|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Creed and The Bible
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We've been trying to make the point to you for a while now that there was no formal list of canonical books, but there was a canon.
A canon, by definition, only exists if there is a formal list. That's what a canon is.
(The amount of straw sent flying by both sides on this thread is getting to blinding levels.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
So.. I have to prove that the 'Church Fathers' (presumably meaning Justin Martyr, Origen etc) believed in the notion of a canon. When I don't and they didn't.
If not these, then who? Where are you getting this notion from?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
So.. I have to prove that the 'Church Fathers' (presumably meaning Justin Martyr, Origen etc) believed in the notion of a canon. When I don't and they didn't.
What you believe is basically irrelevant, since we're talking about what was believed at the beginning of the Council of Nicaea. And to that end it becomes extremely important to establish how the Church Fathers understood the concept of canon.
If by "canon" you mean a formal list of what's in and what's out, then everyone on hand has denied such a thing existed. If by "canon" you mean "A generally agreed upon set of writings accepted as inspired," then that certainly did exist, and we've provided proof that you've simply decided to ignore again and again.
[ 07. September 2012, 21:40: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Not quite - the position being argued is that there was such a thing as New Testament scripture by Nicaea in 325 which was so widely accepted that it didn't even need mentioning. Moreover some have argued in this thread that not only had the four gospels been identified by that point, but had been acknowledged as authoritative above all other gospels for several hundred years.
I'm pretty sure nobody on this thread is arguing that the four gospels had been acknowledged as authoritative for several hundred years before Nicaea.
I think 'there was such a thing as New Testament Scripture by Nicaea in 325' is ambiguous. If you mean something exactly analogous to what you get in a modern Bible, no, probably not. But there was it seems to me a broad consensus on what texts had apostolic authority. The arguments between the Arians and Athanasians were undertaken largely on the basis of a shared set of texts.
You're on even weaker grounds in claiming that the four gospels hadn't been recognised as having special authority. I don't think that there's any grounds to imply that they were considered merely four texts among others at any point later than the end of the second century, and probably earlier. Even gospels not rejected as heretical, such as the infancy gospel of James which was widely influential, seem to have been considered of lesser authority.
(Oh and sorry for the double post - connection problems.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I should add that the vague boundaries of the New Testament at that time only become a problem if one of the widely read extra-canonicals offers profoundly different doctrines than the canonical books we use today. The Shepherd of Hermas doesn't, so its inclusion in the Codex is not a problem for our argument. The Gospel of Thomas does, but was not widely read, certainly not widely read at the time of the Nicene Council, so it doesn't present any problem to us either.
[ 07. September 2012, 22:10: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Zach, if you have any sources which suggest that your understanding is supported by scholars, then please show them. If not, please fuck off.
That seems a strange thing to say as you have yourself quoted no-one at all in support of your non-standard opinions. "Non-standard" in the sense that most of the people who write histories of the early church (more than one mentioned on this thread already) seem to agree that the four gospels were generally accepted by most churches before the end of the second century, and that the various other "gospels" never were.
I don't think anyone here has said that they think there was a book containing within one set of covers exactly the same texts we have in our New Testaments and no others, widely circulated in the second or even third century. So its a bit of a straw man to keep on telling everyone that they have no evidence that there was such a thing.
And why are you getting so angry about this question? Does it mean something personal to you in some way?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And why are you getting so angry about this question?
Zach82's behaviour on this thread has made me want to call him to Hell. And I agree with him. So I don't think the long ranger's anger is inexplicable.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm pretty sure nobody on this thread is arguing that the four gospels had been acknowledged as authoritative for several hundred years before Nicaea.
quote:
ken said earlier in this thread
Some or other of the non-canonical gospels may have been popular in various times and places but they were never accepted as apostolic by mainstream churches. Not even close. Marcion and a few others may have rejected some of the canonical books, but others didn't. Saying that the four gospels and some (not all) of the other NT writings were "certainly accepted by almost all churches sometime in the 2nd century, quite likely before the end of the 1st" is a simple statement of fact.
