Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
30 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 321 of 1677 (840111)
09-23-2018 6:57 PM


"Salvation by faith" is (selective) religious bribery.
The whole thing seemed to be invented to make it simpler to get more converts (and to keep them).

(Whether it really was necessary is another issue)

The same people who bribe, with "salvation by faith" (Luther added the word "alone" after "faith" in his German Bible text of Romans), will then be quick to selectively attack minorities, like homosexuals, for their "evil works".

"Evil deeds" will be thrown around to bribe the 98% of straight folks who want to feel some "holy" feeling in doing their good works.

Bribe those (like 98% of straights) who want to feel righteous by condemning homosexuals for "evil deeds".

Then selectively bribe with the other side of the coin with "just believe and you are going to live forever".

Then collect more coin donations from the proud congregation.

Pure bribery.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-24-2018 7:22 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 364 of 1677 (840423)
09-29-2018 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by Tangle
09-28-2018 6:27 PM


Democratic Tax Taboo
Phat said:
quote:

Under socialism, that same middle class, as I understand it, would eventually blend in with the masses below them...leaving the small oligarchy at the top to contend with.

Tangle said:

quote:

You have a really screwed up, extremist idea of what socialism is. This seems a common thing with Yanks for some reason.

The European version of social democracy is a progressive pluralist economic model that has a more equal spread of wealth berween its citizens with a relatively high safety net. It works and it creates the happiest societies we've so far managed as a species.


The way the American public sees things, it would take massive tax increases to get a ONLY A tiny percentage of what is required to fund really big ("socialistic") programs that could make any difference.

Obama kept beating the tax increases for "the wealthy" ("raise your hand if you make over $250,000") idea, and gave the impression that it would pay for a whole range of programs, from health care to education, plus reduce the deficit significantly.

He would always laugh when (essentially) nobody put their hand up when he asked the $250,000 question. Like you could just tap a few rich folks a little more (35% tax rate would be upped to 39.6%), and all problems could be magically solved.

He got elected on the idea of tax increases for those making over $250,000 a year and sworn in January 2009.

That ended up being too painful for the "middle class", so the 4.6% increase was limited to those making over $450,000, and it took till January of 2013 for that to happen.

It amounted to just $60 billion a year (would have been $80 billion a year if those making over $250,000 were taxed the extra 4.6% too).

Republicans seem to have won (for now?) this argument that centers around the idea that big programs are too expensive, and there is no room in any potential budget for more programs.

Look at the numbers.

The economy will be hurt too badly, if $500 billion in extra revenue a year is sought under the current tax increasing conventions.$500 billion a year is not a lot, it is actually about what is left of the ongoing Bush tax cuts, and less than the roughly $700 billion a year in Bush+Trump tax cuts.

But, in getting $500 billion a year, a tax increase ONLY on those making $450,000 a year, would require a 65% tax rate for that group. So it does seem to be something that could be more hurtful to the economy than what the potential "socialistic" benefits might be worth.

Look at the Republican arguments:

Jimmy Carter left office when taxes were 70%, and people don't have fond memories of that period. It was a period when there were a ton of tax loopholes too.

The loophole issue would make the $500 billion a year revenue increaser be more like $250-$300 billion a year. Then you have the economic drag factoring in which could easily put the revenue under $200 billion a year despite a 65% marginal tax rate on "the wealthy".

(though the "socialistic" programs could very well end up being a powerful counter to the economic drag, since they will be seen as helpful to the economy to whatever extent the Democrats can argue)

Democrats are allergic to any sort of tax increases on anybody other than the super-wealthy. All of their arguments center around avoiding any sort of pain for 98% (those making over $250,000 a year) if not the 99% (those making over $450,000 a year).

Republicans simply say, "you want a $4 trillion dollar health care program, but raising marginal tax rates all the way to '100%' wont bring in $800 billion a year even under the most rosy economic circumstances".

And, when one looks at the spending front for revenue, Democrats have written off military budget cuts as well.

Democrats need to come to grips with the revenue problem, but they have built a foundation on top of the total taboo which makes it an abomination to even consider returning to the way things were before the Bush-era.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Tangle, posted 09-28-2018 6:27 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1647 of 1677 (848141)
01-31-2019 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1644 by Theodoric
01-28-2019 12:14 PM


Re: Research Delusions
quote:

You do realize that the vast majority of biblical "scholars" do not have any higher level education outside of biblical studies. They are not trained as historians or linguists or textual analysts.

You might want to see the linguistic, stylistic, and grammatical arguments about Paul's letters.

And way back in the 1940s, the vocabulary of Paul's letters were compared to vocabulary used in other Greek documents from different decades.

The Jesus Seminar recently used advanced grammatical, stylistic, syntaxic, vocabulary, etc. analysis to determine that Paul definitely did not write I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, and II Thessalonians.

Daniel Wallace is a fundamentalist and he can read Greek fluently PLUS is an expert on Greek. He addresses the serious matter of the Pastoral Epistles not matching Paul's writing style in any way (including the strange use of Latin prepositions).

The issue of being able to use computer analyses to determine the issues of Pauline authorship has been talked about for many decades.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1644 by Theodoric, posted 01-28-2019 12:14 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1650 by Theodoric, posted 01-31-2019 9:39 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1648 of 1677 (848143)
01-31-2019 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1644 by Theodoric
01-28-2019 12:14 PM


Re: Research Delusions
quote:

None of the people who wrote down the gospel stories or Paul(and those that pretended they were Paul) were eyewitnesses.

I am wondering if you are saying Paul did not exist at all (as opposed to saying there are genuine and pseudo Pauline Epistles)?

Are you saying the all 13 of the Pauline letters (those taken by scholars to be "genuine" and "forged") were not written until 100 A.D., like a few cranks do? Is this some allusion, on your part, to the same cranks who assume that the Pauline theological disputes with the Jewish Christians (like James and/or the various Jewish Christian sects) were all a fake literary invention to make things sound realistic? "Unhistorical conflict" arguments come from the deniers, so is this the meaning tucked in your quote?

I still feel the New Testament documents were generally "early" because they don't quote each other (pretty much every New Testament "scripture" quotation is from the Old Testament), and they mostly don't bear the mark of later supplements to an existing body of (Christian) scripture. They ("they" being the various sides referenced in the arguments and controversies in the New Testament) don't bear the mark of being a fictional invention from a small, connected, unified group of forgers. The evidence FROM THE LATE TEXTS seems to fit an earlier historical situation (albeit with an ongoing post 1st century debate between the various schools and camps), though the (non Pauline Epistle part )New Testament seems to be LATE-first century/early second, and increasingly from a more unified (in theological circles)group of forgers.

(the documents might be late and forged, but the sides referenced seem genuine and from an earlier period)

The "false conflict" argument is really bad (considering the fact that these "Paul/Jesus did not exist" peddlers claim to be, somehow, possessing an advanced historical methodology). Hardly consistent with the results of a decent historical/textual analysis.

The sorely-lacking-decent-scholarship wing of Biblical studies is from the deniers (cranks).

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1644 by Theodoric, posted 01-28-2019 12:14 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1649 by Theodoric, posted 01-31-2019 9:35 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1651 of 1677 (848148)
01-31-2019 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1638 by Theodoric
01-27-2019 10:25 PM


Re: Research Delusions
quote:

The fact is there is no independent corroborating historical evidence of the existence of a Jesus Christ outside of the bible. All future mentions of this character are tied the gospels. Nowhere else in the historical record does this person exist. The character is as much a myth as Prester John and William Tell.

I was reading a multi-volume historical set recently, and after covering the fall of the Manichean Kingdom (762-843) in East Turkestan (ethnic Uyghur), a comment was made that this was almost certainly the historical kernel for the Prester John legend.

The irony was that Prester John was seen as "orthodox".

And he was seen as contemporary (not from a fallen kingdom from centuries ago) .

But Paul is different.

Paul's life is dated by scholars/historians to the EXACT same time as Jesus (plus he lived almost 4 full decades longer), and his extant Christian writings date as early as 50-52 (I Thessalonians), as the same historians will broadly agree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1638 by Theodoric, posted 01-27-2019 10:25 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1652 by Theodoric, posted 01-31-2019 10:37 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1653 of 1677 (848163)
02-01-2019 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1652 by Theodoric
01-31-2019 10:37 PM


Re: Research Delusions
It isn't exactly a heavy lift to show that Paul was born before 20 A.D., and that he wrote EXISTING LETTERS as a Christian.

Paul lived during the time of Jesus and his family, apostles, etc.

He was a contemporary.

Prester John, on the other hand, was just a vague rumor. An orthodox king who ruled a kingdom in the midst of a mass of non-Christian territory. (Armenia did exist btw. But it was much closer to Palestine than was where the land PT was supposed to have lived and ruled in. The Prester John story gave Crusaders hope for powerful allies to fund crusades.)

quote:

He does not even treat the Jesus if his teachings as a historical character.

Paul did not see Jesus during his life.

But he communicated with people who actually LIVED WITH HIM.

Paul communicated with James (bro of Jesus).

And most historians do find the Josephus text to be a non-Christian witness to both James and Jesus, especially the part that describes James' death.

(Your claims are crank stuff)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1652 by Theodoric, posted 01-31-2019 10:37 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1654 by Theodoric, posted 02-01-2019 9:01 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1655 of 1677 (848234)
02-01-2019 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1654 by Theodoric
02-01-2019 9:01 AM


Re: Research Delusions
James, brother of Jesus "who is called Christ", died 61 or 62, in Jerusalem.

(Josephus is one major source and he said what I have in quotes)

Just a few years before the revolt that Josephus covered (and which the histories of the period are based).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1654 by Theodoric, posted 02-01-2019 9:01 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1658 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2019 9:50 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1656 of 1677 (848250)
02-02-2019 12:51 AM


Though Theodoric is confused, here is a link supporting his argument.
I put JOSEPHUS WHO IS CALLED CHRIST into google.

