Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-11-2013, 12:05 PM

Quote:

The question sort of presumes that there was no inherent difference; that all started equal and more or less equivalent. But this is not how the early Christian writers speak or discuss the subject. They talk about material handed down by the apostles to the churches that they founded.

Creation of fake "gospels" has been a cottage industry right down to our own time. We need no special theory to account for the rejection of these.

No that's not my point Roger. But even if the gospels in the hands of the Catholic Church were the more authentic, proving it is another matter. The idea that good always triumphs over evil, that the truth wins out in the end is a monarchian supposition - i.e. that the world is ruled by one governing principle and he guides history to guarantee the triumph of right. I don't believe that's always true. I think the good guys lose just as many times as they win.

Look at the Samaritans. They clearly occupy the original holy site of both Jews and Samaritans. Jerusalem came later. But now who would know that? Charlesworth, me, a handful of other scholars who have bothered to look at the question with an open mind and an honest conscience and 700 Samaritans. How were the Catholic gospels proven to be the more authentic? I think sticking them in a public library would do the trick. I don't see how this was accomplished otherwise.

And it certainly beats the conspiracy theory of an Emperor 'forcing' the Catholic New Testament down the throats of Christians ...

Roger Pearse · 09-11-2013, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

The question sort of presumes that there was no inherent difference; that all started equal and more or less equivalent. But this is not how the early Christian writers speak or discuss the subject. They talk about material handed down by the apostles to the churches that they founded.

Creation of fake "gospels" has been a cottage industry right down to our own time. We need no special theory to account for the rejection of these.

No that's not my point Roger. But even if the gospels in the hands of the Catholic Church were the more authentic, proving it is another matter. ... How were the Catholic gospels proven to be the more authentic?

Proven to whom? When and why? (confused)

Yes, I think we're clearly at cross-purposes here :-)

Roger Pearse · 09-11-2013, 01:19 PM

I've been looking at J.W.Thompson's "Ancient libraries", but I'm not finding much to our purpose.

In the 4th century catalogues of the regions of Rome, there is mention of libraries. I have these online as part of the Chronography of 354, here. But the entry is only "bibliothecae xxviii" (="28 libraries").

Toto · 09-11-2013, 10:04 PM

To keep this thread focused on the narrow topic in the OP, some posts have been split off here. If you think a post is in the wrong thread, please PM me.

stephan huller · 09-11-2013, 11:37 PM

From Tuomas Rasimus The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel

Quote:

There is every reason to affirm, then, that Celsus had access to a copy of John's Gospel and used it indiscriminately along with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (and perhaps Mark) as a source for information about Jesus and what Christians believed about him. There is even one text whose meaning is debated but which some have taken to indicate Celsus' awareness of a four-fold gospel canon (Cels. 2.27).47 It is not necessary that one draw this conclusion, however, in order to recognize that Celsus was well aware of Christian reliance upon their gospels and that he himself faced no great obstacles in obtaining at least the three mentioned above. Had he obtained his own copies? Had he simply made extracts from copies borrowed from an unsuspecting Christian, a former Christian, or from a well-stocked library? We do not know. But we must conclude that Celsus at some time had in his possession copies of Christian gospels which he considered the Christians' “own books” (2.74 cf. 2.77)
http://books.google.com/books?id=pN0...els%22&f=false

stephan huller · 09-12-2013, 06:50 AM

The dangers of using Google Books. Rasimus send me an email just now. [= sent me; I sound like a Polish immigrant] He only edited the book and provided two other essays but the material in question I just cited should be:

Charles Hill's essay, " “THE ORTHODOX GOSPEL”: THE RECEPTION OF JOHN IN THE GREAT CHURCH PRIOR TO IRENAEUS" pp. 233-300.

PhilosopherJay · 09-12-2013, 08:17 AM

Hi Stephan,

While Tuomas Rasimus may see "every reason to affirm, then, that Celsus had access to a copy of John's Gospel"...I see no reason to affirm that Celsus had access to John's Gospel or the Gospels of Matthew and Luke or Mark. Rather I see every reason to affirm the opposite that he had never heard of them.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

From Tuomas Rasimus The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel

Quote:

There is every reason to affirm, then, that Celsus had access to a copy of John's Gospel and used it indiscriminately along with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (and perhaps Mark) as a source for information about Jesus and what Christians believed about him. [...](2.74 cf. 2.77)
http://books.google.com/books?id=pN0...els%22&f=false

stephan huller · 09-12-2013, 08:41 AM

Did you read the fuller argument in the link? The only alternative is that the Jew existed independently of Celsus. That only pushes the date of the witness back further

watersbeak · 09-12-2013, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

While Tuomas Rasimus may see "every reason to affirm, then, that Celsus had access to a copy of John's Gospel"...I see no reason to affirm that Celsus had access to John's Gospel or the Gospels of Matthew and Luke or Mark. Rather I see every reason to affirm the opposite that he had never heard of them.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

From Tuomas Rasimus The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel

Thank you Philosopher Jay. I think that was also the point made by aa5874, i.e. that Celsus did not mention Paul's epistles. I did not understand Stephan Huller's objection to aa5874's point. I think it would be instructive, at least for me, if Stephan Huller would provide a citation to any single place in the text of Origen (Celsus' text itself does not exist any longer, correct?) to refute this idea, i.e. to demonstrate, from the text, that Celsus did cite Paul's epistles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I'm sure that someone will disagree with more or less every statement in what I have just written. I have not written with footnotes to every sentence, however; instead I have presumed that the query is honest and tried to give a brief, honest reply.

Thank you very much Roger. This was an outstanding reply to an admittedly loosely constructed submission to the forum. My apologies to all for a post that was too broad in scope. I simply sought to learn what was so special about "christian" sources in ancient libraries. I remain confused about which author would identify himself as "christian". I have trouble imagining a librarian in Rome, (or Carthage, thanks Stephan Huller) looking at a text, in Greek, (Latin, not Greek, being the lingua franca of both cities), and trying to figure out, where to place the scroll, in the collection. "What is a 'christian'?", such a person may wish to inquire from the person depositing the text. More to the point, how did the author understand that he/she should identify himself/herself to the library, as a "christian" author? Would someone else, come along, and say to the same person, "I am a follower of Marcion"?, or, "I am a follower of Zoroaster"?

I agree with Andrew that this is an interesting, and thoughtful thread, thank you Stephan Huller.

Sam

stephan huller · 09-12-2013, 09:09 AM

Umm. Stephan's objection is based on familiarity with the material and Celsus's citation of Galatians, 1 Corinthians and Origen's report of his misunderstanding of 2 Timothy and a Christian commentary or interpretation of 2 Timothy

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

09-11-2013, 01:19 PM	#83
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I've been looking at J.W.Thompson's "Ancient libraries", but I'm not finding much to our purpose. In the 4th century catalogues of the regions of Rome, there is mention of libraries. I have these online as part of the Chronography of 354, here. But the entry is only "bibliothecae xxviii" (="28 libraries").

09-11-2013, 10:04 PM	#84
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	To keep this thread focused on the narrow topic in the OP, some posts have been split off here. If you think a post is in the wrong thread, please PM me.

09-12-2013, 06:50 AM	#86
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The dangers of using Google Books. Rasimus send me an email just now. [= sent me; I sound like a Polish immigrant] He only edited the book and provided two other essays but the material in question I just cited should be: Charles Hill's essay, " “THE ORTHODOX GOSPEL”: THE RECEPTION OF JOHN IN THE GREAT CHURCH PRIOR TO IRENAEUS" pp. 233-300.

09-12-2013, 08:41 AM	#88
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Did you read the fuller argument in the link? The only alternative is that the Jew existed independently of Celsus. That only pushes the date of the witness back further

09-12-2013, 09:09 AM	#90
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Umm. Stephan's objection is based on familiarity with the material and Celsus's citation of Galatians, 1 Corinthians and Origen's report of his misunderstanding of 2 Timothy and a Christian commentary or interpretation of 2 Timothy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.