Draconis

Why are there four gospels? Why not 12? One for each disciple?
Or why not just one, after all, there's only one genesis?

I did see somewhere it was because there's four winds, but I'm not sure that's a good reason.

Malachi151

Well first of all, since the whole bit is prbably amyth, there were no 12 diciples in the first place.

Secondly:

The more likely outcome would have been having only one gospel, which would have made more sense and probably made it more difficult to disprove the religion.

Teh four gospels in the Bible were all written in opposition to each other origionally, with no intention that they would ever be put together side by side.

The Evil One

Is it just me, or does Irenaeus' argument work just as well whatever number you slot into it?

Super Squirrel

That's the way it seemed to me. If it were three gospels then it would have been because it symbolizes the holy trinity; if seven, then because it is the number symbolic of god; twelve could have been for the apostles, ten for the plagues of Egypt, eight for the number of people on the Ark... the possibilities are endless when you make up the explanation after the fact. *Grins*

Sheshbazzar

Of course many more "gospels" actually were written, and enjoyed varying degrees of popularity until they were rejected, denounced, and banned by latter church authorities.

Iasion

Greetings all,

Consider the diaTessaron - The Harmony of Four (Gospels.)
Which was apparently written by Tatian in late 2nd century.

It appears Tatian knew of exactly four Gospels, but without any name.
Tatian was a follower of Justin, who had collected the "memoirs of the apostles".

Perhaps Tatian inherited four MSS from Justin - the four that Justin had collected and considered authentic.

Four Gospels that had not yet been named, thus he called his work "the Four".


Iasion

JoeWallack

JW:
It's all I can do to rip myself away from the Absolutely and superlatively enthralling Carrier's Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth Now Up At ErrancyWiki Thread but I see Skeptics throw the above out all the time and I live in constant fear that someday Bede and Pearse will actually read Ireneaus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons"). I think generally Christians don't comment because they find the whole subject embarrasing.

The above quote by itself gives the impression that an important part of the Christian Criteria for identifying Canonical Gospels was that there should be exactly Four (A Proto Selection Factor). If you read All of Irenaeus though, he does give other reasons for the Canonical selection of the Fab Four into the Rock and Role Hall of Fame Before making the above idiotic claim, such as claiming that his Church has a succession that goes back to The Disciples:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P7328_1952979

" Chapter I.-The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit. They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth.

1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.2 For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews3 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. 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.

2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics."

...

" Chapter IV.-The Truth is to Be Found Nowhere Else But in the Catholic Church, the Sole Depository of Apostolical Doctrine. Heresies are of Recent Formation, and Cannot Trace Their Origin Up to the Apostles.

1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.11 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question12 among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition,13 believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents,14 have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

3. For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity. For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too, Marcion's predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop.15 Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated16 from the assembly of the brethren. Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. But the rest, who are called Gnostics, take rise from Menander, Simon's disciple, as I have shown; and each one of them appeared to be both the father and the high priest of that doctrine into which he has been initiated. But all these (the Marcosians) broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the Church."


JW:
Irenaeus also gives some Sources for this supposed succession and even goes so far as to present a supposed line of Bishops of Rome going back to Peter. The Original Irenaeus' quote on high is After most of this information. Thus it has the appearance of an After the supposed fact observation. It's not so much a Pre-selection Criteria but rather a Post-selection Observation.

Of course there were other Brands of Christianity that did claim Disciple succession because that's how the Game was played and Irenaeus' primary purpose in making the Four Foold claim is to close the Church Door on rival Gospel claims. But still, as far as Irenaeus' Gospels, if you read him in total he explains how there came to be Four gospels for him and his claim that there can be only Four looks like a Post selection observation at least as far as his Canon is concerned.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jakejonesiv

Hi Iasion,

You hit the nail on the head when you used the words appeared and apparently when describing Tatian's alleged authorship of what we know now as the Diatessaron.

Victor of Capua found an unknown, unnamed harmony of the gospels in the sixth century CE, which was clearly a harmony of the four canonical gospels. He searched and searched but couldn't find the source in Latin, so he apparently decided that it was the Diatessaron of Tatain mentioned by Eusebius.

This is what Eusebius had written.

"But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle, in order to improve their style." (Church History, iv. 29, 6).

This is a leaky ship to identify anything! Eusebius had never even seen the Diatessaron. He does not know its structure or how it was formed. In fact, it is not certain that this was a "Harmony." The Diatessaron was not in Latin or Greek, but Syriac.

Whatever the Diatessaron was, it must have been suspected of being heretical is some way. Eusebius considered Tatain a heretic. Even though he was a disciple of Justin Martyr, he converted to the doctrines of Valentinus, Marcion and Saturninus.

Perhaps it did contain a harmony of gnostic gospels. It utterly disappeared when Theodore confiscated all the copies and replaced them with approved gospels. Who know how well the reconstructed Diatessaron corresponds to the original one that was destroyed?

It was pure flight of fancy to identify the Diatessaron with the unknown Latin sixth century harmony. In fact, the Latin harmony used by VC dates to about 500 CE.

Jake Jones IV

Malachi151

Thanks for this quote, I have a question about this:

I want to get this clear.

Who is this Matthew supposed to be, an origional apostle of Jesus?

Do we not know that Paul never went to Rome?

Mark, according to this, was not an apostle of Jesus, but, he passed on the teachings of Peter, who was supposedly an apsotle. Correct?

Luke, was also not an apsotle of Jesus correct? He is being said here to have been a companion of Paul, who passed on Paul's teachings, correct?

Then we have John. Is Irenaeus saying that John WAS a disciple of Jesus, or that John was a disciple of GOD, and received his gospel through revelation?

jakejonesiv

Whoever he was, Iraneus and Eusebius cannot agree to his identity.

Jake Jones IV