Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 02-03-2008, 11:50 AM

Hi All,

In post #5128279, I proposed that Eusebius got all his information on the gospel tradition from reading Papias. After reading Stephen Carlson's excellent article Clement of Alexandria on the "Order" of the Gospels available at http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/greek/clement.htm, I now realize that I was mistaken. In fact, Eusebius received all his information from Clement of Alexandria who was quoting Papias for his information.

Carlson notes that the word progegrafqai which is usually translated as "to have been written before, earlier, or first (in time)" can also mean "to write before the public," i.e., "to set forth publicly" or "proclaim in public." Carlson makes a convincing case that this is how the term should be interpreted in the relevant passage in Eusebius' Church History

Here is Carlson's quote of the relevant passage:

Quote:

But again in those very books Clement presented a tradition of the original elders (paradwsin twn anekaqen presbuterwn) about the "order" of the gospels (peri thV tacewV twn euaggeliwn) in this manner: He said that those of the gospels comprising the genealogies were "written before" (progegrafqai elegen twn euaggeliwn ta perieconta taV genealogiaV), but (de) that Mark had this "disposition" (tauthn eschkenai thn oikonomian): that when Peter was in Rome preaching the word openly (dhmosia) and proclaiming (exeipontoV) the gospel by the spirit, those present, who were many, entreated Mark, as one who followed him for a long time and remembered what was said, to record what was spoken; but that after he composed the gospel, he shared it (metadounai) with those who wanted it; that, when Peter found out about it, he did not actively discourage or encourage it; but that John, last, aware that the physical facts were disclosed (sunidonta oti ta swmatika en toiV euaggelioiV dedhlwtai) in the gospels, urged by friends, and inspired by the spirit, composed a spiritual gospel. So much for Clement. (Eus., Hist. eccl. 6.14.5-7)

When we substitute the words "published publicly" for "written before," what Clement is telling us becomes obvious: the gospels with geneologies were published in public, but Mark and John's gospels were published privately.

The first important thing to notice here is that Clement is only talking about gospels with genealogies, not birth narratives, and he does not mention or describe Matthew or Luke at all. It is obvious from the context that the gospels with genealogies that he is talking about is Mark and John. In other words, Mark and John published their gospels privately without genealogies, but when they were published publicly, they were published with genealogies. We can propose from this that Papias, whoever he was and whenever he wrote, knew two gospel works, a work by Marcion published with a geneology and the Apocalypse of John (see last post #5128279) published with a different geneology. These two genealogies end up migrating to the gospels of Luke and Matthew after Papias

The second thing to notice is that Clement is talking only about Mark publishing from Peter's words and John's gospel following and being spiritual. Eusebius gets the same basic information from Papias (see last post #5128279), just about a single gospel from Marcion derived from Paul and a single work (The Apocalypse of John) from John. It is certain that Eusebius is not getting basically the same information from both Papias and Clement, (he never mentions this coincidence), rather, he is getting all his information from Clement. It is Clement who is relating what Papias says. Clement is quoting Papias in his lost work Hypotyposeis. Eusebius does not have Papias' work before him and Clement's work. He is deriving Papias' work from what he is reading in Clement. when Eusebius says that Papias' work is still extant, he is merely supposing it extant because Clement quotes it.

we demonstrated that Papias mentions only Marcion's gospel and John's Apocalypse, we may take it that Eusebius is getting all his information from Clement. This because evident when we look at 6:14.1-7. It is certain that Eusebius is here revealing the source of all his gospel/s tradition.

1. To sum up briefly, he has given in the Hypotyposes abridged accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed books,—I refer to Jude and the other Catholic epistles, and Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter.

There is no indication here which writings were being rejected and which accepted at the time of Clement of Alexandria (circa early Third century)

Quote:

2. He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

This simply indicates that Eusebius wants the disputed-rejected work "Epistle to the Hebrews" to be included as holy. Note that Luke is portrayed as the Greek interpretor of Paul. Since, as we noted Marcion was known as the interpretor of Paul, we may take it as orginally saying that Marcion translated Hebrews.

Quote:

3. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name.

This sounds like an excuse for the epistle having no name at the beginning. We cannot tell if Eusebius or Clement is making this up.

4. Farther on he says: "But now, as the blessed presbyter said, since the Lord being the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of his modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through respect for the Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the Gentiles he wrote to the Hebrews out of his superabundance."

