FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-05-2010, 07:59 AM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by show_no_mercy View Post
Prior to Marcion, the only "holy scripture" was the Tanakh (Old Testament).
Your evidence for this claim would be most interesting to see.

The material you posted is substantially fraudulent, by the way. An instance on the first line: trying to suggest that Matthew was anonymous because we don't know for sure to whom the Ebionites attributed the lost Gospel of the Hebrews is delicious, if you are as cynical as I am. There is no evidence that any of the gospels were ever anonymous, at least until 1970.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 04-05-2010, 08:10 AM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
There is no evidence that any of the gospels were ever anonymous, at least until 1970.
Can you name a Christian who quotes from Mark, Matt, Luke, or John prior to Irenaeus? As in, actually writes those names?
Can you list any 2nd century manuscripts of any of those gospels that actually have "according to Mark/Matt/Luke/John" in it?

No?

Didn't think so.
show_no_mercy is offline  
Old 04-05-2010, 08:16 AM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,808
Default

Quote:
I also think "Misquoting Jesus" looks interesting. Does anyone have any other books they'd like to suggest?


By all means start with Misquoting Jesus but continue on to Ehrman's "Lost Christianities." It's a discussion of how "orthodoxy" emerged from the pile of competing doctrines which all existed early on.

If you can't find that book, PM me an email address. Somewhere around here I have an electronic version of it. I think I might have Misquoting Jesus, too. Personally, I hate reading books on a computer but I freely admit to being an old fart and I know that young people do not share my prejudice on that subject.
Minimalist is offline  
Old 04-05-2010, 08:53 AM   #24
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 109
Default

Well... this has kind of turned into a debate. Thanks for all the advice. I'm going to read up on both sides of the issue.
missblue is offline  
Old 04-05-2010, 09:18 AM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by show_no_mercy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
There is no evidence that any of the gospels were ever anonymous, at least until 1970.
Can you name a Christian who quotes from Mark, Matt, Luke, or John prior to Irenaeus? As in, actually writes those names?
You will have to bear with me here. Justin Martyr mentions the gospels as being by the apostles. As I understand it, because he doesn't mention the names of the gospels, this proves -- to some people -- that they had no names. He likewise doesn't mention the names of the apostles either. Presumably these also had no names?

It's best not to make arguments from silence. Particularly considering that 99% of the texts from the 2nd century are lost. The testimony of authorship by those who could read those texts, however, is unanimous.

Quote:
Can you list any 2nd century manuscripts of any of those gospels that actually have "according to Mark/Matt/Luke/John" in it?
First you need to list all the second century manuscripts which have incipits or explicits.

Quote:
No?

Didn't think so.
You forget to mention, while making these irrelevant demands, some explanation of how these demands -- you offer no evidence -- demonstrates anonymity, whatever the answer.

As I said, there is no evidence whatever of anonymity. I notice that those who are most certain that the gospels are anonymous don't know any evidence either.

We need merely compare the gospels with the letter to the Hebrews, which clearly lost the name of its author at a very early date, to see the difference.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 04-05-2010, 09:24 AM   #26
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missblue
I'm highly interested in early Christian history, specifically the first few centuries before the counsel of Nicaea and the canonization of the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse
All the Christian writers of that period have been translated into English and are freely available online. You can get them from here, for instance:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2
supplemented with here:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers
You can also go to http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
See also http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

Quote:
Originally Posted by misblue
According to my knowledge, during this time there were multiple different Gospels and scriptures floating around, usually spoken orally, that at times competing against each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse
This is largely erroneous. There is no trace of a period that is so free-wheeling. As soon as we see a list of New Testament scriptures, it's four gospels, plus Acts, plus Paul's letters. That seems to be pretty universal in all the Christian churches. Soon afterwards people start faking gospels in the interest of various weird gnostic groups -- but these were and are easy to spot because they advocate gnostic views rather than apostolic ones....
It is NOT reasonable to assume that there were only four gospels. First of all it is not even reasonable to assume all four gospels were written at the same time period. It is far more likely that early Jesus believers had one version of the Jesus story and then other later SECT of Jesus believers redacted or modified the Jesus story.

The author of gLuke appears to confirm that he wrote his Jesus story after some other story about Jesus was available.

Now, to be called a Christian in antiquity it was not necessary at all to have believed in a character called Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

An apologetic source of antiquity, Justin Martyr, wrote that there were people who were called christians, almost the whole of Samaria, who believed in the Holy One Simon Magus since the days of the Emperor Claudius 41-54 CE.

There are other apologetic sources which also show that there multiple verions of Jesus Christ like Irenaeus "Against Heresies" and Hippolytus "Refutations Against All Heresies".

Quote:
Originally Posted by missblue
So we had this mess of different beliefs regarding Jesus, divinity, God, and all that stuff..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse
No. This is seriously misleading. All the early Christians believed that Jesus was God. Some of the heretical groups questioned whether he was really man (docetism). Marcion was one such heretic, making up both his own NT and his own books....
But, there is an apologetic source of antiquity that tends to confirm that there was a lot of confusion about the nature of Jesus up to the 3rd century.

This is a writer under the name of Origen writing in the 3rd century in the preface to De Principiis

Quote:
2. Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points.....
See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04120.htm

So, it would appear that there were major dis-agreements even among Jesus believers up to the third century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by missblue
until Constantine came along and finally called a counsel to decide once and for all what was 'divine' and what was 'heretical' by inviting a bunch of people to... vote of all things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse
No. The First Council of Nicaea was concerned with whether the Second Person of the Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First Person, or of like substance. It also harmonised the date of Easter.....
Although the Canon may have not been decided at the First Council of Nicaea, there is an apologetic source of antiquity, "First Apology" by Justin Martyr, which tends to show that there was no Canon with four named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Pauline writings.

Justin Martyr in "First Apology", written around the middle of the 2nd century, wrote that it was a document called the "Memoirs of the Apostles" that was read in the churches on Sundays.

"First Apology" LXVII
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...
Justin Martyr wrote not one single thing about any Gospel written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, or Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters thereby demonstrating his complete unawareness of any Canon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by missblue
I'm not sure if that's how it happened, but I'm extremely skeptical of sources or people that tell me anything regarding the history of very early Christianity, because I always feel that there is a bias behind the arguments or the words... so I've left the subject behind for a while....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse
There is some extraordinary material out there......
One of those extraordinary material is "Church History" by Eusebius. It is most extraordinary since the author show exactly what he did to produce a fraudulent history of Jesus believers.

I will give an example.

The writer called Eusebius appeared to have mis-represented the writing of Josephus and others.

This is Josephus on the death of Herod Agrippa.

Antiquities of the Jews 19.8.2
Quote:
...But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl (21) sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him...
See http://wesley.nnu.edu

Now, this is Eusebius referring to AJ 19.8.2 in "Church History" 2.10.6
Quote:
...But after a little, looking up, he saw an angel sitting above his head. And this he quickly perceived would be the cause of evil as it had once been the cause of good fortune...
See http://www.newadvent.org

It is clear that Josephus did not make any mention of any angel. Eusebius misrepresented Josephus in an attempt to historicise events found in Acts of the Apostles.


Quote:
Originally Posted by missblue
What I have never gotten a decent answer for, is *how* the counsel decided what was "divine" and what was "heretical". This seems to be a big absurdity in my mind, becuase if the Bible is supposedly inspired by God, we have *men* that are making the final decisions on just what those inspirations were and were not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse
This is an excellent question, because you have put your finger on the key problem with the story you have heard. It is, of course, quite impossible for any council to have such authority. That's why the canon is never decided at any one point; it drifts together, because no-one has the authority to say yes or no. At most a council may list books that are "received" because fakes are being circulated around (the council of Carthage does that). But authority to decide what God is? Not likely...
But we have an apologetic source of antiquity that tends to show that it was people and not God who had the authority to say what was authentic or not and who decided what was in the Canon.

Look at "Church History" under the name of Eusebius. Even known forgeries or non-authentic writings are included in the Canon.

"Church History" 3.3.1
Quote:
1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work.

But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures....
Based on the evidence that I have seen so far, it would appear to me that the Canon was a late compilation most likely compiled for the Roman Church in the 4th century since I cannot find any source of antiquity that showed any SECT of Jesus believers or Christians who used four contradictory , non-harmonised, gospels simultaneously.

I find it totally unconvincing that an early SECT of Jesus believers would use the birth narrative of gMatthew and gLuke at the same time when they are totally contradictory and each one renders the other as fiction.

Essentially the author of gMatthew claimed it was a complete secret and only the Magis knew where and when Jesus was born in Jerusalem before fleeing to Egypt, but the author of gLuke, without even mentioning the Magis, claim that there was a big angelic celebration and the shepherds were told the exact location of the baby Jesus and the shepherds in turn told others of Jesus after they visited him in the manger.

In essence, gMatthew's secret birth narrative was false or erroneous based on gLuke.

I find it to be very unlikely that these two contradictory narratives were simultaneosly original, one must have been later.

The Canon as found today must be late, at least after the middle of the 2nd century.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-05-2010, 09:28 AM   #27
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 109
Default

aa5874, thank you for the different opinion on Roger's posts. Roger, thank you for your opinion as well.

It appears many people have many different and conflicting opinions on the matter. Well, I assumed as much. More reason for me to read everything I can on the matter and decide for myself I suppose.
missblue is offline  
Old 04-05-2010, 09:30 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by show_no_mercy View Post

Can you name a Christian who quotes from Mark, Matt, Luke, or John prior to Irenaeus? As in, actually writes those names?

As I understand it, because he doesn't mention the names of the gospels, this proves -- to some people -- that they had no names.
As I understand it, because he doesn't mention the names of the gospels, this proves -- to some people -- that they had names.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
It's best not to make arguments from silence.
You should realize that you are also making an argument from silence, albeit in the opposite direction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
You forget to mention, while making these irrelevant demands, some explanation of how these demands -- you offer no evidence -- demonstrates anonymity, whatever the answer.
You are asserting that the gospels had names in the absence of evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
As I said, there is no evidence whatever of anonymity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tertullian, AM 4.2.1
Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body.
And what exactly are Matt and Luke except different (or "mutilated") versions of Mark? Authors who "subverted the body" of Mark? The synoptic problem itself is evidence that these texts were originally anonymous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
We need merely compare the gospels with the letter to the Hebrews, which clearly lost the name of its author at a very early date, to see the difference.
Are the gospels and the epistles the same type of writing? Genre? No? Why the comparison then? An epistle addressed to someone should have an author but in the case of Hebrews it doesn't. The only way this would be a valid comparison would be to assume that the gospels were personal letters written to someone.
show_no_mercy is offline  
Old 04-05-2010, 10:50 AM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
It is NOT reasonable to assume that there were only four gospels. First of all it is not even reasonable to assume all four gospels were written at the same time period. It is far more likely that ...
It is certainly possible to depict the past in terms of our own prejudices, if we so wish.
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 04-05-2010, 10:52 AM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by show_no_mercy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
As I understand it, because he doesn't mention the names of the gospels, this proves -- to some people -- that they had no names.
As I understand it, because he doesn't mention the names of the gospels, this proves -- to some people -- that they had names.
Since you have snipped my point in order to make an irrelevant rejoinder, I regret that you lose my interest at this point.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:55 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.