Irenaeus and the Gospels

[Confused]

I tried to get this across on another thread I started about the validity of the Gospels, and didn't get many valid arguments, so I am going to try this again, this time with a lot more information.

In 1945 the Nag Hammada gnostic writings were discovered. Some of the writings are anonymous such as the Gospel of truth, while others were allegedly written by Jesus closest followers, including the Gospel of Phillip, the Gospel of Thomas (which consists of 114 sayings of Jesus, many previously unknown), the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and the Gospel of Judas. In some cases, such as with the Gospel of Judas, though the most oldest copy we have is dated ~280 AD, we know that it existed at least 100 years before because Irenaeus, the famous heresy hunter, mentions it in his 5 volume work that attacked heretics (Gospel of Judas by Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, and Gegor Wurst: 2006).

Of interest to this thread is the gnostic component to these "heretical" texts. The Gospel of Judas actually claims that there are many Gods and the one who created this world is actually a lesser God. He back this up with references to how Christ laughed at his disciples as they prayed over their meal, and the fact that Christ specifically tells His disciples that "none in their generation will know who He really is".

The Hypothesis the Gospel of Judas seems to lay out is that some men are born with a divineness within them and some aren't. Those who aren't will simply cease to exist once they die, those who are will ascend to the level of the true Gods. Those with the divinity need only shed the skin of their weaker God (ie human form) to transcend. Jesus came to earth from the realm of Barbelo to reveal secret mysteries that could bring salvation.

The questions for debate:
1) Why do we give more credit to Gospels and books found in the bible today considering the obvious bias that went into creating them? We claim that it is because we know that those in the bible are "proven" to be written close to the time of Christ, but we don't really know who wrote them. Was Mark the only true author and Matthew and Luke just expanded on it? Or did the church write what they wanted written, then include them in their book to make their institution look favorable? As shown with the Gospel of Judas, we know it existed at least as early as 180 AD, but we don't know how many times it had been written before and rewritten. And since Irenaeus himself makes reference to it, we can at least assume it wasn't that late that it was written.
2) If the Gospels mentioned here are so false and inflammatory, then why did Irenaeus find it so crucial to condemn them.
3) If there was no validity whatsoever to these Gospels, then why did Irenaeus mention them and even make up a civilization that was false to discredit them? I am directly referring to Irenaeus Of Lyon, in Against Heresies advocating of Cain, the wicked brother of Abel, composing some such as the Gospel of Judas, calling themselves "Cainites" when aside from his accusations, there is no historical evidence that any group in early Christianity referred to themselves as such. Nor is Cain even mentioned in the Gospels.

[Confused]

Easyrider: to start with let me address the simplest of your post:

One more thing: The so-called "Gospel of Thomas" says you have to become a man before you can be saved. Are you buying into that one too?

How can you be saved if you aren't man. If your aren't man then you may not be inherently sinful, such as man is. So while you read that as apples, I read it as oranges and say that yea, one must become man to be saved, otherwise one doesn't exist.

It isn't about being "mankind," but gender. Here's what pseudo Thomas wrote:

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

That's not what Jesus taught.

Sure, people can and should be able to record the events of Jesus. I don't deny that right. People obviously can and did. But the problem I have with it and the reason I used the word "biased" is because the church was the one who decided what was true about Christ and what wasnt'.

They weren't the church when they recognized and wrote about the truth. They were mere disciples / Apostles. They were (apart from Jesus) the later founders of the church.

They included only 2 Gospels that were "written by disciples" and 2 that were dictated by companions of 2 of the disciples that happen to conveniently show favorably about Christ. What of His other 8 disciples? Were they illiterate or unable to record their testimony for some odd reason?

Who knows? Would you believe then? OR still question?

Consider: Mark- the assumed first recorded Gospel was written ~70 AD. That would make him what? About 90? Since the Gospel never actually gives his age, I am using the age of 20, but even if I used the age of 10, he would have been 80 years old. Now, for the elite to live past 60 during that time period was considered old. Mark was but a peasant. Yet he could live until at least the age of 80? Does that not strike you as a bit odd?

Here's some dating by scholars:

James M. Efird, Ph.D. AD 65 to 70
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. AD 66 or 67
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. AD 60 to 70
Robert A. Guelich, Ph.D. AD 67 to 70
William Hendriksen, Ph.D. AD 40 to 65, with the earlier date favored.
Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. AD 70
Craig S. Keener, Ph.D. AD 64
Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. AD 70
William L. Lane, Th.D. AD 60 to 70
Bruce Metzger, Ph.D. AD 65 to 75
M.S. Mills, Ph.D. AD 68
N. Perrin, Ph.D. after AD 64/65
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by AD 62
Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. AD 65 to 70
Carsten Peter Thiede, Ph.D. Before AD 62 Director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany
Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. AD 60 to 70
Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. AD 70 AD
J. Wenham, Ph.D. AD 45
Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. AD 65 to 70

If Mark was born around 5 AD he would only have been 40 according to some scholars. Or 50-60 to others. Certainly not an unreasonable age.

Now Luke: Why write two separate books? One the Gospel of Luke and one the Book of Acts? Both are addressed to the same person. Why not just keep them together?

I don't know. He learned more later on and though it was noteworthy. Why is that a problem?

Let me ask you this, do you think that the books included in the bible were hand picked? Do you believe that some were rejected for reasons other than credibility? Do you deny that "Heresy Hunters" such as Irenaeus had a sole mission, to search for anyone who spoke against what the church (which may have been corrupt by then) and either get them to convert or kill them (which was usually the case) and to obtain any written documents that directly conflicted with the NT to be destroyed?

Would I be more convinced had all 12 of His disciples written their own testaments as it was occurring? Do I really need to answer that? Yes, I would. Because it would be a direct reflection of what each of them witnessed, and each would correlate with each other. Why is it a problem that Luke wrote two different books? He was suppose to be writing of the life of Christ, as Christ lived it. Not what he heard later on. Not what he interpreted later on. But what he witnessed. If you didn't witness it, you can't give true testimony as to the accuracy of it. We call it hearsay.

[Goat]

Would I be more convinced had all 12 of His disciples written their own testaments as it was occurring? Do I really need to answer that? Yes, I would. Because it would be a direct reflection of what each of them witnessed, and each would correlate with each other. Why is it a problem that Luke wrote two different books? He was suppose to be writing of the life of Christ, as Christ lived it. Not what he heard later on. Not what he interpreted later on. But what he witnessed. If you didn't witness it, you can't give true testimony as to the accuracy of it. We call it hearsay.

Even Luke does not claim he was an eyewitness.

He said he is writing things recordign things that have been written before, and whom he assumed were eye witnesses.

1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

[Confused]

Would I be more convinced had all 12 of His disciples written their own testaments as it was occurring? Do I really need to answer that? Yes, I would. Because it would be a direct reflection of what each of them witnessed, and each would correlate with each other. Why is it a problem that Luke wrote two different books? He was suppose to be writing of the life of Christ, as Christ lived it. Not what he heard later on. Not what he interpreted later on. But what he witnessed. If you didn't witness it, you can't give true testimony as to the accuracy of it. We call it hearsay.

Even Luke does not claim he was an eyewitness.

He said he is writing things recordign things that have been written before, and whom he assumed were eye witnesses.

1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

So why can we apply so much weight to the books of the NT but disregard those outside of it that were banned as being heresy. Considering how much the early church abused its power, excommunicated people, tortured and killed people, for verbalizing differences or retaining writings that conflicted their approved scripture, I would think that if anyone actually risked their lives to retain these writings, they warrant some weight.

[Goat]

Would I be more convinced had all 12 of His disciples written their own testaments as it was occurring? Do I really need to answer that? Yes, I would. Because it would be a direct reflection of what each of them witnessed, and each would correlate with each other. Why is it a problem that Luke wrote two different books? He was suppose to be writing of the life of Christ, as Christ lived it. Not what he heard later on. Not what he interpreted later on. But what he witnessed. If you didn't witness it, you can't give true testimony as to the accuracy of it. We call it hearsay.

Even Luke does not claim he was an eyewitness.

He said he is writing things recordign things that have been written before, and whom he assumed were eye witnesses.

1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

So why can we apply so much weight to the books of the NT but disregard those outside of it that were banned as being heresy. Considering how much the early church abused its power, excommunicated people, tortured and killed people, for verbalizing differences or retaining writings that conflicted their approved scripture, I would think that if anyone actually risked their lives to retain these writings, they warrant some weight.

That is a very good question. Another good question to ask is why are so many of the early books pseudographical, and how come so there are so many early forgeries, such as the Letter of Pontious Pilate, and the interpolition of Antiquites 18.

[Confused]

Would I be more convinced had all 12 of His disciples written their own testaments as it was occurring? Do I really need to answer that? Yes, I would. Because it would be a direct reflection of what each of them witnessed, and each would correlate with each other. Why is it a problem that Luke wrote two different books? He was suppose to be writing of the life of Christ, as Christ lived it. Not what he heard later on. Not what he interpreted later on. But what he witnessed. If you didn't witness it, you can't give true testimony as to the accuracy of it. We call it hearsay.

Even Luke does not claim he was an eyewitness.

He said he is writing things recordign things that have been written before, and whom he assumed were eye witnesses.

