That was my beginning position in this thread, that you can't compare them to our present bibles because they are not completely translated and also some of these items in discussion are debated amongst the scientists as to their actual time periods. The full translations will take eons to even be able to make comparisons and this is information that isn't available to us. The originals surely aren't available to but a few scholars in whom we would have to lay our trust.
Though such requires a bit of footwork and old-fashion persistence, anyone who truly desires to study any of the manuscripts /mss. fragments discovered at the Dead Sea or Nag Hammadi may obtain facsimiles, or photographs of the original manuscripts to go over for themselves. There are even editions of the Dead Sea Scrolls being released which feature the translation with a parallel Hebrew/Aramaic text. And somewhere online, one may even read a "Gospel of Thomas" Coptic text/English interlinear.
You don't have to "lay" your faith in any scholar - though learning a little bit of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Coptic would be most helpful. And facsimiles could be quite costly (interlibrary loan could provide a way around the cost factor), if that's what you want.
It's up to you how far you want to go. The stuff is already out there. It's not being held hostage "under lock and key", unless there are manuscripts hidden in a vault in the Vatican basement that we know nothing of (as featured in a couple hilarious scenes in that movie, "Stigmata"). :)
But even without reference to the "original manuscripts", there are already many decent English translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi in circulation for one to at least get started. Why wait around for something akin to official, divine "FDA approval" - just pick up a couple volumes for your bookshelf or bathroom and begin reading. The more one reads, the better acquainted one becomes with the material, the more one will gain from it all.
Again, it's up to you how far you want to go. No one's holding you back but yourself.
Dan you are absolutely right ....... each person can take it upon themselves as far the want to go with this. I am still working on my existing materials and undoing some of what I learned over all my years in TWI.
My personal belief is that all materials are not made available and of course no matter how much biblical greek and hebrew we have been taught ........ there are other means of communication that is vital to learn in able to decipher the meanings of the scrolls and tablets that have been found.
Unless one possesses a great depth of knowledge in ancient languages and characters they are going to have to go far beyond studying the faxed documents to work them. I am still working on my bible.
I am not saying that someone doesn't have to look into these matters, I am just saying that it will take a considerable amount of time that I don't have. Along with a considerable amount of knowledge that I would have to return to college for. As well as become a scientist and an archeologist to truly TRY to understand the ages of these scrolls and tablets.
I studied ancient civilizations for some time and am still studying them on my own, I have spent over 3 years doing this on my own out of school aside from in school and don't feel I have hit the tip of the iceberg of what I need to know to accomplish the goal I have set for myself.
These scrolls and tablets will take a considerable amount of time once again ,,,,,,,, its just I am not making the time to study them. I feel its my perogitive not to drive myself crazy at this moment in my life.
Anyone who wants to study and believes that these are Gods word then by all means do so, GO FOR IT. If you find that it is indeed Gods word than I hope you won't hold it against us numskulls who don't have enough knowledge in Biblical or ancient languages to be able to decipher this information. I believe God has other plans for me at the moment.
It's not being held hostage "under lock and key", unless there are manuscripts hidden in a vault in the Vatican basement that we know nothing of (as featured in a couple hilarious scenes in that movie, "Stigmata"). :)
1. The Archives are open to qualified Researchers from institutions of Higher Education pursuing academic studies and who have an adequate knowledge of archival research.
2. Applications requesting access to the Archives must be submitted to the Prefect along with a letter of introduction from either a recognized institution of Higher Education or from a suitably qualified person in the field of historical research.
3. Applications should specify the applicant’s surname, first name(s), qualifications (these must include a four-year University degree or equivalent), profession, nationality, home address, address in Rome and purpose of research.
4. Applications should be accompanied by two photographs, one of which will be used for the Entry Card required to enter the Vatican City and the Archive Study Rooms.
5.Entry Cards expire on July 15th of each year. Your card will be renewed upon submission of the previous year’s card.
6. Undergraduate students are not admitted into the Archives.
7.In order to allow access to as many Researchers as possible, access is usually not permitted to more than one researcher working on the same topic.
8. The Archives are open to Researchers from September 16th to July 15th (8:30 a.m. to 1:15 p.m.) from Monday to Saturday. The Admissions Secretary issues Entry Cards from Monday to Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Periods and days in which the Archives are closed are shown on the «Archive Calendar». The Bursar’s Office is open to researchers every day from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.
9. Researchers holding an Entry Card may enter the Archives between 8:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. (Monday to Saturday). A written explanation must be submitted to the Prefect to request afternoon access (from 4:00 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.).
10. Collections up to and including the pontificate of Benedict XV (†January 22nd, 1922) are available for consultation, as well as the collections of Arch. Nunz. Monaco; Arch. Nunz. Berlino; Aff. Eccl. Str., Baviera; Affari Eccl. Str., Germania (until 1939) and thecollectionUfficio Informazioni Vaticano (Prigionieri di guerra 1939-1947).
11. The available forms should be used to request archival material. No more than three volumes or envelopes may be requested per day. Requests are accepted until 12:00 noon.
12. All volumes and documents must be handled with the utmost care. It is strictly forbidden to write, even in pencil, on archival documents or to place paper or any other objects on the material. Furthermore, the order of the material must not be altered.
13. Only graphite-pencils may be used for writing notes. Ballpoint-pens, fountain-pens, felt-tip pens, etc., are strictly forbidden.
14. If the material issued to the Researcher is in a poor state of conservation or presents other problems, the staff must be informed.
15. It is strictly forbidden to remove any material from the Study Room.
16. Indexes must be consulted in the Index Room and replaced in their original location. Publication of the indexes, in part or as a whole, is forbidden.
17. Silence must be observed in all parts of the Archives. Please dress with discretion.
18. Researchers unfamiliar with the Archive collections and indexes should refer to the guide provided by the Prefecture. Publications are available to help researchers orient themselves.
19. Researchers may not photograph the documents. Reproductions must be requested from the Archives Photographic Department.
20. Admission to the Archives carries with it the obligation to send the Prefecture one copy of any publication (articles in journals, exhibition catalogues, books etc.) in which documents from the Archives are used or quoted.
21. Reference number of all volumes and documents should be quoted in the correct and concise form given in the Collection Index. If in doubt a staff member should be consulted. The words «Archivio Segreto Vaticano» (ASV) must always precede the reference number and no reference should be made to the city of Rome in the same.
22. Failure to observe these rules will result in the refusal of future access to the Archives.
I think that the reason some of those scrolls aren't completely translated is because of the time it takes to do so and the eagerness to get out to the public what they HAVE figured out so far. Also, the scrolls weren't in pristine condition and, as in the case of the Nag Hammadi, they were beside a stove and being used to start fires, so some parts were possibly destroyed during that time.
Thanks, but so you know, Belle wrote that (I had it in a quote).
Mark, I'm racking my brain trying to remember where I got that information. I'm thinking it must be partially from Elaine Pagels Gnostic Gospels and the History Channel as that's where most of my information lately has come from. I'll remember, though, just give me time. :)
Didn't Constantine order that the Bible be compiled or something like that? And wasn't it mostly just decisions by whoever was in charge at the time and that's why the scrolls that were more liberating and that didn't fit with what those in charge believed? Why would we just assume that those men were true Godly scholars and not regular vee pee's and martindales out to compile something that would give them more power? (I'm just tossing questions out there - not trying to start a fight - these are really things I think about nowadays)
These scrolls and tablets will take a considerable amount of time once again ,,,,,,,, its just I am not making the time to study them. I feel its my perogitive not to drive myself crazy at this moment in my life.
Anyone who wants to study and believes that these are Gods word then by all means do so, GO FOR IT. If you find that it is indeed Gods word than I hope you won't hold it against us numskulls who don't have enough knowledge in Biblical or ancient languages to be able to decipher this information. I believe God has other plans for me at the moment.
Digi
Digi -
Please forgive me if I came across as a smug brainiac. Again, I think there are a good many decent English translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls that suffice most readers quite well (inclusing myself) and make juggling dictionaries and ancient texts a rather needless exercise. Again, it all depends on where one's interests lies.
"Word studies" are not the end-all, cure-all to actual study or "research" as the Way made them out to be. In such an approach, some tended to miss the forest for the trees. Studying texts and dictionaries are only tools. But the most important resource is the willingness to contemplate entire expressions and ideas in the comfort of your own mind.
If, for example, you wanted to find parallel expressions between Paul's epistles and "The Thanksgiving Hymns" in the Dead Sea scrolls, - and there are a lot of them(!), - you or anyone else who already has a familiarity with Paul's epistles from having read them over the years will have no difficulty whatsoever in recognizing them when reading any English translation of "The Thanksgiving Hymns". No dictionary, ancient text or .PHD is required; no big, heavy "commitment". Just read and enjoy.
Mark, I'm racking my brain trying to remember where I got that information. I'm thinking it must be partially from Elaine Pagels Gnostic Gospels and the History Channel as that's where most of my information lately has come from. I'll remember, though, just give me time. :)
Didn't Constantine order that the Bible be compiled or something like that? And wasn't it mostly just decisions by whoever was in charge at the time and that's why the scrolls that were more liberating and that didn't fit with what those in charge believed? Why would we just assume that those men were true Godly scholars and not regular vee pee's and martindales out to compile something that would give them more power? (I'm just tossing questions out there - not trying to start a fight - these are really things I think about nowadays)
Belle,
As I said before, it was a process, rather than a single event.
According to Schaff (nowhere could he be considered a Catholic author LOL),
The collection of these writings into a canon, in distinction both from apocryphal or pseudo-apostolic works, and from orthodox yet merely human productions, was the work of the early church; and in performing it she was likewise guided by the Spirit of God and by a sound sense of truth. It was not finished to the satisfaction of all till the end of the fourth century, down to which time seven New Testament books (the "Antilegomena" of Eusebius), the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and in a certain sense also the Apocalypse of John, were by some considered of doubtful authorship or value.
But the collection was no doubt begun, on the model of the Old Testament canon, in the first century; and the principal books, the Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, the first Epistle of Peter, and the first of John, in a body, were in general use after the middle of the second century, and were read, either entire or by sections, in public worship, after the manner of the Jewish synagogue, for the edification of the people.
I've already provided you, in my earlier post, an example from Iraneus, demonstrating that the four Gospels in current use were the ones considered authoritative as early as the close of the second century. Had a person approached a church with a Gospel of Peter or a Gospel of Mary or a Gospel of Thomas by that time, such a work would have been considered, but it would have hardly been considered with the same authority as one of the tetramorph Gospels listed by Irenaeus. The canoncial letters of Paul were likewise mentioned in this same Adversus Haereses; I do not provide a quote, because the references are literally scattered throughout Irenaeus' document.
All of the above articles have a tremendous amount of detail to them and are written from an academic point of view. (I think if you check with Danny, he'll concur on that)
As to Constantine, if you really look into history, you'll find out that he was not truly in a position to force anything on Christianity...Christianity was not yet the state religion. It wouldn't be until the reign of Theodosius I. What Constantine did was enact a law called the Edict of Milan. That document simply made Christianity legal, vice making it the state religion (Actually, he outlawed blood sacrifices and other Pagan practices, thus essentially making it so) in 391 AD. Having said that, both Constantine and Theodosius did convene ecumenical councils during their reign. However, the First Nicene Council was ineffective in ridding the Empire of Arians...it took Theodosius to effectively accomplish that. In fact, if you were to look, you'd find that Constantine actually switched over to the Arian point of view for a few years after the conclusion of Nicea. If I'm not mistaken, he switched back prior to his death. (He was sort of confused, as well...my understanding is that Constantine called the bishops together and said: "settle this controversy one way or the other")
But, again, unless you can show me where I'm wrong, I still will stick to the thesis I forwarded earlier: that the Gnostic writings were suppressed more for the purpose of maintaining theological orthodoxy rather than for the purpose of advancing political power. Christianity was being suppressed with varying degrees of severity all through the time frame of the Marcionite and other gnostic controversies, thus there was little or no political power to garner from this suppression. By the time Christianity gained any kind of political power, the controversy had moved from gnosticism to Arianism. There simply weren't a large quantity of Arian works to suppress. The major work by an Arian was Eusibius' History, and nobody could say that this was a suppressed or hidden work...it's one of the most common works out there.
