Johnny Skeptic

Today, we attempt to reliably assess what happened two millennia ago based upon the means that are available to us at this time, but what means were available to people living in the 2nd century? James Holding has said that after the deaths of the still living eyewitnesses a consistent oral tradition sustained the growth of the early Christian Church, but how consistent was the growth in the 2nd century? People back then were most certainly not capable of engaging in debates like the ones that we have here at the IIDB. How might some of the debates between Christians and skeptics have gone on in the 2nd century?

It is important to note that today, in court trials it is often difficult to determine what went on just weeks before, sometimes even with the testimonies of "living" supposed eyewitnesses, let alone determine what happened two thousand years ago based primarily upon hearsay evidence that in some cases might have been third hand or even fourth hand.

Roger Pearse

Firstly, eyewitness testimony, and second or third hand accounts transmitted orally. So Irenaeus tells us that the apostle John was still around in 100AD; that John's disciple Polycarp, Irenaeus' master, was still alive and preaching what John had said and done in 150AD in Rome. No doubt there were many other examples, today unknown to us.

Likewise a mass of literature existed which is not now extant. There is a heavy bias towards apologetics in the extant remains of the second century literature, which is the result of an accident in the 10th century AD when Archbishop Arethas of Caesarea ordered a collection made of it for his library. Sadly no similar accident preserved the (outdated, from the then contemporary point of view) theological material.

I don't believe we have statistics of the kind that would allow us to answer this, although someone will correct me if I am wrong. So we have to resort to what data we have. Mind you, some archaeology -- gravestones and the like -- may come in here.

At the start of the 2nd century, there were enough Christians in Bithynia for the temples to be deserted, according to Pliny the Younger. By the end of it Tertullian could boast that Christians had filled all the empire, and were to be found even outside the empire: rhetorical, of course, but the uptake of men of the standard of Tertullian, Origen, Minucius Felix, and Cyprian indicates a movement significant enough to attract men of serious social status.

Persecutions took place at intervals, and we know of more as the century progresses. The handbook of Ulpian, De officiis proconsularis (On the duties of the proconsul), issued in the reign of Commodus, had a book devoted to the punishments to be inflicted on Christians, which would not have been the case had it not been necessary.

But all of this is circumstantial evidence, and we are not in any sense obliged to consider that the church had steady numerical growth throughout the period, as far as I can see.

I'm not sure what you mean, but public debates on philosophy and religion were very popular in that period, far more so than today. Think of the dialogue between Justin Martyr and Trypho. Indeed Justin himself was denounced to the police, arrested and executed, after defeating the Cynic philosopher Crescens in just such a debate.

'Sceptics'? I'm not sure what we're looking for under this heading. Those opposed to Christianity -- an illegal movement, remember -- were either pagans or Jews.

But none are preserved verbatim, although I suppose the Acts of the Martyrs of Scilli come close, brief as they are. These derive very closely from the official court record, in which the magistrate demands that the rural Christians renounced their religion, and there is some little discussion. [Note that 'Christianus sum' (I am a Christian), the only remark of some of the defendants, was itself a confession to a capital criminal offence.] The martyrdom of Polycarp, the letter of the Gallican martyrs, and the Passio Perpetuae give some sort of idea. But these are all statements in the context of institutional anti-Christian violence.

We have Origen, Contra Celsum which is a leaflet by Celsus, and Origen's responses. Chadwick's translation is the best of this. Justin and Trypho I have mentioned. Tertullian's Apologeticum is a little later, and is responding to non-Christian allegations. Glover's translation is the best of this.

There is also the 4th century Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes, in that form, although later, of course.

All of these -- although not in the best translations -- are online.

Does not this point -- which of course has some validity -- really suggest the impossibility of any accurate history, tho, not specifically the history of Christianity? Consider that the cult of Glycon was patronised by emperors, yet all we have in the way of literary accounts is the sneery diatribe of Lucian. Do we discard what has come down to us, on that sort of ground? Or do we accept what we have, and look for more?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnny Skeptic

As Elaine Pagels said, “The victors rewrote history, their way.� In other words, the historical winners preserved only texts that were favorable to their agenda.

Pagels also said "For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: '...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.'"

Larry Taylor said "How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned."

In his book titled ‘The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World,’ Christian author S. Angus, Ph.D., D.Lit., D.D., says the following:

“No one could have dreamed that the Christians, who had themselves suffered so much from persecution and protested so vehemently against the injustice and futility of persecution, would so quickly have turned persecutors and surpassed their Pagan predecessors in fanatical savagery and efficiency, utterly oblivious of the Beatitude of the Divine Master (Matt. V. 10, 44, 45). It became ominous for subsequent history that the first General Council of the Church was signalized by bitter excommunications and banishments. Christians, having acquired the art of disposing of hostile criticism by searching out and burning the objectionable books of their Pagan adversaries, learned to apply the same method to the works of such groups of Christians as were not in power or in favour for the time; when this method proved unsatisfactory, they found it expedient to burn their bodies. The chained skeleton found in the Mithraic chapel at Sarrebourg testified to the drastic means employed by Christians in making the truth conquer otherwise than by the methods and exemplified by the Founder. The stripping and torture to death with oyster-shells in a Christian church and the subsequent mangling of limb from limb of Hypatia, the noblest representative of Neo-Platonism of her day, by the violent Nitrian monks and servitors of a Christian bishop, and probably with his connivance, were symptomatic and prophetic of the intolerance and fanaticism which Christianity was to direct throughout the centuries upon its disobedient members and troublesome minorities until the day – yet to dawn – when a purer, more convincing because more spiritual, Christianity gains ‘the consent of happier generation, the applause of less superstitious ages.’�

There is plenty of evidence of Christians leaders telling lies. The gross exaggeration of the number of Christian martyrs is a good example. In an article at the Secular Web, Joseph McCabe says the following:

"Even the most orthodox reader will recognize the force of the modern criticism of martyr-legends when so retrograde a work as the 'Catholic Encyclopedia' is compelled to admit it. Usually its writers deny the most certain facts of science or history with an ease that must command the envy of a politician."

A martyr is someone who is given a chance to recant his religious beliefs, refuses to do so and is persecuted and/or killed as a result. Regarding Christians who have been persecuted and/or killed over the centuries, there is no evidence that the majority of them were given a chance to recant their religious beliefs, refused to do so and were persecuted and/or killed as a result.

There is in fact no evidence that Iranaeus said anything about John. All that we have are copies of what Iranaeus supposedly said that were preserved by the historical winners. We also don’t know what Jesus really said, only what the Gospel writers said that he said, second hand of course, and possibly even third hand or fourth hand.

Regarding the extant second hand and third hand accounts that you mentioned, am I correct that all that we have are copies? Copies of originals can easily be altered. Innocent but inaccurate revelation is a reasonable possibility. You will have to admit that innocent but inaccurate revelations are quite common in religious literature.

Historically, humans have had a penchant for dreaming up all sorts of religions. If Christianity had not come along, Iranaeus et al would likely have followed Judaism or pagan religions, both of which would have been questionable choices indeed, and they would have defended those religions just as vigorously as they defended their orthodox Christian views. Since their judgment would have been questionable if Christianity had not come along, it is logical to conclude that their judgment was also questionable when they became Christians. If Christianity was not around today, what would your world view be?

Regardless of the number of Christians, beliefs are only as good as the evidence upon which they are based. The evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is conspicuous by its absence. Christians can’t even produce any external evidence at all regarding how many people claimed to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. How many people became Christians is one issue, but how many people claimed to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead is another issue entirely. In your opinion, how many claimed eyewitnesses does it take in order to make a decent case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus? In addition, do you believe that a decent case can be made for the Resurrection based upon the Gospels alone?

I know that you are familiar with John Sparks from the Theology Web. I once debated him in a thread that I started on IQ and interest in religion. He said that there is no automatic correlation that can be made between how many people believe something and the truth. Do you agree with that? I do.

Same as before.

I don’t mind looking for more, but where do we look? The return of Jesus is the only way that we can clear up these matters. Here we are two millennia after the supposed resurrection of Jesus and the Devil is still loose, people still get sick, and we still have wars and hunger. No Christian is enjoying a comfortable life in the city of New Jerusalem. Christians have hope, but they have nothing at all of any tangible value. A promise made is not necessarily a promise kept.

