It is important to realize that not everything which was preserved in the oral tradition automatically made its way into the written texts. By the end of the second century, early church fathers like Serapion and Irenaeus argued for the acceptance of only four gospels. Irenaeus was especially passionate for acceptance of only the four, but many other bishops and leaders disagreed. It was not at all clear in the second century which of the various forms of Christianity then in existence--Marcionian Paulinism, Montanism, Gnosticism, Soteriology, or Catholicism--could claim a superior criteria of legitimacy.
I have an issue with this passage, not only because it seems strangely 'confused', but also that it is VERY misleading.
The 'confusion' is apparent from the list of the 'various forms' of Christianity. Let's take a very quick look at the terms in this list.
.
Let me be quick to note, however, that Gnostic-ideas were NOT TOTALLY wrong--there were excellent examples of committed 'orthodox' Christians who embraced a subset of Gnostic teachings as good vehicles for understanding/articulating the revealed truths of Holy Writ (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Origen)--see BCANON:187.
Gnosticism had a strong appeal to segments of the church, but began abandoning its exclusive 'claim to legitimacy' (i.e. secret revelations/wisdom from private disclosures of the Risen Christ), in favor of the "orthodox claim" as early as late 2nd century--they started arguing from the basis of the 4 gospels! (see GNT:190ff).
The point of this overview is simply to demonstrate that Jim has oversimplified the situation to the point of distortion. There WERE various 'forms' of the faith, but these 'forms' were all WITHIN orthodoxy. The movements Jim mentions were WELL OUTSIDE the boundary of what historians consider the central, core church.
A modern day example would be that Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists are 'forms' of the faith; whereas Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and New Age would NOT be considered 'forms' of the basic Christian Faith.
Whereas Jim's oversimplification would be SOMEWHAT misleading; the suggestion that all of these movements had an 'equal claim' to 'legitimacy' is VERY puzzling. The early church appealed to a revealed faith from the first--Jesus commanded his followers to make disciples of all nations, and teach them to obey all things He 'had commanded them'. The charter was clear---'pass the message on'. The central issue was the continuity of the apostolic and post-apostolic message with that of Jesus and the OT.
Gnosticism departed from this continuity of the commonly-transmitted message by ADDING vast amounts of additional content (i.e. secret messages and doctrines which often undermined passages in the traditional scriptures--e.g. the real physical body of Christ) and additional 'gospels'. Montanism broke from this uniformity by 'new prophecies' that did NOT FOLLOW the pattern of the OT prophets (i.e. Montanists were 'ecstatic prophets'; the OT prophets were 'lucid prophets'). Marcion broke from this uniformity by rigidly imposing a theological principle upon the revelation in such a Procrustean way as to dismember it (in a manner emulated by countless modern theologians of the 20th century-- Many early Church Fathers who led these Jesus movements fought bitterly amongst themselves and each declared the others heretical. Without going into too much detail here, I want to take issue with the characterization of the early church present within this sentence. First, let me point out that the leadership figures of these early cults (i.e. Marcion, Montanus, Valentinus) are NOT considered "Church Fathers" by ANY reputable historians! The Church Fathers of the day are a well-delimited group, consisting of some 20-40 folk--ALL OF WHOM were in agreement in their repudiation of the central mistakes in these movements (for a good survey of each of the Fathers, see Schaff: 13/160ff). As I mentioned earlier, they were not in complete unanimity of doctrine: "The 'unanimous consent of the fathers' is a mere illusion, except on the most fundamental articles of the general Christianity" (Schaff: Chp 13.159) Secondly, the 'real' Church fathers did NOT 'fight among themselves' as Jim suggests, but DID tenaciously try to 'fight' the destructive errors in these systems. Although in this time period, the beginnings of the Trinitarian and Christological debates are becoming apparent, those exchanges are characterized by less-combative debate (generally--there are exceptions as the issues get clearer). And the tone of these debates are VASTLY different that the strong stands taken by the anti-heretical writings of Tertullian and Irenaeus, for example. Thirdly, the implication that heresy was both EARLY and STRONG is simply historically mistaken. Although in decades past, through the writings of Walter Bauer (1934) and Koester, this was a dominant presumption of much of liberal NT scholarship, many/most of the foundational supports for that position have either been abandoned due to the discovery of 'hard data' or considered to forceless due to its character as argument from silence.
