Toto

That's what you should be considering.

avi

The debate about Eusebius will likely continue for some time.....

My interest here is in the OP, in particular, trying to find out WHY David Trobisch thinks that Polycarp was responsible for publishing the four gospels together for the first time....

As I understand the situation, Polycarp (which means "much fruit") may have written quite a few texts, but the only extant copy of his writing, that we possess is simply a letter. We lack all of his theological teachings. One simple letter, that's it. Nothing more.

Further, as I understand, there are no external, non church related writings, that speak of Polycarp.

Trobisch perhaps is mistaken by referencing a passage of John, which is not found in Codex Sinaiticus. Trobisch attributes great weight to this passage, John 21, which, as aa5874 has noted, appears to represent a forgery, as confirmed at bible gateway.

Does Trobisch's theory that Polycarp published the four gospels depend upon John 21 ???

Should we then repudiate Trobisch's theory, based upon this presumed error--> citing a passage absent from the gold standard, (Codex Sinaiticus) because of forgery?

That's what I imagine we need to consider....

avi

mountainman

Hi avi,

The way I read the article referenced is that the basis of the theory is reliant upon the postulate that the new testament must have been both edited and published before 180 CE. The article commences:

The author then uses this hypothesis to locate an indentity somewhere in that timeframe, and after going through the field of starters, backs Polycarp for a win. It is good to see an author paying attention to the nomina sacra. The author is also essentially putting forward Polycarp as the inventor, or the editor responsible for the "early and almost universal" physical use of these coded forms.

Therefore, the question becomes, can Polycarp be scratched from the race to be the first general editor of the new testament canonical books on the basis that John 21 is late. It probably weakens the author's argument that the editor is Polycarp, but not the original hypothesis that the new testament was first edited at that time.

I agree with Philosopher Jay, all this is heading in the right direction, and Tertullian might also be considered, even though he wrote in Latin and lived in Africa.

Earlier you provided the authors list of criteria:

I have bolded the questioned claim. aa5874 may again demonstrate a reasonable case in this matter. If it is removed from the list of claims, we are still left with a certainty of a later Roman forgery, and a hypothesis that someone must have edited and published the new testament c.180 CE because that is the received tradition. That the received tradition itself is a later Roman fabrication is something that may have to be formally considered at some stage without prejudice.

OTOH if the author's claims are true, then some of the early palaeographic dating assessments (i.e. those before c.180 CE) may need revision. Why IMO? Because they use the editor's (whoever and whenever he may have been) nomina sacra convention.



Best wishes,


Pete

bacht

nice summary, thanks Stephan

bacht

I don't understand why this isn't the default starting point for contemporary NT studies.

avi

Yes, bacht, nice summary, too bad there's no original Greek text to go with this fairy tale.

avi

avi

Maybe, I don't know, I am ignorant, but maybe it is because of a little conference at Nicea.

Hostility to Marcion, with concomitant rallying of the troops against him, may well have been perceived as the ultimate task of christian bishops of the second and third century, but it was Arius, not Marcion, who was perceived as the Great Satan, by the Holy Rollers back in the day....

Before one can assert xyz about the New Testament, with Joe, Harry, and Sally all functioning as executive editors, it would be nice to have something like an ACTUAL DATE of publication, and an actual author. Absent those, one can surmise anything about Irenaeus this, or Tertullian that. Throw in some Origen and a bit of paprika too, while we are at it...

avi

bacht

I guess you have some sympathy for Pete's theory, but I just can't see how all the canonical, apocryphal and patristic lit could have been produced so quickly in the 4th C by a tiny circle of Constantinians. Can political sharks also be talented enough writers to fake a variety of styles?

Like most conspiracy theories this implies incredible creativity and efficiency, not to mention near-perfect erasure of clues. It's a kind of magical thinking imo.

aa5874

But, one can guess you have some sympathy for Stephan, but I just can't see how one can use documents that are admittedly historically unreliable for historical purposes.

avi

Yes, I do like Pete's approach. I don't agree that everything was created de novo, but I do agree that much of what we think we know about earliest Christianity has been altered by Eusebius/Constantine.

Those two guys, nah. No, I don't mean those two men physically gathered up all the extant papyrus, burned it, and then issued new papyrus.

Constantine had an army available to do that.

Eusebius had a scriptorium available to issue the new docs.

Ten years, Bacht. Ten years is a long time.

Think back to 2001. Did you have high def television? telephones that gave you access to the internet?

Technology moves quickly. Those new papyrus docs were disseminated throughout the empire by military chain of command, in just a twinkling of the eye. There was no more fooling around. This was now the official government sponsored religion.

We should not underestimate Constantine's ambition. He was a general. He wanted results. Heads rolled if he didn't get what he wanted. If he wanted all the old manuscripts gathered up, and new ones printed, and distributed, then, that's what he got.

For some reason, intellectuals in 2011 imagine that it is terribly difficult for an autocrat to mobilize a few hundred scribes to issue a few thousand copies of a few dozen different publications over a ten year period of time.

Nonsense.

This guy marched on foot, over the whole of Europe, and Asia minor, and he wasn't sleeping in Holiday Inn's. He wasn't watching the television at night.

He was FIGHTING himself, hand to hand combat, with his opponents. Now, we come along and proclaim that it is difficult for him to instruct his minions to gather up some papyrus docs and burn them to keep warm in the winter?

Magical thinking is not the same as envisioning the scope of the problem. Engineers attempt such an endeavor daily. I think you should consider the magnitude of the task of gathering up all the old papyrus, followed by issuance of new, fresh, technology to those possessing the ancient, obsolete versions, versions prepared before his mother, Helen, found the Cross.....Then, compare the magnitude of that task with the Herculean task of fighting three other emperors during a decade of armed struggle, marching with thousands of troops, fighting hunger, disease, loneliness, desertion, and incompetence, all the while avoiding poison, and armed assassins.

Bacht: seen any apple II manuals floating around anywhere? How about books on programming the 6502?

Sometimes documents disappear because new information renders them obsolete. There is no demand for books on programming the cpu found in the old Apple II. We have moved on, beyond that now. Folks back then were not so different. Here's a new, fancier version of xyz document. Yours for only three drachmas. Into the trash bin with the old. Onto the bookshelf with the new.....

avi