This is where the notion that the gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew originates.{* see footnote after signature in this post}

5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:

Note that Eusebius does not mention any other tradition.

6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first [/publicly - J.R.]. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.

This originally read Marcion for Mark and Paul for Peter. It can be reconstructed thus:

The Gospel according to Marcion had this occasion. As Paul had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Marcion, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.

7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." This is the account of Clement.

Again Peter should be read as Paul in the original text. " So Clement is saying that Paul neither endorsed nor rejected Marcion's gospel.

The spiritual gospel of John would have been the Apocalypse, as I demonstrated in the previous post. Jesus only appears as a spirit in the Apocalypse, so the reference to the Apocalypse of John as a spiritual Gospel makes perfect sense.

We can conclude that the only evidence that Eusebius found of the gospel tradition came from Clement in his Hypotyposes. He quoted a work by Papias. The works mentioned the gospel of Marcion and the apocalypse written by John, but no other gospel.

Clements' Stromata can be dated precisely by internal evidence to circa 212 C.E.. A good estimate of the date of his Hypotyposes is impossible due to its now fragmentary nature. The best guess would be circa 212. The work by Papias mentions that he knew people who heard the apostle. However, we have no way of determining the authenticity of Papias.

The amazing thing is that in all his researches, Eusebius, circa 315, found no writings about the gospel tradition, except one found in Clement (circa 212). That one talked about a single gospel tradition and that gospel is the gospel of Marcion.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

*Here is the order of that transformation and how Eusebius created his four gospel tradition: 1)Eusebius reads that Marcion translates Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews into Greek from Hebrew (14.2). 2) Eusebius changes Marcion to Luke, so that it is Luke that translates Paul. 3) Eusebius reads (14.6) that the gospel of Marcion is the first gospel privately written. It was written by Marcion based on his hearing Paul. 4) Eusebius might again change Marcion to Luke and write Luke wrote Paul's gospel, but this leaves practically no role for Peter in the creation of the gospels. In this case, all we have in the scriptures that Eusebius wants to make holy are 10 letters of Paul, including one in Hebrew, a gospel of Paul, originally written down by Marcion, and merely one short letter from Peter. Those who are upholding the Peter as faithful founder tradition would never go for such a lobsided construction. Why did the gospel text say that Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of God to Peter, if 90% of the holy writings are from Paul. This seems absurd. Eusebius has to give something to Peter. 5) Eusebius trys the idea that Mark translated Peter's gospel's just as Luke translated Paul's epistle to the Hebrew. 6) Eusebius notices that this doesn't work because Clement is talking about a gospel with a geneology being publicly published. 7) He tries having it that Luke is Peter's translator. 8) Eusebius is now faced with three problems: a) Luke is the translator of both Peter and Paul, b) there is no mention of Mark or Matthew's gospel, c) The Clement text seems to imply that the first publically published gospels contained genealogies which were not contained by the original writers. Eusebius comes up with an ingenious solution Sa) Make Mark the translator of Peter to balance Luke as the translator of Paul, Thus we make mention of Mark's gospel. Sb) Imply that Clement was talking about the order of the publications when using the term progegrafqai to mean published first rather than published openly. This implies that Matthew and Luke was published before Mark and John. Sc) write that Matthew was published in Hebrew. This balances Paul publishing in Hebrew. If he was the only one to publish in Hebrew, that would imply he has more legitimacy. Eusebius can balance that by creating a tradition talking about a Matthew gospel written in Hebrew. If he gives Mark (mentioned as Peter's translator as the first gospel in Hebrew) as the Hebrew gospel that gives Peter too much power. (Eusebius was certainly an Irenaeus himself in making peace between the Paul and Peter factions in his Church. This explains how and why Eusebius developed the four canonical gospel tradition from the single Marcion gospel tradition he read about in Clement of Alexandria.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I just wanted to correct my last post where I talked about a two gospel tradition of Papias. The evidence I believe points towards only a single gospel.

In Church History (3.25), Eusebius gives us the state of the canon circa 315.
(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm)

He gives the accepted books as the the Four Gospels, Acts, The Letters of Paul and the Apocalypse of John.

