RealityRules wrote:Neither ἀποστεῖλαι or ἀποστολὴν or ἀπόστολον, nor variations of them appear, in War

That should be punctuated at the end thus:
"Neither ἀποστεῖλαι or ἀποστολὴν or ἀπόστολον, nor variations of them, appear in War"

RealityRules wrote:
Antiquities 17 http://www.biblical.ie/page.php?fl=jose ... ies/AJGk17

[300] ἀφίκετο εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην πρεσβεία Ἰουδαίων Οὐάρου, τὸν ἀπόστολον αὐτῶν τῷ ἔθνει ἐπικεχωρηκότος ὑπὲρ αἰτήσεως αὐτονομίας. καὶ ἦσαν οἱ μὲν πρέσβεις οἱ ἀποσταλέντες γνώμῃ τοῦ ἔθνους πεντήκοντα; συνίσταντο δὲ αὐτοῖς τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης Ἰουδαίων ὑπὲρ ὀκτακισχίλιοι.

[300] There arrived in Rome an embassy of the Judeans of Varus, the apostles from their nation who have come with a request for autonomy. And the embassy who sent the opinion of the nation were fifty; and they were joined by the Roman Judeans of eight thousand.

(this was after Herod the Great's death in 4BCE)

This occurrence in Josephus's Ant. 17, 300 is noted in, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (4 ed.), 2021,

ἀπόστολος, ου, ὁ ⟦apóstolos⟧ (s. ἀποστέλλω). τὸ ἀπόστολον - with (Plato Ep. 7, 346a) or without (Vi. Hom. 19) πλοῖον - means a ship ready for departure. In older Gk. (Lysias, Demosth.) and later (e.g. Posidon.: 87 Fgm. 53 p. 257, 21 Jac. [Strabo 3, 5, 5]) ὁ ἀ[πόστολος] is a naval expedition, probably also [applies to] its commander (Anecd. Gr. 217, 26). In its single occurrence in Jos[ephus] (Ant. 17, 300; it is not found elsewhere in Jewish-Gk. lit.), it prob. means ‘sending out’ ...

and in the English and Greek sections in the Liddell, Scott, Jones [LSJ] Ancient Greek Lexicon

As noted in a previous post,

RealityRules wrote:
Walter Bauer in his Greek-English Lexicon relates the term to the rabbinical idea of a Shaliah, or agent: "Judaism had an office known as apostle (שליח)".

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle#Terminology [and]
• https://www.google.com.au/books/edition ... =en&gbpv=0

The online Jewish Encyclopaedia notes

"Apostoloi" was the official name given to the men sent by the rulers of Jerusalem to collect the half-shekel tax for the Temple, the tax itself being called "apostolé." See Theod. Reinach, "Textes Grecs et Romains, etc.," 1895, p. 208; and also Grätz, "Gesch. der Juden," iv. 476, note 21, where Eusebius is quoted as saying: "It is even yet a custom among the Jews to call those who carry about circular letters from their rulers by the name of apostles" ...

https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles ... postleship

The only other noun version* - ἀποστολὴν - occurs in Antiquities 20.49:

RealityRules wrote:

[49] Ἑλένη, δὲ ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως μήτηρ...ἐπιθυμίαν ἔσχεν εἰς τὴν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν πόλιν ἀφικομένη τὸ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις περιβόητον ἱερὸν τοῦ θεοῦ προσκυνῆσαι καὶ χαριστηρίους θυσίας προσενεγκεῖν. ἐδεῖτό τε τοῦ παιδὸς ἐπιτρέψαι, [50] τοῦ δὲ πάνυ προθύμως τῇ μητρὶ παρακαλούσῃ κατανεύσαντος καὶ πολλὴν παρασκευὴν τῶν εἰς τὴν ἀποστολὴν ἑτοιμασαμένου καὶ χρήματα πλεῖστα δόντος, καταβαίνει εἰς τὴν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν πόλιν προπέμποντος ἐπὶ πολὺ τοῦ παιδός.

[49] Helena, the king's mother...felt a desire to go to the city of Jerusalem to worship and offer her thank-offerings at the temple of God, famous among all people. When she asked her son's permission to go, [50] he willingly gave consent and made great preparations for her mission and gave her a lot of money; and then he came down to the city of Jerusalem, having much anticipation like a child.

(mission does not seem to be a common translation in English versions of Antiquities 20.49)

RealityRules wrote:
Walter Bauer in his Greek-English Lexicon relates the term to the rabbinical idea of a Shaliah, or agent: "Judaism had an office known as apostle (שליח)".

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle#Terminology [and]
• https://www.google.com.au/books/edition ... =en&gbpv=0

The online Jewish Encyclopaedia notes

"Apostoloi" was the official name given to the men sent by the rulers of Jerusalem to collect the half-shekel tax for the Temple, the tax itself being called "apostolé." See Theod. Reinach, "Textes Grecs et Romains, etc.," 1895, p. 208; and also Grätz, "Gesch. der Juden," iv. 476, note 21, where Eusebius is quoted as saying: "It is even yet a custom among the Jews to call those who carry about circular letters from their rulers by the name of apostles" ...

https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles ... postleship

The NT apostles were engaged in serious FINANCIAL business. There was supposedly great fear over the management of money, property and tithing for the church industry. The penalty for mis-management was death.

1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property.
2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?
4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened
6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.
8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?” “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

(Acts 5.1-11)

It was obviously a pyramid scheme and remains as such today.

lol

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Acts 5.1-11

1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property.
2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest [of the money] and put it at the feet of the apostles - ἀποστόλων - apostolōn.
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?
4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened
6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.
8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?” “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

That mention in Acts 5:2 fits with Walter Bauer's proposal:

RealityRules wrote:
Walter Bauer in his Greek-English Lexicon relates the term [apostle] to the rabbinical idea of a Shaliah, or agent:

"Judaism had an office known as apostle (שליח)".

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle#Terminology [and]
  
• https://www.google.com.au/books/edition ... =en&gbpv=0

The online Jewish Encyclopaedia notes

"Apostoloi" was the official name given to the men sent by the rulers of Jerusalem to collect the half-shekel tax for the Temple, the tax itself being called "apostolé." See Theod. Reinach, "Textes Grecs et Romains, etc.," 1895, p. 208; and also Grätz, "Gesch. der Juden," iv. 476, note 21, where Eusebius is quoted as saying: "It is even yet a custom among the Jews to call those who carry about circular letters from their rulers by the name of apostles" ...

https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles ... postleship

(Also see http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2805648 two posts below)

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... tolos.html gives the meaning of ἀποστόλων - [as] apostolos - as

1.a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders

As does A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (4 ed.), 2021
(see http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2801965)


Also note that 14 the 22 occurrences of ἀποστόλων - apostolōn - in the NT are in Acts (with 5 in Pauline epistles; and 1 each in Revelation (wrt "apostles of the Lamb"), Jude 1 (wrt "apostles of the Lord") and 2 Peter 3 (wrt "rhēmatōn* of 'holy prophets' and the apostles")

rhēmatōn:

(a) a word or saying of any kind: as command, report, promise;
(b) a thing, matter, business.

RealityRules wrote:Walter Bauer in his Greek-English Lexicon relates the term [apostle] to the rabbinical idea of a Shaliah, or agent

A Shaliah (also Shaliach, Saliah, Salah) = the “one sent”, from the verb shelach/sheloach (שָׁלַח), "to send."

As James F. McGrath noted, in The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context, University of Illinois Press, 2009; p.14,

Agency was an important part of every day life in the ancient world. Individuals such as prophets and angels mentioned in the Jewish Scriptures were thought of as ‘agents’ of God. And the key idea regarding agency in the ancient world appears to be summarized in the phrase from rabbinic literature so often quoted in these contexts: “The one sent is like the one who sent him.”

T. Korteweg, in “Origin & Early History of the Apostolic Office,” in The Apostolic Age in Patristic Thought, ed. Hilhorst, p 6f, noted,

the concept on which it is based, the idea expressed, [is] in Mishnah Berakhot 5.5: ‘a man’s agent is like to himself.’

There are numerous OT examples of individuals who were “sent” by God, including but not limited to,

Joseph (Gen. 41:41-3, 45:7), Moses (Ex. 3:12), Isaiah (Is. 6:8), and Jeremiah (Jer. 1:7).

Korteweg, ibid, also noted:

Paul’s letters are the only early document from which a reconstruction of 'apostolic self-consciousness' seems at all possible [i.e.,] God or Christ is speaking through his mouth [1Thess 2.13; 2Cor 5.20; 13.3]; like the prophet Jeremiah he is given authority to build up and destroy [2Cor 10.8; 13.10; and Gal 4.14]. Of course, this is reminiscent of Matt 10.40; Luke 10.16. [In the OT] the Hebrew verb shalach is regularly used for the sending of prophets and the normal rendering of shalach in the Septuagint is 'apostellein' [cp. Mat 23.34ff.]

Wikipedia notes

The person whom the agent is representing is known as the Meshaleach (מְשַׁלֵּחַ‎) or as the Sholeach (שׁוֹלֵחַ‎), both of which mean "one who is sending". The concept of agency overall...is known as Shlichut (שְׁלִיחוּת‎)1

-----------------------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaliah#Terminology citing Levinthal, Israel Herbert (1922) 'The Jewish Law of Agency' The Jewish Quarterly Review 13(2): 117–191 (esp. p.124f):

"early Roman Law was destitute of the mode notion of Agency ... absence of Agency characterizes every department of ancient Law ... [with] the one important exception, the Jewish Law ... [though] the rabbis of the Talmud frequently speak of the "Shaliah", the agent, and the Meshalleah or Sholeah, the principal" (Maimonides in the 12th c. joined the laws of both of these subjects under the heading, 'Hilkot Sheluhin we-shutafin')

1 The relationship between a Shaliah and the Meshaleach/Meshalleah is known as Shelihut (= agency)

Though Wikipedia notes,

The term does not [actually] occur in the [Hebrew] Bible as a noun, though the verb lishloach ("to send") is frequently used to describe sending a messenger or agent.

The first Shaliaḥ inferred in the Bible is the servant in Genesis 24 who was sent by Abraham to find a wife for Isaac (according to the rabbis, this servant was named Eliezer)

Shaliah (Shaliach, Saliah, Salah) appears to be of halakha origin.


The Gospel attributed to John presents Jesus as sent to reveal the Father - Jn 14:9: “He who has seen me has seen the father” - or to complete his “work” on earth - Jn 17:4: “I have accomplished the work which you 'gave' me to do”.

Also see Jn 13:16; 17:3; cf. Mt 15:24; Lk 4:18, 43; Heb 3:1.

Levinthal, Israel Herbert (1922) 'The Jewish Law of Agency' The Jewish Quarterly Review 13 (2), pp.117–91, also notes:

Jewish law...also speaks of the Sarsor: literally, a broker or middle-man; defined by Maimonides and the later codes as a Shaliah or agent.

Though Levinthal noted a conceptual distinction between a Sarsor and a Shaliah: the former is a paid agent and the latter is a gratuitous agent.

There was also a Sarser, a middle-man or commissioner.

If a principal said to his Sarsor (ie. agent): "Sell for me X for $100", and he sold it for $200, the extra money received would belong to the principal; but if a Sarser were told to sell X for $100, and the article brought more, the surplus would belong to him.

