Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 06-09-2011, 10:34 AM

Thanks Jay. I'm not knowledgable enough to judge such things at a high level, but on a common sense level this seems to explain the general situation before the 3rd C.

I think we all agree that the story presented in the gospels and Acts was a carefully crafted narrative intended to support the beliefs and ambitions of catholic apologists and patristic writers long after the events of the 1st C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi bacht,

I agree. It seems an important key that answers a great many questions. Only this hypothesis really answers significant questions about the origin of the New Testament. It was by a single powerful person in the late second or early third century fighting primarily against the Marcion Church who put the massive tome together. In the second century, Christianity is a hoard of different cults with quite different theories and text regarding the Jesus mysteries. Essentially, nobody until Irenaeus mentions a New Testament either to be for or against it. It is only in the Third Century the text becomes a rallying cry for a new Christian Orthodoxy battling the hoards of expanding Christian cults.

Once we accept this hypothesis, we can propose a corollary hypothesis that the editor of the new testament was the writer of Luke and Acts. Writing Luke was a way of getting over the contradictions between Mark and Matthew which would be necessary in the fight against Marcionism. Adding John seems to have been an afterthought. It was probably a book that he found after his Luke work was done. After editing Mark and Matthew and writing Luke, he just cut the direct contradictions he found in John. He was pretty exhausted from working with all this material and that's why he ended John by writing, "Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ ἃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἅτινα ἐὰν γράφηται καθ’ ἓν, οὐδ’ αὐτὸν οἶμαι τὸν κόσμον χωρήσειν τὰ γραφόμενα βιβλία. ὅτι" (so many books, so little time - or something like that)

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I don't understand why this isn't the default starting point for contemporary NT studies.

aa5874 · 06-09-2011, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Thanks Jay. I'm not knowledgable enough to judge such things at a high level, but on a common sense level this seems to explain the general situation before the 3rd C.

I think we all agree that the story presented in the gospels and Acts was a carefully crafted narrative intended to support the beliefs and ambitions of catholic apologists and patristic writers long after the events of the 1st C....

So, one must therefore expect the NT CANON must be COMPATIBLE with the teachings and Doctrine of the Church AFTER it was CAREFULLY CRAFTED to the BELIEFS and Ambitions of Catholic apologists and Patristics writers.

Your ASSERTION is EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT and MUST ALWAYS be taken into account when analyzing the NT CANON.

The NT CANON was CAREFULLY CRAFTED and cannot be EXPECTED to be an HERETICAL document.

Now, based on the very books of the NT Canon it was TOTALLY unnecessary for any single sect to have FOUR CONTRADICTORY Jesus stories.

If one examines the birth narrative of Jesus in gMatthew and gLuke it is EASILY seen that one of the stories MUST be FALSE which would INDICATE that EACH CULT would ONLY need ONE Jesus story just to appear credible.

Even ORIGEN, supposedly AFTER Tertullian, up to the middle of the 3rd century, did claim that that there was NO ORTHODOXY among MANY Christians about Jesus.

This is EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT.

Examine Origen's "De Principiis"

Quote:

2. Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit, and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points......

Origen has in effect dispelled the notion that there any universal document for Christians. And earlier,m Justin Martyr wrote that it was "THE MEMOIRS of the Apostles" that was read in the Churches on Sundays that he attended and that there many other Christian cults with different doctrines.

It is KNOWN that it was the 4th century when ALL CHRISTIAN CULTS that believed any version of the Jesus story would have to UNITE to form a UNIVERSAL Church so it is most likely the 4th century when FOUR VERSIONS of the Jesus stories were SELECTED and a CANON was USED in ALL CHURCHES.

bacht · 06-09-2011, 11:52 AM

Stephan argues that Irenaeus was the great harmonizer, glossing over the Easter controversy (among others). I suspect every religion needs someone like this.

The Jews tried to unify their system with the Talmuds, but eventually there was a backlash against this (Karaites). In modern times we see Orthodox challenged by more liberal perspectives.

