Aristides in Syriac

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

Some time ago I mentioned my version of a "smoking gun" that shows the late date of the Gospels -

Aristides, probably in the 120s, wrote
...This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them;...


Peter asked me if I could find the original so as to check exactly how "a short time" was used in the original. The original(s) seems to be in Syriac, and in Greek (a later version). I can't find the original Syriac text myself, but there is a book which contains it :

Harris, J. Rendel. "The Apology of Aristides on Behalf of the Christians". 1893. 148 pp. Syriac and Greek texts, English translation, commentary. Patristica. 1436.

Is there any chance someone here has access to this work and could check the relevant passage in Syriac? It may help to elucidate the intended meaning.


I contend that the phrase "preached a short time" means :
"has (only) been preached FOR a short time".
Which means the Gospel was fairly new (and singular) in the 120s.

The only other plausible interpretation would seem to be :
"was preached for a short time (but not anymore)"
which makes no sense, as the Christians certainly have not stopped preaching the Gospel.


Iasion

[CX]

Could it not be that "preached a short time" refers to the brevity of Jesus' original ministry?

[Haran]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but "the gospel" seems to me here to probably refer to the Diatessaron, an ancient harmony of the 4 gospels.

Also, it would be interesting to see how the original "short time" was worded and do a search in the Greek for other places where the phrase is used. My feeling is that this may be an overly literal translation which does not come across very well in English.

[Bernard Muller]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but "the gospel" seems to me here to probably refer to the Diatessaron, an ancient harmony of the 4 gospels.
Haran

The Diatessaron (170-175) was written much later than Aristides' apology (120-130),
At the times of Aristides, the definition of 'Gospel' is very fluid. It means anything from "good news" (as in Paul's epistles) to some mental "ideal" harmonization of known written gospels, relative to Christian theology/christology. This is according to my studies on the matter, as found on my page about gospels (http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/gospels.shtml)
Here, it seems 'gospel' refers to what was preached by the disciples:
From Aristides' Apology:
"The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven [according to GJohn], and from a Hebrew virgin [according to GLuke & GMatthew] assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days [according to GMark & GMatthew] he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world [according to the late additions to GMark, Mk16:20] and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

Of course, we may argue on "you also if you will read therein", implying a written harmonization existed then, but likely Aristides was bluffing: he was not expecting Hadrian to look for (and read) any written gospel. And there is nothing in the apology which said Aristides issued "the" gospel to the emperor.

Best regards, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

A translation of the Syriac version is available here:

THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES THE PHILOSOPHER (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/aristides.html)

The Roberts-Donaldson ANF information is here:

Introduction (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/aristides.html)

Oddly, ccel.org has this introduction but no translation.

There is an Armenian fragment corresponding to the first two chapters (where it can now be found, I do not know). The Greek is preserved in Barlaam and Josaphat as well as Greek fragments.

The Greek (but not the Syriac) is available on the TLG CD-ROM. There are some manifest differences, such as the numeration of the races at three instead of four. Here is the section of the Greek that seems to correspond to the relevant section of the Syriac with which we are concerned.

Ἐγώ, βασιλεῦ, προνοίᾳ θεοῦ ἦλθον εἰς τόνδε τὸν κόσμον· καὶ θεωρήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, ἥλιόν τε καὶ σελήνην καὶ τὰ λοιπά, ἐθαύμασα τὴν διακόσμησιν τούτων. ἰδὼν δὲ τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ πάντα, ὅτι κατὰ ἀνάγκην κινεῖται, συνῆκα τὸν κινοῦντα καὶ διακρατοῦντα εἶναι θεόν. πᾶν γὰρ τὸ κινοῦν ἰσχυρότερον τοῦ κινουμένου καὶ τὸ διακρατοῦν ἰσχυρότερον τοῦ διακρατουμένου ἐστίν. αὐτὸν οὖν λέγω εἶναι θεὸν τὸν συστησάμενον τὰ πάντα καὶ δια- κρατοῦντα, ἄναρχον καὶ ἀΐδιον, ἀθάνατον καὶ ἀπροσδεῆ, ἀνώτερον πάν- των τῶν παθῶν καὶ ἐλαττωμάτων, ὀργῆς τε καὶ λήθης καὶ ἀγνοίας καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν. δι' αὐτοῦ δὲ τὰ πάντα συνέστηκεν. οὐ χρῄζει θυσίας καὶ σπονδῆς οὐδέ τινος πάντων τῶν φαινομένων, πάντες δὲ αὐτοῦ χρῄζουσιν. Τούτων οὕτως εἰρημένων περὶ θεοῦ, καθὼς ἐμὲ ἐχώρησε περὶ αὐτοῦ λέγειν, ἔλθωμεν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον γένος, ὅπως ἴδωμεν, τίνες αὐτῶν μετέχουσι τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ τίνες τῆς πλάνης. φανερὸν γάρ ἐστιν ἡμῖν, ὦ βασιλεῦ, ὅτι τρία γένη εἰσὶν ἀνθρώ- πων ἐν τῷδε τῷ κόσμῳ. ὧν εἰσὶν οἱ τῶν παρ' ὑμῖν λεγομένων θεῶν προσκυ- νηταὶ καὶ Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ Χριστιανοί· αὐτοὶ δὲ πάλιν οἱ τοὺς πολλοὺς σεβό- μενοι θεοὺς εἰς τρία διαιροῦνται γένη, Χαλδαίους τε καὶ Ἕλληνας καὶ Αἰγυπτίους· οὗτοι γὰρ γεγόνασιν ἀρχηγοὶ καὶ διδάσκαλοι τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσι τῆς τῶν πολυωνύμων θεῶν λατρείας καὶ προσκυνήσεως. Ἴδωμεν οὖν, τίνες τούτων μετέχουσι τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ τίνες τῆς πλάνης. οἱ μὲν γὰρ Χαλδαῖοι, οἱ μὴ εἰδότες θεόν, ἐπλανήθησαν ὀπίσω τῶν στοιχείων καὶ ἤρξαντο σέβεσθαι τὴν κτίσιν παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα αὐτούς· ὧν καὶ μορφώματά τινα ποιήσαντες ὠνόμασαν ἐκτύπωμα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, ἡλίου τι καὶ σελήνης, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν στοιχείων ἢ φωστήρων, καὶ συγκλείσαντες ναοῖς προσκυνοῦσι θεοὺς καλοῦντες, οὓς καὶ τηροῦσιν ἀσφαλῶς, ἵνα μὴ κλαπῶσιν ὑπὸ λῃστῶν, καὶ οὐ συνῆκαν ὅτι πᾶν τὸ τηροῦν μεῖζον τοῦ τηρουμένου ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ ποιῶν μείζων ἐστὶ τοῦ ποιου- μένου. εἰ γὰρ ἀδυνατοῦσιν οἱ θεοὶ αὐτῶν περὶ τῆς ἰδίας σωτηρίας, πῶς ἄλλοις σωτηρίαν χαρίσονται; πλάνην οὖν μεγάλην ἐπλανήθησαν οἱ Χαλ- δαῖοι, σεβόμενοι ἀγάλματα νεκρὰ καὶ ἀνωφελῆ. καὶ θαυμάζειν μοι ἐπέρχεται, ὦ βασιλεῦ, πῶς οἱ λεγόμενοι φιλό- σοφοι αὐτῶν οὐδ' ὅλως συνῆκαν ὅτι καὶ αὐτὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα φθαρτά ἐστιν. εἰ δὲ τὰ στοιχεῖα φθαρτά ἐστι καὶ ὑποτασσόμενα κατὰ ἀνάγκην, πὼς εἰσὶ θεοί; εἰ δὲ τὰ στοιχεῖα οὐκ εἰσὶ θεοί, πῶς τὰ ἀγάλματα, ἃ γέγονεν εἰς τιμὴν αὐτῶν, θεοὶ ὑπάρχουσιν; Ἔλθωμεν οὖν, ὦ βασιλεῦ, ἐπ' αὐτὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα, ὅπως ἀπο- δείξωμεν περὶ αὐτῶν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶ θεοί, ἀλλὰ φθαρτὰ καὶ ἀλλοιούμενα, ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος παραχθέντα προστάγματι τοῦ ὄντως θεοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν ἄφθαρτός τε καὶ ἀναλλοίωτος καὶ ἀόρατος· αὐτὸς δὲ πάντα ὁρᾷ καὶ καθὼς βούλεται ἀλλοιοῖ καὶ μεταβάλλει. τί οὖν λέγω περὶ τῶν στοιχείων; οἱ δὲ νομίζοντες τὸν οὐρανὸν εἶναι θεὸν πλανῶνται. ὁρῶμεν γὰρ αὐτὸν τρεπόμενον καὶ κατὰ ἀνάγκην κινούμενον καὶ ἐκ πολλῶν συνεστῶ- τα· διὸ καὶ κόσμος καλεῖται. κόσμος δὲ κατασκευή ἐστί τινος τεχνίτου· τὸ κατασκευασθὲν δὲ ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος ἔχει. κινεῖται δὲ ὁ οὐρανὸς κατὰ ἀνάγκην σὺν τοῖς αὐτοῦ φωστῆρσι· τὰ γὰρ ἄστρα τάξει καὶ διαστήματι φερόμενα ἀπὸ σημείου εἰς σημεῖον, οἱ μὲν δύνουσιν, οἱ δὲ ἀνατέλλουσι, καὶ κατὰ καιροὺς πορείαν ποιοῦνται τοῦ ἀποτελεῖν θέρη καὶ χειμῶνας, καθὰ ἐπιτέ- τακται αὐτοῖς παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ οὐ παραβαίνουσι τοὺς ἰδίους ὅρους κατὰ ἀπαραίτητον φύσεως ἀνάγκην σὺν τῷ οὐρανίῳ κόσμῳ. ὅθεν φανερόν ἐστι μὴ εἶναι τὸν οὐρανὸν θεὸν ἀλλ' ἔργον θεοῦ.

