Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sajara · 04-11-2010, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

For me, there are two problems here, Roger. One, I don't know of a single document from the first century, and those from the second and third centuries seem to me, upon close scrutiny to have been altered, adjusted, modified, redacted, or CHANGED in some form, from the original. Second, writing MML doesn't identify the author. It is just a word. A hundred "patristic" sources can name Mark, it doesn't change the fact that I have no idea who Mark is, or was, whether real or fictitious. Until reliable evidence appears to the contrary, "Mark" for me, is a fictional author. Ditto for Matthew, Luke, John, and especially Paul.

Is there a reference here (namely a book that compiles all these manuscripts/documents)? I'd like to read up more on them. For what it is worth though, I agree with avi here. "Mark" to me is the same thing as Richard Bachman. For those of you who don't know who that is...it's Stephen King. For a while he was writing under a pen name to see if his books were selling for their own merit or because his actual name was recognized so widely. So, having said that, until Stephen King said he was Richard Bachman, we had no clue who he was. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, Richard Bachman was anonymous.

Quote:

Roger, can you point me towards ONE, just one, (or more,) but one will suffice, one lowly document, from the second century, that you believe to be unadulterated, authentic, real, genuine, and unredacted? Ok, I will even accept third century origin, if a second century document does not exist.

I too would like to see some evidence. Though, I would be happy to see evidence from either side here so I could judge for myself. It is just that I have, as of yet, seen nothing from Roger's argument that I would consider evidence.

missblue · 04-11-2010, 09:17 AM

Somehow I managed to start a thread that has 90 replies so far...

I feel accomplished.

Huon · 04-11-2010, 12:10 PM

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholic Encyclopedia

The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenæus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Strom., I, xxi), and St. Irenæus (Adv. Hær., III, xi, 7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made.

PhilosopherJay · 04-11-2010, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholic Encyclopedia

The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenæus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Strom., I, xxi), and St. Irenæus (Adv. Hær., III, xi, 7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made.

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives very prejudiced opinions, based on the latest information gathered in the 19th Century.

The canon of Muratori has been redated to the Fourth century. Clement of Alexandria is writing in the beginning years of the Third century. Irenaeus is a character invented by Eusebius, although the writings attributed to him may well be early Third century.

arnoldo · 04-11-2010, 02:19 PM

Iraneous lived sometime in the second century and wrote primarily against so called heretical beliefs. Iraneous wrote the following against Marcion.

Quote:

Chapter VIII.—Vain attempts of Marcion and his followers, who exclude Abraham from the salvation bestowed by Christ, who liberated not only Abraham, but the seed of Abraham, by fulfilling and not destroying the law when He healed on the Sabbath-day.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.ix.html

The following, more modern book, also attests to the historicity of Iraneous.

Irenaeus of Lyons:Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (November 26, 2001) (or via: amazon.co.uk)

However, it is possible that Iraneous was a character invented by Eusebius.

Toto · 04-11-2010, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...
The following, more modern book, also attests to the historicity of Iraneous.

Irenaeus of Lyons:Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (November 26, 2001) (or via: amazon.co.uk)

...

That book can also be previewed on google books. I did not see any "attestation" as to the historicity of Irenaeus. The dates of his birth and death, and the question of whether he was a martyr, are all shrouded in the fog of historical uncertainty.

mountainman · 04-11-2010, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Iraneous lived sometime in the second century and wrote primarily against so called heretical beliefs. Iraneous wrote the following against Marcion.

Quote:

Chapter VIII.—Vain attempts of Marcion and his followers, who exclude Abraham from the salvation bestowed by Christ, who liberated not only Abraham, but the seed of Abraham, by fulfilling and not destroying the law when He healed on the Sabbath-day.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.ix.html

The following, more modern book, also attests to the historicity of Iraneous.

Irenaeus of Lyons:Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (November 26, 2001) (or via: amazon.co.uk)

However, it is possible that Iraneous was a character invented by Eusebius.

We have to ask the question when was heresiology "invented"?
When would it have been possible for opinions to arise "that conflict with an established dogma".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher_Jay

The canon of Muratori has been redated to the Fourth century. Clement of Alexandria is writing in the beginning years of the Third century.

Irenaeus is a character invented by Eusebius, although the writings attributed to him may well be early Third century.

The Analysis Results are that Eusebius is "retrojecting history"

Many people have shaken their head at Eusebius and suspect that this author "Eusebius" has been responsible for the purposeful and fraudulent retrojection of historical material into his accounts. The TF is one specific classical case. Others may be identified and catalogued. One integrity exception in this category is enough to make any objective analyst suspicous of the modus operandi and "historical honesty" of the author "Eusebius".

We must not forget that the author "Eusebius of Caesarea" was preserved across many centuries from the 4th by a corrupt regime as may be demonstrated in the analysis of the law codes contained in Theodosianus and the later one of Justinian. The compilers of the law codes fabricated whatever they needed. Religious law was no exception. Eusebius could have been interpolated itself by later 4th and 5th century "continuators".

Eusebius is "retrojecting history" - Implications for the NT Canon

Discussion here and elsewhere has pathologically focussed itself in this domain for the obvious reason that everyone is vitally interested in the "historical truth of Christian Origins". Many people think that's all there is to explain, and tbey IMO would be totally wrong, since we have to explain the appearance and history of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".

