medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
I find this very puzzling. Adv. Haer. III.1 is entirely based on external evidence, traditions about which apostle wrote what when and where. Elsewhere (III.iii.4) he appeals to the fact that he knew Polycarp and Polycarp knew John etc. Against the "Gnostics" he appeals to the "catholic" visible external chain of authnetication vis a vis the Gnostic claim of an undegroiund chain of external transmission. Of course he also argues against the "Gnostics" by claiming that their doctrine does not correspond to the doctrine of the "catholic" scriptures but he's so obviously aware that that alone could not be persuasive, so the whole point of III.1-5, at the very least, is to say that our external evidence trumps your external evidence and therefore, because our external evidence for the truly apostolic authorship of our writings is superior to your external evidence for your writings, because of that, the internal doctrine of our writings is the true Christian teaching and the internal doctrine of your writings is false.
That part of his attribution of names to specific gospels involves linking the verses you cite is only a small pat of his argument and the bulk of his argument for his version of who wrote which Gospels where and when is external evidence.
Now, modern scholars can dismiss the probative force of Irenaeus's external evidence and prefer the external evidence in favor of the "Gnostic" writings (having acquired additiona external evidence, of course, in recent decades--but of course also interpreting it according to various assumptions and presuppositions about the value and probative force of Irenaeus's ancient external evidence, which we can no longer handle and test in the same direct way that we can the Nag Hammadi texts) and perhaps a bit of that enters into the Markan priority theory today, though proper critical skepticism would note that someone already committed to the Markan priority theory on the basis of internal evidence and the dismissal of ancient external evidence would then approach the new external evidence not as a blank slate but with a set of assumptions that also bear examination and critical evaluation.
Dennis Martin
>>> [log in to unmask] 9/14/2005 9:21 AM >>>
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Dennis Martin wrote:
>
> The decision by the "early fathers" about which writings were
> canonical and which were not was _not_ based _solely_ on internal
> evidence.
No, what I mean was that the authorship of Matthew and John was taken from
internal evidence. Irenaeus took the name Luke from Col. 4:14 and ascribed
it to the Gospel, presumably on the basis of Acts. Mark is more of a
puzzle, but the name is taken from 1 Pet. 5:13.
John Briggs
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|