It seems that our line is not found in the Greek. I hope that someone digs up the Syriac.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by CX
Could it not be that "preached a short time" refers to the brevity of Jesus' original ministry?

Yes, CX, this also makes plenty of sense to me...

Also, we should keep in mind the possibility that the Apology of Aristides was originally addressed to Antoninus Pius (138-161), rather than to Hadrian.

Regards,

Yuri.

[Bernard Muller]

Peter Kirby wrote:
It seems that our line is not found in the Greek.

Are we talking about that line below, or part of it. In the later, which part is missing?
"This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it"

Look fishy to me and might mean later interpolation. More so because the "line" specified above seems to be an out-of-context insertion/digression, and not being in its chronological niche.

Best regards, Bernard

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

Thanks for your replies :-)


CX : Could it not be that "preached a short time" refers to the brevity of Jesus' original ministry?

Yuri: Yes, CX, this also makes plenty of sense to me...


Hmmm...
I cannot agree.

The opening subject is "The Christians", who trace their religion from Jesus ... who came down from heaven.

Then
"This is taught in the gospel, as it is called"
which clearly means these details ABOUT Jesus are taught IN the Gospel.


Then
"... which a short time was preached among them"

This clearly indicates the Gospel is what was preached a short time AMONG them.


It further goes on "if you will READ therein", clearly indicating a written gospel that was preached from.


But,

The text does NOT say that Jesus did the preaching.

The text does NOT say Jesus preached a short time.


I think the best interpretation is that the gospel was a fairly new book in Aristides' time.


Iasion

[Iasion]

Greetings Bernard,

Are we talking about that line below, or part of it. In the later, which part is missing?
"This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it"

Yes,
this passage seems to come from the Syriac manuscript(s).

The Greek version found in Barlaam and Ioasaph does not seem to have this passage.

Iasion

[Bernard Muller]

I found a translation from the Greek. And it is very different from the Syriac text, in the passage dealing with "gospel"
Here it is, from: http://www.artinheaven.com/Docs/Aristides/ApologyOfAristidesGreek.htm

" XV. Now the Christians (1) trace their origin from the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the most high God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men. And being born of a pure virgin, unbegotten and immaculate, He assumed flesh and revealed himself among men that He might recall them to Himself from their wander-lug after many gods. And having accomplished His wonderful dispensation, by a voluntary choice He tasted death on the cross, fulfilling an august dispensation. And after three days He came to life again and ascended into heaven.** And if you would read, O King, you may judge the glory of His presence from the holy gospel writing, as it is called among themselves.** He had twelve disciples, who after His ascension to heaven went forth into the provinces of the whole world, and declared His greatness. As for instance, one of them traversed the countries about us, proclaiming the doctrine of the truth. From this it is, that they who still observe the righteousness enjoined by their preaching are called Christians."

Here is the translation from the Syriac, again:
"The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven [according to GJohn], and from a Hebrew virgin [according to GLuke & GMatthew] assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. **This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it**. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days [according to GMark & GMatthew] he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world [according to the late additions to GMark, Mk16:20] and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous."

The passage in the Greek is very different and at another location. "Them" means Christians and there is no "short time". Actually the whole of the two texts are quite different.

Best regards, Bernard

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
I found a translation from the Greek. And it is very different from the Syriac text, in the passage dealing with "gospel"

[snip]

The passage in the Greek is very different and at another location. "Them" means Christians and there is no "short time". Actually the whole of the two texts are quite different.


Which happens to provide yet another illustration of what some of us describe as *general textual instability* in the earliest Christian texts that we now possess. :p

The earlier we go, the more unstable things seem to be. Which was only to be expected, seeing that those early writings were not yet considered as Scripture.

Best,

Yuri.

[Haran]

You were right about the dating of the Diatessaron, Bernad.

I'm curious what Greek version that English translation was pulled from. Does it say? The Greek that Peter posted above does not seem to contain what is in this english translation.

[Bernard Muller]

Haran wrote:
You were right about the dating of the Diatessaron, Bernard.
I'm curious what Greek version that English translation was pulled from. Does it say? The Greek that Peter posted above does not seem to contain what is in this english translation

I do not know. Check for yourself, I gave the link. I am also concerned by "The Greek version found in Barlaam and Ioasaph does not seem to have this passage.".
I would like to have answer on this mess.

Best regards, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Haran wrote:
I'm curious what Greek version that English translation was pulled from. Does it say?

I got it from here:

_________________________________________________

ARISTIDES THE PHILOSOPHER

TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK VERSION

BY

D. M. KAY, B.Sc., B.D.,

ASSISTANT TO THE PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.

THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES

BARLAAM AND JOSAPHAT.

Translated from the Greek.

__________________________________________________

So it is connected to Barlaam and Josaphat, whoever they are.
Best regards, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

The Greek that I posted above corresponds to this part of here (http://www.artinheaven.com/Docs/Aristides/ApologyOfAristidesGreek.htm).

I. I, O King in the providence of God came into the world; and when I had considered the heaven and the earth, the sun and the moon and the rest, I marvelled at their orderly arrangement.

And when I saw that the universe and all that is therein is moved by necessity, I perceived that the mover and controller is God.
For everything which causes motion is stronger than that which is moved, and that which controls is stronger than that which is controlled.

The self-same being, then, who first established and now controls the universe--him do I affirm to be God who is without beginning and without end, immortal and self-sufficing, above all passions and infirmities, above anger and forgetfulness and ignorance and the rest.

Through Him too all things consist. He requires not sacrifice and libation nor any one of the things that appear to sense; but all men stand m need of Him.

II. Having thus spoken concerning God, so far as it was possible for me to speak of Him, let us next proceed to the human race, that we may see which of them participate in the truth and which of them in error.

