The discussion was cordial enough for awhile. At first, Rogers seemed impressed that I had actually read Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians and understood the issues. However, as I continued to challenge his interpretation of the evidence, he accused me of “unyielding curmudgeonly skepticism” and I decided that there was not much point in continuing the discussion.
The following facts formed the basis for our dispute (or one of our disputes):
Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians is the earliest non-canonical Christian writing. It is generally dated late in the first century around 95 A.D. The letter does not actually name Clement as its author, but according to tradition he was a bishop of Rome who knew both Peter and Paul who were martyred in Rome in the mid-60’s. The letter is written to the church in Corinth where there appears to have been some schism in which the elders of the church were deposed. The nature of the schism is not explained, but Clement urges the Corinthians to restore the rightful leaders to power.
Clement frequently cites the Old Testament by introducing a quotation with something like “Scripture says” or “the Lord says.” He twice introduces sayings of Jesus with “Jesus says.” He also uses many phrases that are found in various New Testament epistles. However, when he does this, he does not say “Paul says.” In fact, he does not indicate that he is quoting any source. He simply incorporates the phrases into his writing as if the words were his own rather than Paul’s.
The only New Testament book that Clement mentions is Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:
Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the
time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of
the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because
even then parties had been formed among you.
Clement never explicitly quotes Paul’s words though.
Clement quotes two sayings of Jesus; one about being merciful in order to obtain mercy and one about the dangers of throwing stumbling blocks in front of believers. Both sayings are similar to ones found in the synoptic gospels, but neither are exact quotes. Clement does not indicate his source for these quotes.
Rogers seemed to find the following arguments indicative of my “unyielding curmudgeonly skepticism”:
(1) You can’t claim that Clement is witness to the authors of the New Testament since he does not name them.
Other than identifying Paul as the author of a letter to the Corinthians, Clement does not mention a single New Testament book or name any of their authors. He uses enough phrases from the epistles that it is clear that he was familiar with many of them. Nevertheless, he does not identify their authors. It might be entirely reasonable to think that he knew who the authors were, but you can’t call him a witness to the authors.
Rogers accused me of making arguments from silence, but I certainly was not making one here. I am not claiming that Clement did not know who the authors of the other epistles were. I am simply saying that he does not say.
(2) You can’t claim that Clement views Paul’s writings as authoritative scripture when he does not treat them in the same way that he treats authoritative scripture.
Throughout his letter, Clement introduces quotations of authoritative sources with phrases like “the Lord says,” “Scripture says,” or “Jesus says.” He never introduces a quote from one of the epistles with “Paul says,” “Peter says,” or “James says.” Clement simply incorporates the words of the epistles into the text as if they were his own. He uses the words of the epistles differently than he uses the words of Jesus or the words of the Old Testament.
It is true that Clement describes Paul as writing his first letter to the Corinthians “under the inspiration of the Spirit.” If he quoted Paul's writings in the same way that he quoted the writings from the Old Testament, I would take Clement's use of the word "inspiration" as persuasive evidence that he intended to elevate Paul's letters to the status of "scripture." But Clement does not do that. Clement explicitly cites the Old Testament as "scripture" in order to show that he viewed its teachings as authoritative and he never does this with any of the teachings drawn from Paul’s letters.
It is a similar argument to one I have had about “spare the rod and spoil the child.” Many Christians point to “thy rod and thy staff comfort me” in Psalm 23 to argue that the rod is meant merely to guide the child. However, if you look at the book of Proverbs, its author repeatedly refers to using the rod to “beat” people. I have not studied hermeneutics, but I cannot see the justification of looking to Psalms for a usage of the rod that is contrary to the usage that is perfectly clear in Proverbs. Similarly, I cannot see the justification for looking to “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” in Timothy 3:16 to argue that Clement viewed the epistles as scripture when his own letter shows that he did not.
Clement’s failure to indicate when he is quoting Paul seems particularly significant to me as the whole point of his letter is to convince the Corinthians to submit to the rightful authority that had been established by the apostles and their successors. I cannot conceive of any reason why Clement wouldn’t have indicated that he was quoting the words of those apostles in the same way that he indicated he was quoting the words of Jesus and the Old Testament if he thought that they carried similar authority.
I am not really sure whether this is an argument from silence or not. If it is, I think it is a damn strong one because I am not arguing based on some abstract speculation regarding what I think Clement might have done had he thought the epistles to be scripture. I am basing my argument on direct observation of what Clement did do when he thought something was scripture.
(3) You can’t claim that Clement is a witness to the canonical gospel of Matthew when he never identifies Matthew as the source of the quoted sayings of Jesus.
It is a very simple argument. Similar words appear in Matthew and Clement. Clement could have taken the words from Matthew. Matthew could have taken the words from Clement. They both could have taken the words from a third source. It is like a teacher who receives two identical papers. How do you determine which student copied the other’s work or whether they both copied from somewhere else? The similarity alone does not tell you.
To a certain extent, this logic applies to the quotations to the epistles as well, however, Clement borrowers so heavily from some of them that it is hard to imagine that he wasn’t working with their texts. However, he only uses two sayings of Jesus, and he does not reference any of the stories about Jesus’ ministry, passion, or resurrection that are found in the gospels. That makes it very difficult to rule out the possibility that these two sayings were taken either from the oral tradition or from a written collection of sayings rather from the Gospel of Matthew as we know it today.
As with the epistles, I am not arguing from silence to say that Clement does not say that he is quoting from Matthew because he doesn't. However, I would make the argument from silence that he was not familiar with Matthew. At one point, he uses the myth of the Phoenix rising from the ashes to illustrate the nature of Christ's resurrection. Had he been familiar with the canonical gospels, I cannot imagine why he would not have used what he would have considered the historical stories of the empty tomb and Christ's appearances to the apostles to illustrate the same point. This is an argument from silence that I find quite persuasive though I would concede that I have never convinced an evangelical blogger of its validity.
I would not claim that I have conclusively established that Clement did not know all things that Rogers thinks he knew or believe all the things that Rogers thinks he believed. I don't pretend that I can read Clement's mind. However, I can read his letter and I can see that it is not a witness to that knowledge and those beliefs.
One of the things I found most amusing was how Rogers chided me for making arguments from silence at the same time he was doing so.
One of the strongest arguments in favor of authentic authorship is the factI find his arguments from silence particularly unpersuasive for a very simple reason: we have little reason to expect to find much documentary evidence of such disputes. The early church did not make it a practice to preserve the writings of those it considered heretics. Our knowledge of heretical belief comes for the most part from the writings of theologians defending the orthodox. After the orthodox faith was firmly established, people who challenged things like the authenticity of scripture risked ex-communication and death. I don't think we can infer all that much from the scarcity of dissent.
that form the earliest centuries this was never in dispute until the German
critics came along in the 1800s.
Further, ALL the documentary evidence we have available points to four
named authors of four gospels. There is exactly ZERO documentary evidence that
the authors were unknown or disputed.
Posts
This was a pretty interesting argument and I was following along just fine and agreeing until I hit this part:
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, I cannot see the justification for looking to “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” in Timothy 3:16 to argue that Clement viewed the epistles as scripture when his own letter shows that he did not.
How does his letter show he did not? I'm not sold on that, yet, especially when earlier, you conceded that Clement simply "does not say." So how did we get from what appeared to be a NULL position to an explicitly negative one?
Secondly, if Clement stated that Paul wrote under inspiration, why is that not sufficient to claim Clement considered Paul's writings inspired and/or scripture?
If I consistently address physicians with the title "Doctor," but I refuse to use the term when I am addressing someone who has a PhD, I am unambiguously indicating that I do not consider a PhD to be the equivalent of an M.D. even if I never make a statement to that effect.
ReplyDeleteClement clearly indicates when he considers the source he is quoting to be authoritative by introducing the quote with a phrase like "Jesus says" or "Scripture says." He does not do this when he quotes the epistles. I see this as an unambiguous indication that he does not consider the epistles equivalent to the scriptures as authoritative words.
In order to argue that Clement was using the word "inspiration" to indicate Paul was writing scripture, you have to look outside Clement's letter to establish the implications of that word. You would have to establish that Clement knew how the word was used in Timothy and intended that his use of the word be understood in the same way. However, within Clement's letter, he has already made clear that he does not consider Paul's writings to have the same authority as scripture.
It is true that Clement never explicitly says "I don't think Paul was writing scripture," but I think it is pretty clear from his usage.
I think your line of reasoning here is pretty good and you are sailing along toward admitting that all things being equal, the most probable scenario is that Clement of Rome knew the texts of Matthew, Mark and many of Paul's letters and considered them authoritative, as inspired writings.
ReplyDeleteNew Testament canonicity as we think of it today was probably not a concern to Clement. I will concede that. However, he said that it was still possible to hold the actual letters of Paul in hand. (I consider this to be one of the most amazing authentic statements from Christian antiquity!) It probably was not disputed by anyone in the church at Rome as to who wrote which NT writings since there were at least some people alive at the time who had known the authors. So what was not a concern to them was not a controversy.
The real contention between you and I is whether Clement thought of the letters and the Gospels as inspired.
I agree with CL's point that if a Jew of the first century sees a letter as "inspired" then he sees it as having the authority of the Holy Spirit. That is the definition of what scripture is. It was not Paul the inspiration test for scripture. It is found in Paul's definition, but is also found in numerous Old Testament passages. In fact, all books of the Bible (except a very few) contain some type of internal claim to divine authority by virtue of inspiration. Inspired writings are scripture. But let's move beyond this point for now.
As I said, you were sailing along being perfectly reasonable, until you hit a snag.
Where you argument falls apart is where you turn my argument around to say I am also using the argument from silence fallacy. I am not.
"One of the strongest arguments in favor of authentic authorship is the fact that form the earliest centuries this was never in dispute until the German critics came along in the 1800s. Further, ALL the documentary evidence we have available points to four
named authors of four gospels. There is exactly ZERO documentary evidence that the authors were unknown or disputed."
This is NOT an argument from silence.
An argument from silence is when one tries to refute a claim by saying there are no other facts to corroborate it, therefore the claim is false. If I say I know Spanish, but won't translate a phrase for you, and you claim it's because I really don't know Spanish -- then that is an argument from silence.
That Matthew is the only one who records a massacre of innocents in Bethlehem -- but isn't corroborated by the other Gospel writer nor by any historical record -- is often used as an argument from silence to criticize this event as myth.
THAT is the argument from silence fallacy.
This does not apply here because have the record of Irenaeus telling us who the authors of various NT books were and establishing a canon. Ireneaus claims he received this information from ealier bishops including Papias and Polycarp. Clement and Ignatius also knew passages that are in these books.
All things being equal, we should assume that Irenaeus was telling the truth -- that a canon was known to the generation prior to him. And since Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement were second generation Christians who were alive when the Apostles were said to have visited their cities, they likely knew which apostolic writings were authentic.
But what many critics do is to introduce a "special pleading" fallacy in which other details are simply made up out of thin air in order to create a possible scenario in which the opposing argument is refuted.
We see this with Elaine Pagel's argument that Irenaeus was a stern misogynist who wanted to suppress "dozens of earlier Gospels" in order to suppress what he considered heresy. Thus the four Gospels were CHOSEN by Irenaeus and his students -- not RECEIVED from earlier bishops who knew the apostles as they claim.
But this is using both special pleading AND an argument from slience. The claims that "this is because the were burned" is special pleading because there are no other Gospels that exist.
There is ZERO possibility that any bishop in the mid-second century had the power to gather up all the writings he didn't agree with and destroy them. A cache of later Gnostic writings found at Nag Hammadi becomes the "smoking gun" that supposedly proves Pagel's thesis.
I hope you can see the foolishness of this line of attack.
But your reasoning amounts to much the same idea.
FACT: Irenaeus claimed the authentic apostolic writings were known to the second generation of church fathers; that he knew a least two of those men, Papias and Polycarp, and they in turn passed on these books to the third generation.
You may choose between three possibilities.
1. Irenaeus is lying due to a concealed agenda. (This requires special pleading.)
2. Irenaeus was deceived and believed faulty information. (This too has no basis except for argument from silence and special pleading).
3. Irenaeus is a reliable witness to what earlier bishops believed was the New Testament canon.
All things being equal:
1. Considering the Papias fragments, the corroborating textual quotes in the Didache, Baranabas, Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement;
2. Considering the corroboration between Irenaeus and his later contemporaries, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexxandria, etc;
3. Considering the corroborating list found in the Muratorium canon;
4. Considering the superscriptions and subscriptions naming the authors on actual NT fragments from the second century and beyond;
THEN if we take all this data and consider that there is no record of a controversy in determining the authors of the Gospels and NT Epistles (even Marcion did not question the authorship) we come to a conclusion:
I am going to have to take Irenaeus' canon as the reliable and authentic writings of the apostles.
Just for the record, here is what Irenaeus wrote concerning Polycarp and then the list of NT quotes from Polycarp in his only writing we know of:
ReplyDeleteAGAINST HERESIES III.3.4
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
POLYCARP FRAGMENTS II
For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse--his going out, too, and his coming in--his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind.
Polycarps quotes the NT
Polycarp and the Gospel according to Matthew
"Judge not, that you be not judged; forgive and you will be forgiven; be merciful, that you may be shown mercy; the measure you give will be the measure you get"....
..."to lead us not into temptation"...
..."The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak".
..."for those who persecute and hate you"
Polycarp and the Gospel according to Mark
...."a servant of all"....
Polycarp and the Gospel according to Luke
...."blessed are the poor and those persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of God".
Polycarp and Acts
... "whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of Hades".
...."judge of the living and the dead",...
Polycarp and Romans
... "everyone shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ and each of us shall give an account of himself".
Polycarp and I Corinthians
... "the secrets of the heart".
... "neither fornicators nor the effeminate nor homosexuals will inherit the Kingdom of God", ...
... "steadfast and immovable" ...
... "do we not know that the saints will judge the world", as Paul teaches?
For "he who raised him from the dead will raise us also", ...
... let us arm ourselves "with the weapons of righteousness", ...
...but "always taking thought for what is honorable in the sight of God and men" ...
...in "the gentleness of the Lord preferring one another", and despising no one.
Polycarp and Galatians
... -- "which is a mother of us all", ...
... "God is not mocked", ...
...and in "his Father who raised him from the dead".
Polycarp and Ephesians
... "you are saved by grace, not because of works", ...
... "the word of truth".
... as it is said in these Scriptures "be angry but sin not" and "let not the sun go down on your anger".
"Pray for all the saints".
Polycarp and Philippians
... "to whom he subjected all things, whether in heaven or on earth", ...
... "did not run in vain",..
..."the enemies of the cross",..
Polycarp and I Thessalonians
"Shun evil of every kind".
Polycarp and II Thessalonians
..."do not consider such persons as enemies",...
Polycarp and I Timothy
But "the love of money is the beginning of all evils".
... "we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out", ...
"Pray also for emperors and magistrates and rulers", ...
Polycarp and II Timothy
..."we shall also reign with him"...
For they "loved not this present world", ...
"May the Lord grant them true repentance".
Polycarp and Hebrews
So then let us "serve him with fear and all reverence", ...
May God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and "the eternal High Priest" himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth and in all gentleness ...
Polycarp and I Peter
In him, "though you have not seen him, you believe with inexpressible and exalted joy", -- ...
"Therefore, girding your loins, serve God in fear" ...
... "believing on him who raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and gave him glory" ...
