Then what Bibles (compilation of OT n NT "books") did you mean that were in "circulation"?
Arianism again ...
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
No, I was asking if you thought there were significant differences between scriptural texts in use across the empire, in reference to your post 54.
"and was the first to talk about 4 Gospels, and not all parts of the Empire used the same texts.
..so we end up arguing about "an official Bible canon" that originated in the West, and not the East."
From the early lists we can be sure the basic canon, 4 gospels, Pauline letters, etc., were in use across the empire.
OK. But we have no reason to suppose the texts were significantly different.
We don't know what the 50 bibles Constantine wanted made for the council contain, nor are we sure they were ever produced. Either way, Constantine had no input on what books were included.
muhammad_isa
Save Our Souls
Yes, I see.
As I say, the Empire was vast, and communications slow relative to today.
The "accepted" texts would have been unified slowly through the church hierarchy.
..but if I continue along those lines, we approach the dreaded "Arianism again".
Well they obviously were .. it is all a matter of when and how.
We know that Origen commented on the Gospel of John [GoJ], but that doesn't mean that it was in constant use in his
locality necessarily.
Well, if you had "dipped in" to the essay I referenced, you would see that the first mention of GoJ was
by "heretical documents"..
To think that John was heavily used by the proto-orthodox and yet remained uncommented upon
until the time of Irenaeus is not an easy idea to accept without question.
..post #52
OK
muhammad_isa
Save Our Souls
I saw that bit. The fact that GoJ was used by heterodox Christians, as was Matthew, by the way, shows how it had spread. Also citations show no significant changes, rather that the text was pretty constant.
Claiming? I am asking YOU, what bibles YOU were referring.
To clarify, as this debate has become rather diverse – your comments in blue.
Hmm .. more like the beginning of persecution by trinitarians against others.
All sides in the disputes were Trinitarian. Subordinationists were Trinitarian.
so we see that Arians did not pronounce any particular creed as “the state religion”
Anachronism. Christianity was not a state religion until Theodosius in 381 – had a version of subordinationism emerged as the orthodox, then a subordinationist state religion would have ensued.
Now .. you say that “the church” determined what was believed. It doesn’t look that way to me..
The church determined the content of creeds.
You accuse non-trinitarians of polytheism,
All sides were Trinitarians. But subordinationist positions are harder to defend against the accusation of polytheism than the Nicene position.
Arians did not believe that “Jesus is God”.
Yes they did.
You seem to want to make it all about what they believed, whereas I am pointing out what they did NOT believe.
I am pointing out you’re wrong about what you think they did not believe.
... a philosophical piece of prose that forms the prologue in the Gospel of John.
The Prologue of John is Scripture, not philosophy – subordinationists regarded the Gospel of John as scripture.
This issue about eternity is just a distraction.
Arius believed Jesus was God. What he opposed was the eternity of the Son. It’s not a distraction, it’s the whole point of Arius' theology.
the Gospel of John originated in the west.
No, it’s origin was in the East. Ephasus, in Asia Minor (Turkey).
Claiming that Jesus is God, because he is “eternal” i.e. the only Son begotten “before all worlds”, is an opinion that was forced on others.
No, that was not disputed. That’s scriptural – it’s in Paul and Peter as well as John. Even Ariuis believed that.
It is no surprise that an “official Bible canon” only became a major issue in the 4th. and 5th. centuries. That is when major schism began .. Arian, ‘Church of the East’ and Oriental etc.
The canon was never an issue. Both sides argued from the same texts, they did not dispute the canon.
..and I doubt very much whether the Gospel of John would have been included in the Bible, if that was the case.
The Gospel of John was counted as canonical before these disputes, and no party rejected it.
..so we end up arguing about “an official Bible canon” that originated in the West, and not the East.
We have no reason to suppose the canon varied between east and west.
I’m not impressed by the way that Roman Emperors harnessed Christians.
I’m not impressed by their attempts to harness Christianity either – but they failed to do so, despite all their efforts – disputes continued after Theodosius declared Nicene Christianity the state religion..
Hmm .. more like the beginning of persecution by trinitarians against others.
All sides in the disputes were Trinitarian. Subordinationists were Trinitarian.
so we see that Arians did not pronounce any particular creed as “the state religion”
Anachronism. Christianity was not a state religion until Theodosius in 381 – had a version of subordinationism emerged as the orthodox, then a subordinationist state religion would have ensued.
Now .. you say that “the church” determined what was believed. It doesn’t look that way to me..
The church determined the content of creeds.
You accuse non-trinitarians of polytheism,
All sides were Trinitarians. But subordinationist positions are harder to defend against the accusation of polytheism than the Nicene position.
Arians did not believe that “Jesus is God”.
Yes they did.
You seem to want to make it all about what they believed, whereas I am pointing out what they did NOT believe.
I am pointing out you’re wrong about what you think they did not believe.
... a philosophical piece of prose that forms the prologue in the Gospel of John.
The Prologue of John is Scripture, not philosophy – subordinationists regarded the Gospel of John as scripture.
This issue about eternity is just a distraction.
Arius believed Jesus was God. What he opposed was the eternity of the Son. It’s not a distraction, it’s the whole point of Arius' theology.
the Gospel of John originated in the west.
No, it’s origin was in the East. Ephasus, in Asia Minor (Turkey).
Claiming that Jesus is God, because he is “eternal” i.e. the only Son begotten “before all worlds”, is an opinion that was forced on others.
No, that was not disputed. That’s scriptural – it’s in Paul and Peter as well as John. Even Ariuis believed that.
It is no surprise that an “official Bible canon” only became a major issue in the 4th. and 5th. centuries. That is when major schism began .. Arian, ‘Church of the East’ and Oriental etc.
The canon was never an issue. Both sides argued from the same texts, they did not dispute the canon.
..and I doubt very much whether the Gospel of John would have been included in the Bible, if that was the case.
The Gospel of John was counted as canonical before these disputes, and no party rejected it.
..so we end up arguing about “an official Bible canon” that originated in the West, and not the East.
We have no reason to suppose the canon varied between east and west.
I’m not impressed by the way that Roman Emperors harnessed Christians.
I’m not impressed by their attempts to harness Christianity either – but they failed to do so, despite all their efforts – disputes continued after Theodosius declared Nicene Christianity the state religion..
Quite a list of errors of assumption there, @muhammad_isa – but you will insist on changing the subject ...
If you want to discuss Origen, that's another thread.
And read wiki on Theodosius and the Edict of Thessalonica and its enforcement. Nowhere near as bloody as you suppose.
Re Priscillian –
"(he) was tried by a secular court on criminal charges that included sorcery, a capital offence. Priscillian was condemned with five companions and executed. Priscillian's execution is seen as the first example of secular justice intervening in an ecclesiastical matter and the first Christian killed by other Christians for heresy."
"Pope Siricius, Ambrose of Milan, and Martin of Tours protested against the execution, largely on the jurisdictional grounds that an ecclesiastical case should not be decided by a civil tribunal, and worked to reduce the persecution. Pope Siricius censured not only Ithacius but the emperor himself. On receiving information from Maximus, he excommunicated Ithacius and his associates."
If you want to discuss Origen, that's another thread.
And read wiki on Theodosius and the Edict of Thessalonica and its enforcement. Nowhere near as bloody as you suppose.
Re Priscillian –
"(he) was tried by a secular court on criminal charges that included sorcery, a capital offence. Priscillian was condemned with five companions and executed. Priscillian's execution is seen as the first example of secular justice intervening in an ecclesiastical matter and the first Christian killed by other Christians for heresy."
"Pope Siricius, Ambrose of Milan, and Martin of Tours protested against the execution, largely on the jurisdictional grounds that an ecclesiastical case should not be decided by a civil tribunal, and worked to reduce the persecution. Pope Siricius censured not only Ithacius but the emperor himself. On receiving information from Maximus, he excommunicated Ithacius and his associates."
muhammad_isa
Save Our Souls
That is a contradiction.
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
..
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..
- Gospel of John -
How can one believe that Jesus is God [the word made flesh] and is not eternal while believing that?
muhammad_isa
Save Our Souls
You can't prove that .. all you can do is show that certain scholars promoted it.
The Roman Empire was vast, with many, many scholars.
Naturally, if alternative texts from alternative scholars were suppressed, it would give the illusion
that the majority of scholars were in favour.
I see no contradiction
I don't believe that Jesus is not eternal. Who believes Jesus is not eternal?
muhammad_isa
Save Our Souls
You claim that Gospel of John was unanimously accepted by Arians, while believing that Jesus was not eternal.
That is a contradiction.
Well ... the Diatessaron c160–175AD is an early gospel harmony by Tatian (120-180AD), combining the four gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Therefore I would suggest that the four were in circulation well before 160-175, for him to bother – no reason to suppose John wasn't accepted.
I'm saying the Gospel of John was cited by Arians in defence of their doctrine.
I don't know of any Arian or semiArian who rejects it ... do you?
I know, that's why Arianism foundered under its own internal contradictions.
Just downloaded Commentary on the Gospels by Fortuniatus which is in Latin, and one of the earliest Gospel commentaries, the earliest in Latin.
According to Jerome’s account of him in De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), Fortunatianus was Bishop of Aquileia during the reign of Emperor Constantius II (337-361AD). For Jerome, Fortunatianus was an Arian heretic who (supposedly) badgered and abused Pope Liberius into accepting Arianism under Constantius II, who favoured the Arian side and exiled the pope over the controversy.
Other than Jerome, there is no evidence of any conflict between the Arian Fortunatianus and the Orthodox Liberius. The Pope speaks of Fortunatianus in glowing terms in a letter to Eusebius, with no reference to any disagreement.
