BSC June 2023 Schedule
Added 2023-06-01 02:58:56 +0000 UTCFor June of 2023:
The Main Episode will be on JUSTIN MARTYR'S ALLEGED USE OF THE GOSPELS.
The Bonus Show will be on MATTHEW'S BIRTH NARRATIVE, AND ROAD TO BSC PART 3 OF 4.
Bonus Materials to be issued this month include my master note on Justin's alleged use of the Gospels, which includes all of his "Gospel-like" material, but transposed onto the Gospel of Matthew itself, so one can see all the differences. And uh...similarities, I guess. I think this will be a useful tool once it's finished, because since the time of Walter Cassels, a really comprehensive look at Justin's use of the Gospels hasn't been done by an extreme critic. And I can perhaps see why: I worked so hard on it that I couldn't even eat bread.
Comments
Thank you; I was actually at this very moment compiling the questions, so I'll add this and I'm actually reserving space for your one about Papias so I can clarify it for all listeners. I'm actually going to combine this question with Dan's one about, what if there was a discovery that proved a first century Christian tradition, because I think my answer on that speaks to the same themes as you raise (namely, what does my theory actually define as "born," and therefore what specifically would disprove it).
Christopher Palmero
2023-07-05 00:45:12 +0000 UTCOne other question for the Q&A: I've listened to all episodes and I don't think there's yet been well-defined criteria set regarding what defines a religion as "new", as opposed to a variations on a theme (like 19th-century splits among the Dutch Reformed), or to adding or demolishing a few rooms on the existing compound (like, say, Seventh-Day Adventism). Did the Protestant Reformation start zero new religions, one new religion, or ten gazillion? Is it more a matter of changes to the belief system that makes it new, or is more a matter of having a different governing body? (probably not that, at least in the Dutch Reformed case). I ask, since this show posits Christianity as being new in the mid-2nd century, though also that it did not emerge entirely sui generis, since it probably drew some leadership and their followers from existing cults along with a few of their scriptures, and evidently was trying to improve on their work and move it forward. I'm not thinking it must, or even can, be answered on-the-spot here, just thinking it would make an interesting discussion. At least I hope so, and I hope that it's not a pointless, how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pint [sic] sort of question. (Sorry, I've been into Pub Theology meetings lately.)
Countlurkula
2023-07-04 15:07:03 +0000 UTCOkay, cool, that makes sense. Dang, there's a lot to keep track of, right?!
Countlurkula
2023-06-25 23:22:39 +0000 UTCOh, I got it now. Sorry, I tend to act before I think a lot of the time, lol. Part of it is me misspeaking. I should not have said that Papias' book was a "covering document," but a "companion piece;" I confused myself because the "New Testament covering document" that I talk about is actually the Presbyter Source from Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.27f. So Papias' book is actually a third party composition, in my view, that circulated sometimes under his own name and sometimes under a title like "Traditions of the Elders." But I said that he said something "horrendous" about Luke, which was to bluntly reveal that it was only recently written in his time. Now the key is that to Papias himself, that was not a controversial thing to say. That's why I then mention how in the Hypotyposes, Clement (supposedly) ascribes Luke to Aristo of Pella without thinking twice about it (and in fact, if that Clement reference is genuine, that is probably precisely what Papias also said, since I have since learned that Clement draws from Papias). But Papias was being honest, and probably didn't see anything controversial in that, and so he recommended Luke based on its Prologue and how it "investigated everything carefully from the beginning." This was "horrendous" to the Mainstream Church which had officially assigned Luke to a follower of Paul. But Papias either didn't know that or didn't recognize that, so he blithely revealed the truth about it, to the extent that even authors who liked Papias, like Irenaeus, didn't feel comfortable repeating it. A big takeaway for me is that I have to officially clarify the thing about the "covering document" because I caused confusion by using that term for Papias' book; I see that more as a collection of ancillary traditions that he (or whoever) put together to give substance and external verification to the NT.
Christopher Palmero
2023-06-25 00:06:42 +0000 UTCThat's interesting about Mark, thanks. What I remember you saying was definitely regarding Luke (not Mark), specifically about how Papias is not recorded as saying anything about Luke, and how odd that is. One possible inference is that Papias did make remarks about Luke, but they were redacted out because he was dishing on it, or at least going seriously "off-message" in some way. But if that was the case, why put this in a "cover letter" for the first edition of the NT, if that is what he was doing? There's no factual error here, just (seemingly, maybe, if I understand correctly) tension between two inferences. Thanks so much!