1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

So why can we apply so much weight to the books of the NT but disregard those outside of it that were banned as being heresy. Considering how much the early church abused its power, excommunicated people, tortured and killed people, for verbalizing differences or retaining writings that conflicted their approved scripture, I would think that if anyone actually risked their lives to retain these writings, they warrant some weight.

That is a very good question. Another good question to ask is why are so many of the early books pseudographical, and how come so there are so many early forgeries, such as the Letter of Pontious Pilate, and the interpolition of Antiquites 18.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the mentionings of Christ in Josephus were actually added later on based on the format of the passages and the fact that they are so out of place. I think the two mentionings of Christ were actually not by Josephus at all. But I can't recall where I heard this.

[Goat]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the mentionings of Christ in Josephus were actually added later on based on the format of the passages and the fact that they are so out of place. I think the two mentionings of Christ were actually not by Josephus at all. But I can't recall where I heard this.

The first one 'Testemoniam Flavium" is antiquites 18, and in addition to it being out of place, it is 'too Christian'. I think most of even the very most concervative scholars will admit that it is at least modified... with no mentioned about it from before the 4th century at all.

The other one is "james, the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ" in Antiquites 20. This too is a bit out of place, but harder to reject all togather. There is some arguement that it could be a copiers gloss.

The first one was an intentional forgery.. the second one could be what is called a 'marginal gloss', where some ones notes in the margins got inserted into the text.

Earl Doherty makes a case for it being a marginal gloss in "the Jesus Puzzle". I don't think we will know for sure unless someday we find an early second century copy of antiquies 20.

[Confused]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the mentionings of Christ in Josephus were actually added later on based on the format of the passages and the fact that they are so out of place. I think the two mentionings of Christ were actually not by Josephus at all. But I can't recall where I heard this.

The first one 'Testemoniam Flavium" is antiquites 18, and in addition to it being out of place, it is 'too Christian'. I think most of even the very most concervative scholars will admit that it is at least modified... with no mentioned about it from before the 4th century at all.

The other one is "james, the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ" in Antiquites 20. This too is a bit out of place, but harder to reject all togather. There is some arguement that it could be a copiers gloss.

The first one was an intentional forgery.. the second one could be what is called a 'marginal gloss', where some ones notes in the margins got inserted into the text.

Earl Doherty makes a case for it being a marginal gloss in "the Jesus Puzzle". I don't think we will know for sure unless someday we find an early second century copy of antiquies 20.

Now I recall. The first was easily dismissed, while the second most scholars agree that Josephus may have mentioned someone name James, the brother of Jesus was probably authentic, but the addition of "the one called Christ" was added later because the style of writing and wording didn't fit. Thanks

[The Nice Centurion]

The questions for debate:
1) Why do we give more credit to Gospels and books found in the bible today considering the obvious bias that went into creating them?

What bias are you talking about? Can't people who knew Jesus and the events of his life, death, and resurrection record those facts without being superficially labeled as biased?

We claim that it is because we know that those in the bible are "proven" to be written close to the time of Christ, but we don't really know who wrote them.

Only if you completely ignore a great deal of traditional evidence can you make that statement. For instance, on Matthew's authorship:

The second-century writer Papias shares the following concerning Matthew: Matthew made an arrangement of the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each translated them as he was able...

Were you familiar with Eusebius (who quotes Origen), you would know that "the first (Gospel) was written by Matthew...and was prepared for the converts from Judaism" (Ecclesiastical History, 6:25). There is also additional evidence that it was originally written in Hebrew. Eusebius quotes Papias as stating, “"Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." Irenaeus wrote, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

In addition, many of the disciples / Jewish converts had migrated to Antioch (in Syria) - Acts 11:19-27 - which is where many believe Matthew wrote his Gospel. So, according to the best information available, Matthew was written in a time prior to Luke, in a different language, to a different audience, and in a locale far less susceptible to Roman persecution.

Irenaeus testified on the authority of Polycarp (John's disciple) that John wrote the Gospel that bears his name while he was at Ephesus. Clement of Alexandria also confirmed John's authorship. In 2 Peter, Peter himself is identified as the author (3:1) who also wrote the first epistle (3:1). The first epistle idenfies Peter as the author (1:1). The author of 1st Peter identifies himself to be an eyewitness to Christ and his suffering (5:1). We also know that Mark was a close associate and interpreter for Peter (i.e. Papias and Irenaeus) who wrote Mark based on Peter's personal accounts. So, although there will always be skeptics such as yourself, the evidence seems pretty clear to me.

Now let's look at Mark:

Mark Authorship

Direct testimony that Mark authored the Gospel that bears his name. Between 110 and 130 AD, the following statement was recorded by Papias, whose words are passed on to us by the church historian Eusebius:

“Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings'; consequently, Mark, writing down some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing - not to omit anything of the things he heard or to falsify anything in them.”

Papias--Asia Minor, circa 125 AD--(quoted by Eusebius., HE, III, 39): "And this also the elder said: Mark, having become the interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, wrote accurately what he remembered (or recorded) of the things said or done by Christ, but not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but afterward, as I said (he attached himself to) Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the needs (of his hearers), but not as composing an orderly account (suntaxin) of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them: for he took thought for one thing not to omit any of the things he had heard nor to falsify anything in them."
Justin Martyr--Palestine and the West, circa 150 AD--(In Dial. with Trypho, cvi, Migne ed.): "And when it is said that He imposed on one of the apostles the name Peter, and when this is recorded in his 'Memoirs' with this other fact that He named the two sons of Zebedee 'Boanerges,' which means 'Sons of Thunder,' " etc.

Irenaeus --Asia Minor and Gaul, circa 175 AD--(Adv. Haer., iii. 1, quoted in part Eus., HE, V, 8): "After the apostles were clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit and fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization, they went out ("exierunt," in Rufinus' translation) to the ends of the earth preaching the gospel. Matthew went eastward to those of Hebrew descent and preached to them in their own tongue, in which language he also (had?) published a writing of the gospel, while Peter and Paul went westward and preached and founded the church in Rome. But after the departure (exodon. "exitum" in Rufinus) of the, Mark, the disciple and interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, even he has delivered to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter."

Clement of Alexandria --circa 200 AD--(Hypotyp. in Eus., HE, VI, 14): "The occasion for writing the Gospel according to Mark was as follows: After Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present entreated Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what he said, to write down what he had spoken, and Mark, after composing the Gospel, presented it to his petitioners. When Peter became aware of it he neither eagerly hindered nor promoted it."

Tertullian--North Africa, circa 207 AD--(Adv. Marc., iv. 5): He speaks of the authority of the four Gospels, two by apostles and two by companions of apostles, "not excluding that which was published by Mark, for it may be ascribed to Peter, whose interpreter Mark was."

Origen--Alexandria and the East, c 240 AD--("Comm. on Mt" quoted in Eus., HE, VI, 25): "The second is that according to Mark who composed it, under the guidance of Peter (hos Petros huphegesato auto), who therefore, in his Catholic (universal) epistle, acknowledged the evangelist as his son."

Eusebius--Caesarea, circa 325 AD--(Dem. Evang., III, 5): "Though Peter did not undertake, through excess of diffidence, to write a Gospel, yet it had all along been currency reported, that Mark, who had become his familiar acquaintance and attendant (gnorimes kat phoitetes) made memoirs of (or recorded, apomnemoeusai) the discourses of Peter concerning the doings of Jesus." "Mark indeed writes this, but it is Peter who so testifies about himself, for all that is in Mark are memoirs (or records) of the discourses of Peter."

Epiphanius --Cyprus, circa 350 AD--(Haer., 41): "But immediately after Matthew, Mark, having become a follower (akolouthos) of the holy Peter in Rome, is entrusted in the putting forth of a gospel. Having completed his work, he was sent by the holy Peter into the country of the Egyptians."

Jerome--East and West, circa 350 AD--(De vir. illustr., viii): "Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, at the request of the brethren in Rome, wrote a brief Gospel in accordance with what he had heard Peter narrating. When Peter heard it he approved and authorized it to be read in the churches."
Also xi: "Accordingly he had Titus as interpreter just as the blessed Peter had Mark whose Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing."

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseact ... BE/ID/5808

You just don't have the wealth of confirmations for your "Gnostic" Gospels that you do for the Biblical Gospels.

One more thing: The so-called "Gospel of Thomas" says you have to become a man before you can be saved. Are you buying into that one too?

I remember reading about a christian child porn site brought online especially by christians for christians.
It legitimated itself with a certain bible verese that states that "with seven years age a boy becomes a man".
Therefore by their christian faith it was OK to rape a little boy from his seventh birthday on forward.

They had christian advice for visitors of the site too, like:
"Always remember that the little boys on our site are little angels"

[The Nice Centurion]

Both Islam and Mormon Doctrine see the bible as to have been adulterated.

Therefore both, Quran and Joseph Smith Bible (Inspired Version), though the biggest mormon sect LDS try to hide it under theit beds so to better get accepted by mainsream christianity (in USA thats the evangelical churches) claim to be the real thingies.

Though no neutral bible scholar can deny that the adulteration of the bible throughout the times really took place, christians once again have little choice than to deny that with hands and feet.

Cerinthus, Johns greatest enemy wrote possibly his gospel for him? No christian can have that.

And Gospel of John is a flagship when itcomes to adulterated bible texts.