The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts

[The Grand Nudger]

Well I said he was Jewish and an early church leader didn't I? That implies he was a "Christian" or proto-Christian.

But at the time they were more a Jewish sect than they were a separate religion.

What specifically? in James is blasphemous in Judaism?

I think that by the time specific reference is made to christ as lord, we're well beyond judaism and into christianity.  

James is repeating alot of things about jesus.......the christ bit stands out.

No he isn't, he isn't telling us about the character of Jesus, but rather delivering teachings directly derived from those preached by Jesus. Do you notice that he says "hold to the faith that our lord held to" and not "hold to the faith that we have in our lord" which is what Christians now say?

He's telling us about christ, the lord and savior.  Refers to it constantly.  A set of behavioral and ideological instructions based upon the framework of a narrative not explicitly communicated but constantly alluded to as foundational, and assumed by the author to be shared by the reader in part or in whole. Christians say alot of things, now and then.

The writing of James is a historical event with a historical setting. The letter tells us what the beliefs and theology of the church that James was a part of in the first century were. Theists might try to reconcile this with the later teachings of Paul given to constitute churches outside of the Jewish lands, but what we sceptics can take from it is what the theology of the church was before Paul began messing about with them.

 You answered a question I didn't ask.  OFC the writing of james is a historical event with a historical setting.  Is the -content- of james historical?  I don't see it that way.  I see epigraphy, see above.

Well, not so much. It's just a series of teachings taken directly from what Jesus taught (in some instances you would call his citations quotations, had he bothered to mention that "Jesus said ...")

What an incredible claim you've made.  I wont bother asking how you came to possess that knowledge because I know that you don't and it doesn't matter in context.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here. But if it's how do we go from James to establishing the historicity of Jesus,

Aim lower, how do we go from james to establishing the historicity of the contents of james?

[athrock]

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.

Not going to take the time to look them up. Believe it was in your first or second thread. First dodge was when I asked are you a theist, second and third dodges were are you a christian. This was back when you were stating that you were "open minded".

Oh. 

What does it mean to be "open-minded"? One Google definition:

The definition of open minded is a willingness to try new things or to hear and consider new ideas. An example of an open minded person is one who listens to her opponent in a debate to see if the information makes sense or if she can change her mind.

Notice that there is nothing in this definition that prevents one from having a position to defend in that debate.

So, can an atheist or a Christian have firm ideas and beliefs AND yet be open to new ideas? I know I am.

[brewer]

Not going to take the time to look them up. Believe it was in your first or second thread. First dodge was when I asked are you a theist, second and third dodges were are you a christian. This was back when you were stating that you were "open minded".

Oh. 

What does it mean to be "open-minded"? One Google definition:

The definition of open minded is a willingness to try new things or to hear and consider new ideas. An example of an open minded person is one who listens to her opponent in a debate to see if the information makes sense or if she can change her mind.

Notice that there is nothing in this definition that prevents one from having a position to defend in that debate.

So, can an atheist or a Christian have firm ideas and beliefs AND yet be open to new ideas? I know I am.

Nice dodge again. Answer the question. Are you a christian? Or do I start referring to you as "Peter the Dodger"?

[athrock]

The Bible is not infallible because it cannot be prevented from teaching error. It simply says what it says.

People can be prevented from teaching error. Therefore, people can be infallible. Books are inerrant.

But that's probably splitting hairs.

Now, the Bible contains books that were written as history, allegory, poetry, etc. All sorts of literary styles. 

What caused you to stop thinking the Bible is either inerrant or "infallible"?

I have had a very long day.  I'm tired.  I have posted deconversion stories in other threads here.  But, I should give an answer.  So let's see . . . I started reading up on science.  Cosmology, genetics - - I'm no genius, we're talking Discover magazine type articles, not quantum physics.  I started listening to the readings in church, and having to re-check "did that REALLY say what I think it said?".  Yep.  And during one Easter Mass about 10 years ago, I realized that I didn't believe any of it, I couldn't MAKE myself believe it anymore.  
   Now, somewhere in my computer I have compiled a rather huge "reasons for atheism" file, but I get the impression that you would try to tear apart any ones I might post.  I'm not in the mood.  Asking me to believe in a deity feels very much (to me) like insisting that I believe in Santa Claus.  Deconversion wasn't a conscious choice.  It was a gradual realization.

Gradual? Yes. Realization? I'm skeptical. (see what I did there?  )

How old were you when you reached your conclusion?

[athrock]

That's right, rob.