Regarding “Does not this point really suggest the impossibility of any accurate history, though, not specifically the history of Christianity?,� you have incorrectly stated the position held by skeptics. They have never to my knowledge used the word “impossibility.� Typical of fundamentalist Christians, you seek to redefine the word “history.� The majority of historians do not consider the Resurrection to be a historical event, nor should they. Since there is no evidence at all that miracles exist today, why should anyone conclude that they existed in ancient times? Otherwise stated, since there is no tangible evidence at all that the God of the Bible exists today, why should anyone conclude that he ever did exist? While ordinary historical events have always occurred, there is no evidence at all that miracles have ever occurred. While the odds are 100% that ordinary historical events have always occurred, the odds are astronomical against a person being conceived by the Holy Spirit, being born of a virgin, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven, and hiding for two millennia after promising to return to earth, claims which, if true, were without prior precedent or subsequent duplication in all of human history.

If I thought that there was only a 10% chance that miracles exist, I would go out of my way to prove that they do exist. Any skeptic would love for miracles to exist to help us with our many burdens, and any skeptic would love to have a celestial, loving Daddy to provide him with a comfortable eternal life.

Further regarding “the impossibility of ancient history,� aside from the Resurrection, what difference does it make to you what actually happened in ancient history? You have a perceived vested interest in whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, but you don’t have a perceived vested interest regarding any other ancient historical claim. You don’t spend anywhere near the time, if any time at all, defending ordinary historical claims because you are well aware that they don’t have any eternal significance whatsoever.

Following are excerpts from ‘Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story’ by Richard Carrier:

"Nevertheless, Christian apologist Douglas Geivett has declared that the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus meets, and I quote, 'the highest standards of historical inquiry' and 'if one takes the historian's own criteria for assessing the historicity of ancient events, the resurrection passes muster as a historically well-attested event of the ancient world,' as well-attested, he says, as Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C. Well, it is common in Christian apologetics, throughout history, to make absurdly exaggerated claims, and this is no exception. Let's look at Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon for a minute: First of all, we have Caesar's own word on the subject. Indeed, The Civil War has been a Latin classic for two thousand years, written by Caesar himself and by one of his generals who was definitely an eye-witness and who knew the man personally. In contrast, we do not have anything written by Jesus, and we do not know for certain the name of any author of any of the accounts of his physical resurrection.

“Second, we have many of Caesar's enemies, including Cicero, a contemporary of the event, reporting the crossing of the Rubicon, whereas we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the event, and fifty years after the Christians' own claims had been widely spread around.

“Third, we have a number of inscriptions and coins produced soon after the Republican Civil War related to the Rubicon crossing, including mentions of battles and conscriptions and judgments, which in fact form almost a continuous chain of evidence for Caesar's entire march. On the other hand, we have absolutely no physical evidence of any kind in the case of the resurrection.

“Fourth, we have the story of the 'Rubicon Crossing' in almost every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have a measure of proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they all quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a regular desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn't enough, all of them cite or quote sources which were written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing and its repercussions. Compare this with the resurrection: we have not even a single historian mentioning the event until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only by Christian historians. And of those few people who do mention it within a century of the event, none of them show any wide reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy, are completely unknown, and have an overtly declared bias towards persuasion and conversion.

“Fifth, the history of Rome could not have proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into Italy. Even if Caesar could have somehow cultivated the mere belief that he had done this, he could not have captured Rome or conscripted Italian men against Pompey's forces in Greece. On the other hand, all that is needed to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief--a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. It should be clear that we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the resurrection. In fact, when we compare all five points, we see that in four of the five proofs of an event's historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence--a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses. Indeed, you really have to look hard to find another event that is in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes. So Geivett is guilty of a rather extreme exaggeration. This is not a historically well-attested event, and it does not meet the highest standards of evidence. But reasons to be skeptical do not stop there. We must consider the setting--the place and time in which these stories spread. This was an age of fables and wonder. Magic and miracles and ghosts were everywhere, and almost never doubted. I'll give one example that illustrates this: we have several accounts of what the common people thought about lunar eclipses. They apparently had no doubt that this horrible event was the result of monsters trying to devour the moon, or witches calling the moon down with diabolical spells--sometimes both. So when an eclipse occurred, everyone would frantically start banging pots and blowing brass horns furiously, to scare away the monsters and confuse the witches' spells. So tremendous was this din that many better-educated authors complain of how the racket filled entire cities and countrysides. This was a superstitious people."