He ten lists disputed works and a subcategory of disputed-rejected works. Interestingly, despite having place the Apocalypse of John in the accepted category, he places it in the subcategory of disputed-rejected works. This indicates that the accepted works category may include works that are actually disputed and even rejected by others within the Roman Catholic Church. It seems that we are not getting an official Churchwide opinion, but merely Eusebius' opinion on what are accepted and disputed books in the canon. He adds a fourth category of absurd and impious works that apparently have never been considered holy except by Heretics. Thus Eusebius gives us these categories:

1.Accepted

2.Disputed

2a.Disputed-Rejected

3.Absurd and Impious

He is naturally looking for confirmatory evidence within his sources. It is interesting that he only cites four sources for information regarding the canon and its creators: Bishop Papias, (3.39)Bishop Irenaeus (5.8), Clement of Alexandria (6.14), and Origen(6.25).

The information given in all four cases is suspicious and problematical. One would have expected many traditions and arguments over the writers of the gospels, but we get nothing but the barest of facts. In these cited texts, we do not find out, for example, where Mark was born, who his father was, if he was married, if he was Hebrew or Greek, if he liked to drink wine, how old he was when he wrote the gospel, or any of the most basic biographic facts or even fictions that we possess about other writers.

When we compare the information that we are given, it is obvious that Origen's information is derivative of Clement, Clement's information is derivative of Irenaeus and Irenaeus' information is derviative of Papias.

For example, Eusebius cites this from Origen regarding Matthew:

(6:25.4)

Quote:

I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.

The information from Clement that Eusebius cites is this:

(6.14.6)

The information from Irenaeus:
(5.8.2).
The information from Papias:
(3.39)

Reversing and summarising we get:

1. Papias: Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
2. Irenaeus: Matthew wrote in Hebrew while Paul and Peter were in Rome.
3. Clement of Alexandria: The gospels with Geneologies were written first (Matthew and Luke were written first)
4. Origen: Matthew wrote in Hebrew, he wrote first, he was a publican and apostle.

Such measured growth where one small fact, easily derived from a casual glance at pertinent texts is added every 40 years or so is a freak of nature. It more closely resembles the writing of a single man done in a single morning or afternoon.

It seems much more likely that Eusebius spent a few hours interpolating all the facts he considered non-controversial about the gospel writers into the texts he was researching.

There is a small contradiction between Clement and Origen in that Clement places Luke before Mark and Origen places Mark before Luke, but that is just a trivial contradiction. It shows that it did not matter in the least to Eusebius whether Luke preceded Mark or Mark preceded Luke. Establishing some kind of chronology was all that was important to him.

While it seems probable, that Eusebius is simply inserting material into Irenaeus, Clement and Origen, this is not the case with Papias.

Here there is the quoted material:

In the case of the line "Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language", it is likely that the oracles are the oracles of Christ that are in the Apocalypse of John. So the original sentence read "John wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language."

This was evidence that the Apocalypse of John should be included among the accepted text. So Eusebius, being honest, put it in the category of accepted text. Unfortunately, the Roman Church had apparently placed it in the category of rejected texts. Eusebius instead of going against his Church, erased the word John from his copy of Papias and substituted the word Matthew. This weighed heavily on the heart of the poor, fundamentally honest man, and thus when writing his categories of the canon, he placed the Apocalypse in both the accepted and rejected categories, knowing in his heart that it should have been rejected {*see footnote at bottom of post}, but also knowing the penalty for going against his Church.

This leaves us with Papias knowing only one gospel. He tells us that it is a sayings gospel that is apparently not in any order. This is certainly not the gospel of Mark. But what gospel is it?

The key here is the statement
"Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers," It is not Peter , but Paul who was known to adapt his teaching to the needs of his hearers. Therefore we may take it that the original text read "Luke having become the interpretor of Paul."

This is the reason that Eusebius confuses the second gospel and writes that Mark was the second gospel when interpolating into Clement of Alexandria, but writes that Luke was the second gospel when interpolating into Origen.
Again the interpolation that he makes into the text gets reflected in his giving dual and contradictory information regarding the interpolation later on.

However, we again have to be careful. Would Luke be known as the interpretor of Paul in the Second century? No, it was Marcion who was known as the interpretor of Paul in the Second century. The original reference would have been to him before Eusebius changed it. The single reference to the writer of a gospel that Eusebius found from the second century most likely read:

Quote:

"Marcion, having become the interpreter of Paul, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Paul, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Marcion committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely."