I do not believe that either of your positions can be established with evidence. On the one hand we have a considerable Marcion movement which had a lot of influence and did not hold this position. It is true that we have notable Church Fathers who strongly argued for four gospels but there were some, such as Clement, who used the gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Ethiopians and others. Euseibus did produce lists of 'accepted' and 'disputed' and 'rejected' books in the fourth century, and whilst the four gospels are accepted, other canonical books are listed as disputed. Bizarrely, Revelation is listed as both accepted and rejected.
Ehrman says "During the second and third centuries, however, there was no agreed upon canon—and no agreed upon theology. Instead,
there was a wide range of diversity: diverse groups asserting diverse theologies based on diverse written texts, all claiming to be written by apostles of Jesus."
quote:
I think 'there was such a thing as New Testament Scripture by Nicaea in 325' is ambiguous. If you mean something exactly analogous to what you get in a modern Bible, no, probably not. But there was it seems to me a broad consensus on what texts had apostolic authority. The arguments between the Arians and Athanasians were undertaken largely on the basis of a shared set of texts.
Well, I can see some evidence of this as an argument in scholarship, such as from Callahan
"Sometimes when the New Testament scholarship discusses the matter of canon formation, the story implied is that there are some smoke filled rooms somewhere in the 2nd century and a bunch of these cigar smoking Christian big shots got together and they decided who was going in and who was going out and then... it was a wrap, they closed up and then everything else was on the cutting room floor.... If we return to Irenaeus' argument for the canon, I think precisely the contrary is closer to a more responsible historical reconstruction, and that is that there's some kind of consensus among people in the Jesus movement as to what constitutes reliable tradition, reliable literature - literature that they want to read or they want to hear over and over again, and other kinds of literature that they don't want to hear. And, of course, there are groups that have differences of opinion about this. There's some discussion about certain books that can be read but can't be read in church, for example. You can read them on your own, but there's a kind of parental advisory on them or something, and you don't read them in church and you're careful when you read them by yourself, this kind of thing. Or there's some pieces of literature that a lot of people are reading but that the Grand Poobahs in the church don't want them to read. But these really constitute special cases that imply a kind of consensus that are formed very early about the kind of literature Christians used that spoke to their self-identification and by which, they in turn, identified themselves.... That's kind of touchy-feely; it's hard to get a get a historical fix on it, but it's got to have been there. That was a development... from the bottom up, as opposed to from the top down. In Irenaeus' voice, I think we're hearing some top down arguments ex-post facto."
However this seems to be arguing against the consensus of opinion, in my view. Careful analysis suggests that a broad section of the early church revered an oral Christian tradition above any written materials, that originally the term gospel referred exclusively to orally recalled words of Jesus and that scripture was thought to be only the Old Testament. Koester has several early writers quoting gospel sayings of Jesus without naming their sources, which appear to not be from the canonical New Testament - for example Ignatius in the early second century, the Didache uses the formulation of the Lord's prayer from Matthew but with significant differences in the words used. Polycarp knew Matthew and Luke but does not seem to quote from them as gospels.
It is hard to say what status and how widely the documents found at Nag Hammadi were accepted, but they show varied documents with different theologies existed in early centuries.
quote:
You're on even weaker grounds in claiming that the four gospels hadn't been recognised as having special authority. I don't think that there's any grounds to imply that they were considered merely four texts among others at any point later than the end of the second century, and probably earlier. Even gospels not rejected as heretical, such as the infancy gospel of James which was widely influential, seem to have been considered of lesser authority.
Other than a few writers who said wildly different things about the writings they took to be authoritative (and we don't really know how authoritative and influential these writers were in the period they wrote), I don't know how anyone could know that there was a core of accepted gospels and others considered of lesser authority until we get to the late fourth century when the orthodox party within the Christian church had wrestled control and were beginning to specify which books were now scripture and canonical.