Nor is there incontrovertible evidence that Liberius ever backed down from his vocal opposition to Arianism. The three letters that indict him for caving to pressure from the emperor are very likely forgeries.
Even as the question of the nature of the Christian Godhead raged in the highest ecclesiastical and imperial circles, even the most rabid Niceneans held Fortunatianus’ gospel commentary in high regard. Jerome admitted with characteristic grudging gracelessness that he had referred to Fortunatianus’ work when writing his own gospel commentaries.
Fortunatianus' Commentary references Matthew's Gospel 183 times, Mark 11, Luke 45 and John 60.
The earliest Commentary we have on any gospel is Heracleon – a Gnostic Christian in the mid-late 2nd century.
Origen, in the extant portion of his commentary on St John quotes Heracleon nearly 50 times, usually controverting, occasionally accepting his expositions. We thus recover large sections of Heracleon's commentary on chapters 1, 2 4 and 8 of John.
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 9) quotes from Heracleon's exposition of Luke 12:8; and another reference (25 Eclog. ex Script. Proph. p. 995) is in connexion with Luke 3:16–17, and so probably from an exposition of these verses.
From all the early evidence, Mark is least among the Gospels.
According to Jerome’s account of him in De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), Fortunatianus was Bishop of Aquileia during the reign of Emperor Constantius II (337-361AD). For Jerome, Fortunatianus was an Arian heretic who (supposedly) badgered and abused Pope Liberius into accepting Arianism under Constantius II, who favoured the Arian side and exiled the pope over the controversy.
Other than Jerome, there is no evidence of any conflict between the Arian Fortunatianus and the Orthodox Liberius. The Pope speaks of Fortunatianus in glowing terms in a letter to Eusebius, with no reference to any disagreement.
Nor is there incontrovertible evidence that Liberius ever backed down from his vocal opposition to Arianism. The three letters that indict him for caving to pressure from the emperor are very likely forgeries.
Even as the question of the nature of the Christian Godhead raged in the highest ecclesiastical and imperial circles, even the most rabid Niceneans held Fortunatianus’ gospel commentary in high regard. Jerome admitted with characteristic grudging gracelessness that he had referred to Fortunatianus’ work when writing his own gospel commentaries.
Fortunatianus' Commentary references Matthew's Gospel 183 times, Mark 11, Luke 45 and John 60.
The earliest Commentary we have on any gospel is Heracleon – a Gnostic Christian in the mid-late 2nd century.
Origen, in the extant portion of his commentary on St John quotes Heracleon nearly 50 times, usually controverting, occasionally accepting his expositions. We thus recover large sections of Heracleon's commentary on chapters 1, 2 4 and 8 of John.
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 9) quotes from Heracleon's exposition of Luke 12:8; and another reference (25 Eclog. ex Script. Proph. p. 995) is in connexion with Luke 3:16–17, and so probably from an exposition of these verses.
From all the early evidence, Mark is least among the Gospels.
muhammad_isa
Save Our Souls
No, but what do I know..
I am no expert on Early Christianity, and have to rely on the knowledge of others.
I don't know about that .. it is a fact that texts were ordered to be destroyed, even decades after
all creeds other than the official one was declared illegal in the Empire.
Why was that necessary, if the vast majority were compliant?
A Subordinate viewpoint was persecuted, quite clearly.
Not enough about what you're arguing about, clearly.
Emperors and authoritarians love declaring that texts be burnt, and they are largely ignored.
You're making far too much of this. Generally, when emperors do that, scholars squirrel the texts away. Nor were there house-to-house searches for texts, etc.
Texts disappear for a variety of reasons.
Here are some examples of orthodox Christian texts that we know of, that are lost:
Papias: Interpretations of Sayings of the Lord, and other works.
Justin Martyr – 7 books
Tatian – 5 books
Melito – all 17 books
Theophilus of Antioch – 6 books
Irenaeus – 6 out of 8 books
Clement of Alexandria – 7 out of 10 books
Tertullian – 17 books lost
Hippolytus – about 30 books lost
Origen – a fragment of his total output.
Novatian – 7 books
So the loss of heterodox texts is hardly a stand-out or notable.
The most common reason is the time and expense of transcribing.
Only if one grossly exaggerates the circumstance
You need to check historians on Theodosius, too. The idea of a brutal suppression of heretics and non-Christians is widely stated but backed up by little or no evidence. On the contrary, there is evidence that Theodosius was even-handed, and outside Constantinople things tended to bump along as they had before.
There were undoubtedly over-zealous mobs who on occasion behaved very badly, but such was local and sporadic. Tragically such happenings occur time and time again, and still goes on today.
There were undoubtedly over-zealous mobs who on occasion behaved very badly, but such was local and sporadic. Tragically such happenings occur time and time again, and still goes on today.
muhammad_isa
Save Our Souls
It is no exaggeration .. and God knows best.
I side with the scholars, and think it is.