Countlurkula
2023-06-24 13:23:16 +0000 UTCOh and as for the comments he made about Mark - it's complicated but there needed to be some justification for why this shorter Gospel (that seemed to contain everything already in Matt and Luke) was included. So he's effectively saying that it's a valuable witness, being the sometime record of Peter's preaching, and as for why it was included at all I think the mainstream theologians like (whoever wrote Gospel on the Margins, their name escapes me) are correct when they say that the goal of canonizing Mark was to prevent heretics from using it. (I didn't realize until halfway through this that you were submitting for the Q&A, lol, so I'll reiterate this too in that Q&A show).
Christopher Palmero
2023-06-22 15:15:03 +0000 UTCThat makes sense, and unfortunately I haven't gotten to do a Papias episode yet. But I think in my Luke episode I said that he was in fact hyping up Luke; you may mean his comments about Mark, with the "no particular order." To sum up briefly here, when the First Edition of the NT appeared, it was lacking "testimony," like an external validation of its contents. And so my hypothesis is that Papias, whom I will claim is Irenaeus' and Clements' main source whenever they cite "the Elders," was an author whose book was deployed as proof that the NT contents could be verified. Hence the comment about "I didn't listen to those who wrote many words," but he painstakingly interviewed everyone and found out important facts about Justus Barsabbas, james and John, Philip's Daughters (P's D's), and so on. It goes back to the "second witness" thing, basically.
Christopher Palmero
2023-06-22 15:13:00 +0000 UTCOne question I've wondered about for the past several episodes - it seems at cross purposes (at first glance, anyway) for Papias to pen a sort of cover letter for the first edition of the NT, while saying not-nice and/or too-revealing things about the gospel of Luke. In any case, I'm enjoy and admire your show and always look forward to more.
Countlurkula
2023-06-22 11:14:50 +0000 UTCThanks Dan, I've noted down all of these questions and have put the call out to listeners in a new post to ask more. But looking at these, these and the ones that Todd sent me might even be enough to cover a full Bonus Show.
Christopher Palmero
2023-06-07 22:20:43 +0000 UTCLast one, and a little less heavy, and I seem to remember you've touched on this a little bit in various shows: but what does the making of the average BSC show look like? What sort of podcasting software and/or platforms do you use? What's your hardware setup like? Editing tricks? I've always been really impressed with how slick the show sounds. I think you were the first podcast I ever encountered that had the show divided into chapters, which I was blown away by!
Dan Helton
2023-06-03 15:52:12 +0000 UTCIf your "Mountain Man" moment happened tomorrow and archaeologists found a "Dura-Europos" of indisputable evidence of a 1st century Christian tradition, how much of your hypothesis about Christian origins gets invalidated and how much of it could you just push further back or forward in time and it still remain plausible? I've told you before, I'm not 100% sold on the BSC hypothesis, but where I do find your work EXTREMELY valuable is pushing back on these rather ridiculous super-early datings of NT books. I went to Catholic high school in the late 90's/early 2000's, where we had to take theology classes each semester, and I've been shocked at how far back scholars have pushed the dates of the gospels and other books even since I was learning about them from my high school teachers.
Dan Helton
2023-06-03 15:50:23 +0000 UTCDo you have any episodes planned to explore the enigma of John the Baptist, his sect, and where they fit into the BSC hypothesis? And what about groups like the Mandaeans of Iraq (or other, now extinct, gnostic groups from history) that claim to carry on the JtB tradition? Do you think they're authentically descended from JtB or later innovations that glommed onto his story as a means of opposing the "Christian" tradition?
Dan Helton
2023-06-03 15:43:45 +0000 UTCI'm actually going to throw some here in the replies (or else I'll forget them): If you were going to do your own Robert Funk-style "Jesus Seminar", how would you do the colored beads? Would you organize it by strata? Like maybe the red beads are for sayings/parables/doctrine from the oldest Jewish gnostic strata, then different colors for the later traditions that originated in the "Catholic" faction or the Pauline faction or elsewhere?
Dan Helton
2023-06-03 15:39:55 +0000 UTCChris, you should do a Q&A bonus episode for patrons. I'm sure you've gotten plenty of good ones, and even if people ask about stuff you already have shows planned for, we'd all love to get some teasers. And doing it patrons-only is hopefully less pressure on you when answering, as it's a more friendly audience.
Dan Helton
2023-06-03 15:36:38 +0000 UTC