The original position of Bauer was that in most geographical areas of antiquity that which would be later called 'heresy' was actually the original manifestation of Christianity. The implication was that in many geographical areas, so-called heresy was prior to orthodoxy.
Bauer looked at 2nd century data in an attempt to discern the theological orientation of the early Church in its basic geographical areas:
Holtgren summarizes the current state of thinking on Bauer's work (and its derivatives) [RNC:10]:
Problems/data relative to this position:
Given the frequent interaction between Jewish and Christian groups in the major cities of the Empire, plus the prominence of the conflict in Antioch, that the message had not reached Edessa within years of the beginning is HIGHLY unlikely (see HI:BTEX:48)
In short, as a parasitic movement (dependent on the health of a 'host'--the orthodox church), if Marcionism was even mildly successful (which it was) then it COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORIGINAL!
Problems/data relative to this position:
There are MAJOR problems with this position.
These excepts from the letters addressed to the churches of Asia Minor reflect a strong dominance by the orthodox (indeed, even Pauline) community.
As you might imagine, there are some problems with this view:
(Most of the epistle deals with humility and appeals to good works; the only theological issues raised concern the resurrection, in the context of how sure our hope is that we will be rewarded for our humility and good works. )
The epistle seems to indicate that the issue between the groups was NOT theological (e.g. Gnostic) but PERSONAL/Political (i.e. envy!).
So, I consider Jim's statement to be grossly overstating the 'diversity issue'--largely by being incorrect on what was considered to be the group of "Church Fathers" and their associated doctrines. Also, each leader preferred his own oral and textual traditions. Papias seems to have been familiar with at least Mark, Matthew and John, but preferred the authority of the continuous and dynamic oral tradition that still circulated instead. Justin Martyr quotes frequently from the early gospels, but also from the oral tradition as well. [FOOTNOTE: Justin obtained some stories which are no longer a part of the canon or any known oral tradition. He relates that Jesus was born in a cave and that a fire erupted in the river Jordan upon Jesus' baptism. (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 78 and 88). Curiously, the pagan god Mithras was also said to have been born in a cave while shepherds kept watch.] Marcion, a colorful church leader, preferred his own edited version of Luke where he pulled out all references to the Jews and rejected all other gospels. (Marcion seems to have been aware of the charges of pagan critics like Celsus that the gospels were self-contradictory and so this may have influenced his drastic measure of relying only on Luke.)
There are a number of historical errors in this tiny section, but still among the general types of inaccuracies we have been noting all along--betraying a lack of the requisite detailed knowledge of the environment and times in which these events take place. In actual fact, church leaders worked with whatever they could find, normally accepting scriptures from THEIR teacher. We have discussed in an earlier piece how church founders were responsible to provide churches with a copy of the text they carried with them, and that churches consistently exchanged texts/letter/mss. for comparison and copying. There is simply no evidence to indicate that leaders did NOT give 'critical credence' to other gospel data. Actually, there is positive data that shows that the OPPOSITE is true--that leaders in one community were VERY OPEN to the perspectives of other communities. For example, Tatian, the disciple of Justin (who used Mark more extensively than the others), even constructed an EQUAL 'harmony' of the four gospels (in the 1st half of the 2nd century!) that was used in the church for centuries. He obviously did not have a problem with 'preferring' his own favorite! Another example can be seen in Origen. In "The Formation of the New Testament" (London, 1965, p. 171f.), R. M. Grant suggests that while Origen lived in Alexandria, he accepted the larger tradition of the church there (it used a number of non-canonical works in their worship), but when he moved to Caesarea and found that these books were not accepted THERE, he manifested greater caution towards them. In other words, he modified HIS view on the basis of listening to others. Indeed, the exchange of books and literature between the churches DWARFED that of the normal population. Consider this extended description of this by Gamble (BREC:142):
There is only one passage in Papias that discusses this, and it is a small fragment quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.4):"I did not suppose that what I could get from the books would help me so much as what I could get from a living and abiding voice." Let's look at this a little closer. If we look at the larger quote, it runs like this: There are three different lines of argument AGAINST Jim's interpretation of this passage (i.e. that Papias preferred oral tradition over a written NT tradition). And, given the fact that Papias was a major recorder of oral tradition, he CANNOT have been TOO disparaging of written records!