You are ONLY giving your opinion. That's the whole problem with your posts...they are just the opinions of an ignorant man.

Wouldn't it make better sense to "give" what you know from reading good books by reputable authors - or better yet, the NT and the Early Church Fathers themselves?

In what way is the NT "better" than good books from reputable sources?  That's hilarious!

Well, if you read the NT yourself, you are getting the story from the most direct sources. If you read the Church Fathers, you are getting the thoughts of the first believers.

If you read other books about the NT or the early Church, you are getting an opinion about them rather than forming your own opinion.

[Minimalist]

Well, if you read the NT yourself, you are getting the story from the most direct sources. If you read the Church Fathers, you are getting the thoughts of the first believers.

There's a major assumption on your part!

[drfuzzy]

I have had a very long day.  I'm tired.  I have posted deconversion stories in other threads here.  But, I should give an answer.  So let's see . . . I started reading up on science.  Cosmology, genetics - - I'm no genius, we're talking Discover magazine type articles, not quantum physics.  I started listening to the readings in church, and having to re-check "did that REALLY say what I think it said?".  Yep.  And during one Easter Mass about 10 years ago, I realized that I didn't believe any of it, I couldn't MAKE myself believe it anymore.  
   Now, somewhere in my computer I have compiled a rather huge "reasons for atheism" file, but I get the impression that you would try to tear apart any ones I might post.  I'm not in the mood.  Asking me to believe in a deity feels very much (to me) like insisting that I believe in Santa Claus.  Deconversion wasn't a conscious choice.  It was a gradual realization.

Gradual? Yes. Realization? I'm skeptical. (see what I did there?  )

How old were you when you reached your conclusion?

Gradual realization?  I suppose I see the nit picking.  Questioning details was extremely gradual, over many years.  The realization was rather sudden.  Correction accepted.
Not that you have any right to ask the age question - and how relevant is it, really? - but I was 46.

[athrock]

Additionally, I'm no scholar, but it is my understanding that when scribes completed a document (Paul composed his letters orally and only occasionally attached a greeting in his own handwriting), a second copy was made immediately so that the contents were not lost.

No, he says he does this in EVERY letter he sends. Which is how we know that they weren't intended to be copied:

"I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write." - 2 Thessalonians 3:17

It is to mark them as authentic - like someone signing their name. Thus we know that Paul didn't intend for others to copy his letters. Nor would he have made copies for circulation when he could write letters directed to other churches instead - which is what he clearly did. And besides, we have examples of letters being sent out from the same location to different churches - he sent both Corinthians and Galatians from Syria at or around the same time.

Then how are we to understand this line from Romans?

22 I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord.

Are you arguing that Paul wrote EVERY letter by hand personally and that if the letter does not contain Paul's "distinguishing mark" - a concluding passage in his own hand - then the letters are not authentic?

Then what do you make of the writings of Papias? Did he simply make all this up? I think this unlikely since the ECF's were quite keen on passing on what they had been taught VERY faithfully.

I also consider it unlikely that the early Christians went to mass on Sunday morning and someone stood up and said, "A reading from the Holy Gospel according to...um...someone."  

The early Church KNEW who the authors were. ...

No, he probably didn't make it up but he WAS mistaken. This is one problem with critical scholars that argue for late authorship of the gospels - if the synoptic gospels were written between 80-90AD then Papias was spectacularly incompetent - especially if he's writing as early as you'd like us to believe - but even if he's writing early second century he's got it spectacularly wrong.

Even on his claim though (that Mark is 100% accurate) we know Mark got things wrong.

A couple of examples would be helpful.

The fact that there were known "forgeries" afoot doesn't negate the fact that some of the NT writings are also forged - or rather written in the name of someone who didn't actually write the text. Let's suppose for a moment that you're correct that they "knew" that the authors of Mark and Luke were Mark and Luke. Fine. That's not a problem. What is a problem is when we're told some 30-50 years after Mark has been written that "Mark got his knowledge from Peter" and "he didn't get anything wrong in his gospel". That's where it becomes a problem - when the claim is made the author personally knew one of the disciples. That claim is not made for Luke.

I'm not following you here...my apologies. My understanding is that John Mark was a disciple of Peter and that he collected the sayings of Peter which became the basis for Mark's Gospel. If Mark published early (AD 50), then Peter was still alive at the time. If he published late (AD 70), then Peter had been martyred in Rome five years earlier. Either way, I guess I need some examples of what Mark got wrong in order to understand why Papias was incorrect when he attributed Mark to Mark.

