avi

Apologies to all for being so dull and humorless. I don't personally find much of interest in this digression about Italian cinema.

aa5874 has offered two different criticisms which relate to the OP, and I think that you, stephan, ought to engage him, even if for the millionth (plus one) time.

1. Has Dr. Trobisch erred in attributing the canon to Polycarp, based upon your assessment (NOT OF Irenaeus, but) of the passages in John, apparently missing from some versions of our most ancient extant manuscripts????

2. Has Irenaeus erred in his writing, as aa5874 has suggested?

If you have already explained the error attributed to Irenaeus, elsewhere, a simple link will suffice, i.e. no need to repeat yourself, but, such a simple measure would be far more informative than posting pictures of Italian movie actors.

If you acknowledge as accurate, aa5874's allegation of profound disagreement between the gospel accounts of JC and other figures from that era, with Irenaeus', then, can you explain why you think a bishop in a provincial region of France would have been more likely to have created the canon than a bishop living in Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, or Ephesus?

avi

stephan huller

Avi

I don't know what more there is to say. It's like going to trial and the lawyer says to the judge 'Your honor, I can't cross examine the witness because he isn't telling the truth.'

1. Has Dr. Trobisch erred in attributing the canon to Polycarp, based upon your assessment (NOT OF Irenaeus, but) of the passages in John, apparently missing from some versions of our most ancient extant manuscripts????

He's attributed the canon to Polycarp because he still believes in the system. The assumption is that because Irenaeus attributes all his learning and tradition from Polycarp then it can't make sense then Polycarp must have handed him the canon. Florinus throws a wrench into this simple understanding. However everyone ignores the testimony of Florinus.

2. Has Irenaeus erred in his writing, as aa5874 has suggested?

I've erred in writing. So has aa, so have you, so has everyone. The interesting part however is to figure out why someone has made a mistake, what caused them to say what they said (i.e. what's in it for them). Obviously Pilate was not the government representative in Palestine during the reign of Claudius. The question then is why does Irenaeus tell us this. It isn't likely to be a scribal error because the Armenian manuscripts of Irenaeus are actually very accurate.

The more likely answer is that Against Heresies is a collection of writings by or associated with Irenaeus. Almost everyone thinks that the information which references the Marcionite material which references Luke 3:1 and Pilate is from the Syntagma of Justin. The way scholars resolve the problem is that it was Irenaeus who took over the material from Justin. Yet this is just a theory. I think it is more likely that a third century editor took treatises like Against the Valentinians (preserved separately in Tertullian), a treatise called 'Against the Marcosians' and then Justin's Syntagma and bundled them together to make Book One of Against Heresies.

This bundling is paralleled in Tertullian's Five Books Against Marcion. Here nothing was actually written by Tertullian. He's just taken over older treatises by late second century authors.

On a separate note to Little John. My mother and my grandmother survived the war by hiding out in Lugano. We have lots of relatives who speak Italian. I remember being in Paris as a kid with my aunt when she claims she saw Marcello Mastroianni on the elevator coming the other way. All I knew is that she waved to some man I didn't know and said 'Ciao Marcello!' like he was her best friend. It probably wasn't even Marcello. Anyway, enough Cinema Paradiso I guess.

aa5874

Please, Please, Please!!!

I don't post for people to engage me.

I POST my position with SUPPORTING data. That is all.

I don't even know that STEPHAN HULLER can see.

Now, back to the OP.

"Against Heresies" is NOT a credible writing based on even Christian sources.

Nothing in "Against Heresies" can be accepted without EXTERNAL corroboration.

"Against Heresies" is so fundamentally historically bogus.

It would have been EXPECTED that the author would have shown that he was at least credible but he practically LIED about the contents of the Gospels.

Examine "Against Heresies" 2.22.5 The author of "Against Heresies" LIED about the contents of the Gospels.

In gMatthew, Jesus was crucified when Pilate was governor and CAIAPHAS was high priest.

In gMark Jesus was crucified when Pilate was governor and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee.

In gLuke, Jesus was crucified around a year or so after the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, when Herod was TETRARCH of Galilee, when Pilate was Governor and when CAIAPHAS was high priest

In gJohn Jesus was sent BOUND to CAIAPHAS the high priest and was crucified when Pilate was Governor.

