Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-04-2009, 07:53 AM

I think Jay may have been referring to books such as the Gospel of Peter, which was popular at one time but later dropped and survives only in fragments, or the Didache.

I don't know what Roger considers misleading about this?

eta: cross posted with the above

Roger Pearse · 02-04-2009, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think Jay may have been referring to books such as the Gospel of Peter, which was popular at one time but later dropped and survives only in fragments, or the Didache.

I don't know what Roger considers misleading about this?

I felt that an argument was being insinuated that there was substantial diversity in early canons. This isn't so. They all used much the same books, plus or minus a few.

For instance, which communities considered the didache as canonical? Do we know of any? Which considered the ps. Gospel of Peter canonical? Isn't our only information from Eusebius, discussing the church at Rhossus which was being invited to do so but in fact did not? The answers to these questions, and what those communities DID consider as canon, clarify matters, you see.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith · 02-04-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

For instance, which communities considered the didache as canonical? Do we know of any?

It can be hard to tell whether a community thought of a text as scripture, since what we have mainly is texts written by individual authors who may or may not speak for their communities. For the Didache, we have Clement of Alexandria apparently calling this text scripture (γραφη) in Miscellanies 1.20; he also alludes favorably to it in other instances (which I have collected on my Didache page).

Quote:

I felt that an argument was being insinuated that there was substantial diversity in early canons. This isn't so. They all used much the same books, plus or minus a few.

This is true. After the Marcionite minicanon, there always seems to be a core of four gospels and the Pauline epistles (whether including or excluding the book of Hebrews). The catholic epistles are more variable, as is (especially) the apocalypse of John.

Ben.

aa5874 · 02-04-2009, 11:31 AM

Justin Martyr in "First Apology" did write that in the place of worship in the cities and in the country the memoirs of the apostles were being read on sundays.

Justin Martyr did not mention at all any letter from a writer called Paul as part of any texts being read in any place of worship, neither did he mention any book called Acts of the Apostles.

At around the middle of the 2nd century, Justin Martyr seemed to know of the Memoirs of the Apostles and the Revelation of John.

Justin Martyr in "First Apology" 67

Quote:

...And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things....

gentleexit · 02-04-2009, 11:53 AM

Nicea shows a broad consensus on what was and was not "inspired" and so quotable. Neither side spent time advocating for books that weren't accepted by the other. They just got down to reading the same books in different ways. Given the lack of anything but a figurative "world church" before that conference, such consensus does back an evolutionary, bottom-up process that decided what was or was not "from god".

Roger Pearse · 02-06-2009, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

For instance, which communities considered the didache as canonical? Do we know of any?

It can be hard to tell whether a community thought of a text as scripture, since what we have mainly is texts written by individual authors who may or may not speak for their communities. For the Didache, we have Clement of Alexandria apparently calling this text scripture (γραφη) in Miscellanies 1.20; he also alludes favorably to it in other instances (which I have collected on my Didache page).

This is well said and quite true. I was thinking somewhat of testimonia to church use, rather than individual opinions. Clement has weird ideas of canon, unique to himself or so I am told.

Quote:

I felt that an argument was being insinuated that there was substantial diversity in early canons. This isn't so. They all used much the same books, plus or minus a few.

This is true. After the Marcionite minicanon, there always seems to be a core of four gospels and the Pauline epistles (whether including or excluding the book of Hebrews). The catholic epistles are more variable, as is (especially) the apocalypse of John.

True. Although... we talk as if there was a Marcionite canon. But is there actually any evidence of such a thing, in any sense not equally applicable to the churches? All we know is that Marcion rejected various texts in use already.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Didymus · 02-06-2009, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you claiming that Matthew 1.18 and Acts 1.9 are more plausible than anything in Gospel of Thomas?

The Gospel of Thomas is consistent with the implausibilties in the canonised NT.

The author of gThomas proposed nothing new.

In fact, he proposed nothing at all, aside from some Q & A between Jesus and his followers. It's a sayings gospel.

Have you actually read Thomas? Or even a description of it?

What gives you the idea that it was left out of the canon on the basis of implausibility? Unless we are to think of conversations between Jesus and his mother and some followers as "implausible," I'll venture that you can't name one implausibility in Thomas.

The problems with Thomas were (and are, from the Christian perspective) theological, not historical. Gnostic tendencies perhaps, and even misogyny, but implausibility? I don't think so.

Ddms

Transient · 02-06-2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you claiming that Matthew 1.18 and Acts 1.9 are more plausible than anything in Gospel of Thomas?

The Gospel of Thomas is consistent with the implausibilties in the canonised NT.

The author of gThomas proposed nothing new.

In fact, he proposed nothing at all, aside from some Q & A between Jesus and his followers. It's a sayings gospel.

Have you actually read Thomas? Or even a description of it?

What gives you the idea that it was left out of the canon on the basis of implausibility? Unless we are to think of conversations between Jesus and his mother and some followers as "implausible," I'll venture that you can't name one implausibility in Thomas.

The problems with Thomas were (and are, from the Christian perspective) theological, not historical. Gnostic tendencies perhaps, and even misogyny, but implausibility? I don't think so.

Ddms

Maybe implausible theological concepts?
The church must have thought some theological concepts wrong and or implausible.

Didymus · 02-07-2009, 09:20 AM

Plausibility has to do with descriptions of real world events, not concepts, and with whether they comport with the world as we know it. Unlike the canonical gospels, Thomas doesn't describe any events, so plausibility would not have been a consideration.

We have no record of how the early church viewed the gospel. But if you read it, it's apparent why Thomas - like the other gnostic gospels found at Nag Hammadi - would have been considered heretical.

It also put forth James, instead of Peter, as Jesus' successor:

Incidentally, there are also some passages which seem misogynous, and others which seem to advocate an Eastern "God is within" philosophy. The latter especially would not have set well with the early church.

In any case, "plausibility" is a red herring. It just doesn't make sense as an issue with Thomas.

Ddms

Roger Pearse · 02-07-2009, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

We have no record of how the early church viewed the gospel [of Thomas].

Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies, book 5, ch. 2.

Quote:

What the assertions are of the Naasseni, who style themselves Gnostics, and that they advance those opinions which the Philosophers of the Greeks previously propounded, as well as those who have handed down mystical (rites), from (both of) whom the Naasseni taking occasion, have constructed their heresies.

...

But they assert that not only is there in favour of their doctrine, testimony to be drawn from the mysteries of the Assyrians, but also from those of the Phrygians concerning the happy nature-concealed, and yet at the same time disclosed-of things that have been, and are coming into existence, and moreover will be,-(a happy nature) which, (the Naassene) says, is the kingdom of heaven to be sought for within a man. And concerning this (nature) they hand down an explicit passage, occurring in the Gospel inscribed according to Thomas, expressing themselves thus: "He who seeks me, will find me in children from seven years old; for there concealed, I shall in the fourteenth age be made manifest." This, however, is not (the teaching) of Christ, but of Hippocrates, who uses these words: "A child of seven years is half of a father." And so it is that these (heretics), placing the originative nature of the universe in causative seed, (and) having ascertained the (aphorism) of Hippocrates, that a child of seven years old is half of a father, say that in fourteen years, according to Thomas, he is manifested. This, with them, is the ineffable and mystical Logos.

From the preface to book 1, giving context:

Quote:

In order, then, as we have already stated, that we may prove them atheists, both in opinion and their mode (of treating a question) and in fact, and (in order to show) whence it is that their attempted theories have accrued unto them, and that they have endeavoured to establish their tenets, taking nothing from the holy Scriptures-nor is it from preserving the succession of any saint that they have hurried headlong into these opinions;-but that their doctrines have derived their origin18 from the wisdom of the Greeks, from the conclusions of those who have formed systems of philosophy, and from would-be mysteries, and the vagaries of astrologers,-it seems, then, advisable, in the first instance, by explaining the opinions advanced by the philosophers of the Greeks, to satisfy our readers that such are of greater antiquity than these (heresies), and more deserving of reverence in reference to their views respecting the divinity; in the next place, to compare each heresy with the system of each speculator, so as to show that the earliest champion of the heresy availing himself19 of these attempted theories, has turned them to advantage by appropriating their principles, and, impelled from these into worse, has constructed his own doctrine. The undertaking admittedly is full of labour, and (is one) requiring extended research.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2009, 07:53 AM	#31
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think Jay may have been referring to books such as the Gospel of Peter, which was popular at one time but later dropped and survives only in fragments, or the Didache. I don't know what Roger considers misleading about this? eta: cross posted with the above

02-04-2009, 11:53 AM	#35
gentleexit Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: CA, USA Posts: 202	Nicea shows a broad consensus on what was and was not "inspired" and so quotable. Neither side spent time advocating for books that weren't accepted by the other. They just got down to reading the same books in different ways. Given the lack of anything but a figurative "world church" before that conference, such consensus does back an evolutionary, bottom-up process that decided what was or was not "from god".

02-07-2009, 09:20 AM	#39
Didymus Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 416	Plausibility has to do with descriptions of real world events, not concepts, and with whether they comport with the world as we know it. Unlike the canonical gospels, Thomas doesn't describe any events, so plausibility would not have been a consideration. We have no record of how the early church viewed the gospel. But if you read it, it's apparent why Thomas - like the other gnostic gospels found at Nag Hammadi - would have been considered heretical. It also put forth James, instead of Peter, as Jesus' successor: Incidentally, there are also some passages which seem misogynous, and others which seem to advocate an Eastern "God is within" philosophy. The latter especially would not have set well with the early church. In any case, "plausibility" is a red herring. It just doesn't make sense as an issue with Thomas. Ddms

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.