Here is a link supporting his type of arguments

https://vridar.org/...another-eusebian-footprint-in-josephus

(There are two references to Jesus CHRIST in Josephus, and Theodoric was thinking of the more controversial one, which was a reference to Jesus during his life in the 20s or possibly the early 30s. The one I was referring to was a description of James' death in the early 60s. This site above attacks the less controversial 60s event w/ the reference to Jesus)

My take on this site and its argument.

First:

This vridar site seems ignorant of the fact that Josephus' first language was Hebrew/Aramaic (Jospehus had to have help translating his work into Greek), which is forgivable since all we have extant today is Greek and Latin.

Second:

This whole "Christ" issue might not be such a big thing if one understands that written gospels (like the Greek Mark and Matthew) already existed by 93 A.D., WHEN Josephus wrote. Why would Jospehus need to explain something that could have begun to be understood by educated readers by his time?

(Nevermind the original Hebrew text Jospephus wrote with the likely awareness among his HEBREW AUDIENCE which also would have allowed Jospehus to take into his consideration the possibility that certain minor historical details would have been understood by certain people though EVER MORE annotations would have helped a much larger audience understand every last microscopic detail)


Replies to this message:
 Message 1657 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2019 9:49 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1659 of 1677 (848298)
02-03-2019 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1657 by Theodoric
02-02-2019 9:49 AM


Re: Though Theodoric is confused, here is a link supporting his argument.
I said that Josephus chronologically placed James' death in 61-62 A.D., then Theodoric responded, saying, "What are your sources?"

He is saying that standard acceptance of the extant Greek Josephus text is wrong, I assume.

(I will quote it after I get done quoting Theodoric)

Then Theodoric said:

quote:

Josephus had no first hand knowledge of Jesus or a brother James. There is no corroborating information for anything in the works of Josephus about Jesus or James.

I am not confused, I just require standards to be followed for all historical claims.


First of all, "corroborating information", I assume, means that you want a second non-Christian souce from the first century, or else the Josephus text will be thrown out.

Josephus lived in Jerusalem in the early 60s, exactly when James died.

(The Acts of the Apostles places James in Jerusalem as late as 57/58)

Theodoric made this comment earlier:

quote:

How can someone be witness to something that happened before they were born? Even if it is original Josephus and not an interpolation, it is just Josephus relaying stories.

He got 2 people to agree with him.

Here I quote the the Josephus text, in which Josephus covered an event that happened while Josephus lived in the very city it happened.

The text is used from this series of articles (I will respond to the site's arguments later)

https://vridar.org/...another-eusebian-footprint-in-josephus

https://vridar.org/...us-james-jesus-hegesippus-and-eusebius

quote:

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator.

But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus.

Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests.

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority].

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.

Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.


The most relevant part is:

"brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:"

This is the extant Greek text that we all have today.

This site neglects to mention that Josephus originally wrote the text in Aramaic, which I would rate as unforgivable, considering the argument (lifted from Earl Doherty) it uses to cast the text's authenticity in doubt (claiming textual insertions into parts of it anyway).

Here is a work that defends the text against later Christian editing

quote:

Shattering the Christ Myth
By James Patrick Holding

p.47

The evidence for the authenticity of the entire passage is overwhelming. As Steve Mason points out, it fits well "into both the larger and smaller contexts of Ant. 20." 83 Much of the language is typical not only of Josephus, but of the unique word-choices he employs beginning in this chapter and not before. 84 We may also note the emphasis of the passage. It does not focus on Jesus or even James, but on Ananus the high priest. There is no praise for James or Jesus. This is not what we would expect if this were an interpolation. 85

Additionally, Josephus' account of the stoning of James is quite different than the account given by the second-century church chronicler Hegesippus, who has James being thrown from the roof of the Temple and clubbed to death. 86 This would be an unlikely move for an interpolator seeking to insert a Christian tradition that was widespread at the time. All told, the evidence for the genuineness of the passage is overwhelming.

In light of this evidence, skeptics have become less ambitious. Rather than challenge the entire section as an interpolation, they concede that most of it is suthentic but that the phrase, "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ" has been assed by a motivated or careless Christian scribe. 87 Thus, the passage originally referred to an unidentified "James," but did not associate him with Jesus or Christianity. This attempt to maintain a passage consistent with the Jesus Myth is unpersuasive.

Several features of the reference to "brother of Jesus the Christ" make it very unlikely that a later Christian scribe would have added it. First, the designation of James as the "brother of Jesus" contrasts with Christian practice of referring to him as the "brother of the Lord" or "brother of the Savior." Galatians 1:19 refers to James as "the brother of the Lord," showing much more respect. I Cor. 9:5 refers to "the brothers of the Lord and Cephas," referring to Jesus with heightened respect, but not Cephas (Peter). Nowhere in the New Testament is James referred to as the "brother of Jesus." Later Christian writings similarly adopt more elevated language when referring to James' relationship with Jesus. Hegesippus refers to "James, the brother of the Lord", "a cousin of the Lord", and "the brothers of the Savior." 88 In short, the passage "squares neither with New Testament nor with early patristic usage." 89 While we would expect a Jewish author to identify James as the "brother of Jesus" it would be against the grain for a Christian to do so.90

An often overlooked argument for authenticity is that at the time the alleged interpolation would have been added, Christians were downplaying, not emphasizing, James' familial relationship with Jesus. According to Alice Whealey, "...already by the mid to late second century, there mere fact that Jesus had brothers or even half-brothers was becoming highly problematic in Christian circles." 91 As she points out, early Christian writings such as the Protoevangelium of James, the Gospel of Peter, and the works of Origen, Hegesippus, and Jerome were stressing Mary's perpetual virginity and deemphasizing Jesus' familial relationship to James. 92 Accordingly, a second or third century Christian interpolator would not have been inclined to stress that James was the brother of Jesus, much less to add an interpolation to highlight that fact.


The book then responds to Earl Doherty (though Doherty actually uses another major argument, which can be seen in the second link above, and this book neglects to cover it, but I will respond after I get done wuoting this book)

quote:

p. 48

The Case Against Authenticity

Arguments that seek to cast doubt on the reference to "the brother of the so-called Christ" are few and unpersuasive. Earl Doherty argues that the phrase is not genuine because although James is the subject of the sentence, Jesus is named before him. But this is a misleading line of argument, because whichever name appears first, Josephus mentions James first as "the brother." In any event, a better explanation for the sequence of the names is that Josephus referred to Jesus' name first because he was the better known of the two figures and therefore was a point of reference. James was a very common name for the time. In order to distinguish this James from any number of other individuals names James, Josephus refers to the better know brother. Josephus' audience was largely non-Jewish and would have been better acquainted with the founder of Christianity.

p. 49

Another argument raised by Jesus Myth proponents is that the passages' failure to explain the meaning of the term "Christ" reveals a Christian hand because Josephus would have taken care to explain the purportedly unfamiliar term to his pagan audience. According to this argument, only Christians and Jews would know without explanation what the term "Christ" meant. 96 This argument lacks force, however, because Josephus does not appear to use "Christ" as a term of art to reflect messianic perspectives about Jesus. Rather, he uses it as a name or title with which Jesus is associated in the mind of Josephus' audience. There is ample evidence that Romans knew that the founder of the sect of Christians was known as "Christ", even if they did not know the origins of the word itself.

Seutonius wrote about a disturbance caused by Christus in Rome in 49 A.D. that many scholars believe is a reference to followers of Christ. (The Lifetime of Claudius 25.4) Seutonius is supposed to have confused Christus with the popular Greek name Chrestus. We have already noted previously references in Tacitus and Pliny which indicate familiarity with the designation. Clearly, therefore, Josephus identified Jesus by reference to the title or name by which his audience knew him. Given his reluctance to discuss Jewish messianic expectations in depth, Josephus likely felt that a reference to that title or name without elaboration on its messianic connotations was sufficient for his audience.

What Can We Learn About Jesus from Josephus?

How Would Josephus Have Learned About Jesus? Having concluded that Josephus originally referred to Jesus, would he have been in a place to offer any reliable information about him? According to leading New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders, " by the standards of the day, [Josephus] was a very good historian, and for some parts of his historical narratives he had excellent sources." Having lived in Judaea and Galilee, Josephus would have been in an excellent position to learn from Jewish sources about the early Christians and Jesus. According to Josephus' own writings, he was in Jerusalem at the time that James the brother of Jesus was killed. Additionally, Josephus - living as a member of the imperial family in Rome - would have had access to Roman records. That he possessed information about other religious sects, such as the Essenes, the Pharisees, and the Saducees, and a similar historical figure in John the Baptist, is undisputed. That he had similar access to such traditions about Christians and their founder is very likely.

....
p. 50

Furthermore, it would be unlikely that Josephus would uncritically accept the word of a few members of a strange offshoot of Judaism if Josephus has heard nothing of Jesus or Christians while he lived in Palestine for so many years. This is especially true of his reference to Jesus' brother James, because Josephus was in Jerusalem at the time of James' death.


Now Doherty has another argument (perhaps his strongest).

He argues that the Christian quotations, of Josephus' book 20, were different, before the time of Eusebius.

Origen quoted from the Josephus book 20, during a commentary on Matthew"

quote:

These things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.

Then he quoted Josephus' book 20, in Book 1 of his Contra Celsus

quote:

these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)

Again, Origen quotes the Josephus passage, in Book 2 or Contra Celsus.

quote:

Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ


Doherty makes a lot of the word order which mentions "James the Just" before "brother of Jesus".

The argument of Doherty gets laid out in part 2 of this 2 part series.

https://vridar.org/...us-james-jesus-hegesippus-and-eusebius

The site (repeating Doherty's argument) notices that Origen mixes up the text of Josephus and Hegesippus' annotated references to Josephus book 20.

It goes on to say that the pre-Eusebian citations were all different.

It traces them all to Hegesippus (late second century), and it seems to assume that Origen completely ignored actual texts of Josephus which LACKED ANY REFERENCE TO "CALLED CHRIST", but had the older word order of "JAMES" before "Jesus". (with "THE JUST" after James absent of course, as it is in all Josephus texts today anyway).

The argument is that (pre 300 A.D.) existing texts of Josephus lacked the "called Christ" part (plus had James mentioned first THEN "brother of Jesus" came second in the syntax) BUT ALL PRE-300 A.D. QUOTATIONS, OF BOOK 20, WE HAVE TODAY ARE ORIGEN'S QUOTATIONS OF HEGESIPPUS (who corrupted Josephus's text in his reference in his Memoirs, and the Memoirs of Hegesippus are what Origin was quoting NOT JOSEPHUS though Hegesippus presents his own text as a representation of Jospehus and Origin presents his text as Josephus' actual text)

Eusebius then made the original insertion into an actual Josephus manuscript (thus creating a new NEVER BEFORE SEEN EDITION).

Doherty, and the vridar site, show us quotes from Eusebius, who FIRST quotes Hegesippius (with the original word order), then he immediately quotes (from what Doherty claims was Eusebius' own new edition!) the actual (albeit edited) Josephus text from book 20.

(and naturally, Doherty says the "called Christ" part was never in any pre-Eusebius version of Josephus, just in the Memoirs of Hegesippus and Origin's use of Hegesippus' Memoirs)

My take:

The fact that Hegesippus knew Aramaic (he said he read the Aramaic Matthew) and probably wrote his Greek Memoirs using his own free paraphrase (or quote) of Josephus' Aramaic text isn't considered.

(Origen lived in Alexandria, which had a big Jewish library and the famous library, which aspired to have every copy of every book ever written, and one that pagan Greeks maintained. There could have been many Greek translations of Josephus.)

Why not just make a big deal of every paraphrase or free quotation in every text instead of just this one?

Eusebius only knew Greek. He had a text that we only saw quoted by Origen. Origen was known to have multiple textual variants of MANY MANY TEXTS. He was known for making critical editions of texts.

Anyway, Doherty says that "brother of Jesus, , James by name" was the original part in the (Eusebius originating) Josephus text, except the older Hegesippus/Origen order - with James coming first in the syntax - was more accurate.

He admits that a James, brother of Jesus was in the text. (without the "called Christ" part)

So we still have the dreaded "James BROTHER of Jesus" in an original non-Christian 1st century text.

But Doherty gets aroundd this by saying that the "Jesus" was actually the very Jesus, son of Damnæus who was appointed high priest after (the killer of James) Ananus got removed.

In that case:

Why doesn't Josephus say James was son of Damnaeus, but only mentions his relationship to (this) Jesus, his brother?

(I suppose that part would have been taken out by Eusebius)

Hegesippus made it all up (around 180), and Origen (220) lifted the story (and its attribution to Josephus) from Hegesippus. But the textual critic Origen somehow failed to notice that these changes were contrary to the other Josephus manuscripts? Or he was just so interested in evidence to make his argument? (an anti-Semitic argument saying the murder of James brought a curse on Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem).

Eusebius had to change the Josephus texts because it was such a great theme or because he liked the reference to Jesus and James?

A change from 350 A.D.

I would ask why the John the Baptist coverage in Josephus was absent any Christian insertions.

To European Orthodox Christians (Eusebius was more of an Arius supporter, but otherwise he was Roman Catholic/ Eastern Orthodox) John was far more important to the Jesus story than James was. John was a relative (cousin of Jesus) according to the Gospel of Luke and he had a conception just months apart.

No lines were added there.

No references to Peter, who was very important.

But this change (by Eusebius) to Josephus' text was made so that Hegesippus' story could have credibility? Hegesippus was that important? James was really so loved by Orthodox Christians? His being a "brother" was really so desirable, too? And don't forget that Hegesippus was one who testified that James was a vegetarian. That really appealed to European Christians (I'm being sarcastic). (Eusebius attacked the intellect of the Jewish Christian Ebionites, whom he saw as heretics)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1657 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2019 9:49 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1660 by Theodoric, posted 02-03-2019 9:56 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1663 of 1677 (848347)
02-03-2019 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1660 by Theodoric
02-03-2019 9:56 AM


Re 1660: Though Theodoric is confused, here is a link supporting his argument.
quote:

This will be my last reply to you as I do not debate with dishonest debaters or people that make it personal.

Glad you aren't getting personal.

I salute you.

I said this:

quote:

I said that Josephus chronologically placed James' death in 61-62 A.D., then Theodoric responded, saying, "What are your sources?"
He is saying that standard acceptance of the extant Greek Josephus text is wrong, I assume.

Theodoric immediately responded:

quote:

Your actual statement that I wanted additional sources for is below..

quote:

James, brother of Jesus "who is called Christ", died 61 or 62, in Jerusalem.
(Josephus is one major source and he said what I have in quotes)

You make a claim that there are more sources. Yes cannot supply them.
You are a dishonest debater. Absolutely nothing you say in your long diatribe actually addressess my post at all. You have no sources that corroborate your claims for what Josephus says and means.


Again, I commend you for taking the high road.

(see your post 1658 and - trust me - it isn't too far back)

(My big hint will be to tell you that it is the one right before my deadfully awful post 1659)

But to the actual issue, I will just say that Josephus lived from 37 to 100 (or perhaps later).

He wrote his the Antiquities 94 A.D.

(actually his Jewish War was written in Aramaic around 71-73 and translated to Greek in 75, but the Antiquities might never have been in Aramaic)

Hegesippus is often stated to have been writing 150-180. Hegesippus mentioned Josephus and James' death. He has a quotation (plus alot of commentary) that isn't in our extant versions of Josephus today.

It seems there were different manuscripts of Josephus, with an additional line (that we don't have today).

Eusebius said this:

quote:

20. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”

That was a bogus line, added apparently between 100 and 150 (I guess).

It is gone in all extant copies today.

My GUESS is that, unlike the Christian writings, Josephus was widely distributed among non-Christians (both Jewish and pagans) and there were more than enough texts to form an accurate critical edition (plus plenty of pagan and Jewish critics to remind interested Christians of the bogus parts).

Among Christians, I imagine it was the Jewish Christian circles (as opposed to Orthodox Europeans) who were INITIALLY the main collectors of Josephus manuscripts, due to the references (the original Josephus reference and then the inserted line/lines).

European Christians would never have been interested in the plain references to James (61/62 AD), but the (perhaps) added (?) part that described Jesus' life, in an earlier section, surely was what caused Catholics & Orthodox to preserve the Josephus text through the ages. I have read scholars plainly stating that we would not have Josephus text today if not for his (original ? inserted?) reference to Jesus in Book 18 of Antiquities.

Book 20 and the "Brother of Jesus, called Christ" was what would have caused Jewish Christians to be interested.

(It probably lead to some textual additions, which included tampering with book 20: “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”)

(Perhaps the much discussed Book 18 got some tampering too?)

Eusebius might have noticed the added lines, one he started to give a crap about having accurate copies of Josephus.

Eusebius DID care about accurate Biblical texts.

Doherty (I don't mean this as harshly as it sounds) is ignorant if he feels Eusebius somehow encouraged textual fraud. He should also know that scholars almost all say that the major textual variants (sowewhat GENERALLY found in clusters known as "textual families") among Biblical manuscripts (MSS) WERE CREATED EARLY AND NOT LATER.

EXAMPLE: Eusebius points out that Mark 16:9-20 isn't likely original. Many amateurs initially think that the changes were made in the fourth century. WRONG. The Mark 16:9-20 TEXT ALMOST CERTAINLY EXISTED IN THE SECOND CENTURY. (Though its popularity exploded sometime in the fourth or perhaps after 400)

Changes were made EARLY and not late.

Doherty is a bit screwed up if he actually feels that any fourth century group could make major changes to Biblical texts. He even has the audacity to name an individual (Eusebius!) he managed to i.d. as an interpolator. Dear God!

He says Eusebius added what we have today in book 20: "Brother of Jesus, called Christ".

Eusebius, more likely, IF HE HAD ANY MAJOR ROLE IN JOSEPHUS EDITIONS, was one who attempted to find versions of Josephus from Jewish (not to be confused with Jewish Christians, but actual non-Christian Jews) and pagan collections. He would have helped us get an accurate version. Philo of Alexandria, for example, was free of Christian insertions (there were forgeries of Philo, but Steven Mason points out that the Christian forgeries, of non-Christian histories, were entirely new works, and did not involve tampering with existing historical works)

You ask for more sources, Theodoric.

Every Biblical document from the first century has James living in Jerusalem AFTER JESUS DIED. (He lived in the Galilee before). As for the Galilee, do you know that Nazareth only had a few hundred people living there? The main town in the Galilee was Sepphoris , with many thousands of people living there. It was 4 miles away, and was on a hill that could be seen from Nazareth. It was probably what gave Jesus the idea for the "City on the Hill" (think Sermon on the Mount and Augustine and Ronald Reagan). Early Rabbinical sources talk about hearing rumours of Jesus in Sepphoris (his father was said to be a Roman soldier Pantera, for example). His family would have lived near there. James is not mentioned though.

I can't say that the scholarly acceptance of the extant Josephus reference to a JAMES "brother of Jesus called Christ" is 100% certain. Perhaps there was tampering (early on). But Doherty and his ilk need to lay out a credible reason for us to reject it. One that demonstrates this JESUS MYTH school's claimed brilliance in historical methodology.

