printing press.

For this reason I do not believe the epistles are 'business letters' - they are extraordinarily long and contain precious little by way of business. Producing the originals would be a major investment, let alone an abundance of copies for all and sundry to peruse.

IIRC HansMustermann wrote about this aspect in the 'What Counts as a Historical Jesus' thread...

 

[proudfootz]

Jerome quotes Luke’s assertion that his gospel comes after many others – such other gospels happen not to include Mark, Matthew or John, hence these three were compiled subsequent to Luke’s own.

Yes, gLuke does seem to say there were other stories before his own. He does not name them either good or bad.

It is Jerome who names several heretical works. Perhaps he doesn't mention gMark, gMatthew, or gJohn in this list of heretical works because he didn't consider them heretical?

I’m saying that the canonical gospels were compiled between 170 and 180 AD, as preceded by a stream of earlier gospels and similar manuscripts.

OK

Doherty, Carrier, and Ehrman, are probably some of the most high profile authors about. Scores of other scholars today pursue similarly flawed interpretations, not to mention countless Internet articles.

OK

No, I’m not suggesting that Mark and Matthew ‘stole bits’ from Luke. Only that that they used many of the same preceding manuscripts, as similarly applies to some degree to Luke and Marcion’s gospel. John, in the main, is an entirely original creation.

Yes, I believe much of the surviving literature is based on other literature.

This conforms very well with the hypothesis that the figure of Jesus is a literary phenomenon.

The Oracles or Sayings of Christ (wrongly attributed to Matthew) formed the germ for the Gospel of the Hebrews, and thence the Gospel of Matthew, whereas the Gospel of Peter laid the foundation for the Gospel of Mark. None of these gospels, however, can in any sense be considered the same, containing in many respects very different material. Marcion, a follower of Paul, claimed the sanction of that apostle in respect of his compilation.

So, if Marcion followed Paul , that would seem to indicate Pauline materials predate these known 'gospel narrative' forms ("Marcion published his work a few years after arriving in Rome, or around 145")?

 

[dejudge]

Yes, gLuke does seem to say there were other stories before his own. He does not name them either good or bad.

It is Jerome who names several heretical works. Perhaps he doesn't mention gMark, gMatthew, or gJohn in this list of heretical works because he didn't consider them heretical?

Again, In De Viris Illustribus attributed to Jerome the four Gospels are mentioned and it is claimed the author of gJohn wrote his Gospel AFTER he read gMatthew, gMark and gLuke.

Also, in De Viris Illustribus, it is claimed gMark was composed since the time of Philo.

There is NO claim at all in "De Viris Illustribus that gJohn was composed before the Synpotics.

Apologetics and the Church also argued that gJohn was the LAST written Gospel.

So, if Marcion followed Paul , that would seem to indicate Pauline materials predate these known 'gospel narrative' forms ("Marcion published his work a few years after arriving in Rome, or around 145")?

If Marcion did NOT follow Paul that would seem to indicate the Pauline Corpus was AFTER Marcion.

It makes no sense that Marcion would publish 10 Pauline Epistles with events that happened 100 years earlier.

Paul supposedly lived in the time of King Aretas c 37-41 and Marcion lived in the time of Antoninus c 138-161 CE.

Many Apologetic writers themselves show NO influence by the Pauline Corpus but knew stories of Jesus, the Son of God.

It is ONLY from the 4th century or later that All writers [Apologetic and Non-Apologetic] began to show influence by the Pauline Corpus.

It is clear that the written Jesus stories PREDATED the Pauline Corpus.

Celsus had NO knowledge that there were Pauline letters about Jesus. Celsus claimed it was the disciples who wrote fictional accounts of Jesus.

Fragments of Celsus

15. [Celsus' Jewish critic]: The disciples of Jesus, having no undoubted fact on which to rely, devised the fiction that he foreknew everything before it happened

16. [Celsus' Jewish critic]: The disciples of Jesus wrote such accounts regarding him, by way of extenuating the charges that told against him...

 

[maximara]

Jerome quotes Luke’s assertion that his gospel comes after many others – such other gospels happen not to include Mark, Matthew or John, hence these three were compiled subsequent to Luke’s own.

I’m saying that the canonical gospels were compiled between 170 and 180 AD, as preceded by a stream of earlier gospels and similar manuscripts.
Doherty, Carrier, and Ehrman, are probably some of the most high profile authors about. Scores of other scholars today pursue similarly flawed interpretations, not to mention countless Internet articles.

Carrier has a book called On the Historicity of Jesus, Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt due out very soon in printed form (end of June or perhaps end of July).

It will be the first scholarly peer reviewed work in support of the (philosophical) Christ Myth and as the table of contents alone shows this should become the go to reference book for the serious philosophical Christ Myther.

Take chapter 7's outline for example:

Primary Sources

What Counts as Evidence?
Breaking Down the Evidence
The Epistles
The Gospels
Acts
Extra-Biblical Evidence
The Problem of Compromised Evidence
The Role of Consequent Probabilities
Conclusion

 

[dejudge]

Carrier has a book called On the Historicity of Jesus, Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt due out very soon in printed form (end of June or perhaps end of July).

