The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts

[The Grand Nudger]

I have an uninformed opinion about a short letter?  You inform me of this in the same breath you take to tell me that you won't be informing me at all?  How can you possibly complain?

What do you take in james to be historical, in what sense, and why? We both have access to the same text now, we've both read it before......you offered it up, let's elaborate.
(I can definitely see what I would take to be historical from james, and also what I would infer historically, we could compare)

[LadyForCamus]

With respect Rhythm, this is done with all manner of ancient texts, not just religious texts. You can find all through the middle ages examples of people experiencing or witnessing "supernatural events", and in those cases some of them are first-hand. But that doesn't make the writings useless for the task of ascertaining something about the past.

"Well, other people do it too!" does not a good argument make...

[Aractus]

It is written by a Jewish person, almost certainly an early leader in the church in Jerusalem, to other Christians and contains vital information that tells us about what their beliefs were at the time. But even more importantly, much of it is directly derived from the sermon on the mount as it appears in the gospels as well as other teachings of Jesus found in the gospels. It's probable that more of it is in fact based on direct teachings that Jesus gave when he was alive (perhaps even sections of the sermon on the mount that are not recorded for instance) that are not found within the four gospels. It shows that the church at the time this was written had a very Jewish doctrine.

Now there are two schools of thought among scholars. And your vested interests (Christians) would like the epistle to date after Paul's epistles. But this is very unlikely as both Paul and James, as well as Peter and everyone else important in the New Testament do not appear in history after 70AD, which is when I believe the Jerusalem church was destroyed, following direct persecution of the Christians by Rome in Jerusalem and greater Palestine from 66AD. Rather, Paul clearly wanted to differentiate himself and "his" churches from the central church. It couldn't have been written after 66AD because there were no Jewish-Christian churches for James to write to.

As it contains direct teachings from Jesus (or rather derived directly from the teachings he gave) and not from any other church authority or "council" this is what suggests this letter is written before the council. It doesn't appear to contain independent thought in regards to the teachings in the way that Paul's epistle do. Paul you could credit with coming up with new Christian doctrines and new ways of thinking, but James is just repeating what Jesus himself taught some 15-20 years earlier. Thus this epistle also demonstrates that what Jesus taught was well known - there didn't need to be "guesswork" at the time about what he said in his ministry. In the same theme as Jesus, it teaches from an overwhelming positive outlook, rather than a negative/punitive one. Like what Jesus taught, the Law of Moses is to be followed - unlike what Paul taught which is that the Law has been done away with. If Christians didn't have the latter part of Acts, or the Pauline epistles (including the pseudonymous ones and Hebrews), they wouldn't have justification to forget about the Law. This is an epistle written to Jews, and it is to remind them to be good Jews, unlike Paul's epistle which tells Christians not to be Jews at all. And there are obvious examples of this - James says that Abraham was justified by works and not by faith, whereas Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith not works.

[athrock]

-and the specifics of what you've called a "solid argument" would answer -every single question- you asked.  


You can understand my confusion at seeing the two trains of thought alongside each other as though they were complementary?  You are essentially asking for your own religion's history, which they were kind enough to keep records of, as though it didn't exist...when you clearly think that it does.  What gives?

What I'm asking is this: If the gospels were circulated anonymously for many years before being attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were are the copies of the manuscripts which do not have their names associated with them?

And how did the Church manage to label each and every single copy of these anonymous gospels without any record of this project being mentioned in the writings of the Early Church Fathers?

So, dear atheist, if you want to claim that we don't know who wrote the gospels, where is YOUR evidence of anonymity?

[athrock]

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/qu...to-the-gos

Thanks.

The article that you cited is very instructive.

Ireanaeus (AD 120-AD 200) was a disciple of Polycarp (AD 69 - AD 155), and Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John (d. AD 95). Citing Papias (AD 70 - AD 153), another disciple of John, Irenaeus reports the authorship of Matthew and Mark. Schematically, knowledge of their authorship looks like this:

John > Papias > Irenaeus.

