steve

Thanks, EffBeeEye.

I have one week till I leave Iraq and then about one more before I get home so then I can really start studying again.

I'll look at what you referenced. I'm fascinated by how the Bible came into being and the other writings that shed light on it.

Thanks again and keep researching.

Steve:wave:

EffBeeEye

I have other thoughts like this about how Christianity would either not exist or be nothing but a tiny little sub-religion in the Midle East - possibly having been absorbed into Judaism or Islam.

Think of this - the Romans - The Crusades. Ther were told by God to convert everyone to Christianity (it's in the Bible isn't it?) So they and the knights templar went off killing burning raping and whatnot across Europe and the entire New World converting everyone to Christianity.

Then along come the Spaniards - Those Romans ain't so great - off go the Spaniards across the Atlantic to convert South America and everyone else in their path, killing maiming and whatnot to their God given goals. The Inquisition ... What a drag. The Inquisition ... (History of the World Part 1, Mel Brooks as Torkamata [sp?])

At any rate then the English come to America and they are christian - Let's turn all the Native Americans into Christians too - and we'll kill lots of them too.

Just think about how many millione and millions of people have been killed in the name of God. And we thought Hitler was bad. Uff Dah!!!!!

At any rate - had not these three events transpired, the Christians would, in all likelihood, be that tiny little religion offshoot of Judaism. We would have no world presence, therewould be no "In GodWe Trust" on money, nor reference to God in any nation's papers.

All told - we are where we are thanks to humankind's bloodlust and need for power (God gave them power).

mountainman

In the above I was generous, since I have been researching for some time the thesis in ancient history that Constantine invented christianity in the fourth century out of reems and reems, and legions of reems, of the whole cloth. The first ancient historical appearance of the man Clerk Jesus Kent on planet earth corresponded with a meteor impact in the time of Constantine as coincidence would have it. The new testament I am convinced is a fabrication of Constantine's literary henchmen and a fiction of the epoch of Constantine, published by wickedness, despotism and greed so that the Boss could justifiably plunder the ancient temple culture, such as the temples of Apollo and Ascelpius.

IOW if we had a faster than light super-Hubble and took a super-fast journey and overtook the light cone now still emanating from the events of the Councils of Antioch and Nicaea c.324/325 CE then IMO we would not see christians spread around the empire, but in fact clustered within the emperor Constantine's court. IMO it is quite feasible to believe we owe to the highly organised forgeries under Constantine the actual existence of the new testament.


It is my opinion that the entire set of new testament apochryphal writings were only then authored and can be seen to represent the polemic of non christian authors, in political tracts against the authority of the story-book characters in the canon stories featuring Clerk Jesus Kent. Does this make sense at all? Any questions?


Best wishes,


Pete

Littlejohn

"..(like Mary's stepchildren), which I found surprising..."


Sorry... Who were the stepchildren of Mary? .. (Simon, James, Joseph and Judas?)


My best

Littlejohn
.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Roger,

The three important texts that challenge the traditional dating for the Muratorian Fragment are:

Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. (Oxford: Clarendon) 1992.

Sundberg, Albert C., Jr. "Canon Muratori: A Fourth Century List." in Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973): 1-41.

and

Verheyden, J., "The Canon Muratori: A Matter of dispute," Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (2003), The Biblical Canons, ed. by J.-M. Auwers & H. J. De Jonge, p.487-556.

The evidence, as a I recall, seemed quite strong, especially in Verheyden's recent article (2003) for dismissing the 170 C.E. date and placing the fragment in the late 3rd or early 4th centuries.

However, even if we assume the phrase "in our time" is being used in its more typical, modern sense of, say, the last 50 years, this still allows us a date of 160-210 C.E. Apparently the date of 170 was arrived at by averaging the possible dates upon the normal use of the phrase "in our time" from 0-50 years and adding 25 years to the midpoint of the reign of Pope Pius. (140-154).

Let us say that there is a dispute about the song "Norwegian Wood" (Lennon-McCartney, 1965) with some people saying that it was written in the 18th century and others saying it was written in the 19th century. One can well imagine someone coming along and saying today in 2008, "No, you are both wrong, the song was written in our time by Paul McCartney and John Lennon. Certainly, this would be using the phrase "in our time" quite normally even though "in our time" is referring to an event 43 years ago. We would even use it normally for a song like "Hound Dog" by Elvis Presley (Leiber- Stoller, 1953). So even an event 55 years old, may be considered "in our time"

Thus, even arbitrarily dismissing the claims of a number of scholars who place the fragment in the Fourth century, the Muratorian Canon could have been written as late 210 C.E. This would give a right to ask on what basis the author claims that "The Shepherd" was really written by Hermas, Bishop Pius' brother. Could this not have been a very diplomatic way of dismissing a dispute between two factions, one of whom put its authorship in the time of the apostles and the other ones who put it several centuries earlier in the time of the prophets?

When we are given three different origins for one text, how does this show that early Christians had a good idea of the history of their text?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

andrewcriddle

Given the setting of "The Shepherd" in great power Rome I doubt if anyone ever dated it in the time of the Hebrew prophets.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

I personally think that the Muratorian canon is in error about Hermas being the brother of Pius.

Ben.

mountainman

Well we all know that there was power in Rome. I dont think you'll find anyone arguing otherwise. The problem as I see it is the paucity of valuable information in regard to christian power (of any form) in Rome. We have a pile of assertions from Eusebius and others, but no independent account of anything christian in Rome, including the Basilides Inscription and other examined citations.


Best wishes,


Pete

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Excellent article. Thanks. It does give a quite plausible reason for why Hermas was portrayed as Pius' brother.

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay