Roger Pearse

I happen to have seen this, and subsequent reiterations of it, and wonder if perhaps there is some honest confusion here?

If I understand you, you are asserting (without quite saying so explicitly as far as I can see?) that those fathers who perceived that a text was written in accordance with or to promote a non-Christian ideology acted irrationally in concluding that it was therefore not written by the founders of the Christian religion. If so, could you explain why? After all, if someone finds a post ostensibly written by me peddling atheism, would they not be well-justified to suppose it a fake?

Or I wonder if there is an implicit assumption that those fathers had before them only that information which is available to us? If so, of course, it is untrue.

I suspect that there is simply a series of confusions and invalid presumptions behind all this, all hidden in the quotation marks that some people put around the word heresy, as if Christianity had no distinct ideological identity?

That the fathers had a rational approach to all of this seems odd to question, unless by 'rational' we only mean "method presuming that they didn't know what Christianity was"? We're talking, remember, about people like Irenaeus who knew one of the apostle John's disciples. Unlike ourselves, the early church had several means to know the apostolic teaching.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

No, you are not understanding me correctly. Perhaps because you haven't read all my requests. I'm asking (not asserting) for evidence that the early church fathers applied some sort of rational thought to the evidence in reaching their conclusions with regard to which texts were and were not authentic. It has been asserted by Gamera and Haran that we should rely upon them because they reached their conclusions by considering the evidence. It has been asserted by Haran that examples of this are plentiful.

Despite these confident assertions, no one has been more specific in identifying an example.

Where can I read about the evidence they considered and the reason they applied in understanding it?

Roger Pearse

I don't think that I need say more, need I.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

I would think my question clearly suggests otherwise. :huh:

Given the apparent confidence with which the notion has been defended, why are all of you who champion this claim so reluctant to provide a specific example for me?

I have indicated complete willingness to be disabused of my alleged misconception but all I've obtained so far is a disappearing act, assurances that what I'm requesting is plentiful and well-known but oddly not readily available, and your bizarre non-response to my request for information.

In case it still isn't clear, I'm looking for an early church father describing the process by which the authenticity of Christian texts was determined.

Amaleq13

My apologies if the knotted knickers resulted from understanding me to be suggesting that their subjective consideration of the text was somehow irrational. Perhaps it will make more sense and be considered less threatening/offensive if I rephrase my question.

I'm asking for evidence that the early church fathers applied some sort of rational thought to objective evidence in reaching their conclusions with regard to which texts were and were not authentic.

mountainman

It is not as simple as that IMO.

We are informed of the scanty records of the early church fathers
only by the pen of Eusebius in the fourth century, who purportedly
gathered together the testimony of their history, in the form of their
purported literature. That is, purported physical manuscripts.

The commencement of the original question posed in this thread reads
as follows:

Why do certain issues within NT criticism
require the suspension of disbelief?

The answer to this question IMO relates to the manner of the treatment
of the application of "historian's principles" to the investigation of the past.

The historian needs to question everything objectively.
Everything means everything, not just a subset of everything.

For example, that christianity existed prior to the fourth century
is an inference that is presently unsupported by archeological evidence.

We infer from Eusebius, the first ecclesiastical historian, that there were
in fact a purported "tribe of christians" in antiquity, prior to the fourth
century, as described by himself, and Josephus, and other authors of
antiquity. But perhaps Eusebius wishes us to make this inference, when
in fact the truth of history may be that he was sponsored by Constantine
to write such fiction, and pervert the patristic literature.

This is an example of the operation of an element of independent logic.
Certain parties will be unable to suspend their disbelief, in order to
think of their preconceived notions as only a hypothetical inference,
and apply to their preconceived notions the same logic that they apply
to new ground.

Finally let me make a response to your last question:

It is not the fathers, but the preservation of the fathers.
The process of preservation or otherwise.

Let's leave the first and only ecclesiastical historian Eusebius of the
first 325 years of "the tribe of christians" and examine the historian
who bravely follows this first leader.

Their are multiple trails! Seven historians attempt to make the continuance,
but only a few are preserved. But what shocking testimony one of them
provides in relation to your question above.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=169596

How were the words of Pamphilus and Origen preserved?
Not which texts, but what the texts actually said.
Start with this text:

Rufinus's Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen
Otherwise
the Book Concerning the Adulteration of the Works of Origen.
Addressed to Macarius at Pinetum a.d. 397.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=169596

The answer to your question is that the so-called historians
in whom (ONLY in some cases) the so-called early church fathers
are presented, are self-confessed correctors of doctrine.


Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_029.htm
AUTHORS OF ANTIQUITY

The Bishop

Are other historical texts read entirely as if they're word for word accounts of exact events? Are other historical texts written soberly and without regard to any kind of agenda, religious or political? Of course not, and the historical study of the NT ought to ignore the theological aspects of the works except where they throw a light on the thinking of the day, or indeed events of the day. Historians don't "discount" the fact that many writings they study are slanted one way or another, and I've no reason to think that NT historians do either, except for the Christian apologetic ones, whom I generally ignore in any case.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I agreed with everything you said in your post about the exact same quote made by Toto of Richard Carrier. It was Toto via Carrier who was being disingenuous, by implying that all people who think the NT has event-historical value are as "naïve" as a professed Evangelical Apologist.

The Bishop

Apologies for my post above - Gamera said it all much better than I did. Though the only thing I know about Foucault is his bloody pendulum.

Toto

I think you misunderstood. I'm not sure which quote you refer to, but the question is not whether the NT has "event-historical value" but whether the text must be given all benefits of the doubt.

Amaleq13

I decided to make a direct appeal to my favorite local Christian scholars and have obtained some very helpful and interesting information. Ben has already given me permission to reprint his PM reply to me so it will be posted momentarily. Stephen Carlson has also replied but I haven't yet obtained his consent to post it. Andrew Criddle also intends a reply but he might respond here, directly.