The author of "Against Heresies" is a LIAR the Gospels do NOT state at all that Jesus was fifty years old when he was crucified..

There are at LEAST FOUR figures of history that the Gospels writers USED to provide the TIME line for the crucifixion of Jesus.

1. Tiberius the emperor of Rome who died c 37 CE.

2. Herod the tetrarch of Galilee. 20 BCE-40 CE

3. Pilate the governor of Judea. 27-37 CE

4. Caiaphas the high priest.18-36 CE

The author of "Against Heresies" is blatantly not credible.

Now, when the author of "Against Heresies" claimed he knew POLYCARP then external corroboration is needed.

There is a big problem. Irenaeus claimed Polycarp was INSTRUCTED by apostles of Jesus.

But, there is NO credible historical source of antiquity that Jesus did exist.

"Against Heresies" 3. According to Irenaeus Jesus Christ was the Child of the Holy Ghost.

I am afraid that Polycarp could NOT have known any apostle of the Child of a Holy Ghost.

"Against Heresies" is fundamentally FICTION and written at some unknown time but most likely around the 4th century and Polycarp is a FICTITIOUS character.

Polycarp did NOT assemble any NT Canon because the character was himself MANUFACTURED at some unknown time and most likely around the 4th century.

It was the 4th century Roman Church that NEEDED "Against Heresies" and Letters by Polycarp.

Littlejohn

Hello Jay!

«...Recent Scholars have argued for the Canon Muratori as a Fourth century document...»

Yes, I know everything .. and anyway most of the ecclesiastical world (at least the Italian one) is inclined to the view it as a document very precocious, such as the second half of the second century, as it provides a rather ancient testimony regarding the definition of catholic-christian canon. I, too, as I am able to understand (I'm not an academic), I think that it is a copy of a document the which original was really drafted in the second half of the second century.

A parallel attempt to the one of postdate this very important document at the fourth or fifth century, in order, obviously, to make it unreliable, there was another which tended to backdate the works of John (Gospel and Revelation) to several years after the alleged Jesus' death in the 30's! ... Do you not think that in all that there is something 'suspect'?...


Greetings


Littlejhon


PS: In this post I mentioned some news that I had promised myself to make public in more away time. However, beyond the law of copyright, what interests me even more is to provide research ideas that help the most willing to undertake an its own search path: namely, the only way to learn so convincing! ...

.

jgoodguy

Interesting Link.

The Debate Over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon

stephan huller

The interesting thing about the Muratorian canon is that its order of the Pauline epistles actually agrees with what appears in Against Marcion in various places (not the order of the original Syrian author - i.e. Galatians, 1 Corinthians etc) but what must have been the actually Marcionite canon. People never realize this one simple fact - it is Tertullian's source who understands that Galatians comes first in the canon. Tertullian completely misunderstands this. The material must have been ambiguous enough for him not to see that it agreed with the order of the orthodox Syrian church at the time (cf. Ephrem as a continued witness for this ordering).

The Marcionite canon and the Muratorian canon began with 1 Corinthians (which I think was actually identified by the Marcionites as 'to the Alexandrians' (cf. Muratorian canon for that detail). But that's another story.

aa5874

You have ANOTHER story? Well I want to hear YOUR story BEFORE I accept the stories of Irenaeus.

You don't make any sense. You DISAGREE with the Church writers when they make claims about MARCION yet you want others to accept them.

Has it not even crossed your mind that there are people who ALSO reject what the Church writers CLAIMED about Jesus Christ?

This is so basic and fundamental.

stephan huller

aa,

I have tried to make you understand this but you seem incapable of reason. The bottom line is that you have to understand how Book One was manufactured, how much it represents the accurate testimony of Irenaeus in the late second century. I wasn't going to address this again with you but because I already make reference to this at my blog I direct your attention there:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...-heresies.html

The bottom line is that the testimony about Marcion is almost universally acknowledged NOT to come from Irenaeus himself but Justin. Most people just assume that Irenaeus was the guy who just 'took over' the syntagma into his collection of five books. Nevertheless it has to be acknowledged that (a) this testimony is not from Irenaeus and (b) it only became associated with Irenaeus when a bunch of treatises were bundled together to make 'the five books' Against Heresies.