There is a third type of agency spoken of in Jewish law, harsha'ah; literally an authorization, authority or power of attorney, and refers mostly to cases where the agent has a written power of attorney to represent his principal, bringing an action in his behalf to recover money, land or goods that belong to him [say, in court].

The main difference between harsha'ah and shelihut is that the former would be used to collect a debt belonging to the principal (or in an action to secure a certain article from a bailee or trustee); the latter would refer to a contract of agency. There is also a practical difference between ordinary shelihut and harsha'ah: the death of the principal revokes at once all agency.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1451278?seq=13

Some of these concepts may well be playing out in Acts 5:1f.

Additionally, Levinthal proposes that the doctrine is derived from Deuteronomy 24.1, "he sendeth her out", wrt a husband giving his wife a bill of divorce, and perhaps, "ye also set us apart," in Numbers 18.28; and perhaps rabbinic contemplations on them.

RealityRules wrote:Hebrews 3:1 [re Jesus as "the one sent"]

Really Hebrews 3:1,3,6:

1 Therefore, brothers holy, partakers of the heavenly calling, carefully consider the apostle - the Ἀπόστολον - and high priest 'of the confession of us', Jesus, 2 being faithful to the [One] who appointed him,* as Moses was in His house. 3 Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself* ... 5 “Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house” [Numbers 12.7], bearing witness to what would be spoken by God in the future. 6 But Christ is faithful* as the Son over God’s house* ...

(vv.7-11 are Psalm 95.7-11)

12 See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart ... 14 We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end ...

(then Psalm 95.7-8 again)

16 Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? .... 18 And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? ...

ie. consider he who is [said to have been] sent and consider believing and not disobeying them

* these establish God as the principal, the Meshaleach or Sholeach, and Jesus as his agent, a Shaliah (aka Shaliach, Salah and Saliah)

re the use of ἀναστῇ : anesti

RealityRules wrote:
ἀνίστημι, anistémi: to raise up, to rise (Strong's 450)

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
ἀνίστημι: future ἀναστήσω; 1 aorist ἀνέστησα; 2 aorist ἀνέστην, imperative ἀνάστηθι and (Ephesians 5:14 and Acts 12:7; L WH text in Acts 9:11) ἀνάστα (Winers Grammar, § 14, 1 h.; (Buttmann, 47 (40))); middle, present ἀνισταμαι; future ἀναστήσομαι; (from Homer down);

II. Intransitively, in the perfect pluperfect and 2 aorist active, and in the middle;

1. to rise, stand up; used


d. of the dead; 2 aorist, with ἐκ νεκρῶν added: Matthew 17:9 R G WH marginal reading; Mark 9:9; Mark 12:25; Luke 16:31; Luke 24:46; John 20:9; Ephesians 5:14 (here figuratively); with ἐκ νεκρῶν omitted: Mark 8:31; Mark 16:9; Luke 9:8, 19 (22 L T Tr marginal reading WH marginal reading); Luke 24:7; Romans 14:9 Rec.; so (without ἐκ νεκρῶν) in the future middle also: Matthew 12:41; (, L WH marginal reading); Matthew 20:19 (R G L Tr marginal reading WH marginal reading); Mark 10:34; Luke 11:32; Luke 18:33; John 11:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:16.

Ephesians 5.14

Ἔγειρε ὁ καθεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός
Awake the sleeping and rise from the dead and will shine on you the Christ

1 Thessalonians 4:16

οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον
hoi nekroi en Christō anastesontai prōton
the dead in Christ will rise first

Mark 8:31

καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι
kai meta treis hēmeras anastēnai
and after three days rise again

Mark 9:

μὴ ὅταν ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῇ
mē hotan ho Huios tou anthrōpou ek nekrōn anastē
not until the Son of Man from the dead has risen

Mark 10:34

καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι
kai meta treis hēmeras anastēnai
and after three days rise again

Mark 12:

ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῶσιν
ek nekrōn anastōsin
from dead they rise

(Matthew 20:19 has ἐγερθήσεται : egerthēsetai; as does Matt 12:42)

Luke 9:8

one of the ancients has risen

Luke 9:19

one of the ancients has risen

Luke 16:31

not even if one from the dead should rise [will they be persecuted]

Luke 18:33

and on the third day he will rise [again]

John 11:23

ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ἀναστήσεται
ho Iēsous anastēsetai
the Jesus will rise again

John 20:9

τὴν γραφὴν ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῆναι
tēn graphēn hoti dei auton ek nekrōn anastēnai
that scripture behoves Him from dead to rise

Leucius Charinus wrote:

It was obviously a pyramid scheme and remains as such today.

Acts of the Apostles is not a book of historical events so it is extremely unlikely that there was a pyramid scheme by so-called apostles of the supposed resurrected Jesus. The pyramid scheme most likely started after Acts of the Apostles was fabricated no earlier than the 3rd century.

dejuror wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:It was obviously a pyramid scheme and remains as such today.

Acts of the Apostles is not a book of historical events so it is extremely unlikely that there was a pyramid scheme by so-called apostles of the supposed resurrected Jesus. The pyramid scheme most likely started after Acts of the Apostles was fabricated no earlier than the 3rd century.

Acts of the Apostles was probably written as part of the pyramid scheme as it was nearing completion

RealityRules wrote:

dejuror wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:It was obviously a pyramid scheme and remains as such today.

Acts of the Apostles is not a book of historical events so it is extremely unlikely that there was a pyramid scheme by so-called apostles of the supposed resurrected Jesus. The pyramid scheme most likely started after Acts of the Apostles was fabricated no earlier than the 3rd century.

Acts of the Apostles was probably written as part of the pyramid scheme as it was nearing completion

Yes a pyramid scheme ---- no earlier than the 3rd century because there does not appear to be any PRIMARY EVDIDENCE before the 3rd century at the earliest.

Primary evidence is defined as evidence from the time period being studied and should be admitted alone for the first approximation. The introduction of secondary evidence should be then reserved for the second level approximations. All evidence whether primary or secondary must be explained.

"In contexts such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources."

[Cipolla, Carlo M. (1992). Between Two Cultures:An Introduction to Economic History. W. W. Norton & Co. p. 27]

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

The earliest extant manuscripts from the so-called "early church fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus et al are all from the medieval period (11th-14th century) so these cannot be admitted as PRIMARY EVIDENCE. These must remain as secondary evidence.

So what is the earliest PRIMARY evidence we have for the New Testament or the "Early Church"?

Leucius Charinus wrote:
... All 'evidence' whether 'primary' or 'secondary' must be explained.

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

"In contexts such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources."

[Cipolla, Carlo M. (1992). Between Two Cultures: An Introduction to Economic History. W. W. Norton & Co. p. 27]

The primary term is primary source.

While the term 'primary evidence' is not one used by historians, it does raise an interesting concept ...

Leucius Charinus wrote:
The earliest extant manuscripts from the so-called "early church fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus et al are all from the medieval period (11th-14th century) so these cannot be admitted as PRIMARY EVIDENCE. These must remain as secondary evidence.

So what is the earliest PRIMARY evidence we have for the New Testament or the "Early Church"?

While the earliest extant manuscripts, aka the earliest 'received texts,' for what the "early church fathers," such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, et al, are from the medieval period, and are not true primary sources, they're still the best sources for what they were likely saying.

Perhaps they could be considered 'primary 'evidence'' for those people (editing and interpolations notwithstanding)?

Regardless, they're still the best sources per se for what was happening during the development of early Christianity. As are things like the uses of various key words in various texts, as outlined above (and as I intend to elaborate on).

Leucius Charinus wrote:

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

The earliest extant manuscripts from the so-called "early church fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus et al are all from the medieval period (11th-14th century) so these cannot be admitted as PRIMARY EVIDENCE. These must remain as secondary evidence.

