Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 03-23-2006, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fta

Irenaeus... was writing 150 years after the supposed date of the crucifixion. His testimony to the authorship of the gospels is clearly late hearsay.

Is this consistent with his statement above to Florinus?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

robto · 03-23-2006, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Is this consistent with his statement above to Florinus?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives Polycarp's dates as AD 69-155, so conceivably he could have known some of the original disciples when they were old, and Irenaeus could have known him (P) when he (I) was a kid. Ireneaus was a priest by 177 AD and scholars seem to think he wrote between then and the end of the century.

Richbee · 03-23-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives Polycarp's dates as AD 69-155, so conceivably he could have known some of the original disciples when they were old, and Irenaeus could have known him (P) when he (I) was a kid. Ireneaus was a priest by 177 AD and scholars seem to think he wrote between then and the end of the century.

Yes, that was the testimony of Ireneaus.

Yes, I have Polycarp dying in 156 A.D.

Irenaeus was probably born around 125 A.D. As a young man in Smyrna (near Ephesus, in what is now western Turkey) he heard the preaching of Polycarp.

Does this sound reasonable?

Richbee · 03-23-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

You're assuming your conclusion. You're assuming that the authors were who Irenaeus said they were. Why should we take Irenaeus's word for it?

Even in a courtroom, a witness's competence has to be established. It is not assumed that he knows what he is talking about just because whoever called him to the stand says he does. If he claims to know something, it's up to him to prove that he does in fact know it.

And so, how did Irenaeus come to find out who wrote the gospels?

There was never any doubt in the early Church regarding the authorship of the gospels! It is a modern invention of so called "skeptics".

Do you have any evidence to reconsider the authorship of the gospels?

Richbee · 03-23-2006, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fta

Irenaeus -- who is described in Davidson's Canon of the Bible as "credulous and blundering" -- was writing 150 years after the supposed date of the crucifixion. His testimony to the authorship of the gospels is clearly late hearsay. As far as I'm aware no church father prior to Irenaeus specifies that there are four gospels, or names authors for all four. If the Four Gospels were actually written by the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the first century and recognised by the Church as such, then why is Irenaeus the first person to mention them?

Starting from Jesus and then to John, and then to Polycarp, and next to Irenaeus you have the basic core gospel message and facts relayed, and one that has condessed to a Creed.

Even if you were to be an idiot, you could follow along with:

Creeds and Hymns

Paul’s letters contain a number of creeds and hymns (Rom. 1:3-4;1 Cor. 11:23 ff.;15:3-8; Phil. 2:6_11; Col.1:15-18;1 Tim. 3:16; 2 Tim. 2:8; see also John 1:1-18; 1 Peter 3:18-22; 1 John 4:2). Three things can be said about them. First, they are pre-Pauline and very early. They use language which is not characteristically Pauline, they often translate easily back into Aramaic, and they show features of Hebrew poetry and thought-forms. This means that they came into existence while the church was heavily Jewish and that they became standard, recognized creeds and hymns well before their incorporation into Paul's letters. Most scholars date them from 33 to 48 A.D.. Some, like Hengel, date many of them in the first decade after Jesus’ death.

Second, the content of these creeds and hymns centers on the death, resurrection, and deity of Christ. They consistently present a portrait of a miraculous and divine Jesus who rose from the dead. Third, they served as hymns of worship in the liturgy of the early assemblies and as didactic expressions for teaching the Christology of the church.

In sum, the idea of a fully divine, miracle-working Jesus who rose from the dead was present during the first decade of Christianity. Such a view was not a legend which arose several decades after the crucifixion.

Thus, belief in a divine, risen Jesus was in existence within just a few years after his death.

Excerpt from Scaling the Secular City - By J.P. Moreland - Chapter 5: The Historicity of the New Testament

Richbee · 03-23-2006, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Yes, actually. Matthew is most assuredly not written in Hebrew, and either way Matthew uses Mark directly, which means that it had to have been after Peter dictated his sermons to Mark, long enough for the gospel to be credible enough that another disciple would plagiarize it. Furthermore, Mark is nothing near formatted as a sermon from Peter. It's an actual literary creation. Furthermore, Paul did not know the living Jesus, so how could Luke copy Paul if Paul didn't know any of Luke's gospel? Where did Luke get it from? Matthew and Mark? If so, why does he take so much of it and twist it (noting especially how he took Matthew's sermon and butchered it into many phrases spread across Jesus' ministry) and why did he leave out so much? I'll let the Johannine experts deal with the problems of John.

So, you have a first edition copy signed by Matthew? Get back to us soon with your "evidence".

Would you assert Greek or Aramaic?

Doug Shaver · 03-23-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus.

Two problems. (a) As you note, that is not Irenaeus. That is Eusebius claiming to quote Irenaeus. (b) Giving Eusebius the benefit of doubt, nothing in the quotation has anything to do with who wrote the gospels.

Furthermore, Polycarp himself does not, in any of his surviving works, claim to have met John or anybody else who knew Jesus.

Boro Nut · 03-23-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

So, you have a first edition copy signed by Matthew? Get back to us soon with your "evidence".

Would you assert Greek or Aramaic?

Ah, the famous "Nobody has a copy so you can't prove it doesn't exist" gambit. Nice one.

Er…but don't you run the risk of being the one left defending the existence of a non-existent book, should your oponent notice he's the one with the oldest copy? I find this has always been a slight drawback when trying this strategy on sentient beings, without first kidnapping their children of course.

Boro Nut

Doug Shaver · 03-23-2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

There was never any doubt in the early Church regarding the authorship of the gospels!

No surviving document from the time records any doubts. Is that supposed to prove that there weren't any?

There is no record of any attestation of authorship until the late second century. That is too late for anybody making the attestation to have had any firsthand information about who wrote them, so at best it is hearsay no matter how you slice it.

Furthermore, the fact that early leaders of a religion have no doubt about something regarding their origins is hardly strong evidence for anything. Early Muslims have never, I presume, had any doubts about the divine inspiration of the Quran. And let's not forget the early leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Did any of them ever doubt Joseph Smith's testimony about where the Book of Mormon came from?

Doug Shaver · 03-23-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

Do you have any evidence to reconsider the authorship of the gospels?

When it come to ancient history, I'm always reconsidering everything. I think a great deal of it is commonly presented as if it were certain fact without sufficient justification for such certainty.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.