What was the state of Bible apologetics in the 2nd century? [Archive I]

View Full Version : What was the state of Bible apologetics in the 2nd century?

Johnny Skeptic

August 6, 2005, 04:08 PM

Today, we attempt to reliably assess what happened two millennia ago based upon the means that are available to us at this time, but what means were available to people living in the 2nd century? James Holding has said that after the deaths of the still living eyewitnesses a consistent oral tradition sustained the growth of the early Christian Church, but how consistent was the growth in the 2nd century? People back then were most certainly not capable of engaging in debates like the ones that we have here at the IIDB. How might some of the debates between Christians and skeptics have gone on in the 2nd century?

It is important to note that today, in court trials it is often difficult to determine what went on just weeks before, sometimes even with the testimonies of "living" supposed eyewitnesses, let alone determine what happened two thousand years ago based primarily upon hearsay evidence that in some cases might have been third hand or even fourth hand.

Roger Pearse

August 6, 2005, 05:57 PM

Today, we attempt to reliably assess what happened two millennia ago based upon the means that are available to us at this time, but what means were available to people living in the 2nd century?

Firstly, eyewitness testimony, and second or third hand accounts transmitted orally. So Irenaeus tells us that the apostle John was still around in 100AD; that John's disciple Polycarp, Irenaeus' master, was still alive and preaching what John had said and done in 150AD in Rome. No doubt there were many other examples, today unknown to us.

Likewise a mass of literature existed which is not now extant. There is a heavy bias towards apologetics in the extant remains of the second century literature, which is the result of an accident in the 10th century AD when Archbishop Arethas of Caesarea ordered a collection made of it for his library. Sadly no similar accident preserved the (outdated, from the then contemporary point of view) theological material.

...the growth of the early Christian Church, but how consistent was the growth in the 2nd century?

I don't believe we have statistics of the kind that would allow us to answer this, although someone will correct me if I am wrong. So we have to resort to what data we have. Mind you, some archaeology -- gravestones and the like -- may come in here.

At the start of the 2nd century, there were enough Christians in Bithynia for the temples to be deserted, according to Pliny the Younger. By the end of it Tertullian could boast that Christians had filled all the empire, and were to be found even outside the empire: rhetorical, of course, but the uptake of men of the standard of Tertullian, Origen, Minucius Felix, and Cyprian indicates a movement significant enough to attract men of serious social status.

Persecutions took place at intervals, and we know of more as the century progresses. The handbook of Ulpian, De officiis proconsularis (On the duties of the proconsul), issued in the reign of Commodus, had a book devoted to the punishments to be inflicted on Christians, which would not have been the case had it not been necessary.

But all of this is circumstantial evidence, and we are not in any sense obliged to consider that the church had steady numerical growth throughout the period, as far as I can see.

People back then were most certainly not capable of engaging in debates like the ones that we have here at the IIDB.

I'm not sure what you mean, but public debates on philosophy and religion were very popular in that period, far more so than today. Think of the dialogue between Justin Martyr and Trypho. Indeed Justin himself was denounced to the police, arrested and executed, after defeating the Cynic philosopher Crescens in just such a debate.

How might some of the debates between Christians and skeptics have gone on in the 2nd century?

'Sceptics'? I'm not sure what we're looking for under this heading. Those opposed to Christianity -- an illegal movement, remember -- were either pagans or Jews.

But none are preserved verbatim, although I suppose the Acts of the Martyrs of Scilli come close, brief as they are. These derive very closely from the official court record, in which the magistrate demands that the rural Christians renounced their religion, and there is some little discussion. [Note that 'Christianus sum' (I am a Christian), the only remark of some of the defendants, was itself a confession to a capital criminal offence.] The martyrdom of Polycarp, the letter of the Gallican martyrs, and the Passio Perpetuae give some sort of idea. But these are all statements in the context of institutional anti-Christian violence.

We have Origen, Contra Celsum which is a leaflet by Celsus, and Origen's responses. Chadwick's translation is the best of this. Justin and Trypho I have mentioned. Tertullian's Apologeticum is a little later, and is responding to non-Christian allegations. Glover's translation is the best of this.

There is also the 4th century Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes, in that form, although later, of course.

All of these -- although not in the best translations -- are online.

It is important to note that today, in court trials it is often difficult to determine what went on just weeks before, sometimes even with the testimonies of "living" supposed eyewitnesses, let alone determine what happened two thousand years ago based primarily upon hearsay evidence that in some cases might have been third hand or even fourth hand.

Does not this point -- which of course has some validity -- really suggest the impossibility of any accurate history, tho, not specifically the history of Christianity? Consider that the cult of Glycon was patronised by emperors, yet all we have in the way of literary accounts is the sneery diatribe of Lucian. Do we discard what has come down to us, on that sort of ground? Or do we accept what we have, and look for more?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnny Skeptic

August 7, 2005, 01:24 PM

Firstly, eyewitness testimony, and second or third hand accounts transmitted orally. So Irenaeus tells us that the apostle John was still around in 100AD; that John's disciple Polycarp, Irenaeus' master, was still alive and preaching what John had said and done in 150AD in Rome. No doubt there were many other examples, today unknown to us.

As Elaine Pagels said, “The victors rewrote history, their way.�? In other words, the historical winners preserved only texts that were favorable to their agenda.

Pagels also said "For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: '...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.'"

Larry Taylor said "How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned."

In his book titled ‘The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World,’ Christian author S. Angus, Ph.D., D.Lit., D.D., says the following:

“No one could have dreamed that the Christians, who had themselves suffered so much from persecution and protested so vehemently against the injustice and futility of persecution, would so quickly have turned persecutors and surpassed their Pagan predecessors in fanatical savagery and efficiency, utterly oblivious of the Beatitude of the Divine Master (Matt. V. 10, 44, 45). It became ominous for subsequent history that the first General Council of the Church was signalized by bitter excommunications and banishments. Christians, having acquired the art of disposing of hostile criticism by searching out and burning the objectionable books of their Pagan adversaries, learned to apply the same method to the works of such groups of Christians as were not in power or in favour for the time; when this method proved unsatisfactory, they found it expedient to burn their bodies. The chained skeleton found in the Mithraic chapel at Sarrebourg testified to the drastic means employed by Christians in making the truth conquer otherwise than by the methods and exemplified by the Founder. The stripping and torture to death with oyster-shells in a Christian church and the subsequent mangling of limb from limb of Hypatia, the noblest representative of Neo-Platonism of her day, by the violent Nitrian monks and servitors of a Christian bishop, and probably with his connivance, were symptomatic and prophetic of the intolerance and fanaticism which Christianity was to direct throughout the centuries upon its disobedient members and troublesome minorities until the day – yet to dawn – when a purer, more convincing because more spiritual, Christianity gains ‘the consent of happier generation, the applause of less superstitious ages.’�?

There is plenty of evidence of Christians leaders telling lies. The gross exaggeration of the number of Christian martyrs is a good example. In an article at the Secular Web, Joseph McCabe says the following:

"Even the most orthodox reader will recognize the force of the modern criticism of martyr-legends when so retrograde a work as the 'Catholic Encyclopedia' is compelled to admit it. Usually its writers deny the most certain facts of science or history with an ease that must command the envy of a politician."

A martyr is someone who is given a chance to recant his religious beliefs, refuses to do so and is persecuted and/or killed as a result. Regarding Christians who have been persecuted and/or killed over the centuries, there is no evidence that the majority of them were given a chance to recant their religious beliefs, refused to do so and were persecuted and/or killed as a result.

There is in fact no evidence that Iranaeus said anything about John. All that we have are copies of what Iranaeus supposedly said that were preserved by the historical winners. We also don’t know what Jesus really said, only what the Gospel writers said that he said, second hand of course, and possibly even third hand or fourth hand.

Regarding the extant second hand and third hand accounts that you mentioned, am I correct that all that we have are copies? Copies of originals can easily be altered. Innocent but inaccurate revelation is a reasonable possibility. You will have to admit that innocent but inaccurate revelations are quite common in religious literature.

Historically, humans have had a penchant for dreaming up all sorts of religions. If Christianity had not come along, Iranaeus et al would likely have followed Judaism or pagan religions, both of which would have been questionable choices indeed, and they would have defended those religions just as vigorously as they defended their orthodox Christian views. Since their judgment would have been questionable if Christianity had not come along, it is logical to conclude that their judgment was also questionable when they became Christians. If Christianity was not around today, what would your world view be?

At the start of the 2nd century, there were enough Christians in Bithynia for the temples to be deserted, according to Pliny the Younger. By the end of it Tertullian could boast that Christians had filled all the empire, and were to be found even outside the empire: rhetorical, of course, but the uptake of men of the standard of Tertullian, Origen, Minucius Felix, and Cyprian indicates a movement significant enough to attract men of serious social status.

Regardless of the number of Christians, beliefs are only as good as the evidence upon which they are based. The evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is conspicuous by its absence. Christians can’t even produce any external evidence at all regarding how many people claimed to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. How many people became Christians is one issue, but how many people claimed to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead is another issue entirely. In your opinion, how many claimed eyewitnesses does it take in order to make a decent case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus? In addition, do you believe that a decent case can be made for the Resurrection based upon the Gospels alone?

I know that you are familiar with John Sparks from the Theology Web. I once debated him in a thread that I started on IQ and interest in religion. He said that there is no automatic correlation that can be made between how many people believe something and the truth. Do you agree with that? I do.

Persecutions took place at intervals, and we know of more as the century progresses. The handbook of Ulpian, ‘De officiis proconsularis.’ (On the duties of the proconsul), issued in the reign of Commodus, had a book devoted to the punishments to be inflicted on Christians, which would not have been the case had it not been necessary.

But all of this is circumstantial evidence, and we are not in any sense obliged to consider that the church had steady numerical growth throughout the period, as far as I can see.

We have Origen, Contra Celsum which is a leaflet by Celsus, and Origen's responses. Chadwick's translation is the best of this. Justin and Trypho I have mentioned. Tertullian's Apologeticum is a little later, and is responding to non-Christian allegations. Glover's translation is the best of this.

There is also the 4th century Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes, in that form, although later, of course.

Same as before.

Does not this point -- which of course has some validity -- really suggest the impossibility of any accurate history, though, not specifically the history of Christianity? Consider that the cult of Glycon was patronized by emperors, yet all we have in the way of literary accounts is the sneery diatribe of Lucian. Do we discard what has come down to us, on that sort of ground? Or do we accept what we have, and look for more?

I don’t mind looking for more, but where do we look? The return of Jesus is the only way that we can clear up these matters. Here we are two millennia after the supposed resurrection of Jesus and the Devil is still loose, people still get sick, and we still have wars and hunger. No Christian is enjoying a comfortable life in the city of New Jerusalem. Christians have hope, but they have nothing at all of any tangible value. A promise made is not necessarily a promise kept.

Regarding “Does not this point really suggest the impossibility of any accurate history, though, not specifically the history of Christianity?,�? you have incorrectly stated the position held by skeptics. They have never to my knowledge used the word “impossibility.�? Typical of fundamentalist Christians, you seek to redefine the word “history.�? The majority of historians do not consider the Resurrection to be a historical event, nor should they. Since there is no evidence at all that miracles exist today, why should anyone conclude that they existed in ancient times? Otherwise stated, since there is no tangible evidence at all that the God of the Bible exists today, why should anyone conclude that he ever did exist? While ordinary historical events have always occurred, there is no evidence at all that miracles have ever occurred. While the odds are 100% that ordinary historical events have always occurred, the odds are astronomical against a person being conceived by the Holy Spirit, being born of a virgin, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven, and hiding for two millennia after promising to return to earth, claims which, if true, were without prior precedent or subsequent duplication in all of human history.

If I thought that there was only a 10% chance that miracles exist, I would go out of my way to prove that they do exist. Any skeptic would love for miracles to exist to help us with our many burdens, and any skeptic would love to have a celestial, loving Daddy to provide him with a comfortable eternal life.

Further regarding “the impossibility of ancient history,�? aside from the Resurrection, what difference does it make to you what actually happened in ancient history? You have a perceived vested interest in whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, but you don’t have a perceived vested interest regarding any other ancient historical claim. You don’t spend anywhere near the time, if any time at all, defending ordinary historical claims because you are well aware that they don’t have any eternal significance whatsoever.

Following are excerpts from ‘Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story’ by Richard Carrier:

"Nevertheless, Christian apologist Douglas Geivett has declared that the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus meets, and I quote, 'the highest standards of historical inquiry' and 'if one takes the historian's own criteria for assessing the historicity of ancient events, the resurrection passes muster as a historically well-attested event of the ancient world,' as well-attested, he says, as Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C. Well, it is common in Christian apologetics, throughout history, to make absurdly exaggerated claims, and this is no exception. Let's look at Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon for a minute: First of all, we have Caesar's own word on the subject. Indeed, The Civil War has been a Latin classic for two thousand years, written by Caesar himself and by one of his generals who was definitely an eye-witness and who knew the man personally. In contrast, we do not have anything written by Jesus, and we do not know for certain the name of any author of any of the accounts of his physical resurrection.

“Second, we have many of Caesar's enemies, including Cicero, a contemporary of the event, reporting the crossing of the Rubicon, whereas we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the event, and fifty years after the Christians' own claims had been widely spread around.

“Third, we have a number of inscriptions and coins produced soon after the Republican Civil War related to the Rubicon crossing, including mentions of battles and conscriptions and judgments, which in fact form almost a continuous chain of evidence for Caesar's entire march. On the other hand, we have absolutely no physical evidence of any kind in the case of the resurrection.

“Fourth, we have the story of the 'Rubicon Crossing' in almost every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have a measure of proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they all quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a regular desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn't enough, all of them cite or quote sources which were written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing and its repercussions. Compare this with the resurrection: we have not even a single historian mentioning the event until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only by Christian historians. And of those few people who do mention it within a century of the event, none of them show any wide reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy, are completely unknown, and have an overtly declared bias towards persuasion and conversion.

“Fifth, the history of Rome could not have proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into Italy. Even if Caesar could have somehow cultivated the mere belief that he had done this, he could not have captured Rome or conscripted Italian men against Pompey's forces in Greece. On the other hand, all that is needed to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief--a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. It should be clear that we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the resurrection. In fact, when we compare all five points, we see that in four of the five proofs of an event's historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence--a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses. Indeed, you really have to look hard to find another event that is in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes. So Geivett is guilty of a rather extreme exaggeration. This is not a historically well-attested event, and it does not meet the highest standards of evidence. But reasons to be skeptical do not stop there. We must consider the setting--the place and time in which these stories spread. This was an age of fables and wonder. Magic and miracles and ghosts were everywhere, and almost never doubted. I'll give one example that illustrates this: we have several accounts of what the common people thought about lunar eclipses. They apparently had no doubt that this horrible event was the result of monsters trying to devour the moon, or witches calling the moon down with diabolical spells--sometimes both. So when an eclipse occurred, everyone would frantically start banging pots and blowing brass horns furiously, to scare away the monsters and confuse the witches' spells. So tremendous was this din that many better-educated authors complain of how the racket filled entire cities and countrysides. This was a superstitious people."

Following are my own comments about Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon River:

The number of claimed eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead is less than 600. The figure is completely unverifiable. A reasonable estimate of the number of people who would have seen Caesar’s army entire Italy would have been in the tens of thousands, if not the hundreds of thousands.

Months after Caesar’s army entered Italy it was still widely available for public inspection. Further evidence that Caesar and his army entered Italy is the war that followed between his forces and the forces of Pompey the Great. Pompey opposed Caesar in response to a request by the Roman Senate.

Jesus deliberately avoided appearing to thousands of people, especially Roman officials (Kind of strange, isn’t it? Why was such the case? The correct answer is, too many eyewitnesses spoil the broth of deception.), but Caesar made no attempts to conceal the presence of his army from anyone.

Roger Pearse

August 8, 2005, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic:
Today, we attempt to reliably assess what happened two millennia ago based upon the means that are available to us at this time, but what means were available to people living in the 2nd century?

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse:
Firstly, eyewitness testimony, and second or third hand accounts transmitted orally. So Irenaeus tells us that the apostle John was still around in 100AD; that John's disciple Polycarp, Irenaeus' master, was still alive and preaching what John had said and done in 150AD in Rome. No doubt there were many other examples, today unknown to us.

Johnny: As Elaine Pagels said, “The victors rewrote history, their way.�? In other words, the historical winners preserved only texts that were favorable to their agenda. [etc]

It sounds as if your original post was rhetorical, not a request for information. My apologies for not perceiving this, and dumping all that unwanted information on you.

