Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 05-12-2011, 12:16 AM

I mean this sincerely. There are people who ignore what you say because they think you are crazy. There are people who screen my posts for the same reason. Some people have a take it or leave it attitude. I don't share that attitude. You have said a lot of stupid things at this forum. But then again you have also made some interesting points too. I don't have a take it or leave it attitude with you nor with Irenaeus. Nor should you have such an attitude with me or any of the Church Fathers.

aa5874 · 05-12-2011, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I mean this sincerely. There are people who ignore what you say because they think you are crazy. There are people who screen my posts for the same reason. Some people have a take it or leave it attitude. I don't share that attitude. You have said a lot of stupid things at this forum. But then again you have also made some interesting points too. I don't have a take it or leave it attitude with you nor with Irenaeus. Nor should you have such an attitude with me or any of the Church Fathers.

No, No, No.!!!!

I won't allow to to get away with your nonsense.

I have POINTED out that you are CONSTANTLY and CONSISTENTLY making TOTAL contradictory statements.

You claimed the writings of Irenaeus must be ASSUMED to be TRUE and Now claim the very same Irenaeus "is very capable of misrepresenting and interpolating texts".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephan huller

...if what Irenaeus says is true (which we must assume that it is)....

What is WRONG with you? Please understand that I don't TOLERATE people who keep changing what they say day after day.

stephan huller · 05-12-2011, 08:08 AM

It is not logically inconsistent to (a) see Irenaeus as a valuable resource on earliest Christianity and (b) to assume that he had a hand in reshaping the material he preserved.

aa5874 · 05-12-2011, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It is not logically inconsistent to (a) see Irenaeus as a valuable resource on earliest Christianity and (b) to assume that he had a hand in reshaping the material he preserved.

There you go again.

These are your previous CONTRADICTORY claims:

1.The writings of Irenaeus should be ASSUMED to true.

2. "Irenaeus "is very capable of misrepresenting and interpolating texts".

But this is my PREVIOUS claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If there is ONE writer who cannot be trusted it is Irenaeus...

You already KNEW in advance that Irenaeus could NOT be trusted and was very capable of mis-representing and interpolating texts.

stephan huller · 05-12-2011, 10:49 AM

No aa I never said that Irenaeus's testimony is true. It's an ancient witness to an even older phenomena. That's why its invaluable. It doesn't matter if Irenaeus was always telling the truth or whether the writings of Irenaeus were edited subsequent to his death. The text would still be ancient. The New Testament writings are similarly invaluable. I can say that the canonical gospels are absolutely essential to understanding Christianity AND acknowledge that they were interpolated by a late second century editor (probably Irenaeus himself).

stephan huller · 05-12-2011, 10:53 AM

And now to get back from crazyland and continue the main discussion (indeed who cares how I resolve the apparent contradiction). I asked Professor Vinzent yesterday how he reconciles the two reports and he wrote the following this morning:

Quote:

Your question carries the potential answer:

Justin himself refers to `Gospels` in the plural, he knows of the Memories of the Apostles, of - as said - attempts to embrace, adopt and adapt Marcion`s Gospel, and he himself develops long passages of narratives and sayings (whereby the narratives are usually sourced from the Old Testament, NOT from any of the Gospels!) which are attempts of re-creating Marcion`s Gospel - so, what I am saying is:

Even Justin could not shield himself from Marcion`s influence and impact. The living voice of oral tradition is fading, writers and authors are the fashion of the day, and Justin himself reports straight after the passage from Marcion's Gospel that we discussed earlier, and reveals knowledge of various traditions:

'Accordingly He revealed to us all that we have perceived by His grace out of the Scriptures, so that we know Him to be the first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures; likewise to be the Son of the patriarchs, since He assumed flesh by the Virgin of their family, and submitted to become a man without comeliness, dishonoured, and subject to suffering. Hence, also, among His words He said, when He was discoursing about His future sufferings: "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Pharisees and Scribes, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.' He said then that He was the Son of man, either because of His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham; or because Adam was the father both of Himself and of those who have been first enumerated from whom Mary derives her descent. For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear.'

Even clearer are ch. 23ff. of Justin's first Apology (in which he dissociates himself from Marcion - he is the only living opponent, mentioned in 1Apol.), where Justin wants to prove that the virgin birth narrative has been foretold by the Prophets - he wants to make a case for this narrative, but it only shows that this addition to the written Gospel (Marcion's) was, yet, less accepted than Marcion's Gospel itself. In none of the instances where Justin refers to the virgin birth or to any other text does he mention 'as it is written in the Gospel' - the only instance being Marcion's Gospel. But for readers today, after having been used for hundreds of years to the idea that these canonical stories are decades older than Marcion, it is difficult to resist the temptation in turning the evidence upside down. When Justin only literally quotes Marcion - then neither, because he favours this text, nor because he rejects it, simply because it is the accepted version - while the others are in the making, a process within which Justin is himself part of, as is his pupil Tatian who either at that time with Justin or later tries to make sense of what obviously made still little sense to his master Justin, namely to have an obviously brilliant text, born out of - what Justin regarded - as at least a partly misleading idea.