Too look back at those who conform to this idea in previous centuries (the 'proto-orthodox') and conclude that they represented a majority view within the developing church seems counter-intuitive and to belie the range of views and theologies in the early church. If there had been some kind of consensus (both in the notion that there was such a thing as an authoritative collection of writings and the books that should/would be included), I think there would have been mention of it in Niceae and more quoting of it in previous centuries.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Ehrman says...
Well that explains a lot. You have read a few sensationalists, mostly misinterpreted them, and now believe you are the only one who has read about the matter because you feel just so good about being more clever than orthodox Christians.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
'Nuther fun fact: The anti-Christian work The True Word, written by one Celsus the Platonist, circa 177, cites the four Gospels we all know and love in its attacks on the Christian Faith, but cites none of the extra-canonical Gospels.
[ 08. September 2012, 17:15: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Koester has several early writers quoting gospel sayings of Jesus without naming their sources, which appear to not be from the canonical New Testament - for example Ignatius in the early second century, the Didache uses the formulation of the Lord's prayer from Matthew but with significant differences in the words used. Polycarp knew Matthew and Luke but does not seem to quote from them as gospels.
Again, a bit of a straw man here. Those writers are all closer to the crucifixion than they are to Nicaea.
(You mentioned Clement, but didn't give references.)
quote:
Other than a few writers who said wildly different things about the writings they took to be authoritative (and we don't really know how authoritative and influential these writers were in the period they wrote), I don't know how anyone could know that there was a core of accepted gospels and others considered of lesser authority until we get to the late fourth century when the orthodox party within the Christian church had wrestled control and were beginning to specify which books were now scripture and canonical.
'Wildly' in your first line is a considerable exaggeration.
You say skeptically that we don't know how influential or representative the writers who support later orthodoxy were, but you then abandon that skepticism when talking about writers not representative of the later orthodoxy. And while Irenaeus' later influence may be doubt, we know that Origen was one of the most respected and influential figures in patristic theology. (The condemnation of Origenism was over a hundred years after Nicaea.)
The rest of your paragraph is question-begging.
From the wikipedia article on the Oxyrhynchus papyri: here up to about 350 AD the oxyrhynchus rubbish dump has nine or ten fragments of non-canonical gospels, representing at least four different documents and possibly more, and twenty five fragments from the four canonical gospels. Now, if we use that as an indication, (yes, that's problematic) then that suggests that in Alexandria the canonical gospels had 250% of the circulation of non-canonical gospels by 350AD.
quote:
Too look back at those who conform to this idea in previous centuries (the 'proto-orthodox') and conclude that they represented a majority view within the developing church seems counter-intuitive and to belie the range of views and theologies in the early church. If there had been some kind of consensus (both in the notion that there was such a thing as an authoritative collection of writings and the books that should/would be included), I think there would have been mention of it in Niceae and more quoting of it in previous centuries.
Why counterintuitive?
And the fact that the consensus isn't mentioned in Nicaea I think tells in favour of the consensus. As has been said on this thread previously, things that aren't in dispute don't get mentioned.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
And the fact that the consensus isn't mentioned in Nicaea I think tells in favour of the consensus. As has been said on this thread previously, things that aren't in dispute don't get mentioned.
For the sake of brevity, let us stipulate that Hairy Biker's bullet list of the creed is reasonable. Recall, he identified it as quote:
In AD381 Christianity was defined by the Nicene Creed as a belief in:
• The Trinity
• The Church
• Baptism
• Resurrection
• Life of the World to Come
So, based on your stated principle, you believe that these things were in doubt among Christians in 381? That strikes me as highly unlikely.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
For the sake of brevity, let us stipulate that Hairy Biker's bullet list of the creed is reasonable. Recall, he identified it as quote:
In AD381 Christianity was defined by the Nicene Creed as a belief in:
• The Trinity
• The Church
• Baptism
• Resurrection
• Life of the World to Come
So, based on your stated principle, you believe that these things were in doubt among Christians in 381? That strikes me as highly unlikely.