... "not returning evil for evil or abuse for abuse", ...
... "every passion of the flesh wages war against the Spirit", ...
... "watching unto prayer" ...
..."who bore our sins in his own body on the tree, who committed no sin, neither was guile found on his lips"....
..."loving the brotherhood"....
..."cherishing one another"....
Polycarp and I John
For "whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is antichrist", and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross "is of the devil"; ...
Polycarp and III John
... "fellow companions in the truth"; ...
A coupla things to keep in mind.
ReplyDelete1 Clement 47:3 (when referring to Paul’s writing) uses the word ”pneumatikos”--a word that elsewhere in the New Testament refers to “Spiritual” as compared to the more mundane. E.g. Rom. 7:14; 15:27, 1 Cor. 3:1; 9:11; 12:1. Whereas 2 Tim. 3:16 uses the unique word ”theopneustos”--a combination word of “God” with “wind” or “breathe.” Simply because we have translated both phrases to English as “inspired” (at one time or another) does not mean both words mean the same.
I think it is a stretch to claim the KJV translated theopneustos to “inspired” (more recent translations, as we all know, abandon this word) and English translations of pneumatikos have also used the word “inspired” to claim that the author of 1 Clement was deliberately attempting to equate his use in 47:3 with the author of 2 Tim. 3:16’s use. (I personally doubt the Pastorals were written, but this would depend on one’s dating of both 1 Clement and the pastorals.)
Further, we understand the use of the term “As it is written” or referring to writing to be a deliberate action on the part of the writers to refer to the Tankah. A clue, if you will, for the reader that this was not some common phrase or even a common writing (See Titus 1:12 or Jude 14) but a concentrated effort to bolster one’s writing by support of Holy Writing. Examples of the same author doing this would be Matthew’s appeal to writing in Matt 2:5, but not in 2:23.
The author of 1 Clement repeatedly uses the phrase, “It is written…” (to the point of being tiresome) when utilizing the Tanakh. He does NOT refer to writing, curiously enough, when talking of Jesus’ words, rather he uses the phrase, “Jesus said…”
But returning to Paul, in 1 Clement 47, the author tells the audience to look at Paul’s letter to them. Arguably the first one. Whether it is the 1 Corinthians we have is yet another rabbit trail I won’t go done. Immediately following this, the author launches into an exhortation to the readers to exhibit brotherly love.
Now I ask you—if you handed someone 1 Corinthians, and started to talk about love, where in the blue blazes do you think you would turn? Anyone who has been to a wedding in the past 50 years can probably quote it word for word. Yet what does the author do?
First he quotes from the Tanakh using the same adage, “It is written…” then he utilizes phrases from 1 Cor. 13, without attributing them to Paul. Without using the phrase “it is written.” Then he goes back to quoting the Tanakh using “It is written…” (Again, curiously, if the author had a copy of Matthew, he says, “Remember the commandments of Christ” but doesn’t bother to mention Jesus’ claim of the greatest commandment. Nor loving your enemies from the Sermon on the Mount. If 1 Clement thought Matthew was authoritative, he certainly didn’t believe the audience would.)
Let’s use a modern day example. Imagine I was talking to a Christian. (Must remember the audience. It is as important to know what 1 Clement thought was authoritative as much as what the audience thought was authoritative.) And was attempting to compel them with every tool at my disposal. Yet when arguing about how we should treat our neighbors, I appeal to Oprah Winfrey’s book-of-the-month? I don’t use…oh….I don’t know….Matthew 5? I state over and over “The Bible says, the Bible says…” but offhandly mention “You will be known by your love” without prefacing it with “The Bible says…”?
Look at the pointers here:
1) 1 Clement thinks Scripture is authoritative.
2) 1 Clement uses a “pointer” indicating quoting from Scripture, “It is written…”
3) 1 Clement is aware of Paul writing to his audience.
4) 1 Clement is using every tool feasible to argue his point
5) 1 Clement refers to Paul’s writing
Yet 1 Clement does NOT state, “It is written…” when using phrases (without attribution) from Paul’s epistle. It is incredible for me to think 1 Clement found Paul’s writing as “scripture” in light of these facts. Why would he have to re-argue Paul’s points if he thought the matter was authoritatively settled?
Thanks for the input Dagoods. It certainly did not look to me like Clement is saying the same thing as 2nd Timothy, but Greek is above my pay grade.
ReplyDeleteJay,
Why should I assume that Irenaeous was telling the truth? Doesn't the fact that he was writing a book titled Against Heresies indicate that there were many people in his day who did not agree with the things he was writing? Shouldn't I look for some confirmation in the writings of Polycarp and Ignatius that they knew the people and things that Irenaeous claimed they knew?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFurther, words mean different things in different contexts. So to simply look at how a word is used in one instance does not prove it means EXACTLY the same thing in another.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point Jay!
Perhaps Clement was not using the word in exactly the same way that it was being used in 2nd Timothy. Maybe we should look at the context of Clement's letter to see whether he used the epistles as authoritative scripture.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteThis conversation started because I insisted that there is an unbroken testimony from the time of the Apostles until the time of the great codices as to what were the authentic apostolic writings.
As I've posted, Ignatius knew the scriptures that Irenaeus knew. So why should one assume anything about anything from this?
Why should you assume that Irenaeus was just making this stuff up?
Yes, that's what liberals do, I know! But what is Irenaeus' motivation?
This is one case where you can't assume the null hypothesis. Irenaeus was either lying or deceived or he had good information. You can't say he knew nothing.
I am a person who will take all of the data at hand and draw a conclusion. I cannot fathom how liberals move from NO DATA and PURE CONJECTURE to a tenable position that has Irenaeus just spouting nonsense he pulled through a hat.
The problem for you is that Irenaeus also leaves these lists of successions of bishops in different cities, so to assume he was lying about what he knew about these men is to also assume that the people he was writing to were quite daft and couldn't know anything of their own history.
Both Clement and Ireneaus were from Smyrna, Clement was of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch. These men were not unlearned hillbillies and neither were their followers. They had an understanding of their own history just three generations removed, just as we today know something about our own parents and grandparents.
Irenaeus gives a list of bishops and writes: "there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles."
If there are people around (the same age as Irenaeus) who know this to be false, then how can he write that? Are his hearers that stupid?
So I don't know where to go from here except to leave you with Irenaeus' bio on Clement of Rome and ask you what you make of it.
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
Correction: POLYCARP and Ignatius were of Smyrna.
ReplyDeleteDagoods,
ReplyDeleteI think that you are making a distinction without a difference.
The word for "wind," "breathe," and "spirit" are exactly the same in Greek.
pneuma -- breathe, spirit, wind.
”pneumatikos” -- spiritual.
”theopneustos”--a combination word of “God” and "breathed."
So to say that scripture is "God-breathed" is the same as saying that it is "inspired."
The word "inspire" in English comes of course from "spirit." Similarly in Greek, spiritual writings are inspired writings.
Further, words mean different things in different contexts. So to simply look at how a word is used in one instance does not prove it means EXACTLY the same thing in another.
If you start with the presupposition that Clement could not have possibly thought Matthew, Luke or Paul writings were inspired scripture at such an early date, you are going to be able to weave an argument to support it.
It's funny that the argument of the liberals used to be to view 1 Clement as spurious until research showed this to be impossible. The Epistle simply has too many internal markers and too much of a pedigree to date it past the beginning of the second century.
Likely it was written shortly after either Nero or Domitian's reign (most would say the latter). Still, 96 AD is very early. So it is a great witness to the authority and authenticity of the NT writings.
Now the argument becomes that Clement sould not have possibly meant what he wrote. No Paul's writing is not "inspired."
It's also funny that I followed your argument through all the way to the end agreeing with everything until you got to your conclusion.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What do you do about the fact that Clement's contemporary, POLYCARP, refers to Paul's letter to the Galatians by writng:
... as it is said in these Scriptures "be angry but sin not" and "let not the sun go down on your anger."
I suppose you will say that Ignatius thinks that ONLY the part of the quote that Paul takes from Psalms is scripture.
It is hard to get around the plural here: "these Scriptures."
Why should you assume that Irenaeus was just making this stuff up?
ReplyDeleteI do not assume this Jay. In fact, my working assumption would be that Irenaeus sincerely believed the truth of what he wrote. The problem is that I do not know the reasons why he believed these things to be true because he does not tell me much about the basis for his beliefs.
Let me ask you this Jay. If all the information we had about the first two hundred years of the Church of Latter Day Saints came from Mormons, would you accept it at face value or would you consider the possibility that you are only getting one side of the story?
With respect to most of the issue we have been discussing, I think we really don’t have enough evidence to say one way or the other. Irenaeous might have been a careful meticulous historian. On the other hand, he might have been the kind of guy who overstates the evidence on his side. He might be the kind of guy who refuses to address counter-evidence and counter-arguments. He might be the kind of guy who uncritically accepts evidence and arguments that support his position. He might be the kind of guy who impugns the character and motives of people who disagree with him rather than dealing with their arguments. He might be the kind of guy who describes two men as contemporaries when there are three or more decade’s differences in their ages and the times in which they wrote. He might be the kind of guy who claims that others agree with him when they don’t. He might be the kind of guy who doesn’t understand logical fallacies very well. In short Jay, he might have been like you and many other Christian apologists that I have encountered. I just don’t have enough information about Irenaeous not to take the things he wrote with a grain of salt.
Jay Rogers,
ReplyDeleteJay Rogers: Further, words mean different things in different contexts. So to simply look at how a word is used in one instance does not prove it means EXACTLY the same thing in another.
Yep. Quite true. And, in fact, in our situation, we have different words meaning different things in different contexts. Not sure how this helps your argument.
Look, we have theopneustos in 2 Tim. 3:16. An invented one-time use word. Understandably, the translators of the King James Version struggled to come up with a translation and eventually fell on “inspired by God.” Subsequent translations simply transliterate it to “God-breathed” instead.
We have pneumatikos in 1 Clement 47:3 which has been translated:
“under inspiration of the spirit he wrote to you”
“he charged you in the spirit”
“he warned you spiritually”
Again, comparing how pneumatikos was used through other Christian writing—it has been translated “spiritual” as compared to mundane or physical. Things to do with “divine” such as gifts (Rom. 1:11) or teaching (I Cor. 2:13) or even people (1 Cor. 2:15) and bodies! (1 Cor. 15:44)
We have one word, theopneustos, MIStranslated in English to “inspired” and another word, pneumatikos possibly translated in English to “inspired” (albeit very questionable) and you are saying those two Greek words, because they have been mistranslated and possibly translated to another language (English) with the same word must mean the same thing?
Can you see why this argument is not persuasive to a skeptic?
It gets worse, believe it or not!
In 1 Clement 63:2, the author states: “For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit… “(agiou pneumatos)
If we are to consistently apply your methodology of anything including ”pneuma” when referring to a writing must mean the writing is “inspired”—then the author of 1 Clement is clearly declaring 1 Clement is inspired! Hey, if the author of 2 Timothy can self-authenticate—why not this author as well?
I almost would like to embrace your argument, because we can demonstrate Christianity is inconsistent in canonicity, as it refuses to accept 1 Clement, when it meets the exact same qualifications of other books that ARE accepted! In other words, they are inconsistent in their methodology. (It self identifies as inspired, it was written within the time frame of eyewitnesses, it was influenced by an apostle. If these are satisfactory criteria for…say…Luke, Mark, or Hebrews—why wouldn’t they be satisfactory for 1 Clement?)
However, I cannot embrace your argument because it makes a mash-up of Greek. Oh, in case this comes back to bite me in my rear—I am not confirming the date of 1 Clement. There are arguments pushing it back to mid-Second Century. I would generally give it a range of 90-150 CE to be safe.
Jay Rogers: If you start with the presupposition that Clement could not have possibly thought Matthew, Luke or Paul writings were inspired scripture at such an early date, you are going to be able to weave an argument to support it.
Err…yeah…so what? Let’s assume I have a presupposition 1 Clement did not think Matthew, Luke or Paul were considered inspired. Let’s assume (because it would be more accurate) I have a presupposition 1 Clement didn’t have a written Matthew in front of him (although he had heard it or excerpts from it), that Luke was not written yet, and that 1 Clement did not consider Paul’s writing as inspired.
Heck, let’s assume I have a presupposition 1 Clement is a Third century forgery made by a fellow named “Bob” who sold it for 2 gold pieces and a goat to Eusebius. (I don’t by the way.)
Who gives a flying rat’s butt as to what my, your or anyone else’s presuppositions are? The important question is the strength of the arguments. If I think “Bob” forged the documents—what are my proofs? What are my arguments for it? If I think 1 Clement did not consider Matthew inspired—what are the proofs? What are the arguments?
Are they persuasive to those who are neutral or opposed to my position? Why do Christian apologists (and sadly, some non-believers as well) think they can dismiss arguments by claiming “you are predisposed against my position”? O.K. I am. Or am not. Or might be. The REAL question is the strength of the arguments—not one’s predisposition.
Jay Rogers: Question: What do you do about the fact that Clement's contemporary, POLYCARP, refers to Paul's letter to the Galatians by writng:
ReplyDelete... as it is said in these Scriptures "be angry but sin not" and "let not the sun go down on your anger."
I suppose you will say that Ignatius thinks that ONLY the part of the quote that Paul takes from Psalms is scripture.
It is hard to get around the plural here: "these Scriptures."
I know this was directed at Vinny—but I did a little research on the topic which may shed some light on it. Or may not.
First I would note you originally wrote that this was Ignatius, not Polycarp. (In fact, you failed to correct the second instance where you refer to “Ignatius” again.)
Secondly, it is a reference to Ephesians (4:26) not Galatians.
Thirdly, they were only “contemporaries” (Polycarp and Clement) in the loosest sense of the term, Clement being in Rome, flourishing around 88-100 CE., and Polycarp being in Smyrna, flourishing around 120-160 CE.
Now don’t get me wrong—your point is still there, it just took a little longer to find it. You made a few mistakes. We all do. We are human. Read enough of my writing and you will easily find mistyping, misspelling and inaccurate citations. Do it all the time.
Were you lying? Of course not! Were you misleading us? Of course not! You were making the types of mistakes humans make all the time.
Humans like Irenaeus. We aren’t accusing him of deliberate falsehood, as much as adamant advocacy without taking the time to verify. He believed it to be true; why should he double-check or triple-check that which he already believed? In the same way you believed Polycarp was quoting Galatians—why double check it? Turns out to be wrong, but that is the way of humans.
Moving on to the point at hand:
Polycarp writes: ” For I trust that you are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted. It is declared then in these Scriptures, “Be you angry, and sin not,” and, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath” Polycarp’s letter to the Phillipians.
Ephesians 4:26 says, ”Be angry, and do not sin: do not let the sun go down on your wrath, “
Case closed. Looks like Polycarp is citing Ephesians, and calls it Scriptures. Right? Well…as everything in New Testament studies, it is not so clear-cut.
See the problem is the first part, “Be angry and do not sin” is a quote from Psalm 4:4. We know the Early Church Fathers considered the Tanakh to be Scripture, so citing Psalms and referring it to as Scripture is not remarkable. The question is whether the author intended the second part to ALSO be scripture. Remember, there are no quotes in Greek, so we have (at least) three possibilities:
1) It is declared in these Scriptures, “Be angry and do not sin” and here is another helpful ditty—don’t let the sun go down on your wrath. (The same thing the author of Eph. 4:26 did.)
