EarlDoherty

I am no expert on textual criticism, but Roger's humility and instincts are a bit misplaced. If someone like Justin in the mid 2nd century can tell us (using his "memoirs of the apostles") that Jesus' disciples deserted him "after the crucifixion" (don't remember where that is and I'm not taking the trouble to search it out), rather than the way our canonicals tell us, after the arrest, what kind of substantial alteration of "autographs" does something like this speak to, all of it lying back beyond our textual horizon?

If Matthew is basically a recasting of Mark, and if Mark had been lost, how could we tell what the "original version" of the Gospel (and there's really only one, since they're all reworkings and expansions of Mark) was? All this comparison of surviving manuscripts, most of them from the 4th century and beyond, is meaningless to arrive at any dependability as to what the original documents were and how closely our extant corpus represents them. Which is, of course, the apologetic object in this whole numbers game.

Second and third century literature is full of indications that the texts as we have them are not like the texts that were used by those writers. (Leading to all sorts of 'explanations' like, well, Justin was using an unknown harmony.) Are not the multiple-phase composition of Gospels like John and Luke (the latter being increasingly recognized) evidence of wholesale revision during the early period, and how impossible it is to go back to any meaningful 'autograph'?

The same applies to the epistles, especially Paul, where present letters are compilations and splicings together of earlier parts, with who knows what amendments made at a time when we have no way of judging the integrity of that editing (other than wishful thinking, of course)? Even the ancients were exercised over the reliability of Paul and Luke because of the discrepancies between Marcion's versions and those used by such as Tertullian. (Of course, they simply accepted their own as the 'accurate' versions, but we are surely not as naive as all that!)

Sorry to derail an interesting tangent about the authenticity of Irenaeus and returning to the OP. (As Jay knows, I have less than complete sympathy with this sort of ultra-radical reading of the early centuries of Christianity.)

Earl Doherty

darstec

Of course the fallacy of Julian's position is that it is misleading. Even if 99.9999999999999% of the NT has been shown to be accurate, it only takes one word in all of it to call the rest into suspicion. If instead of "Jesus is the son of god" the original read "Jesus is not the son of god" to bring down the entire house of cards.

And the best we can say is that outside spelling errors, which should be dismissed, we have nothing, nothing at all approximating or rather approaching the actual time these NT works were supposed to have been written.

We have no idea whether or not the "autograph" of the entire Pauline epistles consisted of more than 10 sentences which gradually plumped up. We have absolutely nothing written anytime near the supposed 50 CE date when Paul was supposed to have written his epistles. The only support is some paleographic "evidence" which is paraded about as though someone could not copy the handwriting style of a previous period so that it appeared older and more authoritative. Some time ago (and perhaps not on this forum) I posted links to some very ancient forgeries. Why do seemingly intelligent people think no one would make a handwriting seem older, especially in light of the high stakes involved. Have we forgotten Mark Hoffmann already? Or is he only a 20th centu;ry phenomenon?

Find a Pauline epsistle substantially the same except for a minor mispelling or two that is radiocardon dated to 50 CE and then you will have had evidence to claim any any epistle or gospel is such and such accurate. Outside of that, any percentage assigned to accuracy is pure true believer speculation.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Roger,

I am having trouble locating the 1903 magazine the Athenaeum where J. Armitage Robinson published the evidence for his idea that P. Oxy 405 was a fragment of Irenaeus. Would you know where I could get it?

I am curious about his translation of the visible words. The limited words that I can make out outside of the Matthew quote, "of," "the," and "of God", do match our current text of "Against Heresies." However, these words are quite common and do not make for as positive an identification as I should like.

Also, I wonder if Robinson even considered that it could be from another text that was later incorporated into the work that is now referred to as Irenaeus' "Against Heresies".

My contention is that Eusebius edited and interpolated text into a previous work against the Valentinians, possibly by Tertullian or some other heretical writer, and simply assigned it to an imaginary Bishop Irenaeus. So, even if we verify that this fragment does match our current copies of "Against Heresies," it really would not affect my position. Only finding a Greek text of at least several unchanged chapters with epigraphical evidence to the time before Eusebius would be evidence against my position.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Roger Pearse

I have a photocopy of the page, so allow me a day or two -- I'm away from home -- and I'll post it here.

I wouldn't think so, because there is no evidence for such a hypothetical text, and no reason to suppose it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

This would appear to be a reference to Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 53.

"Moreover, the prophet Zechariah foretold that this same Christ would be smitten, and His disciples scattered: which also took place. For after His crucifixion, the disciples that accompanied Him were dispersed, until He rose from the dead, and persuaded them that so it had been prophesied concerning Him, that He would suffer; and being thus persuaded, they went into all the world, and taught these truths."

I'm afraid that I am unable to follow the logic which considers this evidence of a textual variant, however. Anyone today could write what Justin wrote, without any such intent.

This involves a (common) confusion between the process of composition of a text and its transmission, however.

Not really. What you mean is that later exemplars shed no light on the manner in which, before it had been written, Luke composed his gospel from other sources. This is so, since that kind of information is not available in that way.

I do not think that this is so. Arguing from loose quotations in this manner seems certain to produce wrong results, since it implies intention and ability to quote verbatim, without demonstrating it.

No. These are two different ideas.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

PhilosopherJay

Hi Roger,

Thanks for the offer to post it. That is extremely kind of you.

As regards the idea that Irenaeus' work may have been tampered with by Eusebius, I note that from antiquity, Eusebius has been criticized for dishonesty, by Jerome and Photius among others. The letters of Abgar and Jesus, whose authenticity Eusebius vouches for, has been universally declared forgeries. Since the 16th century he has been repeatedly named as the forger of the Testimonium Flavium.

In the 19th century, the noted Swiss historian, Jacob Burkhardt, called Eusebius "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity" and in the book Age of Constantine said of Eusebius' information regarding Constantine, "And Eusebius through all historians have followed him, has been proved guilty of so many distortions, dissimulations and inventions, that he has forfeited all claim to figure as a decisive source." Regarding Constantine's miracle at the Milvian Bridge, he writes, "Nor is Eusebius beyond having himself invented two-thirds of the story."

So, it is not impossible that Robinson, writing after Burkhardt, would also have considered that this text by Irenaeus, too, which flowed through Eusebius' hands, may have been tampered with. However, as Eusebius' relationship to the text is not pertinent to the identification of the fragment, it is probable, as you suggest that he had no reason to bring up the subject.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Roger Pearse

You're welcome. I think it's delightful that we may actually have a fragment of a physical book from antiquity written in the lifetime of the author, so I have always found that fragment interesting.

You know, I'm sure, that I want to see references for such claims? Disagreements in antiquity relate to his supposed Arianism, as far as I am aware.

Eusebius does not vouch for their authenticity, and he certainly did not compose them, unless you propose to attribute to him fluency in Syriac and authorship of the work from which they come. What he did do, however, was obtain them from Edessa -- a feat of research unusual in antiquity.

By whom? As far as I know this claim has only been made by two scholars in all history, one dead and the other a post-grad.

In the 20th century Profs. Cameron and Hall dismiss all this vituperation in their preface to the Vita Constantini as politically motivated by the hostility of Burkhardt and his friends towards the Hapsburg emperor.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

PhilosopherJay

Hi Roger,

I must apologize. I am teaching several courses and I am quite busy, so I'll try to provide the evidence you seek over the next several days as time permits.

Here is perhaps the most relevant passage from Jerome's adv. Rufinus. II

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27102.htm


Eusebius who was a very learned man, (observe I say learned not catholic: you must not, according to your wont make this a ground for calumniating me) takes up six volumes with nothing else but the attempt to show that Origen is of his way of believing, that is of the Arian perfidy. He brings out many test-passages, and effectually proves his point. In what dream in an Alexandrian prison was the revelation given to you on the strength of which you make out these passages to be falsified which he accepts as true? But possibly he being an Arian, took in these additions of the heretics to support his own error, so that he should not be thought to be the only one who had held false opinions contrary to the Church.

The situation is complicated, but basically, Rufinus has translated and attributed a work by Eusebius in defense of Origen to his martyr/master Pamphilus. Jerome has criticized him for it. His response is basically to accuse Eusebius of taking credit for a work by Pamphilus, or at least taking credit for a work done jointly by Pamphilus and himself, and saying that Eusebius might have kept in some falsified (heretical) passages.

Jerome responds by saying that Rufinus is lying. Pamphilus did none of the work. It is all Eusebius'. In this passage he accuses Eusebius of deliberately inserting Arian passages into quotes by Origen in order to make it seem that Origen was an Arian, like himself.

He is not only accusing Eusebius of Arianism, but of deliberate interpolation of his own ideas and words into the text of Origen.

I agree with Jerome's claim. However, I also accept the claim of Rufinus that Eusebius deliberately changed the name of the author of the texts. Just as he changed the name of his text in defense of Origen to that of Bishop Pamphilus in order to give it authority, he changed the name of the author of "against Heresies" to Bishop Irenaeus for the same reason.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Julian

And the fallacy of darstec's position is that he didn't bother reading my posts. If he would care to return to the previous page and read post #13 I point out that little words can be very important and I give an example.
In other words, we can never discuss anything or make any assumptions about anything. This post, for example, could have started as 10 words by Julian but them plumped up by an evil moderator. Your argument is unreasonable because it makes an unwarranted assumption that you cannot prove or assign a probability to, an assumption that leaves us nowhere to go.
While forgeries are common, I have never heard of one from that long ago that emulates a slightly older handwriting. Maybe you could provide a link to such a document?
Carbon dating is no more accurate than paleography, the margin of error could never pin it to 50CE.

Julian

Chris Weimer

Furthermore, we don't have any autographs of any original literary works. For all we know, Cicero could have only been said to have uttered "o tempora, o mores" and the rest is "plumped up". The primary problem with dartsec's position is that it ignores interaction with the texts and the transmission thereof. We'd be equally valid to say that God created it all yesterday. One can do all sorts of things when you're reduced to saying "Well, you can't prove that it didn't happen!"