Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter Kirby wrote:The names you could use for this approach include:

Justin Martyr
Irenaeus
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
Origen
Cyprian
Eusebius

These seven authors can provide, epistemically, the foundation of the investigation of ante-Nicene Christianity.

I have been wondering why the so-called "genuine Pauline epistles" don't satisfy the "large corpora that we can tie to individual authors" criteria that you referred to in your initial response.

Thanks Peter

Peter Kirby wrote: Why are you "grouping" any of them?

What does this grouping have to do with the epistemic foundation of investigation into ancient Christianity?

Because the current information about the works attributed to those people suggests strong relationships within those groups, and it might lead to determining of development of ideas or changing ideas, over time, within those groups.

Could Eusebius or Pamphilius have redacted works of Origen?

andrewcriddle wrote:

gmx wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:The evidence for ancient Christianity comes in two flavors: literary and documentary. That's it. You've got your books and you got your relics. That's what we go by.

For the second century, it's almost entirely books.......

Thank you for your extremely informative and relevant reply.

seconded

Andrew Criddle

Thirded. Back when I was collecting info on Christian inscriptions, somehow I missed Abercius.

I still am not completely sure what to do with instances of "Chrestiani."

And Peter, can we start allegorizing your list of seven now?

gmx wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:The names you could use for this approach include:

Justin Martyr
Irenaeus
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
Origen
Cyprian
Eusebius

These seven authors can provide, epistemically, the foundation of the investigation of ante-Nicene Christianity.

I have been wondering why the so-called "genuine Pauline epistles" don't satisfy the "large corpora that we can tie to individual authors" criteria that you referred to in your initial response.

As a corpus, it is much shorter. That's the reason (for me anyway). This makes the arguments about their unity more difficult to make (especially on the level of the individual letters but also as a whole). Plus there are loads of reasons for them to be forged and manipulated (being authoritative texts and all). They may belong to a "second tier" along with a dozen or more others, but I doubt that; they'd more likely be in some kind of third tier, if anything.

MrMacSon wrote:Thanks Peter

Peter Kirby wrote: Why are you "grouping" any of them?

What does this grouping have to do with the epistemic foundation of investigation into ancient Christianity?

Because the current information about the works attributed to those people suggests strong relationships within those groups, and it might lead to determining of development of ideas or changing ideas, over time, within those groups.

Maybe. But that's a different kind of thing. Tertullian and Cyprian may have some similarities as authors. But their bodies of work stand on their own two feet when they are being treated as potential evidence concerning ante-Nicene Christianity. They are not interdependent as evidence, even if there are always historical connections between one thing/person and other things/people.

MrMacSon wrote:Could Eusebius or Pamphilius have redacted works of Origen?

The question is a little misleading, given the general answer. The general answer is not particular to Origen, Eusebius, or Pamphilius. Without the originals, it is possible that the particular parts of these works have been 'redacted'--added to, changed, or reduced. What we know securely is that the work itself belongs to a single author, but the text-critical problems (such as they are) don't go away just because we know that.

There also may be particular evidence for the involvement of Eusebius in the redaction of Origen (don't recall where off-hand)--Origen's works certainly have received some redaction, as is part of our knowledge based on the historical record regarding the reception of Origen's works.

Cheers, Peter. You're comments help contextualize a number of things.

I agree that Tertullian and Cyprian "are not interdependent as evidence", but I had assumed Cyprian might be more dependent on Tertullian by way of locality and chronology (Cyprian following Tertullian) As I had for the other grouping I proposed.

Your point about "our knowledge [being] based on the historical record regarding the reception of Origen's works" is a good wider one.

Regards.

Peter Kirby wrote:

gmx wrote:I have been wondering why the so-called "genuine Pauline epistles" don't satisfy the "large corpora that we can tie to individual authors" criteria that you referred to in your initial response.

As a corpus, it is much shorter. That's the reason (for me anyway). This makes the arguments about their unity more difficult to make (especially on the level of the individual letters but also as a whole). Plus there are loads of reasons for them to be forged and manipulated (being authoritative texts and all). They may belong to a "second tier" along with a dozen or more others, but I doubt that; they'd more likely be in some kind of third tier, if anything.

Firstly, it is interesting that one of the key criteria appears to be whether the texts in question came to be seen as "authoritative".
Secondly, how much more likely is it that the "genuine" Pauline epistles could be forged by the ancient church as could the works of Justin Martyr or Irenaeus?

gmx wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:

gmx wrote:I have been wondering why the so-called "genuine Pauline epistles" don't satisfy the "large corpora that we can tie to individual authors" criteria that you referred to in your initial response.

As a corpus, it is much shorter. That's the reason (for me anyway). This makes the arguments about their unity more difficult to make (especially on the level of the individual letters but also as a whole). Plus there are loads of reasons for them to be forged and manipulated (being authoritative texts and all). They may belong to a "second tier" along with a dozen or more others, but I doubt that; they'd more likely be in some kind of third tier, if anything.

Firstly, it is interesting that one of the key criteria appears to be whether the texts in question came to be seen as "authoritative".
Secondly, how much more likely is it that the "genuine" Pauline epistles could be forged by the ancient church as could the works of Justin Martyr or Irenaeus?

The Pauline epistles don't meet the same kind of criteria that would qualify them as a highly-authenticated body of work from a single author.

But that doesn't say much about exactly how likely they are to be forged ... the absence of some kind of strong evidence doesn't answer that question.

Regarding the difficulties of "authoritative" texts, where the original is not available, it is a big problem text-critically. The motivation to alter or harmonize the text (from good intentions or not) was very high. This goes without saying when the Qu'ran is the topic, instead of the New Testament.

One limit on our written sources are the Decian, Valarian persecution in the mid-3rd century and the devastating great persecution of Diocletian at the start of the 4th century. I have grave doubts about the validity of any prior persecutions, but the Decian/Valarian era we have Roman records of items confiscated from Christian properties, and it included the seizure of books, as well as buildings, silverware, alters, maybe even slaves (the papyri say no slaves were confiscated at such and such a place, but its curious that they are mentioned as an item to be confiscated). This no doubt meant many -probably most- of the manuscripts were lost. So in the last decades of the 3rd century a new wave of manuscripts probably were written. But then the even more destructive Diocletian persecution which burned many works. This means a second starting over with writings happened after this event.

This had to have an impact on the surviving works, both of the New Testament and also the writings of the ante Nicene church fathers. I have always had grave doubts about the work attributed to Irenaeus because there are major inconsistencies in the style and source. If the works were later, even 3rd century, certain elements are more easily explained. I tend to think AH is a composite work. Clement and Tertullian seem more solid to me, but we already date them in Severus' reign. Justin I accept before Irenaeus, but if I'm right about Irenaeus being later, then we cannot safely keep Justin's work at the beginning of Marcus Aurelius' reign, it could be significantly later than that. What I am trying to say is we need to recognize we have a relative dating relationship going on, and we cannot easily accept the internal date references any more that we can accept the internal claims of Petrine, Pauline or other NT authorship; these could be fictions of later hands.

(I have reason to good accept Tertullian's Severus dating, because it is built in as parallels to his criticism of Marcion, using dynastic date parallels for irony in multiple places.)

Anyway, this is an excellent point, that we really lack solid references before the literature, and the literature itself only safely brings us to just before the middle of the 2nd century. We are blind before that. This does not help us resolve the fictional or historical questions of the characters. This is why I refuse to consider anything about the pre-Bar Kokhba form of Christianity. We simply have nothing to work on. It is also why I refuse to speculate on the Historical or Mythical roots. I prefer more concrete speculation, things I can reach from solid foundation.

That the literature is genre period piece stuff doesn't help. Somebody could write a complete fiction about Abraham Lincoln (I know there is one TV series about him as a Vampire hunter ... OK, weird), but he would still have been a real historical person. We have the same problem with Paul and everyone else in the NT. Every word put in Pilate's mouth is a fiction, but he seems to have been a real person. But other characters are almost certainly entirely fiction. And all we can determine nothing about. It's a swamp and I don't want to wade into it.

OK, that was my incoherent rambling statement of purpose for the night. It's completely rhetorical. Not sure why I shared it. Yes I do, I'm putting off doing the dishes.

Stuart, I like your points and I'm curious to know - possibly in a complete future 'official' post from your blog - all your precise reasons why, assuming as evidence of background all your dating of leterature (especially the origin in II CE of paulania), you don't apply the strong argument by silence on the forged pauline epistles about a Gospel Jesus at the same way of prof Robert Price (that moves the epistles in II CE, too). I remember a quote of mythicist George Brandes that more or less says that the epistles - totally beyond of their origin and date - show a complete ignorance of a hj.