So what is the earliest PRIMARY evidence we have for the New Testament or the "Early Church"?

It is for the fact that there are no primary sources for an historical Jesus and that secondary sources portray the Jesus character as the son of the Jewish myth God that the argument for an historical Jesus is virtually dead or baseless.

Based on secondary sources I argue that the Jesus character was invented sometime after the works of Josephus or sometime after c 100 CE.

It was after the destruction of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE which caused the conspiracy theory that the Jews killed their prophesied Messiah which later evolved into what is known as the Christian religion.

Exame gMark.

Mark 13:2--And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

The supposed words of the Jesus character were not prophecy at all but was written after c 70 CE.

There were no Jewish Messiah in Galilee, no apostles, no Paul before the destruction of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

It is after c 100 CE that writers began to mention a new cult called Christians.

This is Aristides addressing the Emperor of Rome c 117-135 CE.

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, 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....
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

Again, there is no Paul in the Jesus story by Aristides. It was the 12 disciples who spread the Gospel throughout the known world--not Paul. The Pauline character was not yet invented when Aristides wrote his Apology.

RealityRules wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:
... All 'evidence' whether 'primary' or 'secondary' must be explained.

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

"In contexts such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources."

[Cipolla, Carlo M. (1992). Between Two Cultures: An Introduction to Economic History. W. W. Norton & Co. p. 27]

The primary term is primary source.

I take your point but note that the term primary sources is generally recognised as referring to primary sources of evidence (as distinct from secondary sources of evidence).

https://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=p ... &tbs=#ip=1

While the term 'primary evidence' is not one used by historians, it does raise an interesting concept

Leucius Charinus wrote:
The earliest extant manuscripts from the so-called "early church fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus et al are all from the medieval period (11th-14th century) so these cannot be admitted as PRIMARY EVIDENCE. These must remain as secondary evidence.

So what is the earliest PRIMARY evidence we have for the New Testament or the "Early Church"?

While the earliest extant manuscripts, aka the earliest 'received texts,' for what the "early church fathers," such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, et al, are from the medieval period, and are not true primary sources, they're still the best sources for what they were likely saying.

That may not necessarily follow. One would need to make additional assumptions such as the copyist has faithfully represented the material which is supposedly being copied.

Perhaps they could be considered 'primary 'evidence'' for those people (editing and interpolations notwithstanding)?

I'd agree with that caveat ---- (editing and interpolations notwithstanding). But we all know the scribes edited and interpolated every time they made a copy. If they had an original in front of them perhaps this could be true.

Regardless, they're still the best sources per se for what was happening during the development of early Christianity.

They may not be if they are forged and/or interpolated.

Hence:

"In contexts such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources."

So my point is that if we were to stay with only the primary (sources of) evidence then what is the overall picture of Christian origins that may be sketched? Having examined the primary (sources of) evidence for the NT and the so-called "universal [Christian] church" it would appear to be a vacuum of such evidence in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

In the context of historical writing (specifically writing a history of the NT and the "church") what happens when we simply stay with the primary sources of evidence? The answer is that we have a vacuum until at least the 3rd century.

dejuror wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

The earliest extant manuscripts from the so-called "early church fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus et al are all from the medieval period (11th-14th century) so these cannot be admitted as PRIMARY EVIDENCE. These must remain as secondary evidence.

So what is the earliest PRIMARY evidence we have for the New Testament or the "Early Church"?

It is for the fact that there are no primary sources for an historical Jesus and that secondary sources portray the Jesus character as the son of the Jewish myth God that the argument for an historical Jesus is virtually dead or baseless.

Based on secondary sources I argue that the Jesus character was invented sometime after the works of Josephus or sometime after c 100 CE.

However the historical method actually advises us that:

"In contexts such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources."

