Dargo

I remember reading a couple of interesting quotes on the internet that are supposed to have come from early Christian leaders and I'd like to find out if they exist, and if so where I may find them. Eusebius is supposed to have said something about suppressing every thing that was a disgrace to the early church. Also, another early Christian is supposed to have said something about there being major discrepencies among New Testament manuscripts. These could be helpful for a debate I'm having with a fundie but, I want to verify the facts before I say anything. If I were to go around quoting non-existant sources to support my views I'd be just like one of them.

CX

There are a number of good resources on the web, but it wouldn't hurt you to pick up a book or two (I know...shudder...its so analog). If you want some suggestions I'd be happy to provide them. Anyway you can go to <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com</a> for online texts of most of the early Xian canonical and non-canonical documents as well as the patristics (i.e. 1 and 2 Clement) and onfo only the early church fathers like Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Eusebius. Your Eusebius reference sounds very much like it could be from Adversus haereses(Against Heresies), the 5 volume work of Irenaeus. Furthermore it is clear from the patristic evidence that Papias (whom we know only from fragments in Irenaeus and Eusebius) was like the Geraldo of the early church. Only interested in interviewing people not in any historical texts and that he was not especially esteemed by some of the early Church Fathers. Plus it was either Irenaeus or Eusebius who professes, more or less, that it was permitable to lie to further the agenda of the church. I don't have the exact reference. YOu can also look up most of the history of the early church in teh Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org) but take it with a grain of salt. The Catholoics are a little more rationalistic than American Protestants, but not a lot. In the end though none of this will have any meaning for a fundamentalist Xian since most would reject anyone associated with the Catholic church (worshippers of the whore of Babylon).

I'd look to St. Augustine for questions about the early Church fathers assessment of the Greek NT. He is the first person on record to try and examine the gospels using text critical methods and the hypothesis he puts forth for the literary interdependence of the gospels is interesting, if no longer current. In short he says Matthew wrote first, Mark copied from Matthew, Luke copied from Mark and John wrote last independently of the synoptics. Although his theory is no longer really viable, tremendous leaps have been made with the advent of computers, he was the first to even consider treating the NT like any other historical document. The most popular hypothesis currently is some variation of the "two source hypothesis". In America it is the Markan priority with "Q" (the standard 2SH) which is most widely accepted and in England it is the Farrer Hypothesis, which is like 2sh but dispenses with "Q" and has Luke dependent on Mark and Matthew. For a terrific presentation of the synoptic problem I recommend Steven Carlson's site The Synoptic Problem you can locate it through another great site for New Testament study managed by Dr. Mark Goodacre (he was on the recent PBS series about the historical Jesus) at <a href="http://www.ntgateway.com." target="_blank">http://www.ntgateway.com.</a> Plus I've corresponded with Dr. Goodacre and lurked on professional academic discussion boards he's participated in (along with Dom Crossan and Mahlon Smith of the Jesus Seminar as well as conservative scholar Luke Timothy Johnson and others) and he is always happy to answer questions from an interested dilletante as long as there is no atheological badgering involved or fundamentalist rambling.

Lastly, do yourself a favor and get The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings by Udo Schnelle. It is the intro text for NT study. I read it straight through because I am sick and obsessive, but it serves quite well as a desk reference on current biblical study of the entire NT. Feel free to email if you have any other questions. I do have to say after years of doing myself, it is a waste of time to argue the finer points of theology and early Xian history with a fundamentalist. It's pretty much <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />