Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 01-03-2012, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Unfortunately Carrier's article takes for granted as gospel truth whatever came from the pen attributed to Eusebius.

I saw no statement to that effect when I read the article.

Duvduv · 01-03-2012, 05:24 AM

Well when giving historical data as a fact that may be challenged what other conclusion is there?

Duvduv · 01-03-2012, 05:27 AM

How quaint. Irenaeus is so blessed that no one knows anything about him ot if he really existed beyond his name on a book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The fact that all available information to tell us anything about the guy named Irenaeus comes first and foremost from a very biased unobjective writer who is described as a "historian" - Eusebius.......

Actually, in a writing attributed to Hippolytus, "Refutation of All Heresies" a writer is mentioneed called Irenaeus that wrote on the subject of heresies.

Refutation of All Heresies 6.37

Quote:

For also the blessed presbyter Irenaeus, having approached the subject of a refutation in a more unconstrained spirit, has explained such washings and redemptions, stating more in the way of a rough digest what are their practices. (And it appears that some of the Marcosians,) on meeting with (Irenaeus' work), deny that they have so received (the secret word just alluded to), but they have learned that always they should deny...

Doug Shaver · 01-03-2012, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Well when giving historical data as a fact that may be challenged what other conclusion is there?

Conclusion about what? If you're going to criticize Carrier's methodology, start quoting him, or else just admit that in your opinion, the mere fact that someone disagrees with you is sufficient to prove them incompetent.

mountainman · 01-04-2012, 06:06 AM

I dont know that its necessarily the case that Carriers article takes for granted as gospel truth whatever came from the pen attributed to Eusebius. I suggest you do a string search for Eusebius within the article. Here are some of the results:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC

* Eusebius, who is notorious for reporting (if not creating) forgeries.

* The first Christian seminary was established in Alexandria around 180 A.D. by Pantaenus, whom Eusebius claims had found a Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew in India, or perhaps Ethiopia or Arabia (M 129). Although the story is not entirely vouched for even by Eusebius (he presents it only as something that "is said"), it no doubt contributed to the belief that Matthew had originally been composed in Hebrew.

* Eusebius, the First History of the Church, and the Earliest Complete Bibles
The first Christian scholar to engage in researching and writing a complete history of the Christian church, Eusebius of Caesarea, reveals the embarrassing complexity of the development of the Christian canon, despite his concerted attempt to cover this with a pro-orthodox account. Two things must be known: first, Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous (see n. 6), and either way not a very good historian; second, Eusebius rewrote his History of the Church at least five times (cf. M 202, n. 29), in order to accommodate changing events, including the ever-important Council of Nicea.

* Even in 327 A.D., when Eusebius published the final draft of his Church History, two years after the great Council of Nicea, which set out to establish a decisive orthodox creed that would be enforced by law throughout the world, there was no official Bible. Bruce Metzger paints the picture superbly (202), for what drove Eusebius to pay so much attention to the history of the Bible must have been:

Eusebius' search for certainty as well as...the absence of any official declaration having an absolute value, such as a canon issued by a synod, or the collective agreement among churches or bishops. Of these there is not a trace in the long series of literary notices, so conscientiously amassed by the historian. But, when all is done, the most that Eusebius can register is uncertainty so great that he seems to get confused when making a statement about it.

* In giving priority to the Four Gospels, Eusebius calls them the "Holy Quaternion," thus showing signs of the belief that there could only be four Gospels for mystical or numerological reasons....

Finally here is a reference from the essay by Carrier directly applicable to the question "When did a NT canon really get established. The answer appears to be, it really got a huge kickstart to being established when Constantine ordered EUsebius to instruct his professionally trained scribes to produce 50 bibles ..... We may have some of these 50 ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC

* Most astonishing is the fact that, after leaving us with this confusing state of affairs, Eusebius reports that the Emperor Constantine commissioned Eusebius personally to produce fifty excellent copies of the sacred scriptures which would be the basis, no doubt, of the official imperial Bible (Life of Constantine 4.36.37), yet we are never told what books Eusebius chose to include, or on what authority or criteria. Two nearly-complete Bibles survive from the 4th century which some believe may be copies of this imperial standard text: the Codex Sinaiticus, which has the four Gospels, Acts, fourteen Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews), seven Catholic Epistles, the Revelation of John, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the book of Hermas, and the Vaticanus Codex, which appears to contain the same material in the same order, although both texts are incomplete (Sinaiticus breaks off in the middle of Hermas, Vaticanus in the middle of Hebrews). We may wonder what books, if any, were appended after Hermas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Unfortunately Carrier's article takes for granted as gospel truth whatever came from the pen attributed to Eusebius. This is very problematic as far as I am concerned because many scholars tend to simply add a secular halo to whatever is claimed by the loyal church "historians."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If there are questions about the dating of the Muratorian Fragment, which gives a list of the canon to around 180, questions about the authenticity of the Festal Letter from Athanasius from 364, doubts about anything written by "Tertullian" who supposedly had a list in 204, then all that's left is a supposed list from good old Eusebius from 325.