Even earlier, you'll see that Tertullian toyed with Marcionite ideas for a while. Those works, likewise, weren't suppressed. And there are other authors as well. The evidence just doesn't support the claim.
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that Gnostics have always essentially been out of the mainstream, at least since the beginning of the third century. As Danny can relate to you, the gnostic varieties of Christianity (of which Marcion was a major leader, the one to whom Danny subscribes) and Catholicism had the bulk of their "battles" prior to the era of the Council of Nicea. Having said that, though, Gnosticism never really has died out, although Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christianity have all tried to suppress it, even to the point of having barbequed Gnostic parties, throughout the ages.
I think the reason why gnostic thought is gaining in popularity in the current era is because if its' "hidden knowledge" aspects. I see it acting as a link between a lot of the pagan and pantheistic religions that have gained their vast popularity in recent decades, as people who, for one reason or another, have foresworn traditional Christiantiy, but yet need to find spiritual answers to spiritual questions. That is with due respect to anybody who has made that decision, it's just an IMHO statement.
Hope that helps out some. Good luck with your search!
I no longer take every word I read even from the current stranslated bibles of the world and do a word study on ever word I come across. I have learned to simply read and enjoy the bibles I have. As a matter of fact when I decided I was going to read my bible again after leaving TWI I picked it up as if I was reading a novel and tried not to read into it in any manner. (I picked up one of my kids bibles that was not all marked up lol) It was great to read in this manner.
But ......... I don't believe that these new materials that have come into light can simply just be read quite yet that there is definately research that needs to be done and by more than one person and that these people bring there findings together and share with one another there understanding so a to accurately translate them for the public.
I am not sold on the translations or the accuracy of the times of some of these materials but I am thankful for those who keep tryng to conquer the task that is at hand. Just as Martin Luther had his task to translate the bible we have today the men and women who are translating these materials have there work cut out for them.
Even earlier, you'll see that Tertullian toyed with Marcionite ideas for a while. Those works, likewise, weren't suppressed.
I was aware that Augustin was at one time a Manichean, and that Tertullian became a Montanist (a charismatic sect whose leaders wielded pretentious claims that today could possibly get them considered for their own TBN show), but I was unaware that Tertullian was known for ever having any Marcionite leanings.
Although I haven’t read them, Tertullian’s penned some writings noted for their opposition to Marcion’s heresy.
“Whatever in times past we have wrought in opposition to Marcion, is from the present moment no longer to be accounted of. It is a new work which we are undertaking in lieu of the old one. My original tract, as too hurriedly composed, I had subsequently superseded by a fuller treatise. This latter I lost, before it was completely published, by the fraud of a person who was then a brother, but became afterwards an apostate. He, as it happened, had transcribed a portion of it, full of mistakes, and then published it. The necessity thus arose for an amended work; and the occasion of the new edition induced me to make a considerable addition to the treatise. This present text, therefore, of my work-which is the third as superseding the second, but henceforward to be considered the first instead of the third-renders a preface necessary to this issue of the tract itself that no reader may be perplexed, if he should by chance fall in with the various forms of it which are scattered about.”
I was aware that Augustin was at one time a Manichean, and that Tertullian became a Montanist (a charismatic sect whose leaders wielded pretentious claims that today could possibly get them considered for their own TBN show), but I was unaware that Tertullian was known for ever having any Marcionite leanings.
Although I haven’t read them, Tertullian’s penned some writings noted for their opposition to Marcion’s heresy.
“Whatever in times past we have wrought in opposition to Marcion, is from the present moment no longer to be accounted of. It is a new work which we are undertaking in lieu of the old one. My original tract, as too hurriedly composed, I had subsequently superseded by a fuller treatise. This latter I lost, before it was completely published, by the fraud of a person who was then a brother, but became afterwards an apostate. He, as it happened, had transcribed a portion of it, full of mistakes, and then published it. The necessity thus arose for an amended work; and the occasion of the new edition induced me to make a considerable addition to the treatise. This present text, therefore, of my work-which is the third as superseding the second, but henceforward to be considered the first instead of the third-renders a preface necessary to this issue of the tract itself that no reader may be perplexed, if he should by chance fall in with the various forms of it which are scattered about.”
I will have to look for it, but despite his anti-Marcionite writings, I seem to recall reading in one spot that he had toyed with Marcion's philosophy for a short time. It's been a while, but I still recall it (I think because of the surprise). If I can find the source, I'll post it...may not be an online source. And no, I am not confusing this with his well known conversion to Montanism.
But it's not an important point in the argument, anyway...
Even earlier, you'll see that Tertullian toyed with Marcionite ideas for a while.
I think you meant Montanist - or Montanism [Cynic beat me to it], which from the impression one might gain reading about them, was something akin to our modern "spirit-filled" Pentecostal movements.
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that Gnostics have always essentially been out of the mainstream, at least since the beginning of the third century. As Danny can relate to you, the gnostic varieties of Christianity (of which Marcion was a major leader, the one to whom Danny subscribes) and Catholicism had the bulk of their "battles" prior to the era of the Council of Nicea. Having said that, though, Gnosticism never really has died out, although Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christianity have all tried to suppress it, even to the point of having barbequed Gnostic parties, throughout the ages.
