Book to add to ECW book links page

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
perseusomega9
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Book to add to ECW book links page

Post by perseusomega9 » Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:59 am

https://archive.org/details/historyofchristi00waitrich

Charles B. Waite, History of the Christian Church to the Year 200
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe

bcedaifu
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:40 am

Re: Book to add to ECW book links page

Post by bcedaifu » Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:51 pm

C. V. Waite, page 457 wrote: AUTHORITIES.
Many references are made to authorities, ancient and modern. The object
has been to make this not only a reliable history, but a work of reference
for those who may wish to pursue the subject further.
Authorities?
where are they?
unconvincing in my view, we are obliged to accept his word that the original documents are found in the library of Congress, in the capital, Washington D.C.

Which sources from that library are written in Greek? Which of those sources, in Greek, represent faithful duplicates of original texts? I appreciate that he sought, in the late nineteenth century, to compel his readers to think a bit about the origins of earliest Christianity.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2863
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Book to add to ECW book links page

Post by DCHindley » Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:23 pm

bcedaifu wrote:
C. V. Waite, page 457 wrote: AUTHORITIES.
Many references are made to authorities, ancient and modern. The object has been to make this not only a reliable history, but a work of reference for those who may wish to pursue the subject further.
Authorities? where are they? unconvincing in my view, we are obliged to accept his word that the original documents are found in the library of Congress, in the capital, Washington D.C.

Which sources from that library are written in Greek? Which of those sources, in Greek, represent faithful duplicates of original texts? I appreciate that he sought, in the late nineteenth century, to compel his readers to think a bit about the origins of earliest Christianity.
Why don't you look them up? The US Library of Congress is just a library like any other library, only especially well stocked with books (besides reference works previously published, it was considered prestigious to submit one's own literary works to the Library).
Two years of the time were spent in the Library of Congress, which is peculiarly rich in the department of Biblical Literature. It contains the writings of all the earlier fathers, in the original, and an immense collection of the works of later writers. (Preface, pg. iii)
Here are the citations on the first few pages. I've added formatting to make it easier to identify the authors and works cited. Works of that period were notorious for giving the scantiest of description of the sources (often just the author's family name and/or a single word from the title) because they assumed that a gentleman reader would just know which sources were being referred to.

(1.) [(Heinrich) Ewald,] Yahrbucher, 1848, 1849.
(2.) See [(Jo. Albertus,)] Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus, Hamb. 1703, vol. 1 p. 372. Also History of the Canon, by [(Brooke Foss)] Westcott, 3d Ed. Lond. 1870, p. 282.
Tertullian adv. Marcion, bk. 4, ch. 2, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. 7, p. 180.
The language of Tertullian is, "Denique, ut cum auctoribus contulit, et convenit de regula fidei, dexteras miscuere," &c. Tertull. Op., tom. 1, p. 251. [probably the 1851 edition of Franz Oehler but I couldn't find a searchable online version of this edition that referenced the quoted text on "p. 251." It was re-issued several times, e.g., Quinti Septimii Florentis Tertulliani quae supersunt omnia 1853, 1854; etc]
(1.) Irenaeus v. Haer. bk. 3, ch. 1, Ante-Nic[(ene Christian Library)]. vol. 5, p. 259.
(2.) [(Samuel) Davidson,] Canon[(of the Bible)], [(1877,)] p. 121.
(3.) Iren. v. Haer. 2. 22, Ante-Nic. vol. 5, p. 196.
[Eusebius.,] Eccles. Hist. bk. 3, ch. 3.
[Justin,] Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 106.
The [alternative] translation [of above], as given in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. 2, p. -233, is as follows: "And when it is said that he changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter, and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that he changed the names of other two brothers," &c.
(1.) Dr. [(Nathaniel)] Lardner's Works, [(there were editions of either 10 or 11 volumes in 1788, 1815, 1827, 1838)], vol. 4, p. 636; Theodoret, Fab. Haer. 2. 2; Euseb. Ecc. Hist. 6. 12; Lost and Hostile Gospels by S[(abine]. Baring-Gould, p. 245.
Theodoret there says, the Nazarenes held that Christ was a just man, and they used the Gospel of Peter. He speaks as of his own day; A.D. 430.
(1.) [(Brooke Foss) Westcott,] Hist, of the Canon, p. 103.
(2.) [(Carl August) Credner,] Geschic(h)t(e des). N(eu). T(estamentlichen). Kan(on). [(1860)] p. 22.