2) It is declared in these Scriptures, “Be angry and do not sin” and in another Scripture, “Don’t let the sun go down on your wrath.”
3) It is declared in these Scriptures, “Be angry and do not sin” and I read elsewhere which is helpful—“don’t le the sun go down on your wrath.”
Problem One—what part was the author referring to as scriptures?
(A sidenote: I could not find the letter in Greek. Don’t get caught up in the plural of scripture (“graphe”) as it was common to refer to Scriptures in plural when only referring to one passage. See Matt. 21:42. Doesn’t mean the author is referring to two sections.)
As you point out Polycarp utilizes numerous tidbits out of various books of the New Testament, some bites being verbatim. Others more allusions. Yet in no other instance does he qualify these as “Scripture.” The ONLY direct quote I find in the entire letter of anything in the Tanakh is this Psalm 4:4 passage. The only time immediately preceded by the nomenclature of “Scripture.”
Problem Two—every instance the author cites the Tanakh, he uses the nomenclature “the Scriptures;” every instance he utilizes the New Testament writings he does not.
Polycarp refers to 1 Cor. 6:2, but notes it with “as Paul teaches…” Not as Scripture. Not as inspired. Not even as a writing to be reviewed.
Polycarp refers to the letter Paul wrote them (presumably our Philippians) stating, “And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you,…” Nothing about this letter being scripture. Nothing about following the dictates of the letter as law.
Curiously, Polycarp has trusted they are well-versed in Scripture; yet is not certain they have studied Paul’s letter. If Paul’s letter was considered “Scripture”—why wouldn’t that already be part and parcel of their teachings? Why does Polycarp have to tell them to study Paul’s writing?
Problem Three—when Polycarp refers to Paul specifically, is it in the form of helpful teaching and exhortation. Not in the form of sacred scripture.
And, on a personal note, if this IS the first instance of a New Testament writing being considered Scripture, it is with wry humor I note it was a pseudopauline epistle.
Look, maybe Polycarp did think Ephesians was scripture. Maybe he had a copy of the whole New Testament in front of him, and thought the whole thing was scripture. I don’t think it is so cut-and-dried as Christian apologists would like to claim. There are far too many questions, far too many differences in culture and language, and far too much time passed to make such dogmatic assertions.
Thirdly, they were only “contemporaries” (Polycarp and Clement) in the loosest sense of the term, Clement being in Rome, flourishing around 88-100 CE., and Polycarp being in Smyrna, flourishing around 120-160 CE.
ReplyDeleteIn the decades between Clement's letter and Polycarp's, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning as quickly as the earliest Christians believed. On the specific issue of the need to recognize a canon that included the writings of the early church, I think I would argue Clement and Polycarp were not contemporaries in any sense.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteYou raise some good points. But I still see a skeptic trying to find every reason to doubt.
On the Mormon question, I would take all the evidence available and consider it. Have you ever actually READ the book of Mormon? It's mainly a rehash of biblical verses in the context of a history of a lost tribe of Israelites. Considering that the Bible actually has some corroborating history in terms of archaeology and independent sources, I'd look for the same in the book of Mormon. I'd then take some of the Mormon doctrines that contradict Christian orthodoxy into account.
If we only had the Mormons to give an account of their own history, I'd certainly take into account that these are a people who thought of themselves as Christians were willing to accept the idea that sacred scripture was given 2600 years after the event by an angel, even though Hebrews chapter 1 discounts the possibility of this in the New Covenant.
So while their 19th century hisotry of themselves might be factual, it would still be suspect.
The Church Fathers on the other hand, appealed to the authority of flesh and blood men who claimed to be eyewitnesses of other men who had seen Christ.
Here's where we disagree. You could create a timeline and see it for youself. There is simply too much proximity, to many cross quotations and direct citations, for the NT canon to be an organized farce or a self-deception.
It doesn't compare at all to the Book of Mormon because we are talking about a gap of 2600 years in the case of Joseph Smith and a continual history with overlapping gernerations who kept a continual witness and multiple written records.
Paul mentions a "Clement" a "fellow laborer" with him in Rome. This would have been around 58 to 61 AD.
Clement cites a first hand knowledge of Peter and Paul, "in our generation" telling of an extant autograph of one of Paul's letters that may be "held in your hands."
Ignatius writes to Polycarp.
Papias names the Gospel writers.
Irenaeus writes in detail about all of the above as well as claiming a personal relationship with Papias and Polycarp.
We also have the Muratorium canon which predates Irenaeus writings that has the identical NT canon. So I draw the conclusion that Irenaeus RECEIVED a canon. He did not determine it.
TIMELINE:
Peter c.1-67 AD
(Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome)
Paul c.3-67 AD
(Antioch, Ephesus, Rome)
John c.15-96 AD
(Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus)
Clement c.35-100 AD
(Rome)
Ignatius c.50-115 AD
(Antioch, Ephesus, Rome)
Papias c.70 AD-155 AD
(Smyrna)
Polycarp c.70-155 AD
(Smyrna)
Irenaeus c.130-200 AD
(Smyrna, Rome, Gaul)
Tertullian c.160-220 AD
Christianity, as a form of rabinnical Judaism, was based on discipleship. Not only did these men know each other, but there was a student-teacher relationship.
It wasn't Irenaeus who first perceived apostolic succession of bishops as the basis of authority in deciding these matters. That idea too is in the writings of Clement and Ignatius. I'd point to 2 Timothy 2:2 as the strongest NT expression of succession.
Further, these men lived in a community of believers, who also had some overlap with each others lifetimes. It simply would not be possible to confabulate a New Testament history after the fact because there was too much continuity in the community to pass off such farce as authentic.
To put it in a simple way: No one writes a false prophecy with numerous historical and geographical markers, such as the Book of Acts, and delivers it to a people who would be in a position to know that it is not authentic.
The example of Joseph Smith is a good one here, because he delivered a false prophecy that could neither be fact checked by people who were either alive at the time nor by a family history that would corroborate the events.
In short, even if we take some extreme dating possibilites into account, there is no possibility that there could be a gap between the lifetimes of these men.
You still haven't answered the question about Polycarp quoting Paul as "scripture." I am interested on what you have to say about that.
*******
Dagoods,
The liberal view is that the church fathers viewed the Gospels (or proto-Gospels) as a collection of sayings and that the canon -- or even the idea of the canon -- didn't come into being until the time of Irenaeus.
The problem though is that since the 1800s, too many second century manuscript fragments have been found to consider that the NT was anything other than a thriving and widespread FIRST CENTURY manuscript collection.
I reject this not only on the basis of how I see Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement using the words "scripture" and "spiritual writings," but also on the internal evidence of the books themselves
There is no evidence that Luke could have been written in the second century. All evidence points to a mid-first century origin. There are simply too many direct quotes in the data I've posted. There is the Rylands Fragment and other discoveries, even a second century manuscript fragement with "KATA LUCAS," that have made even liberals push the date of Luke back into the first century. The liberal theory of second century dating is on the ash heap of history. You can still cling to a date of 85 AD. It is a problematic scenario, but not impossible. It's pretty clear to me though using internal evidence only that Acts was written by Luke prior to Paul's execution.
Dagood,
ReplyDeleteOne could also compare my citation errors to similar gaffes made by the church fathers when they were quoting scripture on the fly. The fact that I include an incorrect citation or no citation at all doesn't indicate that I don't know the scriptures. I can flip this example over as an argument in my favor.
I think we are attacking this all wrong by quibbling over what the meaning of the word "scripture" is and so on. It is possible to become so equivocable that we don't agree on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
There are enough internal indicators in the Gospels and other NT writings to show that the authors meant for them to be taken as authoritative and as scripture.
The issue is whether the chruch fathers were drawing from memorized portions of manuscripts at the church's disposal -- or whether they were drawing from a oral "sayings" collection of Jesus material that had not been written yet.
It's apparent that Clement knows of Paul's Epistles. I don't see why it is a stretch to say he knew of written Gospels. If you consider the language of the preambles to Matthew, Luke and John, it is hard to maintain that the authors didn't think they were writing under inspiration or that those receiveing hte writings would consider them as anything else but authentic and inspired.
I'd use the arguments proposed by the liberal JAT Robinson to argue the former. Have you read Robinson's REDATING THE NEW TESTAMENT?
It's always been interesting to me that the liberals have fought hard against keeping 2 Peter out of the first century. The passage indicating Paul's letters to be scripture is a strong foundation for an early NT canon known to first century bishops -- if the Epistle of 2 Peter were written prior to that time.
Of course, I argue that it is pre-67 AD and authentic, but even as a pre-100 AD pseudonymous Epistle, it makes the case that this is how early bishops thought of Paul's letters.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis portion of the letter is preserved only in Latin.
ReplyDeletePolycarp to the Philippians Chapter 12.
Confido enim vos bene exercitatos esse in sacris literis, et nihil vos latet; mihi autem non est concessum. Modo, ut his scripturis dictum est, Irascimini et nolite peccare, et, Sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram. Beatus, qui meminerit; quod ego credo esse in vobis.
Deus autem et pater domini nostri Iesu Christi et ipse sempiternus pontifex, dei filius Iesus Christus, aedificet vos in fide et veritate et in omni mansuetudine et sine iracundia et in patientia et in longanimitate et tolerantia et castitate; et det vobis sortem et partem inter sanctos suos, et nobis vobiscum, et omnibus qui sunt sub caelo, qui credituri sunt in dominum nostrum et deum Iesum Christum et in ipsius patrem qui resuscitavit eum a mortuis.
Pro omnibus sanctis orate. Orate etiam pro regibus et potestatibus et principibus atque pro persequentibus et odientibus vos et pro inimicis crucis, ut fructus vester manifestus sit in omnibus, ut sitis in illo perfecti.
Jay Rogers,
ReplyDeleteWhere do you get your material? Some of it is biased (understandable), some speculative (not persuasive) and some of it is downright incorrect. For example (all quotes yours):
” Clement cites a first hand knowledge of Peter and Paul, ‘in our generation’ telling of an extant autograph of one of Paul's letters that may be ‘held in your hands.’“
Yes, Clement uses the term “in our generation.” No, Clement does not cite “first hand knowledge of Peter and Paul.” Yes, Clement refers to a letter in the Corinthian’s hand. No, Clement does not state it is an autograph.
”Ignatius writes to Polycarp.“
Yes, but does not list any canon, or even any book at all.
”Papias names the Gospel writers.“
Not exactly. Papias names a gospel written by Mark that is not descriptive of the Mark we have. Papias names a gospel written by Matthew that is not descriptive of the Matthew we have. Papias does not name Luke in any way. Papais names a Gospel of the Hebrews we do not have (or only have portions.) Papais does not name a Gospel by John, or if you take the saying of John as being written, then he quotes 2 Baruch which is nowhere in the Gospel of John.
This statement is partly correct by obfuscating under the term “name the Gospel writers” (although he does not name Luke) but is inaccurate regarding how Papias names the gospels themselves.
”We also have the Muratorium canon which predates Irenaeus writings that has the identical NT canon.“
The Muratorian canon is identical to….what? It does not include Hebrews or James. Does not include 1 or 2 Peter. Only lists 2 Epistles of John. And includes the Wisdom of Solomon and Apocalypse of Peter.
Secondly, the dating of the document is suspect, and it is possible to predate Irenaeus, that is not even remotely certain. At best is a reference to when the Shepherd of Hermas is written, and whether that is close in time to the list or whether it is closer in time to the list than the apostolic writings.
After reading through your list—it caused me to wonder where you obtained your material from.
Moving along…
Jay Rogers: The problem though is that since the 1800s, too many second century manuscript fragments have been found to consider that the NT was anything other than a thriving and widespread FIRST CENTURY manuscript collection.
Again, this is a bit of yes and no. Yes, there are fragments which demonstrate copying and preservation of previous documents. But no, the fact they are in the SECOND century does not necessarily mean they are copying FIRST century documents. I personally think some documents are First Century, but this argument does not require it.
P52 is often dated to the First part of the Second Century. Realistically, being only 117 (or 118) letters, paleography is made more difficult. The conservative range would be 150 CE +/- 25 years, or 125 – 175 CE.
P90 is also Second Century (also Gospel of John). The next closest are really circa 200 CE—meaning it is possible they were second century, but it is also possible they were third century as well.
Having a few papyri appearing, say in 150 – 200 CE does NOT necessitate the original documents MUST be written prior to 100 CE. It simply does not. While we can speculate and attempt to extrapolate from internal evidence as to the original dating of the documents, just by virtue of copies appearing late second century does not mean the originals HAD to be written more than 50 years prior.
Jay Rogers: The liberal theory of second century dating is on the ash heap of history. You can still cling to a date of 85 AD. It is a problematic scenario, but not impossible. It's pretty clear to me though using internal evidence only that Acts was written by Luke prior to Paul's execution.
Words like “liberal” or statements of claims being on the “ash heap of history” may have an effect on your target audience as a Christian apologist (i.e.—other Christians) but I can assure you they have no meaning to me. I don’t care if the theory is proposed by a “liberal” or a “conservative” or a “Republican” or a left-handed monkey salesperson. What I care about are the arguments.
Quite honestly, if you want to engage in Biblical studies, and discuss with scholars, try dropping such terms. Drop bald assertions of “they used to think this, but they were wrong.” Show the arguments.
Now, the ol’ “Paul’s execution not included in Acts, so it must be written prior to 64 CE” claim. (Yep, read Robinson.) In order for this to work, though, the proponent must show three things:
1) When Paul died.
2) That Luke would have recorded it.
3) That Paul wasn’t dead when written.
As to the first, it is (as with all studies) problematic. We know 1 Clement records Paul’s death, presumably giving us a last possible date of 95 CE. But 1 Clement ALSO includes a trip to Spain, unrecorded and extremely difficult to fit in the timeline of Acts. It is not until late Second Century that we start the myth of Paul being killed under Nero. More than 100 years after the event. (Note. That Muratorian Canon indicates Luke didn’t record it because he wasn’t there. Not because it didn’t happen.)
We don’t know when Paul died.
As to the second, Udo Schnelle makes a strong argument Acts was intended to be a bridge between first generation Christians and third Generation christians by the use of a “Super” Second Generation Christian—that being Paul. There was no need or desire to record his death, because that was unnecessary to the plot.
Here is the biggest problem with Robinson’s theory. We have to demonstrate Luke would have recorded Paul’s death. That it would be mandatory to the story. We don’t know that, and there are other indications he would not. (Favorable treatment of Romans as compared to Jews, for one.)
We don’t know that Luke would have recorded it.
Thirdly, Acts 20:25 indicates, in Paul’s farewell speech, that he knew he was going to die. This indicates (as numerous scholars have noted) the author was aware of Paul’s death.
And, finally, there are so many errors and contradictions in Acts as compared to history and the other books, it is hard for me to accept any historicity of any event, absent independent verification.
Jay Rogers: I think we are attacking this all wrong by quibbling over what the meaning of the word "scripture" is and so on. It is possible to become so equivocable that we don't agree on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
It is irrelevant what you or I think the import of the word “scripture” is. What is important is what the AUTHORS we are talking about thought of it! If they held it in high regard, or used it in a formula, we should take notice and deal with the implications of that.
As Vinny and I have pointed out over and over. In the New Testament and Early Church Writing, “As it is written” or “according to the scriptures” always refers to the Tanakh. Always. We have also pointed out dozens of cases where New Testament documents are either directly used or alluded to, and they NEVER use the formula “it is written” or “according to the scriptures.”
If I were in your shoes, I would want to down-play the import of this, too! But I cannot. Because there it is.
Jay Rogers: There are enough internal indicators in the Gospels and other NT writings to show that the authors meant for them to be taken as authoritative and as scripture.
Authoritative—yes. Scripture?—that hasn’t been shown yet. (And obviously they thought the writing was authoritative—it was the reason they were writing it! They weren’t writing, “Gee, ignore me on this point, because what I have to say you really don’t have to follow.”)
As Matthew was utilizing and modifying Mark—did he consider it “scripture”? Was this acceptable to modify, in midrashic terms, a previous story? Luke (more problematic)—did he consider Matthew and Mark “scripture” as he chopped them up and discarded inconvenient portions of Matthew?
I concur some of the authors intended their writings to be “scripture.” Certainly 2 Peter comes to mind, and portions of the Gospel of John.
Of course, using the SAME internal indicators, we have proven 1 Clement is canonical. Are you stating it should be in the Bible? Why not?
Jay Rogers: The issue is whether the chruch fathers were drawing from memorized portions of manuscripts at the church's disposal -- or whether they were drawing from a oral "sayings" collection of Jesus material that had not been written yet.
Or both. Or writing what they thought Jesus would have said. Or writing directly from manuscripts. Or writing on what they were recently told Jesus said. Or writing what they thought their audience would want to hear about what Jesus said.
See, this is exactly the problem, Jay Rogers. We are having a devil of a time coming up with any methodology as to how to divide these sayings. What are historical? What are mythical? Did 2 Timothy rely upon Luke, or Luke rely upon 2 Timothy, or did both rely upon a third document? (Or, is it happy coincidence, and neither relied on anything.) Did Ephesians rely upon Polycarp; Polycarp upon Ephesians or both on a third, or neither on anything?
This is why scholars back off from dogmatic statements regarding what MUST be true. Over time, persuasive arguments have demonstrated the Synoptic Problem and the most likely resolution of Matthew and Luke using Mark. (Whether Luke used Matthew or a Q is still up for debate.) Arguments show the pseudopauline epistles for what they are, and the different authorship of 1 and 2 Peter.
Yet even within those arguments, there is the understanding new information can be found tomorrow, causing us to revise our positions.
It would not surprise me if you think I am coming from this as a skeptic, or that I am “trying to find a reason to doubt.” However, I must note I am clearly familiar with this material and am apparently more familiar with it than you are in many aspects. I am also familiar with current trends in New Testament studies (the most exciting being MacDonald’s demonstration Mark is copying the Iliad in making up his Gospel). I am also familiar with the mythical position on Jesus (Doherty, Price) and their arguments.
Rather than dismiss these as “liberals” or “non-conservative” or “not what I believe”—I try to review their arguments and see how persuasive the arguments are.
To be honest, it is far more compelling when people admit we do NOT have exact dates. We don’t know when Paul or Peter died. It is a matter of some conjecture. This rigid adherence to a dogma attempting to support one’s theological position is not very convincing.
Thanks Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteYou certainly are more familiar with the material than I am. I always learn a lot when you stop by.
One of the things that strikes me as just silly is this notion that the community of believers would have constituted some impenetrable bullshit detector. I can just imagine some member of Irenaeous' flock approaching him.
ReplyDeleteFlockmember: You know we are not really sure who wrote these four gospels.
Irenaeous: Yes we are. It was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Flockmember: How can you be so sure?
Irenaeous: Ignatius and Polycarp. They quoted all four gospels.
Flockmember: But they never said who wrote them.
Irenaeous: What are you talking about? Don't you think they knew who they were quoting?
Flockmember: I never thought of it that way. I guess you're right.
Or, if Flockmember continued his questions.
Irenaeous: What are you, some sort of heretic?
One of the problems with liberal criticism is that it came about because of Enlightenment thought – the idea was that we can subject literature to the same level of scientific scrutiny that we do with the natural sciences – that we begin with the null hypothesis and use the greatest degree of skepticism possible in order to discredit the history.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this method isn’t that it uses form criticism or the source criticism to a degree – but that it uses imperfect hypotheses to state things categorically that cannot be known by higher criticism. Then it ignores the accounts of the church fathers and documentary evidence.
The Higher Critics did the same thing to William Shakespeare in the 19th century – ignoring all accounts written by his closest contemporary playwrights who said he was the author of his plays and assumed on the basis of form what he did and didn’t write. Most of the 19th century criticism on literature is rejected as pure tripe by literature experts today. But liberalism still persists in biblical criticism only because people have an agenda to disbelieve.
This is simply not the way that literary criticism should be done. One of my favorite quotes on liberal criticism comes from C.S. Lewis, who while not a biblical critic, was a trained textual critic of medieval English literature and an author in his own right.
"These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-seed and can't see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight."
C. S. Lewis, "Modern Thought and Biblical Criticism," Christian Reflection, ed. Walter Hooper (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1967), p. 157.
You are right when you say we can never know anything with absolute certainty the same way we can know the density of pure gold, but we can make inferences and accept a great deal beyond a reasonable doubt. I find your doubts about the value of patristic testimony unreasonable. You claim to be able to see things no one can see and then you reject the elephant staring you in the face.
For instance, I was surprised to learn recently that one of the oldest NT fragments is not from a Bible at all but actually a quote from a work by Tertullian and is dated to the late second century. What that means is that we have a fragments of Tertullian copied while he was still alive! The reason why we have great certainty that 1 Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus and Tertullian are reliable documents is that the church from the very beginning took great care to see that these documents were preserved. Copies were made in Antioch, Ephesus, Rome and stayed in these cities. We have the names of the bishops under which the documents were preserved.
No other body of ancient literature has that kind of a pedigree
Where do I get my material?
ReplyDeleteYou know I get it from the church fathers.
I suppose I ought to cite everything in English, Latin and Greek, but that has already been done.
Have you ever been on this site?
http://textexcavation.com
??
I would never dogmatically assert that the church fathers were infallible -- only scripture written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit can hold this claim. Certain things they say MUST be wrong. But then there is this huge common denominator in their testimony. I look for the common testimony and I say that is what must reasonably be true. That is what good researchers do. They find two or three or more reliable sources. They see where they corroborate each other. They see if there is contradictory evidence. If there is none, then the testimony is accepted as reliable.
Otherwise we could not know anything about history.
I see a consistent story on where the Gospels came from, who wrote them, when they were written, and so on. Unless I see conflicting history, I don't see a reason to throw out the data. I don't see a reason to say, "we don't know," every time the evidence all points in favor of authenticity of a book and that a book must be pseudonymous any time some liberal critic sees a smidgen of evidence against it.
I am perfectly happy to accept the fact that some of the church fathers accepted books like Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter and even 1 Clement. It doesn't rankle me, because either:
1. They were wrong about some things and the church in general made the right determination.
2. The inclusion of these books don't affect any of the core doctrines of Christianity. In fact, Christians can look at these as commentaries on what some of the church fathers thought about NT scripture and derive some of their theology in the same way we use a commentary today.
I don't agree with your take on the Muratorian canon. The only books that seem to be missing are James, Hebrews and the Epistles of Peter. That the Epistles of John are mentioned as 2 instead of 3 isn’t a big deal either - these were known and no one doubts these are by the same author. We also have to consider that the Muratorium canon is a damaged fragment of a later copy. It is possible that they appear later where the fragment ends abruptly.
But I won't use special pleading in a dogmatic way here!
I understand there is some controversy over it. But it contains the line: “However, Hermas composed the Shepherd recently, in our own times, in the city of Rome, while his brother Pius the bishop was sitting in the chair of the city of Rome.” So that can be taken at face value as to its general date.
The extra-canonical books you mention are described as extra-canonical in the Muratorian list. I think too that you are interpreting it to suit your presuppositions. Maybe you should have a look again?
http://www.textexcavation.com/muratoriancanon.html
I am not making my case based on one indicator. I look at the common denominators.
ReplyDeleteWe don't see this huge controversy over the canon.
The bewildering thing to me is why critics don’t simply accept blank statement by the church fathers that these books were RECEIVED by the church from the Apostles as they claim and instead opt for a slow development of a canon based on pseudonymous and anonymous books.
I see a few extra-biblical traditions about the Apostles that I doubt or cannot accept, but then there is a huge amount of corroboration on the timeline. That Nero persecuted the Christians in Rome is recorded in pagan sources. That Peter and Paul died under Nero is also recorded by several sources. So the traditional date of June 29, 67 A.D. for the martyrdom of Peter and Paul works for me. It might be 18 months off. It MIGHT be wrong. If there is no contrary testimony I don't see any reason to reject it.
Likewise, I am willing to accept that John was seen "almost in our day even during the reign of Domitian," according to Irenaeus. That would have made John a teenager when he was Jesus' disciple, but that fits the NT history quite well.
I have long thought that a NT chronology can be made – not with perfection – but with a degree of certainty putting every major event within about 18 months. I need to do a ton of research before I would publish such a time line, but so far I like what JAT Robinson and some others have done.
I like the fact that sometimes liberals when they are honest liberals come to reasonable and unbiased conclusions.
Jay Rogers,
ReplyDeleteThis has become an…odd…conversation to say the least. I now know where you get your material; it appears you just don’t read it.
Let’s look at the Muratorian Canon. You originally said:
Jay Rogers: We also have the Muratorium canon which predates Irenaeus writings that has the identical NT canon.
Now I asked, “Identical to…what?” (Wondering if it was another list, or another writing you were referring to.) Apparently it was not. Apparently it was “identical” to the New Testament Canon we have today. Therefore, in looking at the list, since it is “identical”—I would expect to see 27 books and ONLY 27 books. The same 27 books we have now. Otherwise, it is no longer “identical.”
In looking at it (and I already knew this from discussing with other Christian apologists who make similar claims) what do we discover? Well…I will quote myself:
Me: It does not include Hebrews or James. Does not include 1 or 2 Peter. Only lists 2 Epistles of John. And includes the Wisdom of Solomon and Apocalypse of Peter.
Now you say:
Jay Rogers: I don't agree with your take on the Muratorian canon.
Oh. OK. You go on:
Jay Rogers: The only books that seem to be missing are James, Hebrews and the Epistles of Peter.
Er…huh? I am not sure how my “take” is disagreeable to you. We seem to be having this conversation:
You: The Muratorian Canon has the identical books of our NT canon.
Me: It doesn’t have Hebrews.
You: Wrong! It doesn’t have Hebrews.
Me: It doesn’t have James.
You: Wrong! It doesn’t have James.
Me: It doesn’t have 1 & 2 Peter
You: Wrong! It doesn’t have 1 & 2 Peter.
Me: It only lists 2 of the 3 Epistles of John.
You: Wrong! It only lists 2 of the 3 Epistles of John.
Am I being punked here? It is identical but it doesn’t have all these books.
I also mentioned the inclusion of Wisdom of Solomon and Apocalypse of Peter. To which you replied:
Jay Rogers: The extra-canonical books you mention are described as extra-canonical in the Muratorian list.
They are? Let’s look at the quotations within the list from YOUR site:
Muratorian Canon: An epistle of Jude indeed and two by the superscription of John are held in the catholic, and also the wisdom of Solomon written by his friends in his honor. We also receive only the apocalypses of John and of Peter, though some from among us do not wish them to be read in the church.
How are these books “described as extra-canonical”? The Wisdom of Solomon is equated directly with Jude and the Epistles of John. The Apocalypse of Peter is exactly like the Apocalypse of John (you DO know that is what we call “Revelation” now, right?)
Honestly, Jay Rogers—it is difficult to take you seriously when you make claims like this about the Muratorian Canon that are completely unsupported and somewhat…bizarre.
I notice you failed to address my concerns about Papias—especially the claim regarding Luke. Failed to address the uselessness of the letter. Failed to address the use of “scripture” in Polycarp. Failed to address the use of “pneuma” with writing in 1 Clement. Failed to address the issue of Clements “first-hand knowledge.” Failed to address the dating of Second century copies necessitating first century copies. Failed to address Matthew’s and Luke’s use of Mark which you claim they considered “scripture.”
Jay Rogers: I look for the common testimony and I say that is what must reasonably be true. That is what good researchers do. They find two or three or more reliable sources. They see where they corroborate each other. They see if there is contradictory evidence. If there is none, then the testimony is accepted as reliable.
Eusebius found Papias unreliable. Is he a “reliable” source or a “non-reliable” source? Papias contradicts Matthew who contradicts Acts as to the death of Judas. Which one is “reliable”? Which one “corroborates”? 1 Clement contradicts Tertullian regarding Peter ordaining Clement—which one is “reliable”? Which one “corroborates”? As previously pointed out, the Muratorian Canon contradicts your current canon. Is it not reliable?
No, what you seem to be doing is looking for any common thread (like the different words being translated the same erroneously) and ignore any contradictions.
Jay Rogers: I don't see a reason to throw out the data. I don't see a reason to say, "we don't know," every time the evidence all points in favor of authenticity of a book and that a book must be pseudonymous any time some liberal critic sees a smidgen of evidence against it.
Who are all these evil “liberal critics”? Do you even know the reasons (let alone how to address them) as to why the pastorals are considered pseudopauline? Or why there is claimed different authorship of 1 and 2 Peter?
“ALL” the evidence points in favor of the authenticity of Ephesians? Really? See, it is these broad, sweeping claims that harm your credibility. Even the most conservative Christian scholars understand there is evidence in dispute. While they present arguments in favor of Pauline authorship, they understand there is evidence that must be addressed.
And a vastly growing number of Biblical Scholars—Christian or otherwise—agree as to the non-Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. It is only internet apologists and a few others who cling to original authorship.
Jay Rogers: The bewildering thing to me is why critics don’t simply accept blank statement by the church fathers that these books were RECEIVED by the church from the Apostles as they claim and instead opt for a slow development of a canon based on pseudonymous and anonymous books.
I am sure it is bewildering to you. You do not seem familiar with the arguments (other than they are “liberal” and since “liberal” apparently equals “wrong” in your world, this must mean they are, by definition, wrong.) We are often bewildered by what we don’t know.
As Vinny excellently pointed out—Mormons are equally bewildered as to why you don’t accept their blanket statements about the Book of Mormon. Muslims are equally bewildered as to why you don’t accept their blanket statements about the Qur’an. The Mormon Church received its books as it claims. Islam received its book at is claims.
Oh…wait….you maybe have done a bit of study and, being a skeptic of Mormonism, look with some scrutiny as to the Mormon making a pro-Mormon claim about Mormonism.
How come we have to accept with Christianity that which you would not accept with another religion?
Jay Rogers: That Nero persecuted the Christians in Rome is recorded in pagan sources. That Peter and Paul died under Nero is also recorded by several sources.
Ahhh…you skate around those “sources” of Peter and Paul’s death under Nero. Who is the first author who stated Paul died under Nero? (Not “died” since you would fly to Clement—but died under Nero?) WHEN was that written? How many years after Paul supposedly died? (And yes—I already know the answer.) Oh, you also failed to provide a chronology for Paul reaching Spain after Acts.
What method do you use to determine myth from history? It is humorous that Christians will NOT accept anything written about Christ from the Second Century on as being “too far in time” from Christ, yet gladly accept tales of Peter and Paul which are equally as far in time. Because the tales of Peter and Paul suit them.
Jay Rogers: We don't see this huge controversy over the canon.