But even more importantly, James betrays a lack of familiarity with the culture background again. The phrase 'living voice' was proverbial--a topos in certain literary contexts. It was used, for example, by Galen in describing the process of apprenticeship, in schools of rhetoric (describing the importance of first-hand instruction), and in philosophical schools for personal tutelage--accompanied by texts.
Gamble summaries the data in BREC:31-32:
Jim asserts, in his footnote, that JM has stories that are "no longer part of the canon" and that are not part of "any known oral tradition", citing two refs from Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho"--the "cave" passage and the "burning river passage". Two things here: First, the phrase "no longer part of the canon" presupposes that they WERE part of the canon prior to his writing. There is not the SLIGHTEST SCRAP of data to support such a notion--we have no textual variants AT ALL connected with the 'manger' phrase in Luke 2.7, and there is not a shred of evidence from the extra-NT writings 'quoting' canonical sources in this regard. Secondly, in BOTH CASES Jim mentions, we DO have extra-biblical "known oral traditions"! The example of the birth of Jesus in the "cave" is recorded in the apocryphal infancy gospel, called "The Infancy Gospel of James" (Protevangelium Jacobi), written roughly the same time as Justin's remark. And, in the case of the 'fire at the river', this tradition actually shows up in THREE OTHER fragments: (1) the Ebionite Gospel; (2) the "Pauli Praedication" [see the note in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Eerdmans), in loc.]; and (3) in Tatian's "Diatessaron", perhaps dependent on the "Gospel according to the Egyptians". Jim is again mistaken in his 'hard' facts of history. I cannot figure out WHY Jim even adds this comment about Mithras (nor will I try and guess!), but what I CAN say is this remark is HIGHLY questionable at best! First, Mithras/Mitra (originally a lesser deity in the proto-Hindu and Zoroastrian pantheons) is such a pan-religious figure that just about EVERYTHING has been said about him! So what?! Second, ALL of our data about the Mithraic cosmogony (including his 'birth') comes from art works--there is NO primary textual data whatsoever to work with. Third, by the time we DO get some textual data, it shows up in varied and contradictory snapshots--from the various religions--and it DOESN'T support this claim. Fourth, Mithras was portrayed in art works as having been made out of rock, and then CREATING the world-cave (MM:203-207; FRC:276-279)--NOT being originally born 'in a cave'. Fifth, the passage in Justin about Mithra (assuming Jim is taking his cue from JM's remarks) is NOT talking about Mithra being BORN in a cave, but in 'borning' his initiates (i.e. converts) in the 'caves' in which they worshipped. The Mithraic cult, esp. in the 2nd century, met in underground caves (or tunnels made to resemble caves). The 'cave' motif was in honor of (a) Mithra's creation of the world-cave and (b) Mithra's slaying of the 'bull' in a cave. Finally, ONE of the many splinter groups of Mithraism (the Armenian group) imposed a season-fertility motif on Mithra, and had him yearly go into a cave (winter) and reappear (be 'reborn') each spring. This can hardly be called being originally 'born in a cave'! This topic is exceedingly complex, and much of the work of the early leader in the field (i.e. Cumont) has been overturned in the last 20 years (including some of the popular 'myths' thrown around on the Internet!).
This is just another historical error. Marcion lived from c.85-160 AD; Celsus published his work "True Reason" in c.178--a couple of decades after Marcion's death! Celsus was familiar with the work of Marcion and NOT vice-versa, as Jim wants to maintain (FRC:212f; 177ff; 163). In one interesting case, a very popular writer named Tatian composed a gospel "harmony" that smoothed out the discrepancies that appeared in the gospels. The Syrian community used Tatian's harmony as their sole gospel until the fifth century. In the end however, Irenaeus' views won. In a now famous passage, Irenaeus declares the reason for choosing no more or fewer than the four gospels:
The above passage seriously overstates Irenaeus' persuasive ability and gives him FAR TOO MUCH credit for this process! In fact, Irenaeus, although he DOES argue for the BIG 4, stands not at the FIRST of that debate (nor even plays a major part IN that debate--IMO), but at the END of the debate. But before I demonstrate that Irenaeus was only stating the 'result' of the long process, and not rather doing all the work himself, let me first point out a problem in Jim's quote here. Jim's quote makes the first of the statement ("it is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are") to be DEPENDENT on the latter clause (",since there are four directions of the world..."). He puts a comma IN BETWEEN these two clauses, and a period at the end--with the result that the statement seems a bit ridiculous. But compare the 'official' translation given in the Eerdmans' reference set (vol I): Or the more modern translation given in MNT:64-65: And when Bruce quotes Irenaeus about this subject (BCANON:175), he LEAVES OFF THE FIRST SENTENCE... By now you should see the pattern--Jim has mis-quoted the passage. The 'since' clause does NOT go with the strong 'no possible' statement, but with the much softer 'is fitting/natural' clause in the sentence in which it is a member! The mis-punctuation of the quote is MISLEADING. So, what are we to make of the strong statement at the FIRST of that passage--how is it connected to the 'softer' passage? It appears to function as a 'summary statement' of the arguments about the gospels that both PRECEDE and FOLLOW the 'fitting' passage. For example, in the following section 3.11.9, Irenaeus says "But that these Gospels alone are true and reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminuation of the aforesaid number, I have proved by so many and such [arguments]."--referring to the previous 10 chapters. Indeed, it is important to realize that Irenaeus is not trying to persuade the CHURCH to adopt his views (as implied by Jim's statements), but is writing "AGAINST HERESIES"--against 'outsiders'. In this chapter (section 9) he mentions Marcion, Montanists, Valentinus (Gnostic), and Encratitae. The church has already 'lined up with' the Four-fold Gospel and Irenaeus is simply defending that against the currents of outside thought 'tearing' at the church. One final remark about this passage of Irenaeus. It is the general consensus of scholars today (Metzger, Conzelmann, Lindemann, Bruce) that: So, if Irenaeus WAS the 'end of the chain', what does the chain look like? Let's try to sketch a brief timeline of the major events and references to the issue of the written NT canon (specifically the gospels--I am not discussing the epistles yet) PRIOR to Irenaeus' statement in c.185 AD. One issue we must understand BEFORE we start looking at dates and citations is what the SIGNIFICANCE of such a citation is. For example, if "Writer A" quotes "Passage B" from "Document C" as a 'proof text' in an attempt to convince an "Audience D" of a "Belief E", what historical conclusions might we be able to draw from such a citation? Let's try to make some of these explicit. Points three and four above have the most significance to our study. If Writer A cites a gospel in 150 A.D., trying to prove a point to someone else half-way around the world, it is VERY SAFE to assume that the document had been in the hands of that 'someone else' for an ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF TIME to have been (1) studied well enough to be understood and (2) accepted as authoritative in matters of 'belief E'. In fact, Writer A must have ALREADY KNOWN that the others had access to/ accepted as authoritative the Document BEFORE he/she would presume to use it as proof. But how is Writer A to know this UNLESS he/she had ALREADY SEEN the document referenced in such a context?! What this implies is that for every mention of a passage in a PERSUASIVE context, there must have been AT LEAST one other PRIOR reference that illustrated the acceptance of the larger document (containing the text) as authoritative by the intended recipients. This prior reference would not need to be in a persuasive context (leading to infinite regress?), but would probably be a homiletical, catechetical, or devotional use. The net effect of this is that ANY CITATION in a persuasive context will be a witness to the text's existence MUCH EARLIER (to allow for the post-creation transmission of the text from point of writing to Audience D's culture, acceptance of the text by that culture (a non-trivial time!), time for a situation to occur that prompts the writing of the PRIOR reference, writing/editing/publication of the PRIOR reference, transmission of the PRIOR reference to the Writer's culture, time to analyze the PRIOR reference, time for a situation to occur that prompts the writing by Writer A (citing the text), time for the writing/editing/publication of Writer's A work). This process could EASILY span FIVE decades, or be as short as 5 days!
[Thiede has pointed out known cases of transmission in the Roman world measured in days (TRKW:45): "...texts could reach destinations across the Mediterranean within weeks. There was of course the imperial post which carried mail for civil servants and the military. And there were tabellarii, letter-carrying messengers, as well as individuals who acted as voluntary couriers. They could reach the Italian harbour of Puteoli from Corinth in five days, or as Cato once did, Africa from Rome in under three days."]
With this in mind, let's turn to the "Timeline". [For this structure, I am using FRC for the Church history, supplemented by MNT (Tatian, Muratorian Canon), RMML(for the scriptural dates--dependent on Bruce, "Acts of the Apostles"). I am here using the recently-revived Matthean-priority scheme, instead of the Markan-priority scheme--more on this later.] It is here that we have our first explicit reference to a written gospel. In I Tim 5:18 Paul argues: Paul uses a citation formula "For the Scripture says," and then quotes two connected passages--Deut 25.4 and Luke 10.7! (The epistle to I Tim cannot be dated much later than this--Paul will be dead in a couple of years, and there are strong reasons to accept the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.) Well, well, well...Here we have a quote from a 'later' gospel, being (1) written; (2) authoritative; (3) on a par with the Old Testament(!); and (4) called "scripture". What are we to make of this? In 3-5 years?! The shortness of this period is easily explainable by the characters involved. Timothy was a disciple and companion of Paul, as was Luke. So a process that might normally take 10-50 years, could have almost instantly happened. [Some argue that it must have been a 'proto-Lukan' document that Paul cites--one that later is INCLUDED in the canonical Luke, but I find it rather compelling that there is no HARD DATA to support a position that some 'other document' this early was according status as 'scripture' and was later 'abandoned'! The alleged "Q" source is a hypothetical construct--there are no traces of it anywhere in the HARD textual and archeological data. Even the information in the "Gospel of Thomas" does not seem to reflect an identity to the 'literary composite' Q (cf. NHL:125). I am not saying that I do not believe a 'sayings source' like Q circulated, but I AM arguing that such a loose collection (at best) would not have been 'tight' enough to have been called 'scripture' by Paul this early.] The implications of this citation are significant, for it demonstrates that Luke and the two other gospels that it probably drew from (Matthew, Mark) were in written form, accepted by the church, and accessible to at least the leadership by mid-first century!
The first citation is from Psalm 4.4 and the second is from Ephesians 4.26. But the Ephesians passage ALSO quotes the Psalm 4.4 passage, so Polycarp may ONLY be quoting the NT, as opposed to BOTH the OT and the NT together as scripture. In ANY event, an NT epistle is called 'Sacred Scripture', implying authority, written status, and pervasiveness (Polycarp wrote from Smyrna to Philippi). [BCANON: 122] [A side note here. It is noteworthy that at the end of Polycarp's letter he asks the Philippian church to share any information they have from Ignatius, just as Polycarp had shared what HE had with them--at their request. What we see here is a general sense of urgency to share information between the churches. Indeed, BLOM:207 points out that the almost identical references to Jesus' sayings in I Clement and Polycarp --contemporaries of which there is no record of interchange--demonstrate an incredible 'fixedness' of the information they had about Jesus. Either that information was written down, or oral tradition was so controlled as to be just as reliable.] Notice a couple of things. First, the emphasis is on the PAST recording in written form. Second, notice that there are two DIFFERENT gospels available to Papias. Third, he explains that Mark's records reflect an 'occasional' arrangement--one in which the order is dictated by the 'occasions' into which Peter spoke, as opposed to being a 'compilation' of the Lord's sayings. Fourth, Mark is said to also preserve the 'doings of the Lord', whereas Matthew was focused on the 'oracles'. Fifth, Papias seems a bit defensive about the 'chronological sequence' of events in Mark, implying that some of his readership had the ability to compare two or more gospels and RAISE the question of "which gospel preserves the CORRECT order of events in the Lord's life?". This implies a WIDESPREAD availability of at least TWO gospels, widespread COMPARISON and STUDY of them (to the point of being concerned about the differences), and widespread ACCEPTANCE of them as AUTHORITATIVE (who would even RAISE this issue if they BOTH were not accorded equal importance as historical witnesses to the events of Jesus' life?!). Finally, there is an emphasis on the honesty of Mark and some apparent difficulty of interpreting Matthew's record of Jesus' sayings. What emerges from these observations is that Papias' remarks make no sense if the multiple gospels (at least Mt and Mr) were not widespread in accessibility, accepted as authoritative, and widespread in being STUDIED CO-JOINTLY. Remember, this is 130 AD -- how long would that situation have to have been in place for Papias to write this? A decade? Two? THREE?
Metzger summarizes the importance of this work for gospel study in The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: 1987), pp 115-116. (cited in MNT:64): This collection was not just Tatian's idiosyncratic perspective, for it was soon translated from Syriac into Greek and was widely accepted in not only Northern Mesopotamia (Tatian's turf), but also in Rome. What is clear from this passage is that BY THIS TIME the gospels had not only been accepted, but was also the subject for study of historical and literary inquiry! Clement gives the origin of ONLY the Four, and even expressly refutes (elsewhere) a theological proof text by pointing out that the passage was NOT in the 'four gospels'. Compare "Miscellanies" 3.13.95: "In the first place, we have not got the saying [i.e. the advanced proof-text of his opponent] in the four Gospels that have been handed down to us, but in the Gospel according to the Egyptians." Given the physical (and even cultural) differences between himself and Irenaeus, it is EXTREMELY difficult to see how he would come up with the EXACT SAME position UNLESS said position was already widely accepted by the entire church (and even margin-groups like Gnostics). The way he used the limits of the 'four' gospels in his argument demonstrates how widespread this understanding must have been! By the end of the second century, the canon had taken shape and from then on the oral tradition slowly died out to be replaced by the authority of the written word. While it is correct to say that the canon had taken shape by this time, it says too little. The canon had assumed its 'shape' much earlier (ESPECIALLY THE CASE of the Gospels, with which we are concerned here). And while it is correct to say that oral tradition 'slowly died out', it is NOT correct to say it was 'replaced by' the authority of the written word. The written word ALREADY HAD AUTHORITY throughout the century, as evidenced in the quotations of the gospel documents as authoritative IN THE FIRST HALF OF THAT CENTURY. So, whereas it is okay to say 'oral tradition' LOST authority, it is INCORRECT to say that 'written tradition' GAINED authority at this time--it had ALREADY possessed a recognized authority in the life of the church, as manifested in her use of NT scripture in ritual, in catechism, in theological debate, and in apologetic writings...
And once again, I hope I have shown that the HARD data of history
supports the view of an early (and sane!) acceptance of the true gospel writings.
Comment 14
(He did NOT include Jerusalem!)
The work of Bauer is impressive in its detailed information, argument, and thesis. Nevertheless, it has received considerable criticism, and its flaws have become even more apparent with the passing of time. Too often Bauer argues from silence and, in other cases, pushes aside evidence that works against his thesis.
Let's see how this has come to light since Bauer's original work.
Overall, the data demonstrates that the older view of Bauer (and that part of Koester's views that are dependent on him) are simply wrong. The early church showed a REMARKABLE degree of 'orthodoxy' even in the strange and chaotic and persecuted days of its early life.
The problem with positing Marcionism as the original form of Christianity in an area (whether Edessa or any other place) is that we have no evidence that the Marcionite church offered a relevant and convincing religious option to the pagan population. The crucial question thus becomes: to what audience is the Marcionite message likely to have appealed?
and
We may say that in order to sustain itself, Marcionism required a Christian audience rooted in its Jewish heritage...Quite simply, the Marcionite message had too many Christian assumptions at its core for its primary audience not to have been the larger Christian community...the success of Marcionism in Edessa would seem to serve (against Bauer) as evidence for, rather than against, an earlier catholic-like Christianity there.
So, it this situation, the hard data refutes the Bauer hypothesis, and once again demonstrates the parasitic character of the early heresy.
And once the evidence of the papyri is available, indisputably Gnostic texts are conspicuous by their rarity. Of the fourteen Christian texts that I would date before A.D. 200 there is only one, the first fragment of the Gospel of Thomas from Oxyrhynchus, which may reasonably be regarded as Gnostic.
So, the data indicates that Orthodoxy was EARLY and STRONG--and NOT heresy--contra Bauer.
And indeed, Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no heresy has any dwelling-place among you (6.2)
Let not then any one deceive you, as indeed ye are not deceived (8.1)
Nevertheless, I have heard of some who have passed in among you, holding the wicked doctrine of the strange and evil spirit; to whom ye did not allow entrance to sow their tares, but stopped your ears that ye might not receive the error...(9.1)
I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from these beasts in the shape of men, from whom you must not only turn away, but even flee from them...(4.1)
Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony...(6.1f)
Be not deceived with strange doctrines (8.1)
These things [I address to you], my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine...(11.1)
Keep yourselves, then, from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, but that wild beast, the destroyer of men, because they are not the planting of the Father, but the seed of the wicked one. Not that I have found any division among you do I write these things; but I arm you beforehand...(3.1)
Bauer's view that the orthodox were weak does not do justice to the strength that the orthodox seem to have had, for they apparently were able to push through a decision radically altering the structure of power in their favour, so that the chief authority came to rest in the hands of one of their own members.
So, in the case of Corinth, the data is somewhat unclear, but ALL of it indicates AGAINST the Bauer hypothesis.
Comment 15
Second, Christian texts had the advantage of circulation over non-Christian literature by virtue of the geographic dispersion of Christian communities and the relations that obtained between them. By the second half of the first century Christian congregations had been planted across Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy and could be found in most of the major urban centers of the Mediterranean world--Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth, and Rome. Soon thereafter the Christian mission successfully penetrated the provincial regions of Egypt, Syria, Gaul, and North Africa. These numerous and far-flung Christian congregations, large and small, nevertheless retained a sharp awareness of their collective identity as the ecclesia katholike and affirmed their mutual relations through frequent communication. The result was a highly reticulated system of local communities that spanned the Mediterranean world but preserved a strong sense of translocal unity and cultivated contacts with each other. Though it was not contrived for the purpose, this network was ideally suited to disseminate texts: it made up a large constituency requiring books and furnished efficient channels to distribute them. Thus, both the motive and the means for the circulation of Christian writings far exceeded those affecting the currency of non-Christian literature, and it was inevitable that the dissemination of Christian writings would outstrip in volume and speed the spread of other literature and more nearly approach something like mass circulation in the Christian setting than did non-Christian texts in society at large.
As I have shown, the circulation of Christian literature was private, being part and parcel of the constant intercourse between individual congregations. Transmission took place by letter and messenger (letters requiring couriers) throughout the first five centuries of the church. It is no less typical of Augustine in the fifth century than it was of Cyprian in the third century, of Polycarp in the second, or of Paul in the first, to mention only a few examples. The travel of individual Christians or small delegations from one church to another, often over large distances, made the variety and breadth of Christian literature known to the congregations, thus increasing interest and demand, and also served as the efficient vehicle for the brisk movement of texts from one place to another.
I shall not regret to subjoin to my interpretations (of the Lord's oracles), whatsoever I have at any time accurately ascertained and treasured up in my memory, as I have received it from the elders and have recorded it to give additional confirmation to the truth, by my testimony. For I did not, like most men, delight in those who speak much, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who record the commands of others (or new and strange commands), but in those who record the commands given by the Lord to our faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If then any one who had attended on the elders came, I made it a point to inquire what were the words of the elders; what Andrew, or what Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord; and what things Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I was of the opinion that I could not derive so much benefit from books as from the living and abiding voice.
In none of these contexts, however, were texts unavailable, unused, or not valued. There were manuals of instruction in the manual arts; notes were used by rhetoricians, who also wrote speeches and produced or used handbooks; and philosophical treatises were produced within the various schools. In short, in the topos of the living voice we have to do not with a principled rejection of books in favor of oral tradition, but with an express preference for personal instruction or demonstration in contexts where it was particularly useful.
In short, the evidence-- textual, contextual, historical--suggests that Papias' words DO NOT support Jim's understanding.