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

*This should read "accepted" rather than "rejected". My slip -- J.R.

PhilosopherJay · 02-15-2008, 07:01 AM

Hi All,

The important conclusion in the previous post, "The One Gospel Tradition of Clement of Alexandria," is that Eusebius received all his information about the origen of the gospels from Clement of Alexandria who was quoting Papias for his information.

We can now use this insight to reconstruct a much truer history of Early Christianity. We need to follow three clues: 1) The identity of the beloved presbyter 2) the coincidence of the millennial views of Papias and Irenaeus and 3)

The Identity of the Beloved Presbyter

The writer of Refutation of All Heresies uses the expression the blessed presbyter Irenaeus to refer to the author of "Against All Heresies"
In Eusebius the term "blessed presbyter" is used twice, once to refer to Clement of Alexandria, but more imporantly here to refer to a text of Clement's:

6.14.4. Farther on he says: "But now, as the blessed
presbyter said, since the Lord being the apostle of the Almighty, was
sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of his
modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through
respect for the Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the
Gentiles he wrote to the Hebrews out of his superabundance."

Nearby at 6:14.9, there is this reference excerpted of a letter from Alexander to Clement, "6.14.9 Pantænus, the truly blessed man and master,"

The letter from Alexander is probably published within Clement's work, so we have both Clement and Alexander referring to Pantaenus as "blessed" and Clement as "blessed Presbyter".

Let us assume for a moment that the reference to the blessed Presbyter Irenaeus was originally a reference to the blessed Presbyter Pantaenus. This would mean that Pantaneus and not Irenaeus wrote Against All Heresies.

2) Millennial views of Irenaeus and Papias

The end of "Against All Heresies" is filled with millennial views. Eusebius ascribes Milllennial views to Papias. But if Pantaenus wrote "Against All Heresies" then he is the one with millennial views.

3) Note this from the Catholic encyclopedia: (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11446b.htm) Photius (cod. 118) states, in his account of the "Apology for Origen" by Pamphilus and Eusebius (see PAMPHILUS OF CÆSAREA, SAINT), that they said Pantænus had been a hearer of men who had seen the Apostles, nay, even had heard them himself.

Compare to what Eusebius says of Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis) (H.E. 3:39):

Quote:

1. There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: "These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him." These are the words of Irenæus.

2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.

3. He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.

4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice."

We know from Eusebius' Apology for Origen that Pantaenus claimed to heard men who heard the apostles to have heard the apostles. We know from Eusebius' Church History that Papias claimed to have heard men who heard the apostles and to have heard the apostles. What are the chances that both Papias and Pantaenus claimed to have seen the hearers of the apostles and the Apostles (John) themselves? Does it not make sense to conclude that Pantaenus and Papias are one and not two separate "hearers" of the apostles?

The conclusion from these clues has to be that only Pantaenus claimed to have seen the hearers of the apostles and John himself. Pantaenus also wrote the book "Against All Heresies" Eusebius broke Pantaenus up into two fictional characters Irenaeus and Papias. He made one the Bishop of Lyon and the other the Bishop of Hierapolis.

We can now understand Eusebius' problem. He had to reconstruct the history of his church from the first century, but his information went back no further than Clement of Alexandria who included excerpts from a work by his teacher, the beloved presbyter (elder) Pantaenus. He also had the work "Against All Heresies" by Pantaenus. He had no evidence for an apostolic church nor a church that opposed heresies in the Second Century. In fact, the only large church in the Second century that he had evidence for was Marcion's.

Eusebius' unique solution was to create the fictitious characters of Bishop Irenaeus and Bishop Papias from the real work of Presbyter Pantaenus.

He could rewrite Pantaenus' "Against All Heresies" to carry at least some orthodox ideas about the succession of Popes and the cannon and assign it to the fictional Bishop Irenaeus. Although, editor's fatigue caused him to leave in the millennial views at the end of that work. Apparently Clement's Hypotyposes contained so many unorthodox passages of scripture, he could not rewrite it, but could only destroy it.

This explains why we have no copy of it preserved from Eusebius' scriptorium, although he tells us how absolutely vital it was to History:

Quote:

1. To sum up briefly, he has given in the Hypotyposes abridged accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed books,—I refer to Jude and the other Catholic epistles, and Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter.

If we were ever to find a copy of Clement's Hypotyposes, we would immediately see how Eusebius constructed his fictional Church History from it.

In conclusion, it was the stoic philosopher Pantenus (circa 200), not Irenaeus, who wrote "Against All Heresies" and it is by distorting his work that Eusebius created his fairytale history of the churches.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay · 02-15-2008, 09:35 AM

Hi All,

Sorry, some of the above post got lost while posting. Here it is how it should have read:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The important conclusion in the previous post, "The One Gospel Tradition of Clement of Alexandria," is that Eusebius received all his information about the origen of the gospels from Clement of Alexandria who was quoting Papias for his information.

We can now use this insight to reconstruct a much truer history of Early Christianity. We need to follow three clues: 1) The identity of the beloved presbyter 2) the coincidence of the millennial views of Papias and Irenaeus and 3) Both Pantaenus and Papias heard from Hearers of the Apostles and Apostles.

The Identity of the Beloved Presbyter

The writer of Refutation of All Heresies uses the expression the blessed presbyter Irenaeus to refer to the author of "Against All Heresies"
In Eusebius the term blessed presbyter is used twice, once to refer to Clement of Alexandria, but more imporantly here to refer to a text of Clement's:

6.14.4. Farther on he says: "But now, as the blessed
presbyter said, since the Lord being the apostle of the Almighty, was
sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of his
modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through
respect for the Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the
Gentiles he wrote to the Hebrews out of his superabundance."

Nearby at 6:14.9, there is this reference excerpted of a letter from Alexander to Clement, "6.14.9 Pantænus, the truly blessed man and master,"

The letter from Alexander is probably published within Clement's work, so we have both Clement and Alexander referring to Pantaenus as "blessed man and master" and "blessed Presbyter".

Let us assume for a moment that the reference to the blessed Presbyter Irenaeus was originally a reference to the blessed Presbyter Pantaenus. This would mean that Pantaneus and not Irenaeus wrote Against All Heresies.

2) Millennial Views of Irenaeus and Papias

The end of "Against All Heresies" is filled with millennial views. Eusebius ascribes milllennial views to Papias. But if Pantaenus wrote "Against All Heresies" then he too, like Papias has millennial views. Is this not quite a coincidence? What is the relationship between Papias and Panaenus?

3) Both Pantaenus and Papias heard from Hearers of the Apostles and Apostles

Note this from the Catholic encyclopedia: (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11446b.htm) Photius (cod. 118) states, in his account of the "Apology for Origen" by Pamphilus and Eusebius (see PAMPHILUS OF CÆSAREA, SAINT), that they said Pantænus had been a hearer of men who had seen the Apostles, nay, even had heard them himself.

Compare to what Eusebius says of Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis) (H.E. 3:39):

Quote:

1. There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: "These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him." These are the words of Irenæus.

2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.

3. He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.

4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice."

We know from Eusebius' Apology for Origen that Pantaenus claimed to heard men who heard the apostles and to have heard the apostles. We know from Eusebius' Church History that Papias claimed to have heard men who heard the apostles and to have heard the apostles. What are the chances that both Papias and Pantaenus claimed to have seen the hearers of the apostles and the Apostles (John) themselves? What are the chances that they both should have millennial views? Does it not make sense to conclude that Pantaenus and Papias are one and not two separate "hearers" of the apostles and holders of millennial views?

The conclusion from these clues has to be that only Pantaenus claimed to have seen the hearers of the apostles and John himself. Pantaenus also wrote the book "Against All Heresies" Eusebius broke Pantaenus up into two fictional characters Irenaeus and Papias. He made one the Bishop of Lyon and the other the Bishop of Hierapolis.

We can now understand Eusebius' problem. He had to reconstruct the history of his church from the first century, but his information went back no further than Clement of Alexandria who included excerpts from a work by his teacher, the beloved presbyter (elder) Pantaenus. He also had the work "Against All Heresies" by Pantaenus. He had no evidence for an apostolic church nor a church that opposed heresies in the Second Century. In fact, the only large church in the Second century that he had evidence for was Marcion's.

Eusebius' unique solution was to create the fictitious characters of Bishop Irenaeus and Bishop Papias from the real work of Presbyter Pantaenus.