--Tom Clune
Working from Wikipedia article on Council of Nicaea
- Trinity Yes this is crucial to the debate at the council
- The Church yes the status of lapsed Christians and those baptised by Heretics are questions about the nature of the Church
- Baptism - yes see above
- Resurrection I expect so I suspect Arianism maintained God could not die therefore Jesus didn't hence no resurrection
- Life in the world to come is the one I can't find
Looks pretty much as if it was shaped by the debate within the council to me.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Resurrection I expect so I suspect Arianism maintained God could not die therefore Jesus didn't hence no resurrection
I am certainly no expert on Bishop Arius, but from what I've read of him and his followers, it seems extremely unlikely that they would both believe that Christ was created and that He couldn't die. More generally, you are conflating the entire concil's agenda with the creed, which is the specific question of the OP.
Little of the issues about the Church made it into the creed, which was reworked a number of times to try to exclude Arianism. This is harder than you would think -- because the whole thing was a political battle between Arius and Athanasius, and the Arians kept finding reason to be comfortable with the creeds but Athanasius was never willing to accept anything short of anathamizing his enemy Arius and his followers.
The creed may well be a reasonable expression of the Christian faith, but the whole episode of its creation is a shameful excess of Church politics run amok. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As has been said on this thread previously, things that aren't in dispute don't get mentioned.
Recall, he identified it as quote:
In AD381 Christianity was defined by the Nicene Creed as a belief in:
• The Trinity
• The Church
• Baptism
• Resurrection
• Life of the World to Come
So, based on your stated principle, you believe that these things were in doubt among Christians in 381? That strikes me as highly unlikely.
The Trinity was certainly in dispute. The other items, less in dispute, get a lot less space in the creed. (But donatists disputed the church bit, and the resurrection of the body raised eyebrows among the philosophically minded.)
But I think my phrasing was a little bit careless, and I'll rephrase:
Things that were in dispute did get mentioned.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Arius was never a bishop, though like most heseriarchs he was frequently portrayed as one. His cause was championed by the bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea, which is certainly confusing enough.
Their catch phrase was "There was when the Son was not." The main beef of the Arians was that Jesus must have been a creature. He might have been the first and best creature, made before all worlds, but not eternal like the Father. They somehow had the idea that making Christ a creature, in whom Godhead dwelt, maintained monotheism better than the Catholic faith.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026
|
Posted
I may be wrong, but I think Clement of Alexandria's (c.150-215) attitude may be illustrative. As is well known he is familiar with many 'apocryphal' texts, and deploys them in ways later orthodox writers wouldn't (sometimes with the quasi-scriptural formula 'it is written'). But when disputing with an ascetic critic of marriage, Julius Cassianus, who had deployed a text from the Gospel of the Egyptians to make his case, Clement shows he nevertheless makes (and believes he can appeal to) a fundamental distinction:
"In the first place we have not got the saying in the four Gospels that have been handed down to us, but in the Gospel of the Egyptians." (Stromateis III.93)
On the narrower question of the status quo on the eve of the Council of Nicaea, I find the argument from the Donatists quite compelling. They schismed in 311, just over a decade before the Council, but after a century of independent development we find no dispute between them and their Catholic rivals over the scriptural canon.
--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)
Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I have never said that there is no evidence of anyone taking four gospels to be authoritative, just that this is not evidence of widespread acceptance of this before the fourth century.
Clearly Clement and Justin Martyr and Origen had a lot of influence on the establishment of the New Testament canon - yet each had a different idea of what should be 'in' and 'out. For example, Clement appeared to think the Didache and Shepherd are to be considered scriptural.
quote:
“It is such a one that is by Scripture called a thief. For that reason it is said, ‘Son, do not be a liar; for falsehoods leads to theft.’” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Bk. 1,
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I don't follow your argument - is the evidence that Clement quoted the didache? If so that doesn't necessarily elevate it to the status of scripture, whatever that would mean back then.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't follow your argument - is the evidence that Clement quoted the didache? If so that doesn't necessarily elevate it to the status of scripture, whatever that would mean back then.