It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are, since there are four directions of the world in which we live, and there are four principal winds. (adv. Haer. 3.11.8)
Comment 16
It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; IT IS FITTING that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side...
The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones in the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, IT FITTINGLY HAS four pillars...
As there are four quarters of the world in which we live, and four universal winds, and as the church is dispersed over all the earth, and the gospel is the pillar and base of the church, and the breath of life, so IT IS NATURAL that it should have four pillars...
...the general impression given by his words is that the fourfold pattern of the gospel was by this time no innovation but so widely accepted that he can stress its cosmic appropriateness as though it were one of the facts of nature [BCANON:175; for the refs. on the other scholars mentioned above, see MNT:174,n.63]
What should be clear from this survey/timeline is that Irenaeus stands at the END of the process--NOT as a major contributor to the debate! And the early references to the gospels IMPLY even earlier usage and acceptance of those writings in large portions of the mainstream church. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."
For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you...It is declared then in these Scriptures, "Be ye angry, and sin not," and "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath".
Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written [fulfilling], "many are called, but few are chosen"
This gospel quote is found nowhere else but in Matthew 22.14. (Again, it was written, authoritative, and able to be 'appealed to'.) Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote down accurately all that he remembered, whether the sayings or the doings of the Lord, but not in order--for he had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but followed Peter later on, as I said. Peter was accustomed to teach as occasion required, but not as though he were making a compilation of the dominical oracles. So Mark made no mistake in writing down certain things as he called them to mind; for he paid attention to one thing: to omit none of the things he had heard and to make no false statement in any of them. (Eccl. Hist., 3.39.15)
Matthew compiled the oracles in the Hebrew speech, and each one interpreted them as best he could. (Eccl. Hist., 3.39.16).
A large number of the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas have parallels in the gospels of the New Testament, in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), as well as the Gospel of John (parallels with the latter are especially striking; cf., e.g. sayings 13, 19, 24, 38, 49, 92).
It introduces each of its 114 'secret sayings' of Jesus with a simple "Jesus said"--no explicit reference to writing, but an appeal to common oral tradition (or writing). It is important in that it was probably written in Mesopotamia, shortly after John's gospel had begun to circulate, yet it showed great familiarity with it--even at such a distance. (Perhaps demonstrating that authoritative documents were circulated very quickly!) It has been demonstrated that in Gtr (Gospel of Truth) Valentinus paraphrases, and so interprets, some thirty to sixty scriptural passages, almost all from the New Testament (Gn, Jn, 1 Jn, Rv, Mt, Rm, I Co, 2 Co, Ep, Col, and Heb). Of these, it has been shown that the Johannine literature (including Rv) has had the most profound theological influence upon Valentinus's thought..." (GS:251)
...the treatise...cites them in terms which presuppose that they are authoritative. Allegorical interpretation such as is found in the Gospel of Truth implies not only authority but some degree of inspiration in the texts so interpreted, whether the lessons derived by such allegorization are acceptable to later readers or not. (BCANON:147)
The net of this is quite clear (and strong!): vast amounts of the NT --including John and Matt.--are accorded the highest status--they are written, inspired, and usable in a persuasive context. the Diatessaron supplies proof that all four Gospels were regarded as authoritative; otherwise it is unlikely that Tatian would have dared to combine them into one gospel account. At a time when many gospels were competing for attention, it is certainly significant that Tatian selected just these four.
He (Clement) said that those gospels were first written which contain the genealogies [i.e. Matthew and Luke], but that the Gospel according to Mark took shape as follows: Peter had publicly proclaimed the word at Rome and told forth the gospel by the Spirit. Then those present, who were many, besought Mark, as the one who had accompanied Peter for a long time and remembered the things he had said, to make a written record of what he had said. Mark did this, and shared his gospel with those who made the request of him. When Peter came to know of it, he neither vigorously forbade it nor advocated it. But John last of all (said the tradition), aware that the 'bodily' facts had been set forth in the [other] gospels, yielded to the exhortation of his friends and, divinely carried along by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel.
Concluding Comment to this section
.....................................................
[ --stil13.html-- ]
The Christian ThinkTank...[https://www.Christianthinktank.com]
(Reference Abbreviations)