Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 08-02-2009, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Isn't it striking that Irenaeus here lists the Gospels in precisely the inverse order of the modern scholarly chronology? Coincidence? Or could it be that he's consciously adopting a listing that prioritizes what he knows to be the latest first rather than prioritizing the earliest like most?

Just a thought,

Chaucer

There are 24 possible sequences of the 4 gospels. The probability that Ireneaus would get it exactly backward from the chronological order is 1 in 23...not completely implausible, but low odds indeed.

The low probability of the Western order showing up when the text is traced back to Daniel is what boosts the argument.

You are also mentioning the "chronological order" of modern scholars 1800 years after Irenaeus which is, as noted, anachronistic.

What I am wondering is if the source had the western reading, why does Irenaeus have the one going with Revelation? If he whole sale created the account I am still not convinced why he would not use his preferred order though.

Vinnie

PhilosopherJay · 08-02-2009, 09:36 AM

Hi Vinnie,

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response.

Unfortunately, proving that Against Heresies is largely a work of Tertullian is one of the projects I have long had on my mind with dozens of scattered notes that I have to collect. At some point in the future when I have more time I shall do it.

At the moment, I shall say that if we can trust that the statements written in adversus haereses 3.3.3. were really written in the time of Eleutherus, 174-189, we should have a great deal of reason for believing that the traditional representation of the Church's development given by Eusebius is factual rather than his own fantastic creation.

It is in the very next paragraph where we meet with evidence that waylays such a supposition.

Quote:

3.3.4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church.

The narrator claims that he saw Polycarp in his early youth. He says that Polycarp traveled to Rome in the time of Anicetus. This would be 157-168.
Yet, this Polycarp learned from the apostles themselves.
As appears certain from the life expectancy in Rome, it is quite doubtful that any of the apostles would have lived beyond 75 C.E. Let us assume that in spite of our expectations, some sort of miracle happened and two apostles did live till 75 C.E. In the best case, let us say that Polycarp was 15 years old when he learned from the Apostles in 75 C.E.. If we assume that he traveled to Rome in 157, when Anicetus first becomes Bishop, it seems that he was at least 97 years old at the time.

Given the difficulties of life back then and the lack of sophisticated modern health care, it is hard to believe that anybody lived to 97 back then. It is even harder to believe that someone 97 years old could have endured the sea trip from Smyrna to Rome.

My mother will be 91 years old next month. She outlived 17 brothers and sisters. She lived in twentieth century America where living conditions and health care was infinitely better they were in Ancient Rome. My mother cannot walk more than twenty feet without resting. She cannot travel more than half an hour sitting in a car. i cannot imagine her being on an ancient Roman boat for even an hour without dying. i cannot imagine her making a several week trip like the trip between Smyrna and Rome would have been.

In short, even bending all our suppositions to support the truthfulness of the account, it appears virtually certain that this information about Polycarp is a fairy tale.

What we need to ask is, "who wrote this fairy tale." Since Eusebius has other characters, like Clement of Rome living to 100 years old in his history of the church, it seems that this fairy tale is very much in the style of Eusebius. It suggests that Eusebius himself wrote these passages we now find in Against Heresies.

Note also that in these two paragraphs, the narrator is putting the Church at Rome in a certain relationship with the churches of Asia. The Church of Rome derives from the Apostles, and the Churches of Asia derives from the Apostles. The Church of Rome is not superior to but is equal to the churches of Asia. Eusebius does the same thing when he discusses the Passover-Easter controversy, where Eusebius acknowledges the equal right of both sides, in other words, the Church at Rome is not superior to but equal to the Churches of Asia. In other words, we find the same unique equations in both these passages and in book V of the Church History. This suggests again that they are both narrated by the same person.

We may suggest that the passages in question of book 3 chapter 3 were inserted by Eusebius into this work by Ireneaus/Tertullian. That is why he quotes them in his Church History. It is not because he accidentally finds this so neat list of Bishops of the Church of Rome there, but because he wishes the list to be there that he puts it there. This also explains why we do not find anybody before Eusebius mentioning this passage although it would have been incredibly important in almost every debate between 180 and 315 that any Christian engaged in. We may choose to believe that miraculously this list was preserved, yet went unquoted, and found only by Eusebius, or be cynical and believe that Eusebius created and placed the list in this work.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

The narrator talks of knowing Polycrates as a child

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Hello Philosopher Jay.

Interesting point on Irenaeus. If I were attempting to locate Irenaeus chronologically without knowing whether he came before or after Tertullian I would certainly include your point. I would mention it and say is it possible this author was referencing the work of Tertullian who specifically wanted to show how Marcion's own gospel refuted his own views and published a detailed exposition of it? The first thing I do if I am unfamiliar with the rationale for dating a text is go to Peter Kirby's site. You will find this quote from the ABD:

"Irenaeus' major extant writing is the Adversus Haereses (the full title of which is the Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge falsely so-called). Its composition is dated ca. 180 from the succession lists in which the author names Eleutherus (ca. 174 - ca. 189) as current bishop of Rome (Haer. 3.3.3), although it seems from remarks Irenaeus makes in the prefaces to Haer. 3 and 4 that he followed the practice of sending on the separate books of the work as they were completed."

Of course this opens up the question of dating Eleutherus, something that should be done in order to be thorough. But this may provide a solid confirmation of the tradition date. As for other insights, we know he comes after Polycarp but reports to have heard him in his youth. This can narrow our limits but probably not as much as the succession of lists mentioned above. He post-dates Marcion, et al. Then there is Eusebius's comments on Irenaeus and other insights possibly gleaned through reading AH itself (who is still alive, what gospels are being used where, etc, how does this compare with other writings from the time period?).

New advent lists a number of potentially datable facts about Irenaeus: "During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyons. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the Faith, sent him (177 or 178) to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleutherius concerning Montanism, and on that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits. Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded the martyr Saint Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons. During the religious peace which followed the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, the new bishop divided his activities between the duties of a pastor and of a missionary (as to which we have but brief data, late and not very certain) and his writings, almost all of which were directed against Gnosticism, the heresy then spreading in Gaul and elsewhere. In 190 or 191 he interceded with Pope Victor to lift the sentence of excommunication laid by that pontiff upon the Christian communities of Asia Minor which persevered in the practice of the Quartodecimans in regard to the celebration of Easter. Nothing is known of the date of his death, which must have occurred at the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. "

We would have to analyze all the relevant literature to see if any of this holds water.

First let it be noted, I have no issues with the possibility of Irenaeus writing in 205 after Tertullians anti-Marcion work. It is a simple question of what the evidence tells us. It seems that there are some sound reasons for placing the work in the late 2nd century, however.

At any rate, on to your example:

This does not indicate Irenaeus knew Tertullian's work when he wrote what he did. Marcion started a church which rivaled the "orthodox" Christian church for a long time. By the time Justin Martyr wrote Marcion already had a substantial following. What has to be noted is that Marcion did not completely truncate the gospel. All references to the Old Testament were not removed. Tertullian even mentions this and claims he left them there so that others would not think he removed the ones he did! He was, in other words, according to Tertullian, a master truncator-forger who tried to quietly excise the gospel. I think there was then a common stream of thought that the gospel refuted itself since many of the elements it tried to excise were still plainly contained in it.

Quote:

He could not have gotten this idea from any other place than Tertullian's work "Against Marcion". Tertullian attempts to prove it. If the idea had been from a source before Tertullian, and if he did not make it up himself, Tertullian would have certainly quoted the source to add authority to his claim.

Irenaeus simply made a comment about it. Tertullian probably exists within this stream of thought and wants to demonstrate it conclusively. The more logical connection would have been Irenaeus mntioning Tertullian's work, not vice versa. For exmple, he could have said, "the gospel refutes itself as demonstrated thoroughly by Tertullian". This seems more likely, since Tertullian left behind a whole work aimed precisely at this goal as compared to an expectation that Tertullian would cite the one passage mentioned by Irenaeus noted above--which may have been a common view to begin with.

The nature of Marcions sloppy editing, which still retained many Jewish and Old Testament elements would be known to all reading it. It seems more likely this idea originated shortly after Marcion's gospel was scrutinezed and discussed by the "orthodox" crowd.

Quote:

This and many other facts leads me to believe that this work is by the Montanist Tertullian and not by anybody named Irenaeus as Eusebius claims. As Tertullian is pointing out that the Church in Rome accepts neither the gospel of John nor the letters of Paul, this would have been a great embarrassment to Eusebius' whole argument that the Roman church always upheld the true doctrine. Is it any wonder that Eusebius would change a work by Tertullian into a work by the unknown Irenaeus?

Its possible but there does not seem to be any solid data for this. Can you point to any studies on the too coincidental similarities of writing, vocabulary style, etc, of Irenaeus and Tertullian indicating they are the same person? All you have is motive for one ancient author to do something but that is not an argument. Some solid textual arguments would enhance your suggestion. I see no reason on the basis of present evidence and examination of Ireneaus to accept this claim, however.

At any rate, I mentioned specifics of Marcion's gospel and there are notorious difficulties with reconstructing it. I recommend:

Reconsidering Marcion's Gospel, David Salter Williams, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 108, No. 3 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 477-496.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 08-02-2009, 11:31 AM

Polycarp going from 70-160 is not impossible. Irenaeus who claims to have met him says he tarried on the earth for a long while and there are other traditions, IIRC of people living incredibly long lives in antiquity. The life expectancy in antiquity is skewed by the fact that it includes infant mortality and death of mother's through child birth. When these factors are expunged from the calculation the average life expectancy increases dramatically. But as with any "average expectancy" there are going to be substantial numbers of people who die before the mark and after the mark, along with a few who die just on it.

The apostles and those who saw Jesus must have been a couple hundred in my opinion. The real miracle would he if some of them did not live to a ripe old age. Suggesting they were all dead by 70 C.E. flies in the face of mathematical probability and statistics granted they had all passed childhood.

I am not saying the chronology does not make some apostles and eyewitnesses of Jesus old and Polycarp young when they met, and Polycarp ancient when he died. That is precisely what it does do and it is certainly not impossible or miraculous. It is statistically unlikely that a person would live to 90 in antiquity--though the chances of it become more likely when they pass through childhood.

We have positive attestation that he was very hold, by someone claiming to have met him, when he died. Is it possible the apostolic connection was made up? Sure. Is it possible that Polycarp did meet one or two of the original followers of Jesus and some old eyewitnesses? Absolutely. There is no proof either way. Either you accept Irenaeus's testimony or you don't.

Incidentally, how do you come about your dating of Anicetus? I have seen ranges from 150-168 which could put Polycarp in his 80s when he dies, as it, I believe, attested to in the Martydom of Polycarp (which I haven't read).

Oh, and two people sharing the same view does not mean they are the same person. That is absurd. Countless Christians shared similar view points with one another in antiquity. As noted, there may have been 100,000 by the time of Irenaeus. Incidentally, do you know why Marcan priority is posited? Not because Matthew, Luke and Mark share some of the same views about Jesus. Direct dependence or "being the same author" requires a significant amount of linguistic work.

aa5874 · 08-02-2009, 12:19 PM

When Against Heresies is examined, it becomes increasingly clear that it was not realistic for a sect of Jesus believers to have in their possession four contradictory version of the Gospels and used all four at the same time.

And it is even more absurd to think that while this sect was using four different non-harmonised versions of the Jesus stories, that there were four different sects that singled out one version and used that single version as the basis of their history of Jesus.

Whoever wrote Against Heresies inadvertently revealed the true situation, it was more likely that the Roman Church took away the Jesus stories from the prevailing sects and then claimed these Jesus stories were their own.

It is most probable that the sect of Jesus believers started out as a very smal group that grew with time, and that they had in their possession only a single version of the Jesus story just like all other individual sects would have had a single version of the history and origin of their God.

Even just for credibilty alone, it makes sense to have only one version of a story instead of multiple contradictory stories.

Eusebius in Church History tried to harmonise the Gospel stories in the 4th century, this appears to indicate when the hostile take-over by the Roman Church occurred.

Church History 3.24.8 &12

Quote:

8. And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and indicated this in the beginning of their account......

..........12. John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.

But this is extremely problematic, the so-called disciple John could not have written about events with Jesus before John the Baptist was imprisonned when based on the Synoptics John was imprisonned during the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness which occured immediately after baptism and lasted for forty days.

And if the author of gJohn wrote about the deeds of Christ before John the Baptist was imprisonned then John the Baptist would have been imprisonned after Jesus was resurrected.

It is evident that it was of no benefit for any sect to have four contradictory Jesus stories, only the Roman Church needed multiple versions and would claim they knew who wrote them and when they were written. And the Church story has been found to be fiction.

But there is a twist, the Church has now become a victim of their own error, none of the characters called Matthew , Mark, Luke and John existed in the 1st century.

The information found in Against Heresies" about the date of writing, the authorship, and order of the four Gospels are all bogus.

And the bishop called Irenaeus claimed Jesus was an old man when he died. It is all bogus.

PhilosopherJay · 08-02-2009, 02:14 PM

Hi Vinnie,

I think the question of life expectancy is an important one. Because of modern records we now have a good knowledge of how long people live and we have some significant data that we can work from to estimate how long people in antiquity lived. We can not positively discount stories of great longevity in antiquity, but we can be highly suspicious if they go outside the bounds we would expect.

In America today, some 13% of the population is over 65, but we have a life expectancy near 80, while the Romans had a life expectancy of half that. If we look at a country like Mozambique today in Africa, with a population of 23,000,000 and a life expectancy around 40, we get a much better idea of the state of ancient Rome. In Mozambique 2.8% of the population is over 65.

We have to consider that at least the upper layer of wealthy people in Mozambique have access to some modern health care. This would not be true in ancient Rome, so we would expect that we would be talking about no more than 2% of the population reaching age 65, even when we eliminate birth mortality statistics.

We must consider that it wasn't only in childhood that people died more frequently than today. Treatable illnesses at age 50 or 60, and almost any condition that today can be cured with surgery, would have been deadly.

Also conditions that we frequently get at 70 and 80 would have come much earlier due to the much harsher living conditions (no air conditioning in the summer, poor heating in the winter.

History Professor Linda Gigante notes: (http://www.innominatesociety.com/Art...ent%20Rome.htm)

While the people of Rome are known to have suffered from plagues, which erupted at various times, the real killers, were infectious diseases like malaria (Plasmodium Falciparium, the most dangerous form), tuberculosis, typhoid fever, and certain digestive ailments like gastroenteritis. Studies suggest that the period from July to October was marked by high mortality, with about 30,000 residents dying each year. Roman authors refer to these months as ‘sickly’ and urge their fellow Romans to flee the city for the healthy climate of the country. Comparatively speaking, there was low mortality form November to February, except for the elderly who were particularly venerable to diseases during the winter months. The most deadly diseases to which Rome’s population routinely succumbed were affected by temperature; in particular, the most lethal form of malaria, which had long incubation period and high temperature requirement, did not reach its peak frequency until autumn. The high death rate from July to October could also have been due to other diseases (like tuberculosis and typhoid) which were rendered lethal form a general weakness of the body due to previo7s malarial attacks. It is estimated that each year several thousand people died in Rome form these diseases, with women and young children aged 1 to 5 especially vulnerable. Given the close quarters in which the urban poor lived, their poor hygiene and undernourishment, as well as the constant influx into the city of migrants who were incapable of fighting these diseases, it is no wonder that infectious diseases were virulent killers.

While this describes Rome, it is not to be imagined that conditions in other cities of the empire were any better.

Of course, people who did live long, into their 70's or 80's could easily claim to be 90, 100 or more because no one was alive to contradict them. So these ages are frequently reported in ancient works. It should be obvious that when we read about people being 90, 100 or even 120 in ancient works, we should be highly skeptical.

While 2 percent may have made it to 65, the number making it to 75 and 80 would have been a tiny fraction of that.

In this particular case, because paragraphs 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 are so closely related in content, problems with one indicate problems with the other. Even bringing the year that Anictetus took office down to 50, (the Catholic encyclopedia gives 157) we are still stretched to find it believable. Assuming apostles were an average age of 30 circa 33 when Jesus presumably died, it is quite fantastic that a man would be alive in 150 C.E., 120 years later who knew two of the 12, and able to travel to Rome.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Polycarp going from 70-160 is not impossible. Irenaeus who claims to have met him says he tarried on the earth for a long while and there are other traditions, IIRC of people living incredibly long lives in antiquity. The life expectancy in antiquity is skewed by the fact that it includes infant mortality and death of mother's through child birth. When these factors are expunged from the calculation the average life expectancy increases dramatically. But as with any "average expectancy" there are going to be substantial numbers of people who die before the mark and after the mark, along with a few who die just on it.

The apostles and those who saw Jesus must have been a couple hundred in my opinion. The real miracle would he if some of them did not live to a ripe old age. Suggesting they were all dead by 70 C.E. flies in the face of mathematical probability and statistics granted they had all passed childhood.

I am not saying the chronology does not make some apostles and eyewitnesses of Jesus old and Polycarp young when they met, and Polycarp ancient when he died. That is precisely what it does do and it is certainly not impossible or miraculous. It is statistically unlikely that a person would live to 90 in antiquity--though the chances of it become more likely when they pass through childhood.

We have positive attestation that he was very hold, by someone claiming to have met him, when he died. Is it possible the apostolic connection was made up? Sure. Is it possible that Polycarp did meet one or two of the original followers of Jesus and some old eyewitnesses? Absolutely. There is no proof either way. Either you accept Irenaeus's testimony or you don't.

Incidentally, how do you come about your dating of Anicetus? I have seen ranges from 150-168 which could put Polycarp in his 80s when he dies, as it, I believe, attested to in the Martydom of Polycarp (which I haven't read).

Oh, and two people sharing the same view does not mean they are the same person. That is absurd. Countless Christians shared similar view points with one another in antiquity. As noted, there may have been 100,000 by the time of Irenaeus. Incidentally, do you know why Marcan priority is posited? Not because Matthew, Luke and Mark share some of the same views about Jesus. Direct dependence or "being the same author" requires a significant amount of linguistic work.

Vinnie · 08-02-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Assuming apostles were an average age of 30 circa 33 when Jesus presumably died, it is quite fantastic that a man would be alive in 150 C.E., 120 years later who knew two of the 12, and able to travel to Rome.

I think its statistically unlikely for this to have occurred to any single individual but statistically likely that it occurred in some cases to some individuals. To explain this another way: It is unlikely that I will hit the pick 3 tonight (roughly 1000-1) but it is very likely someone will hit it since a lot of people are going to play it.

Jesus died ca. 31 and assuming 30 as a median age is fine but that means there were some presumably younger and older (e.g. 18, 20 and 40, 50). A 20 year old in 30 can live until 80 and some of them did. In other words, living until 90 C.E. for a few of Jesus' followers is possible and even likely depending on how many there initially were. We have indications from someone that met Polycarp that he lived a very long--which indicates--unusually long life. This is confirmed by the Martyrdom. I don't find this highly impossible.

I do however see the motive for creating apostolic links as that seems to have been common in the 2nd century. I agree there is no proof for the connection of Polycarp with the original eyewitnesses of Jesus but I do not agree that it is impossible. I am also more inclined to believe that Polycarp lived a very long life than to believe he met some of the original followers of Jesus. I find little reason to dispute the latter claim. I the connection with the apostles was created it was probably created on the basis of his longevity and not his longevity created to link him to disciples. There are also a lot of traditions about John living a long time that have to be resolved as well.

It is possible Polycarp met some of the Lord's initial followers as Irenaeus said though it is certainly not historically demonstrative.

Vinnie

aa5874 · 08-02-2009, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

It is possible Polycarp met some of the Lord's initial followers as Irenaeus said though it is certainly not historically demonstrative.

How is it possible that the Lord had followers? The Lord according to the Church writers was the Creator of heaven and earth who transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

It is not possible for such a character to exist and have followers.

DCHindley · 08-02-2009, 03:51 PM

Even Ezekiel has two different orders:

NAB Ezekiel 1:10

(1 )Their faces were like this: each of the four had the face of a man, but on the right side was the face of a lion, and on the left side the face of an ox, and finally each had the face of an eagle.

but then later

NAB Ezekiel 10:14 [this verse is missing from the LXX]

Each had four faces: the first face was that of an ox, the second that of a man, the third that of a lion, and the fourth that of an eagle.

Revelation has:

RSV Revelation 4:7

the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like a flying eagle.

So then based on order Irenaeus must be citing Revelation 4:7 rather than Ezekiel.

ANF Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3 11:8

For, [as the Scripture] says, "The first living creature was like a lion," symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power;

the second [living creature] was like a calf [= ox], signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order;

but "the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,"--an evident description of His advent as a human being;

"the fourth was like a flying eagle," pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church.
And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated.

For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person.

But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son.

Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;" and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel.

Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men

Irenaeus' relative order, as noted by Vinnie, is:

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3 1:2

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him [i.e., Paul].

Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this, although I'm not positive as to how central this may be: Isn't it striking that Irenaeus here lists the Gospels in precisely the inverse order of the modern scholarly chronology? Coincidence? Or could it be that he's consciously adopting a listing that prioritizes what he knows to be the latest first rather than prioritizing the earliest like most?

Just a thought,

Chaucer

Interesting thought but it looks anachronistic.

Irenaeus's stated order is: [ AH Book 3 Chapter 1]

Matthew -- Mark -- Luke -- John.

If Irenaeus was going with latest to earliest in his view we would have
John, Luke, Mark Matthew, not
John -- Luke -- Matthew--Mark.

I think one of two solutions is probable here. Irenaeus was not concerned with the order or Skeat is correct in that it comes from another source.

Vinnie

PhilosopherJay · 08-02-2009, 04:39 PM

Hi Vinnie,

Yes, theoretically possible. Again we don't have to put something in the impossible category to be highly suspicious of it.

Okay, let us give every advantage we can conceive, no matter how unlikely, to add to the credibility of the tale. Let us assume that he met only one apostle and term 'apostles' was just being used loosely. Let us take 20 years (instead of 30) for our long lived apostle's age at the time of Jesus' death, add 120 years for the time between Jesus's death and Anicetus' ascension, and add 15 years for the age of Polycarp when he was taught by the apostle. We have a minimum total of 155 years between the time of the birth of the apostle and Polycarp's trip to Rome.

The year now is 2009. Subtract 155 years. We get the year 1854. Imagine a man alive today fit enough to take a three week ocean voyage, who claims that he knew someone born in 1854. Would you not say that is amazing and fantastic?

Worse the person known has to be famous, just as the apostles were famous. The English playwright Oscar Wilde, the French poet, Arthur Rimbaud and the Germany Marxist, Karl Kautsky were all born in 1854.

Worse, that person would not just have a passing acquaintance with them, but would actually be a student of the famous person. Is it not astonishing beyond reason that our old man would just happen to be a student of one of them?

Here is a list of some 1,000 famous people born in 1854. I submit that it would be impossible to find a single student of any them alive today.

Now consider how much more amazing and fantastic that would have been in ancient Rome with the life expectancy half of what it is today.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

Assuming apostles were an average age of 30 circa 33 when Jesus presumably died, it is quite fantastic that a man would be alive in 150 C.E., 120 years later who knew two of the 12, and able to travel to Rome.

I think its statistically unlikely for this to have occurred to any single individual but statistically likely that it occurred in some cases to some individuals. To explain this another way: It is unlikely that I will hit the pick 3 tonight (roughly 1000-1) but it is very likely someone will hit it since a lot of people are going to play it.

Jesus died ca. 31 and assuming 30 as a median age is fine but that means there were some presumably younger and older (e.g. 18, 20 and 40, 50). A 20 year old in 30 can live until 80 and some of them did. In other words, living until 90 C.E. for a few of Jesus' followers is possible and even likely depending on how many there initially were. We have indications from someone that met Polycarp that he lived a very long--which indicates--unusually long life. This is confirmed by the Martyrdom. I don't find this highly impossible.

I do however see the motive for creating apostolic links as that seems to have been common in the 2nd century. I agree there is no proof for the connection of Polycarp with the original eyewitnesses of Jesus but I do not agree that it is impossible. I am also more inclined to believe that Polycarp lived a very long life than to believe he met some of the original followers of Jesus. I find little reason to dispute the latter claim. I the connection with the apostles was created it was probably created on the basis of his longevity and not his longevity created to link him to disciples. There are also a lot of traditions about John living a long time that have to be resolved as well.

It is possible Polycarp met some of the Lord's initial followers as Irenaeus said though it is certainly not historically demonstrative.

Vinnie

mountainman · 08-02-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Apocalypse Order
1st Creature – Lion – John
2nd Creature – Ox – Luke
3rd Creature – Man’s Face – Matt.
4th Living –Eagle -- Mark

Ezekial Order
1st Face – Man – Matthew
2nd Face – Lion – John
3rd Face – Ox – Luke
4th Face – Eagle -- Mark

Thoughts?

Plato's Order - The Face of Civilisation in Antiquity

1st Face – Man – The Guardian Class
2nd Face – Lion – The Warrior Class (ie: Army)
3rd Face – Ox – The Producer & Consumer Class
4th Face – Eagle -- The Ruler

The Four-Fold Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
suggests a time when the leadership of four people was
a commonly accepted political paradigm. When did the
Christian tetrarchy really start?

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

08-02-2009, 11:31 AM	#23
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Polycarp going from 70-160 is not impossible. Irenaeus who claims to have met him says he tarried on the earth for a long while and there are other traditions, IIRC of people living incredibly long lives in antiquity. The life expectancy in antiquity is skewed by the fact that it includes infant mortality and death of mother's through child birth. When these factors are expunged from the calculation the average life expectancy increases dramatically. But as with any "average expectancy" there are going to be substantial numbers of people who die before the mark and after the mark, along with a few who die just on it. The apostles and those who saw Jesus must have been a couple hundred in my opinion. The real miracle would he if some of them did not live to a ripe old age. Suggesting they were all dead by 70 C.E. flies in the face of mathematical probability and statistics granted they had all passed childhood. I am not saying the chronology does not make some apostles and eyewitnesses of Jesus old and Polycarp young when they met, and Polycarp ancient when he died. That is precisely what it does do and it is certainly not impossible or miraculous. It is statistically unlikely that a person would live to 90 in antiquity--though the chances of it become more likely when they pass through childhood. We have positive attestation that he was very hold, by someone claiming to have met him, when he died. Is it possible the apostolic connection was made up? Sure. Is it possible that Polycarp did meet one or two of the original followers of Jesus and some old eyewitnesses? Absolutely. There is no proof either way. Either you accept Irenaeus's testimony or you don't. Incidentally, how do you come about your dating of Anicetus? I have seen ranges from 150-168 which could put Polycarp in his 80s when he dies, as it, I believe, attested to in the Martydom of Polycarp (which I haven't read). Oh, and two people sharing the same view does not mean they are the same person. That is absurd. Countless Christians shared similar view points with one another in antiquity. As noted, there may have been 100,000 by the time of Irenaeus. Incidentally, do you know why Marcan priority is posited? Not because Matthew, Luke and Mark share some of the same views about Jesus. Direct dependence or "being the same author" requires a significant amount of linguistic work.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.