Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 08-27-2009, 12:16 AM

http://ecwar.org/Chapter3Muratorian.pdf

Thoughts?

dog-on · 08-27-2009, 01:45 AM

The last sentence says it all.

Huon · 08-27-2009, 03:19 AM

Quote:

It certainly comes after Marcion (terminus a quo = ca. 140) whom it mentions but is often considered second century (terminus ad quem) on the basis of the reference to Pope Pius.

Needs some explanations :
||<--- terminus a quo ….. terminus ad quem -->||

terminus a quo Marcion = ca. 140
terminus ad quem Pope Pius (pope from about 140 to about 154, Catholic Encyclopedia).

A text which is dated between about 140 to about 154 is fairly well dated !

The expressions terminus a quo ….. terminus ad quem are here to show us that the author is not a debutant !

In fact, Pope Pius can be quoted at any moment after 140. The terminus ad quem is any date after 140... as is acknowledged in the next sentence :

Quote:

Most scholars assign it late in the second century though some scholars redate it to the fourth century.

Roger Pearse · 08-27-2009, 09:21 AM

"But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome."

The text clearly dates later than the accession of Pius; it could date after his death, but not more than a decade or two (depending on what we call "very recently" / nuperrime temporibus nostris)

Vinnie · 08-27-2009, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

It certainly comes after Marcion (terminus a quo = ca. 140) whom it mentions but is often considered second century (terminus ad quem) on the basis of the reference to Pope Pius.

Needs some explanations :
||<--- terminus a quo ….. terminus ad quem -->||

terminus a quo Marcion = ca. 140
terminus ad quem Pope Pius (pope from about 140 to about 154, Catholic Encyclopedia).

A text which is dated between about 140 to about 154 is fairly well dated !

The expressions terminus a quo ….. terminus ad quem are here to show us that the author is not a debutant !

In fact, Pope Pius can be quoted at any moment after 140. The terminus ad quem is any date after 140... as is acknowledged in the next sentence :

Quote:

Most scholars assign it late in the second century though some scholars redate it to the fourth century.

I meant second century as the terminus ad quem (200 ce). It is confusing as you point out so I will amend it, thanks. The lack of an explanation for the terms is that they are part of a larger work and all this was explained in an earlier section....since I broke it up I may consider revising that as well...

Vinnie

Vinnie · 08-27-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

"But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome."

The text clearly dates later than the accession of Pius; it could date after his death, but not more than a decade or two (depending on what we call "very recently" / nuperrime temporibus nostris)

I addressed both of these inside ala Sundberg. This was the reason I accepted the 2d century date but once this evidence is removed a 4th century date is preferred. The ABD said he dismissed them and I want to his actual source to check for myself and I quoted them in the pdf:

Quote:

Only the second of those two can serve as evidence for an earlier date of the fragment because the ABD is correct in dismissing the second century date on the basis of the phrase nuperrime temporibus nostris. Sundberg writes:

But is it possible to argue so conclusively from the words "nuperrime temporibus nostris?" Scholars who have discussed the matter, in their willingness to date the fragment and establish a New Testament canon about the end of the second century A.D., have apparently overlooked significant alternatives to their conclusions. One of these is to be found in the term "nuperrime," translated almost universally "very recently." And, indeed, one possible translation of "nuperrime" is "very recently" if taken as a diminished superlative. Otherwise, and equally viable, the meaning is "most recently." And with the latter the comparison of date for the Shepherd of Hermas is with the preceding books in the list. The meaning is that Shepherd of Hermas is not comparable to the preceding books in the list in terms of antiquity of authorship.4

Sundberg also distinguishes between the “time of the apostles” and “our time”. The author is not necessarily giving a chronological indicator in the second century but saying the Shepherd of Hermas was written most recently (of the works mentioned) and in our time (post-apostolic era), as opposed to their time (apostolic era). In other words, it is presenting a case against the canonization of Hermas and lists it as recommended reading.

He references the writings of Irenaeus and several others as support for this. Irenaeus describes the date of the Apocalypse of John as follows(AH 5:30.3), “but almost in our own generation towards the end of the reign of Domitian”. The end of Domitian’s reign was in 96 c.e., about 90 years before Irenaeus wrote his fifth book against heresy! The usage is clear. Our time or our generation (post apostolic) is distinct from their time and their generation (apostolic). This is a viable alternative and the cornerstone for the traditional dating has been eliminated.            

I also addressed several other arguments by Stanton for an earlier fit that I thought were convincing until I went and actually checked his references.

The internal evidence favors a later date and an Eastern composition (not Rome) and with this viable alternative translation it seems best to ascribe the work to a later date. Sundberg's article is quite good.

Vinnie

jakejonesiv · 08-27-2009, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

http://ecwar.org/Chapter3Muratorian.pdf

Thoughts?

Well done.

Roger Pearse · 08-27-2009, 03:40 PM

Interesting post. You need to run these ideas past some serious Latinists. Here's my thoughts on this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

"But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome."

The text clearly dates later than the accession of Pius; it could date after his death, but not more than a decade or two (depending on what we call "very recently" / nuperrime temporibus nostris)

I addressed both of these inside ala Sundberg. This was the reason I accepted the 2d century date but once this evidence is removed ...