(There is no Biblical text that requires this simple little reference to James being killed in Jerusalem, so the theological motive seems absent unless there is some good theory on the Jewish Christians desire to tamper with the text to insert James the Just into a historical work)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1660 by Theodoric, posted 02-03-2019 9:56 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1664 of 1677 (848380)
02-03-2019 11:10 PM


Historical context for the Christ Mythers to consider.
I would suggest testing the Christ Mythers, and to see if they can come up with any theories that take into context the critical late-first and early second-century formative period in textual development. (and a whole lot more critical events and developments)

I find it amazing that Eusebius was treated like some sort of manipulator of secular historical texts (Josephus), considering he attempted to discover as much as he could about early history. I suppose he ignored non-orthodox movements as much as possible, but he seemed to respect Hegesippus as orthodox (indeed he seemed so), and thank God for it, because Hegesippus was just the bridge (we all should be thankful for) between the lost world of Jewish Christianity and the orthodox historians/scholars of the 4th century.

I feel Eusebius actually cared for inconvenient historical information; he was the preservator of Hegesippus' history of the Jesus Dynasty. (I find Eusebius more willing to present much of the inconvenient history than the today's extreme Christ Mythers and Fundamentalists alike)

From The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature.

Cambridge University Press (May 3, 2004)
by Frances Young (Editor),
Professor Lewis Ayres (Editor),
Andrew Louth (Editor),
Augustine Casiday (Assistant)

(My quotes start with Paul)

(Eusebius' work is HE)

quote:

pp. 55-56

His letters to the newly founded communities are the oldest Christian writings we have, and appear to have been collected together early; already at the beginning of the second century, Ignatius refers to the ‘letters’ of Paul.1 After his first missionary journey with Barnabas, around ad 46, from Antioch to Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia and Galatia, the issue of the inclusion of the Gentiles, and the demands to be placed upon them, implicit already in the account of the Hellenists and Stephen, became critical. There are two differing accounts of the resulting ‘Council of Jerusalem’ (c. ad 48/9; Acts 15:1–29 and Gal. 2:1–10). Though both agree that circumcision should not be expected of Gentile converts, Acts further adds that such converts should abstain from food with idolatrous associations and unchastity, while the only further stipulation Paul mentions is to ‘remember the poor’. After breaking with Barnabas and Peter, who had refrained from eating with Gentile Christians at Antioch when men from James of Jerusalem arrived representing the ‘circumcision party’ (cf. Acts 15:36–40; Gal. 2:11–14), Paul set out with Silas on further missionary journeys, visiting the communities he had previously established and moving out further into Asia, Macedonia and Achaia. It is probably from Corinth, in the late 50s, that Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, preparing the way for his coming visit to Jerusalem so that the community there would accept the collections he had gathered on their behalf (Rom. 15:30–2). When he arrived in Jerusalem, he was greeted with hostility and imprisoned by the Romans for his own safety. After further commotions and plots on his life, he was moved to Caesarea for a couple of years, and finally, as a Roman citizen, to Rome itself for trial in the early 60s. According to the writers of the second century, Paul, along with Peter, was martyred under Nero (cf. Eusebius, HE 2.25.5). By the second half of the second century, monuments had already been built for Peter on the Vatican hill, and for Paul on the road to Ostia (HE 2.25.7).

As most of the surviving literature is concerned with the development of the Gentile communities, we know relatively little about the Christian community n Jerusalem after the middle of the first century. James, ‘the brother of the Lord’, was the leader of the church in Jerusalem after Peter’s departure (Acts 12) until his martyrdom in ad 62 (HE 2.23, citing the second-century church historian Hegesippus). It is possible that the Jewish War of ad 66–70 prompted Christians to leave the area for Asia. According to second-century writers, John, the son of Zebedee, resided in Ephesus, while Philip the apostle, together with his four prophetess daughters, lived in Hierapolis in Phrygia (Irenaeus, AH 3.3.4; HE 3.31.2–5). Also from Asia in the early second century, Papias recorded what he claimed were the oral reports of those who had known the apostles, describing the origin of the Gospels: Mark is said to have been the interpreter of Peter in Rome, setting down accurately, but not in order, everything he remembered concerning the words and actions of the Lord, while Matthew composed his oracles in Hebrew (HE 3.39.15–16). It is possible that Papias also knew the Gospels of Luke and John, and that what are later regarded as the four canonical Gospels were already beginning to circulate together in codex form in Asia at the turn of the second century.2 It is only from the middle of the third century onwards that legends start appearing that identify other apostles as the founders of other Christian communities, such as Mark in connection with Alexandria.3

According to Hegesippus, James, the ‘brother of the Lord’, was succeeded by Symeon, the ‘cousin of the Saviour’, as the head of the Jerusalem community (HE 3.11). This need for a familial relationship to the Lord as a qualification for leadership seems to have continued at Jerusalem (cf. HE 3.20.6), until, as a result of the Bar Kochba rebellion (ad 132–5), Hadrian forbade Jews from entering Jerusalem, which he renamed Aelia Capitolina, and so the succession of the ‘bishops of the circumcision’ ceased (HE 4.5.2–3). No substantial information survives concerning the existence of these Jewish Christians thereafter. They had been excluded from the synagogue and subjected to a curse from about ad 85, and were later required by Bar Cochba to recognize his messianic status and to deny Jesus under the pain of execution.4 Accepted neither by their own kinsfolk nor by the increasing body of Gentile Christians, by the end of the second century they were known as a deviant Christian sect, the Ebionites, ‘the poor ones’. However, it would be wrong to assume that contact between Jews and Christians ceased completely in the middle of the second century. Interaction between the two groups continued for several centuries, as John Chrysostom’s polemic against those Christians infatuated with Judaism indicates.


We know what we know thanks to Eusebius. (HE is his work, Church History)

He preserved Hegesippus.

(It helped that Hegesippus could be interpreted as blaming gnostics for the killing of Jesus' family, plus he seemed to buy into virgin birth stuff. He was just orthodox enough for his history to make the cut. At least with Eusebius. Eusebius presented the Jesus Family in the least heretical light possible it seemed. He also said the Ebionites mean the "poor ones" then went on to joke that it could signify "the poverty of their intellect". It was a lucky thing that the history was preserved at all, and especially down to our present time).

The Christ Mythers, like Doherty, claim Eusebius invented the "brother of Jesus called Christ" around 325, when in fact this 4th century man was responsible for preserving (theologically) difficult histories & texts from centuries previous to him. The methodology of the Doherty school seems to be to attack whatever Christian source he happens to find quoting a text. Eusebius is the first extant source found to quote the minor (to him and almost every other CONTEMPORARY Christian back then), Josephus Antiquities Book XX, James reference, so he gets accused of fraud simply for Doherty's knowledge of the existence of his quotation (ignoring the hundreds of other humans involved in the transmission of Josephus' texts over 2 full centuries previous). This Doherty methodology should be universally condemned. It sucks. He needs to improve by several notches.


    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 1672 of 1677 (848416)
02-04-2019 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1669 by Theodoric
02-04-2019 9:57 AM


Theodoric's "Quick lesson in posting replies" = no actual evidence counts
Theodoric states:
quote:

Now back to my original point on this thread.
The fact is there is no contemporary, independent corroborating historical evidence of the existence of a Jesus Christ outside of the bible.
If there is someone should present it. You can quit wasting your time LNA. What you have presented is neither contemporary or independent. If you want to start a thread on the vileness of the mythicists, you should do that. I want to talk real facts and evidence.

Carrier, Doherty, Wells, Price all have different ways of dismissing Paul's reference, in Galatians 4:4 to Jesus being "born of a woman". (the poster you referenced, kept making the point that Mary and Joseph, as well as Nazareth, aren't mentioned in any letters of Paul)

Price says Paul never existed, so that takes care of that.

The various theories involved later Christian textual tampering (Roman Catholic tampering is even specified by one Christ Myther), or claiming it is a pure allegory with no actual intention of historical implication.

CHRIST MYTHER GALATIANS 4:4 CONCLUSION:

The evidence does not count.

(I am guilty of a "logical fallacy" if I say that the lack of mention of the virgin birth in Paul's letters solidifies accepting the Galatians 4:4 text as original, so I better not dare to use more evidence that does not count)

NOW THE (non-Biblical) HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.

It should be pointed out that the actual evidence doesn't count: it never does to Christ Mythers.

Sticking with Mary:

Here is first century (or slightly after 100) evidence (that does not count).

quote:

Between Heaven and Hell: The Historical Jesus
By Dean R. Eyerly

p.66

Mary, mother of Jesus, was born in the city of Sepphoris, which is nestled in the hills four miles southeast of Nazareth. Mary's parents, Joachim and Anna, were direct descendents of King David, with bloodline ties to the priestly lineage descended from Aaron as recorded in the early second century gospel called the Protoevangelium of James as well as in the third century Bodmer Papyrus.

p.67

The name Panthera itself appears toward the end of the first century when prominent rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus related the teaching told to him by a Galilean follower of Jesus named Jacob of Sikhnin from the city of Sepphoris, [Christian] teaching in the name of Jesus son of Panteri" as found in the Palestinian Tosephta, Babylonian Talmud, and Midrash.


Paul mentions a female mother (not that it counts as evidence, but it was written around the mid to late 50s), but I suppose Mary was invented later (in the Gospels like Mark and Matthew from 65-90).The Gospel text only "counts" as evidence, to Christ Mythers, in that its shows us that Paul was speaking of a cosmic Jesus because he never heard of Mary (in fact, Christ Mythers say he never heard of a female mother period).

The second century pagan philosopher Celsus said Mary, mother of Jesus, was seduced by a Pantera.

Schiffman is a leading scholar of Judaism and the period around the time of Jesus.

quote:

Who was a Jew?: Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish Christian ...
By Lawrence H. Schiffman

[Tractate Hullin 2:24]

p.71

Once I was walking in the street of Sepphoris. I chanced upon Jacob of Kefar Sikhnin, and he said a word of minut in the name of Yeshua ben Pantira (Jesus), and it gave me pleasure ... I was arrested on charges of minut

....

p.72

Rabbi Eliezer is arrested for minut. From the continuation of the story it is certain that he was accused of Jewish Christianity during the rule of Trajan by the Roman authorities who were at the time persecuting Jewish Christians. Indeed, this event must have occured in 109 C.E. at the same time as the crucifixion of the Bishop of Jerusalem reported by Eusebius.

