Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julian · 08-22-2007, 06:46 AM

The question wasn't about the history of the various gospels, i.e. their number, type, and content. It was about the accuracy of the NT. I fail to see what Eusebius has to do with it. We have copies of the gospels and references to them well before Eusebius. Irenaeus was fairly specific about the gospels in the NT, providing one solid 2nd century witness. The idea that Eusebius would have made significant changes to the gospels is simply silly. MountainMan has been going on about that despite the sheer impossibility of the whole premise.

The fact is that the NT is a pretty solid text. There may have been many profound changes made before our copies came into being (I believe this to be the case but without decent evidence I won't just throw out such assertion as factual or likely despite the popularity of that approach around here) . We know that there are a few such changes after our copies start appearing.

PhilosopherJay said:

Quote:

On the other hand, studying just the changes, fractures and breaks in the narrative structures, we can say that these gospels are 99% different from the original gospel written in the First century.

This is just plain wrong. 99% different? Really? Are you sure that isn't 98.3%? Or maybe 99.347%? How did you derive that number? And what's with the original gospel? Last I checked there were four of them in the NT, all of them very different works. Whether or not they derive from a single gospel is completely irrelevant to this issue since the question was regarding the reliability of the NT text, not the reliability of the contents of the gospels.

Julian

gregor · 08-22-2007, 07:00 AM

While not being overly pedantic, I again would restate the objection (repeated by jeffevnz) to the concept of "originals," a loaded term.

The more precise questions would be:

1. How faithful has reproduction been of a source text for each book?

2. What evidence exists to show the earliest date of the completed source text for each book identified in #1?

3. What evidence exists to show stories/originations/competing theologies pre-dating the completed source text?

I'm not certain what conclusion is demonstrated with proof of faithful reproduction of a source text written in 200 CE, other than the mere fact of reproduction with 90% fidelity.

PhilosopherJay · 08-22-2007, 09:03 AM

Hi Julian,

You are quite correct that the original question was regarding the reliability of the New Testament text. If we restrict ourselves to the time after it became the the New Testament circa later Third century or early Fourth century, then 99% reliability is an accurate figure. However, people, when they ask such a question, normally mean to inquire about the earliest state of each of the books within the New Testament. It is that question that is important to them. It is this evidence that is much in dispute.

Thanks for raising the issue of Irenaeus. He is part of the "some" evidence that I mentioned in my previous post.

You say that we have solid evidence from Irenaeus from the Second century regarding the gospels, as if it was independent evidence from Eusebius. How do we know anything about Irenaeus except through Eusebius? Is it not a little amazing that Rome would be going to the tremendous expense of maintaining Bishops in Gaul in the Second century? Especially as only Eusebius maintains this. Is it not a bit odd that nobody mentions this Bishop of Lyon until Eusebius does. Is it not surprising how much of what he writes -- words, phrases, sentences, whole paragraphs, concepts,theories and style -- match Eusebius' writings? Most writers living in a strange, foreign territory would have a million stories to share with their readers. All readers, Romans and Christians, then and now, love to hear folklore about unusual barbarian customs. Yet when we peruse the works of Irenaeus, he fails to mention a single one. For all he tells us about his life and surroundings, he could just as well be writing from a Major Roman city like -- Caesarea.

Now, the similarities can be explained by the concept that Eusebius faithfully copied Irenaeus in word, thought and style. Commentators often footnote a sentence in Eusebius' works with "see Irenaeus "..." But when it comes to his most important pronouncements on early Christian history, Irenaeus lists no sources, or at least any sources that can be found outside of Eusebius...

But let us not think too closely about why Irenaeus' sources never go beyond anything in Eusebius. Let us not think about the connection. Let us leave it as a great mystery. Otherwise, we might find ourselves seriously questioning the intergrity of Eusebius' fairy-tale history of the one and only authentic Christian Church and that is dangerous and not permitted.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

P.S... Please note that I am not upholding the position that Eusebius made up all of the writings which have come down to us under the name of Irenaeus. My position, rather, is that Eusebius has corrected the writings of some unknown author, adding a great deal of his own words to the core material. I maintain that by looking at the interuptions and shifts in the arguments in "Against heresies" for example, one can pinpoint Eusebius' unique and important contributions to that work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

The question wasn't about the history of the various gospels, i.e. their number, type, and content. It was about the accuracy of the NT. I fail to see what Eusebius has to do with it. We have copies of the gospels and references to them well before Eusebius. Irenaeus was fairly specific about the gospels in the NT, providing one solid 2nd century witness. The idea that Eusebius would have made significant changes to the gospels is simply silly. MountainMan has been going on about that despite the sheer impossibility of the whole premise.

