Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 07-02-2013, 06:47 PM

Whoo weee!

Battle of the Titans!

This is like watching Alien vs Predator at the drive-in movies, or for us older folks maybe Godzilla vs Ghidorah.

DCH

mountainman · 07-03-2013, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Why do you think the harmony tables took pride of place in the earliest Bibles?

Again, there was NO actual harmonization.

You did not answer the question.

You seem to be in denial.

You must mean that you don't like my answer.

Please point out what in gJohn and gMark was harmonized in the 4th century?

Please point what in gJohn and gMatthew that was harmonized in the 4th century?

Please point out what in gJohn and gLuke was harmonized in the 4th century?

See the Eusebian Tables

Quote:

The Harmony of Ammonius suggested to Eusebius, as he himself tells us in his letter, the idea of drawing up ten tables (kanones) in which the sections in question were so classified as to show at a glance where each Gospel agreed with or differed from the others. In the first nine tables he placed in parallel columns the numbers of the sections common to the four, or three, or two, evangelists; namely:

(1) Matt., Mark, Luke, John;
(2) Matt., Mark, Luke;
(3) Matt., Luke, John;
(4) Matt., Mark, John;
(5) Matt., Luke;
(6) Matt., Mark;
(7) Matt., John;
(8) Luke, Mark;
(9) Luke, John.

In the tenth he noted successively the sections special to each evangelist.

We are still left with question Why do you think the harmony tables took pride of place in the earliest Bibles?

My answer as suggested in the OP is political interests.

The 4th century government publishers enhanced the bibles with these so-called harmony tables.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 07-03-2013, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

See the Eusebian Tables

Quote:

The Harmony of Ammonius suggested to Eusebius, as he himself tells us in his letter, the idea of drawing up ten tables (kanones) in which the sections in question were so classified as to show at a glance where each Gospel agreed with or differed from the others. In the first nine tables he placed in parallel columns the numbers of the sections common to the four, or three, or two, evangelists; namely:

(1) Matt., Mark, Luke, John;
(2) Matt., Mark, Luke;
(3) Matt., Luke, John;
(4) Matt., Mark, John;
(5) Matt., Luke;
(6) Matt., Mark;
(7) Matt., John;
(8) Luke, Mark;
(9) Luke, John.

In the tenth he noted successively the sections special to each evangelist.

We are still left with question Why do you think the harmony tables took pride of place in the earliest Bibles?

My answer as suggested in the OP is political interests.

The 4th century government publishers enhanced the bibles with these so-called harmony tables.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Again, you show me the same source for writings that have not been dated to the 4th century by Paleography and claim they were composed by Eusebius while still maintaining there was a forgery mill.

I cannot assume that there was a harmonisation of the Gospels in the 4th century when it is known that there were massive forgeries and falsely attributed writings by Apologetics.

mountainman · 07-03-2013, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

See the Eusebian Tables

Quote:

The Harmony of Ammonius suggested to Eusebius, as he himself tells us in his letter, the idea of drawing up ten tables (kanones) in which the sections in question were so classified as to show at a glance where each Gospel agreed with or differed from the others. In the first nine tables he placed in parallel columns the numbers of the sections common to the four, or three, or two, evangelists; namely:

(1) Matt., Mark, Luke, John;
(2) Matt., Mark, Luke;
(3) Matt., Luke, John;
(4) Matt., Mark, John;
(5) Matt., Luke;
(6) Matt., Mark;
(7) Matt., John;
(8) Luke, Mark;
(9) Luke, John.

In the tenth he noted successively the sections special to each evangelist.

We are still left with question Why do you think the harmony tables took pride of place in the earliest Bibles?

My answer as suggested in the OP is political interests.

The 4th century government publishers enhanced the bibles with these so-called harmony tables.

////

.... I cannot assume that there was a harmonisation of the Gospels in the 4th century when it is known that there were massive forgeries and falsely attributed writings by Apologetics.

There is no need to assume anything. See the mainstream Dating of Codex Sinaticus to the epoch 325-360 CE in which we find the Eusebian canons.

Quote:

The codex was written in the 4th century. It could not have been written before 325 because it contains the Eusebian Canons, which is a terminus post quem. It could not have been written after 360 because of certain references to Church fathers in the margin. This means that 360 is a terminus ad quem.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 07-04-2013, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

There is no need to assume anything. See the mainstream Dating of Codex Sinaticus to the epoch 325-360 CE in which we find the Eusebian canons.

Quote:

The codex was written in the 4th century. It could not have been written before 325 because it contains the Eusebian Canons, which is a terminus post quem. It could not have been written after 360 because of certain references to Church fathers in the margin. This means that 360 is a terminus ad quem.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

I am extremely delighted that you now accept the dates provided by Wikipedia for writings attributed to Eusebius and the Codex Sinaiticus.

Now, I invite you refer to Wikipedia for the dates of New Testament manuscripts.

You will notice that in Wikipedia the Gospels that you believe were harmonized in the 4th century were probably composed BEFORE Eusebius was born or when he was a child.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Please do not assume anything. In Wikipedia there are 27 fragments of the Gospels dated BEFORE Eusebius and some by at least 100 years.

Please, refrain from accusing Eusebius of writing the Gospels.

1. Papyrus 1--Matthew 1--c 250 CE

2. Papyrus 4--part of Luke--c 175-250 CE

3. Papyrus 5--part of John ---c 250 CE

4. Papyrus 22--part of John--c 250 CE

5. Papyrus 28---part of John--c 250 CE

6. Papyrus 39--part of John--c 250 CE

7. Papyrus 45--parts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts--c 250 CE.

8. Papyrus 52--part of John--c 125 CE

9. Papyrus 53-part of Matthew and Acts--c 250 CE

10. Papyrus 64/67--part of John--c 200 CE

11. Papyrus 69--part of Luke--c 250 CE

12. Papyrus 66--part of Matthew --c 200 CE

13. Papyrus 70--part of Matthew--c 250 CE

14. Papyrus 75--parts of Luke and John--c 175-225 CE

15. Papyrus 77--part of Matthew--c 200 CE

16. Papyrus 80--part of John--c 250 CE.

17. Papyrus 90 --part of John --c 150 CE

18. Papyrus 95--part of John--c 250 CE

19. Papyrus 101--part of Matthew--c 250 CE

20. Papyrus 103--part of Matthew--c 200 CE

21. Papyrus 104--part of Matthew--c 150 CE

22. Papyrus 107--part of John--c 250 CE

23. Papyrus 108--part of John--c 250 CE

24. Papyrus 109--part of John--c 250 CE

25. Papyrus 111--part of Luke--c 250 CE

26. Papyrus 119--part of John--c 250 CE

27. Papyrus 121--part of John--c 250 CE

Duvduv · 07-04-2013, 12:46 PM

All those are dated ACCORDING To WHOM???

MrMacSon · 07-04-2013, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

All those are dated ACCORDING To WHOM???

Good question. I thought they were dated by radio-isotope analysis, but there is no mention there, here or here.

There is a view the papyri material is stable in dry regions such as the middle east and may be re-used, so the material date may precede the date of the writing on the material.

Duvduv · 07-04-2013, 03:09 PM

Of course not. The dating cannot be called into question because it is part of the secular canon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

All those are dated ACCORDING To WHOM???

Good question. I thought they were dated by radio-isotope analysis, but there is no mention there, here or here.

There is a view the papyri material is stable in dry regions such as the middle east and may be re-used, so the material date may precede the date of the writing on the material.

mountainman · 07-04-2013, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Whoo weee!

Battle of the Titans!

This is like watching Alien vs Predator at the drive-in movies, or for us older folks maybe Godzilla vs Ghidorah.

DCH

:eating_popcorn:

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 07-04-2013, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

There is no need to assume anything. See the mainstream Dating of Codex Sinaticus to the epoch 325-360 CE in which we find the Eusebian canons.

Quote:

The codex was written in the 4th century. It could not have been written before 325 because it contains the Eusebian Canons, which is a terminus post quem. It could not have been written after 360 because of certain references to Church fathers in the margin. This means that 360 is a terminus ad quem.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

I am extremely delighted that you now accept the dates provided by Wikipedia for writings attributed to Eusebius and the Codex Sinaiticus.

Now, I invite you refer to Wikipedia for the dates of New Testament manuscripts.

I invite you to start your own thread about the dates of the NT manuscripts. This OP is quite explicit. It does not concern the dating of the NT manuscripts, but rather the dating and the purpose of the so-called Eusebian canon tables. You are beginning to sound like Huller and others who attempt to attack other ideas I have expressed well outside the bounds of the OP.

The entire point of this OP is to acknowledge and discuss the 4th century invention of the "Harmony Tables" which were lavishly published in full colour as very expensive introductions to each of the 4 gospels in the earliest of the Greek bible codices.

I see this as a political propaganda exercise by the publishers.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

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

07-02-2013, 06:47 PM	#31
DCHindley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Mondcivitan Republic Posts: 2,550	Whoo weee! Battle of the Titans! This is like watching Alien vs Predator at the drive-in movies, or for us older folks maybe Godzilla vs Ghidorah. DCH

07-04-2013, 12:46 PM	#36
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	All those are dated ACCORDING To WHOM???

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.