Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aileron · 06-25-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

This is wrong and why we need Roger Pearse and JP Holding to track down the source of this misinformation on the Internet. Where the hell are they when you really need them?:

Good one :notworthy:

Toto · 06-25-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

What's OCD?

In this context, obsessive compulsive disorder, which leads one of your mods to obsessively fix things.

In other contexts (Joe W) Orthodox Christian Doctrine.

PhilosopherJay · 06-25-2009, 09:14 PM

Hi show_no_mercy,

I have a problem with relying on Eusebius to date Irenaeus. He has a vested interest in the process. I also have a problem with accepting Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" as coming down in its original condition. Against, Eusebius has too much of a vested interest in the text.

Let us look at how Eusebius uses the character and texts of Irenaeus.

Quote:

2.13.3-5 Witness against Simon the Samaritan
3.23.1-3 Witness that the evangelist John was leader of Asian Churches post Domitian (96 C.E.). Calls him "trustworthy" and someone who "maintained the orthodoxy" of the Church.
3.36.12 Witness for the maryrdom of Polycarp.
3.39.1 and 12-13 Witness for the five books of Papias. Support for the antiquity of the millenarian view.
4.7.4-9. Witness against heretics Saturninus, Menander, Basilides, and Carpocrates.
4.10-11.1-3. Witness that Telesphorus, the Bishop of Rome was martyred by Emperor Antoninus Pius in his first year (138 C.E.) The Heretics Valentinus and Cerdonus came to Rome after 138 during the time of Emperor Antoninus Pius. Also a witness to the fact that Marcion succeeded Cerdonus and got his heretical philosophy from him. Says Irenaeus "unfolded" Valentinus' errors.
4.11.4-5. Quotes Irenaeus against the heretic Marcus.
4.14.1.-7 Witnesses that Polycarp, appointed Bishop of Smyrna met with Pope Anecitus, circa 160 and talked about celebrating paschal feast on 14th day of Nissan. Claims that Polycarp, known by Irenaeus as a boy, told story of John fleeing Heretic Cerinthius in Ephesus. Polycarp also met and attacked Marcion.
4.18.9 Witness that Justin (Martyr) met and attacked Marcion.
4.22.8. Witness that the ancients called "Proverbs of Solomon" "all Virtuous Wisdom". Also that books called Aprocrypha was written in days of Irenaeus.
4.25. Irenaeus wrote a book against Marcion.
4.29.1-3. witness that Tatian's heresy, Encratites, sprung from Saturninus and Marcion began after Justin died.
5.4.1-3. Presbyter Irenaeus sent to Pope Eleutherus in Rome to confirm martyrdom of Christians at Lyon (circa 174-189).
5.4.8-9. Irenaeus became Bishop of Lyon and composed his work during time of Pope Eleuterus
5.6.1-5. Irenaeus vouches for the 12 Popes up to Eleutherus.
5.7.1-6. Irenaues vouches that church still performs miracles up to his time.
5.8.1-4. Witness to the writing of the four gospels.
5.8.5-15 Supports Revelations, 1st letter of John, 1st letter of Peter, the Shepard and Wisdom of Solomon as holy books. Support legitamacy of Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and promises to refute Marcion. Supports Septuagent.
5.20.1-8. Irenaeus wrote against Blastus and Florinus. Again, quotes Irenaeus on his relationship to Polycarp and Polycarps relationship to John
5.23.2 Irenaeus became Bishop of Lyon during time of Pope Victor (post 189).
5.23.9-18 Victor excommunicated Polycrates and Asian Churches over Passover-Easter feast celebration dating (14th of Nissan versus Easter Sunday). Irenaeus wrote letter criticizing him for the excommunication and supporting the antiquity of the Passover date celebration. Eusebius notes "Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches."
5.26. Names works of Irenaeus.
5.28.5. Quotes another writer against the heresy of Artemon, who says, "Who does not know the works of Ireneaus"
6.13. Claims Clement of Alexandria quoted extracts from Irenaeus.

Irenaeus is Eusebius' main witness for just about every important thing that happened to the Church in the entire second century. According to Eusebius, Irenaeus gets the holy truth from Polycarp who gets the truth from John who gets the truth from the breast of Jesus. As such, he may be seen as the hero of Eusebius' fabulous tale of how the Roman Church miraculously preserved the truth about the faith against heretics down through its first 12 Popes, starting from Peter. Only with the 13th Pope, Victor, did the Church start to stray. Unlucky number 13.

Since Eusebius is our only source for any of the information that we have about Irenaeus, the question is how much of this information should we trust? My feeling is that until we get it verified by an independent source, we should treat Irenaeus as a fictional creation of Eusebius.

This leaves us with Tertullian, writing around 205 in Against Marcion as the earliest source that seems to know the orthodox four Gospels and who wrote them.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

Thanks, I have a follow up question then. Is it known whether the attributions in the titles can be traced to a single source or whether they were independently given. Like, did one guy entitle the Matthew gospel as "Matthew" and then others followed along, or did separate people give the Matthew title to that gospel?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1

"Matthew also published a gospel in writing among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter & Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome. But after their death, Mark, the disciple & interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what Peter used to preach. And Luke, Paul's associate, also set down in a book the gospel that Paul used to preach. Later, John, the Lord's disciple --- the one who lay on his lap --- also set out the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia Minor"

This is the earliest extant writing that we have that names the gospels, which was written around 170 - 180 CE. Irenaeus' source is said to be a Christian named Papias c. 100 CE who wrote that there was a certain "sayings gospel" written by "Mark, a disciple and interpreter of Peter" but he says that Mark wrote down what Peter would preach in no particular order (thus not a narrative like our current Mark).

And also Papias says that a "Matthew" wrote down a Hebrew gospel, but our current Matthew doesn't show any signs of being written in Hebrew but shows signs of being written in Greek. Though the

Ebionites supposedly used a Hebrew written (assumed, since their name more than likely derives from Hebrew) version of Matthew but without the birth narrative since they didn't believe in the virgin birth (which, ironically, is one of the signs that our current Matthew was written in Greek).

Irenaeus is the first person to write that our "John" was written by John the Beloved Disciple. However, another Christian sect in the 2nd century derogatoraly called the "Alogi" said that

Cerinthus was the actual author of the Logos gospel and that it wasn't canonical - hence why Epiphanus calls them "alogi". But Epiphanus wrote his "Medicine Cabinet" against heresies in IIRC the fourth century so it's kinda heresay. Then again, just about everything in early Christianity is heresay since we don't have any original manuscripts.

But, Cerinthus (according to Irenaeus) was schooled in Alexandra, Egypt (or the "wisdom of the Egyptians") - the same place where

Philo established philosophy schools and his Logos doctrine, and Irenaeus says that John wrote his gospel to counter Cerinthus' gospel. An odd coincidence.

Also Irenaeus is the first person to say that "Luke" was written by a companion of Paul, but it seems as though the earliest use of "Luke" was by Marcion (or possibly Justin Martyr) who supposedly held Paul as the sole authentic teacher of the gospel of Christ. But neither Marcion nor Justin Martyr call our Luke "according to Luke", I think Marcion called it "the gospel of the Lord" and Justin seemed to refer to Mark, Matthew, and Luke in one collection called "Memoirs of the Apostles" without naming individual authors.

It's all really fuzzy and heresay prior to Irenaeus.

show_no_mercy · 06-26-2009, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi show_no_mercy,

I have a problem with relying on Eusebius to date Irenaeus. He has a vested interest in the process. I also have a problem with accepting Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" as coming down in its original condition.

I agree 100%. It's pretty strange that we have Irenaeus' AH in tact, yet one of his supposed sources - Papias (for the witness of Mark and Matthew) - is no longer extant. It was probably too much work to edit both Irenaeus and Papias, so the Papias witness was erased from history (not only that, but Eusebius doesn't have too much respect for Papias anyway).

You can't really trust a belief system that's based on faith to be honest with its own history. If history and faith contradict, then the "history" has to be made to fall in line with faith.

PhilosopherJay · 06-27-2009, 07:08 PM

Hi Joe,

Good work.

I think it is significant that four of these Marks are sourced to Eusebius and the the rest are later with the possible exceptions of Irenaeus and Pseudo-Hypolytus.

How uncurious were Christians from 100-300 that they said nothing about the writers of the Gospels in all this time. If we take the writers and the texts of the canon to be products of a small cult that developed after Marcion, circa 150-200 C.E. the silence becomes much more explicable. The true identity of the writers were probably known, but only among a small elite. The idea of an apostolic origin was probably necessary for the sect to compete against the multiple other Jesus sects that also were created at around the same time or slightly before.

One piece of information that Eusebius gives us I believe is true and important. Eusebius tells us that Polycrates and the churches of Asia were attacked and excommunicated in the 190's by the Bishop Victor of Rome. They were attacked primarily because they held to the celebration of Passover rather than the separate celebration of Easter.

In the book of Acts, we are told the the disciples were not supposed to proselytize in Asia and that Jews from Asia were responsible for the arrest of Paul and his going to Rome. Further, it appears that Apollos, who knew only the Baptism of John and nothing about Jesus was the first to proselytize in the province of Asia.

Note that Justin Martyr associates the death of Jesus with Passover and know nothing about any Easter celebration (Trypho CXI):

For the passover was Christ, who was afterwards sacrificed, as also Isaiah said, 'He was led as a sheep to the slaughter.' And it is written, that on the day of the passover you seized Him, and that also during the passover you crucified Him. And as the blood of the passover saved those who were in Egypt, so also the blood of Christ will deliver from death those who have believed.