It will be the first scholarly peer reviewed work in support of the (philosophical) Christ Myth and as the table of contents alone shows this should become the go to reference book for the serious philosophical Christ Myther.

It is the EVIDENCE from antiquity that is of prime significance--NOT an expert opinion.

The argument for an historical Jesus was initiated without any input from MJers.

The HJ argument is AGAINST the Jesus of Faith in the NT and was started by Bible Believers over 250 years ago.

Those who argue for an historical Jesus are OBLIGATED to present the evidence from antiquity for their HJ or they will be REJECTED as conspiracy theorists.


So far, all HJ theories are nothing but baseless arguments from silence using admitted discredited sources filled with historical problems, discrepancies, contradictions, fiction and events that could NOT have happened.

 

[pakeha]

Based on what I understand from Origen's work it would appear that Josephus doesn't mention Jesus at all.

http://www.textexcavation.com/anaorigjos.html

In lieu of mentions of Jesus, Origen talks about mentions of John and James and tries to tie Jesus to their existence.



I don't doubt there was a certain amount of this keeping an eye on the competition. On the other hand I have the impression that there weren't a lot of manuscripts lying around - they were expensive to produce and expensive to copy in the world before the printing press.

For this reason I do not believe the epistles are 'business letters' - they are extraordinarily long and contain precious little by way of business. Producing the originals would be a major investment, let alone an abundance of copies for all and sundry to peruse.

IIRC HansMustermann wrote about this aspect in the 'What Counts as a Historical Jesus' thread...

Thanks for the link.
Off to find the HM posts.

 

[DougW]

Proudfootz states: -

“Yes, gLuke does seem to say there were other stories before his own. He does not name them either good or bad.

It is Jerome who names several heretical works. Perhaps he doesn't mention gMark, gMatthew, or gJohn in this list of heretical works because he didn't consider them heretical?

So, if Marcion followed Paul , that would seem to indicate Pauline materials predate these known 'gospel narrative' forms ("Marcion published his work a few years after arriving in Rome, or around 145")?”


Luke specifically names a number of gospels before his own, Proudfootz – others like Origen, Eusebius, as well as Jerome (including a far more recent Erasmus!), add others to that list.

There of course also exist numerous other manuscript citations by the early writers, independently of Luke, that is - Justin Martyr but one. Here we strike the bizarre situation of Justin citing particular earlier writings as proper, authentic authorities, only to see these subsequently declared heretical – including the Gospel of Peter.

As I said, by combining all such mentions with the exhaustively detailed manuscript work by early scholars like Schleiermacher, it’s possible to not only trace the Gospels’ prior evolution, but also establish some sort of second-century chronology.

Many of the these earlier gospels were also only declared apocryphal much later (with some of those who previously espoused them subsequently deemed heretical). Clement of Alexandria, for instance, thought highly of the Gospel of the Egyptians (and although one of the fathers engaged in introducing the Gospels, nonetheless subscribed to spiritual resurrection only, as did Origen)

The Gospel of the Hebrews was used by the fathers and others as a ‘prooftext’ or as corroboration of their own writings on the Gospels, even though declared heretical at the end of the fourth century. Venerable Bede still refers to it as one of the “ecclesiastical histories’ as late as the seventh century, whereas the first church Hegesippus considered it unreservedly authentic (and although writing only a few years after 180 AD, he remained unaware of the canonical gospels’ existence).

Paul’s writings don’t seem to have played any part in the formulation of the canonical gospels, none that’s discernable anyway. Prior to Marcion, versions thereof may only have enjoyed limited circulation among groups in Asia Minor/ northern Syria, but that’s the same sort of evidence-less speculation indulged by our vaunted modern scholars.


Those assertions of yours not inherently non sequitur, dejudge, are readily explained, as you’re probably well aware. I’m determined not to waste a single minute of my time discussing them, for you’ll only keep on repeating them regardless of what I or anyone else may say.


I already discussed Carrier’s Historicity of Jesus previously, maximara.


I regret to say, folks, that between work and family, I need to restrict future contributions to weekends only.

 

[dejudge]

There of course also exist numerous other manuscript citations by the early writers, independently of Luke, that is - Justin Martyr but one. Here we strike the bizarre situation of Justin citing particular earlier writings as proper, authentic authorities, only to see these subsequently declared heretical – including the Gospel of Peter.

Justin did not attribute the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

Justin Martyr does not mention a Gospel of Peter.

Justin Martyr mentioned the Memoirs of the Apostles.

The stories of Jesus in writings attributed to Justin are found in the Memoirs of the Apostle.

No manuscript of the Gospel of Peter has ever been found and dated to the time of or before Justin or Marcion.

The earliest manuscript of the Gospel of Peter is from the 8-9th century.

The Memoirs of the Apostles appear to be contain stories of Jesus similar to the Diatessaron which is claimed to have been written by Tatian a supposed disciple of Justin.