John told Papias who is cited by both Irenaeus and Eusebius. Papias is declaring authorship before the middle of the second century.

That's what? Two generations and less than 100 years overall from John's mouth to Papias's pen? This is long before the Council of Nicaea, long before the Edict of Milan, and long before skeptics want to acknowledge a canon.

So, there are two key points. First, this is really not a lot generations and time for the errors of the "Telephone Game" to take effect. John told Papias who the authors of the gospels were, and Papias wrote it down. Which is why believers do not accept that the authors of the gospels were anonymous or that the gospels were written as late as atheists try to claim.

Second, if you insist that 100 years is plenty of time (ignoring that the transmission from John to Papias was only one link in the chain), then I ask again:

Where are all of the anonymous copies of the gospels? What museums house these manuscripts?  

[The Grand Nudger]

It is written by a Jewish person,

-ish.....it identifies christ and lord in pretty short order, maybe somebody who was once jewish, - what we would identify today as a convert.  The speaker is definitely christian within the text , espousing clearly christian opinions throughout it's entirety.  As is to be expected given it's provenance.

almost certainly an early leader in the church in Jerusalem, to other Christians and contains vital information that tells us about what their beliefs were at the time.

I'd quibble there, but it would make no difference between us effectively.  It is either the position off some groups leader or an executive summary of a groups position espoused by someone who feels qualified to offer it.  Regardless of either of those possibilities I also think it tells us what the beliefs of that group were at the time of it's composition.  

 But even more importantly, much of it is directly derived from the sermon on the mount as it appears in the gospels as well as other teachings of Jesus found in the gospels. It's probable that more of it is in fact based on direct teachings that Jesus gave when he was alive (perhaps even sections of the sermon on the mount that are not recorded for instance) that are not found within the four gospels. It shows that the church at the time this was written had a very Jewish doctrine.

So, the "lost tapes of christ", you think?  Speaking of christ, I still think that the "set of instructions" are decidedly christian.  They routinely espouse what is  blasphemous in judaism.  That said, that proto christians were more "jewish" than they were "egyptian" isn't anything I'd dispute in this "set of instructions" or by any other narrative.  

Now there are two schools of thought among scholars. And your vested interests (Christians) would like the epistle to date after Paul's epistles. But this is very unlikely as both Paul and James, as well as Peter and everyone else important in the New Testament do not appear in history after 70AD, which is when I believe the Jerusalem church was destroyed, following direct persecution of the Christians by Rome in Jerusalem and greater Palestine from 66AD. Rather, Paul clearly wanted to differentiate himself and "his" churches from the central church. It couldn't have been written after 66AD because there were no Jewish-Christian churches for James to write to.

The positioning of the church is, I think, like most of the above, no point of disagreement between us in this context.    

As it contains direct teachings from Jesus (or rather derived directly from the teachings he gave) and not from any other church authority or "council" this is what suggests this letter is written before the council. It doesn't appear to contain independent thought in regards to the teachings in the way that Paul's epistle do. Paul you could credit with coming up with new Christian doctrines and new ways of thinking, but James is just repeating what Jesus himself taught some 15-20 years earlier.

James is repeating alot of things about jesus.......the christ bit stands out.  But I'm not sure what this to do with the questions I've been asking?  I don't think that the author of james came up with the christ narrative any more than you do......but what you're telling me know..is that james isn't just a history of what people believed...as we agree to up above, but that's it's the history of actual events?  Perhaps even otherwise unrecorded ones, those lost tapes of christ above.  Why do you believe this to be so?  This is what I'm asking.    

Thus this epistle also demonstrates that what Jesus taught was well known - there didn't need to be "guesswork" at the time about what he said in his ministry. In the same theme as Jesus, it teaches from an overwhelming positive outlook, rather than a negative/punitive one. Like what Jesus taught, the Law of Moses is to be followed - unlike what Paul taught which is that the Law has been done away with. If Christians didn't have the latter part of Acts, or the Pauline epistles (including the pseudonymous ones and Hebrews), they wouldn't have justification to forget about the Law. This is an epistle written to Jews, and it is to remind them to be good Jews, unlike Paul's epistle which tells Christians not to be Jews at all. And there are obvious examples of this - James says that Abraham was justified by works and not by faith, whereas Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith not works.