Bwahahaha. Which is why Ireneaus has to go out of his way to list the Gospels he does NOT accept, like Judas and the Gospel of Truth. Or why, over the next few centuries 1 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas are included…are included…and then excluded. The Apocalypse of Peter is in…then out. The Apocalypse of John is in…then out…then in…then famously in Eusebius—both in AND out.
Why does Ireneaus even have to argue there should be only four gospels if this was not a controversy? Why would Matthew think Mark should be re-written if there is no controversy? Or Luke re-writing both Matthew and Luke? Or 2 Peter re-writing Jude?
The ONLY reason you do not see controversy is that you fail to look for it.
Ah well. It’s been fun. If nothing else, I do this so Vinny can learn some things. This is how humanity works best—I learn from him and hopefully he can learn from me.
Jay Rogers—go with your God. If there was anything I wish you got out of this conversation (but probably not from the looks of things) would be that discussing with skeptics is very, very different than discussing with those who believe similarly to you.
We want arguments. Claims about “liberal critics” or other such nonsense hold no meaning—you waste your breath in even using the term. What you find “reasonable”—while mildly interesting is not nearly as persuasive as WHY you find something reasonable. What the argument is behind it.
We want the arguments—the evidence—the proofs. We want to see how you handle your methodology when contrary proofs appear. Do you just dismiss it with a hand wave? Do you explain it? We want to see if you will put a range of dates (like every other historical writing of the time) or always insist on the date that best suits your claim.
Thanks for all the advice about how to argue with skeptics.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to see the other side. One of the things I've learned from studying philosophy is that you can construct an argument to support anything.
Apologetics doesn't convince many skeptics to believe. In fact, Christians don't consider saving faith to be a mere mental assent. SOmeone can only BELIEVE if their hearts and minds are changed by the Holy Spirit.
The resulting perspective then changes and many previously presuppositions are altered.
I consider apologetics to be a defense of the faith and it mainly helps thos ewho already believe. But arguments with skeptics are helpful to show how some of our arguments are weak.
I take what you say seriously about quoting sources exactly. I hope to pull together a NT chronology that does cite all available patristic sources. Here I am citing things on the fly. The reason I write things down and create articles and little books is that I cannot remember everything I read.
ReplyDeleteOn Paul reaching Spain.
Paul writes that he plans to visit Spain. There is no statement in scripture that he did, but it is recorded by the church fathers that he reached Spain after his first imprisonment in Rome. I would put the first imprisonment until 58-59 AD. Most chronologies put it at 60-61 AD. However, I agree with Robinson's reasoning that many of the esisting chronologies are two years off (having to do with a recently discovered inscription concerning Felix) who Paul appeared before shortly before he went to Rome.
From 60 to 64 AD, we don't know what any of the Apostles were doing because the book of Acts ends abruptly here. In this four year period, Paul could have visited Spain (actually "Hispania" included a region of what is now France, so Paul it could have been that this was an excursion along the coast to France and northern Spain shortly after being released by Nero).
Then the fire in Rome began in the Summer of 64 AD. The perecution of Christians began at this time according to Tacitus and Pliny who lived through it.
1 Clement reports this about Paul:
"By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance."
There are five imprisonments of Paul recorded in Acts. The theory I agree with goes that he went to Spain, journeyed again to churches he had founded, was arrested a sixth time, brought to Rome and beheaded. This could have taken up to three years.
Clement also writes that Peter and Paul were recently seen and he refers to a recent time of trouble.
Most put 1 Clement after the Domitian persecution, but it is very possoibel that it was written in Rome around 69 AD. I tend to think 96 is correct and that "recent" is a relative term.
Although Clement doesn't explicitly say that Paul was martyred IN ROME, it is a reasonable interpretation. Taken together with the Roman pagan acounts and the account of the later church fathers, a date of 65 to 67 AD in Rome under Nero's persecution is the likely date of Paul's martyrdom.
On Papias.
ReplyDeleteThe great tragedy on Papias is that we have only fragments of his writing recorded by Ireneaus. Some theorize that Jerome and Eusebius and others hated his premillennialism so much that they neglected to preserve his writing.
A few years ago, I read this article stating that the Oxyrhynchus papyri contain thousands of unidentified documents and that if the ratio to the past finds holds, new infra-red technology will probably uncover at least a hundred or more fragments related to the patristic period.
It's quite amazing what has been found in the last 100 years. I think also that the more data we have to go on tends to strengthen the case for the conservative view.
Maybe they will find something that will contradict everything passed down to us, but we haven't seen that yet. In fact, the very late dating of the Gospels proposed by Bauer and others has been refuted.
Papias' story about Judas just doesn't "ring true" -- and it is peplexing to me as to where that came from -- or what he could have been thinking.
However, that Papias would name authors of the Gospels isn't a big stretch. The purpose of the passage is to explain the OCCASION of writing. It seems as though he assumes that his hearers already know the authors. And that is a big mistake that skeptics make when reading church fathers. You don't separate what is ASSUMED as prior knowledge on the part of the reader from novel information intorduced by the author.
Supposedly, Papias' work is a kind of commentary on the Gospels. It would be a hoot if it were discovered and it contained all kinds of crazy apocrypha such as his Judas' story. But it would also be a hoot if it established a canon of four Gospels that was well-known prior to 120 AD.
I don't think it out of the question that this could be uncovered. We knew of the Gospel of Judas and the Didache from the church fathers and then complete manuscripts of each were found.
I could respond to each of your points, but we are working from very different presuppositions. It would be like opening a can of worms.
I always am astonished to hear "most scholars think" -- and hear the liberal view. In fact, when people say this they are citing the scholarship of professors at divinity schools of large secular universities. There is a lot more biblical scholarship being done at seminaries that are not liberal. How many conservative seminaries do you think there are compared to divinity schools at liberal universities? But somehow these aren't credible because they are conservative. We also find a very conservative view on patristic matters among Jewish scholars in Israeli universities.
The likely explanation for all of this is that there are politics involved. Liberals don't last at conservative seminaries and vice versa. That is why I value the work of liberals like Robinson, Linneman and Millar who have been converted to a conservative dating of documents by an unbiased study of documentary evidence.
For instance, Linneman and Robinson admitted there is NO KNOWN solution to the synoptic problem.
In fact, in time the theories multiply and even the Matthean priority theory is gaining. Surprisingly Matthean priority is gaining more among liberals than among conservatives!
I agree with Eta Linneman's view of independence rather than a plagiarism hypothesis. So for you to write:
Why would Matthew think Mark should be re-written if there is no controversy? Or Luke re-writing both Matthew and Luke? Or 2 Peter re-writing Jude?
I just simply don't hold that presupposition.
Nor did Irenaeus hold that there is a cause and effect REASON from nature why there are four gospels. He uses several analogies, but skeptics always like to twist this to say he stupidly thought it was so because there were four winds and four corners of the earth, etc.
The theological analogy he uses is the vision of the four elders in Daniel and Revelation. But here is just an analogy useful for teaching. He didn't think the four evangelists were the four faces of an angel.
Jay Rogers,
ReplyDeleteI asked for the evidence of Paul being persecuted under Nero and the chronology of the Spain trip and you gave your “reasonable interpretation.” Fair enough—Now let me give ‘er a whirl:
Paul writes to the Romans, and mentions he would like to see them (apparently has never visited them before) on his way to Spain in Rom. 5:24. Using Acts as a loose guide, Paul is sent to Rome when Festus is Governor (60-62 CE) and Agrippa is King (48-100 CE). (Acts 25) [Curiously Bernice, Agrippa’s sister and lover is mentioned. One point in dating Acts past 69 CE is that Bernice would only have been of import after her affair with Titus, the emperor. No one would have known her before.]
Paul writes in Philippians about being in prison (Phil 1:7-16) without indicating where he is.
Then Paul disappears in our written literature.
We come to 1 Clement. The author is attempting to bolster the recipients of Corinthians, and lists some heroes of the faith. Jacob, Joseph and Moses. In Chapter 5 he turns to some more “recent” examples, being Peter and Paul. Here, it is mentioned Paul had a chance to get to Spain (euphemistically called, “the farthest bounds of the West”) prior to dying. The Muratorian Canon indicates Peter was killed in Rome, and then Paul left for Spain, confirming the legend of Paul’s trip to Spain.
So we come to the question of the dating of 1 Clement (to give us the last possible date of Paul’s death.) It has been traditionally dated to 95 CE, under the auspices of the author mentioning the persecution of Christians by Domitian who died in 96 CE. But there are two problems with this theory.
1) Was there a persecution under Domitian? The first mention we have of such a persecution is in Eusebius, not until the beginning of the Fourth Century! Tertullian off-handedly says that Domitian “tried” persecution like Nero, but then stopped. Tertullian, of course, is cira 200 C.E.—more than 100 years later.
No other author (either Christian OR non-Christian) refers to Domitian persecuting Christians. Could he? Possibly—but it must be noted this is speculation.
2) Did the author mean the persecution under Domitian, even if there was one? The language the author uses, in 1:1 is, “By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which
are befalling us, brethren,…”
There is no statement of specific persecution. No statement of what these “calamities and reverses” are. Clearly the author felt the schism developing in Corinth was a “calamity”—it did not have to be a physical persecution.
Further 44:2-4 indicate the Apostles have all died, as well as many of the Presbyters. The Church at Rome is “ancient” (47:6) and the emissaries from Rome have lived blamelessly from youth to old age. (63:3) From Here
While this may be poetic, it is still difficult language to explain with a 95 CE date. In other words--to place the date, we have speculation (of a Domitian persecution) upon speculation (that 1:1 refers to such a persecution.) Without 1:1, we would be placing the book in the early Second Century. Without the Domitian persecution, likewise.
So our writing confirming Paul’s death is dated roughly 95 – 125 CE. Nothing is said, in 1 Clement, as to how he died (although other life-threatening events are listed), nor when.
Next in our journey is the Martydom of Polycarp. This is a lovely little book outlining how, at the venerable age of 86, Polycarp is martyred. First they come to arrest him, and though he could escape, he willingly turns himself over to the guards. Then he is allowed to preach for an extensive period of time, causing his own guards to praise him. Taken to the arena, he causes a calamity among the crowd who are so moved by his pious character. They light the fire, but it refuses to burn him, instead it circles him and causes a pleasing aroma like spices or baked bread to fill the arena.
Unable to burn him, they stab him with a dagger. A dove flies out of the wound, and so much blood it quenches this horrendous blaze. The bad guys take away his bones to keep him them away from his followers.
Wow! What a way to die! If I was going to go—this is the way to do it!
The important thing is that “Martydom of Polycarp” set the bar. THIS was how a martyr was to die. No quick kill. No short drop. A long, protracted, miraculous ending, culminating in the sad ushering of our beloved saint into the graces of Heaven while all who see, both friend and enemy alike, are aghast at the happening.
And we come to Acts of Paul.
The tale is told of Paul resurrecting Nero’s wine-bearer from the dead, who attempts to convert Nero. Nero’s guards tell him they, too, are Christians. Nero issues a decree against all Chrisitians. Paul (like Polycarp does to his captors) gets a chance to witness to Nero who orders his beheading.
The Soldiers don’t want to do it, but after some long speaking, Paul willingly stretched out his neck for the executioner. (Like Polycarp.) When the blade struck through, milk spurted from his neck. (Not exactly a dove…but we don’t want it to be an exact copy, do we?)
Paul doesn’t die, but appears back before Nero, who sees Paul, is impressed, and releases all the Christian prisoners. (Yay! Paul saves the day.) Then Paul saves his good friends Luke and Titus and disappears.
Tertullian is scandalized by “Acts of Paul,” because it dare has a woman administering baptism. He indicates someone made it up in the latter part of the Second Century.
However, Tertullian then goes on and for the first…er…second time indicates Paul was beheaded in Rome. It doesn’t take a Rocket Scientist to figure out where that came from.
And soon we have all sorts of stories popping up about how each of the Disciples died—boiling in oil, being flayed alive, etc. As if the next martyr had to “top” what the previous martyr did.
All of which are myth, of course. (If you think not, go back to 1 Clement who was looking for “recent” examples. The best he could come up with after Peter and Paul were Danaids and Dircae. Who? You say? Beats me. But he does not list any of the other Disciples.)
If these other are myths, there is no reason to think Paul’s “martyrdom” is any more historical. We can trace its origin, and it, too, appears mythical.
Bottom line—Paul was dead by 95-125 CE. (1 Clement). The stronger argument--he was dead long before by the dearth of letters following Philippians. How and where and when is an unknown.
The Neronian beheading is pure myth, derived from the Acts of Paul, attempting to “top” the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
The Spanish trip is a problem for traditionalists because we still have Paul dropping off the face of the earth, basically. No letters from Spain? No letters on the trip to Spain? No letters…anywhere. And once he is back in Rome—no letters? How was he able to write a letter to the Philippians before, but not after going to Spain? And where are all those churches in Spain?
Papias
I asked where Papias listed Luke. Or John for that matter. You go on and on about possibilities and maybe we will find the five books of Papias, or what those might or might not contain.
All lovely information (and stuff most of us know) but you never answer my question!
In your original blog, cited by Vinny, and in comments here, you make the following statements:
Jay Rogers: Papias is the earliest one who names all four Gospel writers and explains when, where and why the books were written.
Jay Rogers: Papias mentions the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, …
Jay Rogers: Papias names the Gospel writers.
Now I have asked repeatedly where Papias mentions Luke. You have avoided that question equally repeatedly. I know why. Where does Papias mention the Gospel of John?
Look, I can understand if you are doing this from memory—but clearly your memory is wrong here. I question how apologetics “helps those who believe” when it is based on wrong material.
Jay Rogers: However, that Papias would name authors of the Gospels isn't a big stretch. The purpose of the passage is to explain the OCCASION of writing. It seems as though he assumes that his hearers already know the authors. And that is a big mistake that skeptics make when reading church fathers. You don't separate what is ASSUMED as prior knowledge on the part of the reader from novel information intorduced by the author.
Well, that is a bit of a Catch-22 for you. First of all, there is far greater difficulty in claiming what the recipients already knew. Are you aware of honor-shame societies? And in-group vs. out-group? Are you proficient in Koine Greek? (I only say that because none of us are. It is a dead language! There are things we don’t know.)
Let’s assume the readers of Papias (whoever that may be) already know the authors. Then why is Papias defending Mark as being valid (having received his information from Peter). Do his readers know Mark, but don’t know where Mark got his info? And why tell his readers Matthew was written Hebrew—would they not know it?
See Papias lists two (2) out of four (4) gospel writers. If you are going to assume Papias doesn’t mention gospels because his readers knew them—then his readers didn’t know Mark and Matthew. If you assume he mentions those the readers knew—then his readers didn’t know John and Luke. Hence a Catch-22.
Or you can rely upon the missing fragments to have the info you want. But that still doesn’t make your previous statements correct.
Jay Rogers: I could respond to each of your points, but we are working from very different presuppositions. It would be like opening a can of worms.
This is starting to sound (as it always does from many, many other Christians apologists) like a cop-out. Because I presuppose different things, you don’t bother responding to how Papias mentioned Luke?
Why is it the skeptic thinks, regardless of the other person’s presuppositions, that it is the arguments that persuade? Yet the Christian hides behind “It is too hard. I have faulty memory. You presuppose different things which make it impossible for my arguments to prevail.” And you guys think you hold truth?
Jay Rogers: For instance, Linneman and Robinson admitted there is NO KNOWN solution to the synoptic problem..