Those words should flash a HUGE warning on your mental screens, that the data is being forced.

Quote:

But is it possible to argue so conclusively from the words "nuperrime temporibus nostris?" ... One of these is to be found in the term "nuperrime," translated almost universally "very recently." And, indeed, one possible translation of "nuperrime" is "very recently" if taken as a diminished superlative. Otherwise, and equally viable, the meaning is "most recently." And with the latter the comparison of date for the Shepherd of Hermas is with the preceding books in the list. The meaning is that Shepherd of Hermas is not comparable to the preceding books in the list in terms of antiquity of authorship.

Certainly the Latin superlative may mean "most X" or "very X". But the argument being made here seems to be being made by one who is thinking in English. It feels wrong to me, with my limited Latin. The point of the superlative is to qualify the base word, nuper. The base word means "recently". The superlative therefore means "really recently". I have a feeling that the comparative rather than the superlative would be used here to give the sense of "more recent than the others."

This needs to be checked with people with better Latin than me. I merely give you what I have.

Quote:

Sundberg also distinguishes between the “time of the apostles” and “our time”. The author is not necessarily giving a chronological indicator in the second century but saying the Shepherd of Hermas was written most recently (of the works mentioned) and in our time (post-apostolic era), as opposed to their time (apostolic era).

The sentence states clearly that "our times" is when Pius was bishop. Certainly an idea of "not apostolic" is hanging around, but not in the "temporibus nostris."

Quote:

This is a viable alternative and the cornerstone for the traditional dating has been eliminated.            

Doubtless the intention. But the arguments really don't work. Surely we have all seen this kind of evidence-forcing before, in the 19th century? The problems with all of them is that they are unnecessary, and they involve ignoring the plain statement in favour of something clever. Why should we? What piece of data demands that we ignore what the text says? The text has a clear and obvious meaning; to find excuses to debunk this is always possible, but (in my view) more or less certain to end in error.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 08-27-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Needs some explanations :
||<--- terminus a quo ….. terminus ad quem -->||

terminus a quo Marcion = ca. 140
terminus ad quem Pope Pius (pope from about 140 to about 154, Catholic Encyclopedia).

A text which is dated between about 140 to about 154 is fairly well dated !

The expressions terminus a quo ….. terminus ad quem are here to show us that the author is not a debutant !

In fact, Pope Pius can be quoted at any moment after 140. The terminus ad quem is any date after 140... as is acknowledged in the next sentence :

I meant second century as the terminus ad quem (200 ce). It is confusing as you point out so I will amend it, thanks. The lack of an explanation for the terms is that they are part of a larger work and all this was explained in an earlier section....since I broke it up I may consider revising that as well...

Vinnie

I think that we should avoid using words and phrases not immediately comprehensible!

Vinnie · 08-27-2009, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Those words should flash a HUGE warning on your mental screens, that the data is being forced.

It is not being forced. It is being assessed and the traditional interpretation find another viable alternative that orthodox Christians would probably rather not exist.

Quote:

Doubtless the intention. But the arguments really don't work. Surely we have all seen this kind of evidence-forcing before, in the 19th century? The problems with all of them is that they are unnecessary, and they involve ignoring the plain statement in favour of something clever. Why should we?

Um, you don't think New Testament scholars would be hasty in finding a second century canonical "list"? You don't think the failure of many of them to consider alternative translations has to do, deep down, with a "want" of some sort to have a second century canon? To assert otherwise is laughable. This is one of the most blatantly biased fields in all of academia.

Quote:

What piece of data demands that we ignore what the text says? The text has a clear and obvious meaning; to find excuses to debunk this is always possible, but (in my view) more or less certain to end in error.

I don't know Latin but the author has but forth cogent arguments for an alternative and viable interpretation. He does not say it is an only one, only that it is as viable as the one New Testament scholars have hastily clung to without consideration for others. This is not internet revisionism. The arguments of Sundberg were gratuitously promoted by Robbins (Yale ABD) and have been accepted by scholars no less reputable than Helmut Koester and Harry Gamble. Its one of those views that will probably be erased in three or four decades once enough scholars get around to reassessing the evidence rather than relying on tradition.

Finally, many arguments are put forth that the "list' fits bet at a later date in the East (not in Rome). There is only one argument for an earlier date. Read his article.

As I noted, however, it doesn't really matter. Whether 4th or 2nd it doesn't tell me anything reliable about the authorship or date of say the gospels or the Pauline corpus. Its use lies in the theological realm, not the historical one. I was using it in my study to find works that rely or mention the gospels and in my research found out there are good reasons to date it late.

You don't have to accept them and my view can be easily overturned. It doesn't matter though, the text is worth very little historically. I leave it to the systematic theologians.

08-27-2009, 12:16 AM	#1
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	The Muratorian Fragment and the Gospels http://ecwar.org/Chapter3Muratorian.pdf Thoughts?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-27-2009, 01:45 AM	#2
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	The last sentence says it all.

08-27-2009, 09:21 AM	#4
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	"But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome." The text clearly dates later than the accession of Pius; it could date after his death, but not more than a decade or two (depending on what we call "very recently" / nuperrime temporibus nostris)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.