Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 02-13-2012, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

From memory Acts also appears in Ignatius. This is certainly true for the longer version but I think it is also true for the 'long' recension.

Ignatius quotes Acts

http://www.ntcanon.org/Ignatius.shtml

...

This comes up first on a google search, but it doesn't seem connected. The newadvent version of Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians does not list this as a quote.

There are some other claims that Ignatius quotes Acts at this link, but not well explained.

Even if there is some similarity in language, how would you know that Acts is not quoting Ignatius?

Who said it first? Always difficult......

Bottom line in all of this is that the JC story was up and running by the time of Ignatius. The question then becomes why did not these early writers quote chapter and verse from the gospel writings? Or was it all simply oral traditions and nothing written down? Richard Carrier presents an interesting possibility: The gospels were not, at that time, regarded as scripture.

Quote:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...Tcanon.html#II

The next such text is the collection of letters by Ignatius. However, these were added to and redacted in later centuries, making the reliability of even the "authentic" letters uncertain. Ignatius wrote while on the road to his trial in 110 A.D. and it is important to note that he appears not to have had references with him, thus any allusions or quotations in his work come from memory alone (M 43-4). Thus, he borrows phrases and paraphrases from many Pauline epistles, yet never tells us this is what he is doing (he probably could not recall which letters he was drawing from at the time). Likewise, he borrows phrases or ideas which are found in Matthew and John, and on one occasion something that appears to be from Luke, but again he never names his sources or even tells us that he is drawing from a source at all (M 45-7). In no case does he name or precisely quote any NT ("New Testament") book, but again this may be due to the unusual circumstances in which he was writing.

Despite the difficulties, it seems plausible that the Gospels had been written by this date, although it is remotely possible that Ignatius is simply quoting oral traditions which eventually became recorded in writing, and also possible that this material was added or dressed up by later editors. Of greatest note is that in his letter to the Philadelphians, Ignatius recounts a debate he held with Judaizing Christians in which it is clear that only the OT was regarded as an authority (M 48-9). Instead of referring to any NT writings as evidence, he simply says that Jesus Christ is the witness to the authority of the tradition. This suggests that none of the NT was regarded even then as an authority. Like Clement, Ignatius and other Christians probably regarded these texts as wise counsel or useful collections of their oral traditions, and not as "scripture" per se.

my bolding

Doug Shaver · 02-13-2012, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Geisler is so extremely far Right that he basically cannot be trusted, but nevertheless that link gives solid arguments

I don't care whether the man himself is trustworthy or not. His arguments have to stand or fall on their own merit, and they fall because they presuppose their conclusion.

tanya · 02-13-2012, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

By the 5th century, this authentic collection had been enlarged by spurious letters, and some of the original letters had been changed with interpolations, created to posthumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age, while the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom is also thought to be a forgery from around the same time.

Anyone with a reference to the original Greek. It would be fun to observe the quotation marks around the "to his own place", cited above....

How DID the Koine Greeks designate a particular verse as one written elsewhere?

maryhelena · 02-13-2012, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

By the 5th century, this authentic collection had been enlarged by spurious letters, and some of the original letters had been changed with interpolations, created to posthumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age, while the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom is also thought to be a forgery from around the same time.

Anyone with a reference to the original Greek. It would be fun to observe the quotation marks around the "to his own place", cited above....

How DID the Koine Greeks designate a particular verse as one written elsewhere?

Not the Greek - but here is another translation:

(from: _Apostolic Fathers_ Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation)

Quote:

CHAPTER 5
5:1 Seeing them that all things have an end, and
these two -- life and death -- are set before us
together, and each man shall go _to his own place;_
5:2 for just as there are two coinages, the one of
God and the other of the world, and each of them hath
its proper stamp impressed upon it, the unbelievers
the stamp of this world, but the faithful in love the
stamp of God the Father through Jesus Christ, through
whom unless of our own free choice we accept to die
unto His passion, His life is not in us: --

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html

andrewcriddle · 02-13-2012, 05:09 AM

The earliest reference to the Book of Acts may be in the epistula apostolorum (Epistle of the Apostles) which probably dates from the 150's CE

Quote:

And behold a man shall meet you, whose name is Saul, which being interpreted is Paul: he is a Jew, circumcised according to the law, and he shall receive my voice from heaven with fear and terror and trembling. And his eyes shall be blinded, and by your hands by the sign of the cross shall they be protected (healed: other Eth. MSS. with spittle by your hands shall his eyes, &c.). Do ye unto him all that I have done unto you. Deliver it (? the word of God) unto the other. And at the same time that man shall open his eyes and praise the Lord, even my Father which is in heaven. He shall obtain power among the people and shall preach and instruct; and many that hear him shall obtain glory and be redeemed. But thereafter shall men be wroth with him and deliver him into the hands of his enemies, and he shall bear witness before kings that are mortal, and his end shall be that he shall turn unto me, whereas he persecuted me at the first. He shall preach and teach and abide with the elect, as a chosen vessel and a wall that shall not be overthrown, yea, the last of the last shall become a preacher unto the Gentiles, made perfect by the will of my Father. Like as ye have learned from the Scripture that your fathers the prophets spake of me, and in me it is indeed fulfilled. ...
And we asked him again: When shall we meet with that man, and when wilt thou depart unto thy Father and our God and Lord? He answered and said unto us: That man will come out of the land of Cilicia unto Damascus of Syria, to root up the church which ye must found there. It is I that speak through you; and he shall come quickly: and he shall become strong in the faith, that the word of the prophet may be fulfilled, which saith: Behold, out of Syria will I begin to call together a new Jerusalem, and Sion will I subdue unto me, and it shall be taken, and the place which is childless shall be called the son and daughter of my Father, and my bride. For so hath it pleased him that sent me. But that man will I turn back, that he accomplish not his evil desire, and the praise of my Father shall be perfected in him, and after that I am gone home and abide with my Father, I will speak unto him from heaven, and all things shall be accomplished which I have told you before concerning him.