Shrug. Quite true. Just because there is no known solution, doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem! We don’t have a solution to how theory of relativity works with quantum mechanics—but know it is a problem!
Since you don’t want any of those “liberal” scholars, let’s look at Daniel Wallace. Basically THE guy to go to if you want to learn Greek. He learned it. Twice—the second time from textbooks he had written! Here’s a guy who says there is a synoptic problem. You may agree with independence, but my question is how do you respond to the arguments presented by those proposing the problem?
Again, and again and again—it is NOT what you think or feel or find reasonable that is so terribly interesting. It is how you present arguments for your position AND how you respond to arguments from the other side.
So that you don't think I am copping out, I'll go on with this. I don't know much Greek except for the alphabet and a few hundred words or so.
ReplyDeleteI tend to trust the translators who are supposed to be experts. If you are a translator then I'll concede that I don't know better than you.
What I was trying to point out is that if I answer everything this will go in more directions than I want to pursue. But I will answer some of it.
On Papias
We don't have Papias' books. We have fragments quoted in Irenaeus and we don't know if Eusebius has the books or if he is getting his info from Irenaeus. But then there are other scattered references to Papias' books all the way down to the tenth century with Andrew of Caesarea who says he quotes him "word for word" and includes Papias' teaching on the Apocalypse of John.
To say he doesn't know John or Luke is an argument from silence.
CHAPTER 4
Andrew of Caesarea, On the Apocalypse 34:12
4:1 But thus says Papias, (I quote him) word for word: -- "To some of them," clearly the angels which
at first were holy, "He gave dominion also over the arrangement of the universe, and He commissioned them to exercise their dominion well."
4:2 And he says next: -- "But it so befel that their array came to nought; for the great dragon, the old serpent, who is also called Satan and the devil, was cast down, yea, and was cast down to the earth, he and his angels."
CHAPTER 5
Andrew of Caesarea, On the Apocalypse
5:1 With regard however to the inspiration of the book (i.e. the Apocalypse) we hold it superfluous to speak at length; since the blessed Gregory (I mean, the Divine) and Cyril, and men of an older generation as well, Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius and Hippolytus,
bear testimony to its genuineness.
One source that may contain Papias' lost account (and is often overlooked) is the Latin prologues. The dating of these prologues is controversial, but many think they come down to us from the late second century.
Note the reference to Papias in the Johannine prologue:
THE MARCAN PROLOGUE:
Mark made his assertion, who was also named stubby-fingers, on account that he had in comparison to the length of the rest of his body shorter fingers. He was a disciple and interpreter of Peter, whom he followed just as he heard him report. When he was requested at Rome by the brethren, he briefly wrote this gospel in parts of Italy. When Peter heard this, he approved and affirmed it by his own authority for the reading of the church. Truly, after the departure of Peter, this gospel which he himself put together having been taken up, he went away into Egypt and, ordained as the first bishop of Alexandria, announcing Christ, he constituted a church there. It was of such teaching and continence of life that it compels all followers of Christ to imitate its example.
THE LUCAN PROLOGUE
The holy Luke is an Antiochene, Syrian by race, physician by trade. As his writings indicate, of the Greek speech he was not ignorant. He was a disciple of the apostles, and afterward followed Paul until his confession, serving the Lord undistractedly, for he neither had any wife nor procreated sons. [A man] of eighty-four* years, he slept in Thebes, the metropolis of Boeotia, full of the holy spirit. He, when the gospels were already written down, that according to Matthew in Judea, but that according to Mark in Italy, instigated by the holy spirit, in parts of Achaea wrote down this gospel, he who was taught not only by the apostle, who was not with the Lord in the flesh, but also by the other apostles, who were with the Lord, even making clear this very thing himself in the preface, that the others were written down before his, and that it was necessary that he accurately expound for the gentile faithful the entire economy in his narrative, lest they, detained by Jewish fables, be held by a sole desire for the law, or lest, seduced by heretical fables and stupid instigations, they slip away from the truth. It being necessary, then, immediately in the beginning we receive report of the nativity of John, who is the beginning of the gospel, who was the forerunner of our Lord Jesus Christ, and a partaker in the perfecting of the people, and also in the induction of baptism, and a partaker of his passion and of the fellowship of the spirit. Zechariah the prophet, one of the twelve, made mention of this economy. And indeed afterward this same Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. And later John the apostle from the twelve first wrote down the apocalypse on the isle of Pathmos, then the gospel in Asia.
* From the Greek; the Latin has either 89 or 74.
THE JOHANNINE PROLOGUE:
John the apostle, whom the Lord Jesus loved very much, last of all wrote this gospel, the bishops of Asia having entreated him, against Cerinthus and other heretics, and especially standing against the dogma of the Ebionites there who asserted by the depravity of their stupidity, for thus they have the appellation Ebionites, that Christ, before he was born from Mary, neither existed nor was born before the ages from God the father. Whence also he was compelled to tell of his divine nativity from the father. But they also bear another cause for his writing the gospel, because, when he had collected the volumes from the gospel of Matthew, of Mark, and of Luke, he indeed approved the text of the history and affirmed that they had said true things, but that they had woven the history of only one year, in which he also suffered after the imprisonment of John. The year, then, having been omitted in which the acts of the tribes were expounded, he narrated the events of the time prior, before John was shut up in prison, just as it can be made manifest to those who diligently read the four volumes of the gospels. This gospel, then, after the apocalypse was written was made manifest and given to the churches in Asia by John, as yet constituted in the body, as the Hieropolitan, Papias by name, disciple of John and dear [to him], transmitted in his Exoteric, that is, the outside five books. He wrote down this gospel while John dictated. Truly Marcion the heretic, when he had been disapproved by him because he supposed contrary things, was thrown out by John. He in truth carried writings or epistles sent to him from the brothers who were in Pontus, faithful in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Jay Rogers,
ReplyDeleteThis is why Christian Apologetic tactics don’t work.
Not because of some philosophical position of the skeptic. Not presuppositions. Not the lack of the Holy Spirit working in their hearts. It is because their arguments stink worse than my youngest daughter’s farts.
As she currently has the flu, this makes the arguments particularly foul.
I see this so often, it is like turning on the TV and seeing another Seinfeld re-run that you swear must have been shown 30,000 times before. And you find yourself sucked in to the story once more…
I suspect the Christian Apologist comes up with some statement like “Papias listed all four gospels and their authors.” It seems quite reasonable to the Apologist. So they try it on their Christian friends. Why—it seems quite reasonable to them, too. It seems quite reasonable to their Christian families, their Christian congregations and their Christian acquaintances. Sunday Schools, Bible studies, Small Groups all nod their heads and declare, “Quite, quite reasonable.”
They begin to buy their own press. Everyone, everywhere who hears this revelation notes their appreciation for the Apologists’ wisdom and gives them affirmation this statement is SO reasonable and SO well-founded--it should be placed next to the Pythagorean Theorem as bedrock.
Then the Apologist encounters a skeptic. He tosses out the well-worn canard yet again (has it in memory, now) about Papias, four gospels, four authors. But then something new happens. Rather than hear (again) the “Quite reasonable”—the skeptic starts to question the Apologist. Reads Papias. Reads referrals to Papias. Actually dares to demand specific citations for the platitude.
What is this? How can this be? All those other people--(the Apologist conveniently forgets all those other people are Christians)—All those other people found it quite reasonable. They didn’t question it. They saw the pure, crystalline logic of it. There must be something…different…maybe wrong…about this skeptic who cannot see what the 10 people from the Bible study, the 20 people from the Sunday School, the 250 people in the congregation, and the 1500 who weekly respond to the Apololgist’s blog all see clearly.
And then (just as we know the ending of the Seinfeld re-run, but still laugh at the jokes) the apologist decides it cannot possibly be the reasonableness of the argument. THAT has been firmly established. It must be the skeptic’s shoes were too tight, or his head was not screwed on right or his heart was two sizes too small. Or perhaps it is the philosophical differences. Or the lack of the Holy Spirit. Or presuppositions.
That is what I meant by “coping out,” Jay Rogers. I don’t care if you stop this conversation because it has become boring. Because you have lost interest. Because it is too time-consuming. We’ve all done that for good reason. But to claim the reason we aren’t buying this statement is because of “Presuppositions” is a lazy Apologetic justification for why their arguments fail to persuade anyone who doesn’t already believe exactly as they do.
Let’s use this topic as a snapshot of why these arguments fail.
You indicated Papias named all four Gospel writers and mentions the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The claim Papias mentions the Gospels of Matthew and Mark is a bit over-reaching and not quite accurate considering he states Mark is not in order, whereas it is, causing us to wonder if he had the same Mark we do, or why (if he did) he did not think it in order. As to Matthew, he refers to a Gospel written in Hebrew, which is NOT our Gospel, nor even a basis for a Greek translation of our Gospel (due to the Synoptic Problem) so it is questionable whether he referred to our Gospel of Matthew. Personally, I think those points are extremely important, and left out leave the impression Papias was referring to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew as we have them.
But I winnowed this claim even further. I wanted to know two things:
1) Where does Papais mention the Gospel of John?
2) Where does Papias mention Luke? The Gospel OR the writer?
You have responded, at length around those two questions, not necessarily responding head-on. I will focus on three things:
1) Just admit you are wrong.
You’ve talked about how many books Papias wrote, what fragments we have, where we get those fragments, what is in some of those fragments, what you think could be in the missing parts, what you suppose Papias’ reason was. The one thing you haven’t done is provide a specific citation where: 1) Papias mentions the Gospel of John and 2) Papias mentions Luke—author or Gospel.
The reason, as anyone who reads all the quotations we have from Papias could readily see—there is no such citation. Doesn’t exist. I knew that when I asked. (So did Vinny.) So did anyone who reads the thing.
It is supreme irony that in these discussions people attempt to maintain their credibility by insisting on arguments after they have been clearly debunked, and by doing so lose more credibility than they ever could have lost by merely stating, “I was wrong.” It is equally ironic that credibility can be bolstered by demonstrating a willingness to be wrong; yet so few chose to do so.
While it is certainly possible for people of all theistic beliefs to engage in this—I see it more prevalent on the Christian Apologetic side of the fence. I think it comes from a fear of infallibility. That, if somehow demonstrated wrong, the Apologists’ audience will think less of them. It is as if inerrancy has seeped through the very fiber of all Christian arguments, and there can be NO contradiction, NO error at ANY time, or the fear is the whole thing will fall like a house of cards in a hurricane.
Jay Rogers, plain and simple—you were wrong. There is no citation of Papias mentioning a Gospel of John or Luke. It would have been better, more admirable, and would have actually raised your esteem in my eyes if you had admitted it right off, rather than this cock-and-bull run-around attempting to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.
Here’s the funny thing. Although I rarely speak for others, I have read enough of Vinny to feel on pretty safe ground here. If I am wrong—Vinny is sure to tell me! I have admitted I am wrong before. Vinny has admitted he is wrong before. It is no big deal to us if you admit you are wrong. We won’t keep bringing it up. We won’t keep throwing it in your face. We won’t dismiss every other thing you have ever said because you are wrong on this one thing.
We are humanist skeptics. We expect humans to get things wrong. We are not infallible, not gods, not perfect. But when you keep trying to put the cards back together, when we see the cards have blown half-way to the Pacific and they will NEVER be put together, each successive argument demonstrates an extreme unwillingness and bias toward unbending insistence of ever, EVER changing your position, regardless of the proofs.
Why bother talking to someone like that?
In fact, to me, you become a good example of why Christian Apologetics fails. I love to keep asking the same question, watching more convoluted, more arcane and more twisted arguments appear. It demonstrates both the unreasonable bias AND the unpersuasiveness of the arguments. Moving us to our next point:
2) Papias does not mention the Gospel of John
In order to prop up this argument, you have brought up conflicting and contradicting proofs. You have looked for something--anything--that could possibly connect John with Papias and fired off the quotes in the hopes this will somehow develop into a sufficient argument Papias mentions the Gospel of John.
Again, this is common in Christian Apologetics. In your Sunday School you can say, “Papias mentions the Gospel of John, the Latin prologue to John mentions Papias, Irenaeus mentions Papias and John” and your Sunday School class calls back with a resounding, “Amen!” Both teacher and class satisfied the point is irrefutably made.
Only a skeptic might say, “What a minute. Let’s look at the claims. Let’s look at the other writings of the time.” And in doing so, we see you use conflicting and contradicting claims!
I am amazed what would not be tolerated for an instance in any other study, is gleefully embraced in Christian Apologetics. Oh…only when supporting the Christian’s position, of course. Never in those who don’t. Oh, my no—that would never be tolerated!
Imagine if a scientist found a pre-Cambrian fossil of a rabbit. A complete and utter decimation of the theory of evolution. Would a creationist accept, “We found a fossil of a rabbit. What is important is that it is a fossil—not when it was dated.” Of course not! They would howl to the heavens as to what a travesty of contradiction this would be.
Yet Christians do this all the time, always saying, “What is important is to look at the big picture—not the contradictory details.”
Papias does not indicate there is a Gospel of John. In what we have, he specifically mentions three (3) gospels (Matthew, Mark, Hebrews), Epistles of John, Epistle of Peter and possibly the Apocalypse of John.
He does, however, mention a saying he claims to get from John. A saying that does not appear in the Gospel of John (or any other) and comes from an Apocryphal work.
We move to Irenaeus. He indicates John wrote the Gospel of John from John’s memories while in Ephesus. Irenaeus never indicates Papias has any knowledge of a Gospel of John.
On to the Muratorian Canon. It indicates John asked fellow Apostles and disciples to fast with him for three days, at the end of which, Andrew told him (John) to write down what he (John) remembered, and they would all review it. The author of the Canon recognizes each Gospel has differences, but claims they all agree on the important things. (The first recognition of contradictions?)
With that as our background, to support Papias including John, you raise a seventh century indication Papias referred to the Apocalypse of John. And the Latin Prologue.
First the mention of Apocalypse of John. OK. So what? So what if Papias is mentioned regarding James? Or Peter? Or the Epistles of John?
I am asking about the Gospel of John!
In fact, this hurts your argument, as Papias apparently has knowledge of everything from John (Epistle & Apocalypse) BUT the Gospel! While I will get to this in a minute, I might note (since your head is screaming it) Arguments of Silence go to weight—not admissibility. It is still an argument that would need to be addressed.
Second the Latin Prologue. It puts the Gospel AFTER the Apocalypse (which contradicts the Muratorian Canon, since Andrew is still alive.) It states Papias wrote the Gospel which contradicts Irenaeus and the Muratorian Canon that says John wrote it. It also creates the problem of whether John wrote the Apocalypse and the Epistles—why not write his own gospel?
Look, telling some Sunday School, “the Latin Prologue mentions Papias” may be sufficient for them—but a skeptic will look at the contradictory nature of the claims. Giving us contradictory statements does NOT make your argument better!
You previously indicated you looked to two or three reliable sources. Here we have two or three sources that contradict. How is that good research?
(There are other problems with Papias writing as well, such as textual similarities in the Johannine School, Papias preference for oral transmission, differences between the Synoptics, but I will not go through them all here.)
3) Papias does not mention Luke—author or Gospel.
Since you have no citation, no example,--not even a contradictory Prologue, the only place Papias could possibly have mentioned Luke is in the parts of Papias we don’t have.
And when I question where Papias mentions Luke—you say this is an “argument from silence”?
Methinks you do not understand the argument from silence.