Given that a similar pattern in Tertullian shows the incorporation of material from Justin (= Book Three is clearly an adaptation of a Justinian treatise used also in Tertullian's Against the Jews; Book Four and Five are an unknown anti-Marcionite treatises written by a Syrian author = Rhodo?) it would seem that the section on Marcion in AH Book One went back to a common author known to both Irenaeus and Tertullian probably of Syrian origin (and as such 'Marcion' was perhaps a development of the Aramaic marqyone = 'those of Mark' and confounded with the Greek diminutive which may also have been used to address the apostle and indeed all authorities in Christianity cf. Eusebius preservation of the use of the diminutive form in association with Pope Callixtus and other examples so Hilgenfeld).

The Acts of Archelaus certainly goes back to a Syriac original (so Jerome) and made its way to Latin by way of a lost Greek copy. The form there is 'Marcellus' and given that the report is associated with Osroene (a place where Marcionitism is almost universally acknowledged to have been the dominant form of orthodoxy ever since Bauer's classic study) something of the pattern of transference from Marcus (Marqus/Marqe?) to the diminutive is witnessed here too.

I have been stuck at this point in my analysis for some time. To move forward requires greater linguistic skills than I possess. But my general assumption is that Mark was addressed in the diminutive by his followers (as an expression of how much he was loved). 'Marcion' was a term of endearment in Greek just as marqyone is certainly the gentilic collective plural in Aramaic (http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...ollective.html). I don't say this on my own authority but according to people that know what they are talking about. My supposition is that Greek diminutive and the Aramaic collective plural somehow became fused or confused. Perhaps deliberately

I would also add that all things also point to Justin being properly considered an Aramaic speaker. Not only his birth at Neapolis but his indirect association with the Diatessaron tradition which seems to have been preserved in Syriac and Latin. His student Tatian's appellation 'the Assyrian' reinforces this as does the fact that their common text - the Diatessaron - became the preferred text of the Syrian Church. I strongly suspect that the Philosophumena's 'Justin' is the real Justin Martyr of history.

aa5874

You cannot IMPLICATED others by ADMITTING and CONFESSING to your OWN Mistakes.

You have CONFIRMED you have ERRED I hope your ERRORS will CEASE.

Again, the problem with "Against Heresies" is that the author appears to have BLATANTLY LIED.

The author of "Against Heresies" was supposedly AWARE of the FOUR Gospels and they do NOT show that Jesus was crucified under CLAUDIUS as is found in the "The Proof of Apostolic Preaching" atttributed to Irenaeus.

No 2nd century Christian writer claimed Jesus was crucified under Cladius.

In "Against Heresies" 2. the author claimed that the Gospels all show that Jesus was about fifty years old when they did NOT.

The Gospels authors USED at least FOUR figures of history for the TIME Jesus was crucified.

1. Tiberius the Emperor of Rome who died c 37 CE.

2. Pilate the Governor of Judea c 27-37 CE.

3. Herod the Tetrarch 20 BCE -40 CE

4. Caiaphas the high priest 18-36 C CE.

5. In gLuke Jesus was about 30 years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

6. Irenaeus was supposedly AWARE of gLuke and actually mentioned that Jesus was about 30 years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.



When we used those BASIC data we can see, based on the Gospels, that Jesus was about 30 years old at around 29 CE and would have been crucified NO later than 36 CE when CAIAPHAS was high priest.

Jesus would have been NO more than 37-38 YEARS old using the priest hood of Caiaphas which would be the upper limit when Pilate, Tiberius, Herod the tetrarach and Caiaphas would all be alive and were acting as designated.

Both "Against Heresies" and "The Proof of Apostolic Preaching" show that the author could not have presented such RIDICULOUS and historically inaccurate argument to an actual live audience or could have preached and taught those FALSE claims for YEARS without being Noticed or rectified BEFORE they were written.

This would mean Irenaeus was a HERETIC himself while he was ARGUING against and wrote books against Heretics and that NO Church writer even recognized the Irenaeus was an Heretic or attempted to correct the errors that Irenaeus PREACHED FOR YEARS UNABATED and UNCHALLENGED.

So, you have NOW REVERSED yourself. Writings that people believe are from Irenaeus are really from other authors.

You DON'T for a minute accept the writings under the name of Irenaeus.

You have CONFIRMED what I wrote.

"Against Heresies" is HISTORICALLY BOGUS.

stephan huller

Your points are moronic and only witness your limited intellectual capacity. Go back to making license plates