As for Luke, where do you get the idea that he did not know any of the apostles? He is clear that He had investigated the matter of Jesus' life and death thoroughly since He admits as much in his prologue. He knew Paul for one, probably Mary and John (for two), and during the course of his travels, he could have easily met any number of disciples - either in Jerusalem or in Rome or wherever. I don't want to over-play the hand, so I'll stick with Paul, Peter, Mary and John.

And furthermore when we come to Matthew it's obvious to anyone that it's not written by one of the original 12. The fact that he has to plagiarise from Mark proves this. The author of Matthew is dependant upon pre-existing written and/or oral material about the ministry of Jesus. And Matthew was composed in Greek and not Hebrew. So the fact that Papias gets these things wrong proves that he's not a reliable source to ascertain who the authors are and what their relationship was to the disciples and other members of the early church.

You're only ASSUMING that Matthew had to plagiarize Mark when it is possible that he simply did so to save time. There is nothing condemnatory about that. However, both Papias and Irenaeus claimed that Matthew had written in Greek, as did Origen and Eusebius. Now, maybe they were all simply copying the same mistake from one another, but this is speculation.

Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that Matthew should have been 100% original in his material if he was a legitimate eye-witness, but this does not follow. He could have been an eyewitness and he could have used previously extant material massaged to meet the needs of the audience for whom he was writing.

[quote='athrock' pid='1191804' dateline='1454348765']
You've omitted John (he was in Ephesus), Clement (he was in Rome), and a boatload of other folks named in the New Testament who were either scattered by the persecution that broke out after the day of Pentecost or who were not actually from Jerusalem to begin with (such as Priscilla, Aquila and Apollos). Since Clement is named in one of Paul's letters AND considered the fourth bishop of Rome, I don't think the idea of "rebuilding" is correct. It is more correct that the center of the Church shifted from Jerusalem to the heart of the Empire.

More to the point, Papias was born in AD 70, and he was a disciple of John. Consequently, when he tells us who the authors of the gospels were based on what he heard from John (and others presumably), then I think we CAN know what what happening between AD 50 and AD 130). He and others (such as Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and Justin Martyr) tell us.

How do you know when Papias was born?

Do you have a different date in mind?

This may be the first time in my life that I'm going to invoke "Occam's Razor" since I think folks often do so to avoid considering all alternatives thoroughly. However, does it REALLY make sense to add a second anonymous person into the mix? Why stop there? Why not assert that it was actually a friend of someone who knew Luke? Or a friend of a friend of a friend of Luke? This would enable the skeptic to cast doubt on Luke-Acts completely.

See my point? Of all the gospels, Lucan authorship is probably the least contested.

Either is an equally plausible possibility when we consider that Luke-Acts are anonymous. If the author identified himself as Luke then his authorship probably be contested. But he doesn't.

Paul mentions Luke as his travelling companion. Luke uses "we" frequently in the narrative of Acts. But there is a biography of Luke available here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

Papias states that according to John the Elder, Mark was an associate of Peter and wrote down Peter's sayings - though not necessarily in the correct order. Luke, therefore, made an effort to write an "orderly" account.

Yes but he wrote that down in the early second century, at least 30 years after the gospels were written (and I'd argue more like 50 years). And he was wrong 0 just like many people frequently are.

Ah, well...since you say so. C'mon...you have some support for this?

Which is not quite the same as saying that the Apostle John (the unnamed disciple in several passages) was not involved in the authorship of the gospel which bears his name.

He wasn't involved, but it is clear that it is most likely written by disciples of John. The theology is very different to the rest of the New Testament which suggests it was written independently of the Pauline branch of Christianity.

Or that by the year 95, after 60 years of reflection, John, being familiar with the synoptics, wanted to emphasize some different themes.

[athrock]

That's what the resurrection is all about. Jesus is risen from the dead.

No they're not, they're two different statements. In Genesis there are examples of people who are "raised" by God to be in heaven (or as it puts it "walk with God"), Enoch for example. So we know the Jewish understanding of being raised to the celestial realm was not to be physically resurrected here on Earth. Mark is written before any of the other gospels - I'd say by around 55AD or so, but others say 70-80AD. In any case he does not have an understanding of a physical resurrection where Jesus then appears to people in his raised body. Paul doesn't know about this either - which is why I contend that Mark was written around the same time as Paul's Epistles. The only two things that Paul mentions are "visions of Jesus" and "receiving by divine revelation" which he claims to frequently do, and it's anyone's guess what that means. But it probably meant he was taking some kind of hallucinogen to invoke a "spiritual experience" and believed that he received things by revelation that way, as there are plenty of other examples of this throughout the centuries.

