Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-10-2012, 11:36 AM

From memory Epiphanius claims that Marcion*and the Arians reject*Hebrews. tertullian and origen's rejection is interesting. that doesn't happen much

stephan huller · 03-10-2012, 11:44 AM

the reason why the questions are so significant is that they are very wide spread. Eusebius says the church of rome rejected it and so many people have doubts about pauline authorship it was also argue consistently that to have doubts about pauline authorship was tantamount to rejecting or questioning the letter

tanya · 03-10-2012, 12:21 PM

and, not to beat a dead horse, but, wasn't it Athanasius of Alexandria, who issued the final decree about the contents of the new testament?

Well, and wouldn't he have been an arch supporter of Clement of Alexandria? Logically, if Clement were not known, at least to Athanasius, as author of Hebrews, one would imagine Athanasius' insistance on removal of Hebrews from the list of sacred texts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

the dating of the text may well be late first century

yes, agreed, however, the dating METHOD used, palaeography, could as easily be cited as demonstrating, with conviction, a much later date, even fourth century. We need to regard palaeography as a tool, to offer a range of dates, where that range spans a several hundred year period of time. Late first century, while possible, is unlikely. Mid second century is more reasonable, from a political point of view, and equally compatible with the palaeographic analysis.

stephan huller · 03-10-2012, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Well, and wouldn't he have been an arch supporter of Clement of Alexandria?

If Clement were orthodox it wouldn't have been necessary for Eusebius to have 'corrected' his writings at the beginning of the fourth century (cf. Jerome while attacking Rufinus's translation of Origen on the systematic alteration of early Alexandrian testimonies to purge them of 'Arian traits' shared by Eusebius)

stephan huller · 03-11-2012, 04:14 PM

I also think the original name of the adelphopoiesis rite was the agape:

Quote:

We are governed by the most approved elders, who have obtained this office not by purchase, but on testimony; for indeed nothing of God is obtainable by money. Even if we have a kind of treasury, this is not filled up from a sense of obligation, as of a hired religion. Each member adds a small sum once a month, or when he pleases, and only if he is willing and able; for no one is forced, but each contributes of his own free will. These are the deposits as it were made by devotion. For that sum is disbursed not on banquets nor drinking bouts nor unwillingly on eating-houses, but on the supporting and burying of the poor, and on boys and girls deprived of property and parents, and on aged servants of the house, also on shipwrecked persons, and any, who are in the mines or on islands or in prisons, provided it be; for the cause of God's religion, who thus become pensioners of their confession. But the working of that kind of love most of all brands us with a mark of blame in the eyes of some. 'See,' they say, 'how they love one another'; for they themselves hate one another; 'and how they are ready to die for one another'; for they will be more ready to kill one another. But also they rage at us for calling one another brethren, for no other reason, I suppose, than because among themselves every name indicating blood relationship is assumed from affection. But we are also your brothers, by right of nature, the one mother, although you are little deserving of the name men, because you are evil brothers. But how much more worthily are those both called and considered brethren who have recognised one Father, namely God, who have imbibed one spirit of holiness, who from one womb of the same ignorance have quaked before one light of truth! But we are perhaps regarded as less legitimate for the reason that no tragedy proclaims aloud our brotherliness, or because we are brothers as the result of household possessions, which among you generally break up the relationship of brothers. And so we, who are united in heart and soul, have no hesitation about sharing a thing. Among us all things are common except wives. In this matter alone we dissolve partnership, in which alone all other men practise partnership, who not only use the wives |115 of friends, but also most patiently supply their own to their friends, in accordance, I believe, with the well-known teaching of ancient sages and philosophers, the Greek Socrates and the Roman Cato, who shared their wives with friends, those wives whom they had married, perhaps with their consent, to bear children in other households also. For what care could they have for chastity, which their husbands had given away so lightly! What an example of Athenian philosophy, of Roman seriousness! A philosopher and a censor both acting the part of procurers! What wonder is it then that so great affection is outraged! For you also revile our little dinners as extravagant also in addition to being disgraced by crime. [Tertullian, Apology 39]

and again elsewhere:

A

Quote:

nd now, as wickeder things advance more fruitfully, and abandoned manners creep on day by day, those abominable shrines of an impious assembly are maturing themselves throughout the whole world. Assuredly this confederacy ought to be rooted out and execrated. They know one another by secret marks and insignia, and they love one another almost before they know one another. Everywhere also there is mingled among them a certain religion of lust, and they call one another promiscuously brothers and sisters, that even a not unusual debauchery may by the intervention of that sacred name become incestuous: it is thus that their vain and senseless superstition glories in crimes. Nor, concerning these things, would intelligent report speak of things so great and various, and requiring to be prefaced by an apology, unless truth were at the bottom of it [Octavius 9]

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

03-10-2012, 11:36 AM	#41
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	From memory Epiphanius claims that Marcionand the Arians rejectHebrews. tertullian and origen's rejection is interesting. that doesn't happen much

03-10-2012, 11:44 AM	#42
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	the reason why the questions are so significant is that they are very wide spread. Eusebius says the church of rome rejected it and so many people have doubts about pauline authorship it was also argue consistently that to have doubts about pauline authorship was tantamount to rejecting or questioning the letter

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.