For it is clear to us, O King, that there are three classes of men in this world; these being the worshippers of the gods acknowledged among you, and Jews, and Christians. Further they who pay homage to many gods are themselves divided into three classes, Chaldaeans namely, and Greeks, and Egyptians; for these have been guides and preceptors to the rest of the nations in the service and worship of these many-titled deities.

III. Let us see then which of them participate in truth and which of them in error.
The Chaldaeans, then, not knowing God went astray after the elements and began to worship the creation more than their Creator. And of these they formed certain shapes and styled them a representation of the heaven and the earth and the sea, of the sun too and the moon and the other primal bodies or luminaries. And they shut them up together in shrines, and worship them, calling them gods, even though they have to guard them securely for fear they should be stolen by robbers. And they did not perceive that anything which acts as guard is greater than that which is guarded, and that he who makes is greater than that which is made. For if their gods are unfit to look after their own safety, how shall they bestow protection upon others? Great then is the error into which the Chaldaeans wandered in adoring lifeless and good-for-nothing images.
And it occurs to me as surprising, O King, how it is that their so-called philosophers have quite failed to observe that the elements themselves are perishable. And if the elements are perishable and subject to necessity, how are they gods? And if the elements are not gods, how do the images made in their honour come to be gods?
IV. Let us proceed then, O King, to the elements themselves that we may show in regard to them that they are not gods, but perishable and mutable, produced out of that which did not exist at the command of the true God, who is indestructible and immutable and invisible; yet He sees all things and as He wills, modifies and changes things. What then shall I say concerning the elements?

They err who believe that the sky is a god. For we see that it revolves and moves by necessity and is compacted of many parts, being thence called the ordered universe (Kosmos). Now the universe is the construction of some designer; and that which has been constructed has a beginning and an end. And the sky with its luminaries moves by necessity. For the stars are carried along in array at fixed intervals from sign to sign, and, some setting, others rising, they traverse their courses in due season so as to mark off summers and winters, as it has been appointed for them by God; and obeying the inevitable necessity of their nature they transgress not their proper limits, keeping company with the heavenly order. Whence it is plain that the sky is not a god but rather a work of God.

The Syriac portion that begins and ends with the same material in the Greek above is this:

I. I, O King, by the grace of God came into this world; and when I had considered the heaven and the earth and the seas, and had surveyed the sun and the rest of creation, I marvelled at the beauty of the world. And I perceived that the world and all that is therein are moved by the power of another; and I understood that he who moves them is God, who is hidden in them, and veiled by them. And it is manifest that that which causes motion is more powerful than that which is moved. But that I should make search concerning this same mover of all, as to what is his nature (for it seems to me, he is indeed unsearchable in his nature), and that I should argue as to the constancy of his government, so as to grasp it fully,--this is a vain effort for me; for it is not possible that a man should fully comprehend it. I say, however, concerning this mover of the world, that he is God of all, who made all things for the sake of mankind. And it seems to me that this is reasonable, that one should fear God and should not oppress man.

I say, then, that God is not born, not made, an ever-abiding nature without beginning and without end, immortal, perfect, and incomprehensible. Now when I say that he is "perfect," this means that there is not in him any defect, and he is not in need of anything but all things are in need of him. And when I say that he is "without beginning," this means that everything which has beginning has also an end, and that which has an end may be brought to an end. He has no name, for everything which has a name is kindred to things created. Form he has none, nor yet any union of members; for whatsoever possesses these is kindred to things fashioned. He is neither male nor female. The heavens do not limit him, but the heavens and all things, visible and invisible, receive their bounds from him. Adversary he has none, for there exists not any stronger than he. Wrath and indignation he possesses not, for there is nothing which is able to stand against him. Ignorance and forgetfulness are not in his nature, for he is altogether wisdom and understanding; and in Him stands fast all that exists. He requires not sacrifice and libation, nor even one of things visible; He requires not aught from any, but all living creatures stand in need of him.

II. Since, then, we have addressed you concerning God, so far as our discourse can bear upon him, let us now come to the race of men, that we may know which of them participate in the truth of which we have spoken, and which of them go astray from it.

This is clear to you, O King, that there are four classes of men in this world:--Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians. The Barbarians, indeed, trace the origin of their kind of religion from Kronos and from Rhea and their other gods; the Greeks, however, from Helenos, who is said to be sprung from Zeus. And by Helenos there were born Aiolos and Xuthos; and there were others descended from Inachos and Phoroneus, and lastly from the Egyptian Danaos and from Kadmos and from Dionysos.

The Jews, again, trace the origin of their race from Abraham, who begat Isaac, of whom was born Jacob. And he begat twelve sons who migrated from Syria to Egypt; and there they were called the nation of the Hebrews, by him who made their laws; and at length they were named Jews.

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

So then there are, as I said above, four classes of men:--Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians.

Moreover the wind is obedient to God, and fire to the angels; the waters also to the demons and the earth to the sons of men.

III. Let us begin, then, with the Barbarians, and go on to the rest of the nations one after another, that we may see which of them hold the truth as to God and which of them hold error.

The Barbarians, then, as they did not apprehend God, went astray among the elements, and began to worship things created instead of their Creator; and for this end they made images and shut them up in shrines, and lo! they worship them, guarding them the while with much care, lest their gods be stolen by robbers. And the Barbarians did not observe that that which acts as guard is greater than that which is guarded, and that every one who creates is greater than that which is created. If it be, then, that their gods are too feeble to see to their own safety, how will they take thought for the safety of men? Great then is the error into which the Barbarians wandered in worshipping lifeless images which can do nothing to help them. And I am led to wonder, O King, at their philosophers, how that even they went astray, and gave the name of gods to images which were made in honour of the elements; and that their sages did not perceive that the elements also are dissoluble and perishable. For if a small part of an element is dissolved or destroyed, the whole of it may be dissolved and destroyed. If then the elements themselves are dissolved and destroyed and forced to be subject to another that is more stubborn than they, and if they are not in their nature gods, why, for sooth, do they call the images which are made in their honour, God? Great, then, is the error which the philosophers among them have brought upon their followers.

IV. Let us turn now, O King, to the elements in themselves, that we may make clear in regard to them, that they are not gods, but a created thing, liable to ruin and change, which is of the same nature as man; whereas God is imperishable and unvarying, and invisible, while yet He sees, and overrules, and transforms all things.

Those then who believe concerning the earth that it is a god have hitherto deceived themselves, since it is furrowed and set with plants and trenched; and it takes in the filthy refuse of men and beasts and cattle. And at times it becomes unfruitful, for if it be burnt to ashes it becomes devoid of life, for nothing germinates from an earthen jar. And besides if water be collected upon it, it is dissolved together with its products. And lo! it is trodden under foot of men and beast, and receives the blood of the slain; and it is dug open, and filled with the dead, and becomes a tomb for corpses. But it is impossible that a nature, which is holy and worthy and blessed and immortal, should allow of any one of these things. And hence it appears to us that the earth is not a god but a creation of God.

V. In the same way, again, those erred who believed the waters to be gods. For the waters were created for the use of man, and are put under his rule in many ways. For they suffer change and admit impurity, and are destroyed and lose their nature while they are boiled into many substances. And they take colours which do not belong. to them; they are also congealed by frost and are mingled and permeated with the filth of men and beasts, and with the blood of the slain. And being checked by skilled workmen through the restraint of aqueducts, they flow and are diverted against their inclination, and come into gardens and other places in order that they may be collected and issue forth as a means of fertility for man, and that they may cleanse away every impurity and fulfil the service man requires from them. Wherefore it is impossible that the waters should be a god, but they are a work of God and a part of the world.

In like manner also they who believed that fire is a god erred to no slight extent. For it, too, was created for the service of men, and is subject to them in many ways:--in the preparation of meats, and as a means of casting metals, and for other ends whereof your Majesty is aware. At the same time it is quenched and extinguished in many ways.

