Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 08-22-2012, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

AA, you are replying to me. The least you could do is address my points instead of ignoring them. You always like to stray off.

I have already made my argument. There was NO NT Canon in the 2nd century. I have NOT STRAYED FROM MY POINT.

Duvduv · 08-23-2012, 08:24 AM

Then in that case, AA, what is the point of replying to my postings if you simply want to engage in one-way conversations?? Everybody on this Board knows you don't interact with others but only keep restating your own claims which we all know about and which are predictable.

sotto voce · 08-23-2012, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Then in that case, AA, what is the point of replying to my postings if you simply want to engage in one-way conversations?? Everybody on this Board knows you don't interact with others but only keep restating your own claims which we all know about and which are predictable.

Horatio Parker · 08-23-2012, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So "coincidently" several "heretical" groups just happened to use different gospels (among the official 4 of course) all composed to imitate the structure of the Tanakh style of writing without a single one straying from this style whether or not that single book was considered "canonical" (sacred writ).

David Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament. Oxford University Press, 2000.

Reviewed by Robert M. Price.

Quote:

...Trobisch argues that the New Testament canon of 27 writings that we use today originated not in the fourth century as the result of a prolonged and anonymous process of debate and ossifying custom, but rather as the work of a single editor and publisher in the late second century.....

Quote:

...the New Testament books appear, with very few exceptions, in four groups of codices, and that within each the order of presentation is virtually always the same. There are the four gospels, almost always in the familiar order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. There is the Acts plus the seven Catholic/General Epistles, again always in the same order. There is the Pauline canon including Hebrews. And then there is the Revelation. (Sometimes the Pauline Corpus precedes Acts/Catholic Epistles.) Such an arrangement is hardly inevitable or obvious. Had various New Testament writings simply circulated independently and then been compiled by different scribes at different times in different regions, we would never see near-uniformity like this. Why would Hebrews be included among the Paulines so often, when Paul’s name never appears in the text? Why would everyone have concluded that what we call Ephesians and Romans were written to those churches when some copies show no destination city? Would every scribe have thought the Corinthian and the Thessalonian Epistles belong in the order in which they always appear? Surely some would have labeled our “First” Thessalonians as Second Thessalonians, they are so much alike.

Did everyone “know” or think that the four gospels were penned by individuals named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Or were these not more probably the guesses of a single editor, the first who had to differentiate the four texts because he was the first to place them side by side in a larger collection--which henceforth carried the day? Was even the form of the titles “Gospel according to” self-evident so that all should have independently come to call them thusly? Or were they not, with their grammatical arbitrariness, the creative nomenclature of a single editor?

If the New Testament books are arranged (at least mainly) by genre, come to think of it, so are the Old Testament books in the Christian canon. Unlike Jewish Bibles (Hebrew or Greek), the Christian edition of the Septuagint groups the books by narratives, poetry, and prophecy. Who decided on this arrangement, so sensible and natural in one sense, but hardly self-evident and certainly a radical departure from the Jewish tradition? And why does the Christian Septuagint, alone among Greek Old Testament versions, replace the letters of the Divine Name (whether in Hebrew or in Greek in Jewish versions) with the word Kurios (Lord)? It’s not that such a substitution wouldn’t make sense in Jewish terms, because it certainly reflects the liturgical usage of the synagogue, reading “Adonai” aloud when one came to the name Yahve in the text, but there is no evidence that actually replacing the one name with the other ever took place in the copying of Jewish Greek Bibles. So it looks like the striking innovation of a particular editor.

And so does the peculiarity in Christian Old and New Testament texts of the Nomina sacra, the abbreviation of words including Theos, Kurios, Iesous, and Christos by the first and last letter of each (generally) with a horizontal line drawn over the top. This pattern does not correspond to any known, more widely used system of abbreviations. It looks idiosyncratic in origin, as if it stemmed from a particular editor of a whole Christian Bible.

outhouse · 08-23-2012, 09:44 AM

exactly why Price has no credibility

not only does that not fly, it creates more unanswerable questions then it answers.

some of the worst scholarly work ive ever read, sounds more like a internet blogger then a scholar.

Duvduv · 08-23-2012, 09:57 AM

Horatio, those points are very well taken. What stands out, however, is WHO would have authorized a single editor in the wee hours of the second century to arrange and edit all these texts (especially with the effect of giving people the idea that they originated from different places)??