And of course this is compounded by the fact that the original Nicene Creed contained no words or statements that are obviously directly derived from the epistles or gospels.

Now if even that can be called into question, then WHEN did the masses of Christians or even their leadership have and know about a NT canon? Into the 5th century? Or even later?

You really must read "The Formation of the New Testament Canon" by Richard Carrier. You'll find it at http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html.

Duvduv · 01-04-2012, 06:41 AM

If the story of the fifty Bibles is more than mere legend, then who authorized the Christian texts to be considered on par in terms of sacred status with the Hebrew Scriptures as part of a Bible, and when did this happen?
And if there was an official canon of sacred Scripture in 325, why is there the festal letter allegedly written in 364 by Athanasius establishing a canon ? And what tests prove that these Bibles are from the 4th century?

aa5874 · 01-04-2012, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If the story of the fifty Bibles is more than mere legend, then who authorized the Christian texts to be considered on par in terms of sacred status with the Hebrew Scriptures as part of a Bible, and when did this happen?
And if there was an official canon of sacred Scripture in 325, why is there the festal letter allegedly written in 364 by Athanasius establishing a canon ? And what tests prove that these Bibles are from the 4th century?

What tests proves Athanasius wrote a letter establishing a Canon?

What tests proves the festal letter was written in 364 CE?

What tests proves it was written by Athanasius?

You are using the very same questionable sources but are asking others for proof.

Duvduv · 01-04-2012, 07:52 AM

That's not the point. The point is that official Christianity claims the legend of the 50 Bibles AND the story of the festal letter 40 years later, and doesn't explain how the selected Christian texts achieved status with Hebrew Scriptures under Constantine.

aa5874 · 01-04-2012, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

That's not the point. The point is that official Christianity claims the legend of the 50 Bibles AND the story of the festal letter 40 years later, and doesn't explain how the selected Christian texts achieved status with Hebrew Scriptures under Constantine.

You are attempting to use questionable sources as facts and then turn around and question others who use the very same sources. If you are claiming that nothing from Apologetic sources is credible and cannot be used then what is the point in discussing anything from antiquity about the NT Canon.

The written statements of antiquity from Apologetic sources about the NT Canon are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT whether or not you think they are credible.

Duvduv · 01-04-2012, 08:17 AM

You are again missing my point. An apologist can say anything. I simply want to know how a Bible was put together in 325 when 40 years later someone else established a canon according to commonly assumed history. And who decided such texts were to be on par with the Hebrew Scriptures in one book.And what evidence confirms such books are ones ordered by Constantine.
And didn't Athanasius have it 40 years later?
It doesn't make sense.
Apologists are interesting in terms of getting a sense of what was emerging in the later centuries. As you know I don't see how any of those books existed before the 4th century, and I couldn't care less that academic doctrine accepts church chronologies in those centuries.

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

01-03-2012, 05:24 AM	#12
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Well when giving historical data as a fact that may be challenged what other conclusion is there?

01-04-2012, 06:41 AM	#16
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	If the story of the fifty Bibles is more than mere legend, then who authorized the Christian texts to be considered on par in terms of sacred status with the Hebrew Scriptures as part of a Bible, and when did this happen? And if there was an official canon of sacred Scripture in 325, why is there the festal letter allegedly written in 364 by Athanasius establishing a canon ? And what tests prove that these Bibles are from the 4th century?

01-04-2012, 07:52 AM	#18
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	That's not the point. The point is that official Christianity claims the legend of the 50 Bibles AND the story of the festal letter 40 years later, and doesn't explain how the selected Christian texts achieved status with Hebrew Scriptures under Constantine.

01-04-2012, 08:17 AM	#20
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	You are again missing my point. An apologist can say anything. I simply want to know how a Bible was put together in 325 when 40 years later someone else established a canon according to commonly assumed history. And who decided such texts were to be on par with the Hebrew Scriptures in one book.And what evidence confirms such books are ones ordered by Constantine. And didn't Athanasius have it 40 years later? It doesn't make sense. Apologists are interesting in terms of getting a sense of what was emerging in the later centuries. As you know I don't see how any of those books existed before the 4th century, and I couldn't care less that academic doctrine accepts church chronologies in those centuries.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.