praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I'm going to start with Polycarp and Ignatius. Both are considered by Roman and some Orthodox "circles" as being essential to the early practice of Christianity in the 2nd and 3rd century. While I disagree for many reasons, I would like to look at the "raw" evidence that survives for the narrative of their lives and contributions.
Several decades ago I began searching for raw evidence for the narratives that exist among many Roman and "Orthodox" traditions. At that time, I had enough of Protestantism and the various false doctrines that had arisen from my experience among them. I "whole hearted" sought to prove them wrong at every level of history. Needless to say, I became extraordinarily disheartened by my discoveries. To my regret, there just wasn't any meaningful proof of what was being claimed in early church history. For example....
Eusebius is consider the originating source for the narrative of both Polycarp and Ignatius. Eusebius is considered a vital "historian" within early "Orthodoxy". If you focus upon Eusebius, you will find out that there are so many arguments between Protestant and Orthodoxy advocates that I couldn't keep track of all of them. Just couldn't. It was "crazy" to me at every level of how they sought to "prove" each other mistaken from the same sources that came from Eusebius. I hated trying to follow the narrative when I knew that Eusebius was their primary/only source of information.
Ask this one question yourself, what is the source for the narrative of Polycarp and Ignatius. This question will take you to Eusebius. Then ask the question, what is the earliest raw manuscript that validates the writings of Eusebius? Does anyone know that answer?
It depends upon dating for the manuscript classified as "NLR Codex Syriac 1 ". The manuscript itself witnessed the date of around 463AD (Colophon).
You find if you dig deeply into this subject you will need to "wait" for Jerome, Augustine or others to hear of Eusebius. Surprisingly, you hear very little of Eusebius from Augustine. Though some will argue that Augustine continued Eusebius's work on the "City of God". (I'm not sure I could ever believe this). Jerome does appear to desire to be a historian. He wrote a preface (claimed as such) to at least two of the works of Eusebius in Latin. Eusebius might have even started Jerome's journey toward his work in the Vulgate but that is a tenuous connection at best.
For all the church historians here, I'd like to see any evidence you might have that actually establishes the validity of the work of Polycarp and Ignatius. I'm not looking for conjecture. I'm look for manuscripts and their associated dates. I'm not looking for a manuscripts from 10th century that is supposedly orginally produced in the "2nd century". I'm looking for real evidence.....
To be clear, I'm not saying they didn't live and do "wonderful things". I am saying there is no real proof for their existence. Just conjecture. As such, why does it matter what they did or didn't do?
As far as the necessity of their work, I don't consider their writings necessary at all. We have plenty of manuscriptal evidence to review relative to the canonical inclusion of various book of the Scriptures. Our time is better spent dealing with those than any idea of some "Polycarp" that might or might not have lived and what some 4th century author "claimed" Polycarp said/accomplished.
"Our cloud of witness" comes from the Scriptures. Not some supposed work of Eusebius relative to "Church History".
So... tell me where I'm wrong?
Several decades ago I began searching for raw evidence for the narratives that exist among many Roman and "Orthodox" traditions. At that time, I had enough of Protestantism and the various false doctrines that had arisen from my experience among them. I "whole hearted" sought to prove them wrong at every level of history. Needless to say, I became extraordinarily disheartened by my discoveries. To my regret, there just wasn't any meaningful proof of what was being claimed in early church history. For example....
Eusebius is consider the originating source for the narrative of both Polycarp and Ignatius. Eusebius is considered a vital "historian" within early "Orthodoxy". If you focus upon Eusebius, you will find out that there are so many arguments between Protestant and Orthodoxy advocates that I couldn't keep track of all of them. Just couldn't. It was "crazy" to me at every level of how they sought to "prove" each other mistaken from the same sources that came from Eusebius. I hated trying to follow the narrative when I knew that Eusebius was their primary/only source of information.
Ask this one question yourself, what is the source for the narrative of Polycarp and Ignatius. This question will take you to Eusebius. Then ask the question, what is the earliest raw manuscript that validates the writings of Eusebius? Does anyone know that answer?
It depends upon dating for the manuscript classified as "NLR Codex Syriac 1 ". The manuscript itself witnessed the date of around 463AD (Colophon).
You find if you dig deeply into this subject you will need to "wait" for Jerome, Augustine or others to hear of Eusebius. Surprisingly, you hear very little of Eusebius from Augustine. Though some will argue that Augustine continued Eusebius's work on the "City of God". (I'm not sure I could ever believe this). Jerome does appear to desire to be a historian. He wrote a preface (claimed as such) to at least two of the works of Eusebius in Latin. Eusebius might have even started Jerome's journey toward his work in the Vulgate but that is a tenuous connection at best.
For all the church historians here, I'd like to see any evidence you might have that actually establishes the validity of the work of Polycarp and Ignatius. I'm not looking for conjecture. I'm look for manuscripts and their associated dates. I'm not looking for a manuscripts from 10th century that is supposedly orginally produced in the "2nd century". I'm looking for real evidence.....
To be clear, I'm not saying they didn't live and do "wonderful things". I am saying there is no real proof for their existence. Just conjecture. As such, why does it matter what they did or didn't do?
As far as the necessity of their work, I don't consider their writings necessary at all. We have plenty of manuscriptal evidence to review relative to the canonical inclusion of various book of the Scriptures. Our time is better spent dealing with those than any idea of some "Polycarp" that might or might not have lived and what some 4th century author "claimed" Polycarp said/accomplished.
"Our cloud of witness" comes from the Scriptures. Not some supposed work of Eusebius relative to "Church History".
So... tell me where I'm wrong?
