Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 11-21-2011, 01:31 PM

What I got online was two long books by C. P. Sense.
One is called A Critical and Historical Enquiry into the Origin of the Third Gospel. His other book is called A Free Inquiry into the Origin of the Fourth Gospel. The first book was published in 1901. I guess the second was published a few years after that. He really doesn't like Irenaeus and Tertullian. He calls Irenaeus dishonest and other names.

Duvduv · 11-21-2011, 01:37 PM

Hi, Toto. What is evidence that Marcion actually published an Apostolikon aside from the claims of Tertullian? I don't believe the stories about Marcion's forging the epistles. It makes no sense. It means that he thought that someone had their hands on all the epistles in a period when no one even talked about them, even the proto-orthodox who condemn him. And if they did, WHO were they as the central authority to doctor them (and not epistles of a bunch of other preachers)??!!

Why did they make the interpolations that they did, and if according to the Orthodox the "Orthodox" had their hands on it, then why didn't they include a few choice mentions about the life and sayings of the Christ in any of the epistles.

And aside from Judaic interpolations, why didn't the supposed original epistles remind the readers of the words of the Savior on the Mount? Do they remind them of the great devotion of this or that apostle who walked and talked with the Savior? Does any epistle mention the importance of Bethlehem or Nazareth? Does a single epistle even mention the great name of the Baptist who earns major mention in the gospels?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I have been reading the writings of an old scholar of 100 years ago, C. P. Sense.

Can you provide a more complete citation? Who is this person, what books did he write, in what country?

This is the timeline that seems reasonable. What is illogical about it?

- there are a variety of people who call themselves Christian around the beginning of the second century. Christians joined together in house churches to sing hymns and share a sacred meal before they were clear on why they did these things, or on any points of theology.

- Marcion publishes his Apostolikon, containing a proto-gospel and Paul's epistles.

- the proto-orthodox church reacts by claiming that Marcion removed significant parts of Paul's epistles, and publishes its own (expanded) version, and an expanded version of the gospels and Acts, in order to establish that there was a line of succession from a historical Jesus through his disciples to the church that they represented.

That's a very broad outline that omits a lot of detail, but I'm not sure why you think it is so improbable.

Why do you think it is probable?

You seem to have also done what Duvduv has observed in the OP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

....Although many scholars rightly call into question the veracity of the gospels and epistles, they seem to accept as "gospel truth" whatever is stated in writings attributed to Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius about historical events in the 2nd century...

It can be shown rather easily that "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is most likely Fiction.

Toto · 11-21-2011, 02:29 PM

Duvduv - when you have more than 5 posts, you can post links.

C. P. Sense A Critical and Historical Enquiry into the Origin of the Third Gospel is also available on Amazon (or via: amazon.co.uk) and as a free Google ebook

A Free Inquiry into the Origin of the Fourth Gospel, also a free google ebook

Toto · 11-21-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

...!!

Why did they make the interpolations that they did, and if according to the Orthodox the "Orthodox" had their hands on it, then why didn't they include a few choice mentions about the life and sayings of the Christ in any of the epistles.

And aside from Judaic interpolations, why didn't the supposed original epistles remind the readers of the words of the Savior on the Mount? Do they remind them of the great devotion of this or that apostle who walked and talked with the Savior? Does any epistle mention the importance of Bethlehem or Nazareth? Does a single epistle even mention the great name of the Baptist who earns major mention in the gospels?

If you go through the archives, you will find some previous discussion on this issue. IMHO the proto-orthodox were not concerned about the modern question of the historicity of Jesus. They were primarily concerned about orthodox doctrine. The interpolations are designed to bring Paul to the correct position on certain key issues, not to convince a 21st century audience that Jesus actually existed.

Duvduv · 11-21-2011, 03:06 PM

I have heard that argument before, i.e. the attitude of ancient people compared to us enlightened 21st century folks (ha, ha, ha)....but I am not totally convinced. Indeed, the epistles tell us that the risen savior dwells in the believer and vice versa, which has no echo in the gospels. A few judaic references wouldn't do the trick of getting Paul in line (in line with what?) IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

...!!

Why did they make the interpolations that they did, and if according to the Orthodox the "Orthodox" had their hands on it, then why didn't they include a few choice mentions about the life and sayings of the Christ in any of the epistles.

And aside from Judaic interpolations, why didn't the supposed original epistles remind the readers of the words of the Savior on the Mount? Do they remind them of the great devotion of this or that apostle who walked and talked with the Savior? Does any epistle mention the importance of Bethlehem or Nazareth? Does a single epistle even mention the great name of the Baptist who earns major mention in the gospels?

If you go through the archives, you will find some previous discussion on this issue. IMHO the proto-orthodox were not concerned about the modern question of the historicity of Jesus. They were primarily concerned about orthodox doctrine. The interpolations are designed to bring Paul to the correct position on certain key issues, not to convince a 21st century audience that Jesus actually existed.

aa5874 · 11-21-2011, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you go through the archives, you will find some previous discussion on this issue. IMHO the proto-orthodox were not concerned about the modern question of the historicity of Jesus. They were primarily concerned about orthodox doctrine. The interpolations are designed to bring Paul to the correct position on certain key issues, not to convince a 21st century audience that Jesus actually existed.

As Duvduv asserted those arguments make very little sense.

"First Apology" attributed to Justin Martyr contains arguments that Jesus was human even though was Fathered by the Holy Ghost.

"Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr contains arguments that Jesus did exist as human even though fathered by the Holy Ghost.

"Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus was written to counter arguments that Jesus Christ did NOT exist as human.

"On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian was written PRECISELY to argue that Jesus Christ had human flesh.

"Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian was written PRECISELY to counter the so-called Heretic Marcion who claimed the Son of God was a PHANTOM.

"Prescription Against the Heretics" attributed to Tertullian was written to counter arguments that Jesus did NOT exist as human.

It would appear that the whole 2nd century was inundated with writings of apologetics that argued Jesus did exist as human even though HE was of the SEED of God.

mountainman · 11-21-2011, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Hi, Mountainman. I don't understand your presentation of the C14 graph. Could you expand on the point?

In any case, scholars, including radical ones, seem to attribute veracity to the claims of the apologists. But they never address the issues I raised, namely how was it that Justin cited gospel stories that were floating around and a mere 40 years later supposedly everything had changed?! In the writings of Irenaeus there were already the 4 canonical gospels and the epistles from someone (authentic and imitated) who was not even hinted at by Justin - Paul. In addition, Irenaeus already had the Book of Acts, which presents a Paul different from that of the epistles. And ALL OF THIS supposedly developed in only 30-40 years. And no one questions the legitimacy of the claim that Irenaeus wrote at the end of the 2nd century, followed by Tertullian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hello Duvduv - welcome to the forum.

Please keep any discussion of C14 dating out of this thread.

Duvduv is seriously questioning the chronology of sources such as Irenaeus and you are prohibiting the discussion of scientific evidence of chronology? Why is this prohihibition necessary?

Quote:

It is one of mountainman's hobby horses, which he has pursued in several other threads, without convincing anyone else that he has a point.

The C14 results are chronological evidence related to christian origins and should be entirely open for discussion. The postulates about the chronology that may be drawn from this evidence are being debated.

mountainman · 11-21-2011, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I just read an article that is difficult to understand that argues that the NT texts were only produced by "monks" in the 15th century. Where did this theory originate, and what kind of religion do they believe Europeans followed for the previous 1000 years?!

The article may be sourced in the thesis of Jean Hardouin (1646-1729).

From Bossuet to Newman, Owen Chadwick, Second Edition, Cambridge, 1987 (1957):

Quote:

In a work of 1693 he hinted; in a work of 1709 he affirmed; in posthumous works of 1729 and 1733 he shouted—a bewildering but simple thesis. Apart from the scriptures—that is the Latin scriptures—and six classical authors, all the writers of antiquity, profane or ecclesiastical, were forged by a group of writers in the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries. This group of forgers he never defined or discussed, but always referred to them generically as 'the impious crew', 'maudite cabale'.

The salient point is that Hardoin's whole thesis can be seriously questioned and probably entirely rejected on the basis of the C14 evidence alone. But since the C14 evidence has been authoritatively prohibited for discussions related to the chronology of the history of christian origins, what more can I say?

Duvduv · 11-21-2011, 04:47 PM

I still don't understand the theory's ability to explain what religion Europeans followed for the previou 1000 years. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I just read an article that is difficult to understand that argues that the NT texts were only produced by "monks" in the 15th century. Where did this theory originate, and what kind of religion do they believe Europeans followed for the previous 1000 years?!

The article may be sourced in the thesis of Jean Hardouin (1646-1729).

From Bossuet to Newman, Owen Chadwick, Second Edition, Cambridge, 1987 (1957):

Quote:

In a work of 1693 he hinted; in a work of 1709 he affirmed; in posthumous works of 1729 and 1733 he shouted—a bewildering but simple thesis. Apart from the scriptures—that is the Latin scriptures—and six classical authors, all the writers of antiquity, profane or ecclesiastical, were forged by a group of writers in the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries. This group of forgers he never defined or discussed, but always referred to them generically as 'the impious crew', 'maudite cabale'.

The salient point is that Hardoin's whole thesis can be seriously questioned and probably entirely rejected on the basis of the C14 evidence alone. But since the C14 evidence has been authoritatively prohibited for discussions related to the chronology of the history of christian origins, what more can I say?

mountainman · 11-21-2011, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What is evidence that Marcion actually published an Apostolikon aside from the claims of Tertullian? I don't believe the stories about Marcion's forging the epistles. It makes no sense.

There is no primary evidence. The secondary evidential source is Eusebius of Caesarea. You may need to read through "The History of the Church" and form your own opinion on the integrity of this source called "Eusebius".

Quote:

It means that he thought that someone had their hands on all the epistles in a period when no one even talked about them, even the proto-orthodox who condemn him. And if they did, WHO were they as the central authority to doctor them (and not epistles of a bunch of other preachers)??!!

The entire affair is very suspicious. Edward Gibbon puts it like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIBBON

The scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church.

11-21-2011, 01:31 PM	#21
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Chronologies from 2nd Century..... What I got online was two long books by C. P. Sense. One is called A Critical and Historical Enquiry into the Origin of the Third Gospel. His other book is called A Free Inquiry into the Origin of the Fourth Gospel. The first book was published in 1901. I guess the second was published a few years after that. He really doesn't like Irenaeus and Tertullian. He calls Irenaeus dishonest and other names.

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

11-21-2011, 02:29 PM	#23
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Duvduv - when you have more than 5 posts, you can post links. C. P. Sense A Critical and Historical Enquiry into the Origin of the Third Gospel is also available on Amazon (or via: amazon.co.uk) and as a free Google ebook A Free Inquiry into the Origin of the Fourth Gospel, also a free google ebook

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.