He could rewrite Pantaenus' "Against All Heresies" to carry at least some orthodox ideas about the succession of Popes and the cannon and assign it to the fictional Bishop Irenaeus. Although, editor's fatigue caused him to leave in the millennial views at the end of that work. Apparently Clement's Hypotyposes contained so many unorthodox passages of scripture, he could not rewrite it, but could only destroy it.

This explains why we have no copy of it preserved from Eusebius' scriptorium, although he tells us how absolutely vital it was to History:

Quote:

1. To sum up briefly, he has given in the Hypotyposes abridged accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed books,—I refer to Jude and the other Catholic epistles, and Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter.

If we were ever to find a copy of Clement's Hypotyposes, we would immediately see how Eusebius constructed his fictional Church History from it.

In conclusion, it was the stoic philosopher Pantenus (circa 200), not Irenaeus, who wrote "Against All Heresies" and it is by distorting his work that Eusebius created his fairytale history of the churches.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

schilling.klaus · 02-15-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

He made one the Bishop of Lyon and the other the Bishop of Hierapolis.

There's no deeper reason to place Irenaeus outside of Asia Minor,
as Lyon had been called Colonia Claudia, and there a city called
Neoclaudiopolis in Galatia.

Klaus Schilling

schilling.klaus · 02-19-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In conclusion, it was the stoic philosopher Pantenus (circa 200), not Irenaeus, who wrote "Against All Heresies" and it is by distorting his work that Eusebius created his fairytale history of the churches.

As the canonical gospels are essentially all Stoic works, especially the sermon on the mountain is, it's little wonder that Pantaenus forged them.

Klaus Schilling

PhilosopherJay · 02-19-2008, 07:24 PM

Hi Klaus,

I have not found evidence that Pantaenus forged the gospels.

I think Eusebius is being truthful when he declares that Clement of Alexandria is his student. Clement seems familiar with a version of the gospel of John that seems to be somewhat different than the one we now have. While he occasionally quotes from the other canonical gospels, he does not seem to take them as being particularly different from the gnostic works that he also quotes.

So I think Clement would have shown a lot more knowledge of the gospels if his teacher Pantaenus had forged them.

What did Pantaenus know about the gospels?
Let's start by asking what Irenaeus/Pantaenus says about the Gospel of Matthew:

(Against Heresies, 1:26)

Quote:

1. Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.

3.1.1

Quote:

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.

{Note "preaching at Rome" is probably an interpolation.}

So the only thing the author/Pantaenus knows about the gospel of Matthew is that it is in Hebrew and used by the Ebionites.

Here is second and only other reference to the gospel of Matthew outside of book III.

Quote:

4.6 1. For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]."60 Thus hath Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: "No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]; "and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord's advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ.

Now, the quoted passage, "No man knoweth the Son..." is not found in Mark or John, but the passage is quoted in Marcion's gospel. In fact, it seems to have been an important point of Marcion's, if we are to believe the writer of Against Marcion:

Against Marcion 4:25

Quote:

But "no man knoweth who the Father is, but the Son; and who the Son is, but the Father, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him." And so it was an unknown god that Christ preached! And other heretics, too, prop themselves up by this passage; alleging in opposition to it that the Creator was known to all, both to lsrael by familiar intercourse, and to the Gentiles by nature.

We may suggest that the original passage did not mention Matthew or Luke or Mark's gospel, but only referred to Marcion's gospel. Thus the original passage read:

Quote:

4.6 1. For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]."60 Thus hath Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; Marcion set it down, for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: "No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]; "and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord's advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ.

It is clear the writer of Against Marcion is paraphrasing the passage from Against Heresies and that both are referring only to Marcion's gospel.

Once we know that Irenaeus/Panthaenus knows the gospel of Marcion, the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew used by the Ebionites, and the gospel of John used by the Valentinians, it is not hard to figure out the fourth gospel that he gets from tradition:

3.11.7.

Quote:

So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel141 only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.

The reference to Luke is a later interpolation. The sentence only makes sense if it referred back to the previous sentence, the Gospel of Matthew. The reference to Christ remaining impassible is certainly a reference to the docetics who followed the Gospel of Peter. The attacks against Marcion are also interpolations.Thus, we may suppose that the original passage read:

Quote:

So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating editing that according to Luke Matthew, is proved to be a blasphemer true follower of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark Peter, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.