All the sources cited are par for the course (or a little out of date) for the time of writing (1881) and English translations (except for 4th century authors and later) are generally from The Ante Nicene Christian Library series (24 volumes published in Edinburgh, Scotland in the mid 19th century), although most folks are more familiar with them as reprinted in the 10 volume Ante Nicene Fathers series published in Buffalo, NY, USA.

Your unfamiliarity with these sources does not constitute a fault on the author's part.

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

bcedaifu
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:40 am

Re: Book to add to ECW book links page

Post by bcedaifu » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:13 am

DCH wrote:Your unfamiliarity with these sources does not constitute a fault on the author's part.
:lol:

Thank you. I am laughing. Well, yes, I am perhaps, not a "gentleman".

yes, I am quite familiar with these "sources", both the Edinburgh and the USA 10 volume versions. I am also acquainted, briefly, with the editor (forgot his name now) of the USA version of these "sources", who, in his preface, castigates and ridicules the French version by Migne, "Patrologie", which contains Greek and Latin manuscripts, though, of uncertain provenance. I have not located within Migne's reference, the location of Migne's sources, either, though I am certain that it is NOT THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, nor the Biblioteq national, either.
http://www.bnf.fr/fr/acc/x.accueil.html.

The jurist, who authored this particular volume, subject matter of this thread on the forum, had been obliged, in my view, to acknowledge the origin of his "sources", i.e. the compendium translated by the two ministers in Edinburgh, because he had written in his preface, something about seeking to present to the USA a valuable reference source. If it were simply a travelogue, or brochure, I wouldn't object to his casual descriptions.

My complaint is that this judge has provided something like the content found at Kirby's site, without explaining that Kirby had taken the links to the originals posted at another site, (as that other site specifically mentions Kirby by name), as if Kirby had dug up the originals himself, when all Kirby had done, was to copy someone else's work.

My specific complaint, however, DCH, regarding this tome, is that THERE ARE NO REFERENCES. You can sugar coat it all you wish. They aren't there. The Edinburgh version (for all I know, a copy of Migne's Patrologie) is guilty of the same nonsense. A source, is not a second hand version of a third hand copy of somebody's hand me down.

WHICH SOURCES are these guys using to proclaim this or that about what Origen wrote, regarding ANYTHING? Who was Celsus? What did he write? Where is Celsus' text? We don't have it. No one has it. It does not exist. Writing this that or the other, about Celsus, without having Celsus there before us, is nonsense.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2863
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Book to add to ECW book links page

Post by DCHindley » Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:39 pm

Great Scholar,

I still do not understand what you are objecting to. Waite is clearly making use of critical texts as well as popular English translations. The ones he used were the ones he had access to and/or felt most folks could also access. Roberts, Donaldson and Coxe (the US editor you could not remember the name of) say exactly what sources the translations were made from.

So, are you actually saying you don't trust ANY source for early Christianity? Join the club! Tendentious as they may be, many (maybe even most) folks think something useful can be gleaned from the about the history and development early Christianity. Waving it all away as unimportant makes no sense to me. People who do believe that stuff is 100% true are the ones who control the institutions that govern western society. There will always be idiots who despise everyone they do not understand (Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Homosexuals, Asians, Caucasians, Catholics, Protestants, Atheists, etc.). Help them understand, which make them tolerant, rather than give them good reason to hate you even more.

