sharrock

http://www.whycallmegod.com/readers-comments.html

To use the author's blurb ...

# The gospels were recursive sequels to the Greek version of the book of Genesis.
# Far from being of Christian origin, these were all Gnostic texts.

Doug Shaver

With certainty? No, they can't. The evidence just isn't that good. But I think there are a few things we can be reasonably confident about.

Oh, I think we can be pretty sure that the resurrection never really happened.

The problem is not how long ago it happened. The problem is the quality of the extant evidence. I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks it reasonable to doubt whether Julius Caesar was assassinated.

That kind of depends on whom you're willing to characterize as a skeptic. There's a lot more to skepticism than just not having any religious beliefs.

missblue

Hm... I guess I worded it poorly. A better word would have been 'critical', I think. It's not really the idea of not having belief that makes me think someone might be more unbiased... it's just that when people have a very inflexible belief in something, they usually try to fit whatever they discover around those beliefs so their system isn't threatened. And usually it's people that are extremely religious that try to flex logic to fit their presumptions about history and life in general. People that are more skeptical than religious might be more open to differentiating opinions because they don't feel threatened like a very religious person may feel if something comes up and puts a kink in their religious convictions.

But I guess this can run either way... if someone is adamantly opposed to the idea that Jesus existed, they may be more likely to read into what they find to support that idea.... just like if someone is adamantly opposed to the idea that Jesus is anything less than 'Lord'.

That's one of the main reasons why I'm wary of Christian apologetic versions of early Christian history, because I think that they may feel threatened by any indications that threaten what they believe is the 'truth'... which could subconsciously create a bias in their findings.

Er... or something along those lines. sorry for rambling.

missblue

Thanks for the recommendations and other comments as well. I'm going to look into the blogs and other articles suggested.

Kapyong

Gday,
And welcome :-)

It is a common mis-conception that the Council of Nicea selected the books of the bible - this claim is repeated endlessly on the 'net.

But it is not true.
The CoN had nothing to do with choosing the books of the bible at all, they did not even discuss the subject.

You can read the actual decisions of the council here :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
You will note NO mention of the canon at all.

Roger Pearse did a handy page on this subject too :
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

And, you can read about the formation of the NT canon here :
http://www.ntcanon.org/index.shtml

The NT formed over time, various people and minor councils discussed it (see e.g. Rome, Hippo, Carthage.)

Constantine's bibles were produced shortly after Nicea, and they did not quite match our modern versions (if Aleph or B is one.)

(By the way - 'council' is a meeting; 'counsel' is a lawyer.)


K.

Roger Pearse

All the Christian writers of that period have been translated into English and are freely available online. You can get them from here, for instance:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2

supplemented with here:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers

The first set is also on CCEL, in a better proof-read but less easy to grasp structure. Looking through the index pages of first 10 volumes of the first link will give you a good idea of what exists and who wrote what.

The set does not include the material discovered at Nag Hammadi as this was only made available ca. 1970. The material from that site is all semi-pagan -- indeed part of Plato's "Republic" was among the find -- but probably would have been included as apocrypha had the 19th century translators known of its existence.

This is largely erroneous. There is no trace of a period that is so free-wheeling. As soon as we see a list of New Testament scriptures, it's four gospels, plus Acts, plus Paul's letters. That seems to be pretty universal in all the Christian churches. Soon afterwards people start faking gospels in the interest of various weird gnostic groups -- but these were and are easy to spot because they advocate gnostic views rather than apostolic ones.

What was less settled was the status of the other books, some of which were only known in certain geographical areas. Christians were also willing to believe that there might be additional books such as the Shepherd of Hermas. The process only settled down in the 4th century, when gradually communication among the churches led to harmonisation of the last few books like Hebrews.

No. This is seriously misleading. All the early Christians believed that Jesus was God. Some of the heretical groups questioned whether he was really man (docetism). Marcion was one such heretic, making up both his own NT and his own books. But when he met Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle John, and asked him to recognise him, Polycarp said "I recognise the first born of Satan".

There is a fraud practised in religious studies courses in some universities, where they gather together all the literature surrounding early Christianity, including texts that the apostles and those who knew them rejected as fake. They then behave as if these are all equally apostolic, despite the lack of evidence for, and clear evidence against; and then they assert that "early Christians" (subtle fraud on naming) believed "diverse things". Beware of such games with words.

No. The First Council of Nicaea was concerned with whether the Second Person of the Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First Person, or of like substance. It also harmonised the date of Easter.

There is some extraordinary material out there. Be sceptical. I no longer believe anything I hear on the subject unless it is referenced and quoted from the primary sources, and I have gone and looked to see what they say. The quantity of falsification, quote-mining, and sheer lying that goes on is disgusting. Whether Christianity is true or not, the facts about its origins are what they are; and only a fool would try to falsify them purely because the Great and the Good of our day find "do not commit adultery" inconvenient!

This is an excellent question, because you have put your finger on the key problem with the story you have heard. It is, of course, quite impossible for any council to have such authority. That's why the canon is never decided at any one point; it drifts together, because no-one has the authority to say yes or no. At most a council may list books that are "received" because fakes are being circulated around (the council of Carthage does that). But authority to decide what God is? Not likely.

What they mostly do is reject things. They can say that some interpretation is wrong.

Indeed so. Note that this is a very protestant point of view, of course, and others may think differently. Talk to someone Greek orthodox if you want to get the far side of the other point of view (although how anyone can defend Ephesus in 433 I have not worked out; but that probably means I don't understand the argument properly).

Here you have segued into a different argument. Do keep these arguments that you are reading clear and distinct in your mind.

The argument is vague. It usually insinuates that no book can be divinely inspired unless it is transmitted by photocopying. This is primarily a theological argument, not a scholarly one. Reducing it even further: "no book can be divinely inspired that is copied by human beings". You would need to seek the advice of a Christian on that, but I think they would disagree.

On the general point, there is a lurking obscuranism. The suggestion is that we don't actually have any books from antiquity, since all of them are transmitted in this way, and the NT better than all the rest. This won't do. For all reasonable purposes, we do have these books. (All this very briefly, as you appreciate).

This is not how books *actually* get transmitted. It's useless to interpolate, because you don't know that YOUR copy is going to be the ancestor of those which reach 2010.

The errors that you have already picked up should be evidence enough for you that sites hostile to Christianity are likely to be even worse!

On Christian origins, everyone is biased. Just accept it and live with it.

I wouldn't read any history of the early church, other than Eusebius "Church History". He was writing ca. 310 AD, and had access to masses of now lost material. Not to know his work well is to be at the mercy of anyone with an agenda. Beyond him, I would go straight to the primary sources, and start working your way through the 10 volumes.

I venture to differ.

"History is mostly bunk" is obscurantism, tho.

Applying the same logic elsewhere, go to Jew-haters rather than Israeli websites for information on modern Judaism...

Be very careful. Most "sceptics" are merely Christian-haters whose positive values are convenience and conformity. Neither equips them to be sceptical about anything they want to believe.

No, you have to educate yourself on this (sorry!)

You probably also need to read some of the Hermetic corpus, and the Sybilline books, if you go down that route, for comparison.

Best avoid the hate-literature and its authors until you have a solid knowledge of the raw data. Once you do, you will wince at what gets passed around.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Doug Shaver

That does happen.

We all have our biases. What you need to look for is how it affects the arguments made for whatever position is being advocated. Usually, it shows up in assumptions that are never stated. In particular, a very common manifestation of bias is question-begging, where an argument's premises depend on presupposing the conclusion. You can see a lot of that in Christian apologetics, if you know how to look for it.

Equinox

missblue, others are correct in that you'll need to do plenty of learning and checking sources. One good place to start are the excellent courses from the Teaching Company, which are recorded classes from top scholars are Ivy-league Universities. They are available in Audio, DVD, and my favorite, MP3 download to a walkman or car. I listen to them on my commute.

Some that deal directly with your topic of interest are:

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDe....aspx?cid=6597
(on sale now)

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDe....aspx?cid=6577

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDe....aspx?cid=6299

They have a funny sale system - basically, everything goes on sale often, and then it is at a big discount. The best plan is to wait for what you want to go on sale, then buy it then.

Be sure to read from various sources, and to check original sources when possible.

Roger, while I respect a lot of your posts, I find some things in your most recent post that sound like an apologist. For isntance:

How do you know the time from 50 to 150 is not open like this? We do see from surviving documents that much of the Christian writing is Christians arguing against other Christians about which Christianity is the correct Christianity. This is the case even in the New Testament.

Is not Marcion's canon the first canon, which is not as you describe? Papias does not list a canon, and Marcion does not list all four gospels.

Why would you say that, when early Christian writers mention that various Christian churchs use various other Christian Gospels?

Are you not predeciding that the apostles (12 disciples + Paul) held views in line with your church, as all early Christians would have done? What apostolic writings do we have other than Paul, who is only a later "apostle" based on his own claim to become an apostle?

Equinox

show_no_mercy

Prior to Marcion, the only "holy scripture" was the Tanakh (Old Testament). Marcion apparently established his canon since he wanted to separate Jews from Christians; he was probably aware (according to Tertullian's AM 4.4.4) that there were some Christians who were using a gospel "mutilated by the defenders of Judaism" as the only supplementary Christian work to the Tanakh.

This is a list (from here, but it's in Greek ) of NT books that were considered "canonical" until the 4th century. Though "canonical" might not be the correct word, but more like "popular" or "considered authentic":

Ebionites and/or "defenders of Judaism" (early 2nd century; before Marcion)
Some version of Matthew (not called Matthew but was anonymous)

Marcion (c. 140 CE)
Some version of Luke (not called Luke but was anonymous), 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Colossians, Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipeans

Justin Martyr (c. 150 CE)
Memoirs of the Apostles (a harmonized version of possibly all four canonical gospels; gospels were still anonymous at this point)

Irenaeus (c. 175 CE)
Mark, Matt, Luke, John, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Colossians, Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipeans, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 & 2 John, Revelation of John, Sheppard of Hermas

Muratorian Fragment (end of 2nd century)
Mark, Matt, Luke, John, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Colossians, Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipeans, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 & 2 John, Jude, Revelation of John, Revelation of Peter

Tertullian (c. 202 CE)
Mark, Matt, Luke, John, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Colossians, Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipeans, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude, Revelation of John

Origen (c. 230 CE)
Mark, Matt, Luke, John, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Colossians, Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipeans, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation of John, Sheppard of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache (Origen was unsure about the authenticity of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and 1 Clement)

Hippolytus (c. 220 CE)
Mark, Matt, Luke, John, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Colossians, Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipeans, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 & 2 Peter, 1 John, Revelation of John

Eusebius (c. 320 CE)
Mark, Matt, Luke, John, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Colossians, Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipeans, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, (Eusebius was unsure about the authenticity of James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation of John)

Roger Pearse

Do you mean, "because we have no data in that period it might have been like that"? If so, surely you're mistaken about the data, unless you date all of the NT before 50 AD and all of the Fathers after 150, and ignore the personal testimony of people like Polycarp and Irenaeus. But what I wanted to address was the logic of the argument -- we can't contradict a "there is no data for such a thing" statement by a "what if where we have no data something actually happened, even though we don't know anything of the kind..." argument.

I'm unclear what the argument is. We have to work from what the data says.

No ancient text says that Marcion drew up a canon, tho. That's a modern piece of invention. Rather the texts say that, from the existing texts, he decided to omit bits. He could hardly have done so had a canon not already existed of some form.

These comments seem very vague, and I cannot work out what you are claiming, or what you are offering as evidence to support that claim. A look at ancient canon tables will quickly tell you why I stated that the canon used everywhere as soon as we have data on it is 4 gospels + Acts + Paul.

Leaving aside the ad hominem, I am really very unclear what if any point is being made here. You seem to suggest that there was no apostle other than Paul, no-one ever knew any apostles, and we have no apostolic writings. No ancient source supports any of these claims, and all the evidence indicates the opposite.

All the best,

Roger Pearse