In the first half of the quote he appears to call scriptural the second half, which is from the didache.
I agree, it is pretty problematic given the question of who called what scripture in the first and second centuries and what they meant.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
OK, I get it now.
That is an interesting quote. Although I think viewing the didache as potentially scripture or cannon or whatever doesn't really conflict with anything in the 4 gospels.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
We've given you ample evidence for a relatively stable canon, Long Ranger, and why the margins of the canon were not clearly defined. So it's no use simply repeating that we haven't done so yet again.
It seems that you continue to frame the issue in an anachronistic manner. Up thread you ignored an argument because it reflected mere practice, not authority. But that's precisely the distinction that a Church Father would not make. What the Church used was authoritative for them. The Catholic Faith won out after Nicaea, against all odds, because it better explained the practices of the Church. We keep citing these lists they came up against you, and you ignore them again and again, but they point to a widespread practice, and that discredits your story of complete canonical chaos.
Your sensationalist books do not say anything that anyone here did not already know, though they do frame their facts in a misleading manner.
You also keep citing second and third century groups as proof as a lack of consensus, but we here are talking about the fourth century. Not only were those groups fringe groups or localized offshoots, they had ceased to be an issue before the Council of Nicaea.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Just so you know, Zach, I am not ignoring your argument, I am ignoring you. Until you show some respect for me, I am not planning to communicate with you.
You can post whatever crap you like, I am not going to reply any more.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
You haven't exactly been polite yourself, so you saying so is profoundly hypocritical.
Come on. Show us you can make a sound argument instead of just reasserting over and over again.
[ 10. September 2012, 13:36: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Gentlemen, remember to engage the argument, not the person.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
This argument is confusing me. Its like there is a hidden agenda no-one told me about and actually everyone is talking about somethign else other than the apparent topic of the thread. And also being a lot ruder than they usually get away with round here.
Summary of the argument used on these thread so far:
Hairy Biker "Why do people think A, B and C?"
Almost Everybody Else: "Because of D, E, and F"
Long Ranger: "NO! NOT X, Y & Z, at all! D, E & G!".
Almost Everybody Else: "Oh, we agree with you abut D & E, but we think F is good too. How did X, Y & Z get into the argument? No-one mentioned that."
Long Ranger: "DIE, SPAWN OF SATAN!!!!!!!!!!"
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Sorry, that was written before Tom's host post posted.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Well since you put it like that, ken, I'd characterise the argument as:
Hairy Biker "Why do people think A, B and C?"
Almost Everybody Else: "Because of D, E, and F"
Long Ranger: 'Hang about, how do you know that?'
Zach: 'Because it is the truth and if you're arguing with this your undermining the holy catholic and apostolic church..'
Long Ranger: 'OK, but there don't appear to be many scholars who think D E and F - in fact most seem to think X Y and Z'
ken: 'no, it is obvious, everyone thinks D E and F'
Long Ranger: 'no they don't, where do you get that from?'
Zach: 'NO, A B and C! And what is your agenda for even saying X Y and Z?'
Long Ranger: 'well, here is a link to some ancient Christian writings which do not seem to support X Y and Z'
Someone else: 'that is just a bunch of links. And not very important anyway'
Long Ranger: 'OK, but how do you know that? Do you have sources for that opinion or that A B and C are true?'
Zach: 'As we keep telling you A B and C! Why don't you listen to our sources? Are you the devil?'
Long Ranger: 'Will you give me the sources or what?'
Zach: 'A B and C!'
etc.
Which just goes to show, we can all play the game of creating cartoon versions of the debate, ken.
edit: no offense taken ken. I prefer satire to personal attack.
[ 10. September 2012, 14:03: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Which just goes to show, we can all play the game of creating cartoon versions of the debate, ken.
Oh, absolutely. It's just that his accurately reflects what's going on, and yours doesn't.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Not only is the long ranger offended by my posts, it doesn't seem that he's even read them.