The fact is that the NT is a pretty solid text. There may have been many profound changes made before our copies came into being (I believe this to be the case but without decent evidence I won't just throw out such assertion as factual or likely despite the popularity of that approach around here) . We know that there are a few such changes after our copies start appearing.

PhilosopherJay said:

Quote:

On the other hand, studying just the changes, fractures and breaks in the narrative structures, we can say that these gospels are 99% different from the original gospel written in the First century.

This is just plain wrong. 99% different? Really? Are you sure that isn't 98.3%? Or maybe 99.347%? How did you derive that number? And what's with the original gospel? Last I checked there were four of them in the NT, all of them very different works. Whether or not they derive from a single gospel is completely irrelevant to this issue since the question was regarding the reliability of the NT text, not the reliability of the contents of the gospels.

Julian

Roger Pearse · 08-22-2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

While not being overly pedantic, I again would restate the objection (repeated by jeffevnz) to the concept of "originals," a loaded term.

The more precise questions would be:

1. How faithful has reproduction been of a source text for each book?

2. What evidence exists to show the earliest date of the completed source text for each book identified in #1?

3. What evidence exists to show stories/originations/competing theologies pre-dating the completed source text?

I'm not certain what conclusion is demonstrated with proof of faithful reproduction of a source text written in 200 CE, other than the mere fact of reproduction with 90% fidelity.

Wouldn't it be best for us to repeat these questions for some neutral text? After all, the physical transmission of books is the same, whatever their contents. And so should the answers be.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 08-22-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Julian,

You say that we have evidence from Irenaeus from the Second century as if it was independent evidence from Eusebius. How do we know anything about Irenaeus except through Eusebius.

We have two of his works, complete.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Cheerful Charlie · 08-22-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

While not being overly pedantic, I again would restate the objection (repeated by jeffevnz) to the concept of "originals," a loaded term.

The more precise questions would be:

1. How faithful has reproduction been of a source text for each book?

2. What evidence exists to show the earliest date of the completed source text for each book identified in #1?

3. What evidence exists to show stories/originations/competing theologies pre-dating the completed source text?

I'm not certain what conclusion is demonstrated with proof of faithful reproduction of a source text written in 200 CE, other than the mere fact of reproduction with 90% fidelity.

Wouldn't it be best for us to repeat these questions for some neutral text? After all, the physical transmission of books is the same, whatever their contents. And so should the answers be.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Its not a mere question of transmission. For example we know Genesis is a redacted document with several authors. The synoptic gospels start with Mark. We know early manuscripts lack Mark 16:9-16 but we do not know if there was ever an ending that was lost or not and if so, how. We do not know who wrote Mark, or who added the present day's Mark 16:9-16. We have no idea what the Ur-Mark read like. We know at a certain point in history, Mark, essentially as we know it now was widely disseminated. Before that Mark was disemminated to the point Luke and Matthew used it as base starting point for their efforts. Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 21 show us copying was done. As were changes along the way.
Matthew and Luke were obviously written to flesh out Mark, adding the infant narratives and geneologies, and the 'sermon on the mount' Q documents, now lost. What the originals looked like is hard to say with certainty.

Julius Ceasar's histories for example, do not exhibit the same sort of problems or uncertainties as the gospels. Examining various accounts of the Greek wars agains the Persians tends to focus on various Greek writers' sloppiness with facts or accounting for variations in claims. How big was Xerxes'?, army for example.

Transmission of manuscripts is only part of the issue.

It is a matter of how these books came to be before they were widely transmitted.

CC

PhilosopherJay · 08-22-2007, 09:58 AM

Hi Roger,

Thanks for pointing this out.

Yes, it was only after reading "Proof of the Apostolic Preaching" in a school library and Eusebius' "Demonstratio Evangelica" and "Preparatio Evangelica" on your wonderful website, several years ago, that I became convinced of the close connection/identity between Eusebius and Irenaeus. I recommend the exercise to everyone.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Julian,

You say that we have evidence from Irenaeus from the Second century as if it was independent evidence from Eusebius. How do we know anything about Irenaeus except through Eusebius.

We have two of his works, complete.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gregor · 08-23-2007, 05:56 AM

Roger,

I'm happy to apply the questions on other early texts - but it is just as irrelevant to them.

I always fail to see the relevance to the apologists' argument that copists between 300 and 1300 were 90% +/- faithful to some certain source text, the date and author of which is unknown. (And the converse - what changes were made to text families - is rather more relevant, as it may demonstrate doctrinal differences)

I think the more interesting questions are:

A. What substantive variants exist and what theological axes were ground on their changes.

B. How early can we defensibly place a complete source text.

C. How did the complete source text get into its final form.

D. What competing doctrines/stories/groups existed at the time.

Julian · 08-25-2007, 10:16 AM

Sorry for the delay in responding, I got called away on sudden business. Pre-emptive note: All references to Irenaeus' writings below deal with Against Heresies since that is the only work with which I am reasonably familiar. Anyways, here goes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

If we restrict ourselves to the time after it became the the New Testament circa later Third century or early Fourth century, then 99% reliability is an accurate figure.

You will have to explain away an awful lot of papyrus evidence. We have quite a bit from the early 3rd century (possibly a few from the 2nd, although this is less certain) which would have to somehow disappear or be radically re-dated in order for you to move things to such a late date.

Quote:

However, people, when they ask such a question, normally mean to inquire about the earliest state of each of the books within the New Testament. It is that question that is important to them. It is this evidence that is much in dispute.

I certainly won't assume that people are asking something other than what their words imply. While this gets me in endless trouble with my girlfriend (I have the audacity to deal with what she says rather than what is subtlely implied by her words, between then lines, when applying your female sensibilities *shrug*), I see no reason not to talk directly to the OP. In this case we seem to have moved somewhat away from the origianl question but it is not a derail and still relevant, so I shall follow along.

Quote:

You say that we have solid evidence from Irenaeus from the Second century regarding the gospels, as if it was independent evidence from Eusebius. How do we know anything about Irenaeus except through Eusebius?

Erm, we have his works. In Latin, and not the original Greek, but even so... Are you saying that Eusebius wrote these or tampered with them? If so, you have 'splainin' to do.

Quote:

Is it not a little amazing that Rome would be going to the tremendous expense of maintaining Bishops in Gaul in the Second century?

Rome? What do you mean by Rome? The church group in Rome? What expense? I am not saying that the expense is zero but there is no reason to think it ruinous in some fashion. What's wrong with Gaul? Transalpine Gaul was very civilized and roman by the end of the 2nd century. Remember, it was broken by Julius stating in the 50s BCE so it had existed under Roman authority almost as long as the modern USA has existed. The real frontier was on the edge of Germania in those days, a long haul without the autobahns.

Quote:

Especially as only Eusebius maintains this. Is it not a bit odd that nobody mentions this Bishop of Lyon until Eusebius does.

No, it is not odd. They had lots of bishops. Why would he be mentioned? Where would he be mentioned? If bishoprics/bishops weren't mentioned, did that mean that they didn't exist? Surely, a claim for the existence (regular mortal bishop, non-resurrected, no less) for a bishop is not very disputable without significant evidence to the contrary. Now, tampering with the text, this I can go along with a bit more easily, but without evidence we cannot be sure.

Quote:

Is it not surprising how much of what he writes -- words, phrases, sentences, whole paragraphs, concepts,theories and style -- match Eusebius' writings?

Assertion. Without statistical evidence, stylometrics, some brief indications, anything,this doesn't mean much. How do you correlate style from a translation to a disparate original language source without syntactical stylometrics?

Quote:

Most writers living in a strange, foreign territory would have a million stories to share with their readers.

If they are historians or natural philosophers, maybe. For a bishop who had much to say regarding 'heresies,' I would think that he was exactly what we would expect.

Quote:

All readers, Romans and Christians, then and now, love to hear folklore about unusual barbarian customs.

And they would open an obscure work, on an obscure faith, from an obscure writer, to find such stories? You are telling us what you think he should have written which is not overly convincing. On what data is you observation based?

Quote:

Yet when we peruse the works of Irenaeus, he fails to mention a single one. For all he tells us about his life and surroundings, he could just as well be writing from a Major Roman city like -- Caesarea.

Yes. So what? He is not the 'accidental tourist,' he is a bishop writing about christianity. Considering that, he delivers exactly what we would expect: bullshit, lies, half-truths, misunderstandings about everyone who doesn't doctrinally agree with him. I do seem to recall some observations of local heretical traditions (it has been too long since I read it, I don't recall where and what) so there is some geographical observations, even if they constrained to religious reports.

Quote:

But when it comes to his most important pronouncements on early Christian history, Irenaeus lists no sources, or at least any sources that can be found outside of Eusebius...

Why do you think he should? Footnotes and references weren't exactly standard practice back then.

Quote:

But let us not think too closely about why Irenaeus' sources never go beyond anything in Eusebius.

Since Eusebius was later and had copies of Irenaeus, this is an obvious and natural observation, it means nothing. If Eusebius had a copy, how could Irenaeus have gone beyond Eusebius? Eusebius goes beyond Irenaeus, however, exactly what we would expect from a later source. I don't see how this is meaningful.

Quote:

Let us not think about the connection. Let us leave it as a great mystery.

It is not a great mystery. Your assertions, however, are quite heavy. You are smart and considerate, your posts are usually quite good, why is this one suddenly full of unsupported fluff, assertions, and run-of-the-mill accusations, without any evidence? This is not like you. That was meant mostly as a compliment, in case you take it the wrong way.

There is still something for you to answer, though.

Quote:

Otherwise, we might find ourselves seriously questioning the intergrity of Eusebius' fairy-tale history of the one and only authentic Christian Church and that is dangerous and not permitted.

Eusebius didn't have too much in the way of integrity and ethics. Your quip fails to be cute because no one here would think that he did. The christian faith, its traditions and writings is quite capable of looking stupid all on its own, without us trying make it more stupid, running the risk of dragging us down with it. There is a real danger of using childish approaches when dismantling childish sources. The people who see the silliness of the religious assertions will not need us to stoop there, the ones who do not see them, still won't, but certainly will see us as being juvenile. It is the selective vision of intelligent christians, they see all the stupidity quite well, expect for the ancient stupidity perpetrated on the behalf of their faith. Let's be better.

Quote:

P.S... Please note that I am not upholding the position that Eusebius made up all of the writings which have come down to us under the name of Irenaeus. My position, rather, is that Eusebius has corrected the writings of some unknown author, adding a great deal of his own words to the core material. I maintain that by looking at the interuptions and shifts in the arguments in "Against heresies" for example, one can pinpoint Eusebius' unique and important contributions to that work.

Fine, then do so. Show us how. Show us evidence. Without this your statements are just more assertions. If your evidence is not ready (reasonable and understandable), then neither are your arguments.

Julian

PhilosopherJay · 08-25-2007, 01:54 PM

Hi Julian,

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

I also am quite limited in time so I cannot devote as much time to this as I would like.

Let us proceed by taking one issue at a time and seeing what we can agree upon. First, let me ask about the Latin writings of Irenaeus which you seem to suggest are evidence of his independence from Eusebius. It is my understanding that sophisticated writings in the Second century were normally done in Greek. It would be my belief that any Latin writings of Irenaeus would be translations from the Greek made in the Fourth century or later. By the Fourth century the ability to read Greek was being lost by certain peoples and thus the need arose to translate Greek works into Latin. We can see this in the need for the new Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome circa 400 C.E.

Do you care to present evidence that the Latin writings of Irenaeus were earlier than the Greek texts we now possess or predate the time of Eusebius (415 C.E.) Or would you agree that the Latin text most likely postdates the Greek text and the text that Eusebius may have forged?

Warmly,

Philosopher jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Sorry for the delay in responding, I got called away on sudden business. Pre-emptive note: All references to Irenaeus' writings below deal with Against Heresies since that is the only work with which I am reasonably familiar. Anyways, here goes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

If we restrict ourselves to the time after it became the the New Testament circa later Third century or early Fourth century, then 99% reliability is an accurate figure.

You will have to explain away an awful lot of papyrus evidence. We have quite a bit from the early 3rd century (possibly a few from the 2nd, although this is less certain) which would have to somehow disappear or be radically re-dated in order for you to move things to such a late date.

I certainly won't assume that people are asking something other than what their words imply. While this gets me in endless trouble with my girlfriend (I have the audacity to deal with what she says rather than what is subtlely implied by her words, between then lines, when applying your female sensibilities *shrug*), I see no reason not to talk directly to the OP. In this case we seem to have moved somewhat away from the origianl question but it is not a derail and still relevant, so I shall follow along.

Erm, we have his works. In Latin, and not the original Greek, but even so... Are you saying that Eusebius wrote these or tampered with them? If so, you have 'splainin' to do.

Rome? What do you mean by Rome? The church group in Rome? What expense? I am not saying that the expense is zero but there is no reason to think it ruinous in some fashion. What's wrong with Gaul? Transalpine Gaul was very civilized and roman by the end of the 2nd century. Remember, it was broken by Julius stating in the 50s BCE so it had existed under Roman authority almost as long as the modern USA has existed. The real frontier was on the edge of Germania in those days, a long haul without the autobahns.

No, it is not odd. They had lots of bishops. Why would he be mentioned? Where would he be mentioned? If bishoprics/bishops weren't mentioned, did that mean that they didn't exist? Surely, a claim for the existence (regular mortal bishop, non-resurrected, no less) for a bishop is not very disputable without significant evidence to the contrary. Now, tampering with the text, this I can go along with a bit more easily, but without evidence we cannot be sure.

Assertion. Without statistical evidence, stylometrics, some brief indications, anything,this doesn't mean much. How do you correlate style from a translation to a disparate original language source without syntactical stylometrics?

If they are historians or natural philosophers, maybe. For a bishop who had much to say regarding 'heresies,' I would think that he was exactly what we would expect.

And they would open an obscure work, on an obscure faith, from an obscure writer, to find such stories? You are telling us what you think he should have written which is not overly convincing. On what data is you observation based?

Yes. So what? He is not the 'accidental tourist,' he is a bishop writing about christianity. Considering that, he delivers exactly what we would expect: bullshit, lies, half-truths, misunderstandings about everyone who doesn't doctrinally agree with him. I do seem to recall some observations of local heretical traditions (it has been too long since I read it, I don't recall where and what) so there is some geographical observations, even if they constrained to religious reports.

Why do you think he should? Footnotes and references weren't exactly standard practice back then.

Since Eusebius was later and had copies of Irenaeus, this is an obvious and natural observation, it means nothing. If Eusebius had a copy, how could Irenaeus have gone beyond Eusebius? Eusebius goes beyond Irenaeus, however, exactly what we would expect from a later source. I don't see how this is meaningful.

It is not a great mystery. Your assertions, however, are quite heavy. You are smart and considerate, your posts are usually quite good, why is this one suddenly full of unsupported fluff, assertions, and run-of-the-mill accusations, without any evidence? This is not like you. That was meant mostly as a compliment, in case you take it the wrong way.

There is still something for you to answer, though.

Eusebius didn't have too much in the way of integrity and ethics. Your quip fails to be cute because no one here would think that he did. The christian faith, its traditions and writings is quite capable of looking stupid all on its own, without us trying make it more stupid, running the risk of dragging us down with it. There is a real danger of using childish approaches when dismantling childish sources. The people who see the silliness of the religious assertions will not need us to stoop there, the ones who do not see them, still won't, but certainly will see us as being juvenile. It is the selective vision of intelligent christians, they see all the stupidity quite well, expect for the ancient stupidity perpetrated on the behalf of their faith. Let's be better.

Quote:

P.S... Please note that I am not upholding the position that Eusebius made up all of the writings which have come down to us under the name of Irenaeus. My position, rather, is that Eusebius has corrected the writings of some unknown author, adding a great deal of his own words to the core material. I maintain that by looking at the interuptions and shifts in the arguments in "Against heresies" for example, one can pinpoint Eusebius' unique and important contributions to that work.

Fine, then do so. Show us how. Show us evidence. Without this your statements are just more assertions. If your evidence is not ready (reasonable and understandable), then neither are your arguments.

Julian

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

08-22-2007, 07:00 AM	#22
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	While not being overly pedantic, I again would restate the objection (repeated by jeffevnz) to the concept of "originals," a loaded term. The more precise questions would be: 1. How faithful has reproduction been of a source text for each book? 2. What evidence exists to show the earliest date of the completed source text for each book identified in #1? 3. What evidence exists to show stories/originations/competing theologies pre-dating the completed source text? I'm not certain what conclusion is demonstrated with proof of faithful reproduction of a source text written in 200 CE, other than the mere fact of reproduction with 90% fidelity.

08-23-2007, 05:56 AM	#28
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Roger, I'm happy to apply the questions on other early texts - but it is just as irrelevant to them. I always fail to see the relevance to the apologists' argument that copists between 300 and 1300 were 90% +/- faithful to some certain source text, the date and author of which is unknown. (And the converse - what changes were made to text families - is rather more relevant, as it may demonstrate doctrinal differences) I think the more interesting questions are: A. What substantive variants exist and what theological axes were ground on their changes. B. How early can we defensibly place a complete source text. C. How did the complete source text get into its final form. D. What competing doctrines/stories/groups existed at the time.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.