As for your response, please allow me to refer you to the last paragraph of my comment:

"Does not this point -- which of course has some validity -- really suggest the impossibility of any accurate history, tho, not specifically the history of Christianity?"

All the best,

Roger Pearse

yalla

August 8, 2005, 08:21 AM

GakuseiDon

August 8, 2005, 09:41 AM

yalla

August 8, 2005, 11:21 AM

GakuseiDon: "Are you saying that there is evidence that Irenaeus didn't write those extant works generally attributed to him?"

No.
But.......
I do think allowance should be made for the confused, sparse nature of the context behind Roger's assertion.
This is some of the stuff I found, I don't know how accurate it is but that is part of the problem.
1.There is doubt as to who this apostle is.I know that it is supposed to be THE John but 1 site said B.H.Streeter says it is not. Presbyter John of Eusebius/Papias fame seems to be a candidate. Streeter is "respected'' is he not?
2.There is a plethora of dates. For Irenaeus I found ...born 115-125, 130-142, 135-140. For Polycarp's alleged martrydom I found c.155ce or 161ce.
3.For Irenaeus I found that [a] "5 citations are preserved of the 'Discourses on Faith....but.....their authenticity is doubtful"
[b] "The 4 Gk. remains known as the Pfaffian Fragments are "spurious".
[c] Of 9 fragments of Irenaeus, 7 are only in Eusebius.
[d]The Florinus Epistle, which appears to be the source for the claim that Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp is only found in Eusebius.
[e] One site said that it was not certain that Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp but he was obviously well informed re Polycarp.See d above.
4. Your quote from Adv. Her. only says I. SAW P., not that he knew him, that comes from a non-extant, AFAIK, Eusebius quoted source. A few months ago I saw Geoffrey Rush. But I do not know him.
5.The Pelican "Eusebius" says there is no confirmation of the tradition that I. died a martyr p.378. More confusion.
6.Eusebius makes it clear that he thinks I. is wrong in stating that Papias was a hearer of the apostles.
7.Adv. Her. and Letter to Florinus are, apparently, anti- heretical polemic and the references to P. serve as an appeal to authority in that context. So there is a relevant motive to take into account here.
8.And I do not accept that Jesus wrote to Abgar a la Eusebius. Do you?
So just because something is written, and written in Eusebius, does not mean it should be accepted.
9. Associated with Polycarp is the alleged account of his martyrdom from, again allegedly, the church at Smyrna. And that contains some doubtful material eg. verbatim dialogue per a Christian in a place that is not safe for such to be. And isn't there something about blood putting out the fire or similar? That is not a rhetorical question..I have a vague recollection.

It just seems to me that Roger's statement has too many confused and doubtful elements within it to be so positively and baldly stated as if fact.

I read the stuff here, I have read with interest and respect posts by yourself and Roger, and then I try to check things out.

And I don't think Roger's statement checks out as simply as he put it.

I'm open to correction.

Roger Pearse

August 8, 2005, 12:14 PM

Roger Pearse: '' So Irenaeus tells us that the apostle John was still around in 100AD; that John's disciple Polycarp, Irenaeus' master, was still alive and preaching what John had said and done in 150AD in Rome. No doubt there were many other examples, today unknown to us."

I tried finding the source for this and ended up going all over the place and back again in an ever descending spiral of circular self quoting by various sites and books.

I beg your pardon. Certainly such statements should be footnoted. Here is what I can find, but is not comprehensive.

The Apostle John alive ca. 100 AD (lit. 'to the time of Trajan (98-117) (http://www.roman-emperors.org/trajan.htm)') is from Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses II.22 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-59.htm#P7011_1802900),5:

"...even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?"

The close relation of Irenaeus to Polycarp, and the latter to John:

Irenaeus, De ogdoade, (a lost work) cited in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v. 20 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P3303_1528034) :

'These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak in mild terms, are not of sound doctrine; these opinions are not consonant to the Church, and involve their votaries in the utmost impiety; these opinions, even the heretics beyond the Church's pale have never ventured to broach; these opinions, those presbyters who preceded us, and who were conversant with the apostles, did not hand down to thee. For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing thyself in the royal court,3 and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse-his going out, too, and his coming in-his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. And I can bear witness before God, that if that blessed and apostolical presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, exclaiming as he was wont to do: "O good God, for what times hast Thou reserved me, that I should endure these things? "And he would have fled from the very spot where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. This fact, too, can be made clear, from his Epistles which he despatched, whether to the neighbouring Churches to confirm them, or to certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.'

Polycarp taught by apostles and preaching in Rome in the time of Anicetus, from Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, III,3 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7317_1944667),4:

'4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,---a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely, which is handed down by the Church.8 There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." '

I hope that is useful.

It's a phenomena I have noticed before. Try to trace an apparent historical fact re Christianity and you can find it repeated as if it is fact but it is difficult to get to the source.

I too have noticed this, and in fact I believe nothing unless I can check the source, as there is much misinformation doing the rounds. Fortunately there is a lot of the primary sources online.

One site suggested that it was not possible for Polycarp to have known THE "John" and gave reasons based on the dating involved...the birth, death and writing dates of these blokes are all over the place like multiple choice answers.

I think that this is perhaps derived from something written in the early part of the 20th century? I believe it was pretty much taken for granted that John's Gospel was written ca. 170, and one unfortunate actually published a book in 1936 proving that Polycarp [i]Philippians contained no citations from it, thus proving that the work could not be by John. It came out the same time as the publication of P52, which demonstrated the existence of a copy (of a copy of a copy) of John in 125AD. Your source has the sound of something from that period? (I don't know for sure).

You comment in more detail on fragments later -- I'll reply to that post, if you don't mind. But just this on one point:

And the most common source for "fragments" ...Eusebius...about 8 of the 9 or so missing bits.

99% of ancient literature was lost when ancient civilisation collapsed (so Pietro Bembo, according to N.G.Wilson). Even the Greek text of Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses no longer exists. But Eusebius' works are all of great value today because of his habit of verbatim citation of sources, today lost. Indeed books 11-15 of his Praeparatio Evangelica are more or less a primer of Greek philosophy, nearly all of it based on now lost sources. So it's just one of those things we have to get used to in ancient history.

I hope that helps.

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

August 8, 2005, 12:50 PM

2.There is a plethora of dates. For Irenaeus I found ...born 115-125, 130-142, 135-140. For Polycarp's alleged martrydom I found c.155ce or 161ce.

This sort of thing is in no sense unusual, I'm afraid.

3.For Irenaeus I found that
[a] "5 citations are preserved of the 'Discourses on Faith....but.....their authenticity is doubtful"
[b] "The 4 Gk. remains known as the Pfaffian Fragments are "spurious".

This is from Tixeront, isn't it? Peter Kirby thankfully has this online.

I'm afraid I don't know about Maximus of Turin (ca. 422 AD) and his citations from the Liber de fide, which is mentioned in the footnotes of the ANF translation of the fragments of Irenaeus -- sorry.

C.H.Pfaff published in 1715 some Greek fragments which he claimed to have found in a manuscript. Harnack proved them forged ca. 1900. I'm not sure what this tells us, other than that scholars can write forgeries.

[c] Of 9 fragments of Irenaeus, 7 are only in Eusebius.

All of them are probably cited in one source only.

[d]The Florinus Epistle, which appears to be the source for the claim that Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp is only found in Eusebius.

Indeed. There is also a letter, preserved in Syriac, to Pope Victor about Florinus.

5.The Pelican "Eusebius" says there is no confirmation of the tradition that I. died a martyr p.378. More confusion.

True. But I'm not sure what the confusion is.

6.Eusebius makes it clear that he thinks I. is wrong in stating that Papias was a hearer of the apostles.

"[The writings of Papias in common circulation are five in number, and these are called an Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: "Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him." Thus wrote Irenaeus. Moreover, Papias himself, in the introduction to his books, makes it manifest that he was not himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles; but he tells us that he received the truths of our religion2 from those who were acquainted with them [the apostles] in the following words: ]

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations,3 whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments,4 but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith,5 and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,-what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things6 Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."

Note how we here rely on Eusebius' verbatim quotation.

Note also that the quotation from Papias does not actually explicitly support what Eusebius supposes it to say (a feature of some of the quotations in Eusebius), or contradict that of Irenaeus. Irenaeus in any case was living at a time when he could have had access to other information about Papias than just his book.