He never once claims to have met the resurrected/risen Jesus. It's Luke who makes that claim in Acts 9, but as it's at best a second-hand account we can ignore it. Especially since Paul himself never corroborates the account - he simply says he received a "revelation about Jesus" (Galatians 1:12).

And now, the REST of the story (key passages in bold):

---

The attitude of the Church as to the reading of the Bible in the vernacular may be inferred from the Church's practice and legislation. It has been the practice of the Church to provide newly-converted nations, as soon as possible, with vernacular versions of the Scriptures; hence the early Latin and oriental translations, the versions existing among the Armenians, the Slavonians, the Goths, the Italians, the French, and the partial renderings into English. As to the legislation of the Church on this subject, we may divide its history into three large periods:

(1) During the course of the first millennium of her existence, the Church did not promulgate any law concerning the reading of Scripture in the vernacular. The faithful were rather encouraged to read the SacredBooks according to their spiritual needs (cf. St. Irenæus, Against Heresies III.4).

(2) The next five hundred years show only local regulations concerning the use of the Bible in the vernacular. On 2 January, 1080, Gregory VII wrote to the Duke of Bohemia that he could not allow the publication of the Scriptures in the language of the country. The letter was written chiefly to refuse the petition of the Bohemians for permission to conduct Divine service in the Slavic language. The pontiff feared that the reading of the Bible in the vernacular would lead to irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text (St. Gregory VII, "Epist.", vii, xi). The second document belongs to the time of the Waldensian and Albigensianheresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned ("Epist., II, cxli; Hurter, "Gesch. des. Papstes Innocent III", Hamburg, 1842, IV, 501 sqq.). After the death of Innocent III, the Synod ofToulouse directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the misuse of Sacred Scripture on the part of the Cathari: "prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere" (Hefele, "Concilgesch", Freiburg, 1863, V, 875). In 1233 the Synod of Tarragona issued a similar prohibition in its second canon, but both these laws are intended only for the countries subject to the jurisdiction of the respective synods(Hefele, ibid., 918). The Third Synod of Oxford, in 1408, owing to the disorders of the Lollards, who in addition to their crimes of violence and anarchy had introduced virulent interpolations into the vernacular sacred text, issued a law in virtue of which only the versions approved by the local ordinary or the provincial council were allowed to be read by the laity (Hefele, op. cit., VI, 817).

(3) It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, "Dominici gregis", the Index of Prohibited Books. According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate. The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice. Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix. Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it. This doubt was not removed by the next three documents: the condemnation of certain errors of the Jansenist Quesnel as to the necessity of reading the Bible, by the Bull "Unigenitus" issued by Clement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf. Denzinger, "Enchir.", nn. 1294-1300); the condemnation of the same teaching maintained in the Synod of Pistoia, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" issued on 28 Aug., 1794, by Pius VI; the warning against allowing the laity indiscriminately to read theScriptures in the vernacular, addressed to the Bishop of Mohileff by Pius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816. But the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844. In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.

---

Okay, if that's what you believe then you have a very poor understanding of textual transmission and availability in the Middle Ages. The RCC fought to keep the Bible in Latin.

I've read repeated claims that the Bible was on scrolls of papyrus and parchment in the early centuries and that (somehow) precluded people from obtaining personal copies. This claim is rubbish. At least 2/3rds of the surviving Biblical papyrus manuscripts that exist today were codacies. But even if they weren't it wouldn't matter, Jews were quite content with using scrolls for many centuries before and after the arrival of Christianity, their entire cannon was canonised on scrolls without the use of any codacies (hence how they became 22 scrolls), but just like a codex containing one book (or a collection of smaller books) of the New Testament can be individually copied, so too could the individual constitute parts of the Hebrew cannon.

But the other thing is that we have examples of less-than-professional early texts (for example that lack majuscule lettering) of the New Testament, showing there was indeed a need and use of "personal copies".

So the Catholic church refused people the use of the Bible in its original languages, and also refused access to English translations. The only version authorised by the RCC was the Latin Vulgate. And they enforced this brutally - copies of the Tyndale Bible were burned, and William Tyndale was strangled and then burned on a stake. After being defrocked that is, which brings me nicely back to my point that even the church clergy were not allowed to read the bible in its original language - they were to use the Vulgate. This was formally delcared at the Council of Trent in the mid 16th century.