[ 10. September 2012, 14:57: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I have never said that there is no evidence of anyone taking four gospels to be authoritative, just that this is not evidence of widespread acceptance of this before the fourth century.
Er... what more evidence would you need?
quote:
Clearly Clement and Justin Martyr and Origen had a lot of influence on the establishment of the New Testament canon - yet each had a different idea of what should be 'in' and 'out. For example, Clement appeared to think the Didache and Shepherd are to be considered scriptural.
quote:
“It is such a one that is by Scripture called a thief. For that reason it is said, ‘Son, do not be a liar; for falsehoods leads to theft.’” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Bk. 1,
Two points.
1) That's got nothing to do with the Gospels. Everyone agrees that the boundaries of what was accepted as the authoritative apostolic writings were still fuzzy by Nicaea. Revelation wasn't fully accepted in the east until the second millennium as I understand it. I at least am taking issue with the idea that a core of four Gospels and Paul wasn't settled by the late second century.
2. I agree with what you said way back in the thread that 'according to the Scriptures' in the Nicene Creed almost certainly refers to the Old Testament. I doubt that early Christians started referring to books other than the Old Testament as the Scriptures until the New Testament canon was fully established or almost so. As such, it seems to me it's highly likely that in your quote Clement means the Old Testament by 'the Scriptures'. (And then brings in the Didache, if that's what it is, as a witness.) I certainly think it's not credible that on the one hand Clement thought of a set of Christian writings as being on a par with the Old Testament, yet that on the other the Council at Nicaea did not.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Er... what more evidence would you need?
The fact is that a few early writers held to Pauline letters and four gospels can be interpreted in two ways - ie that the Fathers are examples of mainstream Christian opinion or that they're stating an opinion which later became accepted as Orthodox. I don't believe there is any kind of consensus and that in fact there are many different, competing, forms of Christianity in the first three centuries.
I think we'd need a very clear indication that following a certain point, all future Christian writers accepted the same four gospels and the same epistles as inspired, and I don't accept that we have that until after Nicaea.
quote:
Two points.
1) That's got nothing to do with the Gospels. Everyone agrees that the boundaries of what was accepted as the authoritative apostolic writings were still fuzzy by Nicaea. Revelation wasn't fully accepted in the east until the second millennium as I understand it. I at least am taking issue with the idea that a core of four Gospels and Paul wasn't settled by the late second century.
First, not everyone accepts that the 'boundaries were fuzzy'. And we're not just talking about whether the Revelation is in or not. I just don't accept that characterisation. Second, there is the idea in this thread that there was some kind of agreement on a proto-canon at the Nicaea Council , which was generally accepted (both the idea that recent writings could be scripture on the same basis as the Old Testament and basic agreement on what was contained within the New Testament). Other than assertion, which seems to mostly come back to the opinions of Origen, I can't see how anyone can possibly come to that conclusion.
quote:
2. I agree with what you said way back in the thread that 'according to the Scriptures' in the Nicene Creed almost certainly refers to the Old Testament. I doubt that early Christians started referring to books other than the Old Testament as the Scriptures until the New Testament canon was fully established or almost so. As such, it seems to me it's highly likely that in your quote Clement means the Old Testament by 'the Scriptures'. (And then brings in the Didache, if that's what it is, as a witness.) I certainly think it's not credible that on the one hand Clement thought of a set of Christian writings as being on a par with the Old Testament, yet that on the other the Council at Nicaea did not.
Well, I can't explain it. Even if Clement thought the Didache and other recent writings were to be considered scriptural (in the accepted Old Testament sense), it appears that others did not for at least 100 years.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I think we'd need a very clear indication that following a certain point, all future Christian writers accepted the same four gospels and the same epistles as inspired, and I don't accept that we have that until after Nicaea.
That's precisely what we have provided ample evidence for. You've just chosen, arbitrarily in most cases, to ignore the evidence and arguments presented. You're presenting the same argument over and over again, and it's still a bad one: that being that the existence of heretical works and fringe groups in the early Church implies that there was no general consensus.
Yet the widespread references to the same books is evidence that there was, and the fact remains that works like the Gospel of Thomas never enjoyed widespread use. Their existence does not imply widespread acceptance.
Widespread acceptance would be indicated by widespread references to these works, and those references are lacking. You've provided no evidence or strong argument against the "general use canon" picture posited by people here.
I've attempted here a perfectly civil post. If any part is offensive to you, I apologize for being insensitive.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I hope it isn't too personal a comment here, but as I was grocery shopping between these two posts it struck be how much arguing with the long ranger here is like arguing about evolution with a creationist.
[ 10. September 2012, 18:24: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
In the first half of the quote he appears to call scriptural the second half, which is from the didache.
I think that appearance may be an illusion. The passage comes in the context of a discussion of the role of Greek Philosophy (the greater part of which, Clement argues, had been plagiarised from barbarian races, not least the Hebrews), and the first half of the quote appears to refer back to an earlier citation of John 10:8 ("all who came before me were thieves and robbers") which introduced the 'thief' thematic, not forward to the Didache quotation.
This passage is important evidence of Clement's familiarity with the Didache, but no more clear-cut evidence he accounted it 'scripture' than his immediately preceding quotation from Pindar.
(I should add that I'm not disputing the point you introduced this passage to illustrate - that Justin, Clement and Origen, though agreed on the four Gospels - by inference in the case of Justin - and at least thirteen of the Pauline Epistles, differed among themselves at the fuzzy boundaries of the proto-canon.)
--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)
Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I don't believe there is any kind of consensus and that in fact there are many different, competing, forms of Christianity in the first three centuries.
I think we'd need a very clear indication that following a certain point, all future Christian writers accepted the same four gospels and the same epistles as inspired, and I don't accept that we have that until after Nicaea.
Yet you're willing to claim that there wasn't such a consensus with no such clear indication. You're applying a different standard of evidence to the two propositions.
quote:
First, not everyone accepts that the 'boundaries were fuzzy'.
Ok - who doesn't accept that the boundaries were fuzzy?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Yet you're willing to claim that there wasn't such a consensus with no such clear indication. You're applying a different standard of evidence to the two propositions.
Yes, because it is much more difficult to prove a negative.
H0: there was a consensus on the notion of a New Testament canon (in the sense of divinely inspired scripture, if not the actual books in the canon) prior to the Council of Nicaea.
H1: there wasn't.
I don't believe there is enough evidence to prove the null hypothesis, hence have no alternative but to accept H1. It would be nice and neat and tidy to believe that there was a continuous and divinely ordained record of Jesus from AD33 through to Ad397 when the New Testament was set down, but I don't believe the evidence is there.
I believe that the facts of a) uncertainty between the Church Fathers about what material was authoritative b) differences in understanding of the term 'gospel' and the relative importance given to written material over the oral tradition c) widespread differences between what books were being used in individual churches d) success of heretical movements such as Marcion's church suggest a lack of evidence to support the assertion that there was a consensus at Nicaea that meant discussion was unnecessary.
I don't actually need to prove another option because it isn't me that is making that assertion.
quote:
Ok - who doesn't accept that the boundaries were fuzzy?
Well, for a start there are those who consider the canon to be inerrant. It is hard to believe that they would countenance fuzzy scripture. And there are those who believe these disagreements are more than fuzzy boundaries but are far more substantial.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Well, for a start there are those who consider the canon to be inerrant.
Red herring. This argument is not about whether the canon is inerrant, it's about whether there was a canon in the fourth century.
Though you've found a convenient reason to ignore my perfectly reasonable points...
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Yes, because it is much more difficult to prove a negative.
H0: there was a consensus on the notion of a New Testament canon (in the sense of divinely inspired scripture, if not the actual books in the canon) prior to the Council of Nicaea.
H1: there wasn't.
I don't believe there is enough evidence to prove the null hypothesis, hence have no alternative but to accept H1.
