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 01-25-2011, 02:57 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default How Can It Be Claimed that Constantine Fixed the Gospel at Four?

I have been reading Dungan's Constantine's Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk) and was reminded of something that always puzzled me. How can people claim that Constantine established the fourfold gospel when Jacob of Nisibis attended Nicea (as well as a great number of other Eastern bishops) and he and all the communities of the East continued to use their Diatessaronic gospels (perhaps called 'the Gospel of Concord' from our earliest manuscripts of Ephrem's Commentaries)?

I don't say this as a way of continuing to flog the idiotic theories of some at this forum. I am very interested in finding out how those Eastern bishops at Nicea viewed our fourfold gospel. Are there any references from Ephrem or Aphrahat making reference to the gospel of those within the Roman Empire? Do they ever witness Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? I haven't been able to find anything. I know that our gospels were called 'of the separated' by the Syrian church. But beyond this I see no reference to how Eastern traditions viewed us.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 01-25-2011, 03:13 PM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

I thought Irenaeus was the source of the four fold gospel.
Toto is offline  
Old 01-25-2011, 03:18 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Yes but there is this notion that Constantine mandated the fourfold gospel everywhere in order for churches to be accepted at Nicea. That's plainly not the case. Now it could be argued that Constantine recognized that he had no authority in Osrhone and Persia. Maybe but Nicea didn't explicitly reference the issue of the canon. Here is Robert Price's review of Dungan's book to illustrate what I am talking about:

Dungan begins with the very helpful observation that “scripture” and “canon” do not mean the same thing; then he demonstrates how Eusebius’ famous classification of New Testament books was a discussion of scripture and not an attempt to define a canon of scripture, i.e., some official list of what is in and what is out. Dungan shows that Eusebius was merely doing what the legatees of all philosophical schools (or even librarians) did: organizing the writings ascribed to founders of the school, dividing them into authentic, debatable, and spurious, according to general opinion. There was no hint that some of the writings were evil or to be shunned, just zeal to safeguard the outlines of a particular tradition by distinguishing authentic texts from pseudepigrapha or misattribution, and by keeping accurate copies available. One also looked to heirs of the founders to try to maintain the original interpretation. It wasn’t that no one had freedom to reinterpret old traditions; one simply wanted to keep the historic originals extant and available.

All of which makes the continued use of the Diatessaron (or 'gospel of concord') in the East illustrative of how lame the authority of the Council really was. If Constantine was really bent on reshaping existing opinions, he would certainly not have allowed Jacob of Nisibis to be a signatory at Nicea.

Yet all of this brings up the question - to me at least - how were the Eastern bishops who used a Diatessaron viewed by their fourfold gospel using brethren within the Empire? And even more importantly - what did Jacob and his fellow 'gospel of concord' adherents think of those who used the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? I don't have an answer but I thought there might be one lurking in the writings of Ephrem or perhaps Aphrahat.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 01-31-2011, 10:45 PM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Yes but there is this notion that Constantine mandated the fourfold gospel everywhere in order for churches to be accepted at Nicea. That's plainly not the case. Now it could be argued that Constantine recognized that he had no authority in Osrhone and Persia. Maybe but Nicea didn't explicitly reference the issue of the canon.

Here is Robert Price's review of Dungan's book to illustrate what I am talking about:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Price
[I]Dungan begins with the very helpful observation that “scripture” and “canon” do not mean the same thing; then he demonstrates how Eusebius’ famous classification of New Testament books was a discussion of scripture and not an attempt to define a canon of scripture, i.e., some official list of what is in and what is out. Dungan shows that Eusebius was merely doing what the legatees of all philosophical schools (or even librarians) did: organizing the writings ascribed to founders of the school, dividing them into authentic, debatable, and spurious, according to general opinion. There was no hint that some of the writings were evil or to be shunned, just zeal to safeguard the outlines of a particular tradition by distinguishing authentic texts from pseudepigrapha or misattribution, and by keeping accurate copies available.
Eusebius reaction to the "Acts of Pilate" does not appear to conform to Robert Price's statement that There was no hint that some of the writings were evil or to be shunned,.

Eusebius in VC describes the actions of soldiers searching and destroying "forbidden books". This is certainly not appear to be consistent with Robert Price's statement.
mountainman is offline  
Old 02-02-2011, 03:31 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pua, in northern Thailand
Posts: 2,823
Default

Since neither the original Nicene Creed nor the Apostles' Creed mentions scripture, is it possible everyone is exaggerating the importance of these books to fourth-century Christianity? Maybe no-one cared that much as to which books were being used?
Joan of Bark is offline  
Old 02-02-2011, 03:55 AM   #6
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joan of Bark
Maybe no-one cared that much as to which books were being used?
I can think of at least one Fourth Century player who cared about the canon--Athanasius.

avi
avi is offline  
Old 02-02-2011, 05:24 AM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joan of Bark View Post
Since neither the original Nicene Creed nor the Apostles' Creed mentions scripture, is it possible everyone is exaggerating the importance of these books to fourth-century Christianity? Maybe no-one cared that much as to which books were being used?
Before Athanasius conducted his own official search and destroy missions amidst the later 4th century monasteries, and produced further bible codices for the Christian Emperor Constantius II, there was Constantine and Eusebius.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius VC 65
How on the Discovery of Prohibited Books among the Heretics, Many of them return to the Catholic Church.

THUS were the lurking-places of the heretics broken up by the emperor's command, and the savage beasts they harbored (I mean the chief authors of their impious doctrines) driven to flight. Of those whom they had deceived, some, intimidated by the emperor's threats, disguising their real sentiments, crept secretly into the Church.

For since the law directed that search should be made for their books, those of them who practiced evil and forbidden arts were detected, and, these were ready to secure their own safety by dissimulation of every kind.

Constantine THUS cared very much which books were to be preserved and which books were to be SEARCHED OUT AND DESTROYED. He used the army for the search and destroy missions, and he obviously created a law so that his actions appear legitimate - but it might have been a martial law. But these were never legitimate actions, they were the actions of a book-burning despot. Readers should also take specific note that Eusebius fails to provide the NAMES of these "chief heretical authors".

Constantine on the other hand cant help himself but to target known NAMES as follows:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Circular Letter from the BOSS to EVERYONE

Constantine the King to the Bishops and nations everywhere.

Inasmuch as Arius imitates the evil and the wicked,
it is right that, like them, he should be rebuked and rejected.

As therefore Porphyry,
who was an enemy of the fear of God,
and wrote wicked and unlawful writings
against the religion of Christians,
found the reward which befitted him,
that he might be a reproach to all generations after,
because he fully and insatiably used base fame;
so that on this account his writings
were righteously destroyed;

thus also now it seems good that Arius
and the holders of his opinion
should all be called Porphyrians,
that he may be named by the name
of those whose evil ways he imitates:

And not only this, but also
that all the writings of Arius,
wherever they be found,
shall be delivered to be burned with fire,
in order that not only
his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed,
but also that the memory of himself
and of his doctrine may be blotted out,
that there may not by any means
remain to him remembrance in the world.

Now this also I ordain,
that if any one shall be found secreting
any writing composed by Arius,
and shall not forthwith deliver up
and burn it with fire,
his punishment shall be death;
for as soon as he is caught in this
he shall suffer capital punishment
by beheading without delay.


(Preserved in Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History 1:9.
A translation of a Syriac translation of this, written in 501,
is in B. H. Cowper’s, Syriac Miscellanies,
Extracts From The Syriac Ms. No. 14528
In The British Museum, Lond. 1861, p. 6–7)

Question

What is to prevent us from the conjecture that these books that were being prohibited and destroyed included some of the "non canonical gospels"? And that Constantine wanted to enforce the legitimacy of the fixed tetrarchy of canonical gospels, by destroying all the heretical opposition authorship that he and Eusebius had not officially "ratified".
mountainman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:34 PM.

Top

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