It does NOT mean you can say, “We do not have document X, so I declare document X says statement S, and you can’t say otherwise, because that would be ‘Argument from Silence.’”
This is a bit self-contradicting, because the original claim, “Statement S is in document X” is an argument from silence--since we don’t have the document!
Here, let me try it the other way. I declare Papias says, in his missing documents, that the concept of a physical resurrection of Jesus is a vicious rumor, and we all know it was spiritual resurrection. In fact, Papias mentions the reader can go visit Jesus’ tomb and see his ossuary.
Ah, ah, ah! You can’t claim Papias DIDN’T say this, because according to your own methodology, this would be barred by an “argument from silence.”
Do you see how ridiculous this is? We can claim anything—ANYTHING—is in those missing fragments, and then, under you system, prevent the other side from saying otherwise by this battlecry of “argument from silence!”
You may have just proven Papias mentions Luke; but I just equally proved Papias didn’t believe in a physical resurrection and Jesus’ bones were still available to see.
Who won there?
All this has been illuminating on a final point.
We live in an amazing age. We have internet access to Josephus, and Tacitus and Early Church writings. In English, Greek and Latin. We have historians, and language experts and scholars all who have an opportunity to review this information. We have a literacy rate above 75%. (I don’t know what it actually is.) We have books and books and books on Christianity, Christian beginnings, Christian doctrines. We have complete Bibles in numerous different translation and different manuscripts.
In the First Century they had a 3-5% literacy rate. Travel was difficult (albeit not impossible.) Wars, factions, various religions. A completely difference economic, cultural, social and religious system than our own.
Comparing our access to information to theirs is like comparing a 747 to a paper airplane. We have so, SO much more available to us. Yet even with all our information a Christian apologist can say, “Papias mentions all four gospels and their writers” and do Christians, with their access to information, look it up and question it? Nope—they say, “Amen!”
Jay Rogers—have you ever had a Christian call you to question this claim? Ever?
With our access to information, Christians still buy whatever the Apologists say, because it tickles their ears. You said it yourself—it is to help those who already believe.
Yet the claim is made, in the First Century, with a miniscule amount of access to information as compared to us—what Papias wrote, or Ignatius or Polycarp or Irenaeus HAD to be true, because the recipients would have reviewed it with a critical eye, and pointed out any falsehoods.
Why? Christians don’t do that now, with a plethora of information. Why would we think they would have done it then?
Jay Rogers, if there is anything I could possibly hope to get out of this conversation would be for you to understand you should use arguments with skeptics. Not talking points that work on Christians. Normally I hope for the Christian to begin to understand why their points are insufficient—but I think that is too much to hope for in this case. Here I think just a start—a tiny step on the road to understanding—would be to simply improve the quality of your arguments.
Vinny, I apologize for taking over this blog entry. I know you enjoy the discussion, but even for me—this is too much.
Back to our regular programming….
That's a lot to say I made an error in thinking Papias mentions all four Gospels.
ReplyDeleteIf you go back and read the thread I said Papias named the Gospel writers in a list of other citations. Soon you had direct quotes next to my name.
Jay Rogers: Papias names all four Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
I never wrote such a thing!
From now on you need to cite everything with direct quotes.
Irenaeus is the one who first gives detailed descriptions of what was taught to him by Polycarp and Papias.
(Direct quotes coming soon!)
I DO think Irenaeus account of what they related to him is reliable.
I think it's telling that you are able to weave together a theory on how Paul's beheading story was invented using apocryphal material from the second century, but you don't take evidence from the second century fragments and the Latin prologues ans to who were the authors of the Gospels. And you do it with a condescending attitude toward how weak apologists' use of patristics are.
The continuity between the Apostles and Church Fathers and the Apologists is quite strong. And there is little reason to not see them these accounts and writings as reliable. They are not too far into the future to be reliable witnesses.
To make an analogy:
I recently buried my great aunt -- my maternal grandmothers sister. As I placed her ashes in the grave next to her first husband, I noticed that he was born in 1the 1890s-- It was 1898 I think. That surprised me at first. I didn't know he was so much older than my aunt (about 20 years) because I remember him as a child as being quite spry. I was born in 1962 and he died in the 1970s.
I can remember things he said and songs he sang to us driving in the car. Some of the things he thought are interesting and some are quite crazy. Another thing I remember about him is that he used to keep newspaper clippings in a book. After my aunt died, we cleaned out her closet. We found lots of 70 year old photos, newspaper clipping and receipts going back to the 1950s.
I know my uncle fought in World War II and I heard he was a veteran of two wars. I always thought it was Korea, but but now I am thinking it was WWI. I have his dog tags and a medal of his. I could have it verified.
But I think of Papias, Polycarp living in the late first century and early second century. They had this the proximity to the Apostles that I had to my grandparents.
Is it possible that I could reconstruct a biography of my uncle based on these clippings, the stories I remember and interviews with my mothers and her brothers and cousins?
What if he had some unpublished memoirs? Would my transmission of these be reliable?
Consider too that Irenaeus lived in Smyrna which is a days journey by foot to Ephesus where the Apostles were and where Polycarp and Papias had their bishopric.
So when Irenaeus relates something that Polycarp or Papias taught him, I tend to agree. Are there some "crazy stories" mixed in with the lot? Should we take everything with a grain of salt and look only at what corroborates with other accounts?
What do you think about the Latin Prologues? If they could be established as being from the second century along with the Muratorian canon, do you think that is a enough data to say that four Gospels were known since their inception?
What do you think of Papyrus 75 and its dating?
Who are the authors written here?
http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/tc_pap75.html
Jay Rogers: If you go back and read the thread I said Papias named the Gospel writers in a list of other citations. Soon you had direct quotes next to my name.
ReplyDeleteJay Rogers: Papias names all four Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
I never wrote such a thing! (emphasis in original)
Then let’s make sure of what you said, OK?
Jay Rogers: Papias is the earliest one who names all four Gospel writers and explains when, where and why the books were written. Here
Jay Rogers: Papias mentions the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,… Here
Jay Rogers: Papias names the Gospel writers. Here
Hmmm…..Now let’s see what I claimed you said when I quoted you Here:
“Jay Rogers: Papias is the earliest one who names all four Gospel writers and explains when, where and why the books were written.
”Jay Rogers: Papias mentions the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, …
”Jay Rogers: Papias names the Gospel writers.
So how is it…exactly…I misquoted you again?
Okay, point for you. This is on my blog. I could not find where I said that.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are correct that this was a mental error on my part.
Here's my earlier question again:
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of Papyrus 75 and its dating?
Who are the authors written here?
Papyrus 75
http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/tc_pap75.html
I would take it to mean that the authors of the Gospels appeared on manucripts in the second century. It is not Irenaeus who introduced this idea, but it had been handed down by Christians acting as scribes in the churches.
Jay,
ReplyDeleteYou will have to explain to me where it is that the authors appear on that fragment because I cannot tell. However, given the fact that p75 may have been written several decades after Irenaeous wrote Against Heresies, I don't see how it could provide very strong evidence that the identification of the authors took place earlier.
In any case, I would guess that Irenaeous was not the first one to have the idea that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the canonical gospels. However, it would be largely a guess because his writings are the earliest record we have of anyone identifying those four individuals as the authors of the canonical gospels and he does not provide us any detail about his sources for the identification
Admittedly it is hard to read unless you know the Greek lettering style. If you know the Greek alphabet though, it is fairly easy to make out. It is written very clearly in the break between the two books:
ReplyDeleteThe Gospel according to Luke
Evaggellion kata Lukas
The Gospel according to John
Evaggellion kata Ioanin
These are called superscriptions (on top) and subscriptions (on the bottom).
I've often heard that the earliest codices are anonymous. This is true only of P1 which is the first leaf of a codex of Matthew. But the top portion is missing and the titles often were recorded as subscriptions (at the end) and we don't have the end of Matthew in any early codex (pre-325 AD).
The earliest fragments of the New Testament we have came not from scrolls but from codices -- a book form that was invented at the same time that Christianity came about. In fact, some schoalrs think Christians may have invented the book or at least popularized it. The books of the NT were short compared to the Old Testament, so having separate scrolls was unwieldy.
The books that were bound in codices were:
1. The four Gospels and Acts
2. Pauls seven Epistle plus Hebrews
3. The Pastorals
4. The Catholic Epistles
5. Revelation
The earliest codices indicate that the four Gospels (at least) were bound together.
My point earlier about Papias (I agree he names only two Gospels in his fragments) was that he and Polycarp are the sources of Irenaeus -- first hand sources.
If we place their birth dates in the mid first century we have two choices.
1. They discovered or heard an anonymous gospel and soemwhere in their lifetimes it the authors were decided upon.
2. They actually received their Gospels from John, Peter (Mark), Paul (Luke), and a proto-Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic (Matthew) that was written by Apostle(s) in Jerusalem or Antioch).
Skeptics always look at the date range and decide that the fragments must be later than the outside range. However, papyrologists are somewhat conservative and give the date range as an outer possibility. The actual date is probably either the early one or the one in the exact middle.
For instance, the Ryland's fragment (P52) has an average date of 115 AD with a range of about 100 AD to 150 AD. There are some who have dated it earlier or later, but paleography is fairly accurate to within a few years. Handwriting changes from generation to generation as does paper quality.
Think for instance: Could an expert identify a student essay copied in the 1950s vs. the 1970s?
We would say 1955 with the range of 1950 to 1970 as the outer two extremes.
There are over 100 identified NT papyri fragments dating prior 400 AD. Most of these predate the great vellum codices copied after the Nicene Council in 325 AD.
We have to consider too that most of these papyri were all found in the Nile river valley (most at Oxyrhynchus). They were literally hermetically sealed in a desert climate. This suggests a wide distribution at the time of copying.
Thus a papyrus fragment dated to a certain time that has actually survived almost 2000 years doesn't date the autograph, however, it is unlikely that the autograph would be contemporaneous with the extant fragments.
If an autograph was copied and then copies of copies were made, we have to consider that these early fragments are likely third or fourth generation copies because:
1. We would expect very few of these to survive even in favorable conditions. This indicates a large number of copies were made over a long period of time. Most didn't survive.
2. The manuscripts would have to proliferate to the point where they would be found in places far from their origin.
If the Rylands fragment is 100 to 150 AD, then the autograph was most likely first century.
The bibliographic test for reliability and authenticity of a manuscript is:
1. Documentary evidence (Do the earliest manuscripts have a title and author?)
2. Internal evidence (Do internal indicators suggest the personality of the author or compare favorably with other known works?
3. External evidences (Is the work quoted elsewhere in the author's lifetime or by a contemporary; Is the author mentioned by name?)
The question is whether the Gospels pass the test. We cannot know with 100 percent accuracy. There could have always been a huge second century conspiracy to invent a paper trail that would confirm the liberal presuppositions.
However, if you had to choose between the two possibilities given the available data, what would you decide?
Notable Papyri
The following is an excerpt from a study I did on the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. I hope to create a web site with the actual Greek texts from these papyri along with my descriptions and all the hi-res scanned images available on the Internet. Sorry this is a bit long, but I want to illustrate a point.
P52 – The earliest confirmed fragment from New Testament Scripture is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37-38. It was initially dated to about 125 A.D. This is usually called the Rylands Papyrus (or P52). It resides at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England. This papyrus was found somewhere in Egypt, in the 1920s, but remained unnoticed among hundreds of similar shreds of papyri until 1934. In that year C.H. Roberts recognized it as containing lines from John’s Gospel.
This is the earliest New Testament fragment, so not surprisingly some controversy exists about its date. Some paleographers have it in the later part of the second century up to 180 A.D. and others place it in the first century as early as 85 A.D. However, most paleographers agree that it was copied sometime in the early second century. The tendency has been to date it earlier than when it was first discovered. It is now dated closer to 100 than 125. All agree that it is the earliest New Testament papyrus fragment yet identified. It is a small fragment containing no significant variants. Its greatest value is its early date. The fact that this was copied in Egypt proves that the original autograph John’s Gospel was written in the first century.
P64 – Papyrus 64 is also known as the Magdalen Papyrus. Most papyrologists date it to about 200 A.D. P64 was not found at Oxyrhynchus, but was purchased Rev. Charles Huleatt, who bought these three fragments at an antiquities market in Luxor, Egypt. Some believe it to be from the same codex as P4, so it’s often listed among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. A small number of papyrologists, Young Kyu Kim, Carsten Thiede and others, have claimed that it dates to 50 to 70 A.D. (during the time of the Apostles) making it at possibly a copy of an original autograph. It contains Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33.
P67 – Papyrus 67 was probably part of the same manuscript as P64 and P4. It contains Matthew 3:9, 3:15, 15:20-22, 15:25-28. Therefore it is dates to 200 A.D. Sometimes these are referred to as one papyrus: P64/67.
P4 – Papyrus 4 was probably part of the same manuscript as P64 and P 67. It contains Luke 1:58-73; 3:20-4:2. Papyrus 4 contains Luke 1:58-73; 3:20-4:2. It was discovered in Coptos, Egypt in 1889. According to papyrologist, Colin Roberts, P4 was used as stuffing for the binding of “a codex of Philo, written in the later third century and found in a jar which had been walled up in a house at Coptos [in 250].” It was originally thought to be from about 250 A.D., but Roberts, discovered that it was probably part of a codex containing the four Gospels that also had P64/67, the so-called Magdalen Papyrus. It is now dated with the other fragments at c. 200 A.D.
P45 – This is a heavily damaged manuscript and is fragmented due to its great age. The papyrus was originally bound in a codex, which may have consisted of about 220 pages, however only 30 pages survive. It contains the texts of Matthew 20-21 and 25-26; Mark 4-9 and 11-12; Luke 6-7 and 9-14; John 4-5 and 10-11; and Acts 4-17. It was copied around 250 A.D.
Most importantly, it shows the early arrangement of the four Gospels and Acts as the canonical history of Jesus and the early church. It refutes the speculation that other “Gospels” such as were composed by the Gnostics beginning at this time period were in competition for a place in the canon or that any of the four Gospels were in dispute as anything but authentic in the patristic church.
P46 – This series of fragments was accumulated in pieces but was originally part of a codex containing all of Paul’s Epistles. The importance of this manuscript is its early date. It was copied between 175 to 225 A.D.
It is the earliest manuscript that contains a selection from nine different books, seven of which are entirely preserved. The entire manuscript consists, in its present state, of eighty-six nearly perfect leaves out of an original total of 104. The original was a codex of Paul’s Epistles. It contains Romans 5:17-6:14; 8:15-15:9; 15:11-16:27; Hebrews 1:1-13:25; 1 Corinthians 1:1-16:22; 2 Corinthians 1:1-13:13; Galatians 1:1-6:18; Ephesians 1:1-6:24; Philippians 1:1-4:23; Colossians 1:1-4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1:9-2:3; 5:5-9, 23-28.
Papyrus 46 shows that Paul’s letters were bound in their traditional canonical format at least by the mid-second century. The arrangement of the letters refutes the hypothesis of the 19th century liberal Higher Critics that Paul’s letters were in dispute as possibly pseudonymous, or thought of as anything but canonical by the second century. It also shows that Hebrews, by its placement after Romans, was thought of as an Epistle of Paul in the late second century.
P66 – Papyrus 66 contains John 1:1-6:11; 6:35-14:26, 9-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10-20:20, 22-23; 20:25-21:9. It is dated from 175 to 200 A.D.