Following are my own comments about Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon River:

The number of claimed eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead is less than 600. The figure is completely unverifiable. A reasonable estimate of the number of people who would have seen Caesar’s army entire Italy would have been in the tens of thousands, if not the hundreds of thousands.

Months after Caesar’s army entered Italy it was still widely available for public inspection. Further evidence that Caesar and his army entered Italy is the war that followed between his forces and the forces of Pompey the Great. Pompey opposed Caesar in response to a request by the Roman Senate.

Jesus deliberately avoided appearing to thousands of people, especially Roman officials (Kind of strange, isn’t it? Why was such the case? The correct answer is, too many eyewitnesses spoil the broth of deception.), but Caesar made no attempts to conceal the presence of his army from anyone.

Roger Pearse

It sounds as if your original post was rhetorical, not a request for information. My apologies for not perceiving this, and dumping all that unwanted information on you.

As for your response, please allow me to refer you to the last paragraph of my comment:

"Does not this point -- which of course has some validity -- really suggest the impossibility of any accurate history, tho, not specifically the history of Christianity?"

All the best,

Roger Pearse

yalla

Roger Pearse: '' So Irenaeus tells us that the apostle John was still around in 100AD; that John's disciple Polycarp, Irenaeus' master, was still alive and preaching what John had said and done in 150AD in Rome. No doubt there were many other examples, today unknown to us."

I tried finding the source for this and ended up going all over the place and back again in an ever descending spiral of circular self quoting by various sites and books.
It's a phenomena I have noticed before. Try to trace an apparent historical fact re Christianity and you can find it repeated as if it is fact but it is difficult to get to the source.
In this case it was Eusebius.
One site suggested that it was not possible for Polycarp to have known THE "John" and gave reasons based on the dating involved...the birth, death and writing dates of these blokes are all over the place like multiple choice answers.
Apparently B.H Streeter considered it unlikely. I don't know why.

And it was strange to find that a lot of stuff that Irenaeus is supposed to have written is considered "spurious" and of much a later date, so said the Cath.Enc..
And the most common source for "fragments" ...Eusebius...about 8 of the 9 or so missing bits.
Now forgive me but I am afraid I am becoming confused and even more sceptical about these oft-quoted "facts".

Roger, you obviously know far more than me about this stuff, but to be honest I am doubtful of the accuracy of the opening quote.
I don't think that statement can be so unequivocably and confidently asserted.

GakuseiDon

AFAIK, it was Irenaeus in his extant Adv Heresies, Bk 3, III:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P7317_1944667
Are you saying that there is evidence that Irenaeus didn't write those extant works generally attributed to him?

yalla

GakuseiDon: "Are you saying that there is evidence that Irenaeus didn't write those extant works generally attributed to him?"

