Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The writings are the witnesses/attestations.

Even for your netball theory the writings of the Church Fathers attest to the literary purpose of the gospel and the identity of early Christianity. According to your theory Irenaeus and company ARE the only Church KNOW the only meaning of the gospel. Unless you hold that the gospel and the writings of the Church Fathers WERE CONCEIVED as meaningless gobbledygook by the fourth century forgers.

Assuming you are consistent with your own nonsense (a) a forged 4th century gospel HAS/HAD a literary purpose and (b) the same forgers wrote the writings of the Church Fathers KNOWING that literary purpose and thus the Church Fathers correctly identify and expound the proper exegesis of the New Testament writings.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 11:18 am

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 4:39 am

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 12:41 pm If the Church Fathers are our only source of information about early Christianity why do so many here arguing for another understanding of Christianity which is TOTALLY DIVORCED from the Church Fathers? Is that even likely?

A possibly relevant "response" from Mario Liverani . . . .

Laziness is common among historians ...

• Liverani, Mario. Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2007. p. 28

So if we have (a) the 'laziness' of those who take 2nd and 3rd century eyewitnesses over (b) hypothetic reconstructions of history based on eisegesis who is reasonably going to prefer (b)?

Why such a binary? Your "b" is not the necessary and only alternative to the "a" that Liverani was saying is the problem. Was Liverani setting aside ancient texts in order to replace them with "hypothetical eisegesis"?

After the first few Ecumenical Councils everything was settled and the truth was resolved, so there is no need to look beyond these plus the Canonical texts. Reading non-Canonical tests, and/or questioning the decisions of these councils will result in burning in hell. There can be no arguing against the Church Fathers.

Was Liverani setting aside ancient texts in order to replace them with "hypothetical eisegesis"?

I responded to what you cited. This forum has always been about avoiding "war by hyperlink." We respond to what is said by the original poster not the point or argument buried in a hundred plus page tome.

As I said virtually the only light that is received from antiquity is that which comes from the Church Fathers.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 4:51 pm

Was Liverani setting aside ancient texts in order to replace them with "hypothetical eisegesis"?

I responded to what you cited. This forum has always been about avoiding "war by hyperlink." We respond to what is said by the original poster not the point or argument buried in a hundred plus page tome.

As I said virtually the only light that is received from antiquity is that which comes from the Church Fathers.

The original poster wrote:

Laziness is common among historians. When they find a continuous account of events for a certain period in an ‘ancient’ source, one that is not necessarily contemporaneous with the events, they readily adopt it. They limit their work to paraphrasing the source, or, if needed, to rationalisation.

You only quoted and responded to

Mario Liverani wrote:
Laziness is common among historians.

and posed a false dichotomy that bypassed what the original poster wrote.

I see. So what beyond the written testimonies of antiquity is available for us to help reconstruct early Christianity? Let's keep it a conversation between board participants.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:30 pm I see. So what beyond the written testimonies of antiquity is available for us to help reconstruct early Christianity? Let's keep it a conversation between board participants.

I've already made the only point I wished to make at some point way back in this thread. So your "let's keep it a conversation between board participants" and asking for I must seem to think are "written testimonies beyond" tells me you don't see.

I was trying to simply point out that a paraphrase or straightforward reading of a source is not necessarily the best use a historical researcher can make of a source. A second century source can only tell us what someone wanted to write in the second century. It is not a given that the author was in touch with "the real sources" of Christian origins. Where their ideas originated and why they were understood in a certain way are not easy to decipher. It requires more than a straightforward reading of the text.

But I made my comment before I was aware that the point you are debating is the fourth century origin of Christianity. I am not interested in participating in that debate. But what I said stands: one needs to break through a "naive reading" of sources in order to make them reveal more of what they "know" than they thought they were revealing. And maybe even those sources know nothing more than myths. But how can we know? And what might that tell us about origins if it is the case? Those are the sorts of questions I think are necessary to apply -- I think your mileage differs.

So again. I am saying that the Church Fathers:

1. are 'early Christianity' (because they received a tradition and faithfully preserved it from those that founded Christianity)
2. know or report on the earliest Christian tradition(s) (in their reports on the heresies).
3. know those who know the earliest Christian tradition(s) (in other words Marcion or any of the others are a step removed from 'earliest Christianity'

Without regurgitating distractive nonsense please comment on this. Not some straw man you might create for me to demonstrate your erudition.