The Letter that Eusebius publishes from Polycrates expresses the truth in the resurrection and the need to maintain Jewish customs in the same way that the writer of Acts does:

Quote:

As for us, then, we scrupulously observe the exact day,2 neither adding nor taking away. For in Asia great luminaries3 have gone to their rest, who shall rise again in the day of the coming of the Lord, when He cometh with glory from heaven and shall raise again all the saints. I speak of Philip, one of the twelve apostles,4 who is laid to rest at Hierapolis; and his two daughters, who arrived at old age unmarried;5 his other daughter also, who passed her life6 under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and reposes at Ephesus; John, moreover, who reclined on the Lord's bosom, and who became a priest wearing the mitre,7 and a witness and a teacher-he rests at Ephesus. Then there is Polycarp, both bishop and martyr at Smyrna; and Thraseas from Eumenia, both bishop and martyr, who rests at Smyrna. Why should I speak of Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who rests at Laodicea? of the blessed Papirius, moreover? and of Melito the eunuch,8 who performed all his actions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and lies at Sardis, awaiting the visitation9 from heaven, when he shall rise again from the dead? These all kept the passover on the fourteenth. day of the month, in accordance with the Gospel, without ever deviating from it, but keeping to the rule of faith.

Moreover I also, Polycrates, who am the least of you all, in accordance with the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have succeeded-seven of my relatives were bishops, and I am the eighth, and my relatives always observed the day when the people put away10 the leaven-I myself, brethren, I say, who am sixty-five years old in the Lord, and have fallen in with the brethren in all parts of the world, and have read through all Holy Scripture, am not frightened at the things which are said to terrify us. For those who are greater than I have said, "We ought to obey God rather than men."

I am not sure if this letter was from Polycrates to Victor as Eusebius says that it was, but if it is, we may link it with the highly Jewish orthodoxy displayed by the writer of Acts, who even has Paul circumcise Timothy to show his devotion ot Jewish customs.

It seems reasonable from this to conclude that the book of Acts was created in the 190's as it is keen to isolate the churches of Asia as having no part in the spreading of the Gospels to the Gentiles (Greeks and Romans) and to indite them for forcing the maintainance of Jewish practices. We may presume that Passover was celebrated by Christians until the time of Victor and the book of Acts is a creation of that time period when Bishop Victor of Rome creates the separate celebration of Easter and rejects the Passover celebration.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

The Gospels never (to our knowledge) had different names physically attached to them. All extant versions with their first verses intact include titles which ascribe them to their respective namesakes. Ehrman was referring to the variety of different forms of attribution. For example, many versions of Matthew are titled, simply, "According to Matthew," while others have a longer title, "The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew"--and everything in between.

JW:
This is wrong and why we need Roger Pearse and JP Holding to track down the source of this misinformation on the Internet. Where the hell are they when you really need them?:

1) Marcion is the first attributed user of a canonical Gospel ("Luke") and OCD confesses to us that he did not attribute authorship. Tertullian gives the OCD thinking that what good is a Gospel without an attributed source and the naming game is on.

2) In the middle second century the Gospels are thought of as group efforts. Justin refers to memoirs of the Apostles with no mention of a "Mark" or "Luke". His protege, Tatian, combines all four, and the title is not according to "Mark", "Matthew", "Luke" and "John". We have Gospels that claim to be a group effort.

3) The Gospel of Peter is considered authoritative so presumably at this time there was no "Mark" (interpreter of Peter) Gospel. Too many Peters.

4) Ignoreneaus finds Papias and attributes a Gospel to "Mark". The Gospel of Peter is still considered authoritative so that's why it's "Mark" and not Peter. Gradually OCD decides that this Canonical Gospel is the official Peter so the claim of Petrine contribution increases and the Gospel of Peter must decrease. See:

{snip for space}

This likely helps explain why we generally don't have extant for the early centuries. The early manuscripts either did not attribute or attributed to a non-Canonical. Exorcise them!

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

PhilosopherJay · 06-27-2009, 10:27 PM

Hi All,

Apparently Origen wrote a treatise on Passover circa 245. He apparently shows not the least awareness of anything called an Easter celebration or that there is any kind of dispute about it.

This suggests that Easter was not invented until at least after the mid-third century.

This suggests that everything that Eusebius wrote about there being a dispute over Easter in the Roman-Asia Churches was completely fictitious and meant to influence the dispute that was happening in his own time. The Council of Nicea, apparently at the behest of Constantine rejected the celebration of Passover and embraced the celebration of Easter. It is possible that Constantine invented the celebration himself.

Does anybody have any more facts about this? Is there any evidence outside of Eusebius to suggest that Easter was celebrated before the Fourth century?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Joe,

{Snip}
Warmly,

Philosopher Jay
{snip}

andrewcriddle · 06-28-2009, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Does anybody have any more facts about this? Is there any evidence outside of Eusebius to suggest that Easter was celebrated before the Fourth century?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

The Ancient Statue wth a probably 3rd century inscription about Hipppolytus including his Easter Cycle is evidence for 3rd century celebration of Easter by Roman Christians.

Andrew Criddle

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.