It was after the destruction of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE which caused the conspiracy theory that the Jews killed their prophesied Messiah which later evolved into what is known as the Christian religion.

Examine gMark.

Mark 13:2--And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

The supposed words of the Jesus character were not prophecy at all but was written after c 70 CE.

There were no Jewish Messiah in Galilee, no apostles, no Paul before the destruction of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

It is after c 100 CE that writers began to mention a new cult called Christians.

But what is the earliest extant physical manuscript (the primary source of historical evidence) to witness the gMark?

This is Aristides addressing the Emperor of Rome c 117-135 CE.

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, 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....
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

Again, there is no Paul in the Jesus story by Aristides. It was the 12 disciples who spread the Gospel throughout the known world--not Paul. The Pauline character was not yet invented when Aristides wrote his Apology.

But what is the earliest extant manuscript for the so-called Apology of Aristides? About 1000 CE?

Discovery of the Apology

In 1878, the Armenian monks of the Mechitarite convent in Venice published the first two chapters, which they had found in a manuscript in their collection in Armenian translation. This they accompanied with a Latin translation. Opinion as to the authenticity of the fragment was disputed, with Ernest Renan particularly vocal in opposition.

Later, in 1889, J. Rendel Harris found the whole of it in a Syriac version at the Eastern Orthodox monastery of Saint Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, Egypt. While his edition was passing through the press, it was observed that the work had been extant in Greek the whole time, though in a slightly abbreviated form, since it had been embedded as a speech in a religious novel written around 1000 AD entitled The Life of Barlaam and Ioasaph.

A further Armenian fragment was discovered in the library at Echmiadzin by F. C. Conybeare in a manuscript of the 11th century. But the discovery of the Syriac version reopened the question of the date of the work.[1] "Two very fragmentary third- or fourth-century Greek papyri serve as textual witnesses to the Apology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_of_Aristides

Aristides supposedly flourished in the 2nd century but the earliest (source) manuscript is from the 11th century --- some nine centuries removed from the action.

What would an argument look like which was based on primary sources by themselves?

Leucius Charinus wrote:I take your point but note that the term primary sources is generally recognised as referring to primary sources of evidence (as distinct from secondary sources of evidence).

Specifically, a primary source is contemporaneous information that is of sufficient use and application to the issue at hand that it can be categorized as evidence.

You missed my point:

RealityRules wrote:The primary term is primary [contemporaneous] source.
While the term 'primary evidence' is not one used by historians, it does raise an interesting concept ...

The writings of the church fathers are evidence of early Christianity.

RealityRules wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:I take your point but note that the term primary sources is generally recognised as referring to primary sources of evidence (as distinct from secondary sources of evidence).

Specifically, a primary source is contemporaneous information that is of sufficient use and application to the issue at hand that it can be categorized as evidence.

OK we can agree on that definition.

You missed my point:

RealityRules wrote:The primary term is primary [contemporaneous] source.
While the term 'primary evidence' is not one used by historians, it does raise an interesting concept ...

The writings of the church fathers are evidence of early Christianity.

I can agree with this with the caveat that the writings of the church fathers are not primary sources of evidence but secondary sources of evidence for early Christianity on account of the fact that these writings - in the form of physical artefactual manuscripts - are all from the medieval period and thus not contemporaneous with the (say) 2nd century.

There is absolutely no guarantee that these medieval manuscripts fairly represent material that was supposedly written a thousand years earlier.

There is a great difference between primary sources of evidence and secondary sources of evidence when it comes down to writing a history of the 1st and 2nd centuries. This difference is expressed here:

Significance of source classification
History

In scholarly writing, an important objective of classifying sources is to determine their independence and reliability.[5] In contexts such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources."[6] Sreedharan believes that primary sources have the most direct connection to the past and that they "speak for themselves" in ways that cannot be captured through the filter of secondary sources.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source#History

Hence my question what does the history of the early centuries look like if we stay with the primary sources of evidence.