Can we "stop the mind focused on the NT Canon" to briefly ask a simple question about the "Other Books" which were not included in the new testament canon, neither at Nicaea or afterwards?

Knowing what we know about Eusebius and his retrojected history in respect of the history of the NT canonical writings, what if we examine just the "non canonical literature", and see how Eusebius is treated there.

Eusebius is "retrojecting history" - Implications for the NT Non Canon

Eusebius, even though he is a "Chief Heresiologist" (using Irenaeus as a mouth-piece) Eusebius is essentially being used to provide the very structural FRAMEWORK of the chronology of the authorship of the non canonical literature of the NT - ie: the Gnostic Gospels and Acts.

For example, the most recent archaeological find and major publication of the gGudas in recent times universally cited Irenaeus via Eusebius as an authority on its chronology. Eusebius has just retrojected the gJudas from the 4th century. Eusebius had major problems with all the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".

The carbon fourteen dating provides us with 4th century dates for many "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".

When is someone going to get serious about using Eusebius with respect to the subsiduary field of study of the new testament gnostic gospels and acts? I know that dealing with the "Gnostic Gospels" is not as well regarded as dealing with the Canonical Gospels" but surely, everyone must see the absolute necessity of dealing with both domains at the one time, and one at a time.

My analysis seems to indicate that it is safe to reject the "historical data" provided by Eusebius with respect to the history of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts". It is quite reasonable to simply view these "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" as being authored at the time Eusebius was alive.

Anyway I do hope that people can understand that I am not demanding that we reject Eusebius as an authority concerning the history of the NT canonical literature. Rather I am suggesting that we need to immediately reject Eusebius as an authority concerning the history of the NT Gnostic literature.

Is this reasonable?

Roger Pearse · 04-12-2010, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Around 50,000 Greek manuscripts exist in libraries.

How many of those represent authentic, non-interpolated, exact replicas of original manuscripts created by an author whose existence has been described by any other person? (etc)

Nothing in this post appears to relate to the matter under discussion, and the repeated wilful obscurantism in it is rather disgusting.

Roger Pearse

Huon · 04-12-2010, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives very prejudiced opinions, based on the latest information gathered in the 19th Century.

The canon of Muratori has been redated to the Fourth century. Clement of Alexandria is writing in the beginning years of the Third century. Irenaeus is a character invented by Eusebius, although the writings attributed to him may well be early Third century.

Phil Jay, you should not mix me with a catholic preacher.

First point : The excerpt of the Catholic Encyclopedia in my post # 93 confesses (good word, isn'it ?) that the gospels MML were not ascribed to an author before the end of the second century (150-200). I don't see that the question has much evolved since the end of the 19th century.

Second point : If the writings attributed to Irenaeus of Lyons may well be early Third century (200-225 or so) as you say, this date fits quite well with the existence at Lyons, the most important town of Gaul at that time, of a christian minority. In the french history, we can read this :

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Petit

Although Marcus Aurelius was a philosopher, he was deeply religious, at least outwardly. The state cult received full honor, and he recognized the validity of other people's beliefs, so that the variety of religions in the vast extent of the empire caused no difficulties for inhabitants or government, with one significant exception. The Christians were not hampered by any official policy; indeed the impact of the church spread enormously in the second century. Yet their availability as scapegoats for local crises made them subject to abuse or worse. There was violence against them in 167, and perhaps the worst stain on Marcus' principate stemmed from the pogrom of Christians in Lugdunum (Lyons) in southern France in 177. A young girl slave (beautiful blonde, according to academic painters of the XIX c.), named Blandina, was martyrized in 177 at Lyons, along with 40 Christians of the region, including Saint Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, Attale, Epagathe, Sanctus, Biblis, Alexander, Alcibiades, Maturus. Their martyrdom was described by eyewitnesses who wrote a "Letter from the churches of Vienna and Lyons", sent to the churches of Phrygia and Asia, and transcribed by Eusebius.
Marcus Aurelius did not order this slaughter, nor, on the other hand, did he or his officials move to stop it. Tertullian called him a friend of Christianity.

The name of Phrygia could remind us of another question, the Montanist movement, but I think that it is another question.

Irenaeus is said to have been the second bishop of Lyons, after Pothinus.

If you have a source which explains why and how Irenaeus did not exist, please, tell me, I am interested.

avi · 04-12-2010, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Their martyrdom was described by eyewitnesses who wrote a "Letter from the churches of Vienna and Lyons", sent to the churches of Phrygia and Asia, and transcribed by Eusebius.

Thank you for this message.

1. "transcribed by Eusebius"... do you wish to imply that this letter by "eyewitnesses" was authored by eyewitnesses to the execution of Pothinus, (but not Irenaeus!!!), and a copy of the letter somehow, (miraculously?) ended up in the hands of Eusebius, who was then kind enough to publish the letter? Was this letter originally written in Greek, I wonder? Does it still exist today? Was it then transcribed into Latin??? Were the Roman officials of Lyon so incompetent that they could not locate Irenaeus, to murder him as well, at the same time as Pothinus and the other martyrs.

2. Is there some non-Eusebian source of data or reference to these tragic events of ~175 CE in Lyon?

Thanks for offering confirmation that MML&J were anonymous until the end of the second century....

regards, avi

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

04-11-2010, 09:17 AM	#92
missblue Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Michigan Posts: 109	Somehow I managed to start a thread that has 90 replies so far... I feel accomplished.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.