I don't know who Cassels is. Can you tell me? There are so many people doing self-publishing these days that since he doesn't show up as a professor on any university that maybe he's not a reliable source.

In any case, I don't see the problem with these being two letters (see "Introduction to the New Testament" by Helmut Koester). Polycarp to the Philippians looks like two letters, and we know that this is an ancient practice to combine two or more letters. For example, II Corinthians is largely viewed as multiple letters, and many scholars think Paul's epistle to the Philippians was also multiple letters. This was done if there was room on the scroll, or room on the codex to consolidate the letter.

In any case, Irenaeus mentions the epistle:


Eusebius quotes Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians:



We have multiple attestation of Polycarp writing this letter to the Philippians and Ignatius epistles:

1) Polycarp testifying to Ignatius epistles to the Philippians (c. 110 CE)
2) Ignatius testifying he wrote a letter to Polycarp (c. 110 CE)
3) The pagan Lucian of Samosata in "Passing of Peregrinus" saying that Peregrinus "despatched missives to almost all the famous cities—testamentary dispositions, so to speak, and exhortations and prescriptions—and he appointed a number of ambassadors for this purpose from among his comrades, styling them 'couriers of God'" thereby showing that Peregrinus was familiar with the Ignatius letters as was said by Ignatius in his letters to the Smyrmeans and Polycarp (c. 167 CE quoting events that happened in the past)
4) Irenaeus testifying to (1) but not quoting it (c. 180 CE)
5) Irenaeus quoting (2) but not naming Ignatius (c. 180 CE)
6) Origen testifying to (2) and quoting passages (c. 250 CE)
7) Eusebius testifying to (1) and quoting passages (c. 324 CE)
8) Eusebius testifying to (2) and quoting passages (c. 324 CE)

So, as you can see, there's no significant reason to reject any of these documents as authentic unless you just want to reject evidence for the sake of preserving your pet theories.

While Irenaeus used a pen apparently he also weilded a great deal of power and had those at his disposal who would gladly dispose of the Gnostics. He and those like him who were trying to form the church as we know it today were not above killing.

That has continued to be true through the ages...look at the Inquisition and how the Cathars were treated, for example.



As far as the early Christian history is concerned, I have read much from both a fundamentalist and a Gnostic position. Personally I don't think either position is true. It's been my experience that 'truth' is usually somewhere between what both sides say. I'm not sure what would constitute 'evidence' for you. Maybe you could give me an example of what you mean by evidence and then I would be able to answer the question better.

Maggie

__________________
So much to learn and see and do

Please read my text again. No where did I suggest that Jesus was famous just because he was a healer. I said that this is characteristic was known of Jesus in the first strata. Of course, the resurrection is also known of him, but that is later after Jesus died (otherwise no one would be saying it was a resurrection, right?).


It's just not reasonable what you are saying here, TC. Your arguments are based on one denial after the other. You have a few common strategies to deny the absolute obvious:

1) Interpolation. "Evidence you say? We don't have no stickin evidence it was added later"--of course such arguments are based purely on mythic ideology and not a lick of evidence... "Why? Well it was wiped out of course by the conspiracists."

2) Misinterpretation: E.g., "Those weren't rulers that executed Jesus. This is the spiritual entities that executed him, and we know that because the Archon term was used by people living in Egypt 100 years after Paul. Evidence you say? We don't have no stickin evidence... Why? Well it was wiped out of course by the conspiracists."

3) Forgery. "Evidence you say? We don't have no stickin evidence it was forged later"--of course such arguments are based purely on mythic ideology and not a lick of evidence... Why? Well it was wiped out of course by the conspiracists.

4) Conspiracy. "Everybody was in on it. EVERYBODY. They wiped out whatever evidence proves my case."

5) Card Stacking. "I don't want to discuss the probability of X+Y+Z+... all having to be true to maintain the legitimacy of my argument, at the moment I just want to talk about X. Btw, regarding X, let me quote somebody who lived in the 19th century without any credentials and has his stuff on the web who agreed with me."

6) All NT Scholars are Religious Wackos: "They're in on it. They really are just trying to prove their religion, or they are so having to please the majority who are trying to prove their religion that they intellectually just go along with the flow."

Hi Maggie, can you provide evidence (e.g., references in Irenaeus's works that he advocated murder) of this charge. Isn't this quite a charge to make against someone who sincerely felt that heretics were distorting the Christian message?


Evidence is varied. It could be based on fragments of documents, quotations to authentic works, textual analysis, etc. What surely doesn't constitute evidence in my opinion is so-called facts that are mainly rooted in ideology (e.g., my opinion is, I believe that, etc.).

No. It wasn't "known". Its "suspected". See what I mean about the words you choose. We don't have anyone to "know", we have a character to "suspect". If I say:


Does that mean Hercules was also based on a real person. Are you ready to give the same kind of probability to Hercules as you are to Jesus?


Of course, makes perfect sense, I guess that means Hercules also lived because he is said to have died and ascended to the Gods in Olympus. Are you saying its impossible that we could have stories about resurrection and rebirth first, and then have stories about their purported life on earth second? Are you saying its an impossibility that spiritual/mystery cults who profess to teach you the secret of "learning to die before you die", need an actual hero first in order for anyone to believe or find validity in their wisdom?


Are they? Are you saying the gospels as we have them are exactly as the original authors put them to paper? Are you saying there is no lower criticism about such things? Are you saying the Catholic Church didn't go on a censorship spree? Oh well, I see were back to challenging my motivations, how predictable.


But when asked where are your primary sources, are you going to produce those?


Are you stating forgery was not rampant? That religious fervor never produces overreactions or the need to lie if it furthers the faith?


See, that's your interpretation. Everybody doesn't need to believe. In fact, I'm sure most sincerely did believe it. But that's just it, isn't it? We don't have these precious eyewitnesses. So if you are going to believe somebody, its an act of faith, not an act of fact checking.


But your own stack of cards is really made out of cement, isn't it. You got a whole industry that says so. Even when a prominent theologian/professor whom you admit you respect says he didn't at first understand the proposal Christianity didn't start in Jerusalem, but now he "gets it". Apparently he's also fallen under this long list of sins you are enumerating now. Why don't we just both accuse each other all day of card stacking, I'm sure its the argument everyone buys and makes the conversation so interesting. Yawn!


I didn't say that. I said most of them are professed Christians, and as such they have a bias in it. I'm not saying all biases are equal or are to be treated the same. But to say its not a factor is simply you trying to deny the obvious bias. This bias is not based in any strata evidence of Jesus being a great healer. Its a bias in your belief that Jesus represents a dominating view in the immortality of your being. For some people, they need this to be an historical event to add credibility to their belief. Others have seen past the need for the event to be historical for it still to be central to their outlook. But since one cannot disprove a myth anymore than one can prove it, it does not hurt to maintain the idea something happened. Because that unsolvable question gives way to much speculation, both professionally and privately. I don't believe Crossan is "in on it". I believe he just doesn't seriously question it because it isn't of primary concern to him. His primary concern is IF it happened, what can we reconstruct from what we believe we know. It isn't quite as much fun if we just say it didn't happen. That's a very short book.

-TC

"Known of" doesn't mean this in itself constitutes knowledge. For example, if we read internet accounts of people who say they know of people who have been abducted by aliens doesn't mean we have knowlege that people have been abducted by aliens. It just means that this is how certain have people been identified (i.e., as part of their identity). Jesus, in the first strata, is know of as a healer.


We have to challenge your motives because each piece of evidence gets a formulaic response from you. I don't see a real desire to explain the evidence, only a trend to deny the assumptions of the evidence based on formulas (i.e., interpolation, misinterpretation, forgery, conspiracy, card stacking, scholarly incompetence/disingenuity). I don't know if you are aware of it or not, but with those evasive approaches you could re-invent all of history as conspiracists are fond of doing.

Look, TC, if you were really serious about a scientific study of the past, then your methodology would be consistent to all events. You could lay out to me what kind of evidence constitutes inferring a probable historical event, and we could see how you approach the past across the board. For example, you might not think Alexander the Great was a historical person if we have no actual letters from him. Or, you might think that Kennedy's assassination was certainly caused by the Mafia because it fits a conspiracy approach to evidence. We don't see that from you. You cherry pick your methodology depending on how it fits a bias. Gnosticism, for example, fits into a positive bias for you, so you almost have zero standards of evidence. As an example of this, you cited recently that Paul was referring to spiritual Archons in I Cor. 2:9, but gave no evidence that Greeks or Jews in that period even conceived of such kind of a concept. Yet, your whole mythicist perspective depends on this very fact! This is just inconsistent methodology which you seem to be completely unaware of.

No, I can't provide evidence from his writing. I can quote from some scholars who have spent years studying the Gnostics and the early church, however, who have stated that the Gnostics were persecuted. I agree that he FELT that the Gnostics were heretics, however, that didn't give him the right to persecute them.

{QUOTE]Evidence is varied. It could be based on fragments of documents, quotations to authentic works, textual analysis, etc. What surely doesn't constitute evidence in my opinion is so-called facts that are mainly rooted in ideology (e.g., my opinion is, I believe that, etc.).[/quote]

I agree with you that anyone's opinion or belief is evidence. I also believe, if you read my first post, that ALL history is slanted. That would include the history written by the early church fathers as well as the Gnostics. And that's where I agree with you on the 'so-called facts that are mainly rooted in ideology". That's what I see much of history as.

Therefore, all I can do is read both sides of the story and, knowing that history is slanted, take a jaded view of both sides.

Maggie

__________________
So much to learn and see and do

I guess my question is what scholars suggest that they were persecuted in the second century. I haven't seen that evidence or opinion, not to say it didn't happen. But, I'm skeptical of it. It could just as well gone the other way, or no way at all.


We agree on this point.

But the difference is that you are using this as a means to establish some sort of "person" that you otherwise can show no evidence for. It is not "strata" for Jesus as a real person anymore than "lumberjack" identifies Paul Bunyon as some sort of real person. I've seen some people claim he was a Cynic Sage and an Essene master. Are these also first strata. Was he a tekton, is that first strata. I'm sure if I keep going I can find lots of supposed first strata that once again are so anonymous they could be anybody, and as we know, anybody is not somebody.

After our final rounds are complete, I'll go into the details of your case. I'll use predominantly Christian sources, and I'll show you exactly why this edifice you believe so unassailable is no more real the house of cards you believe me to live in. I promise.

-TC

I'm losing faith in waiting for you, TC. I'm still waiting for evidence that Archons didn't have the common meaning of Paul's day. You have yet to show evidence that we should think that Paul wasn't talking about the human rulers. Also, now I'm waiting for a reply on the post above about Ignatius and Polycarp epistles.

I'm waiting and waiting...