And what would have been the motive of doing this in the 2nd century as compared with......the fourth century?

Finally, unless the gospels were considered as sacred texts at the behest of an authority, why would they have all been written (uniformly) to resemble the style of the Old Testament?

There would seem to be a much greater impetus to do all this in the 4th-5th century than in the second as we all know.

Toto · 08-23-2012, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

exactly why Price has no credibility

not only does that not fly, it creates more unanswerable questions then it answers.

some of the worst scholarly work ive ever read, sounds more like a internet blogger then a scholar.

You seem to have a strong emotional reaction, but you don't give any logical reasons for your opinion.

Price has a lot more credibility around here than you do.

Horatio Parker · 08-23-2012, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

exactly why Price has no credibility

not only does that not fly, it creates more unanswerable questions then it answers.

some of the worst scholarly work ive ever read, sounds more like a internet blogger then a scholar.

You do realize that it's not Price's thesis?

Horatio Parker · 08-23-2012, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Horatio, those points are very well taken. What stands out, however, is WHO would have authorized a single editor in the wee hours of the second century to arrange and edit all these texts (especially with the effect of giving people the idea that they originated from different places)??

What seems more important is that his authority was recognized. Apparently whatever leadership existed in the 2nd century accepted the work.

Quote:

And what would have been the motive of doing this in the 2nd century as compared with......the fourth century?

Why should the motive be any different?

I can't recall ever asking myself if something I consider important should be done in a later century.

Sorry, I think it's a silly question.

Quote:

Finally, unless the gospels were considered as sacred texts at the behest of an authority, why would they have all been written (uniformly) to resemble the style of the Old Testament?

There would seem to be a much greater impetus to do all this in the 4th-5th century than in the second as we all know.

Or the impetus in the later centuries was to put the official stamp on what was already convention. Because significant things were done in the 4th century doesn't mean that everything the tradition inherited was changed or re-invented.

Duvduv · 08-23-2012, 11:27 AM

However, there is evidence of any 2nd century individual in a Christian environment carrying so much weight that he could edit an entire body of texts, ascribe sacred status to it alongside the Old Testament, and that clergy and followers all over started obeying him.

If one argues that Irenaeus and Tertullian were in the 2nd century, they certainly do not acknowledge some mysterious authority in that period in the slightest way who was followed as a matter of course (inasmuch as the texts suggest that "Irenaeus" and "Tertullian" took for granted the existence, acceptance and primacy of the four gospels).

The only overriding authorities would be at the service of the emperor, i.e. in the 4th century.

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

08-23-2012, 08:24 AM	#22
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Then in that case, AA, what is the point of replying to my postings if you simply want to engage in one-way conversations?? Everybody on this Board knows you don't interact with others but only keep restating your own claims which we all know about and which are predictable.

08-23-2012, 09:44 AM	#25
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	exactly why Price has no credibility not only does that not fly, it creates more unanswerable questions then it answers. some of the worst scholarly work ive ever read, sounds more like a internet blogger then a scholar.

08-23-2012, 09:57 AM	#26
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Horatio, those points are very well taken. What stands out, however, is WHO would have authorized a single editor in the wee hours of the second century to arrange and edit all these texts (especially with the effect of giving people the idea that they originated from different places)?? And what would have been the motive of doing this in the 2nd century as compared with......the fourth century? Finally, unless the gospels were considered as sacred texts at the behest of an authority, why would they have all been written (uniformly) to resemble the style of the Old Testament? There would seem to be a much greater impetus to do all this in the 4th-5th century than in the second as we all know.

08-23-2012, 11:27 AM	#30
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	However, there is evidence of any 2nd century individual in a Christian environment carrying so much weight that he could edit an entire body of texts, ascribe sacred status to it alongside the Old Testament, and that clergy and followers all over started obeying him. If one argues that Irenaeus and Tertullian were in the 2nd century, they certainly do not acknowledge some mysterious authority in that period in the slightest way who was followed as a matter of course (inasmuch as the texts suggest that "Irenaeus" and "Tertullian" took for granted the existence, acceptance and primacy of the four gospels). The only overriding authorities would be at the service of the emperor, i.e. in the 4th century.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.