Again they also erred who believed the motion of the winds to be a god. For it is well known to us that those winds are under the dominion of another, at times their motion increases, and at times it fails and ceases at the command of him who controls them. For they were created by God for the sake of men, in order to supply the necessity of trees and fruits and seeds; and to bring over the sea ships which convey for men necessaries and goods from places where they are found to places where they are not found; and to govern the quarters of the world. And as for itself, at times it increases and again abates; and in one place brings help and in another causes disaster at the bidding of him who rules it. And mankind too are able by known means to confine and keep it in check in order that it may fulfil for them the service they require from it. And of itself it has not any authority at all. And hence it is impossible that the winds should be called gods, but rather a thing made by God.

VI. So also they erred who believed that the sun is a god. For we see that it is moved by the compulsion of another, and revolves and makes its journey, and proceeds from sign to sign, rising and setting every day, so as to give warmth for the growth of plants and trees, and to bring forth into the air wherewith it (sunlight) is mingled every growing thing which is upon the earth. And to it there belongs by comparison a part in common with the rest of the stars in its course; and though it is one in its nature it is associated with many parts for the supply of the needs of men; and that not according to its own will but rather according to the will of him who rules it. And hence it is impossible that the sun should be a god, but the work of God; and in like manner also the moon and the stars.

The passage in the Greek that corresponds to the passage in the Syriac above is put in chapter 15 of the Greek. This is in Kay's translation from the Greek of Barlaam and Josaphat, a longer story that incorporates most of Aristides:

XV. Now the Christians trace their origin from the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the most high God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men. And being born of a pure virgin, unbegotten and immaculate, He assumed flesh and revealed himself among men that He might recall them to Himself from their wandering after many gods. And having accomplished His wonderful dispensation, by a voluntary choice He tasted death on the cross, fulfilling an august dispensation. And after three days He came to life again and ascended into heaven. And if you would read, O King, you may judge the glory of His presence from the holy gospel writing, as it is called among themselves. He had twelve disciples, who after His ascension to heaven went forth into the provinces of the whole world, and declared His greatness. As for instance, one of them traversed the countries about us, proclaiming the doctrine of the truth. From this it is, that they who still observe the righteousness enjoined by their preaching are called Christians.

From the TLG CD-ROM:

Οἱ δὲ Χριστιανοὶ γενεαλογοῦνται ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. οὗτος δὲ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου ὁμολογεῖται ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἀπ' οὐρανοῦ καταβὰς διὰ τὴν σωτηρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἐκ παρ- θένου ἁγίας γεννηθεὶς ἀσπόρως τε καὶ ἀφθόρως, σάρκα ἀνέλαβε καὶ ἀνε- φάνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις, ὅπως ἐκ τῆς πολυθέου πλάνης αὐτοὺς ἀνακαλέσηται. καὶ τελέσας τὴν θαυμαστὴν αὐτοῦ οἰκονομίαν, διὰ σταυροῦ θανά- του ἐγεύσατο ἑκουσίᾳ βουλῇ κατ' οἰκονομίαν μεγάλην· μετὰ δὲ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀνεβίω καὶ εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνῆλθεν. οὗ τὸ κλέος τῆς παρουσίας ἐκ τῆς παρ' αὐτοῖς καλουμένης εὐαγγελικῆς ἁγίας γραφῆς ἔξεστί σοι γνῶναι, βασιλεῦ, ἐὰν ἐντύχῃς. οὗτος δώδεκα ἔσχε μαθητὰς οἱ μετὰ τὴν ἐν οὐρα- νοῖς ἄνοδον αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὰς ἐπαρχίας τῆς οἰκουμένης καὶ ἐδίδαξαν τὴν ἑκείνου μεγαλωσύνην· καθάπερ εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν τὰς καθ' ἡμᾶς περιῆλθε χώρας τὸ δόγμα κηρύττων τῆς ἀληθείας. ὅθεν οἱ εἰσέτι διακονοῦντες τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ κηρύγματος αὐτῶν καλοῦνται Χριστιανοί.

Here is a link to Kay's translation (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/aristides.html) of the Syriac recension. Here is the relevant section again:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

I don't know of the translation of J. Rendel Harris being online. Here is the relevant quote from chapter 2 of the Syriac in the translation of Dr. Harris as given in The Newly-Recovered Apology of Aristides:

The Christians, then, reckon the beginning of their religion from Jesus Christ, who is named the Son of God most High; and it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin took and clad Himself with flesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God. This is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken among them as being preached; wherein if ye also will read, ye will comprehend the power that is upon it. This Jesus, then, was born of the tribe of the Hebrews; and He had twelve disciples, in order that a certain dispensation of His might be fulfilled. He was pierced by the Jews; and He died and was buried; and they say that after three days He rose and ascended to heaven; and then these twelve disciples went forth into the known parts of the world, and taught concerning His greatness with all humility and sobriety; and on this account those also who to-day believe in this preaching are called Christians, who are well known.

The following image shows the differences in English translation between the Syriac and the Greek of the paragraph being studied.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pic/aristides.jpg

Right now I cannot think of any good arguments to show the priority of one version over another. Hopefully someone will dig up the Syriac and show us a scanned image. Perhaps there is some discussion somewhere of the text-critical issues concerning the Apology of Aristides? (No, not online--in journals or old books.)

Also, the Ante-Nicene Fathers says, "In 1878 these Armenians surprised the learned world by publishing a Latin translation of an Armenian fragment (the first two chapters) of the lost Apology of Aristides." If these are the first two chapters corresponding to the Syriac, they should contain the passage in question. Does anyone have a reference to a book that contains the Armenian, in the original or a translation? I don't expect you to have it on your bookshelf, but can you dig up a reference to such a document?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Peter Kirby]

Here's a blast from the past.

I'd like us to wrangle over the issue a little more, or at least persuade Quentin to expand a little his entry on his web site. Maybe I can pick up some stuff to add to mine.

Here (http://www.artinheaven.com/Docs/Aristides/ApologyOfAristidesGreek.htm) is the Greek as in Barlaam and Iosaphat, and here (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html) is the Syriac discovered around the turn of 1900. I do not even know where to look to get the Armenian of the first two chapters. I have the original language of the Greek but not the Syriac, but J. Rendel Harriss's book is available from Good Books Scholarly Reprints (http://members.aol.com/goodbooks7/).

I imagine that a scholar must have published something in the last century comparing the Greek to the Syriac in regards to priority. I would be very happy if someone could hunt down the bibliographic info for an article or two.

If the Greek of this paragraph is more accurate, then the importance of the Syriac would be diminished, but that isn't proven. In any case, we should like to know what the Syriac means.

Here is Kay's translation again:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

Here is the relevant quote from chapter 2 of the Syriac in the translation of Dr. Harris as given in The Newly-Recovered Apology of Aristides:

The Christians, then, reckon the beginning of their religion from Jesus Christ, who is named the Son of God most High; and it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin took and clad Himself with flesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God. This is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken among them as being preached; wherein if ye also will read, ye will comprehend the power that is upon it. This Jesus, then, was born of the tribe of the Hebrews; and He had twelve disciples, in order that a certain dispensation of His might be fulfilled. He was pierced by the Jews; and He died and was buried; and they say that after three days He rose and ascended to heaven; and then these twelve disciples went forth into the known parts of the world, and taught concerning His greatness with all humility and sobriety; and on this account those also who to-day believe in this preaching are called Christians, who are well known.

There is a manifest difference between these two translations of the Syriac: a short time was preached vs. a little while ago was spoken...as being preached. The former refers to the length of time of the preaching, while the latter refers to the the short amount of time before the author's time that the preaching by speaking stopped.

Then there is the question of who the referent to "among them" is: is it the Hebrews, the Christians, or man generally? All three groups are mentioned in our passage.

