Re: The syncretistic origins of Christianity.
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:35 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:33 pm Elsewhere Justin mentions that the memoirs were written by the apostles and by their followers, and more specifically he also names either "the memoirs of Peter" or "the memoirs of Christ," depending on how you read the sentence. Is that what you are talking about?
Sure, but I think it's interesting people like Justin do not cement the specifics of this new religion, nor, for a person writing 60-80 yrs after we are told it had key texts, does he show an expected degree of knowledge of those key texts.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:10 pm For whatever it may be worth, I think Mark is what he meant by the memoirs of Peter; but it is possible to disagree with my assessment.
nb. my points are relative to the common assertion that the key texts were set and were circulating then.
1. I don't believe Papias is a reliable witness of much, or even verified as a reliable witness . I don't believe those quoting him are reliable witnesses.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:10 pm But surely you must be aware that countless church fathers name all the gospels they accept, and even name the ones they do not accept, from Irenaeus through Clement and Tertullian and Origen and Victorinus to Eusebius and beyond. You must also be aware that Papias is quoted as naming texts by Mark and by Matthew (I doubt John and Luke had been written/completed by then). If that is all you are after, I think you are set.
2. The church fathers that name gospels they accept or reject hardly do so with specific commentary about why they accept of reject them, particularly Justin Martyr. Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian hardly do, either (other than writing screes to reject Marcion).
You keep misrepresenting my propositions and my queries. I am not after 'discussion' about how a "particular 'church father's community' came to accept the gospels it accepts" - I am after evidence particular church fathers even reflect their communities. I am after evidence that those church fathers reflect communities that are engaging texts. All we have are waffling philosophy by the likes of Irenaeus that do not appear to be address to congregations or to any other possible recipients.If you are after one other thing: a frank and open discussion about how that particular church father's community came to accept the gospels it accepts, then I fear you will be disappointed. But why should that bother you?
I think it is very likely that the mirage is shaped later. I think it's those who later shaped the church who want us to believe all church fathers, and thus by implication also all orthodox churches, had accepted the same four gospels.The fathers were, one and all, at pains to avoid the impression that they were in any way unique in their choice of gospels; they emphasize and draw out and hammer home the point that all right thinking churches everywhere accept the same gospels they do. To discuss how their own church came to accept those gospels would shatter the mirage.
... what the fathers want you to believe is that the Holy Spirit guided all orthodox churches into accepting the same four gospels; in order to peek behind the scenes at the ecclesiastical pressures and such that may have actually gone into the process we have to read between the lines.
The implication is that it was the eventually agreed upon 'Holy Spirit' that was there all along. But the first 2-3 Ecumencial councils tell us that wasn't the case.
That's via Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.12.1-6.We do have Serapion [of Antioch]:
For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but the pseudepigrapha that go by their name we reject, as experienced men, knowing that we did not recieve such things. For I myself, when I was with you, had in mind that you all were bearing into the right faith, and, without going through the gospel borne forth by them in the name of Peter, I said that, if this was all that seems to bring about pettiness for you, let it be read. But having now learned from what was said to me that their mind was holing up in some heresy, I shall hasten to be with you again; wherefore, brethren, expect me in quickness. But we, brethren, taking in of what kind of heresy Marcianus was, who also contradicted himself, not thinking about what he was saying, which things you will learn from the things that I have written to you, were enabled by others who studied this same gospel, that is, by the successors of those who began it, whom we called docetics, for most of the thoughts are of their teaching, using [material] from them to go through and find that most things are of the right word of the savior, but some things are spurious, which things we order out for you.
He discusses why the gospel of Peter is to be rejected (after he had originally thought it harmless). And of course others (Origen, for example) discuss texts they reject, as well.
Certainly this commentary suggests Serapion was discussing things with certain communities - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1q ... st&f=false - but we don't see that commentary that suggests Irenaeus or other church fathers were doing likewise (and literary licence may being taken in that commentary about Serapion).
'by extension' doesn't cut it with me.Your first point is met: we have lots of fathers telling us which texts they (and by extension their churches) accept.I'm not looking for references to texts written to other communities, other than texts that might contain information about the originating community. I'm looking for something that shows a community is (i) using specific texts, or (ii) has created an account of a text or three eg. done their own exegesis, or (iii) has created their own texts or collections.
1 I've not referred to persecution or persecutions in this thread.Your second point is not clear to me, since we once again have lots of church fathers giving us lots of textual exegesis (far more than the accounts of persecutions you said were rampant1), and individuals do exegesis, not communities2 (even today). Your third point is problematic, as described above: no church is going to claim to have written their own sacred texts3, even if that is exactly what they have done; they are, of course, going to say that they got those texts from the apostles and from those who followed them.
2 Yes individuals do exegesis today. I'd be surprised if these next texts were the domain of one person in communities engaging with a new theology. People would be asking each other things like "What do you make of this?" Perhaps the writings of fathers like Irenaeus reflect that, but i get the impression Irenaeus is often philosophising on his own, without firm conclusions.
Paul's letters tell us he had problems, as does Polycarp -
.
But I have not found any such thing in you [Philippians], neither have heard thereof, among whom the blessed Paul labored, who were his letters in the beginning. For he boasteth of you in all those churches which alone at that time knew God ...
.
But I have not found any such thing in you [Philippians], neither have heard thereof, among whom the blessed Paul labored, who were his letters in the beginning. For he boasteth of you in all those churches which alone at that time knew God ...
.
3 I wasn't referring to sacred texts. I was referring to texts that could show evolution of the theology: texts that had built on what we are told are texts that are supposed to have existed for a 80-120 yrs ie. 3-5 generations.
One would expect to see evidence of Council of Nicea like events in the mid-late 2nd century (to early-mid 3rd century) if orthodox Christianity had been growing from ~ 80 AD.