Stuart wrote: ↑
Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:20 pm
Nah, the symbols for the four Gospel writers developed probably in 4th or 5th century (any church father reference --which I don't think there are-- to this would suggest a later interpolation IMO). This is long after their production, and probably after their binding into a single volume. The zodiac is the likely source in this I agree. I am merely saying that the people were probably more familiar with the Egyptian and other art of this form than an obscure passage in Ezekiel, as the pictorial evidence is pretty much nil for the Ezekiel passage.
I am not sure what the point of this observation about Ezekiel is. Even if it is 100% true, it is still beyond reasonable dispute that the four symbols came directly from Ezekiel and Revelation, and not from Egyptian or even Babylonian mythology. I have no doubt that many/most would recognize something zodiacal and/or directional going on in these four symbols; yet Ezekiel and Revelation are
indeed the source of the four extant symbols, no matter how rare pictography based on the former might be.
Actually the NT in several references, and in particular Revelation is loaded of astrological symbols.
I agree with this. Neither it nor the rest of your post in any way impacts the simple textual fact that the four evangelical symbols match Ezekiel and Revelation perfectly and the other zodiacal references (Babylonian, Egyptian, and what have you) im
perfectly. Unless I am missing a source text which you are not sharing with the class, Ezekiel and Revelation are the source.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑
Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:26 pm
Nah, the symbols for the four Gospel writers developed probably in 4th or 5th century (any church father reference --which I don't think there are-- to this would suggest a later interpolation IMO).
This kind of argument is no different than 'I believe it because I believe it.' The difficulty with arguing that it came to be in the 4th or 5th century and Irenaeus's reference to the gospel writers = Ezekiel 'living creatures' IS THAT HE GETS IT 'WRONG' when compared with the normative understanding that emerges later. Matthew is the 'man' and Mark the 'eagle' (as opposed to the lion) etc. It is simply silly to argue that in an age where the Church = the state that all this variation and 'sorting out' was still taking place. But that's nothing in the face of understanding how Epiphanius and Eusebius could be citing Irenaeus in the fourth century ... if his writings came after at least Eusebius.
Victorinus has the same arrangement as Irenaeus, though he lists them in the order J-M-L-K (K = Mark) instead of Irenaeus' J-L-M-K. Both agree that John is the lion, Matthew the human, Luke the calf, and Mark the eagle.
Augustine specifically mentions this arrangement and says it makes less sense than his own preferred option, Matthew being the lion, Mark the human, and John the eagle.
Jerome has Matthew as the human, Mark as the lion, Luke as the calf, and John as the eagle.
I thought that everybody agreed that Luke was the calf, but not pseudo-Athanasius, who has Matthew as the human, Mark as the calf, Luke as the lion, and John as the eagle.
I have not looked up Gregory's treatment or any of the others.