Finally, while it is clear that there is a gospel text which can be read, what is "the Gospel" that was spoken as being preached: is this a reference to pulpiteering with text in hand, or is it a reference to the frequently mentioned (especially in earlier Christian documents) Gospel or "Good News" of which the written texts are an imperfect attempt at recording a part by particular men? The singular reference "the gospel" and moreso the fact that it is preached and then "also" something can be read wherein to perceive the power that is on it (the Gospel) makes it plausible that the reference is to the one Gospel of Jesus Christ, much of which is recorded in a book called a gospel (the author may have used only one or maybe knew more than one). The idea of "preaching a text" makes sense to your modern Christian, but I am not certain this concept transfers to the second century.

Iasion conjectures that the text means "has been preached" instead of "was preached," but both translations of Harris and Kay disagree. Ultimate authority must rest with the Syriac original, should someone turn it up and make use of it. If it indeed is a reference to "was preached" as though not ongoing, as our translations indicate, then this mitigates against the "pulpiteering from a text" option, as that would not have stopped.

Now I offer these interpretative options and welcome more:

1. Jesus is the one doing the preaching, men or Hebrews are "them," the Gospel is oral, and "a short time" refers to the short duration of the ministry.

2. Jesus is the one doing the preaching, men or Hebrews are "them," the Gospel is oral, and "a little while ago" refers to the recent life of Christ and recent origin of Christianity (still mentioned as such well into the second century, and it was a short while ago compared to such venerable worthies as Moses and Hercules and Zoroaster).

3. Christians are the ones doing the preaching, Hebrews are "them," the Gospel is oral, and "a short time" refers to the short amount of time in which the gospel was preached to Jews before turning over to the Gentiles for a more receptive audience.

4. Christians are the ones doing the preaching, everyone or anyone is "them," the Gospel is oral and then written, and "a short time" refers to the brief period of exclusively oral preaching before the production of books which one could read to grasp the gospel.

5. Christians are the ones doing the preaching, everyone or anyone is "them," the Gospel is oral and then written, and "a little while ago" refers to the recent time in the past in which the gospel went from being exclusively oral to being recorded in books.

6. Christians are the ones doing the preaching, the Hebrews are "them," the Gospel is the logia of Matthew composed in Jerusalem, and "a little while ago" refers to the time before the First Jewish Revolt during which these words could be preached in Jerusalem (or, instead, "a short time" between the death of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem).

7. Christians are the ones doing the preaching, the Christians are "them," the Gospel is the first written gospel, and this text has been "preached" a short time among the Christians from its time of writing to the time of Aristides. (Again the Syriac will have to be checked for the validity of a "has been preached" instead of "was preached" interpretation.)

Can we rule out any of these, declare one most likely, or perhaps add one? I think I ruminated long enough to catch all the possibilities, but you never know.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

Thanks for your detailed post Peter, your options seem to cover the possibilities well - I think option 7 is most likely, and some new information agrees with this.


I posted a quick question on the hugoye (Syriac) list about the original Syriac of the phrase in question.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hugoye-list/messages


I received a reply from David Taylor which included the following comments:

... the passage is found on p.4 ll.1-2 of Harris' Syriac edition, and he translates as:
'This is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken among them as being preached'.

This is not terribly elegant but it is not too bad (perhaps better to read '...ago, it is said among them, was proclaimed').

The phrase 'a little while ago' is literally 'which before a little time'.

I would thus suspect that the sense of the Syriac is that the Christians acknowledge that the Gospel was only proclaimed / revealed publicly for the first time a short time before. So yes, the text states that the Gospel is relatively new, though the exact meaning of the sentence is slightly different from the translation you quote.

Of course, such statements do not by themselves prove anything about the date of the text - cf the well known case of the correspondence between King Abgar of Edessa and Christ.


I note he translates the key word as "proclaimed" rather than preached - this seems to support option 7 - that the (singular, un-named) Gospel was recently "proclaimed" among Christians.


He also had this to say about the DATING of Aristides :

As for date, the Syriac text addresses itself to the emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161), although it adds the name Hadrianus which he adopted from his predecessor. The Syriac translation may have been made in the fifth/sixth century, and is preserved in a seventh-century ms.

This seems clear evidence of the later dating - he cites Doepp/Geerlings 'Dict. of Early Christian Literature' for more detail - does anyone have access to this work?

(Not sure how we will deal with the issue of Greek / Syriac priority - we have a very late Greek copy without our phrase, and a late Syriac WITH our phrase - the original no doubt in Greek.)


In conclusion, his answers lend some weight to my contention that this comment is evidence for a Christian Father who believed a singular un-named Gospel was new in the 140s or 150s.


Iasion

[Roger Pearse]

Originally posted by Iasion
In conclusion, his answers lend some weight to my contention that this comment is evidence for a Christian Father who believed a singular un-named Gospel was new in the 140s or 150s.

I read 'gospel' as being the Christian gospel, not a book; but that written form(s) of it existed, to which he alludes.

I don't think it would be safe to infer anything about the use of a harmony, one gospel (Mt.Mk.Lk.Jn-type gospel), three or four, from these words.

That the Gospel is a modern religion (relatively) is a problem all the fathers have to deal with, as the Romans were very hot on the importance of antiquity. They do so by presenting it as a development of Judaism.

Quentin, where do you find the statement that the text is unnamed? Aristides does not discuss the issue, as far as I can see.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Roger Pearse]

Armenian text:

Main Author: Aristides, 2nd cent.
Title Details: Sancti Aristidis philosophi Atheniensis sermones duos, quorum originalis textus desideratur, ex antigua Armeniaca versione nunc primum in Latinam linguam translatos ... / Felici Dupanloup, Aureliae Gallorum episcopo ... Patres Mechitaristae congregationis sancti Lazari, Venetiis 1878, D.D.D.
Publisher: [Venice], [1878]
Physical desc.: pp. 23 (8vo)
Note: With Armenian text
Other Names: Dupanloup, Félix, 1802-1878
Language: Armenian
Location Classmark Status
Deansgate /R55956 In

It's only 23 pages, so I've enquired if they will send me a photocopy. I think they will want $16, but I can stand that.

The Ms. was published from a 10th century Armenian ms. It contains a Latin translation.

"Barlaam and Joseph" was compiled ca. 630 AD by a monk of Mar Saba, and includes the text of Aristides, unnamed. However he edited it a bit to make it sound like a pagan philosopher was speaking. Syriac literature contains a fair quantity of oriental folktales, with a Christian cast -- some indeed are pre-Christian. Their historical value is nil, of course.

Two papyrus chunks of the Greek were found at Oxyrhynchus; cc.5-6 and end of 15-start of 16.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Iasion]

Greetings Roger,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply :-)

I read 'gospel' as being the Christian gospel, not a book; but that written form(s) of it existed, to which he alludes.
Yes, that is a fair interpretation - he could mean Gospel in the earlier informal sense, as well as a written form.

But,
I think his comment :

"...and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it."

suggests he is primarily referring to a written work - he doesn't say "if you've heard the Gospel" or "if you know of our Gospel" - he only refers to a work which can be "read therein".

Thus I tend to think he means a written work.


I don't think it would be safe to infer anything about the use of a harmony, one gospel (Mt.Mk.Lk.Jn-type gospel), three or four, from these words.
Well, if he was writing in the 140s or 150s, perhaps he is referring to Marcion's Gospel?

Marcion apparently published his Gospel in the 140s, singular and un-named (Tertullian criticises it as un-named.)


Quentin, where do you find the statement that the text is unnamed? Aristides does not discuss the issue, as far as I can see.
Well, considering this phrase :

"...the gospel, as it is called..."

I contend that Aristides is telling us exactly what the document is called - to whit : "The Gospel"

If Aristides had a document called "The Gospel according to Mark" he would hardly have left out the "Mark" would he?


The phrase "as it is called" is usually employed when the term is unfamiliar to the audience, which lends weight to my view that he is referring to a new type of document.

Notably, this phrase is also found in other Christian writings of mid 2nd century :

Gospel of the Ebionites:
“...the Gospel (so-called), current among them..."

Justin Martyr :
“...in the so-called Gospel”

Here we see 3 authors, mid 2nd century, use this phrase - which seems to indicate the term "Gospel", as a written work, is new in that time.