No.
But.......
I do think allowance should be made for the confused, sparse nature of the context behind Roger's assertion.
This is some of the stuff I found, I don't know how accurate it is but that is part of the problem.
1.There is doubt as to who this apostle is.I know that it is supposed to be THE John but 1 site said B.H.Streeter says it is not. Presbyter John of Eusebius/Papias fame seems to be a candidate. Streeter is "respected'' is he not?
2.There is a plethora of dates. For Irenaeus I found ...born 115-125, 130-142, 135-140. For Polycarp's alleged martrydom I found c.155ce or 161ce.
3.For Irenaeus I found that [a] "5 citations are preserved of the 'Discourses on Faith....but.....their authenticity is doubtful"
[b] "The 4 Gk. remains known as the Pfaffian Fragments are "spurious".
[c] Of 9 fragments of Irenaeus, 7 are only in Eusebius.
[d]The Florinus Epistle, which appears to be the source for the claim that Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp is only found in Eusebius.
[e] One site said that it was not certain that Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp but he was obviously well informed re Polycarp.See d above.
4. Your quote from Adv. Her. only says I. SAW P., not that he knew him, that comes from a non-extant, AFAIK, Eusebius quoted source. A few months ago I saw Geoffrey Rush. But I do not know him.
5.The Pelican "Eusebius" says there is no confirmation of the tradition that I. died a martyr p.378. More confusion.
6.Eusebius makes it clear that he thinks I. is wrong in stating that Papias was a hearer of the apostles.
7.Adv. Her. and Letter to Florinus are, apparently, anti- heretical polemic and the references to P. serve as an appeal to authority in that context. So there is a relevant motive to take into account here.
8.And I do not accept that Jesus wrote to Abgar a la Eusebius. Do you?
So just because something is written, and written in Eusebius, does not mean it should be accepted.
9. Associated with Polycarp is the alleged account of his martyrdom from, again allegedly, the church at Smyrna. And that contains some doubtful material eg. verbatim dialogue per a Christian in a place that is not safe for such to be. And isn't there something about blood putting out the fire or similar? That is not a rhetorical question..I have a vague recollection.

It just seems to me that Roger's statement has too many confused and doubtful elements within it to be so positively and baldly stated as if fact.

I read the stuff here, I have read with interest and respect posts by yourself and Roger, and then I try to check things out.

And I don't think Roger's statement checks out as simply as he put it.

I'm open to correction.

Roger Pearse

I beg your pardon. Certainly such statements should be footnoted. Here is what I can find, but is not comprehensive.

The Apostle John alive ca. 100 AD (lit. 'to the time of Trajan (98-117)') is from Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses II.22,5:

"...even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?"

The close relation of Irenaeus to Polycarp, and the latter to John:

Irenaeus, De ogdoade, (a lost work) cited in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v. 20 :

'These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak in mild terms, are not of sound doctrine; these opinions are not consonant to the Church, and involve their votaries in the utmost impiety; these opinions, even the heretics beyond the Church's pale have never ventured to broach; these opinions, those presbyters who preceded us, and who were conversant with the apostles, did not hand down to thee. For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing thyself in the royal court,3 and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse-his going out, too, and his coming in-his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. And I can bear witness before God, that if that blessed and apostolical presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, exclaiming as he was wont to do: "O good God, for what times hast Thou reserved me, that I should endure these things? "And he would have fled from the very spot where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. This fact, too, can be made clear, from his Epistles which he despatched, whether to the neighbouring Churches to confirm them, or to certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.'


Polycarp taught by apostles and preaching in Rome in the time of Anicetus, from Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, III,3,4:

'4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,---a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely, which is handed down by the Church.8 There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." '

I hope that is useful.

I too have noticed this, and in fact I believe nothing unless I can check the source, as there is much misinformation doing the rounds. Fortunately there is a lot of the primary sources online.

I think that this is perhaps derived from something written in the early part of the 20th century? I believe it was pretty much taken for granted that John's Gospel was written ca. 170, and one unfortunate actually published a book in 1936 proving that Polycarp Philippians contained no citations from it, thus proving that the work could not be by John. It came out the same time as the publication of P52, which demonstrated the existence of a copy (of a copy of a copy) of John in 125AD. Your source has the sound of something from that period? (I don't know for sure).

You comment in more detail on fragments later -- I'll reply to that post, if you don't mind. But just this on one point:

99% of ancient literature was lost when ancient civilisation collapsed (so Pietro Bembo, according to N.G.Wilson). Even the Greek text of Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses no longer exists. But Eusebius' works are all of great value today because of his habit of verbatim citation of sources, today lost. Indeed books 11-15 of his Praeparatio Evangelica are more or less a primer of Greek philosophy, nearly all of it based on now lost sources. So it's just one of those things we have to get used to in ancient history.

I hope that helps.

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

This sort of thing is in no sense unusual, I'm afraid.

This is from Tixeront, isn't it? Peter Kirby thankfully has this online.

I'm afraid I don't know about Maximus of Turin (ca. 422 AD) and his citations from the Liber de fide, which is mentioned in the footnotes of the ANF translation of the fragments of Irenaeus -- sorry.

