Hi, Waterrock
Thank you for answering my questions. I looked up bishop Irenaeus and the Gospels.
I hope that he had a better argument than that.
I have not been able to find out why Irenaeus did not like the Gospels of Thomas.
In any case, his position indicates that there were, indeed, more than four Gospels at the time he chose to support the four. In fact, Irenaeus quoted from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas -- according to this page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inf..._of_Thomas
Does Irenaeus say when people decided on just four Gospels? Was he addressing a recent controversy or an old one?
Summary of dates on the above pages at wiki
Matthew: c. 70100
Mark: c. 6873
Luke: c. 80100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90110.
Infancy Gospel of Thomas: mid-2nd Century
I also found an article by Glenn Miller, of the Christian think-tank, dating the sayings Gospel of Thomas.
He's not too impressed by that evidence. And quotes that a date of about 140 CE is more commonly accepted by the scholarly community. Then he gives a range 150-180 AD
The date of the Muratorian fragment is 170, quite possibly after the Gospels of Thomas. Does the list match exactly with today's accepted canon? And how many churches were known to its anonymous compiler? How far did he travel? It would have been helpful if he'd listed the churches as well as the texts.
Thank you for answering my questions. I looked up bishop Irenaeus and the Gospels.
Quote:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
An insistence upon a canonical four, and no others, was a central theme of Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185. In his central work, Adversus Haereses Irenaeus denounced various Christian groups that used only one gospel, such as Aramaic Matthew, as well as groups that embraced the texts of new revelations, such as the Valentinians (A.H. 1.11.9). Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four pillars of the Church: "it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four" he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (1.11.8 )
I hope that he had a better argument than that.
I have not been able to find out why Irenaeus did not like the Gospels of Thomas.
In any case, his position indicates that there were, indeed, more than four Gospels at the time he chose to support the four. In fact, Irenaeus quoted from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas -- according to this page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inf..._of_Thomas
Does Irenaeus say when people decided on just four Gospels? Was he addressing a recent controversy or an old one?
Summary of dates on the above pages at wiki
Matthew: c. 70100
Mark: c. 6873
Luke: c. 80100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90110.
Infancy Gospel of Thomas: mid-2nd Century
I also found an article by Glenn Miller, of the Christian think-tank, dating the sayings Gospel of Thomas.
Quote:
www.christian-thinktank.com/gthomas.html
If we have Greek mss with fragments of Gth that can be dated to pre-200 AD, then clearly the GTh must be at least that old. But some highly visible minority (i.e. the Jesus Seminar) have claimed that it can be dated to 50-60ad, BEFORE the canonical gospels, so we need to see exactly what evidence exists by which to date the Gth.
He's not too impressed by that evidence. And quotes that a date of about 140 CE is more commonly accepted by the scholarly community. Then he gives a range 150-180 AD
The date of the Muratorian fragment is 170, quite possibly after the Gospels of Thomas. Does the list match exactly with today's accepted canon? And how many churches were known to its anonymous compiler? How far did he travel? It would have been helpful if he'd listed the churches as well as the texts.
Quote:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mur...n_fragment
The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. The fragment listed all the works that were accepted as canonical by the churches known to its anonymous compiler. It was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan by father Ludovico Antonio Muratori, (1672 1750), the most famous Italian historian of his generation, and published in 1740. The fragment lacks its beginning and ending, and is a 7th century Latin manuscript, which internal cues identify as a translation from a Greek original from around 170.
