FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-07-2007, 05:43 PM   #91
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgibson000 View Post
:banghead: JG
Biblical "historians" may not like ancient historians giving
Eusebius of Caesarea a serving in the "integrity stakes"
but ancient "historians" do this for a very good reason.
mountainman is offline  
Old 02-11-2007, 08:28 PM   #92
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
The distinction between history and hagiography is one that I need to know more about.
If you were to conduct a string search on the word within the
article "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century"
by Momigliano, you will unconver some useful citations.

This article has been produced here in full earlier, and I have "archived"
a temporary version here.

Just as Eusebius invented ecclesiastical history, Athanasius
is credited by M. as the inventor of hagiography, perhaps
around 360 CE, with his "Life of St. Anthony".
mountainman is offline  
Old 02-11-2007, 11:30 PM   #93
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffrey gibson quoting from Robin Lane Fox
"despite its critics, wrote Tertullian, the Book of Enoch (composed c. 150 B.C.) must be genuine, as Enoch had lived in the days before the Flood."
This looks like a misreading of Tertullian.
From Roger's site.

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf04/...htm#P292_58954
Chapter III. ----Concerning the Genuineness of "The Prophecy of Enoch."

Tertullian defends the authenticity of Enoch despite its not being in the Jewish canon. And he explains why he believes it could be preserved through the flood, giving his response to one objection to Enoch.

eg. "Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching"

Tertullian also uses Enoch in his discourse. I see no place where he ascribes the genuineness of the Book of Enoch to the fact that Enoch lived before the flood. On the other hand he does mention the Jude reference as a factor in his viewpoint, and there are doctrinal considerations.

So a criticism of Tertullian for an uncritical perspective on the Book of Enoch is legitimate, but claiming that he considered Enoch as scripture because Enoch lived before the flood simply doesn't match what Tertullian actually said.

Incidentally, can anyone give the date of the earliest extant Enoch manuscript that has the words that are close to what Jude wrote? Is there a good article that discusses the extant Enoch manuscripts and their transmissional history with special emphasis on the Jude
"Enoch .. prophesied" verse ? And that helps evaluate whether there could have been a later Ethiopic scribal 'smoothing' similar to the Greek OT changing Psalm 14 to match NT Romans ?

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven Avery is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:59 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.