P75 – Papyrus 75 contains Luke 3:18-4:2; 4:34-5:10; 5:37-18:18; 22:4-24:53; John 1:1-11:45, 48-57; 12:3-13:1, 8-9; 14:8-30; 15:7-8. It is dated to about 200 A.D.
P53 – Papyrus 53 contains Matthew 26:29-40; Acts 9:33-10:1. It is dated to about 260 A.D. The two fragments were found together and were part of a codex containing either all the four Gospels and Acts, or just Matthew and Acts, most likely the former. This is an important find because with other second and third century papyri it demonstrates that the Gospels and Acts were being bound together in codices at this early date. It refutes the “many Gospels” theory of modern neo-Gnostic popularizers. It also confirms other reliable Alexandrian Manuscripts and does not contain a single variant that is cited for support of significant variations in modern English translations.
Jay,
ReplyDeleteI am unable to find the passage in which Irenaeus claims to have had a personal relationship with Papias and Polycarp. You have quoted a passage in which Irenaeus says he “saw” Polycarp when he was young. This isn’t quite the same thing. I saw Pope John Paul II when he visited Chicago in 1980, but I never had a personal relationship with him.
Yes, let's push the limits of meaning so far to one side as to allow for the most skepticism possible.
ReplyDeleteIrenaeus claims to have known Polycarp not merely to have seen him, but also to have heard his teachings as a student. By implication, he may have known Papias as well, since Irenaeus says Papias was "Polycarp's companion."
The one who testifies to the Truth will not simply say: "I am telling you the truth," but also, "You also know this because you are witnesses."
It's one of the internal tests for validity that the New Testament writers use as well. "You know it too because you were there." No sane person makes such a claim if it is false.
Note the contrast between Marcion and Polycarp. Ireneaus is saying that Marcion came to Rome saying HE was the only one to whom the truth was entrusted and that he received his doctrine directly from the Apostles. Irenaeus is saying in effect: "Just look at the Epistle of Polycarp to see what is taught there and which scriptures are quoted there. Also check with the churches at Philippi and Ephesus, churches founded by the Apostles Paul and John, to see which writings and teachings they received."
I have argued that there is such a generational overlap that not only is it probable that Irenaeus had seen men who had seen the Apostles, but that there were many others in Smyrna, Ephesus, Philippi, Rome, Antioch, etc. who could testify to the same thing.
Was there a rival doctrine? Yes. But Irenaeus appeals to what was known from the beginning, to the common knowledge of entire urban communities of believers who had the same generational roots. The third generation of believers had the advantage of being raised in the church from their youth, being able to recount the traditions of their elders. In fact, there isn't more than a 25 year gap between the last NT writings (which I place pre-70 AD) and various other writings that appeared up until the time of Irenaeus.
Some would argue that rival views were squelched and the orthodox party won out in time. However, that requires special pleading. There isn't any known data to suggest that there were rival Gospels or anonymous Gospels. On the contrary, all the data points to known authors.
Maricon who wanted to limit the canon to Luke and Paul, but note here that even in his error, there is a basis of truth. Marcion understood that Luke's Gospel was Paul's Gospel, a tradition recorded by Irenaeus, the Latin Prologues and elsewhere.
Below is the data. I am interested in your response as to what you think it means and if I am misinterpreting this.
*************
And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled by him.
*************
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.
To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church.
There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
*************
These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak in mild terms, are not of sound doctrine; these opinions are not consonant to the Church, and involve their votaries in the utmost impiety; these opinions, even the heretics beyond the Church's pale have never ventured to broach; these opinions, those presbyters who preceded us, and who were conversant with the apostles, did not hand down to thee.
For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing thyself in the royal court, and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse--his going out, too, and his coming in--his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. And I can bear witness before God, that if that blessed and apostolical presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, exclaiming as he was wont to do: "O good God, for what times hast Thou reserved me, that I should endure these things?" And he would have fled from the very spot where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. This fact, too, can be made clear, from his Epistles which he despatched, whether to the neighbouring Churches to confirm them, or to certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.
I am not pushing anything anywhere Jay. I just want to be able to figure out when your assertions are based on what Irenaeous actually wrote and when they are based on what you view as the implications of what he wrote.
ReplyDeleteIn his letter to Florinus, Irenaeous certainly indicates a greater familiarity with Polycarp than he does in Against Heresies. I am not sure that Irenaeous is claiming a personal relationship with Polycarp as opposed to being one of many people that heard him preach, but that is a fairly minor quibble.
I don’t see any justification for concluding that Irenaeous knew Papias, however. The fact that Polycarp may have known Papias at sometime during his life does not at all support the conclusion that Papias was still alive and around at the time that Irenaeous encountered Polycarp. That seems to be mostly wishful thinking on your part.
I also think that you are demonstrably incorrect in claiming that “[t]here isn't any known data to suggest that there were rival Gospels or anonymous Gospels.” The Gospel of Peter was sufficiently well known that Serapion found it necessary to forbid its use at the end of the second century. Indeed, one of the oldest known fragments comes from this gospel rather than any of the canonical writings.
I think the next one we have to cover is Justin of Rome (c.100–165).
ReplyDeleteHe is more useful that Papias and Irenaeus put together I think in establishing an early authorship.
You can put Theophilus of Antioch (succeeded Eros c. 169, and was succeeded by Maximus I c.183) on the list as identifying "John."
And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.
I was looking at Athenagoras too (The Apology, the date of which is fixed by internal evidence as late in 176 or 177)and he mentions "the Apostle" referring to Paul.
"...the result of all this is very plain to every one,--namely, that, in the language of the apostle, "this corruptible (and dissoluble) must put on incorruption," in order that those who were dead, having been made alive by the resurrection, and the parts that were separated and entirely dissolved having been again united, each one may, in accordance with justice, receive what he has done by the body, whether it be good or bad.
They are both earlier than Irenaeus by a few years.
I have to make a study of this and list every citation of every NT book. Of course when you get to Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria there is aa huge explosion of quotes and references.
Prior to this time the Fathers would quote and allude to scriptures without many references except the ones we've noted. I'll tell you if I excavate any more.
I am attempting a study that will be posted day by day on my discussion board.
My idea is that there isn't a single author who is a "smoking gun" but you have to unearth all the evidence by all the 2nd century authors. To find a strain of evidence running towards one direction or another.
The one thing you have to admit is that there is either a testimony toward orthodoxy or that you can maintain the null position by maintaining there isn't enough evidence. but there is no contrary evidence against authenticity of the Gospels.
Would you agree?
You guys have been an inspiration and sorry for the careless errors I made with citing Papias off the top of my head without looking at the quotes. I think I was thinking of Irenaeus when wrote that. I definitely got my wires crossed.
What I meant was any competing Gospels that actually came from the apostolic era.
ReplyDeleteOf course there were competing Gospels later on.
The Gospel of Peter is in my opinion just a Docetic Gnostic Gospel.
The one thing you have to admit is that there is either a testimony toward orthodoxy or that you can maintain the null position by maintaining there isn't enough evidence. but there is no contrary evidence against authenticity of the Gospels.
ReplyDeleteWould you agree?
I am not entirely sure what you mean by this. Authenticity and orthodoxy are two different questions. A writing could be orthodox without being authentic or authentic without being orthodox.
I'd argue that the authenticity issue is part of the orthodoxy or the rule of faith that Irenaeus and Tertullian were arguing for.
ReplyDeleteExcept in their day there was no argument over whether the Gospels were authentic. This is a modern idea. They were just concerned with orthodoxy and making sure the unorthodox writings did not hold sway.
My understanding is that in the beginning of the second century, the Docetics, the Ebionites and other Gnostics would pick one of the Gospels that best suited their theology. Then later we started to see other Gospels with (mainly) Docetic tendencies being written toward the end of the second century.
But I don't think there is any record from 100 to about 1700 of anyone attacking the authorship of any of the four Gospels.
By the time we get to the late 1800s, we see Baur arguing that the Gnostic Gospels actually preceded the orthodox Gospels. It's a line held on to tightly by Pagels, Crossan and their ilk.
Except in their day there was no argument over whether the Gospels were authentic. This is a modern idea. They were just concerned with orthodoxy and making sure the unorthodox writings did not hold sway.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree. For the church in the late second century, the important consideration was orthodoxy, not evidence of apostolic authorship.
The Gospel of Peter was rejected not because anyone actually knew that it was not the product of the Apostle Peter, but because it did support orthodox teachings. By the same token, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not embraced because anyone could persuasively establish their apostolic origins. They were accepted because they taught the right doctrines.
The Gospel of Peter was rejected not because anyone actually knew that it was not the product of the Apostle Peter, but because it did support orthodox teachings. By the same token, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not embraced because anyone could persuasively establish their apostolic origins. They were accepted because they taught the right doctrines.
ReplyDeleteIn one sense, what you are trying to say is true. The early bishops began to use the rule of faith kanon to determine apostolic teaching and later the word canon came to describe the books of the Bible.
But I disagree over your statement that apostolic origin was not important in this determination. According to Irenaeus, the Marcionite heresy erupted during the time of Papias and Polycarp (Papias seems to be the younger bishop since he is called the companion of Polycarp and not vice versa). At that point, it became important to identify the authors of the Gospels, not because they were unknown, but because Marcion sought to limit the number of authoritative apostolic writings to those by Paul.
Marcionism seems to be a proto-Gnostic dualism in which the God of the Old Testament, the creator of the material universe and the law-giver, was evil and Jesus the God of the New Testament was good. According to Marcion, only Paul had the true revelation of grace.
But there is no evidence that Marcion disputed the authorship of other NT books. According to what Irenaeus relates, Marcion appeared in Rome claiming to have received that he had received the one and only sole truth from the Apostles.
Now consider this scenario: Let's say Marcion in the early second century had access to a codex of the writings of Paul when he lived in Sinope in Asia Minor. This area was removed from western Turkey where the Apostles had actually been. He was influenced by Eastern mystery religions at some point was excommunicated from his church for heresy or, as Tertullian alleges for "raping a virgin." This might be an inuendo for corrupting a young woman (the church).
However, it's also possible that Marcion taught a Docetic Gnosticism that it is possible for only the body to sin while the spiritual man remains pure -- which would have been popular among Roman pagan converts who were used to libertine morality.
Marcion came to Rome thinking that Paul's writings were superior to the Gospels. He understood by reading them that Luke was Paul's companion. He chose only parts of the Gospel of Luke that agreed with his doctrine were accepted(and allegedly allegedly excised nativity and the passion).
Tertullian explains that Marcion was the disciple of a dualist named Cerdo:
To this is added one Cerdo. He introduces two first causes, that is, two Gods--one good, the other cruel: the good being the superior; the latter, the cruel one, being the creator of the world. He repudiates the prophecies and the Law; renounces God the Creator; maintains that Christ who came was the Son of the superior God; affirms that He was not in the substance of flesh; states Him to have been only in a phantasmal shape, to have not really suffered, but undergone a quasipassion, and not to have been born of a virgin, nay, really not to have been born at all. A resurrection of the soul merely does he approve, denying that of the body. The Gospel of Luke alone, and that not entire, does he receive. Of the Apostle Paul he takes neither all the epistles, nor in their integrity. The Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse he rejects as false. After him emerged a disciple of his, one Marcion by name, a native of Pontus, son of a bishop, excommunicated because of a rape committed on a certain virgin. He, starting from the fact that it is said, "Every good tree beareth good fruit, but an evil evil," attempted to approve the heresy of Cerdo; so that his assertions are identical with those of the former heretic before him. After him arose one Lucan by name, a follower and disciple of Marcion. He, too, wading through the same kinds of blasphemy, teaches the same as Marcion and Cerdo had taught.
Marcion is thought to have come to Rome in the early second century. The rule of faith running through Irenaeus and Tertullian is that orthodox doctrine is that which is received directly from the Apostles through their successors the bishops of cities named in their letters. So the orthodox faith is derived from bishops, but the bishops derive their authority from Apostles and the proof of this succession are the actual writings of the Apostles.
Likewise, the Gospel of Peter bears the marks of a book that is a mere rewriting of the passion story to fit a Marcionite agenda. In it, Jesus does not feel any pain and does not actually die, but his spirit is taken up to heaven and returns to the sepulcher in the form of three men, one carrying a cross, and the cross speaking to them indicating that he returned from preaching to the dead.
This indicates a reliance on 2 Peter 2:4. So I find it ironic that Crossan, Pagels and others, who put a late date on 2 Peter want the Gspel of Peter to precede the other Gospels.
While it's true that the Gospel of Peter is one of the early Oxyrhynchus papyri, from about 200 AD, we actually have a NT fragment that is actually a manuscript of Tertullian from about the same period. This fragment is often overlooked. The significant thing about it is that it is dated to Tertullian's own lifetime, so a 200 AD copy of proto-Gospel need not have a first century autograph as Cfrossana nd Pagels have alleged.
Most of the so-called "Gnostic Gospels" can quickly be seen as bearing an agenda once you understand the basic doctrines of Gnostic dualism.
So it's not valid to say that orthodoxy determined the books of the canon. It was much more of an organic process in which flesh and blood elders of churches with roots in the mid-first century were looked to as the repository of both the writings of the Apostles and the orthodox faith.
Also, I've found a few later sources that have second hand references to Papias' treatises on the Gospels:
One is from Agapius of Heirapolis, History of the World, which tenth century, in Arabic, and no English translation of the entire book is available as far as I know.
Translated in Holmes 23, 25-26:
At this time there lived in Heirapolis a prominent teacher and author of many treatises; he wrote five treatises about the gospel. In one of these treatises, which he wrote concerning the gospel of John, he relates that in the book of John the evangelist there is a report about a woman who was an adulteress. When the people led her before Christ our Lord, he spoke to the Jews who had brought her to him: Whoever among you is himself certain that he is innocent of that of which she is accused, let him now bear witness against her. After he had said this, they gave him no answer and went away.
Agapius is referring to the pericope de adultera. Granted this is somewhat late, and I don't discount that there could be some embellishment here. When compared with the account of Eusebius the confusing thing becomes what is meant by "the Gospel to the Hebrews."
And he himself [Papias] used testimonies from the first epistle of John and similarly from that of Peter, and set out also another record about a woman who was charged for many sins before the Lord, which the gospel according to the Hebrews has.
There are several things that could be going on here.
1. The pericope de adultera was originally from a lost "Gospel to the Hebrews" that was later interpolated into John.
2. Eusebius did not know of the pericope de adultera in John, so he assumed that it was from an extra-canonical book. The passage was missing from many of the early Greek manuscripts of John, but it is mentioned by Jerome as being found in many copies. It is also mentioned by Ambrose, Augustine, and other writers from the fourth century onward.
St. Augustine of Hippo wrote the following explanation of why he thought it was omitted in some manuscripts:
Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin (De Adult. Conj., ii. 6).
So obviously I favor the second explanation.
But getting back to Papias, it's interesting that these references to Papias' books are considered extant by Jerome and Eusebius, then we get these scattered references to the works of Papias, which then disappear around the 13th century.
When the Ottoman Turks over ran the Byzantine Empire, a lot of these works were destroyed ooor they may remain hidden somewhere in modern day Turkey. Now that Eastern Europe, Russia, Ukraine and Turkey have opened up to the west, there is always the possibility that some monumental find from the pre-Nicene church could be uncovered. Dan Wallace thinks there may be up to 100 early patristic and biblical manuscripts lying in monasteries and museums in the East.