Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-02-2008, 09:02 AM

I think that Roger Parvus has an interesting solution to the Ignatius question, but I haven't had time to write up my thoughts.

He claims that Ignatius was the Christian Peregrinus who was lampooned by Lucian, and was a follower of Apelles, a sort-of heretic who wasn't as offensive to the proto-orthodox as Marcion. Ignatius/Peregrinus' letters were later worked over by a Catholic editor who left his fingerprints.

andrewcriddle · 10-02-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Can you send me the bibliographic info on these folks? I'm exloring some ideas about the lateness of Matthew and I'd like to see what they have to say.

I'd like to see this too.

Stephen

I've sent this by email to Stephen and Jeffrey but I'll post it here as well in case anyone else is interested

Some later scholars have expressed sympathy for dating Ignatius in the reign of Hadrian, but the classical case was put by Harnack in Die Zeit Des Ignatius und die Chronologie der Antiochenischen Bischofe...Leipzig 1878
I know this work only from the detailed critique of Lightfoot in The Apostolic Fathers 2nd edition 1889 Vol 2:2 pps 452--
The core argument is that while the names and relative order of the bishops of Antioch rests on very early tradition their absolute dates are a later reconstruction, with little authority (As distinct from the bishops of Rome where the absolute dates are based on genuine tradition). Without the need of Julius Africanus and/or Eusebius to have the list of bishops of Antioch commence in early apostolic times it is more plausibe (on both external and internal grounds) to date the death of Ignatius 15 or more years later than Eusebius does.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack · 10-03-2008, 07:25 AM

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2...-vexation.html

Quote:

But in New Testament studies, the fact that the evidence only establishes termini for Matthew between A.D. 70 and 130 isn't something you will hear about in the references. Indeed, I say 130 only because the possibility that the earliest demonstrable terminus ante quem for Matthew may be as late as 170 involves a dozen more digressions even lengthier than this entire post. Because all the relevant issues of who actually said what and when remains a nightmare of debate so frustrating that I actually gave up on it mid-research, seeing it would take months to continue to any sort of conclusion, and not even a clear conclusion at that. Mind-numbing, truly.

JW:
This reminds me of the dating of Papias. Apologists commonly date it to c. 115. Our own Stephen Carlson dates it to c. 125 http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm

The only Explicit dating reference comes from Philip of Side:

http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html#philipside [I've come to prefer Ben's translations over Stephen's]

Quote:

Papias in the second volume says that John the theologian and James his brother were done away with by Jews. The aforesaid Papias reported as having received it from the daughters of Philip that Barsabas who is Justus, tested by the unbelievers, drank the venom of a viper in the name of the Christ and was protected unharmed. He also reports other wonders and especially that about the mother of Manaemus, her resurrection from the dead. Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian.

JW:
As Roger Pearse advises us, why not take the man at his word? Hadrian's reign was 117-138. The point here is POS (Philip of Side's) reference only provides an Earliest date. Papias is no earlier than 117. POS does not provide a range of dating with a Latest date of 138. Based on POS Papias can be later than 138.

We have the related problem that Eusebius, who is the key witness for Early daters, neglects to mention the Hadrian reference in Papias, the only known Explicit reference, and now his credibility is impeached on the subject. It would appear that dating of key ancient writings by Christianity is just like going on TV. It adds 10 - 20 years to your life.

In my brief and casual critique of Jake O'Connor's god awful chapter in that book who's name escapes me at the moment, I point out that Jake-off summarily dismisses POS' as evidence even though it is the single best piece of evidence we have on the subject (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...87#post5472887). Having Jake-off debate Dr. Carrier on anything is as ridiculous as having Sarah Palin debate Joe Biden.

As Dr. Carrier points out, objective dating of early Christian writings needs to be done. In the words of that great 20th century philosopher Scarface, "It's like a great big p...". Well, anyway, it's waiting for someone like Dr. Carrier or Ehrman to get it right.

For fans of Dr. Carrier we have an upcoming project at ErrancyWiki where he will be writing an article regarding the likely original ending of "Mark" with the first part External evidence and the second part Internal evidence. Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a Rocky ride. Yea!

Joseph

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

Theophage · 10-03-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

If only the angel at the tomb of Jesus had hung around a bit longer and told many more people, rather than just telling a few people that it knew would not be considered credible witnesses, then we would have clear evidence , rather than a swamp.

Still, I imagine angels have more pressing business than announcing the resurrection of Jesus to more than a couple of people.

If there were a god, the evidence would be a lot clearer, would it not?

I've always though that it would be excellent evidence if Jesus himself stayed on the Earth after the resurrection. Imagine a 2000 year old guy we could talk to and ask questions of. There would be no need for a Bible, other than a collected work of his teachings directly from his mouth. And we could all seek the proof of Thomas.

andrewcriddle · 10-04-2008, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

This reminds me of the dating of Papias. Apologists commonly date it to c. 115. Our own Stephen Carlson dates it to c. 125 http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm

The only Explicit dating reference comes from Philip of Side:

http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html#philipside [I've come to prefer Ben's translations over Stephen's]

Quote:

Papias in the second volume says that John the theologian and James his brother were done away with by Jews. The aforesaid Papias reported as having received it from the daughters of Philip that Barsabas who is Justus, tested by the unbelievers, drank the venom of a viper in the name of the Christ and was protected unharmed. He also reports other wonders and especially that about the mother of Manaemus, her resurrection from the dead. Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian.

JW:
As Roger Pearse advises us, why not take the man at his word? Hadrian's reign was 117-138. The point here is POS (Philip of Side's) reference only provides an Earliest date. Papias is no earlier than 117. POS does not provide a range of dating with a Latest date of 138. Based on POS Papias can be later than 138.

The problem is that it is on actuarial grounds it is most unlikely to be true (or even believed to be true) that people healed by Jesus were still around over 80 years later.

PDS is probably conflating the claim of Papias to be writing in the time of Hadrian and the claim of Papias that the resurrected dead were still around in his (Papias') time.

IE Papias, writing as an older man in the time of Hadrian, claimed that the resurrected dead were still around when he (Papias) was young.

Andrew Criddle

youngalexander · 10-04-2008, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IE Papias, writing as an older man in the time of Hadrian, claimed that the resurrected dead were still around when he (Papias) was young.

Andrew Criddle

I'm feeling quite bilious.:vomit:

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

10-02-2008, 09:02 AM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think that Roger Parvus has an interesting solution to the Ignatius question, but I haven't had time to write up my thoughts. He claims that Ignatius was the Christian Peregrinus who was lampooned by Lucian, and was a follower of Apelles, a sort-of heretic who wasn't as offensive to the proto-orthodox as Marcion. Ignatius/Peregrinus' letters were later worked over by a Catholic editor who left his fingerprints.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.