We may suppose that Panthaenus accepted four gospels, the Valentinian gospel of John, the Ebionite gospel of Matthew, the docetic gospel of Peter, and Marcion's gospel. We may take this as the first catholic four gospel collection. Some time in the third century, Mark replaced Peter and Luke replaced Marcion.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Incidentally, under this scenario, Pantaenus gives us the beginning of the Gospel of Peter in the 3:11.8:

Quote:

Matthew Peter, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; "149 and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity;150 for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In conclusion, it was the stoic philosopher Pantenus (circa 200), not Irenaeus, who wrote "Against All Heresies" and it is by distorting his work that Eusebius created his fairytale history of the churches.

As the canonical gospels are essentially all Stoic works, especially the sermon on the mountain is, it's little wonder that Pantaenus forged them.

Klaus Schilling

PhilosopherJay · 02-20-2008, 06:14 AM

Hi All,

In regards to the above post, it seems that the church at Alexandria circa 180-190 when "Against Heresies" was written embraced four groups and gospels: Docetists (Gospel of Peter), Marcion (Gospel of Marcion), Valentinians (Gospel of John) and Ebionites/Nazoreans (Gospel of Matthew). Pantaenus really describes these as the four pillars of the universal (catholic) church. No one church has the whole truth, but taken together, they do have the whole truth.

At this point, it seems that Pantaenus is calling for a peace treaty between these four large heretical groups. No wonder that Eusebius calls him Irenaeus (Mr. Peace).

The question for me is what happened between circa 185 and 207 when Tertullian or someone writes the furious anti-Marcion tract "Against Marcion"?
Around the same time, the gospels of Marcion and Peter are replaced by the newly written gospels of Luke and Mark (condensed from Peter?) and probably John and Matthew are rewritten to bring them closer together.

I can make a couple of good guesses. Tertullian was a follower of Montanus who started preaching in the 160's and the Church at Alexandria was not allowing in any more new heretics. If you were not in the top four and not as old as the other heretics (Pantaenus gives the dates 117-162 for the great age of the heretics) you were out. Tertullian has to prove that his new gospels, Mark and Luke are older than the oldest gospels from the four main heretical groups.

We might also consider that a martyrdom took place in 202 with Perpetua. A persecution would have broken a part alliances between competing Christian groups rather quickly. It could be that was what led to Tertullian's fury against the Marcionites.

Perpetua, interestingly describes fighting an Egyptian. This suggests that the persectution may have taken place in Egypt and not Carthage:

Quote:

I looked at the enormous crowd who watched in astonishment. I was surprised that no beasts were let loose on me; for I knew that I was condemned to die by the beasts. Then out came an Egyptian against me, of vicious appearance, together with his seconds, to fight with me. There also came up to me some handsome young men to be my seconds and assistants.

My clothes were stripped off, and suddenly I was a man. My seconds began to rub me down with oil (as they are wont to do before a contest). Then I saw the Egyptian on the other side rolling in the dust. Next there came forth a man of marvelous stature, such that he rose above the top of the amphitheatre. He was clad in a beltless purple tunic with two stripes (one on either side) running down the middle of his chest. He wore sandals that were wondrously made of gold and silver, and he carried a wand like an athletic trainer and a green branch on which there were golden apples.

And he asked for silence and said: 'If this Egyptian defeats her he will slay her with the sword. But if she defeats him, she will receive this branch.' Then he withdrew.

We drew close to one another and began to let our fists fly. My opponent tried to get hold of my feet, but I kept striking him in the face with the heels of my feet. Then I was raised up into the air and I began to pummel him without as it were touching the ground. Then when I noticed there was a lull, I put my two hands together linking the fingers of one hand with those of the other and thus I got hold of his head. He fell flat on his face and I stepped on his head.

It may be possible that Pantaenus himself, some 15-20 years after writing his book on Heresies, wrote the scathing attack on Marcion. People change over time and with his failure to make peace between the warring factions, Pantaenus may have been led to thrown himself into the battle against Marcion.

In any case, Clement of Alexandria, the student of Pantaenus displays no hatred of the competing heretical sects. He simply points out their mistakes.

We'll have to figure it out more precisely when we have more time. Now that we know that there was a moment in time (180-190) when Christian heretics co-operated with each other, we can better understand the subsequent history.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.