"The danger that this church presented to Christianity was the greatest in the generation between 150 and 190. In this period and it alone was actually a counterchurch: this observation is evident from the abundance of opposing writings, and can be read from the nature of the opposition offered by Justin and from the work of Celsus as well...Celsus often spoke as though there were only two churches, the "great church" and the Marcionite, and alongside them only Gnostic underbrush."
-Adolf von Harnack, p.100, "Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God"
As for categorizing Marcion as a "Gnostic" it's not always been such a cut and dry case to make, despite
the unusual feature of Marcionite dualism; in many respects he shared more in common with Catholicism than with the variety of speculative Gnostic movements (prone to the "hidden knowledge aspects" you mentioned) at the time; I think that's the reason why Catholicism regarded Marcionism the greater threat.
Even at the time of Origen, who "still saw in Marcion the chief adversary of the church and threw himself with all diligence and with full force into the battle against the "doctrina Marcionis", which he sharply distinguished from the "longa fabulositas" of Basilides and the "traditiones" of Valentinus. In addition to the ancient and newly shaped authorities that they brought into the battle, he and the great old Catholic theologians before him also forged the spiritual weapons with which they met Marcionitism. the ecclesiastical theology they developed and which still today is the doctrinal foundation of the great confessions is in much greater measure an anti-Marcionite theology than an anti-Valentian or anti-Ebionite theology. One may also unhesitatingly assume that this theology had a great part in the suppression of the Marcionite church." (Harnack, ibid.)
Harnack provides various examples of the suppression of the Marcionite Church, but I will cite one(p.102):
"The church inscription at Lebaba [ which was to "The Synagogue of the Marcionites"] in the territory of Licinius shows us that in the year 318/319 the Marcionite community there could erect a church building with an inscription on which the owner of the building was announced to everyone. But the rejoicing was not long-lived. Constantine began to forbid heretical assemblies and to destroy the meetinghouses, and even to forbid worship services in private homes, to expropriate the tracts of land, and to confiscate the heretical books.. (emphasis mine)
I'm sorry, Mark, I like you (I really do), but if Harnack is correct in the presentation of his facts here, this doesn't exactly line up with the notion that the Catholic Church had not in some way enough clout to have steered or influenced Constantine (and subsequent rulers) in a certain "political" direction that favored their church against all others.
I think you meant Montanist - or Montanism [Cynic beat me to it], which from the impression one might gain reading about them, was something akin to our modern "spirit-filled" Pentecostal movements.
As I said to Cynic, I am well familiar with the Montanist conversion of Tertullian. But I do distinctly remember reading this one place. It stuck with me precisely because it was so odd, particularly considering his well known, often cited work against Marcion.
"The danger that this church presented to Christianity was the greatest in the generation between 150 and 190. In this period and it alone was actually a counterchurch: this observation is evident from the abundance of opposing writings, and can be read from the nature of the opposition offered by Justin and from the work of Celsus as well...Celsus often spoke as though there were only two churches, the "great church" and the Marcionite, and alongside them only Gnostic underbrush."
-Adolf von Harnack, p.100, "Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God"
And my (Catholic) sources state the same thing, that this was the peak of the Marcionite era...which was essentially over by the time of the Nicene Councils.
As for categorizing Marcion as a "Gnostic" it's not always been such a cut and dry case to make, despitethe unusual feature of Marcionite dualism; in many respects he shared more in common with Catholicism than with the variety of speculative Gnostic movements (prone to the "hidden knowledge aspects" you mentioned) at the time; I think that's the reason why Catholicism regarded Marcionism the greater threat.
Even at the time of Origen, who "still saw in Marcion the chief adversary of the church and threw himself with all diligence and with full force into the battle against the "doctrina Marcionis", which he sharply distinguished from the "longa fabulositas" of Basilides and the "traditiones" of Valentinus. In addition to the ancient and newly shaped authorities that they brought into the battle, he and the great old Catholic theologians before him also forged the spiritual weapons with which they met Marcionitism. the ecclesiastical theology they developed and which still today is the doctrinal foundation of the great confessions is in much greater measure an anti-Marcionite theology than an anti-Valentian or anti-Ebionite theology. One may also unhesitatingly assume that this theology had a great part in the suppression of the Marcionite church." (Harnack, ibid.)
And, for the viewing audience, I should state that Origin was only alive through 232 AD.
Harnack provides various examples of the suppression of the Marcionite Church, but I will cite one(p.102):
"The church inscription at Lebaba [ which was to "The Synagogue of the Marcionites"]in the territory of Licinius shows us that in the year 318/319 the Marcionite community there could erect a church building with an inscription on which the owner of the building was announced to everyone. But the rejoicing was not long-lived. Constantine began to forbid heretical assemblies and to destroy the meetinghouses, and even to forbid worship services in private homes, to expropriate the tracts of land, and to confiscate the heretical books.. (emphasis mine)
I'm sorry, Mark, I like you (I really do), but if Harnack is correct in the presentation of his facts here, this doesn't exactly line up with the notion that the Catholic Church had not in some way enough clout to have steered or influenced Constantine (and subsequent rulers) in a certain "political" direction that favored their church against all others.
Danny
See, that account just doesn't jive with what I've seen and read. I have seen that Theodosius was the one who started the repressions of the (non-Christian -- read non-Catholic) sects. Constantine was confused as to whether to subscribe to Trinitarian or Arian Christianity almost to the end of his life. As a point of trivia, by the way, Constantine wasn't baptized until a couple of months before his death in 337 (Keating, 9-20). He did a tremenous amount for Christianity, but the repressions didn't occur until after his death. Look for Theodosius for that:
Whitehead (255) reports the edict given by Theodosius on Feb 27, 380:
It is our will that all the peoples subject to the government of our clemency shall follow that religion which the holy Peter delivered to the Romans, as pious tradition from to the present times declares it, and as the pontiff Damsus manifestly observes it, as also does Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity; that is, that is in accordance with the apostolic teaching and gospel we should believe in the deity of the Father and the Son and teh Holy Spirit, of equal majesty, in sacred Trinity. Those who follow this law we order shall be included under the name of Catholic Christians. All others we pronounce mad and insane and require that they bear the ignominy of teachers of heresy; their conventicles shall not receive the title of churches; they shall be chastised first by divine vengence, and then by the punishment of our indignation, with divine approval.
Whitehead states (although his view is understandably parochial) that these measures were taken as the result of an ascendency of Arians, particularly in the East. As an example, the eastern emporer Valens was an Arian. Carroll (55-59) agrees with this and also notes that a number of the bishops in the east were Arian. In fact, he noted that the famous St. Basil, after he was named bishop of Capadoccia, had a demand placed on him by Valens, through his prefect Modestus, to take the Arian creed of Rimini. Basil refused and Valens died before he could exert adequate pressure on Basil to either break him or make him a martyr.
But the point is that Marcionism was not seen as the threat, as it was up through the mid 200s, in the Nicene era. Arianism was.
Sources:
Whitehead, Kenneth, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, 2000, Ignatius Press.
Carroll, William, The Building of Christendom (A History of Christendom Vol 2), 1987, Christendom College Press.
Marcionism continued as a formidable threat in the East, where it had receded, where there it prompted writers such as Epiphanius, Pseudo-Adamantius (3rd century) "Dialogue", St. Ephraim, Bardesene and Eznik de Kolb to dedicate entire works against the Marcionites.
Perhaps what we should be asking is who were those "Christian bishops" with whom Constantine had contact with, which we read about in the "New Advent" entry on him:
"Constantine himself preferred the company of Christian bishops to that of pagan priests. The emperor frequently invited the bishops to court, gave them the use of the imperial postal service, invited them to his table, called them his brothers, and when they had suffered for the Faith, kissed their scars. While he chose bishops for his counsellors, they, on the other hand, often requested his intervention-- e. g. shortly after 313, in the Donatist dispute. For many years he worried himself with the Arian trouble, and in this, it may be said, he went beyond the limits of the allowable, for example, when he dictated whom Athanasius should admit to the Church and whom he was to exclude. Still he avoided any direct interference with dogma, and only sought to carry out what the proper authorities--the synods--decided. When he appeared at an oecumenical council, it was not so much to influence the deliberation and the decision as to show his strong interest and to impress the heathen. He banished bishops only to avoid strife and discord, that is, for reasons of state. He opposed Athanasius because he was led to believe that Athanasius desired to detain the corn-ships which were intended for Constantinople; Constantine's alarm can be understood when we bear in mind how powerful the patriarchs eventually became."
They obviously weren't "Arian" priests, nor "Marcionite". To him these were "Christian" representatives, but were they representative of all the diverse Christian movements throughout the empire? Obviously not, if these guys are requesting him to intervene in their particular dogmatic affairs - against other "Christians" no less! And apparently, such contact did not come to nought.
Marcionism continued as a formidable threat in the East, where it had receded, where there it prompted writers such as Epiphanius, Pseudo-Adamantius (3rd century) "Dialogue", St. Ephraim, Bardesene and Eznik de Kolb to dedicate entire works against the Marcionites.
Perhaps what we should be asking is who were those "Christian bishops" with whom Constantine had contact with, which we read about in the "New Advent" entry on him:
"Constantine himself preferred the company of Christian bishops to that of pagan priests. The emperor frequently invited the bishops to court, gave them the use of the imperial postal service, invited them to his table, called them his brothers, and when they had suffered for the Faith, kissed their scars. While he chose bishops for his counsellors, they, on the other hand, often requested his intervention-- e. g. shortly after 313, in the Donatist dispute. For many years he worried himself with the Arian trouble, and in this, it may be said, he went beyond the limits of the allowable, for example, when he dictated whom Athanasius should admit to the Church and whom he was to exclude. Still he avoided any direct interference with dogma, and only sought to carry out what the proper authorities--the synods--decided. When he appeared at an oecumenical council, it was not so much to influence the deliberation and the decision as to show his strong interest and to impress the heathen. He banished bishops only to avoid strife and discord, that is, for reasons of state. He opposed Athanasius because he was led to believe that Athanasius desired to detain the corn-ships which were intended for Constantinople; Constantine's alarm can be understood when we bear in mind how powerful the patriarchs eventually became."
They obviously weren't "Arian" priests, nor "Marcionite". To him these were "Christian" representatives, but were they representative of all the diverse Christian movements throughout the empire? Obviously not, if these guys are requesting him to intervene in their particular dogmatic affairs - against other "Christians" no less! And apparently, such contact did not come to nought.
Danny
Danny,
The Catholic Encyclopedia is a good source, remarkably detailed. However, there is a more riveting story that is glossed over by that entry. Carroll's discussion of it goes into much more detail (if I have time this evening, I'll try to type out a portion of it). The synopsis is that he vacillated between sympathies for both the Arian and Trinitarian POVs. He considered them all Christian and, in fact, attempted to get Arius reconcilled to the Church (in fact, Arius apparently died very shortly before this was to have happened).
But the principle threat by that time was, in fact, Arianism.
You might consider purchasing Carroll's series of books on Church History. They are fairly reasonably priced (less than $25 per book) and are pretty good reads (although, of course, written from a particular POV). They are also pretty well sourced.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
12
10
10
Popular Days
Nov 30
23
Dec 12
11
Dec 11
8
Dec 7
5
Top Posters In This Topic
TheInvisibleDan 7 posts
Belle 12 posts
Digitalis 10 posts
markomalley 10 posts
Popular Days
Nov 30 2005
23 posts
Dec 12 2005
11 posts
Dec 11 2005
8 posts
Dec 7 2005
5 posts
TheInvisibleDan
'Digitalis' wrote:
Though such requires a bit of footwork and old-fashion persistence, anyone who truly desires to study any of the manuscripts /mss. fragments discovered at the Dead Sea or Nag Hammadi may obtain facsimiles, or photographs of the original manuscripts to go over for themselves. There are even editions of the Dead Sea Scrolls being released which feature the translation with a parallel Hebrew/Aramaic text. And somewhere online, one may even read a "Gospel of Thomas" Coptic text/English interlinear.
You don't have to "lay" your faith in any scholar - though learning a little bit of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Coptic would be most helpful. And facsimiles could be quite costly (interlibrary loan could provide a way around the cost factor), if that's what you want.
It's up to you how far you want to go. The stuff is already out there. It's not being held hostage "under lock and key", unless there are manuscripts hidden in a vault in the Vatican basement that we know nothing of (as featured in a couple hilarious scenes in that movie, "Stigmata"). :)
But even without reference to the "original manuscripts", there are already many decent English translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi in circulation for one to at least get started. Why wait around for something akin to official, divine "FDA approval" - just pick up a couple volumes for your bookshelf or bathroom and begin reading. The more one reads, the better acquainted one becomes with the material, the more one will gain from it all.
Again, it's up to you how far you want to go. No one's holding you back but yourself.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
Dan you are absolutely right ....... each person can take it upon themselves as far the want to go with this. I am still working on my existing materials and undoing some of what I learned over all my years in TWI.
My personal belief is that all materials are not made available and of course no matter how much biblical greek and hebrew we have been taught ........ there are other means of communication that is vital to learn in able to decipher the meanings of the scrolls and tablets that have been found.
Unless one possesses a great depth of knowledge in ancient languages and characters they are going to have to go far beyond studying the faxed documents to work them. I am still working on my bible.
I am not saying that someone doesn't have to look into these matters, I am just saying that it will take a considerable amount of time that I don't have. Along with a considerable amount of knowledge that I would have to return to college for. As well as become a scientist and an archeologist to truly TRY to understand the ages of these scrolls and tablets.
I studied ancient civilizations for some time and am still studying them on my own, I have spent over 3 years doing this on my own out of school aside from in school and don't feel I have hit the tip of the iceberg of what I need to know to accomplish the goal I have set for myself.
These scrolls and tablets will take a considerable amount of time once again ,,,,,,,, its just I am not making the time to study them. I feel its my perogitive not to drive myself crazy at this moment in my life.
Anyone who wants to study and believes that these are Gods word then by all means do so, GO FOR IT. If you find that it is indeed Gods word than I hope you won't hold it against us numskulls who don't have enough knowledge in Biblical or ancient languages to be able to decipher this information. I believe God has other plans for me at the moment.
Digi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Danny,
If you're interested:
http://www.vatican.va/library_archives/vat..._doc_amm_en.htm
I don't know why anybody would want to be in Rome during August anyway (miserably hot).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Thanks, but so you know, Belle wrote that (I had it in a quote).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Mark, I'm racking my brain trying to remember where I got that information. I'm thinking it must be partially from Elaine Pagels Gnostic Gospels and the History Channel as that's where most of my information lately has come from. I'll remember, though, just give me time. :)
Didn't Constantine order that the Bible be compiled or something like that? And wasn't it mostly just decisions by whoever was in charge at the time and that's why the scrolls that were more liberating and that didn't fit with what those in charge believed? Why would we just assume that those men were true Godly scholars and not regular vee pee's and martindales out to compile something that would give them more power? (I'm just tossing questions out there - not trying to start a fight - these are really things I think about nowadays)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Digi -
Please forgive me if I came across as a smug brainiac. Again, I think there are a good many decent English translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls that suffice most readers quite well (inclusing myself) and make juggling dictionaries and ancient texts a rather needless exercise. Again, it all depends on where one's interests lies.
"Word studies" are not the end-all, cure-all to actual study or "research" as the Way made them out to be. In such an approach, some tended to miss the forest for the trees. Studying texts and dictionaries are only tools. But the most important resource is the willingness to contemplate entire expressions and ideas in the comfort of your own mind.
If, for example, you wanted to find parallel expressions between Paul's epistles and "The Thanksgiving Hymns" in the Dead Sea scrolls, - and there are a lot of them(!), - you or anyone else who already has a familiarity with Paul's epistles from having read them over the years will have no difficulty whatsoever in recognizing them when reading any English translation of "The Thanksgiving Hymns". No dictionary, ancient text or .PHD is required; no big, heavy "commitment". Just read and enjoy.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Belle,
As I said before, it was a process, rather than a single event.