The links between the statements about Paul found here and Acts suggests the use of Acts by the author.

Andrew Criddle

Sheshbazzar · 02-13-2012, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The earliest reference to the Book of Acts may be in the epistula apostolorum (Epistle of the Apostles) which probably dates from the 150's CE

Quote:

And behold a man shall meet you, whose name is Saul, which being interpreted is Paul: he is a Jew, circumcised according to the law, and he shall receive my voice from heaven with fear and terror and trembling. And his eyes shall be blinded, and by your hands by the sign of the cross shall they be protected (healed: other Eth. MSS. with spittle by your hands shall his eyes, &c.). Do ye unto him all that I have done unto you. Deliver it (? the word of God) unto the other. And at the same time that man shall open his eyes and praise the Lord, even my Father which is in heaven. He shall obtain power among the people and shall preach and instruct; and many that hear him shall obtain glory and be redeemed. But thereafter shall men be wroth with him and deliver him into the hands of his enemies, and he shall bear witness before kings that are mortal, and his end shall be that he shall turn unto me, whereas he persecuted me at the first. He shall preach and teach and abide with the elect, as a chosen vessel and a wall that shall not be overthrown, yea, the last of the last shall become a preacher unto the Gentiles, made perfect by the will of my Father. Like as ye have learned from the Scripture that your fathers the prophets spake of me, and in me it is indeed fulfilled. ...
And we asked him again: When shall we meet with that man, and when wilt thou depart unto thy Father and our God and Lord? He answered and said unto us: That man will come out of the land of Cilicia unto Damascus of Syria, to root up the church which ye must found there. It is I that speak through you; and he shall come quickly: and he shall become strong in the faith, that the word of the prophet may be fulfilled, which saith: Behold, out of Syria will I begin to call together a new Jerusalem, and Sion will I subdue unto me, and it shall be taken, and the place which is childless shall be called the son and daughter of my Father, and my bride. For so hath it pleased him that sent me. But that man will I turn back, that he accomplish not his evil desire, and the praise of my Father shall be perfected in him, and after that I am gone home and abide with my Father, I will speak unto him from heaven, and all things shall be accomplished which I have told you before concerning him.

The links between the statements about Paul found here and Acts suggests the use of Acts by the author.

...to produce a blatant forgery pretending to be a first person exposition being made by the Master himself....

It never ceases to amaze me how absolutely little respect or reverential fear these early church writers actually display towards that figure which they call their 'Lord'. And how willing they are to use his mouth to say whatever it is that they wish to say or to promote.

In the above extreme instance of 'writers license ventriloquism', it becomes very doubtful that the writer began from a position of any actual belief in, respect for, or reverence toward preserving the integrity of any actual words of a person he was pretending to be assuming the persona of.

.

mountainman · 02-13-2012, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Do we rely on Eusebius as if he were speaking from Mt. Sinai?

Or maybe Mt. Olympus? There may in fact be no viable alternative. He is an exceedingly persuasive heresiologist. Besides he has a copyright contract on the history of Christian origins that has not yet expired.

Quote:

Much more likely that the Irenaeus writings were mainly put together by the Byzantine establishment in the 4th century or even fifth.

Ancient historians might be able to process this statement, and you might even find some who may agree with this possibility. They are in theory outside the Eusebian box of Biblical History. The Biblical Historians who are inside the Eusebian box however, will not be able to process this statement.

sotto voce · 02-13-2012, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Do we rely on Eusebius as if he were speaking from Mt. Sinai?

Or maybe Mt. Olympus? There may in fact be no viable alternative. He is an exceedingly persuasive heresiologist. Besides he has a copyright contract on the history of Christian origins that has not yet expired.

Not among Protestants.

Toto · 02-13-2012, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

...
Much more likely that the Irenaeus writings were mainly put together by the Byzantine establishment in the 4th century or even fifth.

It would help if you were more careful in your choice of terms. What do you mean by "Byzantine establishment?" Constantine? a later emperor? Some other group of people from that time?

Why the fifth century? It doesn't help your case if you just throw out idle speculation. There's too much of that here already.

Kapyong · 02-13-2012, 01:46 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Ignatius quotes Acts

A simple phrase of FOUR words are the same?
Without a single mention that it even IS a quote, much less saying it came from Acts.

Are you serious?

K.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.