I don't think that you and I disagree on any of this...and where we do I think that those disagreements amount to little practical change.  

I think that you might agree with me here, so I'll float it...james is, essentially, epigraphical to some set of beliefs held by a group of christians or proto-christians.  "You've heard this, now do this and don't do that on account of it."  Would that be fair, to you, if I described the general form of the text in that manner?  

What I've been wondering is how we go from "you've heard this" to "this is history"? Not semantically or specifically in the minds of believers, but in actuality?

[athrock]

[edit] especially in light of the fact that you dodged the first question above completely. [edit]

Bold mine.
Quick step in and then leave. You're quite the pot calling the kettle black. You've dodged more questions of mine than anyone else.
As far as this thread, don't give a shit. Who cares who wrote bad distasteful fantasy. Stepping out now.

If you believe I have dodged even a single important question, then by all means, point it out. I'll circle back to cover what I may have missed or ignored previously.

A PM containing links to your posts will suffice. I will correct any omission in the appropriate threads as is usual.

Thanks.

[athrock]

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/qu...to-the-gos

Yes, brilliant Jor.  Good simple analysis. 
It's common knowledge that the letters of Paul predate the Gospels.  The earliest Gospel, Mark, has been dated to approximately 70 years after Jesus' death.  Did you know that in the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest "complete" New Testament (it actually contains two additional books), the "Gospels" do not include any description of the Resurrection?

Incorrect.

The earliest gospel, Mark, dates to AD 70 (conservatively); you can date it to AD 50 if you work through a bit of reasoning. 

70 years after AD 33 would place Mark around AD 103; this is much too late.

[RoadRunner79]

---

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/qu...to-the-gos

Thanks.

The article that you cited is very instructive.

Ireanaeus (AD 120-AD 200) was a disciple of Polycarp (AD 69 - AD 155), and Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John (d. AD 95). Citing Papias (AD 70 - AD 153), another disciple of John, Irenaeus reports the authorship of Matthew and Mark. Schematically, knowledge of their authorship looks like this:

John > Papias > Irenaeus.

John told Papias who is cited by both Irenaeus and Eusebius. Papias is declaring authorship before the middle of the second century.

That's what? Two generations and less than 100 years overall from John's mouth to Papias's pen? This is long before the Council of Nicaea, long before the Edict of Milan, and long before skeptics want to acknowledge a canon.

So, there are two key points. First, this is really not a lot generations and time for the errors of the "Telephone Game" to take effect. John told Papias who the authors of the gospels were, and Papias wrote it down. Which is why believers do not accept that the authors of the gospels were anonymous or that the gospels were written as late as atheists try to claim.

Second, if you insist that 100 years is plenty of time (ignoring that the transmission from John to Papias was only one link in the chain), then I ask again:

Where are all of the anonymous copies of the gospels? What museums house these manuscripts?  

---

[drfuzzy]

Yes, brilliant Jor.  Good simple analysis. 
It's common knowledge that the letters of Paul predate the Gospels.  The earliest Gospel, Mark, has been dated to approximately 70 years after Jesus' death.  Did you know that in the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest "complete" New Testament (it actually contains two additional books), the "Gospels" do not include any description of the Resurrection?

Incorrect.

The earliest gospel, Mark, dates to AD 70 (conservatively); you can date it to AD 50 if you work through a bit of reasoning. 

70 years after AD 33 would place Mark around AD 103; this is much too late.

Correct.  I mis- . . . typed.  I was WAY off my game in this post, too - only the Gospel of Mark does not include the Resurrection.  But even at AD 50, the letters of Paul predate it.  Since Paul was writing during James and Peter's lifetimes.  Push past AD 70 and you have lost that window of time.   I also claimed that the Codex Sinaiticus was the oldest complete text, but other sources have the Codex Vaticanus as the earliest - - - not by much, and certainly close in the same century, (400's) but older.