So as you see Vinzent is making the case for something very different from what I am putting forward. I just say Irenaeus interpolated the text. Vinzent avoids the question of interpolation and leaves the standard understanding of Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin and the rest of the gang really being all friends. I don't know if I necessarily agree with his conclusions but I have to admit he probably is smarter and more knowledgeable than me. It's a very clever argument at the very least which neatly avoids the 'conspiracy theory' with respect to Irenaeus.

This is what good scholars do. They just don't 'shoot from the hip' as I do. They develop arguments that avoid overturning the whole boat. I don't know if this is necessarily the truest answer or the answer that jumps out at you from reading the evidence but it is great argument. Something a lawyer would develop in a legal brief - i.e. where the implications of what you are proposing are weighed in addition to the explanative power they give for a particular text.

My difficulty would be that having Justin as this orthodox guy that really believed in the virgin birth means that we are still stuck with the difficulty of reconciling Tatian's rejection of the virgin birth material. In many ways it comes down to who has the better idea of the real Justin - Irenaeus or Tatian. The same problem appears with respect to Polycarp - who has the real knowledge of the real Polycarp - Irenaeus or Florinus. I think we can even go so far as to point to another conflict - who knows the real St. Mark - Irenaeus or Clement of Alexandria (compare Irenaeus's condemnation of the kabbalah of those of Mark with the citation of the exact same information often word for word as 'tradition' associated with the Alexandrian Church of St. Mark).

In every case Irenaeus proves himself at odds with another witness whom he has to admit are generally accepted witnesses of the famous Christian figure from the past. What are the odds that Irenaeus knew Justin better than Tatian, Polycarp better than Florinus and St. Mark better than the tradition associated with him in Alexandria. I say - fat chance.

To this end I think Irenaeus interpolated the New Testament canon, and the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Papias, Justin, Polycarp and the demonized the Alexandrian tradition as 'heretical.' That's not Vinzent's POV but his will generally be better received in scholarship.

andrewcriddle · 05-12-2011, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The question of course is whether the virgin birth reading is a later interpolation. Two points in favor of this proposition:

1) Irenaeus cites Justin as disagreeing with Marcion on the correct reading of Luke 10:22 in Dialogue in AH 4.6.2 even though this is Justin's reading in Dialogue
2) Justin's student Tatian's Diatessaron did not include the virigin birth narrative.

One can be certain that Tatian thought he was being loyal to his master. So we have two reasons to believe that the virgin birth narrative was an addition. Irenaeus seems to take some pride in knowing the truth about Justin in the same way that he knew the truth about Polycarp. Irenaeus is very capable of misrepresenting and interpolating texts. I think it was a fake especially given the flying Jesus in Tatian's Diatessaron (i.e. not born of woman)

Hi Stephan

I agree that Tatian's Diatessaron omitted the genealogies of Jesus.
IIUC he did include the birth narratives.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 05-12-2011, 01:27 PM

Sorry I am not up with the latest internet terminology. Is IIUC meaning 'if I understand you correctly' or is it something else? I wasn't sure if the Diatessaron had a virgin birth narrative. Then I notice what Tatian says this in his apologetic work:

Quote:

We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations.

I guess Tatian's Diatessaron did have a virgin birth narrative and that explains why Clement says this:

Quote:

But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin. Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. "And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth," Says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself, and not from conjunction. Wherefore the Scriptures have conceived to Gnostics; but the heresies, not having learned them, dismissed them as not having conceived. [Strom 7.16]

The idea that 'some say' that Jesus's birth was to a virgin may well apply to one of the canonical gospels or Tatian's Diatessaron. Mental error on my part associating the omission of the genealogies with the virgin birth.

That explains Vinzent's line of reasoning that Justin knew of the virgin birth narratives but deemed them as coming from a subordinate source which wasn't quite a gospel. Thanks for correcting me.

Peter Head (Peter M. Head, ]Tatian’s Christology and its Influence on the Composition of the Diatessaron,” Tyndale Bulletin 43.1 (1992): 121-137. ] makes the case that the arrangement of the Diatessaron was specifically developed so as to explain God the Word by means of the virgin birth:

John 1:1-5
Luke 1:5-80
Matt 1:18-25a
Luke 2:1-39
Matt 2:1b-23
Luke 2:40-52 & 3:1-6
John 1:7-28.

Head writes http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/tatian_head.pdf:

Thus Tatian’s arrangement has the effect of explaining ‘the Word became flesh’ by means of the story of the virgin birth. This echoes exactly the way in which the relationship between these two christological moments was made in increasingly sophisticated ways by Christian writers in the second century. Early in the century Ignatius held the virgin birth and the incarnation of the Word in tension without relating them (Ignatius, Magn. 8.2 & Eph. 7.2). Around AD 125 Aristides brought the virgin birth and the assumption of flesh into juxtaposition (Aristides, Apology, II). In the middle of the century Justin says: ‘the Word, who is the first offspring of God, was born for us without sexual union, as Jesus Christ our Teacher...’ (Apol. I.21). The second-century climax is reached in Melito of Sardis’ statement ( )

In other words, Tatian’s Diatessaron represents a narrative version of this theological harmonisation, which became an important theological principle in later
debates.

Yet the same argument could be turned around to argue for the fact that the Diatessaron was much older than Tatian it would seem

stephan huller · 05-12-2011, 02:16 PM

Upon reflection I am still not certain that Tatian's Diatessaron had the virgin birth narrative. It is worth taking a close look at Ephrem's version of Matt 1:25. Note how the text here differs from the Greek, "He did not know her until she had borne a son." Leloir lists this reading as one of those most probably of Tatianic origin, not that Tatian would necessarily have been its author, but 'Tatianic" in the sense that it was a reading that may have existed in the tradition before him, and crystallized in the Diatessaron (cf. Le Temoignage d'Ephrem, p. 237)

renassault · 05-13-2011, 01:44 PM

We already know that Ignatius (c.110) knew Matthew. So did Papias (c.130) and both held them authoritative. Thus Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho probably does not have interpolations because had he been known as a supporter of Marcion's "phantom" this would have been reflected by Irennaeus and Tertullian, like it was about Tatian. Tatian was Justin Martyr's student but later turned to heresy, and if his Diatessaron doesn't have the virgin birth, it means exactly that. Since the virgin birth was originally with Matthew and Luke in their original compositions. Marcion was not a "living voice from whom no one could shield themselves", he was a bishop of Sinope who attempted to become one in Rome and tried to bring about his ideas, but was ousted. The living voice of tradition certainly can't be replaced by one man in about 5 years.

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

05-12-2011, 12:16 AM	#11
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I mean this sincerely. There are people who ignore what you say because they think you are crazy. There are people who screen my posts for the same reason. Some people have a take it or leave it attitude. I don't share that attitude. You have said a lot of stupid things at this forum. But then again you have also made some interesting points too. I don't have a take it or leave it attitude with you nor with Irenaeus. Nor should you have such an attitude with me or any of the Church Fathers.

05-12-2011, 08:08 AM	#13
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It is not logically inconsistent to (a) see Irenaeus as a valuable resource on earliest Christianity and (b) to assume that he had a hand in reshaping the material he preserved.

05-12-2011, 10:49 AM	#15
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No aa I never said that Irenaeus's testimony is true. It's an ancient witness to an even older phenomena. That's why its invaluable. It doesn't matter if Irenaeus was always telling the truth or whether the writings of Irenaeus were edited subsequent to his death. The text would still be ancient. The New Testament writings are similarly invaluable. I can say that the canonical gospels are absolutely essential to understanding Christianity AND acknowledge that they were interpolated by a late second century editor (probably Irenaeus himself).

05-12-2011, 02:16 PM	#19
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Upon reflection I am still not certain that Tatian's Diatessaron had the virgin birth narrative. It is worth taking a close look at Ephrem's version of Matt 1:25. Note how the text here differs from the Greek, "He did not know her until she had borne a son." Leloir lists this reading as one of those most probably of Tatianic origin, not that Tatian would necessarily have been its author, but 'Tatianic" in the sense that it was a reading that may have existed in the tradition before him, and crystallized in the Diatessaron (cf. Le Temoignage d'Ephrem, p. 237)

05-13-2011, 01:44 PM	#20
renassault Regular Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Los Angeles, US Posts: 222	We already know that Ignatius (c.110) knew Matthew. So did Papias (c.130) and both held them authoritative. Thus Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho probably does not have interpolations because had he been known as a supporter of Marcion's "phantom" this would have been reflected by Irennaeus and Tertullian, like it was about Tatian. Tatian was Justin Martyr's student but later turned to heresy, and if his Diatessaron doesn't have the virgin birth, it means exactly that. Since the virgin birth was originally with Matthew and Luke in their original compositions. Marcion was not a "living voice from whom no one could shield themselves", he was a bishop of Sinope who attempted to become one in Rome and tried to bring about his ideas, but was ousted. The living voice of tradition certainly can't be replaced by one man in about 5 years.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.