An examination of the legal details of the story leads to the conclusion that the setting of the trial as it appears here is historical.


The Jewish Christians rejected the virgin birth.

Here is the orthodox apologist Irenaeus, writing 180:

quote:

Adversus Haereses (Book I, Chapter 26)

Those who are called Ebionites ... They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.

Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 21)

God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son," Isaiah 7:14 as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God.

Adversus Haereses (Book V, Chapter 1)

Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her.


(ignoring Josephus for now)

The extra-Biblical, non-Christian evidence seems to indicate that sometime between 85 and 110, there were Jewish Christian followers of Jesus who felt Jesus had a natural earthly birth. And they lived in the Galilee. They might not have been influenced by the written Gospels (at least not like the ones we know of today) either. It seems that early Jewish Christians possibly identified Jesus with Pantera, as opposed to (Mary's legitimate husband) Joseph. Though the illegitimate Jesus might have eventually become swept away in favor of a legitimate birth to Mary with her husband Joseph.

Theodoric will get mad at any historical evidence that he does not like.

Theodoric:

quote:

If you look at his reponses they are riddled with strawman arguments. He has attempted to shift the argument completely off of my the post he originally replied to. At times has even misrepresented what I have posted. He follows with a gish gallop of information that is not pertinent to the argument at hand.
If you want to have a successful, informative debate with someone, stick to the subject and drop the logical fallacies.

Actually, this type of information is "pertinent" to the issue.

You just want it swept under the rug and dismissed out of hand.

You want to promote this "cosmic Jesus" theory, which suggests that Paul and all of the early Christians did not imagine an earthly Jesus (unless you say they were outright fraudulent and were just out to collect money for themselves?).

You dismiss evidence. Every text Christ Mythers don't like was "tampered with by Christians".

The truth to what I just said it so obvious. How else could you object to such MINOR Biblical passages (Galatians 4:4) or historical citations (like Josephus' Antiquities Book 20 "brother of Jesus called Christ), as if they were somehow controversial? You have to think that there was some big issue/debate, in the first several centuries of our era, about Jesus being historical to even entertain such notions. Otherwise, there is very little text critical reason to even raise a doubt.

The rabbinical literature will be dismissed out of hand too. Even though the historical background to the situation, of Jewish Christians still identifying Jesus as a son of Panthera, during the severing of ties with their non-Christian Jewish brethren, seems highly likely to be solid as a rock (in fact the entire T. Hullin 2:24 story seems like IT WAS AN ACTUAL EVENT).

The fact that the Rabbinical Jewish community severed ties, around 80 A.D., to Jewish Christians that believed Jesus had a natural birth, indicates a much longer relationship previously. One that stretches back BEFORE the writing of earliest Gospel (Mark) the Jesus Mythers like to claim was an invention to "make Jesus human".

It is hard to read Mark without feeling that Jesus' family didn't see him as some GOD-MAN (a Gospel that lacks the virgin birth but has his small town seem to be lacking any big expectations of his theological activities), and the Jesus Mythers say it was a novelty to oppose the early Christian view that Jesus (Paul's and every other early Christian's Jesus) was some unhistorical or ahistorical cosmic creature.

All of the references in the EvC link, of Theodoric, were using links to and arguments from the Christ Mythers (Doherty, Price, Carrier). They will endlessly dismiss - previously uncontroversial - lines in Biblical texts and early non-Christian historical works. Why? To fit their theories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1669 by Theodoric, posted 02-04-2019 9:57 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1673 of 1677 (848861)
02-16-2019 9:48 PM


(Post #1) Response to Kapyong in closed thread.
First his post 70

quote:

Notably Paul, (like all the 1st century writings), show NO mention of a historical Jesus of Nazareth as found in the Gospels - there is no 1st century mention of any of these major elements of the Gospel story -
* Joseph and Mary and Bethlehem and Nazareth,
* the birth stories, the Magi, the Star, the flight to Egypt,
* Herod and the massacre of the infants,
* John the Baptist or the baptism in the Jordan,
* the trial before Pilate (and Herod?),
* the raising of Lazarus or any miracles of Jesus,
* the cleansing of the temple, the trumphal entry,
* the Sermon on the Mount or any teachings by Jesus,
* the passion of Jesus, or the transfiguration,
* Peter the rock and "the keys",
* the denial by Peter, or betrayal by Judas,
* the empty tomb !!
None of those key events or actors are mentioned even once by 1st century Christian writers.


Several issues (2 concerns for sure)

(concern one is his basic claim about the first century texts)

(He is wrong when he mentions "the Sermon on the Mount or any teachings by Jesus")

There are three texts of interest.

1 Barnabas

2 1 Clement (aka Clement of Rome)

3 Didache

(also Ignatius)

CLEMENT OF ROME'S EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS (1 CLEMENT)

1 Clement was traditionally dated to 95, and it probably is, ironically, LATE FIRST CENTURY, because of the scarce (and complicated) Jesus quotes.

Helmut Koester is, ironically, the only scholar who states that every quote of Jesus is from ORAL TRADITION, and not the written Gospel of Matthew. One disputed verse in 1 Clement is the QUOTE of Sermon On The Mount material.

Here is the Loeb Classical Library quotation. (then I will get to Koester)

quote:

THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY
(Ed. J. HENDERSON)

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS I
LCL 24

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS I CLEMENT, II CLEMENT, IGNATIUS , POLYCARP, DIDACHE

EDITED AND TRANSLATED
BY
BART D. EHRMAN

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
CAMBRIDGE,MASSACHUSETTS
LONDON, ENGLAND
2003

Copyright 2003 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY is a registered trademark of the President and Fellows of Harvard College

pp.32-34

We should especially remember the words the Lord Jesus spoke when teaching about gentleness and patience. 2. For he said: "Show mercy, that you may be shown mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven you. As you do, so it will be [32] done to you; as you give, so it will be given to you; as you judge, so you will be judged; as you show kindness, so will kindness be shown to you; the amount you dispense will be the amount you receive." 3. Let us strengthen one an­ other in this commandment and these demands, so that we may forge ahead, obedient to his words (which are well suited for holiness) and humble-minded. For the holy word says, 4. "Upon whom will I look, but upon the one who is meek and mild and who trembles at my sayings?" [33]

....

33 Matt 5:7; 6:14-15; 7:1-2, 12; Luke 6:31, 3 6 - 3 8 . 34 Isa 66:2.


Now the dating issues.

quote:

The Second Century
A Journal of Early Christian Studies
WINTER 1992
Volume 9 Number 4

p.197
The Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century
Arthur J. Bellinzoni

p.201
1 Clement was probably written in Rome sometime between 90-100. Koester dates it in 96-97. [7]
….
[7] Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Volume II, History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982) 288.
….
p.201
Massaux identifies direct influence of Matthew on 1 Clement in six passages…
p.202
….
Koester argues that only two sayings of Jesus are found in 1 Clement (1 Clem. 13:1-2; 46:7-8)…
….
Koester finds no literary relationship between this passage and Mt. 5:7, for the passage in 1 Clem. 13:2 is shorter and more precise than the synoptic parallels and seems earlier, like a first step in the development of the saying. He suggests that 1 Clem. 13:2 can be traced back to a stage in the tradition that lies behind our synoptic gospels. Koester also argues that the saying in 1 Clem. 46:8 shows no knowledge of the form found in the synoptic gospels, but rather reproduces a variant of the text that shows a special relationship with what he calls “the Q-form” of this logion, handed down in Mt. 18:6-7 and Lk. 17:1-2.
The result of Koester’s investigation is to conclude that 1 Clement never refers to a written gospel. Even if he did use one, it never functioned for [p.203] him with the authority of scripture. The only authority that 1 Clement recognized apart from the Old Testament is “What the Lord said.”
….
p.202
…Kohler (pp.60-66) adopts a position close to that of Massaux. With respect to 1 Clement, Kohler identifies as passages that are probably dependent on Matthew: 1 Clem. 16.17; 24.5; and 46.8.
……………


Steve Mason said this:

quote:

Early Christian Reader

p.694
Relation to Other Early Christian Texts
The author assembles example after example of proper respect for leadership and authority. The main source of his examples is the Septuagint, from which he often quotes long passages. Although he is at home in the Septuagint, and quotes from it far more extensively than any other first-century Christian author, the author is heavily influenced by the new Christian writings of the first century as well.

....

p.695

He explicitly refers to Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, and cites it often-an effective strategy….He knows Paul’s Letter to the Romans (as might be expected of someone writing from Rome). Somewhat more surprisingly, he knows Ephesians and perhaps 1 Peter. But Hebrews seems to have informed Clement’s language the most.
….
Further, Clement uses synoptic like material about Jesus. This raises questions about the spread and impact of the Synoptic Gospels themselves and the continuing influence of oral tradition on the early church. Oral tradition, rather than the written Synoptics, may be the source of most of Clement’s Jesus material.
….
p.701
….
13:2 Citations by Clement are often very loose. Here it is difficult to determine whether Clement was quoting a written gospel (Matt. 5:7; 6:14; 7:1-2; Luke 6:31, 36-38) or oral tradition.


Clement of Rome seems to be a first-century Christian author.

Even Koester says so.

Ulrich Luz is one of the leading scholars in the world.

quote:

Ulrich Luz Matthew 1-7
Continental Commentary
p.46
2. THE SOURCES

The two-source hypothesis is the basis for this commentary. To question this hypothesis is to refute a large part of the post-1945 redaction-critical research in the Synoptics, a truly daring undertaking which seems to me to be neither necessary nor possible.