Even that section of text that you quoted has horrific examples of inhumanity in it:

• "The pontiff feared that the reading of the Bible in the vernacular would lead to irreverence and wrong interpretation"
  
• "In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned"
  
• "According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular [only] by pious and learned men [...] as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate."
  
• "The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice."
  
• "henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors."
  

Let's not make any mistake here - the RCC refused the laiety access to anything other than the Vulgate until the Douay–Rheims Bible which was published in the late 16th century and was translated directly from the Vulgate with no interest from the church in the Greek or Hebrew originals. This was the only Catholic-approved translation of the English Bible until the 20th century: and it wasn't even translated from Greek or Hebrew!! The bible that replaced the D-R version was the Jerusalem Bible and it wasn't translated until 1966. And it is a translation of La Bible de Jérusalem 1956 (the RCC-approved French translation) and hevily influenced by the Vulgate. But it was the first widely-available Catholic-approved Bible in English that did make use of the original language texts in its translations.

So long-story short, the RCC shackled the original Biblical texts as much as they could, even issuing a decree that the "Vulgate" is the authorised version of the Bible so that their doctrines wouldn't be threatened by people reading the original texts.

I'll being my response with a question: Which denomination of Protestant were you before you became an atheist?

[Aractus]

I think that by the time specific reference is made to christ as lord, we're well beyond judaism and into christianity.

I don't think so. That kind of language is used in other places in the Bible. If anything it shows how far Judaism could flex before breaking.

He's telling us about christ, the lord and savior.  Refers to it constantly.  A set of behavioral and ideological instructions based upon the framework of a narrative not explicitly communicated but constantly alluded to as foundational, and assumed by the author to be shared by the reader in part or in whole.  Christians say alot of things, now and then. 

Lord, yes, Saviour, no. When James talks about salvation he talks about "salvation through works", not through Jesus.

Well, not so much. It's just a series of teachings taken directly from what Jesus taught (in some instances you would call his citations quotations, had he bothered to mention that "Jesus said ...")

What an incredible claim you've made.  I wont bother asking how you came to possess that knowledge because I know that you don't and it doesn't matter in context.

What? That statement can be proved to you easily. Here you go, here's a list of the Sermon on the Mount references found in James:

1. James 1:2, Matt 5:11-12, Luke 6:23
   
2. James 1:4, Matt 5:48
   
3. James 1:5, Matt 7:7, Luke 11:9
   
4. James 1:9-10a, Matt 5:5, Luke 1:52
   
5. James 1:10-11, Matt 6:28-30, 13:5-6, Mark 4:6
   
6. James 1:14-15, Matt 5:28, Mark 7:21-22
   
7. James 1:17, Matt 7:11, Matt 5:14a, 16, Luke 11:13
   
8. James 1:18, Matt 5:13, Luke 14:34-35, Mark 9:50
   
9. James 1:19-20, Matt 5:20, 22
   
10. James 1:22, 25, Matt 7:24, 26, Luke 6:46-49
    
11. James 1:27, Matt 6:1-4, 25:34-36, 40
    
12. James 2:5, Matt 5:3, Luke 6:20
    
13. James 2:11-12, Matt 5:21, 27
    
14. James 2:13, Matt 5:7, 6:15, 7:1-2
    
15. James 2:14, Matt 7:21, Luke 6:46
    
16. James 3:12, Matt 7:16-18, Luke 6:43-44
    
17. James 3:16-17, Matt 7:17, Luke 6:43
    
18. James 3:18, Matt 5:9
    
19. James 4:2, Matt 6:25
    
20. James 4:2-3, Matt 7:7-8, Luke 11:9-10
    
21. James 4:4-5, Matt 6:24, 12:39
    
22. James 4:9, Matt 5:4, Luke 6:25
    
23. James 4:10, Matt 6:17-18, Matt 23:12, Luke 14:11, 18:14
    
24. James 4:11, Matt 5:22, 7:1, Luke 6:37
    
25. James 5:1, Matt 5:3, Luke 6:24
    
26. James 5:2-3, Matt 6:19-20, Luke 12:20-21, 33
    
27. James 5:5, Matt 6:21, Luke 12:34
    
28. James 5:6, Matt 5:21-22, 39
    
29. James 5:9, Matt 5:22, 7:1, 24:33, Luke 6:37, Mark 13:29
    
30. James 5:10-11b, Matt 5:11-12, Luke 6:22-23
    
31. James 5:12, Matt 5:34-37
    

You can paste any of those into Bible Gateway to see the parallel passages for yourself.

Aim lower, how do we go from james to establishing the historicity of the contents of james?

Nothing further needs to be established Rhythm.