Duvduv

Greetings. As a new poster I want to draw attention to some confusing issues in the chronology and substance of what was going on in the second century with regard to the New Testament texts.

Although many scholars rightly call into question the veracity of the gospels and epistles, they seem to accept as "gospel truth" whatever is stated in writings attributed to Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius about historical events in the 2nd century.

In this scenario we have a situation whereby Justin Martyr was a contemporary of Marcion and yet in his Apology Justin does not even mention one word about the Apostolikon of Marcion containing a gospel and epistles. Yet barely some 40 years later, Irenaeus, and then Tertullian after him, have everything all arranged, i.e. four gospels, and all types of epistles, (and Acts with something of a different "Paul") attributed to someone named Paul.

Furthermore, the orthodox position was that Marcion doctored the epistles of its judaic references which he would have assumed to have all been interpolated in a uniform manner by some central authority. Yet these epistles and their author had never been heard of before.

But what if the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian and Eusebius are not to be treated as the "gospel truth"? What if their stories of Marcion and his heresy are incorrect? Is it even likely that someone would have the position in the SECOND century to write a book about heresies on behalf of "the Church" that did not yet even exist?

What if these books were written well into the 3rd or even 4th century??! If so, then the gap between Justin and the emergence of the eventually canonized NT texts is much wider than a mere 30-40 years.

In that case, the emergence of epistles written by various people occurred much later, and the stories about a historical Jesus that were floating around eventually found their way into written gospels. Since it is likely that the birth story of Matthew and Luke entered the gospels at a later stage it is unusual that Justin would have a reference to them.

mountainman

Hey duvduv,

If we considered the postulate that these books were written substantially later than is traditionally claimed, then we would be examining and discussing with great interest, and with professional advice where necessary, the C14 results that are relevant to the question of chronology.


Best wishes




Pete


http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...Composite3.JPG

aa5874

Greetings.

If the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius are NOT accepted then I am afraid the very foundation of the Church will collapse.

Once Paul is removed from the 1st century then the NT can be dumped.

Doug Shaver

Yes, they do. And for no very good reason, so far as I have been able to determine.

I don't think it likely we'll ever know for sure what was going on in Christian circles before Nicea. The evidence is consistent with several scenarios. Which one is most appealing to any given skeptical investigator is bound to depend on whether the investigator thinks it more likely that the patristic writers were just inveterately mistaken or that they were all a bunch of bald-faced liars.

aa5874

Actually there is NO good reason to accept as "gospel truth" whatever is stated in the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius about historical events in the 2nd century.

If there were GOOD reasons then Doug Shaver should have given those reasons.

Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius CONTRADICT each other and themselves in their own writings.

Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old and was about 30 years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius but was still crucified under Pilate and claimed that John and the other disciples did convey that information to people in Ephesus which is Contrary to the teachings of the very Church that Jesus was crucified at about 30 years of age.

Tertullian claimed Contrary to Irenaeus that Clement of Rome was the second bishop of Rome at around c 66 CE when according to Irenaeus Clement was the FOURTH bishop of Rome c 90 CE about 30 years later.

Eusebius claimed Paul KNEW of gLuke yet stated Paul died BEFORE the Fall of the Temple when Scholars have deduced that gLuke was written AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

There is NO good reason to accept as "gospel truth" the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius.

Duvduv

Hi, Mountainman. I don't understand your presentation of the C14 graph. Could you expand on the point?

In any case, scholars, including radical ones, seem to attribute veracity to the claims of the apologists. But they never address the issues I raised, namely how was it that Justin cited gospel stories that were floating around and a mere 40 years later supposedly everything had changed?! In the writings of Irenaeus there were already the 4 canonical gospels and the epistles from someone (authentic and imitated) who was not even hinted at by Justin - Paul. In addition, Irenaeus already had the Book of Acts, which presents a Paul different from that of the epistles. And ALL OF THIS supposedly developed in only 30-40 years. And no one questions the legitimacy of the claim that Irenaeus wrote at the end of the 2nd century, followed by Tertullian.

Personally, I don't believe the story that Marcion had a different set of epistles. In fact, I don't believe the epistles were "collected" by anyone in the middle of 2nd century. WHO would have "collected" from where?? Did Marcion or the proto-orthodox go around like Indiana Jones to all the towns of Asia Minor? And the idea of changing the epistles makes no sense, because it would mean that Marcion inherited epistles that had been altered with judaic references by some single hand or authority WHICH DID NOT YET EXIST, or the proto-Orthodox added such references after Marcion - and WHO would have been authorized to do so if there wasn't yet any centralized church authority??

Perhaps the epistles were circulating around, but they never attained importance until at least the 3rd century.....although the mystery is about WHO found them and even moreso, WHO KEPT THEM AND WHY? Epistles in those days were not usually long letters. But HOW DID the recipients know to keep the letters for posterity?! Added to that, the epistles are not all the same ideologically. Galatians is totally different from Hebrews and even Romans. So if they were mostly written by different people, WHO got them all together, even in the 3rd century?

In any event, some radical scholars argue that Mark was an allegorical description of the Pauline sect's belief in a celestial Christ. But what about the possibility that the gospel stories and the religion of the epistles developed INDEPENDENT of each other?? The main feature of the epistles is the idea of the INDWELLING of the Christ in the believer and vice versa, constituting "salvation" before the universal revelation at the eschaton. This feature is nowhere to be found in the gospels or even in some other epistles.

aa5874

Well, Scholars have already deduced that the information supplied by Irenaeus about the dating, chronology and authorship of the books and Epistles are hopelessly FLAWED.

It is most significant, as you correctly say, that Justin Martyr did NOT mention the FOUR gospels and any epistles but the FIRST to do so, Irenaeus, provided Bogus information that has been REJECTED even by the Church other Church writers and virtually ALL Scholars.

Sheshbazzar

It appears to me that Marcion was the first to compose a written 'gospel', and some 'Epistles' of an 'apostle' named 'Paul', which produced a reactionary furor among those christian groups that held a variant set of traditions, ideas and views (and political alliances).
Subsequently these orthodox christians were impelled to scramble to produce their 'orthodox' and 'catholic' versions of the 'gospel' and these 'Pauline' writings.

The four 'gospels' that finally became accepted as canonical are the result of those necessary compromises and 'accommodations' that had to be made among the orthodox in order to assert their claims and present a united front against the already well established Marcionite 'heresy'.
It took them well over a century to 'get their shit (more or less) together' and to agree to accept those four variant 'catholic' gospel versions that were finally settled upon, and various 'catholic' 'Pauline' 'Epistles' that were still being 'doctored' and newly fabricated well into the 3rd century CE, in response to various 'heresies' as they arose. -These were not even 'universally received' by the 'catholic' church for centuries, and some are still rejected.

The NT text are not historical documents, nor documentation of any actual history. They are religious/political propaganda productions composed with the purpose of directing and inducing their readers and hearers into the uniting with a particular faction of the christian cult.
A tiny change here or there and a faction gains or loses thousands of (tithe paying) members.

This still goes on to this very day. Where the addition of, subtraction of, or a new or 'better translation' or 'interpretation' of even a a single word of text may persuade and induce the reader/hearer to swap sectarian alliances.
And of course, it is always 'the other side' that is 'misinformed', 'deceived', or 'heretical'.

And that huge stack of christian "versions" of 'The Holy Bible' are all bearing witness to this fact.
I don't believe christian claims, or religion, even if they are standing upon a stack of 'Bibles'. In fact it is that very stack of Bibles that totally discredits every one of their claims.
And as a side note, it is notable that most 'devout' 'church member-attending christians' will refuse to take an oath upon any "version" of 'The Holy Bible' not produced, accepted or 'authorized' by their own sect.

The 'Bible' was created as a propaganda TOOL, always has been (even from the days of 'Moses') serving the interests of the priesthood and government in manipulating and controlling the minds (and the wealth) of those so indoctrinated and thereby subjugated. That is ALL it is or ever will be.



.

Duvduv

Sheshbazzar, thank you for your reply. However, you also assume that the scenario presented by Tertullian is accurate. If Marcion produced a gospel and epistles, you still have to assume that "the orthodox" (WHO and WHERE?) were organized and centralized enough to do what they did in a mere 30-40 years. It just smells fishy.
AA5874, I am sorry to admit that I am more aware of the scholars who accept Irenaeus and Tertullian and Eusebius hook line and sinker than of those who you indicate reject their chronological claims.
I just read an article that is difficult to understand that argues that the NT texts were only produced by "monks" in the 15th century. Where did this theory originate, and what kind of religion do they believe Europeans followed for the previous 1000 years?!

Duvduv

Thank you for your interesting comments. How was it possible for Irenaeus to have believed the HJ lived to the age of 50 when the gospels that Irenaeus had say otherwise?! Especially if the writings of Irenaeus were only written in the 3rd century?!
Some epistles mention other or false gospels. I wonder whether these might allude to the historical Jesus gospels, and the idea that "Paul" and his sect developed separately from that of the gospels.......