DCH
bcedaifu wrote:
DCH wrote:Your unfamiliarity with these sources does not constitute a fault on the author's part.
:lol:

Thank you. I am laughing. Well, yes, I am perhaps, not a "gentleman".

yes, I am quite familiar with these "sources", both the Edinburgh and the USA 10 volume versions. I am also acquainted, briefly, with the editor (forgot his name now) of the USA version of these "sources", who, in his preface, castigates and ridicules the French version by Migne, "Patrologie", which contains Greek and Latin manuscripts, though, of uncertain provenance. I have not located within Migne's reference, the location of Migne's sources, either, though I am certain that it is NOT THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, nor the Biblioteq national, either.
http://www.bnf.fr/fr/acc/x.accueil.html.

The jurist, who authored this particular volume, subject matter of this thread on the forum, had been obliged, in my view, to acknowledge the origin of his "sources", i.e. the compendium translated by the two ministers in Edinburgh, because he had written in his preface, something about seeking to present to the USA a valuable reference source. If it were simply a travelogue, or brochure, I wouldn't object to his casual descriptions.

My complaint is that this judge has provided something like the content found at Kirby's site, without explaining that Kirby had taken the links to the originals posted at another site, (as that other site specifically mentions Kirby by name), as if Kirby had dug up the originals himself, when all Kirby had done, was to copy someone else's work.

My specific complaint, however, DCH, regarding this tome, is that THERE ARE NO REFERENCES. You can sugar coat it all you wish. They aren't there. The Edinburgh version (for all I know, a copy of Migne's Patrologie) is guilty of the same nonsense. A source, is not a second hand version of a third hand copy of somebody's hand me down.

WHICH SOURCES are these guys using to proclaim this or that about what Origen wrote, regarding ANYTHING? Who was Celsus? What did he write? Where is Celsus' text? We don't have it. No one has it. It does not exist. Writing this that or the other, about Celsus, without having Celsus there before us, is nonsense.

bcedaifu
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:40 am

Re: Book to add to ECW book links page

Post by bcedaifu » Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:50 pm

DCH wrote:I still do not understand what you are objecting to. Waite is clearly making use of critical texts as well as popular English translations.
Thanks for your comment, I will try to elaborate.

When you fleshed out the references from the first chapter, you noted, above, I believe, that Waite had relied upon the Edinburgh edition of the Ante Nicene Fathers, and/or the USA edition, edited, as you pointed out, by Coxe. What you have written as "critical texts", is the topic of my objection.

Which "critical texts" were used by any of those three editors/translators, and/or, by Migne, whose work, I believe, preceded theirs, and may have served as template for their efforts--I don't know, that's conjecture on my part, and may be completely wrong. Point is: I DON'T know, which Greek sources any of those fellows used. Do you?

I do not share your opinion, friend, that the Ante Nicene Fathers is a "critical text". It is not even an adequate SECONDARY source, let alone primary source.

Here's a legitimate secondary source, i.e. a believable copy of a compendium of earlier manuscripts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Washingtonianus

Since that manuscript had not yet been discovered, when the aforementioned authors created their "reference" works, it clearly had not been one of the items consulted, when Waite spent two years living in Washington DC, working on his manuscript.

My question, is, what WERE his "secondary" sources, or primary sources, if he had any? I suspect he had none, and was simply using the translations of Roberts and Donaldson. Maybe I am wrong about that. Maybe the Library of Congress, in that era, already possessed a copy of Migne's Patrologie. Maybe Waite was fluent in Greek. Maybe he read, with amusement, the introduction by Coxe. I don't know. I am simply surprised, by the lack of critical appraisal of the references used by all four men. Little can be accomplished, working only with lacunae, redactions, and interpolations. What sources were these four editors using, to create their handsome volumes of reference material--Migne, Roberts, Donaldson, and Coxe? Perhaps there exists a contemporary assessment of their work, which outlines exactly which "primary" or "secondary" sources each of these translators/editors used.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5422
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Book to add to ECW book links page

Post by Peter Kirby » Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:59 pm

David didn't praise this book or say that he supported its conclusions or methodology.

Is it flawed? I'd be surprised if it weren't. You've noticed that it's an old book. Good point.

Is there something you think we should be reading instead on this topic? That might actually be useful to know.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

bcedaifu
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:40 am

Re: Book to add to ECW book links page

Post by bcedaifu » Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:15 am

Peter Kirby wrote: David didn't praise this book or say that he supported its conclusions or methodology.
I apologize to the forum, and especially to David, if my comments appeared to suggest criticism of David's excellent posts on this thread. It was not then, and certainly is not now, my intention to criticize one of the best members of this forum.
Peter Kirby wrote: Is it flawed? I'd be surprised if it weren't. You've noticed that it's an old book. Good point.
"Good point"?
I do not know whether age of a book, is a good or a bad feature, but, I certainly did not offer such a suggestion in questioning the book's supposed appropriateness for the "ECW" links list. Your reply to my post is a discredit to the concept of a BC&H forum.
Peter Kirby wrote: Is there something you think we should be reading instead on this topic? That might actually be useful to know.
Really? You want to take me on? YOU? Are you joking? Maybe I have misunderstood your attempt at humor?

You seek to imply, (for benefit of those unable to comprehend what Kirby means in writing, "might actually be useful"), that my prior submissions on this topic, questioning the sources employed by Judge Waite, represent something NOT useful to know, in assessing the merits of this book for the "ECW" book links page. If you were simply writing casually, and intended a comment as a humorous rejoinder, then, I have misunderstood your insulting demeanor. I doubt that scenario, though, in reading through "spin's" list of expelled members of the forum. Apparently, your method of eliminating criticism, is to cut off the head, of those whose writing, merits your disapproval.

perseusomega9 introduced this thread, titled, "Book to add to ECW book links page"

Presumably, then, this is a topic which seeks to examine the merits of Charles B. Waite's book, which has been proposed as an addition to "ECW" book links page.

I acknowledge having no idea what the acronym, "ECW", means. I have ruled out Extreme Championship Wrestling, first of many entries at acronym finder.

I did not complain about the book's age, as you have improperly suggested, Kirby. There is no reason to suggest some other title, as perhaps more significant, or more useful, than Judge Waite's book, for that is not the question posed by this thread. The question is whether or not Waite's book is suitable to add to the mysterious ECW book links page.

This topic requires scrutiny of Waite's text, not the date of its publication. In glancing through the text, I noticed that there were not a few citations, corresponding to The Ante-Nicene Fathers of Roberts and Donaldson. I then pondered whether or not someone on this forum, may know the answer to my question, thus far, unanswered:

What were the sources used by Migne, Roberts, Donaldson and Coxe? My question may be regarded as offtopic, perhaps, (apologies if so), but my intention was to explore in more detail, the references supplied by Judge Waite, with a view towards impeaching his book, as one appropriate for the ECW list, unless that ECW acronym corresponds to Sparta, rather than Athens.

Huon
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Book to add to ECW book links page

Post by Huon » Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:39 am

The sources of Migne were books published from 1600 to 1750, from what I saw recently.

bcedaifu
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:40 am

Re: Book to add to ECW book links page

Post by bcedaifu » Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:23 am

Huon wrote:The sources of Migne were books published from 1600 to 1750, from what I saw recently.
Thanks, your reply is very welcome in a forum which yields a great deal of mud slinging, and only a modicum of instructive discourse.

Could we impose upon you, to elaborate? Where did you read this useful bit of information? Did that source of information specify the exact documents, and their locations? Are Migne's sources found, today, in the Bibliotheq Nationale?
http://www.bnf.fr/fr/acc/x.accueil.html

Almost none of the primary documents upon which we rely, today, had been available in that era. The Vatican possessed Codex Vaticanus, and Migne was a Catholic priest of considerable notoriety, so, I suppose that he may have been granted access to the original sources inside the Vatican. That was really the impetus behind my question, to learn whether or not Migne's sources, had been of superior quality, from our perspective, thereby disproving Coxe's claim of sloppiness and error by the Catholics.

Referring to the Codex Vaticanus:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-b.html
It was jealously guarded by the librarians of the Vatican, and practically inaccessible to competent scholars for most of the nineteenth century
Migne would have found perusal of its pages beneficial, in sorting out the patristic evidence, he summarized in his collection. Here's Roger's famous link:
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/patr ... a-pg-pdfs/

Post Reply