I understand you disagree that the Gospels were originally anonymous - I thought this was largely settled :

I am reading E.P. Sanders, a hard-core HJer, and he agrees :
"Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the 2nd century ... quoted in the first half of the 2nd century, but always anonymously ... Names suddenly appear about the year 180 "
("The Historical Figure of Jesus", p63,64)

Brown too:
"...quite possible that none was actually written by the one whose name was attached to it at the end of the 2nd century"
("Intro to the NT", p.7)


Iasion

[Bernard Muller]

Iason wrote:
"...and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it."

I am very much doubting Aristides did address the emperor (around 125), despite the pretences. The apology looks more like a Christian tract circulated among Christians and potential converts rather than a personnal letter to Caesar.
That's why we know about it, in Greek & Syriac, with obviously interpolations to fix "problems" and adapt it to changing times.
If the apology had been addressed only to the emperor, it would have gone in some emperial waste basket, and nobody would know about it.
What is strange about your quote, is that there is no indication the "Gospel" is being sent to the emperor with the apology, which would make a lot of sense. Instead we have, as implied, find that Gospel yourself!
So the Gospel here is more likely thought as an ideal written gospel. Having more than one gospel then, possibly a good half dozen, with all kinds of conflicts & differences was an embarrassment and a Christian writer was likely to use 'gospel' singular.

Gospel of the Ebionites:
“...the Gospel (so-called), current among them..."

Where does that come from? Irenaeus, Eusebius? Indicate the origin of your quote next time.
In any case, that proves a particular written specific gospel can be addressed as "the gospel", rather than be given a name, even towards the end of the 2nd century if not later.

Justin Martyr :
“...in the so-called Gospel”

I think your quote is put by Justin in the mouth of Trypho, and therefore the expression is understandable in that context:
Trypho X "Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them."

Justin Martyr also used 'gospels' plural, also called 'memoirs of the apostles' when quoting passages which are found in GMark, GMatthew or GLuke.
1Apology LXVI "For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them;"

Here we see 3 authors, mid 2nd century, use this phrase - which seems to indicate the term "Gospel", as a written work, is new in that time.

The Didache, minus the Christian additions, refers also to a written "gospel" (ch. 11: "act according to the decree of the Gospel") which is very much drawn from GMatthew (likely a subset of it). That Didache was written around 95.

Also, one Ignatian letter, 'to the Smyrnaeans', has gospel material drawn from GLuke (& embellished) and possibly GJohn (& 'Acts'); and also mentions 'gospel' as a written text. I dated this letter 125-145.

Here are extracts:
'To the Smyrnaeans':
"But certain persons ignorantly deny Him, ... and they have not been persuaded by the prophecies nor by the law of Moses, nay nor even to this very hour by the Gospel ..." (5:1)
"... but should give heed to the Prophets, and especially to the Gospel, wherein the passion is shown unto us and the resurrection is accomplished ..." (7:2)
"... He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptized by John ... truly nailed [Jn20:25 & only here] up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch [Lk3:1,19 & only here] ..." (1:1-2)
The next quote paraphrases a passage of GLuke (24:36-39):
"... He was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body ..." (3:2)


I understand you disagree that the Gospels were originally anonymous - I thought this was largely settled:

Yes the gospels were not named then, and not sacred either, with writers using them as material quoted approximately, sometimes referring to them under the umbrella word of 'the gospel'. And to make things more complicated, 'gospel' was also used as "good news" or more generally 'Christian message' (as in Paul's epistles and in the next quote). It took some time for gospels to mean (a genre) of Christian writings.

... the passage is found on p.4 ll.1-2 of Harris' Syriac edition, and he translates as:
'This is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken among them as being preached'.

Here the "Gospel" appears as 'Christian message', but immediately next, it will become a written text. That's very fluid!

In the first part of the second century, a Christian writer would not want to say that the good news were first preached long ago, because the Kingdom was still supposed to happen soon after the crucifixion. And Aristides was still thinking about the Day:
"So shall they appear before the awful judgment which through Jesus the Messiah is destined to come upon the whole human race." (note: sounds like a threat: not something to say to a pagan emperor!)
So it was good policy to invoke "little time", even if the lapse was almost one century by then. That's what I think.

As in 'Hebrews':
Heb10:35-37 "So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. For in just a very little while, "He who is coming will come and will not delay.""
Aristides could not imply the author of 'Hebrews' was wrong !!!

Best regards, Bernard

[Roger Pearse]

Originally posted by Iasion
Greetings Roger,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply :-)

Always good to talk to you.

"...and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it."

suggests he is primarily referring to a written work - he doesn't say "if you've heard the Gospel" or "if you know of our Gospel" - he only refers to a work which can be "read therein".

Thus I tend to think he means a written work.

I agree that some written text must be suggested here.

Well, if he was writing in the 140s or 150s, perhaps he is referring to Marcion's Gospel?

No, because Marcion was a heretic, not a member of the church. Aristides was not a Marcionite.

Isn't Aristides a bit early, anyway?

Marcion apparently published his Gospel in the 140s, singular and un-named (Tertullian criticises it as un-named.)

I remember.

Well, considering this phrase :

"...the gospel, as it is called..."

I contend that Aristides is telling us exactly what the document is called - to whit : "The Gospel"

This might work, but at this point in the sentence, Aristides is referring to something that can be preached/proclaimed -- that to me must be 'gospel-as message' rather than 'gospel-as-book'.

Consequently, whatever is meant by 'read therein', I don't see that we can be very confident what is meant. The meaning of 'gospel' is shifting in the sentence (or so I read it).

If Aristides had a document called "The Gospel according to Mark" he would hardly have left out the "Mark" would he?

If he had four gospels, he might well just refer to 'the gospel' (message) and then 'read therein'. If he had only one, possibly your point would have weight; however, we must remember that he is addressing a pagan emperor, and the last thing he wants to do is suggest that there are other possible forms of the Christian message.

Here we see 3 authors, mid 2nd century, use this phrase - which seems to indicate the term "Gospel", as a written work, is new in that time.

Well, I'd want to research it, but surely all that is required is that the pagan audience be unsure?

I understand you disagree that the Gospels were originally anonymous - I thought this was largely settled :

I am reading E.P. Sanders, a hard-core HJer, and he agrees :
"Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the 2nd century ... quoted in the first half of the 2nd century, but always anonymously ... Names suddenly appear about the year 180 "
("The Historical Figure of Jesus", p63,64)

Brown too:
"...quite possible that none was actually written by the one whose name was attached to it at the end of the 2nd century"
("Intro to the NT", p.7)


It may be consensus among NT scholars for all I know -- I hope they haven't been that daft, but the profession is capable of anything -- but it certainly is not what the data before us says, all the same. Whenever the gospels are identified, they are identified by the names we know.

We have a standard of comparison: Hebrews was anonymous in its transmission in that period. How do we know? we can tell this, because patristic writers give a variety of authors ascribed to it. No such evidence appears for the gospels.

Sanders is unknown to me, but doesn't seem to see the non sequitur in that quote. Is every work referred to without a citation anonymous, then? Is use without a citation evidence of anonymity, and how do we know? Is the Iliad anonymous in authors of the second century AD, then?

It is remarkable what these intelligent men can be led to assert, without knowing whether it is true or not.

I understand now, tho, why you thought this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

RE: I understand you disagree that the Gospels were originally anonymous - I thought this was
largely settled :

I am reading E.P. Sanders, a hard-core HJer,
and he agrees :
"Present evidence indicates that the gospels
remained untitled until the second half of the
2nd century ... quoted in the first half of the 2nd
century, but always anonymously ... Names
suddenly appear about the year 180 "
("The Historical Figure of Jesus", p63,64)

Brown too:
"...quite possible that none was actually written
by the one whose name was attached to it at
the end of the 2nd century"
("Intro to the NT", p.7)

Originally posted by Roger Pearse

It may be consensus among NT scholars for all I know -- I hope they haven't been that daft, but the profession is capable of anything -- but it certainly is not what the data before us says, all the same. Whenever the gospels are identified, they are identified by the names we know.