The Sayings Source (Q)

We make the following assumptions concerning the Sayings Source: it was a written document: that seems to be certain… But it circulated in different recensions, whereby QMt is closer to the “common” form than the version of the Sayings Source used by Luke, which was most likely enlarged substantially. …The so-called “final redaction” of Q has to be distinguished fundamentally from the redaction of the Synoptics. …Paleographically one might assume: the collection of Q material was a rather large notebook, bound together [p.47] with strings on the margin. It permitted an insertion of new leaves at any time. The Gospel of Mark, however, was a solidly bound codex and therefore a literary work which for this reason continued to be handed down even after its expansion by Matthew.
….

p.47
In my opinion, there is only one problem that poses serious difficulties for the two-source [p.48] hypothesis. It consists in the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke. They are numerous and in many places not even “minor.” But it is my view that the minor agreements do not necessitate a basic revision of the two-source hypothesis. …we should also seriously consider that there could have been slightly differing versions of Mark. …It seems to me that Matthew and Luke made use of a recension of Mark which in a number of points is secondary to our Mark.
….
p.92

At least, the Gospel of Matthew was most definitely used there [Antioch] shortly after 100 by Ignatius.
….
p.92
So much is disputed that I must limit myself to presenting my view as a thesis, [p.93] which is closer to Massaux than to Koester. In the Didache the Matthew redaction is presupposed without doubt. … Unfortunately, the Didache cannot be dated precisely.

While Ignatius is not primarily influenced by the Gospel of Matthew, there are indications he knew it, for there are passages which presuppose the Matthean redaction (Smyrn. 1:1 = Matt. 3:15, cf. Phld. 3:1 =Matt. 15:13). Polycarp certainly knew Matthew in his (2d) letter(Pol. 2:3 = Matt. 7:1f.; 5:3,6,10; Pol. 7:2 = Matt. 6:13; 26:41). But since the date is uncertain, we can only safely say that Matthew was perhaps known in Smyrna c. 115. It is conceivable to me that there are contacts between Barnabas and Matthew…The same applies to 1 Clement (cf. especially 1 Clem. 24:5 with Matt. 13:3-9 and 1 Clem. 46:6-8 with Matt. 18:6f.).Thus it is possible that Matthew was known in Rome before 100...


Probably dates before 100.

quote:

The Identity of the New Testament Text
Revised Edition
Pickering

p.100

Clement of Rome, whose first letter to the Corinthians is usually dated about 96 A.D., made liberal use of Scripture, appealing to its authority, and used New Testament material right alongside Old Testament material. Clement quoted Ps. 118:18 and Heb. 12:6 side by side as “the holy word” (56:3-4). He ascribes 1 Corinthians to the “blessed Paul the apostle” and says of it, “with true inspiration he wrote to you” (47:1-3). He clearly quotes from Hebrews, 1 Corinthians and Romans and possibly from Matthew, Acts, Titus, James, and 1 Peter. Here is the bishop of Rome, before the close of the first century, writing an official letter to the church at Corinth wherein a selection of New Testament books are recognized and declared by Episcopal authority to be Scripture, including Hebrews.


Probably before 100.

Either Clement of Rome ( 1 Clement) was just starting to quote Matthew or he was still drawing on oral Jesus teachings.

Perhaps there were sayings documents in Greek taken from the Gospel of the Hebrews?

We know that the Rabbinical literature has references, and ARAMAIC QUOTES of Sermon On The Mount teachings and it was called EVANGELION (Gospel!)

The fact that it is DIFFICULT to see if the Sermon On The Mount QUOTATION is from Matthew or not is further evidence that I Clement is late first-century.

(The letters of Paul were beginning to be quoted too)

BARNABAS

quote:

The Identity of the New Testament Text
Revised Edition
Pickering

The Epistle of Barnabas, variously dated from A.D. 70 to 135, says in 4:14, “let us be careful lest, as it is written, it should be found with us that ‘many are called but few are chosen.’” The reference seems to be Matt. 22:14 (or 20:16) and the phrase “as it is written” may fairly be taken as a technical expression referring to Scripture. In 5:9 there is a quote from Matt. 9:13 (or Mark 2:17 or Luke 5:32). In 13:7 there is a loose quote from Rom. 4:11-12, which words are put in God’s mouth. Similarly, in 15:4 we find:

Note, children, what “he ended in six days” means.
It meansthis: that the Lord will make an end of everything in six thousand years, for a day with Him means a thousand years. And He Himself is my witness, saying: “Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years.”

The author, whoever he was, is clearly claiming divine authority for this quote which appears to be from 2 Pet 3:8. In other words, 2 Peter is here regarded to be Scripture, as well as Matthew and Romans. Barnabas also has possible allusions to [102] 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter.


The scholarly journal on Masseaux and Koester:

quote:

The Second Century
A Journal of Early Christian Studies
WINTER 1992
Volume 9 Number 4

p.209
The Epistle of Barnabas
….
Massaux dates Barnabas at the same time as 1 Clement, i.e. at the end of the first century. …in his Introduction Koester dates Barnabas about 100. The truth of the matter is that we know nothing about the author of Barnabas, its place of writing, or its time of composition.


Steve Mason

quote:

Early Christian Reader
Steve Mason

p.655

Since 16:3-5 presupposes that the temple is in ruins, Barnabas was most probably written sometime between Titus’s destruction of the temple in 70 C.E. and Hadrians building of a Roman temple on the site in about 135 C.E. Barnabas 4.4-5 [p.656] and 16.1-5 do not provide enough clues to narrow the time frame further. The letter uses traditions from several generations.

p.657

Barnabas 4.14 appears to quote Matt. 22:14. Otherwise, there is no clear evidence that the author knew any NT writings. Even in the case of Barn. 4.14, Helmut Koester has argued that the author may be quoting a saying of Jesus (or an unknown pre-Christian source), which he has mistakenly attributed to Jewish scripture. Like other early church writings, Barnabas appears not to be dependent on written gospels but to stand near them in a living oral tradition.


The fact that Gospels aren't being quoted in loads means it could be early.

Koester and Masseaux both date it 100.

DIDACHE

The leading journal shows us the views of Koester and Masseaux

quote:

The Second Century

p.204

Didache
Based on what he assumes is Didache’s use of the “Two Ways” tradition in The Epistle of Barnabas, Massaux argues that the Didache should be dated sometime after 150. In his Synoptische Uberlieferung, Koester seems to agree on a relatively later dating for the Didache, although in his Introduction he located the writing in Syria sometime toward the end of the first century.
….
[ Synoptische Uberlieferung is a 1957 work by Koester Introduction is 1982]

p.205
Koester’s conclusions with respect to the Didache are quite different. He acknowledges that Did. 1:3ff contains sayings that go back to Matthew and Luke, but they are not the result of a direct use of the written gospels but come rather from ready-made sayings collections. …It appears that the compiler of the Didache knew a written gospel, but he apparently did not use it himself. …Koester continues by arguing that the Didache establishes the existence of the synoptic gospels, but certainly not their value as authoritative sources of what the Lord said and what his community was ordered to do. …Koester argues that the Didache establishes that written gospels came into use in the first half of the second century, but certainly as sources among many others without special authority to be used for the production of collections of sayings of the Lord.
….


The critical scholar Koester says the Didache is evidence for written Gospels.

Koester dates the Didache before 100!

quote:

The Identity of the New Testament Text
Revised Edition
Pickering

p.103

Two other early works, the Didache and the letter to Diognetus, employ New Testament writings as being authoritative but without expressly calling them Scripture.
The Didache apparently quotes from Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, Hebrews, and 1 Peter and has possible allusions to Acts, Romans, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation.
The letter to Diognetus quotes from Acts, 1 and 2 Corinthians while alluding to Mark, John, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, and 1 John.


Loeb

quote:

THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY
(Ed. J. HENDERSON)
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS I
LCL 24

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS I CLEMENT, II CLEMENT, IGNATIUS , POLYCARP, DIDACHE

EDITED AND TRANSLATED
BY
BART D. EHRMAN

p.410

As to the date of the Didachist himself, opinions again vary, but most would put the time of his composition sometime around the year 100, possibly a decade or so later.

....

p. 416

The teaching of the Lord through the twelve apostles to the Gentiles [Or: nations]. 1 There are two paths, one of life and one of death, and the difference between the two paths is great. 2. This then is the path of life. First, love the God who made you, and second, your neighbor as yourself. And whatever you do not want to happen to you, do not do to another. 3. This is the teaching relating to these matters: Bless those who curse you, pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For why is it so great to love those who love you? Do the Gentiles not do this as well? But you should love those who hate you —then you will 1

Matt 22:37-39; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18. 2Cf. Matt 7:12; Luke 6:31. 3 Cf. Matt 5:44, 46-47; Luke 6:28, 3 2 - 3 3 , 35.

....

p.418

have no enemy. 4. Abstain from fleshly passions. If anyone slaps your right cheek, turn the other to him as well, and you will be perfect. I f anyone compels you to go one mile, go with him two. I f anyone takes your cloak, give him your shirt as well. If anyone seizes what is yours, do not ask for it back, for you will not be able to get it. 5. Give to everyone who asks, and do not ask for anything back. For the Father wants everyone to be given something from the gracious gifts he himself provides. How fortunate is the one who gives according to the commandment, for he is without fault. Woe to the one who receives. For if anyone receives because he is in need, he is without fault. But the one who receives without a need will have to testify why he received what he did, and for what purpose. And he will be thrown in prison and interrogated about what he did; and he will not get out until he pays back every last cent. 6. For it has also been said concerning this: "Let your gift to charity sweat in your hands until you know to whom to give it." 5

2 And now the second commandment of the teaching. 2. Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not engage in pederasty, do not engage in sexual immorality. Do not steal, do not practice magic, do not use enchanted potions, do not abort a fetus or kill a child that is born.

....

4 1 Pet 2:11. 5 Matt 5:39. 6 Matt 5:48. 7 Matt 4:41, 40; Luke 6:29-30. 8 Luke 6:30. 9 c f . Matt 5:26; Luke 12:59. Source unknown. The following passage elabo­rates Exod 20:13-17; cf. Matt 19:18; 5:33. 1 0

....

p.427

DIDACHE 8

7 But with respect to baptism, baptize as follows. Having said all these things in advance, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. 2. But if you do not have running water, baptize in some other water. And if you cannot baptize in cold water, use warm. 3. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4. But both the one baptizing and the one being baptized should fast before the baptism, along with some others if they can. But command the one being baptized to fast one or two days in advance. 16

And do not keep your fasts with the hypocrites. For they fast on Monday and Thursday; but you should fast on Wednesday and Friday. 2. Nor should you pray like the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his gospel, you should pray as follows: "Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy, may your kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as in heaven. Give us today our daily bread [Or: the bread that we need; or: our bread for tomorrow]. And forgive us our debt, as we forgive our debtors. And do not bring us into temptation but deliver us from the evil one [Or: from evil]. For the power and 18

16 Matt 28:19. 18 Cf. Matt 6:5. 9


Will continue later

But there are 3 texts that Koester dates before 100 A.D.

Ignatius is dated slightly after, but has important Jesus stories from Matthew.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1676 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2019 10:53 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1674 of 1677 (848862)
02-16-2019 11:07 PM


(Post #2) Response to Kapyong in closed thread.
Ignatius, the Orthodox European Bishop of Smyrna is seen by many Jesus Myth followers to have been a fictional character.

I don't think he was, and the reason is that his quotations (from his 107-108 CE or 115-117 CE letters) seem to fit in with what we would expect from the period.

Written Gospels were being increasingly used. (But it is STILL, in 110 A.D., a challenge for scholars to know what exactly was quoted: Oral bits, pre-Gospel material, or the extant Greek Gospels)

The Pastoral Letters were probably already written, but it is still difficult to know if they are alluded to.

quote:

Loeb

p.296

TO THE SMYRNEANS

1 I give glory to Jesus Christ, the God who has made you so wise. For I know that you have been made complete in a faith that cannot be moved—as if you were nailed to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ in both flesh and spirit—and that you have been established in love by the blood of Christ. For you are fully convinced about our Lord, that he was truly from the family of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born from a virgin, and baptized by John that all righteous­ness might be fulfilled by him. 2. In the time of Pontius Pilate and the tetrarch Herod, he was truly nailed for us in the flesh—we ourselves come from the fruit of his di­vinely blessed suffering—so that through his resurrection he might eternally lift up the standard for his holy and faithful ones, whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of his church. 25

2 For he suffered all these things for our sake, that we might be saved; and he truly suffered, just as he also truly raised himself—not as some unbelievers say, that he suffered only in appearance. They are the ones who are only an ap­pearance; and it will happen to them just as they think, since they are without bodies, like the daimons.

25 Cf. Matt 3:15.

....

p.298

3 For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection. 2. And when he came to those who were with Peter, he said to them, "Reach out, touch me and see that I am not a bodiless daimon." And immediately they touched him and believed, having been intermixed with his flesh and spirit. For this reason they also despised death, for they were found to be beyond death. 3. And after his resurrection he ate and drank with them as a fleshly being, even though he was spiritually united with the Father. 26

4 I am advising you about these things, beloved, even though I know that you already agree. But I am guarding you ahead of time from the wild beasts in human form. Not only should you refrain from welcoming such people, if possible you should not even meet with them. Instead pray for them that they might somehow repent, though even this is difficult. But Jesus Christ, our true life, has authority over this. 2. For if these things were accomplished by our Lord only in appearance, I also am in chains only in ap­pearance. But why then have I handed myself over to death, to fire, to the sword, to wild beasts? But to be near the sword is to be near God, to be in the presence of the wild beasts is to be in the presence of God—so long as it is

26 Cf. Luke 24:39.


Then the journal that covered the debate between Masseaux and Koester

quote:

The Second Century
A Journal of Early Christian Studies
WINTER 1992
Volume 9 Number 4
p.193

p.206
Ignatius of Antioch
The letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria, were written sometime between 110-117 (the last years of Trajan’s reign)…

p.207

Koester’s analysis of many of these same texts yields quite different results. According to him, there is no citation drawn positively from the synoptic gospels. The similarity between Smyrn 1:1 and Mt. 3:13ff. Is, in his judgment, probably best accounted for not on the basis of a familiarity with the text of Matthew, but rather because the seemingly Matthean turn of the phrase in the context of Jesus’ baptism (“in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him”) may be the result of an Antiochian rather than a peculiarly Matthean “revision.”


Steve Mason:

quote:

Early Christian Reader

p.718

Although the letters themselves offer no clue about their date, and it is not possible to tie Ignatius to a specific persecution, most agree that they were written in the first or second decade of the second century. Eusebius places Ignatius’s martyrdom at 107-108 C.E., in the tenth year of the reign of the emperor Trajan, and the legendary accounts of the martyrdom of Ignatius agree.
….
Ignatius’s arrest was tied to Emperor Trajan’s visit to Antioch during an expedition against the Parthians. Such expeditions are dated to 107 and 116, with dispute about further engagements.
….


quote:

The Identity of the New Testament Text
Revised Edition
Pickering

p.101

The seven letters of Ignatius (c. 110 A.D.) contain probable allusions to Matthew, John, Romans, 1 Corinthians and Ephesians (in his own letter to the Ephesians Ignatius says they are all mentioned in “all the epistles of Paul”-a bit of hyperbole, but he was clearly aware of the Pauline corpus), and possible allusions to Luke, Acts, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, but very few are clear quotations and even they are not identified as such.


Here was the introcuction to the Bellinzoni article that I have been quoting from The Second Century.

It shows that the views of Masseaux, which see the early Christian non-Biblical texts strongly showing evidence of quoting WRITTEN GOSPELS, are generally supported by the leading scholars.

Koester has radical views (seeing almost everything as referencing oral Pre-Gospel traditions and such type of MATERIAL)

quote:

The Second Century
A Journal of Early Christian Studies
WINTER 1992
Volume 9 Number 4
p.193
Preface
William R. Farmer
…Bellinzoni, a student of Helmut Koester at Harvard University…is presently engaged in editing the English translation of Edouard Massaux’s Influence de l’Evangile de saint Matthieu. Sur la literature chretienne avant saint Irenee, 1950. Reprinted with additional bibliographical entries, and with a new “Preface” by Frans Neirynck, Massaux’s work re-emerged in 1986 to present a critical challenge to Koester’s 1957 Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den apostolischen Vatern. Bellinzoni’s English edition of Massaux’s work is based on the original French text reprinted in 1986, but also includes the updated bibliographical material and the new “Preface” by Neirynck from the second printing. More important, however, the English edition includes certain “Addenda” prepared by Bellinzoni himself, in addition to his own “Preface to the English Translation.” Both the new “Preface” by Neirynck and Bellinzoni’s “Preface to the English Translation,” juxtapose the work of Koester to that of Massaux. This sets the terms for a forthcoming critical debate that overshadows all contemporary discussion of the topic, “The Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century.”
….

p.194
The English edition of Massaux’s work, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus, is being published by Mercer University Press in three separate volumes. The first volume, containing Bellinzoni’s “Preface” and three of his “Addenda” did not appear until 1991.

….

Bellinzoni’s “Addenda seem to present prima facie evidence to support Massaux against Koester. In my opinion, it is a sign of Bellinzoni’s scholarly objectivity that he would voluntarily bring forth these “Addenda” when we realize that he believed that his teacher’s work, … “supersedes” that of Massaux precisely in the case of the writers most centrally concerned in the debate, i.e., the Apostolic Fathers, including 1 Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius. Bellinzoni’s “Addenda” clearly appear to work against this conclusion, and that must be borne in mind as we shape the agenda for future discussion.

Bellinzoni’s “Addenda” summarize the findings of Koester, Wolf-Dietrich Kohler, and Biblia Patristica regarding the use of Matthew by 1 Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius. (See Added Note below). The results underscore Professor Ulrich Luz’s judgment set forth in Das Evangelium nach Matthaus, 1985, pp. 75-76, that the relevant evidence supports conclusions that are nearer to those of Massaux than to those of Koester. Frans Neirynck, in his new “Preface” to Massaux, 1986, cites the relevant passage from Luz as well as texts from Wolf-Dietrich Kohler (a student of Luz) and Klaus Wengst, both of whom reach conclusions nearer to those of Massaux than Koester. …

….

p.195

Added Note

See Wolf-Dietrich Kohler, Die Rezeption des Mattausevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaus, WUNT 2/24 (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987), and Biblia Patristica: Index des Citations et Allusions bibliques dans la literature patristique, des origines a Clement d’Alexandrie etTertullien, Vol. I (Paris, 1975) 223-93. Bellinzoni’s “Addenda” are found on pp. 58, 83-84, and 121-122 of The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus, Book I, The First Ecclesiastical Writers, by Edouard Massaux, translated by Norman J. Beval and Susan Hecht, edited with an introduction and addenda by Arthus J. Bellinzoni (Louvain: Peeters and Macon: Mercer University Press, 1990). Based on the data reported in these addenda, my summary observations are three in number: (1) Against Koester’s conclusion that “I Clement never refers to a written Gospel, Kohler and Biblia Patristica agree in finding several possible allusions and three possible citations of Matthew”, but Massaux’s use of “demonstrate” for the degree of proof rendered by his three passages in support of literary dependence is stronger than the [p.196] findings of Kohler and Biblia Patristica will support. (2) In relation to Koester’s conclusion, “that Barnabas used the Gospel of Matthew simply cannot be proved,” Kohler and Biblia Patristica agree in finding several possible illusions and as many as three quite possible citations of Matthew by Barnabas. Their findings agree with Massaux that there is evidence for literary dependence at certain points, one of which turns on The Source question. (3) In relation to Koester’s conclusion that “There is no positive citation of Matthew (by Ignatius), Kohler’s and Biblia Patristica’s findings agree in showing that there is “probable” evidence of citation. Other writings treated by Koester, including 2 Clement and Polycarp, are treated by Massaux in Vol. II of the English edition, which is due to appear in July, 1992. The Didache, another book treated by Koester, is treated by Massaux in Vol. III of the English edition. This is to appear in September, 1992.

….

p.195

It is within the context of this on-going critical discussion that Bellinzoni’s paper ad the responces by Everding, Nardoni, and Farkasfalvy take on a certain relevance, more apparent today perhaps than at the time of the Symposium itself. The issues have been given a certain prominence by subsequent public announcements made to the media by representatives of the “Jesus Seminar” and the “Claremont ’Q’ Project,” Professors Robert Funk and James Robinson, respectively. On the one hand, if Koester’s conclusions are more probably correct, the whole critical movement of Walter Bauer, James Robinson, Helmut Koester, the “Jesus Seminar,” and the “Claremont ’Q’ Project” is lent significant credibility. On the other hand, if Massaux’s conclusions are more probably correct, this influential movement is correspondingly denied a significant measure of credibility, and a very different picture of Christian origins begins to take shape.

A careful reading of this set of papers will set to underscore the somewhat chaotic and frustrating state of much of contemporary critical work on the Gospel of Matthew and its influence on the shaping of early Christianity… …on-going scholarly research and its publication by responsible peer-reviewed journals and university-related presses, is a sine qua non for all responsible parties interested in the advance of this scholarly discussion.

….


Here is one of the Masseaux-leaning scholars:

quote:

Ulrich Luz
Matthew 1-7
Continental Commentary

p.46
2. THE SOURCES

The two-source hypothesis is the basis for this commentary. To question this hypothesis is to refute a large part of the post-1945 redaction-critical research in the Synoptics, a truly daring undertaking which seems to me to be neither necessary nor possible.

The Sayings Source (Q)

We make the following assumptions concerning the Sayings Source: it was a written document: that seems to be certain… But it circulated in different recensions, whereby QMt is closer to the “common” form than the version of the Sayings Source used by Luke, which was most likely enlarged substantially. …The so-called “final redaction” of Q has to be distinguished fundamentally from the redaction of the Synoptics. …Paleographically one might assume: the collection of Q material was a rather large notebook, bound together [p.47] with strings on the margin. It permitted an insertion of new leaves at any time. The Gospel of Mark, however, was a solidly bound codex and therefore a literary work which for this reason continued to be handed down even after its expansion by Matthew.

….

p.47

In my opinion, there is only one problem that poses serious difficulties for the two-source [p.48] hypothesis. It consists in the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke. They are numerous and in many places not even “minor.” But it is my view that the minor agreements do not necessitate a basic revision of the two-source hypothesis. …we should also seriously consider that there could have been slightly differing versions of Mark. …It seems to me that Matthew and Luke made use of a recension of Mark which in a number of points is secondary to our Mark.
….

p.92

At least, the Gospel of Matthew was most definitely used there [Antioch-mlm] shortly after 100 by Ignatius.
….
p.92
So much is disputed that I must limit myself to presenting my view as a thesis, [p.93] which is closer to Massaux than to Koester. In the Didache the Matthew redaction is presupposed without doubt. … Unfortunately, the Didache cannot be dated precisely.

While Ignatius is not primarily influenced by the Gospel of Matthew, there are indications he knew it, for there are passages which presuppose the Matthean redaction (Smyrn. 1:1 = Matt. 3:15, cf. Phld. 3:1 =Matt. 15:13). Polycarp certainly knew Matthew in his (2d) letter(Pol. 2:3 = Matt. 7:1f.; 5:3,6,10; Pol. 7:2 = Matt. 6:13; 26:41). But since the date is uncertain, we can only safely say that Matthew was perhaps known in Smyrna c. 115. It is conceivable to me that there are contacts between Barnabas and Matthew…The same applies to 1 Clement (cf. especially 1 Clem. 24:5 with Matt. 13:3-9 and 1 Clem. 46:6-8 with Matt. 18:6f.).Thus it is possible that Matthew was known in Rome before 100...


This is certainly not a 1st century text.

(I Clement probably dates around 95)

Clement of Rome's authentic (I Clement) Epistle to the Corinthians has Sermon on the Mount material (in Greek).

Rabbinical Jewish writings have ARAMAIC text called EVANGELION (Gospel) which talks about an actual book with Sermon on the Mount quotations (Matthew 5:17-18), and it seems to refer to an incident around 80 A.D. (based on the important Jewish characters in the episode)

Kapyong is wrong to say there are no documents from the first century.

Ignatius' quotations fit in with the standard scholarly construction of the development of the textual radiation.

(And the increasing number of Pauline Epistle quotes and/or allusions, as seen from the modest collection in 1 Clement to the much larger references in Ignatius, tells us much more)

(The Early Church Fathers evidence is solid proof that Paul's Letters were written a good chunk of time earlier than the Gospels, because they were clearly available in collections to be quoted, though, AGAIN, Clement did not have a whole lot in his first century time & place.)


    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1675 of 1677 (848863)
02-16-2019 11:48 PM


(Post #3) Response to Kapyong in closed thread.
I will quote from post 183.

quote:

The Gospels were originally anonymous, we have no idea who really wrote them.

G.Mark was first - it was written probably in Rome by someone who had never even been to Palestine.

G.Luke and G.Matthew copied G.Mark wholesale - hardly the act of an eye-witness.


Glad to see that the Greek Matthew is seen to be partly based on Mark.

So a multi-step process can help us date the Gospels.

1 Clement, Didache, and Barnabas could all three date before 100 (most would say only Clement Of Rome dates before 100), and between the three of them, we can say Matthew was quoted 100 A.D.

(Ignatius might be relevant if the earlier 107 dates is correct, but it is not too important here)

So (Greek) Matthew existed by 90, if a 100 CE text quoted it.

But the (Greek) Matthew existing requires Mark to be earlier

Mark existed by 80 then.

But the 100 A.D. Christian documents had larger numbers of Epistles of Paul quotations, so the Epistles clearly existed earlier than written Gospels (especially Greek Matthew, but also Mark)

Additionally, Paul knows of no written Greek Gospels, as Kapyong will powerfully tell us.

In fact, there doesn't seem to be any real interest in Paul's part on any pre-Gospel (soon to be in Mark) Markan material that circulated decades before the actual Gospel of Mark. He just didn't accept the (during his time) traditions that would eventually lead to the Mark Gospel.

(Kapyong and Jesus Mythers will say there were no HUMAN Jesus traditions during the time of Paul's life anyway)

Paul could not have written later than the 70s, based on the external (non-Biblical)evidence alone.

Clearly earlier than Mark which was written no later than 80.

Paul died from 65 to 68 according to tradition, and when one reads his letters, it is obvious he wrote them over a span of time, not all at once.

Paul references James, "brother", of Jesus ("The Lord") in Galatians.

Here is scholarship on the Josephus Antiquities Book XX "brother of Jesus called Christ:

quote:

The New Complete Works of Josephus
Translated by William Whiston
Commentary by Paul L. Maier
(1999 Kregel: Grand Rapids, MI)
p.662
Josephus’s second reference to Jesus in connection with the death of his half-brother James (20:200) shows no tampering whatever and is present in all Josephus manuscripts. Had there been [p.663] Christian interpolation, more material would doubtless have been presented than this brief, passing notice. James would likely have been wreathed in laudatory language and styled “the brother of the Lord,” as the New Testament defines him rather than, as Josephus, “the brother of Jesus.” Nor could the New Testament have served as Josephus’s source since it provides no detail on James’s death. For Josephus to further define Jesus as the one “who was called the Christos” was both credible and necessary in view of the twenty other Jesuses he cites in his works. In fact, the very high priest who succeeded Ananus, who instigated the death of James, was Jesus, son of Damneus.

Accordingly, most scholars now concur with ranking Josephus authority Louis H. Feldman in his notation in the Loeb edition of Josephus: “…few have doubted the genuineness of this passage [20:200] on James” (Louis H. Feldman, tr., Josephus, IX [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965], 496)


So we have a non-Biblical passage that helps us connect the dots.

We don't even need Paul's letters to see James (brother of Jesus) likely existed during the middle-third part of the first century.

We don't need Paul's letters to see Jesus existed as a man.

But Paul tells us be was born of a woman, Galatians 4:4.

Here is Kapyong's special pleading

From post 183:

quote:

Consider the famous passage "born of woman".

Now,
HOW MANY humans have been "born of woman" ?
i.e. HOW MANY humans were NOT "born of woman".

Obviously, every single human being in history was "born of woman".

So,
to describve someone as "born of woman" is like saying :
"he breathed air" - its OBVIOUS.

So,
the only reason someone would say Christ was "born of woman" would be if this would NOT be a natural conclusion - i.e. Paul cannot be referring to a normal human being.

Paul is reffering to a being like found in the Ascension of Isaiah, or someone like Attis, or Osiris - a SPIRITUAL BEING.


This bizarre (especially when reading Paul's entire text and other texts) logic is not only the most extreme special pleading one can find, it is not even original.

quote:

And Doherty certainly could emphasize even more than he already does how bizarre it is for Paul to say "born of a woman" about someone everyone already took for granted had parents. Are we to imagine that this was in doubt, so that Paul had to remind his parishioners of the obvious fact that men have mothers? In light of this, and the fact that Paul himself provides support for the alternative Doherty offers, Doherty's reading still fits the facts at least as well as a historicist reading. But he hasn't made the case for this that he could have.

https://infidels.org/...ern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html


Jesus seems to have been seen as a pre-existing angel (perhaps even divine to the point of being equal with God) by Paul.

Why would Paul not mention that he was born a human?

But, if it is so unlikely that Paul would (according to the plain reading of the text) say a human was born of a human mother (in the same text he had a "brother" named James), then let's consider ourselves fortunate he did the "unlikely" act of telling us so.

Paul said Jesus was "born of a woman" so that proves he was not actually a human born from a female human?

It at least is not odd.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019