According to Schaff (nowhere could he be considered a Catholic author LOL),
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/1_ch12.htm
I've already provided you, in my earlier post, an example from Iraneus, demonstrating that the four Gospels in current use were the ones considered authoritative as early as the close of the second century. Had a person approached a church with a Gospel of Peter or a Gospel of Mary or a Gospel of Thomas by that time, such a work would have been considered, but it would have hardly been considered with the same authority as one of the tetramorph Gospels listed by Irenaeus. The canoncial letters of Paul were likewise mentioned in this same Adversus Haereses; I do not provide a quote, because the references are literally scattered throughout Irenaeus' document.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm - Article on the Canon of the New Testament
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm - Article on the Canon of the Old Testament
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm - Article on the Apocrypha (primarily NT apocrypha)
All of the above articles have a tremendous amount of detail to them and are written from an academic point of view. (I think if you check with Danny, he'll concur on that)
As to Constantine, if you really look into history, you'll find out that he was not truly in a position to force anything on Christianity...Christianity was not yet the state religion. It wouldn't be until the reign of Theodosius I. What Constantine did was enact a law called the Edict of Milan. That document simply made Christianity legal, vice making it the state religion (Actually, he outlawed blood sacrifices and other Pagan practices, thus essentially making it so) in 391 AD. Having said that, both Constantine and Theodosius did convene ecumenical councils during their reign. However, the First Nicene Council was ineffective in ridding the Empire of Arians...it took Theodosius to effectively accomplish that. In fact, if you were to look, you'd find that Constantine actually switched over to the Arian point of view for a few years after the conclusion of Nicea. If I'm not mistaken, he switched back prior to his death. (He was sort of confused, as well...my understanding is that Constantine called the bishops together and said: "settle this controversy one way or the other")
But, again, unless you can show me where I'm wrong, I still will stick to the thesis I forwarded earlier: that the Gnostic writings were suppressed more for the purpose of maintaining theological orthodoxy rather than for the purpose of advancing political power. Christianity was being suppressed with varying degrees of severity all through the time frame of the Marcionite and other gnostic controversies, thus there was little or no political power to garner from this suppression. By the time Christianity gained any kind of political power, the controversy had moved from gnosticism to Arianism. There simply weren't a large quantity of Arian works to suppress. The major work by an Arian was Eusibius' History, and nobody could say that this was a suppressed or hidden work...it's one of the most common works out there.
Even earlier, you'll see that Tertullian toyed with Marcionite ideas for a while. Those works, likewise, weren't suppressed. And there are other authors as well. The evidence just doesn't support the claim.
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that Gnostics have always essentially been out of the mainstream, at least since the beginning of the third century. As Danny can relate to you, the gnostic varieties of Christianity (of which Marcion was a major leader, the one to whom Danny subscribes) and Catholicism had the bulk of their "battles" prior to the era of the Council of Nicea. Having said that, though, Gnosticism never really has died out, although Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christianity have all tried to suppress it, even to the point of having barbequed Gnostic parties, throughout the ages.
I think the reason why gnostic thought is gaining in popularity in the current era is because if its' "hidden knowledge" aspects. I see it acting as a link between a lot of the pagan and pantheistic religions that have gained their vast popularity in recent decades, as people who, for one reason or another, have foresworn traditional Christiantiy, but yet need to find spiritual answers to spiritual questions. That is with due respect to anybody who has made that decision, it's just an IMHO statement.
Hope that helps out some. Good luck with your search!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
Danny you came across just fine dear.
I no longer take every word I read even from the current stranslated bibles of the world and do a word study on ever word I come across. I have learned to simply read and enjoy the bibles I have. As a matter of fact when I decided I was going to read my bible again after leaving TWI I picked it up as if I was reading a novel and tried not to read into it in any manner. (I picked up one of my kids bibles that was not all marked up lol) It was great to read in this manner.
But ......... I don't believe that these new materials that have come into light can simply just be read quite yet that there is definately research that needs to be done and by more than one person and that these people bring there findings together and share with one another there understanding so a to accurately translate them for the public.
I am not sold on the translations or the accuracy of the times of some of these materials but I am thankful for those who keep tryng to conquer the task that is at hand. Just as Martin Luther had his task to translate the bible we have today the men and women who are translating these materials have there work cut out for them.
I am ending here I think
Digi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I was aware that Augustin was at one time a Manichean, and that Tertullian became a Montanist (a charismatic sect whose leaders wielded pretentious claims that today could possibly get them considered for their own TBN show), but I was unaware that Tertullian was known for ever having any Marcionite leanings.
Although I haven’t read them, Tertullian’s penned some writings noted for their opposition to Marcion’s heresy.
Interestingly, I found (at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-28.htm#TopOfPage ) Tertullian introducing a work against Marcion as follows:
“Whatever in times past we have wrought in opposition to Marcion, is from the present moment no longer to be accounted of. It is a new work which we are undertaking in lieu of the old one. My original tract, as too hurriedly composed, I had subsequently superseded by a fuller treatise. This latter I lost, before it was completely published, by the fraud of a person who was then a brother, but became afterwards an apostate. He, as it happened, had transcribed a portion of it, full of mistakes, and then published it. The necessity thus arose for an amended work; and the occasion of the new edition induced me to make a considerable addition to the treatise. This present text, therefore, of my work-which is the third as superseding the second, but henceforward to be considered the first instead of the third-renders a preface necessary to this issue of the tract itself that no reader may be perplexed, if he should by chance fall in with the various forms of it which are scattered about.”
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I will have to look for it, but despite his anti-Marcionite writings, I seem to recall reading in one spot that he had toyed with Marcion's philosophy for a short time. It's been a while, but I still recall it (I think because of the surprise). If I can find the source, I'll post it...may not be an online source. And no, I am not confusing this with his well known conversion to Montanism.
But it's not an important point in the argument, anyway...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
"The danger that this church presented to Christianity was the greatest in the generation between 150 and 190. In this period and it alone was actually a counterchurch: this observation is evident from the abundance of opposing writings, and can be read from the nature of the opposition offered by Justin and from the work of Celsus as well...Celsus often spoke as though there were only two churches, the "great church" and the Marcionite, and alongside them only Gnostic underbrush."
-Adolf von Harnack, p.100, "Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God"
As for categorizing Marcion as a "Gnostic" it's not always been such a cut and dry case to make, despite
the unusual feature of Marcionite dualism; in many respects he shared more in common with Catholicism than with the variety of speculative Gnostic movements (prone to the "hidden knowledge aspects" you mentioned) at the time; I think that's the reason why Catholicism regarded Marcionism the greater threat.
Even at the time of Origen, who "still saw in Marcion the chief adversary of the church and threw himself with all diligence and with full force into the battle against the "doctrina Marcionis", which he sharply distinguished from the "longa fabulositas" of Basilides and the "traditiones" of Valentinus. In addition to the ancient and newly shaped authorities that they brought into the battle, he and the great old Catholic theologians before him also forged the spiritual weapons with which they met Marcionitism. the ecclesiastical theology they developed and which still today is the doctrinal foundation of the great confessions is in much greater measure an anti-Marcionite theology than an anti-Valentian or anti-Ebionite theology. One may also unhesitatingly assume that this theology had a great part in the suppression of the Marcionite church." (Harnack, ibid.)
Harnack provides various examples of the suppression of the Marcionite Church, but I will cite one(p.102):
"The church inscription at Lebaba [ which was to "The Synagogue of the Marcionites"] in the territory of Licinius shows us that in the year 318/319 the Marcionite community there could erect a church building with an inscription on which the owner of the building was announced to everyone. But the rejoicing was not long-lived. Constantine began to forbid heretical assemblies and to destroy the meetinghouses, and even to forbid worship services in private homes, to expropriate the tracts of land, and to confiscate the heretical books.. (emphasis mine)
I'm sorry, Mark, I like you (I really do), but if Harnack is correct in the presentation of his facts here, this doesn't exactly line up with the notion that the Catholic Church had not in some way enough clout to have steered or influenced Constantine (and subsequent rulers) in a certain "political" direction that favored their church against all others.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
As I said to Cynic, I am well familiar with the Montanist conversion of Tertullian. But I do distinctly remember reading this one place. It stuck with me precisely because it was so odd, particularly considering his well known, often cited work against Marcion.
And my (Catholic) sources state the same thing, that this was the peak of the Marcionite era...which was essentially over by the time of the Nicene Councils.And, for the viewing audience, I should state that Origin was only alive through 232 AD.See, that account just doesn't jive with what I've seen and read. I have seen that Theodosius was the one who started the repressions of the (non-Christian -- read non-Catholic) sects. Constantine was confused as to whether to subscribe to Trinitarian or Arian Christianity almost to the end of his life. As a point of trivia, by the way, Constantine wasn't baptized until a couple of months before his death in 337 (Keating, 9-20). He did a tremenous amount for Christianity, but the repressions didn't occur until after his death. Look for Theodosius for that:
Please note the following:
Cath. Encycl. article on Theodosius I; Roman Emporer: Theodosius; Wikipedia: Theodosius I; etc.
Whitehead (255) reports the edict given by Theodosius on Feb 27, 380:
Whitehead states (although his view is understandably parochial) that these measures were taken as the result of an ascendency of Arians, particularly in the East. As an example, the eastern emporer Valens was an Arian. Carroll (55-59) agrees with this and also notes that a number of the bishops in the east were Arian. In fact, he noted that the famous St. Basil, after he was named bishop of Capadoccia, had a demand placed on him by Valens, through his prefect Modestus, to take the Arian creed of Rimini. Basil refused and Valens died before he could exert adequate pressure on Basil to either break him or make him a martyr.
But the point is that Marcionism was not seen as the threat, as it was up through the mid 200s, in the Nicene era. Arianism was.
Sources:
Whitehead, Kenneth, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, 2000, Ignatius Press.
Carroll, William, The Building of Christendom (A History of Christendom Vol 2), 1987, Christendom College Press.
Hope that helps! History is FUN!!!
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Yes, 'history is fun".
:)
Marcionism continued as a formidable threat in the East, where it had receded, where there it prompted writers such as Epiphanius, Pseudo-Adamantius (3rd century) "Dialogue", St. Ephraim, Bardesene and Eznik de Kolb to dedicate entire works against the Marcionites.
Perhaps what we should be asking is who were those "Christian bishops" with whom Constantine had contact with, which we read about in the "New Advent" entry on him:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
"Constantine himself preferred the company of Christian bishops to that of pagan priests. The emperor frequently invited the bishops to court, gave them the use of the imperial postal service, invited them to his table, called them his brothers, and when they had suffered for the Faith, kissed their scars. While he chose bishops for his counsellors, they, on the other hand, often requested his intervention-- e. g. shortly after 313, in the Donatist dispute. For many years he worried himself with the Arian trouble, and in this, it may be said, he went beyond the limits of the allowable, for example, when he dictated whom Athanasius should admit to the Church and whom he was to exclude. Still he avoided any direct interference with dogma, and only sought to carry out what the proper authorities--the synods--decided. When he appeared at an oecumenical council, it was not so much to influence the deliberation and the decision as to show his strong interest and to impress the heathen. He banished bishops only to avoid strife and discord, that is, for reasons of state. He opposed Athanasius because he was led to believe that Athanasius desired to detain the corn-ships which were intended for Constantinople; Constantine's alarm can be understood when we bear in mind how powerful the patriarchs eventually became."
They obviously weren't "Arian" priests, nor "Marcionite". To him these were "Christian" representatives, but were they representative of all the diverse Christian movements throughout the empire? Obviously not, if these guys are requesting him to intervene in their particular dogmatic affairs - against other "Christians" no less! And apparently, such contact did not come to nought.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Danny,
The Catholic Encyclopedia is a good source, remarkably detailed. However, there is a more riveting story that is glossed over by that entry. Carroll's discussion of it goes into much more detail (if I have time this evening, I'll try to type out a portion of it). The synopsis is that he vacillated between sympathies for both the Arian and Trinitarian POVs. He considered them all Christian and, in fact, attempted to get Arius reconcilled to the Church (in fact, Arius apparently died very shortly before this was to have happened).
But the principle threat by that time was, in fact, Arianism.
You might consider purchasing Carroll's series of books on Church History. They are fairly reasonably priced (less than $25 per book) and are pretty good reads (although, of course, written from a particular POV). They are also pretty well sourced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
It sounds like a series worth checking out, Mark.
I appreciate the recommendation.
As I was reviewing some scattered entries on Constantine last night,
I thought to myself, "Good God, has anyone ever filmed a miniseries
on this guy, along the vein of "I, Claudius"? (lol).
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.