We have a standard of comparison: Hebrews was anonymous in its transmission in that period. How do we know? we can tell this, because patristic writers give a variety of authors ascribed to it. No such evidence appears for the gospels.

Sanders is unknown to me,


So here we have one example of Roger declaring (or at least implying strongly) that mainstream scholars are "daft" without actually having read them! :rolleyes:


but doesn't seem to see the non sequitur in that quote. Is every work referred to without a citation anonymous, then? Is use without a citation evidence of anonymity, and how do we know? Is the Iliad anonymous in authors of the second century AD, then?

It is remarkable what these intelligent men can be led to assert, without knowing whether it is true or not.

I understand now, tho, why you thought this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

All the best,

Yuri.

[Roger Pearse]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
So here we have one example of Roger declaring (or at least implying strongly) that mainstream scholars are "daft" without actually having read them! :rolleyes:

<smile> Actually I was responding to the snippets presented to me, as evidence.

I realise you are joking, but I'm not sure I shouldn't say something in response here.

From time to time I do run across the arguments of NT scholars, although I don't go out of my way to look for them. The reason, simply, is that like most intelligent people, I apply certain questions to all I read -- simple questions like, 'how do I know this is true', 'on what ancient data is this based', 'does this work if we do the same for other documents of the period,' etc.

Whenever I have a book from NT scholarship before me, a lot of the time I find myself growing impatient of the evident failure to answer these basic questions, or willingness to assert matters for which there is no data in the historical record.

This does not produce respect in the reader for the discipline. Indeed my own degree is in Chemistry, and it was not until I came across T.D.Barnes' book "Tertullian" that I came to have much respect for the humanities as a group (wrongly -- but browse some of the things they produce, speculation dressed as fact, etc -- and see how you feel).

When one knows -- as we both do -- that the discipline was able to manufacture a consensus that the gospels were to be dated to ca. 170, a consensus for which not the smallest evidence existed, then I feel no compunction in saying that the profession is capable of being daft. So, indeed, is every politicised discipline with a static data base. The statements made about anonymous gospels sound like a good example, if true.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Roger Pearse
<smile> Actually I was responding to the snippets presented to me, as evidence.

I realise you are joking, but I'm not sure I shouldn't say something in response here.

From time to time I do run across the arguments of NT scholars, although I don't go out of my way to look for them. The reason, simply, is that like most intelligent people, I apply certain questions to all I read -- simple questions like, 'how do I know this is true', 'on what ancient data is this based', 'does this work if we do the same for other documents of the period,' etc.

Whenever I have a book from NT scholarship before me, a lot of the time I find myself growing impatient of the evident failure to answer these basic questions, or willingness to assert matters for which there is no data in the historical record.

This does not produce respect in the reader for the discipline. Indeed my own degree is in Chemistry, and it was not until I came across T.D.Barnes' book "Tertullian" that I came to have much respect for the humanities as a group (wrongly -- but browse some of the things they produce, speculation dressed as fact, etc -- and see how you feel).

When one knows -- as we both do -- that the discipline was able to manufacture a consensus that the gospels were to be dated to ca. 170, a consensus for which not the smallest evidence existed, then I feel no compunction in saying that the profession is capable of being daft. So, indeed, is every politicised discipline with a static data base. The statements made about anonymous gospels sound like a good example, if true.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

OK, so let's just agree then that the NT scholars are daft. At least we agree on something...

Yuri. :cool:

[Roger Pearse]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
OK, so let's just agree then that the NT scholars are daft. At least we agree on something...

That much I think we can agree on. :)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

Thanks for your replies gentlemen, probably the best conclusion from all this is that Quentin is an amateur who is out of his depth :-)

One thing I am really struggling with is the the conflict between :
* the fallacy of argument from authority
vs
* the scholarly principle of building on the work of predecessors
Tricky.

Bernard : I am very much doubting Aristides did address the emperor...
Well, I'd agree its a pretense, or more properly a literary device of the times - addressing it the Caesar of the day as a convention.
Bernard : ...(around 125),

Roger: Isn't Aristides a bit early, anyway?
Well, David from Syriac list seemed sure it was from the time of Antoninus Pius, making it 138-161 (with "Hadrianus" being a title adopted from his predecessor, not the earlier emperor himself).

Was he wrong on that issue?

Bernard: So the Gospel here is more likely thought as an ideal written gospel
Hmm .. that does seem reasonable.

bernard: The Didache, minus the Christian additions, refers also to a written "gospel" (ch. 11: "act according to the decree of the Gospel") which is very much drawn from GMatthew (likely a subset of it). That Didache was written around 95.
This does indeed seem to refer to a written (proto)Gospel, but isn't the dating still rather uncertain for this document?

Bernard: Also, one Ignatian letter, 'to the Smyrnaeans', has gospel material drawn from GLuke (& embellished) and possibly GJohn (& 'Acts'); and also mentions 'gospel' as a written text. I dated this letter 125-145.
I agree that Ignatius is late and forged, and I'd say the writer was aware of (proto)Gospel material, even if he didn't have it in front of him.

Bernard: So it was good policy to invoke "little time", even if the lapse was almost one century by then. That's what I think

Roger: This might work, but at this point in the sentence, Aristides is referring to something that can be preached/proclaimed -- that to me must be 'gospel-as message' rather than 'gospel-as-book'.
Hmm .. I find it hard to agree a century could be seen as a "little time", even allowing for the problem of the end times - I'd like to see more details about the Syriac word translated as "preached/proclaimed".

Aristides could mean the recent change from early, informal gospel meaning "message" to later written "Gospel" which was then "proclaimed" as the official version - c.f. G.Luke which mentions previous accounts as inspiring him to put pen to paper (presumably to write the definitive version.)

Roger: Whenever the gospels are identified, they are identified by the names we know.
I think I'll start a new thread on this vexed question.

regards,
Iasion

[Iasion]

Greetings Bernard,

Iasion: Gospel of the Ebionites:
“...the Gospel (so-called), current among them..."

Bernard: Where does that come from? Irenaeus, Eusebius? Indicate the origin of your quote next time.

Sorry -
from Peter Kirby,
from M.R.James,
from Epiphanius.

Iasion

[Roger Pearse]

Originally posted by Iasion
(Re: Ebionite 'so-called' gospel)
Sorry -
from Peter Kirby,
from M.R.James,
from Epiphanius.


Epiphanius, Panarion, section 30, 16:5. '[5] As their so-called gospel says, "I came to abolish the sacrifices..."' (Tr. Williams, vol. 1, p.132).

This gospel is firmly identified by Epiphanius as a recension of Matthew:

[3:7] "They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. ... they too use it alone. They call it 'According to the Hebrews' and it is true to say that only Matthew put the setting forth and the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament in the Hebrew language and alphabet."

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Roger Pearse]

Originally posted by Iasion
Thanks for your replies gentlemen, probably the best conclusion from all this is that Quentin is an amateur who is out of his depth :-)

Well, I too am just an amateur, and only know about whatever has crossed my path.

One thing I am really struggling with is the the conflict between :
* the fallacy of argument from authority
vs
* the scholarly principle of building on the work of predecessors
Tricky.


It is, isn't it? I haven't a simple solution to offer. Myself, I am willing to accept an authority on something non-controversial. For matters where political or religious interest may enter in, I would always want to verify whatever was involved.

(Date of Aristides) Well, David from Syriac list seemed sure it was from the time of Antoninus Pius, making it 138-161 (with "Hadrianus" being a title adopted from his predecessor, not the earlier emperor himself).

Was he wrong on that issue?

The title of the Syriac text addresses Antoninus, but Eusebius tells us it was directed to Hadrian, the apology seems to be generally regarded as the first extant Christian apology (150 would be contemporary with Justin), and I find in Altaner's Patrology that 'internal evidence' (unspecified!) favours the earlier date (pre 138).

I don't know, actually!

I agree that Ignatius is late and forged, and I'd say the writer was aware of (proto)Gospel material, even if he didn't have it in front of him.

Is there any reason to suppose Smyrneans late or forged?

Hmm .. I find it hard to agree a century could be seen as a "little time", even allowing for the problem of the end times

I think it was an ancient perception, tho, and probably a pagan argument against the Christians. I wish I could remember Christian apologetic elsewhere on this one -- I vaguely recall the same idea present in later apologists. Probably Tertullian says something along these lines.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Bernard Muller]

Roger wrote:
Is there any reason to suppose Smyrneans late or forged?

I wrote a long page to show all Ignatian letters are forgeries.

http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/ignatius.shtml

Best regards, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Iasion wrote:
Hmm .. I find it hard to agree a century could be seen as a "little time", even allowing for the problem of the end times

I got that from the Ignatian epistles (written circa. 110 for almost everybody, and circa. 135 by me).

'to the Ephesians': "These are the last times" (11:1)
'to the Magnesians': "[Jesus] appeared at the end of time" (6:1)

The author(s) did not think much of the 70-105 years elapsed between the crucifixion and the time of writing of the letter.

Best regards, Bernard

[Roger Pearse]

I find that I have a photocopy of much of J.Rendell Harris, "The Apology of Aristides on behalf of the Christians from a Syriac Ms. preserved on Mount Sinai," Texts and Studies 1, Cambridge (1891).

This includes the Latin translation of the Armenian fragment published by the Mechitarists; but something more useful yet:

--start--
We have now reprinted all that is known of the Armenian translation of the Apology ; it is out of our limit and beyond our measure to think of reprinting the actual Armenian text. For the purpose of comparison we add, however, another copy of the same Armenian fragment, taken from a MS. at Edschmiazin, and translated into English by Mr F. C. Conybeare, of Oxford, for whose kindly aid we are very grateful. According to the information which he has supplied, the MS. at Edschmiazin was written on paper, and is much worn by age. The date was certainly not later than the eleventh century.

The fragment from the Apology which it contains was followed by the fragment from the Homily on the Penitent Thief. Here and there the text was illegible, and in these cases the missing words have been supplied from the Venice text, as reprinted by Pitra. The two texts in question are moreover in very close agreement, except for the occasional addition of a word or two by the Edschmiazin MS. The rendering is designedly a literal one.

The Armenian Fragment (from the Edschmiazin MS.).

TO THE AUTOCRATIC CAESAR ADRIANOS FROM ARISTIDES, ATHENIAN PHILOSOPHER.

I, O Ruler, who was by the providence of God created and fashioned man in the world, and who have beheld the heaven and the earth and the sea, the sun and the moon and the stars and all creatures, wondered and was amazed at the eternal order thereof. I also by reflection learned that the world and all that is therein is by necessity and force guided and moved and of the whole God is controuler and orderer : for that which controuls is more powerful than that which is controuled and moved. To enquire about Him who is guardian and controuls all things seems to me to quite exceed the comprehension and to be most difficult, and to speak accurately concerning Him is beyond compass of thought and of speech, and bringeth no advantage ; for His nature is infinite and unsearchable, and imperceptible, and inaccessible to all creatures. We can only know that He who governs by His providence all created things, He is Lord and God and creator of all, who ordered all things visible in His beneficence, and graciously bestowed them on the race of man. Now it is meet that we serve and glorify Him alone as God, and love one another as ourselves. But this much alone can we know concerning God, that He was not generated from any source, and did not Himself make Himself, and is not contained by aught, but Himself contains all. αὐτογενὲς εἶδος and wisdom immortal, without beginning or end, not passing away and undying, He is complete and wanteth nothing, while He fulfilleth all wants. In Himself He wanteth nought, but gives to and fulfils the needs of all. In Himself He is without beginning, for He is beginning of everything whatever, and is perfect. In Himself He is nameless, for whatever is named is fashioned out of something else and created. Colour and form of Him there is not, for that falls under measure and limit, unto whatsoever colour and form belong. Male and female in that nature there is not, for that is subject to particular passions, in whatsoever that distinction exists. Within the heavens He is not contained, for He is beyond the heavens ; neither are the heavens greater than He, for the heavens and all creation are contained in Him. Counter to Him and opposed there is no one : if any one be found counter to Him, it appears that that one becometh associate with Him. He is unmoved and unmeasured and ineffable ; for there is no place whence or with which He could move ; and He is not, by being measured, contained or environed on any side, for it is Himself that filleth all, and He transcends all things visible and invisible. Wrath and anger there is not in Him, for there is not in Him blindness, but He is wholly and entirely rational, and on that account He established creation with divers wonders and entire beneficence. Need hath He none of victims and oblations and sacrifices, and of all that is in the visible creation He wanteth nought. For He fulfilleth the wants of all and completeth them, and being in need of nothing He is glorified unto all time.

Now by the grace of God it was given me to speak wisely concerning Him. So far as I have received the faculty I will speak, yet not according to the measure of the inscrutability of His greatness shall I be able to do so, but by faith alone do I glorify and adore Him.

Let us next come to the race of man, and see who are capable of receiving the truth of these sayings, and who are gone astray. It is manifest, O Ruler, for there are four tribes of the human race. There are barbarians, and some are Greeks and others Hebrews, and there are who are Christians. But the heathens and barbarians count their descent from Baal, and from Cronos, and from Hera, and from many others of their gods. But the Greeks say Zeus (who is Dios) is their founder, and reckon their descent from Helenos and Xuthos, and one after another from Hellas, Inachos and Phoroneus, and also finally from Danaus the Egyptian, and from Cadmus the Sidonian, and Dionysius the Theban.

But the Jews reckon their race from Abraham, and Abraham's son they say was Isaac, and from Isaac Jacob, and from Jacob the twelve who migrated from Assyria into Egypt and were there named the tribes of the Hebrews by their lawgiver, and having come into the land of recompence, were named...... the tribes of the Jews.

But the Christians reckon their race from the Lord Jesus Christ. He is Himself Son of God on high, who was manifested of the Holy Spirit, came down from heaven, and being born of a Hebrew virgin took on His flesh from the virgin, and was manifested in the nature of humanity the Son of God : who sought to win the entire world to His eternal goodness by His life-giving preaching. He it is who was according to the flesh born of the race of the Hebrews, by the God-bearing virgin Miriam. He chose the twelve disciples, and He by his illuminating truth, dispensing it taught, all the world, and was nailed on the cross by the Jews. Who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and sent forth His disciples into the whole world, and taught all with divinely miraculous and profoundly wise wonders. Their preaching until this day blossoms and bears fruit, and summons all the world to receive the light.

These are the four tribes, whom we set before thee, O Ruler, Barbarians, Greeks, Jews and Christians. But to the Deity is appointed the spiritual, and to angels the fiery, and to devils the watery, and to the race of men the earth.
* * * * * * * *
--end--

[Roger Pearse]

I see that the bits of Aristides are all over the web. Because it is online already, I never did anything with my copy of the Syriac in English; however, I wonder whether people feel it would be useful to have the version of Aristides all gathered together and included in the Additional Fathers collection (tertullian.org/fathers, mirrored at CCEL)? I don't have the Greek translation, but could surely acquire it.

I looked at what Harris and Robinson say:

About the gospel: They agree that a written text is referred to; but are circumspect beyond that.

Armenian: they think it's mainly a paraphrase, but not from the Syriac (or, at least, not the Syriac as we have it).

Greek of Barlaam: The Syriac is about 50% longer. However, although Syriac translators are generally pretty faithful, Robinson ventures that, by and large, the Syriac is an expansion of the Greek, except where the author of Barlaam had to trim the text slightly to make it work. But he reserves judgement rather, so plainly it's not a simple issue.

All the best,

Roger Pearse