The Muslims have the Sunnis and Shiites. Seems to be a never-ending process.

stephan huller · 06-09-2011, 02:36 PM

The name Irenaeus already suggests a peace-maker of the canon as Origen already implies:

Quote:

To the man who is both ways a peacemaker, there is no longer anything in the Divine oracles crooked or perverse, for all things are plain to those who understand; and since to such an one there is nothing crooked or perverse, he sees abundance of peace everywhere in Scripture, even in those parts which appear not to agree and to be contradictory to one another. But there is also a third peacemaker, he, viz. who shows that what to the eyes of others seems like disagreement in the Scriptures is not really so, and who proves that harmony and concord exist, whether between the Old and the New, or the Law and the Prophets, or Gospel and Gospel, or Evangelists and Apostles, or Apostles and other Apostles. For, according to the Preacher, all the Scriptures, words of the wise, are as goads, and as nails well fastened, words which were given from collections from one shepherd, and there is nothing superfluous in them. And the Word is "one shepherd" of things relating to the Word, which do indeed sound discordant to those who have not ears to hear, but are in truth most harmonious.

For as the different strings of the psaltery or the lyre, each of which gives forth a note of its own seemingly unlike that of any other, are thought by an unmusical man who does not understand the theory of harmony to be discordant, because of the difference in the notes: so they who have not ears to detect the harmony of God in the sacred Scriptures suppose that the Old Testament is not in harmony with the New, or the Prophets with the Law, or the Gospels with one another, or an Apostle with the Gospel, or with himself, or with the other Apostles. But if a reader comes who has been instructed in God's music, a man who happens to be wise in word and deed, and on that account, it may be, called David, which being interpreted is "a cunning player," he will produce a note of God's music, for he will have learned from God's music to keep good time, playing now upon the strings of the Law, now upon those of the Gospel in harmony with them, now upon those of the Prophets; and when the harmony of good sense is required he strikes the apostolic strings tuned to suit the foregoing, and, similarly, apostolic strings in harmony with those of Evangelists. For he knows that the whole Scripture is the one, perfect, harmonious instrument of God, blending the different notes, for those who wish to learn, into one song of salvation, which stops and hinders all the working of an evil spirit, as the music of David laid to rest the evil spirit in Saul which was vexing him. You observe, then, that there is a third kind of peacemaker, he who keeping close to the Scripture both sees the peace which pervades it everywhere, and bestows it on those who rightly seek the truth and are really eager to learn. [Origen Philocalia chapter 6]

It's no wonder they got rid of this material. It sounds very heretical to me

mountainman · 06-09-2011, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It is universally accepted that the authors of the canonical and patristic literature were not the same authors of the non canonical and apocryphal literature. The former were the orthodox, the latter were the gnostic heretics.

As I see it, the orthodox literature was published and promoted by the orthodoxy. The mainstream opinion - as the OP - has it that the epoch of first publishing of the new testament books was c.180 CE. You will note that Trobisch and everyone else is focussed intently on the canonical books, and the history of the gnostic heretics publishing is not mentioned.

I see the non canonical literature as an uncontrollable grass-roots reaction by the academics in the Panhellenic culture of Alexandria against the appearance of the Constantine Bible, and that the authorship of this category of literature did not commence until after Nicaea.

I don't see how you've proven that the non-canonical material dates to the 4th C.

Hi bacht,

I have written as essay which is not yet peer reviewed, but which argues the case that the best explanation for the all the available evidence is that the noncanonical material was not authored between 100-400 CE, but between the years of 325-336 CE. It is located here.

Quote:

Do we even know how many gnostics were left by Constantine's time? They seem to have gradually disappeared in the 3rd C.

I suggest the Gnostics were non christians who underwent an extinction event commencing c.324 CE. They managed to translate the Greek reaction (which was burnt except for fragments) to Coptic at Nag Hammadi near the S-Bend in the Nile in the mid 4th century. Everything was consigned to the earth in the face of the 4th century Christian persecution and intolerance of heretics and their "Verboten Forbidden Writings".

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

06-09-2011, 11:52 AM	#83
bacht Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 2,305	Stephan argues that Irenaeus was the great harmonizer, glossing over the Easter controversy (among others). I suspect every religion needs someone like this. The Jews tried to unify their system with the Talmuds, but eventually there was a backlash against this (Karaites). In modern times we see Orthodox challenged by more liberal perspectives. The Muslims have the Sunnis and Shiites. Seems to be a never-ending process.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.