Freethought & Rationalism Archive

09-07-2006, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Greetings,

Thanks, and yes - the diaTessaron's history is rather murky. What we have may not be from Tatian at all.

But,
the main issue is the NAME "four" - which suggest someone had four MSS they considered authentic, before they were named.

I wonder when the first mention of the title "diaTessaron" is? I'll look around a bit...

Iasion

David B · 09-07-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

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

That's something I hadn't considered before! I had come across the idea that Irenaous had some sort of mystical reason for choosing 4.

The idea that the ( hypothetical) fact of there being four gospels, leading to Ireneous finding a metaphysical justification for there being 4, just hadn't occured to me.

But weren't there loads of gospels circulating in his time?

If so, why just pick four?

David B

The Evil One · 09-07-2006, 06:08 PM

Well as a non-expert the impression I've gained from what I read is that they picked four for doctrinal reasons: they were the four that happened to fit reasonably well with what the orthodoxy happened to believe. The others didn't fit so well, so weren't canonised. IIRC this was made explicit by the churchmen involved in the canonisation process: books had to accord with the correct doctrine to be included. Once a number had been picked, Irenaeus (or whoever) could then find some post hoc justification for the number, a justification which I would hypothesise then did service as an additional reason to deny the authority of those gospels that didn't fit with orthodox doctrine.

Dargo · 09-08-2006, 03:27 PM

I suppose it's possible there were five approved gospels at one point, and they decided to eliminate one because they couldn't think of a good mystical meaning for the number five. We'll never know, but it's fun to speculate.

aa5874 · 09-08-2006, 03:57 PM

Quote:

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.

This passage also has chronological problems in terms of the dating of the books. As far as I understand Mark was written before Matthew.

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

09-07-2006, 06:08 PM	#13
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	Well as a non-expert the impression I've gained from what I read is that they picked four for doctrinal reasons: they were the four that happened to fit reasonably well with what the orthodoxy happened to believe. The others didn't fit so well, so weren't canonised. IIRC this was made explicit by the churchmen involved in the canonisation process: books had to accord with the correct doctrine to be included. Once a number had been picked, Irenaeus (or whoever) could then find some post hoc justification for the number, a justification which I would hypothesise then did service as an additional reason to deny the authority of those gospels that didn't fit with orthodox doctrine.

09-08-2006, 03:27 PM	#14
Dargo Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 713	I suppose it's possible there were five approved gospels at one point, and they decided to eliminate one because they couldn't think of a good mystical meaning for the number five. We'll never know, but it's fun to speculate.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.