avi

post 4
post 23:
? "not true" ?

How many Christians, Stephan, were beheaded, or hung, or burned alive at the stake, or crucified, by the official Government of the Empire, or its military wing, because those Christian believers DISAGREED with the inclusion or exclusion of various works, texts, books, etc as part of the "canon", PRIOR TO CONSTANTINE?

We have documents which record exhortation to kill fellow Christians for failure to accept orthodoxy plan A or plan B, BY FELLOW CHRISTIANS, in the third century, CE, but, do we have documents which forbid, by order of the Roman Government, on pain of death, deviation from the Imperial Canon, prior to Constantine, i.e. prior to Nicea? Was it not, in fact, Eusebius, who reported that his Canon, printed in his history text, represented the version acknowledged by "Ireneaus"? Is it not also true, that we do not possess even one scintilla of evidence from "Irenaeus"' own hand, about the canon, or anything else? Everything we claim to know about "Irenaeus", is coming to us, via Eusebius, or those who followed him, in fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries CE. What? You wish to cite Tertullian? Codex Agobardinus, oldest extant writings attributed to Tertullian, dates from the 9th century.


post #5
Florinus of Rome? Are you joking?

....
{??? genuineness can be discerned in fragments by "internal evidence" ??? Curiouser and curiouser.}
...
hmmm.

concur, unequivocally.

post 35
Believe it. I welcome Pete's contributions to the forum. I think his ideas are remarkable, fresh, creative, and stimulating. Keep it up, Pete!!

Hmmm.
No, I rarely marvel at human stupidity, having encountered so much of it, and having both exhibited and contributed more than a modest amount of it, myself, during the previous seven decades.

Since my take on history is idiosyncratic, by definition, I would not anticipate finding anyone else to share my perspective.....

Maybe Stephan, you would do well to follow your own advice, and READ a bit, before criticizing a veteran forum member:


post 132
Ah, the truth of Stephan Huller emerges:
READ an authority, to learn the TRUTH.
Now why didn't I think of that?...
Must be something wrong with my brain.
Wow, there's a novel discovery...something wrong with my mentation.
How could I fail to detect the obvious fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury would have access to Arius' own original Greek manuscripts, while the rest of us must make do with inferior secondary sources: the writings of Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen.

Naturally, possessing, uniquely on the planet earth, Arius' original documents, the Anglican Archbishop would then be the acknowledged authority, and we should accept whatever he writes.

But, wait. Wasn't that the essence of the argument that led the Archbishop's antecedent, Thomas More and his ruthless boss, Henry VIII, founder of Anglicism, to murder, by burning at the stake, Bilney, Bainham, and Tyndale, for having the audacity to challenge the Vatican's exclusive monopoly to publish official dogma ONLY in Latin?
Who were those peasants to dare to challenge the authority of the King? Who is Pete to dare to challenge the authority of the Anglican Church's holy Archbishop?

Toto; post 37
How amiable. How pleasant. How silly.

So, when it comes to mountainman, Toto supposes that he exhibits myopic vision, selectively choosing particular quotes, favorable to his perspective, and interpreting them in a political manner....

But, when it comes to examining the SOURCES of actual data regarding "Irenaeus", whose polemic against Gnosticism, "Adversus Haeresies", has been thoroughly discredited by documents uncovered at Nag Hammadi, do you, Toto, not engage in precisely the same "picking and choosing"?

A little bit of Tertullian here, a sprinkle of Hippolytus there, a pinch or two of Epiphanius (all three of them supposedly copying liberally from "Irenaeus"), shake well, and before we know it: voila: a genuine Latin version of "Irenaeus". (Oh yes, Dr. Roberts contends that a still extant Latin version had been copied in the late fourth century....hmmm--and we know this date of creation how?)

avi

Richard

You seem to be mixed up. The DH applies only to the Pentateuch of the OT, in its original form with Wellhausen, but later, with Freedman expanded into the Primary History: Genesis through Kings.

Richard.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Avi,

Just to be clear, I think we can certainly give Constantine credit for giving his royal seal of approval to the fourfold gospels and much of the NT canon. However, this does not necessarily mean he created it. Only if the pre-Nicene Church Fathers were all fabrications than this would be the necessary conclusion.

I tend to believe that there are mistakes and misinformation about these works, some deliberate, some accidental, and deletions and additions to these works, but much of it does come from the prior centuries.

Assuming that a good deal of the text is trustworthy, I think the period of 180-205 C.E. is the time when the fourfold gospel and canon were created.

Both Commodus (180-192) and Septimus Severus (193-211) were interested in Eastern Mystery Religions. This would have been a good time to attract the interest of the emperors.

From "Marcus Aurelius: A LIfe" by Frank McLynn (2009):


Septimus Serverus dabbled in Eastern mystery religions and his wife Julia Domna was a Syrian Priestess. She requested that Philostratus write a biography of the holy man Apollonius of Tyana.




Warmly,

Jay Raskin

mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

I have just been reading over the final sentence of the reference you originally supplied from the documentary hypothesis on WIKI, which runs as follows:

The more I think about the earliest physical manuscript evidence in our possession (namely the earliest Greek NT's, Nag Hammadi Codices and the Oxyrhynchus papyri fragments, etc) the more I am convinced that at least part of the "missing key" is the almost universal physical presence of the "nomina sacra".

The "Strong Force Needed to Bring Together Four Gospels" is already evident by the presence of this strong redactive force that unified the four gospels by means of the application of a standard set of scribal abbreviations for the occurrences of the following 15 (greek) words ....

I think that we are forced to conclude that whatever "strong force" is postulated to have brought together the tetrarchy of gospels, it must involve at some very early stage or even earliest stage, the invention of these 15 scribal abbreviation, and their consistent application in the preservation phase of not just the four gospels, but also "Paul" and all the other books of the NT. Even the 4th century Gnostic authors and producers of the Nag Hammadi Codices were still employing these "Keys" or "Codes", even through they were preserving Gnostic Gospels etc in the Coptic.

However, arguing against a late date, assuming that a good deal of the text is trustworthy, I also think the period of 180-205 C.E. is the time when the fourfold gospel and canon were created, and at which time the consistent physical employment of these 15 "nomina sacra" scribal abbreviations was implemented.

One author of these "keys" or "codes" could be the figure of Ammonias in Alexandria, perhaps the same one to whom Eusebius attributed the invention of the gospel canon tables. Ammonias is rumored to have been associated with either the neo Platonists and/or the neopythagoreans and such use of codes might be second nature to these types of inventors. Origen was the student of Ammonias, so it all fits quite well.

Maybe if I reconsider an invention date under the spiritual master of Origen I might make more headway in this discussion. I appreciate the references to the Severans, and to Apollonius of Tyana, whom may still yet be an important part of the four dimensional jigsaw puzle of the ancient history of "Early Christianity". I know Toto would appreciate it.

avi

Agreed.
By "Constantine", of course, one means Constantine plus Eusebius.

As regards the idea of "all fabrications", please read below:

Sorry, Toto, I am not buying it.

Your logic errs here.

What this admits is that there was such a person called Eusebius, not that there existed such a person called "Irenaeus".

Obviously, if Eusebius could forge a component of "Irenaeus", then the SIZE of that component is not limited by us. Only Eusebius can decide how much to "forge", versus "create".

So, which pre-Nicea author, apart from Eusebius, attests to the existence of "Irenaeus"?

1. Hippolytus ? YES !!! date of earliest extant manuscript ???? ? 11th century ?
2. Tertullian ? YES !!! date of earliest extant manuscript ???? ? 9th century ?
3. Clement of Alexandria ???? Does he mention Irenaeus?
4. Origen ???? does he mention Irenaeus?
5. Carpocrates ??? I have no idea....

Any others, preceding Eusebius?

What is the age of our oldest extant manuscript attributed to Hippolytus?

How about Tertullian?

Both, WELL AFTER Eusebius. Centuries later.

So, Jay, and Toto, what does this question really boil down to? Aren't we really asking, in this diversion from the main focus of Jay's very important thread, dealing with the need for power to cause the creation of an orthodox canon, and the role played by "Irenaeus" in identifying the proper books to be included in that canon, this question:

Which pre-Nicean author writes, in documents extant at least in recent centuries, about the role played by "Irenaeus", in establishing the canon?

My answer: NONE. Every document, so far as I can determine, which mentions or cites "Irenaeus", has passed through a filter, the filter of Eusebius.

So, the supposedly onerous chore of undertaking the Herculean effort to commit forgery, really consists then, so far as I can determine, in altering just two authors' texts: Tertullian', and Hippolytus'.

Is such a task, forging these two author's texts, then beyond the capability of the Emperor of Rome? If he could compel destruction of all extant copies of Arius' work, do you mean that Constantine lacked the ability to procure the numerically much less significant copies of the writings of Tertullian, an author acknowledged to have been IGNORED in the Third Century, and Hippolytus, a man whose writings were UNKNOWN, before Eusebius?

Think about it: Arius' writings caused so much commotion and panic and urban chaos, that Constantine was obliged to convene the council at Nicea to straighten out the mess.

By contrast, Tertullian was ignored. Hippolytus unknown.

Yet Constantine was able to TOTALLY DESTROY every single document ever written by Arius. Do you honestly believe that Eusebius then, could not have gathered up every other copy of Tertullian's works, and Hippolytus' works, probably a total of ten books between them, and alter them, in a manner consistent with the Nicean Council, per instructions from Constantine?

Please educate me, as to who else, in the third century WROTE about "Irenaeus" ' contribution to the Canon.
Thank you.

avi

show_no_mercy

The earliest manuscripts of much of Plato's works are from 890 CE. Therefore, Plato is a product of 890 CE :huh:

Is Plato also a creation of Constantine?

avi

1. date of creation: independent attestation of the composition--are there not multiple attestations by several Latin and Greek authors describing Plato's ideas? I am asking you, snm, are there authors of the third century, i.e. preceding Eusebius, who had described AH or "Irenaeus"? If they followed Eusebius in time, then their sources were POSSIBLY/probably forged by Eusebius.

2. date of forgery: all matters of the new state religion passed through the hands of Eusebius. Plato's ideas were not, to the best of my knowledge, held up as critical to the function of any Roman Empire activity, hence, there would have been no need to forge anything concerning Plato's ideas. They were irrelevant to the function of the Empire.

My point seems to have been missed, at least by snm. I am arguing that the only "independent" attestation for the existence of AH and "Irenaeus" among folks who preceded Eusebius, is found in the writings of Tertullian, whose oldest extant manuscript comes WELL AFTER Eusebius, and Hippolytus, ditto.

So, are there other authors of the third century who discussed AH or "Irenaeus", BEFORE Eusebius?

avi

stephan huller

The Philosophumena references Against Heresies section on the Valentinians, the Marcosians, the Carpocratians AND Irenaeus's specific involvement in these accounts (6.44, 55).

Pseudo-Tertullian references material from Against Heresies.

Tertullian makes specific reference to Irenaeus and Against Heresies

Clement of Alexandria references Irenaeus and (from memory) Against Heresies.

Origen met Hippolytus. Hippolytus is introduced as a personal disciple of Irenaeus. (Photius, Bibl. cod. 121.)

Gaius is said to have been a disciple of Irenaeus (Martyrdom of Polycarp)

This my friend is about as good as it gets with the Church Fathers. There is probably much more evidence for the existence of Irenaeus and his writings than the Gospel of Luke in the period.

avi

Philosophumena = Hippolytus, already discussed. Who else, besides Eusebius discusses "Irenaeus", in the era between the life of Hippolytus and the death of Eusebius?

Photius, as Roger had earlier suggested, may well have known AH, but he certainly didn't know "Irenaeus", because Photius lived in the 9th century.

When you write that "Origen met Hippolytus", perhaps I have not made myself clear. I am not challenging the existence of Hippolytus, maybe he existed, or maybe not, I don't know, and it isn't important for this discussion.

What is important is WHO KNEW "Irenaeus"? We already have acknowledged Hippolytus as ONE author whose writings would have to have been altered in the fourth century, for the hypothesis that "Irenaeus" was a fictional character to have credibility. We seek in other words, to identify the scope of the forgery issue, just how much effort would have been required, to give "Irenaeus" a valid CV.

Gaius looks like someone who knew someone who copied something, written by someone.......
What is the age of the oldest extant copy of this text? Is it regarded as original, i.e. not manifesting evidence of gross manipulation?

Tertullian: Yes, already acknowledged. He was a non-factor in his own lifetime. Forging his docs would have been childsplay for the scribes of the empire.

That leaves Clement of Alexandria. I don't know what he wrote about "Ireneaus". Here's a quote:
In other words, according to Eusebius, .....

That's not independent attestation.

We are left with two authors, Tertullian, and Hippolytus, neither of whom had made any significant impression on the populations of that era. So, how many books would Eusebius have been obliged to gather up, and destroy, replacing them with a version more favorable to Nicea's conclusions? I suppose two dozen unique texts, each in multiple copies, let's say, a hundred copies, maximum.

So, the forgery task would have involved modifying the original text, and recopying the entire manuscript with the modification. How big was the scriptorium, again? located, where, at Caesarea, right?

Here's a question: Which is a more arduous task:

Gathering up an army of 10,000 men, with a comparable number of support and supply persons, to march for ten years across enormous distances stretching from Koln to Madrid, from Scotland to Baghdad, carrying weapons, and using them, in a desperate struggle for survival,

OR,

copying 2,400 manuscripts.

avi

stephan huller

Your question about who knew Irenaeus has only limited use as I have demonstrated that so many people used his writings. Could Irenaeus have originally been called by a different name? Perhaps. Harvey suggests that possibility. But was Irenaeus a fourth century fiction? Impossible.

Another point. Harvey points out that Irenaeus consistently cites from a strange Bible originally written in Syriac. Are you guys now going to suggest that Eusebius planted this evidence to throw us of his trail? Come on. This is stupid theory better suited for crackheads and popularized fiction rather than serious scholarship.