As you'll have picked up early Christian writings are not my field of expertise. But this is. And it is so muddled I can barely contain myself.
Firstly it is philosophically muddled to describe "no consensus" as a null. The identifiable thing that one should be looking for is disagreement. If one finds disagreement, one knows there is disagreement. Finding no disagreement might mean there is a consensus, or it might mean you haven't sampled enough different opinions to find the disagreement.
So I can sort-of agree with H0=there was a consensus, except I'd put it as H0=there was no disagreement.
But you absolutely cannot prove a null hypothesis (or any hypothesis really, but especially not a null hypothesis). They can only ever be rejected. You certainly don't accept H1 because of a lack of evidence for H0.
But having said that I don't think this is an appropriate framework for his particular kind of question. You are reading a variety of sources, and getting an impression of what was going on back then. You can't assign probabilities to anything, so better off arguing descriptively, I think.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Fair enough, I bow to the more knowledgeable.
I'll add logic to my list of things to learn more about.
[ 10. September 2012, 20:05: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Let's pretend statistical reasoning can be applied. This is how I would go about it.
We take the lists of documents that are regarded as scripture, we propose that if there is no set order than any document would be equally likely to be in any of the lists. Lets say there are 40 documents in the lists and a list has 10, then that would mean there was a 1/4 chance of any single document being in the list. So this is adjusted by number of document in the list. This is simple probability modelling.
If we sum this for each document we have the distribution of documents that should happen if the data was random. We can now compare this computational frequencies with the actual frequencies and see if there is evidence of consensus. A simple Kolomgorov-Smirnoff test will do for a real distribution against a hypothesised.
The first thing you need to note is that the null is lack of consensus, the alternative is some degree of consensus. The null is easier to model. The alternative is different documents has different probabilities of being on a list.
It is useful to do this, because it show us that in some way you have got the argument back to front.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
some degree of consensus
But of course there has to be some degree of consensus. Otherwise you are suggesting a world in which each desert father has his own collection of entirely random documents including anything from a Babylonian prostitute's diary to the Upanishads and a dilettante's guide to building pyramids.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
If statistics aren't the long ranger's style, there's the fact that the writings of St Paul and the Synoptic Gospels are are older than the extra-canonical texts he's brought up.
I exclude the Gospel of John because, while it's still probably older, it might overlap with some of the older extra-canonicals.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
This thread has proven fruitful in my own knowledge of the development of the canon, so it isn't a wash.
Another interesting bit of data: The early Christian thinker Tatian attempted to harmonize the disparate accounts of the Gospels into one work called the Diatessaron. It is dated between 160 and 175, and uses only the 4 canonical Gospels, with no other additions.
[ 10. September 2012, 20:51: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Hmm. What do you make of the Apology of Justin Martyr? In chapter 35, he appears to think the (obviously fake) Acts of Pilate are authentic. Interesting.
"...And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate"
I'm a little flabbergasted to learn that Pilate is considered a saint in some parts..
[ 10. September 2012, 21:24: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Hmm.. even more confusion.. the Acts of Pilate I linked to above are thought to be a later fake.. presumably Justin Martyr was referring to a different document.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I make of it that Justin Martyr considered the Acts of Pilate to be authentic. Once again, no one here is arguing that there weren't borderline cases. We are arguing that there was a stable core of books that enjoyed wide acceptance, with the other books enjoying lesser levels of use in the Church.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
By the by, the wikipedia article is to be believed, the Acts of Pilate only presents itself as an objective account of the passion for official records, not as scripture.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Agreed, I just thought it was interesting. By the way, with regard to your older-and-better thesis, it might interest you to know that one of the very oldest fragments of gospel that we have is from an unknown and non-canonical gospel.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Agreed, I just thought it was interesting. By the way, with regard to your older-and-better thesis, it might interest you to know that one of the very oldest fragments of gospel that we have is from an unknown and non-canonical gospel.
Not really, a least not in that I feel it disproves the "General Canon" theory that people here are actually arguing. The so-called "Q" source is lost too.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