7.Adv. Her. and Letter to Florinus are, apparently, anti- heretical polemic and the references to P. serve as an appeal to authority in that context. So there is a relevant motive to take into account here.

Isn't there *always* a motive to be found, if we presume authors willing to lie?

8.And I do not accept that Jesus wrote to Abgar a la Eusebius. Do you?

No. But again I don't see the relevance. Eusebius states that he got the letter from the Syriac. We have the text in question -- the Acts of Addai. So he really did locate a rare text, and bring it into Greek, like the scholar he was. That he doesn't come right out and denounce it as spurious is neither here nor there. Even modern scholars, making discoveries, tend not to denounce them as rubbish -- first they publish, then the discussion begins. We're not assessing Eusebius' competence as a textual critic. We're looking at whether or not he had access to, and quotes, sources we don't have. He did and does.

So just because something is written, and written in Eusebius, does not mean it should be accepted.

I don't see this, I must say. If Eusebius quotes a text, why should we not presume that text existed in his time?

9. Associated with Polycarp is the alleged account of his martyrdom from, again allegedly, the church at Smyrna. And that contains some doubtful material eg. verbatim dialogue per a Christian in a place that is not safe for such to be. And isn't there something about blood putting out the fire or similar? That is not a rhetorical question..I have a vague recollection.

This again seems to be a separate topic. A court record would of course have existed, as it did for the martyrs of Scilli.

It just seems to me that Roger's statement has too many confused and doubtful elements within it to be so positively and baldly stated as if fact.

I read the stuff here, I have read with interest and respect posts by yourself and Roger, and then I try to check things out.

And I don't think Roger's statement checks out as simply as he put it.

I'm open to correction.

The historical record contains many things, of differing value, and dealing with these is what we have to do. At the fringes, we find statements which are doubtful; we have to deal with that. We can always find reasons to ignore bits of data! But we don't and mustn't do that, without a positive reason to do so. Even fictional writers contain statements about antiquity that reach us in no other way.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnny Skeptic

August 8, 2005, 03:43 PM

The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2005 says the following:

“According to the Christian martyr and theologian Irenaeus, who was his pupil, Polycarp spoke with the apostle John the Evangelist; however, this person was probably John the Presbyter, whom Polycarp’s contemporary Papias expressly distinguished from John the apostle and evangelist.�?

Regarding Papias supposedly being a hearer of John the Evangelist, even if that is true, John is only one supposed eyewitness. What we need is external evidence regarding approximately how many people claimed to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead, including external evidence that shows that all of the surviving disciples defended their status as eyewitnesses throughout their lives.

How important is the issue of eyewitnesses? Well, obviously not very important to Luke. Consider the following:

Luke 24:33-34 say “And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon (Peter).�? The word “indeed�? confirms that the group had no doubts regarding Simon’s claim. Luke 24:34 in the New International version says "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." Again, notice the assuredness of the declaration, including the exclamation point used by the translators. The New American Standard Bible says “…….saying, The Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon.�? The use of the word “really�? indicates assuredness. What we have here is the belief in the Resurrection by that group of people not based upon seeing Jesus, but based only upon the testimony of one man in spite of the fact that initially, virtually no one believed that Jesus would rise from the dead.

Thanks to Luke, the importance of multiple eyewitness testimonies has flown right out of the window.

Regarding the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses, it is suspicious that the Gospels do not mention the 500 eyewitnesses, even though they frequently mention things of much less importance. The Gospel writers were trying to convince people that Jesus rose from the dead as best they could. All four Gospels mention Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, the women at the tomb and Jesus’ appearances to the disciples, so any rational minded person knows that if there were actually 500 eyewitnesses, which if true is a very impressive and quite useful claim, the Gospel writers would definitely have heard a good deal of their testimonies first hand, or they would have learned about the presence of a large number of eyewitnesses through the resulting hearsay testimonies other people and would have written about it.

Second Corinthians 13:1 says “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.�?
Well, where are the two or three witnesses regarding the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses?

Johnny Skeptic

August 9, 2005, 12:31 AM

At a web site at http://virtualreligion.net/primer/papias.html readers will find an informative article about Papias written by Malcom H. Smith, who is a well-educated Christian. Smith says that Eusebius said of Papias the following:

He got these ideas from a misinterpretation of the apostolic accounts. For he did not understand what they said mystically & in figurative language. For he obviously was a man of very little intelligence, as one can tell judging from his sayings. (Eccles. Hist. 3.39.12-13).

Smith: Clearly, Papias was no scholar. For he based his opinions on hearsay rather than on the comparison of texts. Moreover, Papias himself did not claim to be a disciple of "the elders," but rather a reporter who sought interviews with those who were their followers. Therefore, Papias' testimony is at best two steps removed from the apostolic generation, & even more from Jesus himself. This needs to be kept in mind in evaluating his comments about the composition of the gospels.

Eusebius (Eccles. Hist. 3.39.2), [said that] Papias mentions two Johns: one an apostle, the other an elder (presbyter); and Papias claimed his traditions were derived from the elders (not apostles).

Steven Carr

August 9, 2005, 07:32 AM

But Eusebius' works are all of great value today because of his habit of verbatim citation of sources, today lost.

And his habit of doctoring his quotations...

Josephus wrote in Antiquities Book 19 Section 346 'But as he presently afterwards looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger (Greek 'Angelos') of ill tidings...' Eusebius in his History (2.10) omits the words 'boubona - epi schoiniou tinos' (ie an owl on a certain rope) and retains only the 'angelos' or messenger. As it stands in Eusebius, the 'quote' of Josephus appears to support Acts 12:23 which mentions an 'angelos', but naturally does not say this messenger was an owl.

Eusebius said Tertullian referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not. Eusebius also said Trajan referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not.

Eusebius is the first person to say that Josephus referred to 'the tribe of Christians' . Well, third time's a charm. Clearly, Josephus did refer to the tribe of Christians......

Roger writes 'If Eusebius quotes a text, why should we not presume that text existed in his time?'

I guess Eusebius really did track down rare letters by Jesus....

Steven Carr

August 9, 2005, 10:50 AM

Roger writes 'If Eusebius quotes a text, why should we not presume that text existed in his time?'

I guess Eusebius really did track down rare letters by Jesus....

What I mean by this, is that if Eusebius has a text in front of him, and he presents the text as genuine history, then we cannot presume the text is what Eusebius claims it to be.

Roger shrugs off the miraculous account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp as irrelevant. Why? If the work claims that the fire did not burn Polycarp, why should we regard the work as historically accurate?

yalla

August 9, 2005, 11:33 AM

Steven carr says: "Roger shrugs off the miraculous account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp as irrelevant. Why? If the work claims that the fire did not burn Polycarp, why should we regard the work as historically accurate?"

Which is much the same that I was trying to say: " So just because something is written, and written in Eusebius, does not mean it should be accepted"....as authentic and true.[I should have added this previously]

It is at that point we can start to analyse that particular quote but taking into account it's provenance.
And the trouble is with a lot of this apparent hard data is that the provenance is very ..well..doubtful..

I checked out Marcion one day and found the usual stuff...from Sinope, son of shipbuilder whatever, went to Rome with lots of money, was ambitious and missed out on promotion so went off in a huff aroun 140 or 144 or 150...etc. More or less, the details don't really matter because along the way I found that all the biographical stuff on Marcion originates from one source..I forget who...Hippolytus? And whoever it was was a political opponent of Marcion. One site I visited suggested that the details were consequently untrustworthy.
But if I had a dollar for every site that told me the standard version I'd be richer than I am.

And to a person like me who is new to all this, that is actually misleading. I am not inferring evil motives, perhaps at the worst laziness. I know it can be tedious to have to reference all information precisely and to present all aspects relevant to any one situation or argument would be boring and long winded.

But when I read Roger's comment "So Irenaeus tells us that the apostle John was still around in 100AD; that John's disciple Polycarp, Irenaeus' master, was still alive and preaching what John had said and done in 150AD in Rome." I thought that given the shonky provenance of the source material, the presence of spurious material, the confusion or ignorance of basic data [where and when], the principal reliance on one source with it's inherent weaknesses, the presence of motives that suggest the information is not impartial, the presence of fantastic events [the dove out of Polycarp's body,heavenly voice] and so on, then I just thought the statement was unwarranted.

Roger Pearse

August 9, 2005, 12:50 PM

But when I read Roger's comment "So Irenaeus tells us that the apostle John was still around in 100AD; that John's disciple Polycarp, Irenaeus' master, was still alive and preaching what John had said and done in 150AD in Rome." I thought that given the shonky provenance of the source material, the presence of spurious material, the confusion or ignorance of basic data [where and when], the principal reliance on one source with it's inherent weaknesses, the presence of motives that suggest the information is not impartial, the presence of fantastic events [the dove out of Polycarp's body,heavenly voice] and so on, then I just thought the statement was unwarranted.

Have a look at the thread on Gaius (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=130997) and you'll see the same sort of approach required there also.

I wonder if perhaps you have some picture in your mind of how we go about getting the facts, and feel we can reject stuff that doesn't fit that picture? In fact, in ancient history, we have to make do with what we can get.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

yalla

August 9, 2005, 01:11 PM

I did read that thread Roger..sort of. The trouble is it is way over my head, I don't know what you guys are talking about there. I have never heard of Gauis et al.

So maybe I'll get back to you in a year or 2 or 3 when I've learned a little more.

Steven Carr

August 9, 2005, 01:15 PM

Steven Carr

August 9, 2005, 01:18 PM

But when I read Roger's comment "So Irenaeus tells us that the apostle John was still around in 100AD; that John's disciple Polycarp, Irenaeus' master, was still alive and preaching what John had said and done in 150AD in Rome." I thought that given the shonky provenance of the source material, the presence of spurious material, the confusion or ignorance of basic data [where and when], the principal reliance on one source with it's inherent weaknesses, the presence of motives that suggest the information is not impartial, the presence of fantastic events [the dove out of Polycarp's body,heavenly voice] and so on, then I just thought the statement was unwarranted.

Next you'll be claiming that Mormon and Jehovah Witness histories of the growth of their movements are not entirely accurate, despite the fact that Mormon and JW historians are the ones with the best access to the facts and the closest to the events involved.

Roger Pearse

August 9, 2005, 01:57 PM

I did read that thread Roger..sort of. The trouble is it is way over my head, I don't know what you guys are talking about there. I have never heard of Gauis et al.

No normal person has, so don't be concerned.

FYI, the query was something along the lines of "I have read somewhere in a modern source that some chap called Gaius, a presbyter of the Roman church in the second century AD, denied that the gospel of John was by the apostle John. On what ancient sources is this based?" Stephen Carlson gave a list of them (including Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Dionysius Bar Salibi), which together sort of make up that statement.

The reason I mentioned it was that it shows the sort of way that our knowledge of antiquity generally is put together (as far as I know, no-one denies that someone did so deny, in the second century).

You may not know that there are handbooks of the Fathers of the Church -- life, works, bibliography. You've come across Tixeront online; Quasten's "Patrology" in four volumes is the standard anglophone one, although getting a bit outdated in vols 1-3. There are also specialist handbooks for fathers in particular languages, such as those I cited for Syriac Fathers.

I hope that helps.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

August 9, 2005, 04:06 PM

Steven Carr

August 9, 2005, 07:41 PM

Johnny Skeptic

August 10, 2005, 12:32 AM

Eusebius seems to have disapproved of Papias because Papias took literally prophecies about the imminent end of the world we know and the coming of the millenium.

This dispute is probably irrelevant to Papias' reliability as a source of information about early traditions.

Well, the following that my well-educated Christian source said is most certainly not irrelevant:

"Clearly, Papias was no scholar. For he based his opinions on hearsay rather than on the comparison of texts. Moreover, Papias himself did not claim to be a disciple of "the elders," but rather a reporter who sought interviews with those who were their followers. Therefore, Papias' testimony is at best two steps removed from the apostolic generation, & even more from Jesus himself. This needs to be kept in mind in evaluating his comments about the composition of the gospels."

Andrew, are you disagreeing with my Christian source? He obviously is not very impressed with Papias. Do you maintain that Papias was a hearer of John? If so, where is your evidence?

The issue of the number of eyewitnesses is of great importance. The texts claim somewhere between 520 - 550 eyewitnesses, but how can we reliably verify this claim? Any ancient writer can claim any number of eyewitnesses that he wants to claim. Why do you trust the texts on this issue? What you need to produce are external records that indicate approximately how many people claimed to have been eyewitnesses. In your opinion, how many claimed eyewitnesses does it take to impress you, and since we don't have any first hand eyewitness testimony, how many steps removed from first hand eyewitness testimony does it take to impress you? Can you produce any second hand or third hand eyewitness testimony?

Roger Pearse

August 10, 2005, 05:03 AM

Well, the following that my well-educated Christian source said is most certainly not irrelevant:

"Clearly, Papias was no scholar. For he based his opinions on hearsay rather than on the comparison of texts. Moreover, Papias himself did not claim to be a disciple of "the elders," but rather a reporter who sought interviews with those who were their followers. Therefore, Papias' testimony is at best two steps removed from the apostolic generation, & even more from Jesus himself. This needs to be kept in mind in evaluating his comments about the composition of the gospels."

Andrew, are you disagreeing with my Christian source? He obviously is not very impressed with Papias.

Well, I think that the opinion of the person you quote is indeed irrelevant, since he has no data to go on that we do not. I was unclear what we need him for, when we have all the data? The position given is contradicted by Irenaeus, that is, by 50% of the evidence. I must say that the description of Papias testimony as 'hearsay' seems a curious way to describe what Papias says. (The words read as if they were written in haste, and it would probably be unfair to pillory the chap for them).

Incidentally I'm not sure why you refer (three times, now) to this person as a "well-educated Christian" -- he seems to be a teacher of religion at one of the secular universities in the US, and a member of the Jesus Seminar.

Do you maintain that Papias was a hearer of John? If so, where is your evidence?

Surely you know this? -- Irenaeus says so.

If someone says that Irenaeus is wrong, then we have to ask what evidence other than the opinion of Eusebius, two centuries later, is there for this? It is possible to read these two texts such that they contradict each other, of course. But then that too is a judgement. Let's hold onto all the data, not find reasons to ignore bits of it.

The issue of the number of eyewitnesses is of great importance. The texts claim somewhere between 520 - 550 eyewitnesses, but how can we reliably verify this claim? Any ancient writer can claim any number of eyewitnesses that he wants to claim. Why do you trust the texts on this issue? What you need to produce are external records that indicate approximately how many people claimed to have been eyewitnesses. In your opinion, how many claimed eyewitnesses does it take to impress you, and since we don't have any first hand eyewitness testimony, how many steps removed from first hand eyewitness testimony does it take to impress you? Can you produce any second hand or third hand eyewitness testimony?

I wasn't sure I understood this -- sorry. This seems to be a long list of demands that you make of Andrew -- why is it his problem rather than yours? --, and I don't see the relevance to the rest of the thread. In fact ancient history cannot be done like this. Have a look at the thread about Gaius to get a feel for the sort of thing we have to do for most things, Christian or not, in antiquity.

Of course if the point you are really making is that ancient "history is mostly bunk", then that is a judgement which the educated world has declined to accept, ever since the beginning of modern times. I think of Petrarch finding a manuscript of the letters of Cicero, and getting so excited by the text that he sat down and wrote a 'letter' to Cicero to say how much it meant to him. That is the spirit of learning and education.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Carr

August 10, 2005, 05:23 AM

I think that this is perhaps derived from something written in the early part of the 20th century? I believe it was pretty much taken for granted that John's Gospel was written ca. 170, and one unfortunate actually published a book in 1936 proving that Polycarp Philippians contained no citations from it, thus proving that the work could not be by John. It came out the same time as the publication of P52, which demonstrated the existence of a copy (of a copy of a copy) of John in 125AD.

Huh?

Why was the 'unfortunate' who proved that the work could not be by John refuted by the publication of p52?

yalla

August 10, 2005, 08:09 AM

Johnny Sceptic asked Roger Pearse:

"Do you maintain that Papias was a hearer of John? If so, where is your evidence?"

Roger replied:

"Surely you know this? -- Irenaeus says so.

If someone says that Irenaeus is wrong, then we have to ask what evidence other than the opinion of Eusebius, two centuries later, is there for this?"

So I thought I'd buy into this.
I presume we are discussing whether or not Papias claims to have been a hearer of John as in the extract of Eusebius HE 3.39.3ff.
There are 2 Johns mentioned. One is in the group mentioned in the past tense. So it is not him.
The other is John the presbyter.[aka the"Elder"?]. He is still alive.
And how does Papias get his information as to what these persons, alive or dead, said or are saying?
From .."whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the presbyters, I inquired into the words of the presbyters ....names of the dead inc. a "John"....and what Aristion and the presbyter John were still saying...'.

So I conclude from this that Papias says he was getting his information from the followers. Not from either the dead or still alive John.

Eusebius disagrees..."[Papias] says he listened to Aristion and the presbyter John with his own ears".

This is what I managed to find on this subject from the somewhat messy notes I have kept on books I have read. The notes are not perfect but I think they are essentially accurate and capable of verification or otherwise.

"He [Papias] does not claim to have any personal acquaintance with John the Elder or even that he lived in Ephesus" " J. Marsh in "St. John." pub. Penguin UK 1968. page 23

"Papias' relations with the apostle John were [at best] second hand" CK Barrett in "Gospel according to St. John" pub SPCK London 1978 page 105 t0 109 [notes a bit rough here]

1."Irenaeus' information that Papias was a hearer of John is not correct". p243
2."Irenaeus says Papias heard John [according to E] but this does not tally with Papias' own words in his proem..." p241
Both from W. Kummell "Intro to the NT" SCM London 1975.

"Irenaeus states that Papias, a companion of Polycarp, was a hearer of John, a MISTAKE pointed out by Eusebius"..........It cannot, then [reference to intervening material] be pronounced impossible that Irenaeus was mistaken in the recollections from boyhood that he claimed to have of Polycarp's teaching......"
From:A.H. McNeille in "AN Intro to the Study of the NT" page 283 pub Oxford Uni Press
2nd ed. london 1953.

So I am not alone in my interpretation.

gregor

August 10, 2005, 08:54 AM

Mr. Pearse

How can the discovery of a scrap of paper containing a few verses (portions of seven sentences, IIRC) that can be dated from 125 to as late as 175 CE that bears language that is similar to what we now call John (i.e. p52) establish:

1. P52 was written by a disciple
2. The gospel now called "John" was written by a disciple
or
2. The complete gospel of John from 350 CE was in remotely the same form as what existed in 150 CE

Roger Pearse

August 10, 2005, 10:36 AM

Roger Pearse

August 10, 2005, 10:55 AM

yalla

August 10, 2005, 11:19 AM

Roger:"This is not the passage by Irenaeus..."

I know that.
It is the only record of what Papias is alleged to have said on this subject.
It is the prime source material. The ONLY source of what Papias said.

It is that upon which Irenaeus is basing his claim that Papias knew a John called
elder/presbyter.

But Papias does NOT say he knew either of the Johns. He only knew the "the followers".
Irenaeus got it wrong.
That is why those NT scholars say he got it wrong.

Irenaeus accidentally or deliberately got it wrong. Papias did not know either of the possibly relevant persons named John.

S.C.Carlson

August 10, 2005, 11:42 AM

Roger:"This is not the passage by Irenaeus..."

I know that.
It is the only record of what Papias is alleged to have said on this subject.
It is the prime source material. The ONLY source of what Papias said.

It is that upon which Irenaeus is basing his claim that Papias knew a John called elder/presbyter.

Actually, Irenaeus had access to the entire work of Papias. We have access only to this extract Eusebius quoted.

Eusebius is known to take quotations out of their context, so one should not assume that this extract that Eusebius preserved for us is a fair representation of everything Papias had to say about John. Our suspicion that Eusebius may not have been completely candid as to what Papias said can only be strengthened when we realize that Eusebius was strongly biased against Papias's chiliasm.

Stephen

Johnny Skeptic

August 10, 2005, 11:56 AM

Do you maintain that Papias was a hearer of John? If so, where is your evidence?

Surely you know this? -- Irenaeus says so. If someone says that Irenaeus is wrong, then we have to ask what evidence other than the opinion of Eusebius, two centuries later, is there for this? It is possible to read these two texts such that they contradict each other, of course. But then that too is a judgment. Let's hold onto all the data, not find reasons to ignore bits of it.

We do not have to reject it, but you insist that we accept it. Why can’t we agree to be agnostic on the issue? Regarding “Let’s hold onto all the data,�? you of course mean all of the data held onto by the historical winners. Consider the following:

Elaine Pagels: For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: '...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.'

Larry Taylor: How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned.

In other words, Roger, Christians have rigged the deck, the deck meaning the surviving historical records.

The issue of the number of eyewitnesses is of great importance. The texts claim somewhere between 520 - 550 eyewitnesses, but how can we reliably verify this claim? Any ancient writer can claim any number of eyewitnesses that he wants to claim. Why do you trust the texts on this issue? What you need to produce are external records that indicate approximately how many people claimed to have been eyewitnesses. In your opinion, how many claimed eyewitnesses does it take to impress you, and since we don't have any first hand eyewitness testimony, how many steps removed from first hand eyewitness testimony does it take to impress you? Can you produce any second hand or third hand eyewitness testimony?

I wasn't sure I understood this -- sorry. This seems to be a long list of demands that you make of Andrew -- why is it his problem rather than yours? --, and I don't see the relevance to the rest of the thread.

Now Roger, it is Christians themselves who make a big deal out of the issue of eyewitnesses. Just take a look at Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case For Christ,’ J. P. Moreland’s ‘Scaling the Secular City,’ and ‘In Defense of Miracles,’ edited by Gary Habermas and J. Douglas Geivett. Would you like to present a case for Christianity without referring to the eyewitnesses?

You claim that Papias was most likely a hearer of John the Evangelist. John the Evangelist was supposedly an eyewitnesses. That makes John’s supposed eyewitness testimony important, and yet you said “This seems to be a long list of demands that you make of Andrew -- why is it his problem rather than yours? --, and I don't see the relevance to the rest of the thread.�? You don’t see the relevance of eyewitnesses? Well, that puts you in a distinct minority indeed.

At http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_packham/montgmry.html Richard Packham says “The testimony of Papias is the earliest authority for the authorship of the Apostles, but it is scarcely ‘solid.’ We do not even have Papias' direct testimony, since his writings are lost. Our information about Papias' testimony comes only by way of Eusebius, who wrote in the fourth century, and who portrays Papias as being somewhat gullible. The ‘John’ of whom Papias was a student was more likely John Presbyter than John the Evangelist (or John the Apostle, if they can be proven identical). In short, the ‘solid’ evidence is not as solid as Montgomery would like us to believe.�?

In fact ancient history cannot be done like this. Have a look at the thread about Gaius to get a feel for the sort of thing we have to do for most things, Christian or not, in antiquity.

Of course if the point you are really making is that ancient "history is mostly bunk," then that is a judgment which the educated world has declined to accept, ever since the beginning of modern times. I think of Petrarch finding a manuscript of the letters of Cicero, and getting so excited by the text that he sat down and wrote a 'letter' to Cicero to say how much it meant to him. That is the spirit of learning and education.

Now please Roger, it is in fact your assessment that the majority of the modern educated world has declined to accept. Typical of fundamentalist Christians you attempt to put ordinary historical claims in the same category as claims of the supernatural. The modern historical method does not work that way. That is because of the issues of repeatability, frequency, and probability, which are all related. The claims that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, died and rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, if true, were claims without prior precedent or subsequent duplication in all of human history. While the claims, if true, are of great eternal significance, whether or not Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River is of no eternal significance whatsoever. If new evidence came out that suggested that Caesar did not cross the Rubicon River, you would not be concerned in the least.

The Bible claims that there is tangible evidence of God’s power thousands of years ago, but what tangible evidence is there of his power and involvement in the lives of humans today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention, calling into question claims that miracles occurred thousands of years ago.

Christians often accuse skeptics of being predisposed against the existence of miracles, but such a notion is preposterous. There is no evidence that any miracles have ever occurred, but any skeptic would love for miracles to be available to help us with our many burdens. If I thought that there was only a 10% chance that miracles exist, I would go out of my way to prove that they do exist. I am defining miracles as events that are beyond the abilities of humans, and made possible by an extra-terrestrial being for the express purpose of benefiting humans.

Any skeptic would love for a benevolent God to provide him with a comfortable eternal life if he thought that it was available, so there should be no doubt whatsoever that all that skeptics are asking for is irrefutable evidence of God’s existence and good intentions.

There are plenty of loving skeptics in the world, some a lot more loving than the typical Christian. A loving skeptic would quite naturally be attracted to a loving human being, a loving alien or a loving God. This is just plain old common sense, Roger. If I thought that the Devil whom the Bible depicts exists, if I were able to kill him I would do so. Would you? Birds of a feather flock together. I detest the Devil whom the Bible depicts.

Matthew 14:14 says “And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.�? We need compassion today just as much as people did back then. It seems to me that there are only two possibilities here, either that God is no longer compassionate in tangible ways, or that he never was compassionate in tangible ways.

yalla

August 10, 2005, 12:49 PM

S.C.Carlson points out that:
Irenaeus had all of Papias' work
We only have the bit Eusebius gives us.
Eusebius could be accidentally/deliberately misinforming us.
Is that correct?

So I checked.

Irenaeus refers indirectly to the fourth of five works of Papias. Eusebius cites the preface of Papias. I presume they are not the same thing.

Yes I can see that Irenaeus is possibly correctly interpreting something else of Papias that we do not have and that Eusebius is [accidentally/deliberately] misleading everyone by misquoting Papias.

A trap for young players?

But a no win situation for the credibility of our Christian sources.
Someone, Eusebius or Irenaeus, is misleading. Or even both.

And someone must have misled old players too, such as Marsh, Kummel, McNeille and Barrett all of whom say Irenaeus is wrong. These guys are biggies in the field. I trusted them. Silly me. [Actually that looks flippant but it's not meant to be].

And one of them, McNeille, suggests that "Irenaeus may be mistaken in his recollections which he claimed to have of Polycarp's teaching" And he goes on to say [p.285] "So far nothing has been written which proves that Eusebius, in insisting on the 2 Johns, misunderstood Papias, though he may wrongly represent him as claiming to have been an actual hearer of Aristion and the Elder John".

What can be made of this?

And I seem to recall, and I reckon I'll be corrected if I'm wrong [as I should be], that it was Irenaeus that badly attributes a quote to Jesus that came from a entirely different source [apocryphal Jewish?], something to do with fruits of the vine I think.

If so what we have is a fair degee of uncertainty all round as to whether any of these quotes and ancient writers can be fully trusted [not necessarily lying].

Which is where I came in in the first place when I said that I thought Roger's statement re Irenaeus/Polycarp/John was too simplistic and strong for the edifice on which it was based.

And I still, on reflection, think Irenaeus was wrong [he has motive as well because he is trying to assert apostolic succession in an in-fight in the church] and the material we DO have supports that. It is hard to base conclusions on material that we do NOT have. But it's not as simple as it seems so I'll console myself with that and the thought that Barrett and co. are with me.

Do I owe Roger an apology?
I still think his statement was too strong [can't give it up].

S.C.Carlson

August 10, 2005, 01:05 PM

But a no win situation for the credibility of our Christian sources.
Someone, Eusebius or Irenaeus, is misleading. Or even both.

Welcome to historical criticism. If everybody were 100% credible, it would be easy.

And someone must have misled old players too, such as Marsh, Kummel, McNeille and Barrett all of whom say Irenaeus is wrong. These guys are biggies in the field. I trusted them. Silly me. [Actually that looks flippant but it's not meant to be].

Well, they were the biggies in their field, but the field has moved on since then. For example, Richard Bauckham has pointed out that Irenaeus never actually John as the son of Zebedee, an assumption that permeates much of the older scholarship. Just because they were biggies doesn't mean that all their assumptions are correct.

And I seem to recall, and I reckon I'll be corrected if I'm wrong [as I should be], that it was Irenaeus that badly attributes a quote to Jesus that came from a entirely different source [apocryphal Jewish?], something to do with fruits of the vine I think.

You're probably thinking of Irenaeus, Adv haer 5.33.3-4. It has parallels with 2 Baruch, but it was not derived from it. They both go back to something much older in Judaism.

If so what we have is a fair degee of uncertainty all round as to whether any of these quotes and ancient writers can be fully trusted [not necessarily lying].

Again, welcome to historical criticism. It is necessary to decide which ancient sources to trust and to what extent to trust them. It's not easy.

In the case of Eusebius, I trust the pride he had in his showing off the extent of his library a lot more than his critical judgment.

Stephen

yalla

August 10, 2005, 01:10 PM

"Which is much the same that I was trying to say: " So just because something is written, and written in Eusebius, does not mean it should be accepted"....as authentic and true.[I should have added this previously]"

By me in post #14.

It came back to bite me in the bum.

Roger Pearse

August 10, 2005, 01:10 PM

Roger:"This is not the passage by Irenaeus..."

I know that. It is the only record of what Papias is alleged to have said on this subject. ...It is that upon which Irenaeus is basing his claim that Papias knew a John called
elder/presbyter.

There is no evidence for this claim, tho, is there? Are we really saying that Irenaeus only knew those portions of Papias quoted by Eusebius :)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

August 10, 2005, 01:14 PM

Johnny Skeptic

August 10, 2005, 01:57 PM

We do not have to reject it, but you insist that we accept it. Why can’t we agree to be agnostic on the issue? Regarding “Let’s hold onto all the data,�? you of course mean all of the data held onto by the historical winners.

In other words, Roger, Christians have rigged the deck, the deck meaning the surviving historical records.

It's an easy allegation to make. But it leads straight to subjectivism.

It is not subjective. It is a fact. Early Christians made no effort at all to preserve the Gnostic writings and other opposing writings, and there must have been a whole heap of 'em. Any claim to the contrary is patently absurd. If the Gnostics had been the historical winners and we only had a few existing copies of New Testament manuscripts, you would use exactly the same argument that I am using. You might also use the following argument used by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona in 'The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus':

"We would like to point out that, for the Christian, there is a difference between knowing that Jesus rose from the dead with reasonable historical certainty and living on the personal assurance that Christianity it true. Paul wrote in Romans 8:16 that 'the Spirit Himself testifies with out spirit that we are children of God.' The Christian has the Holy Spirit who testifies to her that Christianity is true and that she belongs to God. The historical certainty we have of Jesus' resurrection only reinforces that God's Spirit had indeed spoken to us."

Of course, the authors spend a good deal of time discussing the "historical certainty" elsewhere in the book. In fact, Bible apologetics primarily deals with evidence based historical certainty.

Did the disciples believe in a historical certainty and the importance of multiple eyewitness testimonies? Well of course they didn't. Luke 24:33-34 say “And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.�? The word "indeed" is quite infatic and leaves little room for doubt. Now here we have the disciples “and them that were with them�? believing that Jesus rose from the dead based solely upon the testimony of Simon, even though initially virtually no one thought that Jesus would rise from the dead. John backs this up by saying that when Peter saw the empty tomb, he went away confused, and that Mary thought the body had been moved. You can't have it both ways. Either Luke 24:33-34 are fraudulent, or the prevailing views about Jesus' promise that he would return from the dead as told in the New Testament are fraudulent.

I am quite certain that no more than a relative handful of Christians in the world today would believe that Jesus had returned to earth based solely upon the testimony of their spouse or best friend, even though unlike people back then today's Christians are all expecting Jesus to return to earth.

You have misjudged the character of early Christians and Christians in subsequent centuries. Consider the following:

In his book titled ‘The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World,’ Christian author S. Angus, Ph.D., D.Lit., D.D., says the following:

“No one could have dreamed that the Christians, who had themselves suffered so much from persecution and protested so vehemently against the injustice and futility of persecution, would so quickly have turned persecutors and surpassed their Pagan predecessors in fanatical savagery and efficiency, utterly oblivious of the Beatitude of the Divine Master (Matt. V. 10, 44, 45). It became ominous for subsequent history that the first General Council of the Church was signalized by bitter excommunications and banishments. Christians, having acquired the art of disposing of hostile criticism by searching out and burning the objectionable books of their Pagan adversaries, learned to apply the same method to the works of such groups of Christians as were not in power or in favour for the time; when this method proved unsatisfactory, they found it expedient to burn their bodies. The chained skeleton found in the Mithraic chapel at Sarrebourg testified to the drastic means employed by Christians in making the truth conquer otherwise than by the methods and exemplified by the Founder. The stripping and torture to death with oyster-shells in a Christian church and the subsequent mangling of limb from limb of Hypatia, the noblest representative of Neo-Platonism of her day, by the violent Nitrian monks and servitors of a Christian bishop, and probably with his connivance, were symptomatic and prophetic of the intolerance and fanaticism which Christianity was to direct throughout the centuries upon its disobedient members and troublesome minorities until the day – yet to dawn – when a purer, more convincing because more spiritual, Christianity gains ‘the consent of happier generation, the applause of less superstitious ages.’�?

When I posted that at the Theology Web, James Holding commented on it but he did not oppose it.

The largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder and theft of property. The victors often warred among themselves for the spoils of victory. Few Christians would favor the United States embarking upon colonial conquests at this time, but if every Christian who is alive today had been transported at birth back to 1650 A.D., when colonial conquests were widely accepted by Christians, there should be no doubt whatsoever that the majority of them would have favored colonial conquests.

Will you claim that today's Christians "just got lucky" by being born at a time when humans are more civilized?

yalla

August 10, 2005, 02:53 PM

I'm back. Glutton for punishment?
I've been reading Irenaeus re the 10000 vines stuff "Adv Her V 33 3-4."
Certainly looks like 2 Baruch 29. 5-8 to me.

Anyway it is immediately prior to THE reference to Papias as the hearer of John.
"Adv Her V.33.4"
Have I got that right? Are there others or is this IT?

And it says "And these things..." and they are the reference to the vine stuff.
#4 refers back to #3.
And then goes on to say "are born witness to in his writings by Papias..."
So Irenaeus got the vine stuff from Papias or at least they agree, according to Irenaeus.
Where in Papias is this vine stuff?
From ".. in his fourth book....''.
So that is what his reference to the the fourth book of Papias is concerning.
Now I thought that he got his "Papias knew John" from the fourth book. And nobody corrected my misunderstanding.

Now stuck in the middle of this is the reference to Papias "..the hearer of John.."

There is no indication that it came from any particular place.
It is not indicated that it came from the fourth book of Papias.

So why is there speculation that it came from anywhere else other than where Eusebius says it came from ie the preface?

On what basis has it been stated that Eusebius is misquoting Papias to contradict Irenaeus by manufacturing a false quote and not citing something else.

Is there any evidence that the preface of Papias is NOT the source of Irenaeus claiming Papias knew John?

There is evidence that it is.
Namely Eusebius.

Which, if the above is correct, gets us back to the starting point.

Namely Irenaeus says Papias was a hearer of john.
There is no indication that that opinion is based on anything else than the preface of Papias.
In which case Irenaeus got it wrong, [and he has motive for so saying].

So what am I missing this time?

andrewcriddle

August 10, 2005, 03:50 PM

Well, clearly there was an early tradition that prophecies about the imminent end of the world should be taken literally.......

Is Papias reliable about early traditions about the death of Judas?
There is a problem about precisely what Papias said concerning the death of Judas. IMS Some of the ancient citations have more lurid details than others.

In any case I see no reason to doubt that Papias records ancient tradition here although I doubt if it has any historical value.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

August 10, 2005, 03:59 PM

Andrew, are you disagreeing with my Christian source? He obviously is not very impressed with Papias. Do you maintain that Papias was a hearer of John? If so, where is your evidence?
IMO one can't firmly establish whether or not Papias was a hearer of the apostle John.

However one should probably avoid multiplying Johns without necessity and there is really very little evidence for a late 1st century CE 'John the presbyter or elder' distinct from John the son of Zebedee.

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

August 10, 2005, 03:59 PM

I'm back. Glutton for punishment?
I've been reading Irenaeus re the 10000 vines stuff "Adv Her V 33 3-4."
Certainly looks like 2 Baruch 29. 5-8 to me.

Yes, but the Irenaeus quotation from Papias includes material that is older than 2 Baruch and missing from 2 Baruch (e.g. the simile of the wheat, which is attested in a more primitive form in 1 Enoch 10.19). Thus, Papias could not have derived the wheat portion from 2 Baruch.

Rather, both the Papias agraphon and 2 Baruch would ultimately derive from an apocalyptic midrash on Gen 27:28. Another element of the midrash missing from 2 Baruch but present in the Papias is a word-play linkage with Gen 49:12 (also attested in R. Dimi, b Ketub 111b). These midrashic features use Hebrew puns and are almost certainly beyond the competence of the Gentiles Papias and Irenaeus.

So that is what his reference to the the fourth book of Papias is concerning.
Now I thought that he got his "Papias knew John" from the fourth book. And nobody corrected my misunderstanding.

Sorry, I didn't pick up on your misunderstanding, but I'll simply note that it may have come from reading that portion of Irenaeus which Eusebius quoted out of context!

Now stuck in the middle of this is the reference to Papias "..the hearer of John.."

There is no indication that it came from any particular place.
It is not indicated that it came from the fourth book of Papias.

So why is there speculation that it came from anywhere else other than where Eusebius says it came from ie the preface?

Actually, Eusebius's claim is more like Irenaeus overlooked the preface:

2 So wrote Irenaeus. Yet Papias himself, according to the preface of his volumes, in no way presents himself to have been a listener and eyewitness of the holy apostles, but teaches that he had received the articles of the faith from those who had known them, for he speaks as follows:

...

7 And the Papias being explained now admits that he had received the words of the apostles from those who followed them, and declares that he was an ear-witness of Aristion and the presbyter John. At any rate, he hands down their traditions in his treatises, often mentioning them by name.

What's interesting is that Eusebius understood the preface to mean that he was an ear-witness of Aristion and the presbyter John and observed that Papias often mentioned them by name. The preface is not the only part in Papias that mentioned John. Even Eusebius admitted that.

On what basis has it been stated that Eusebius is misquoting Papias to contradict Irenaeus by manufacturing a false quote and not citing something else.

I didn't state that Eusebius manufactured a false quote, only that we don't have have the full context of his quote to argue informedly from what Papias did not say in it.

Is there any evidence that the preface of Papias is NOT the source of Irenaeus claiming Papias knew John?

Apart from what I just discussed, Irenaeus also stated that Papias was a colleague of Polycarp. That information did not come from the portion of the preface that Eusebius quoted.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

August 10, 2005, 04:09 PM

However one should probably avoid multiplying Johns without necessity and there is really very little evidence for a late 1st century CE 'John the presbyter or elder' distinct from John the son of Zebedee.

I believe the evidence for it is pretty much limited to Eusebius's reading of the bit of Papias he quoted.

gregor

August 10, 2005, 04:18 PM

Mr. Pearse

So why cite P52 as some basis for your earlier argument if you disavow it now? You are the one that brought it up.

And please advise which facts I have mistakenly stated (other than giving credence to the potentially incorrection notion that it might be as early as 125 CE)?

Please ref: the companion thread on P52 (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=133340)

Steven Carr

August 10, 2005, 04:49 PM

Steven Carr

August 10, 2005, 04:52 PM

There is a problem about precisely what Papias said concerning the death of Judas. IMS Some of the ancient citations have more lurid details than others.

In any case I see no reason to doubt that Papias records ancient tradition here although I doubt if it has any historical value.

Is there any uncertainty about what Papias said about (apostle/elder/) John?

John was a very common name...... Every Tom, Dick and Harry was called John in those days.

andrewcriddle

August 11, 2005, 02:58 PM

Johnny Skeptic

August 11, 2005, 11:49 PM

Is there any uncertainty about what Papias said about (apostle/elder/) John?

John was a very common name...... Every Tom, Dick and Harry was called John in those days.

There is obviously uncertainty. (As I noted in another post in this thread)

The most we can hope for is to determine the most probable answer.

What is most probable is a matter of persepctive, Andrew. I find it to be very improbable that God would wait around for countless trillions of years before he finally got the notion that he wanted to create humans, and that he would cause a global flood in order to get rid of evil humans instead of simply killing them like he killed all fo the first born males in Egypt, and that is just for openers.

What is not improbable at all is that humans like to dream up religions in order to satisfy their desire for immortality, and not just any old immortality, but quite conveniently an immortality in comfort. The goal of Christians is to obtain a comfortable eternal life, and although they are not aware of it at this time, ultimately they couldn't care less who provides them with a comfortable eternal life as long as it is available. Any of a number of means of achieving it would be deemed equally acceptable. For example, if all that God required was a heartfelt "I am sorry for my sins," without any mention of the shed blood of Jesus, that would be perfectly acceptable as long as a comfortable eternal life is available. Similarly, if you have cancer, you couldn't care less who provides you with a cure as long as a cure is available. Truly, as far as religious minded people are concerned, all roads lead to comfort completely irregardless of who provides it. In other words, comfort is the common denomiator in religions, not who provides it. If humans were able to achieve all of their desires for comfort on their own, including perceived immortality, almost no one would be religious, probably even including you, Andrew.