C.H.Pfaff published in 1715 some Greek fragments which he claimed to have found in a manuscript. Harnack proved them forged ca. 1900. I'm not sure what this tells us, other than that scholars can write forgeries.

All of them are probably cited in one source only.

Indeed. There is also a letter, preserved in Syriac, to Pope Victor about Florinus.

True. But I'm not sure what the confusion is.

"[The writings of Papias in common circulation are five in number, and these are called an Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: "Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him." Thus wrote Irenaeus. Moreover, Papias himself, in the introduction to his books, makes it manifest that he was not himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles; but he tells us that he received the truths of our religion2 from those who were acquainted with them [the apostles] in the following words: ]

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations,3 whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments,4 but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith,5 and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,-what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things6 Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."

Note how we here rely on Eusebius' verbatim quotation.

Note also that the quotation from Papias does not actually explicitly support what Eusebius supposes it to say (a feature of some of the quotations in Eusebius), or contradict that of Irenaeus. Irenaeus in any case was living at a time when he could have had access to other information about Papias than just his book.

Isn't there *always* a motive to be found, if we presume authors willing to lie?

No. But again I don't see the relevance. Eusebius states that he got the letter from the Syriac. We have the text in question -- the Acts of Addai. So he really did locate a rare text, and bring it into Greek, like the scholar he was. That he doesn't come right out and denounce it as spurious is neither here nor there. Even modern scholars, making discoveries, tend not to denounce them as rubbish -- first they publish, then the discussion begins. We're not assessing Eusebius' competence as a textual critic. We're looking at whether or not he had access to, and quotes, sources we don't have. He did and does.

I don't see this, I must say. If Eusebius quotes a text, why should we not presume that text existed in his time?

This again seems to be a separate topic. A court record would of course have existed, as it did for the martyrs of Scilli.

The historical record contains many things, of differing value, and dealing with these is what we have to do. At the fringes, we find statements which are doubtful; we have to deal with that. We can always find reasons to ignore bits of data! But we don't and mustn't do that, without a positive reason to do so. Even fictional writers contain statements about antiquity that reach us in no other way.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnny Skeptic

The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2005 says the following:

“According to the Christian martyr and theologian Irenaeus, who was his pupil, Polycarp spoke with the apostle John the Evangelist; however, this person was probably John the Presbyter, whom Polycarp’s contemporary Papias expressly distinguished from John the apostle and evangelist.�

Regarding Papias supposedly being a hearer of John the Evangelist, even if that is true, John is only one supposed eyewitness. What we need is external evidence regarding approximately how many people claimed to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead, including external evidence that shows that all of the surviving disciples defended their status as eyewitnesses throughout their lives.

How important is the issue of eyewitnesses? Well, obviously not very important to Luke. Consider the following:

Luke 24:33-34 say “And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon (Peter).� The word “indeed� confirms that the group had no doubts regarding Simon’s claim. Luke 24:34 in the New International version says "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." Again, notice the assuredness of the declaration, including the exclamation point used by the translators. The New American Standard Bible says “…….saying, The Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon.� The use of the word “really� indicates assuredness. What we have here is the belief in the Resurrection by that group of people not based upon seeing Jesus, but based only upon the testimony of one man in spite of the fact that initially, virtually no one believed that Jesus would rise from the dead.

Thanks to Luke, the importance of multiple eyewitness testimonies has flown right out of the window.

Regarding the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses, it is suspicious that the Gospels do not mention the 500 eyewitnesses, even though they frequently mention things of much less importance. The Gospel writers were trying to convince people that Jesus rose from the dead as best they could. All four Gospels mention Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, the women at the tomb and Jesus’ appearances to the disciples, so any rational minded person knows that if there were actually 500 eyewitnesses, which if true is a very impressive and quite useful claim, the Gospel writers would definitely have heard a good deal of their testimonies first hand, or they would have learned about the presence of a large number of eyewitnesses through the resulting hearsay testimonies other people and would have written about it.

Second Corinthians 13:1 says “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.�
Well, where are the two or three witnesses regarding the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses?