Gary February 18, 2022 at 2:31 pm – Dr. Ehrman, is there a scholarly consensus on this issue: Did any early Church Father meet or know Paul, Peter, or another member of the Twelve?
BDEhrman (Bart Ehrman, NT scholar, on his blog) February 19, 2022 at 3:16 pm – None of the ones who has left us any writings, no. Not even any of the authors of the New Testament, apparently!
Gary February 19, 2022 at 11:18 pm – Sorry to be persistent, but is there a scholarly consensus on this issue or are you simply stating your personal position? Is there a scholarly consensus that none of the Early Church Fathers knew or met Paul, Peter, or any member of the Twelve?
Thanks! I’m currently involved in a debate on the existence of a scholarly consensus on this issue.
BDEhrman February 20, 2022 at 11:26 am – It’s a consensus. If you read the earliest authors you’ll see why (1 Clement; Ignatius; Papias — who is explicit about the point).
Gary: Dear Readers,
Even if you refuse to accept NT scholar Bart Ehrman’s statement that a scholarly consensus exists that NONE of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul, Peter, or one of the Twelve, you must admit that the conservative Christian position that they did is DISPUTED. Disputed evidence is not good evidence.
The undisputed fact is that the chain of custody of the supernatural claims of Christianity is disputed. Without a clear, undisputed chain of custody, it is entirely possible that legends and tall tales crept into the Jesus Story over the decades between his death and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Islam and Mormonism have much better chains of custody for their supernatural claims. No one should believe in virgin births, tales of water walking, or sightings of a walking, talking, broiled fish eating corpse based on such poor evidence.
.
.
.
.
.
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
I think it was Ehrman who once mentioned on his blog that we don’t even know if the earliest post disciple church father’s writings were actually legit in the sense that they could have been written later by someone who wanted to pass them off as a church father – the same way letters and gospels were being forged. We just don’t know.
I believe that Jesus, Paul, and all the first century Christians believed in an imminent apocalypse and implementation of God’s kingdom on earth. Because Christians don’t want to say that Jesus or even Paul could be wrong, they have to re-spin it so that the apocalypse and kingdom will happen someday, soon, whenever, thousands of years later if necessary. But there’s plenty of evidence in the Gospels and Acts that the early Christians thought it was going to happen right away, and so why would there need to be any kind of records kept. It was probably not helpful that most people were illiterate at that time. So we are mostly stuck with Christians a couple centuries later for information, and they were often just reporting legend, since that’s mostly all there was, with a few exceptions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you believe that there were 12 apostles (plus Paul), other than Judas’ death in c. 33 AD, I don’t know how there could be a scholarly consensus that no Church Father knew any of them. John and maybe some others of them could reasonably live into the end of the 1st century AD. There are several Fathers from about the 1st century AD:
– Ignatius
– Polycarp
– Papias
– 1 and 2 Clement
– Barnabas
– Quadratus of Athens (died c. 129 AD)
I don’t know how one could “prove a negative” and show of them knew the apostles at any time in their lives, much less that there is a “scholarly consensus” that certainly none of them ever met.
Here is a list of some other authors and writings, with their time of writing marked. I haven’t checked the birthdates of these authors yet:
120-130 Apology of Aristides
130-150 Aristo of Pella
130-200 Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
LikeLike
Ehrman is not saying that scholars KNOW that none of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul, Peter, et al. He is saying that scholars DOUBT that…
Big difference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that there is a big difference.
Your conversation was:
GARY: Is there a scholarly consensus that none of the Early Church Fathers knew or met Paul, Peter, or any member of the Twelve?
EHRMAN: It’s a consensus.
“It” in the sentence above sounds like “it” could mean “That none of the ECFs knew or met Paul or the 12”.
In other words “It (that none of the ECFs knew the 12) is a consensus.”
Perhaps I am parsing words too much. You seemed to take it that way when you wrote:
GARY: Even if you refuse to accept NT scholar Bart Ehrman’s statement that a scholarly consensus exists that NONE of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul, Peter, or one of the Twelve, you must admit that the conservative Christian position that they did is DISPUTED.
LikeLike
There is also a scholarly consensus that eyewitnesses did not write the Gospels but that is not the same as saying that scholars KNOW that eyewitnesses did not write the Gospels. The majority of scholars simply don’t BELIEVE that they did.
Ditto with the issue of Early Church Fathers knowing Paul, Peter, or John. The majority of scholars do not KNOW as fact that none of the Early Church Fathers knew the apostles they just don’t BELIEVE they did, based on the evidence available to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OK.
So Ehrman is saying that scholars unanimously believe that no Church fathers (Clement, Ignatius, Papias, Quadratus, etc.) ever met Paul or any of the 12?
LikeLike
scholarly consensus: The scholarly consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scholars specialized in a given field.
Ehrman is saying that most scholars do not believe that any of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul, Peter, or John. That does not mean that most scholars KNOW that none of the Early Church Fathers knew the apostles, only that most scholars doubt they did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Difference here is between
A) A negative belief, ie. an affirmative belief that something did not happen. I believe that Jesus did not grow up in India. I believe that Irenaeus never met Judas, since Judas must have been long dead.
And:
B) Not believing/doubt. I don’t have a belief as to how many Chinese monks the Buddha ever met.
When Ehrman says “It’s (that none of the ECFs knew the 12) a consensus”, it sounds like Category A.
When you write, “Bart Ehrman’s statement that a scholarly consensus exists that NONE of the Early Church Fathers knew” Paul or the 12, it sounds like Category A.
I don’t know how there could be a scholarly consensus for Category A. Paul and the 12 apostles lived in the mid 1st century AD in the Levant and some traveled through the Mediterranean. ECFs lived in the late 1st century in the same regions of the Mediterranean (Italy, Greece, Levant). Both the apostles and ECFs were important in the Christian community. ECFs include:
– Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (lived c. 64 AD to c. 105 AD)
– Polycarp
– Papias
– 1 and 2 Clement
– Barnabas
– Quadratus of Athens (died c. 129 AD)
– Authors of Didache
– 120-130 Apology of Aristides
– 130-150 Aristo of Pella
– 130-200 Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
If you include Apocryphal works like Gospel of Thomas or Apocalypse of Peter, the likelihood that these authors met one of the 12 gets even bigger.
So I don’t know how there could be a scholarly consensus affirming a negative belief A) “that none of the Early Church Fathers knew or met” Paul or any of the 12. We are talking about whether 1) one of 11-13 apostles/Christian leaders who lived in the 1st century met 2) one of 10 or more ECFs who lived in the mid-1st to mid-2nd century in the same region and religious community. If you were an apostle in the 1st century (eg. John), wouldn’t you want to visit different Christian communities? If you were a Christian leader or writer living in the 1st century (eg. Ignatius), wouldn’t you want to meet one of the apostles?
Wikipedia says about the Didache:
“The Didache may have been compiled in its present form as late as 150, although a date closer to the end of the first century seems more probable to many. … The community that produced the Didache could have been based in Syria, as it addressed the Gentiles but from a Judaic perspective, at some remove from Jerusalem, and shows no evidence of Pauline influence.”
With this scholarly information about the Didache being so limited, except considering it a c. 100 Levantine nonPauline text, how could one extrapolate from such information a scholarly consensus that believes that none of the Didache’s authors ever met any apostle?
Wikipedia says about Barnabas:
“The Epistle of Barnabas (Greek: Βαρνάβα Ἐπιστολή) is a Greek epistle written between AD 70 and 132… Some early Fathers of the Church ascribed it to the Barnabas who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, but it is now generally attributed to an otherwise unknown early Christian teacher, perhaps of the same name. … Barnabas still represents the initial stages of the process that is continued in the Gospel of Peter, later in Matthew, and is completed in Justin Martyr.”
Likewise, I don’t know how one could extrapolate from this an affirmative belief that the unknown author never met Paul or any other apostle.
LikeLike
Become a member of Ehrman’s blog and you can ask him these questions yourself.
Wikipedia is not considered an authoritative source.
LikeLike
My guess is that he would say that he thinks that the consensus is that it’s not shown that the apostles knew the ECFs directly, IOW that there is no scholarly affirmative belief that they knew each other.
Based on chance and identification of documents, my expectation is that some of them did know each other. For example, I don’t know if the author of 1 Clement knew Peter, but my guess is that Yes, the author was Pope Clement mentioned in the epistles. But suppose that there is only 30 percent chance that the author of 1 Clement knew Peter, Paul or another Disciple. In that case, you still have to add that 30% mathematically to the chances that other ECFs knew at least 1 apostle. The end result is not 100 percent, but it’s still going to be a strong likelihood in total.
All you would need would be something like Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, to be living in Antioch in 75 AD, and to meet one of the apostles traveling through Antioch, one of the major Christian centers at the time. If Ignatius is living in Antioch in 64 AD to 100 AD and one apostle passed through there and met with the Church in that city, it seems realistic for Ignatius to meet him. Besides, the apostles weren’t all spending all the rest of their lives just hiding in far away places like south India. If you are a Christian writer in the second half of the first century, meeting an apostle is the kind of thing that you would naturally want to do.
LikeLike
How do you know for sure that Clement was living in Rome pre 65 CE? How do you know that any of the Twelve were still alive in 75 CE? You don’t. It is all guess work.
Not exactly the best evidence upon which to build a new belief system.
LikeLike
Here is a portion of Ehrman’s writing on Clement from Ehrman’s “The Apostolic Fathers Volume One” from the Loeb Classical Library. Apologies for the wonky formatting, can’t seem to get it to paste properly
Warning – long, troll length quotes coming!!
There are reasons, however, to doubt the traditional ascription. Nowhere is Clement mentioned in the letter, let alone named as its author. If the bishop of Rome himself
had written the letter, one might expect him to assert his
authority by mentioning his position. More to the point,
even the tradition that there was a single bishop over the
church in Rome at this time appears to be a later idea, advanced by (later) orthodox Christians concerned to show that their own lines of authority could be extended back
through a succession of bishops to the apostles themselves,
the so-called “apostolic succession.” As noted, Hermas,
who was also from Rome, nowhere calls Clement, or anyone else in his day, the bishop of Rome. Moreover, 1 Clement itself uses the terms “presbyter” and “bishop” interchangeably (ch.44), making it appear that a distinct office
of “bishop” as the leader of the church presbyters had not
yet appeared. It is striking that some years later the bishop
of Antioch, Ignatius (see Introduction to the Letters of
Ignatius), could write the church in Rome and give no indication that there was a single bishop in charge.
Some scholars have gone even further, asserting that the letter not only was not written by the head of the Roman church, but that it was not expressive of the views of
the entire church. According to this view, the letter instead
represents a perspective advanced by just one of the many
“house churches” in the city, in an age when a variety of
forms of Christianity were present in Rome (see especially
Lampe, Jeffers). The Shepherd of Hermas, for example,
presents a different understanding of Christian existence,
in which the friendly attitude toward the Roman empire
evidenced in 1 Clement (e.g., ch. 60) is replaced by a sense
of opposition. This is not to mention the wide theological
variation within Roman Christianity evidenced still some
decades later by the followers of Justin Martyr, Marcion,
and the Christian Gnostic Valentinus, prominent leaders
of Christian groups scattered throughout the city.
And so it is difficult to draw conclusions about the authorship of the letter. Its later attribution to the sole bishop
of the city, Clement, may represent a “best guess” by later
Christians, or may even have been an orthodox claim used
to bolster their own position vis-a-vis other groups contending for power in the church. On the other hand, it is
clear that even though the letter claims to have been written by “the church” of Rome, it must have been composed
by a single author (rather than a group), and that one of
the plausible persons for the task may well have been the
otherwise unknown Clement, secretary for foreign correspondence mentioned by Hermas.
LikeLike
I had a big “fight” with Joel Edumnd Anderson on this issue. He ended up calling me mentally ill for refusing to accept his evidence that Clement had met Paul and Peter. Anderson rejects Ehrman’s assessment on Clement, saying that Ehrman is not a patristic scholar, and therefore has no authority on this issue. It is impossible to discuss evidence with conservative Christians. The perceived presence of Jesus in their “hearts” tells them they are correct, so damn the evidence which contradicts their positions.
LikeLike
In following your back and forth with Joel I think he is a bit like Licona in that ultimately it’s Jesus in their heart that makes them reason the way they do. (Interesting that they both went to Pretoria University in South Africa).
And as we are so dependent on traditions and perhaps fables, sometimes self serving, I don’t think we can even know that Peter was in Rome for Clement to meet ( at least there). Or that Paul died in Rome. Heck maybe Paul did go to Spain and died there or on the way. Why would Acts not mention it if Paul were killed in Rome during Nero’s reign instead of just abruptly ending with him in jail for two years that the last verse of Acts says was barely an inconvenience for him. Didn’t want to scare people? Wanted to keep the Romans looking good so Christians could keep blaming Jews for stuff ? Who knows. It’s tossed around by many as a given that Peter and Paul were both executed in Rome around 64 because it’s not important enough to worry about. But if were important, historians who are not letting their faith guide their conclusions would say we don’t have good evidence to know.
LikeLike
Very true.
LikeLike
Here is part 2 of my troll length quote from Ehrman’s book p.23-25:
Date
We are on somewhat firmer ground when it comes to
assigning a date to the letter, although here too scholars
have raised serious questions. What is clear is that since the
letter is mentioned by Dionysius of Corinth and Hegessipus
somewhat before 170 CE on the one hand, and
since it refers to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, usually
placed in the reign of Nero, ca. 64, on the other hand,
it must have been written sometime between these two
dates. The traditional date of95-96 is based on the indication
of Eusebius that it was written near the end of the
reign of Domitian (emperor from 81-96). Support for the
dating was found in the ancient view, also advanced by
Eusebius, that during his final years Domitian instigated a
persecution of Christians in Rome. This context of
persecution was used to explain the opening of the letter, which
speaks of the “sudden and repeated misfortunes and
setbacks we have experienced”— which were taken to refer
to the arrest and prosecution of Christians during a
Domitianic reign of terror.
This view of the historical context is now by and large
rejected. There is nothing in the epistle that suggests it was
written in the context of persecution: the “misfortunes and
setbacks” could just as easily have been internal struggles
within the church. Moreover, there is no solid evidence
from the period itself of a persecution of Christians under
Domitian.
Even so, a date near the end of Domitian s reign is altogether
plausible. The epistle could not have been written
much later: it indicates that the deaths of Peter and Paul
took place “within our own generation” (ch. 5) and assumes
that there are still living leaders of the Christian
churches who had been appointed by the apostles of Jesus,
that is, sometime no later than early in the second half of
the first century (chs. 42,44). Moreover, there is no
indication that the hierarchical structures later so important to
proto-orthodox Christians— in which there was a solitary
bishop over a group of presbyters and deacons— was yet in
place.
Some scholars have gone so far as to claim that the
letter may well have been written much earlier than traditionally
supposed, possibly prior to 70 (see Welborn).
But the letter calls the Corinthian church “ancient”
(ch. 47), which seems somewhat inappropriate if it were
only twenty-five or thirty years old; it assumes that some
churches are headed by leaders twice removed from Jesus’
apostles (appointees of those ordained by the apostles,
ch. 46); and it suggests that the bearers of the letter from
Rome have been faithful members of the church “from
youth to old age,” which must make them older than their
mid-40s (ch. 63). For these reasons, it appears best to
assume a date sometime near the end of the first century,
possibly, as traditionally thought, in the mid 90s during the
reign of Domitian.
Historical Significance
If this dating is correct, then 1 Clement was produced
at about the same time as or even before some of the writings
of the New Testament (e.g., 2 Peter and Revelation).
It is, at any rate, the oldest Christian writing outside of the
New Testament. This makes aspects of the letter highly
significant for historians interested in the development of
the Christian church in the earliest period.
LikeLike
Thanks for the quote, Epicurus.
When Ehrman writes, “it indicates that the deaths of Peter and Paul took place “within our own generation” (ch. 5) and assumes that there are still living leaders of the Christian churches who had been appointed by the apostles of Jesus,” it describes parameters by which the author could reasonably have met apostles.
That is, since there were leaders at that time appointed by apostles and Peter and Paul died in the writer’s generation, then the writer himself, considering his authoritative tone, could have met one of those apostles himself.
LikeLike
Sure it is possible, but you are assuming that someone named “Clement” wrote the letter known as First Clement. The letter itself gives no indication as to the author.
LikeLike
Ehrman is a patristic scholar IMO.
To say that there is a scholarly consensus that 0 out of 10 or more 1st-early 2nd century ECFs met any apostle sounds like a misstatement at best.
These issues would be cleared up better if we lived in the 1st century AD. If you are a Christian living in the mid-2nd century AD in Alexandria, and Clement of Alexandria and someone else like Origen of Alexandria hand you Barnabas’ Epistle and tell you that it was written by Barnabas, your assumption is probably going to be that they are correct. Clement was an important figure in the city’s Christian community, and a prolific writer. Mark was associated with Barnabas and with the city of Alexandria. Barnabas was associated with Paul, and the Epistle reminds me of Paul’s writing. You would not really have much special reason to question the identification with Barnabas, other than the fact that they were telling you this maybe 50-70 years after Barnabas’ time, and that the chain of custody was unclear.
You could probably have asked around and seen if there was much consensus in Alexandria as to the chain of custody and authorship.
LikeLike
Ehrman’s book “Forged” (Since we’re discussing his ideas) says that as Christians were trying to show how the Jews didn’t understand their own scripture, and attempting to shift the blame from the Romans to the Jews for Jesus death, they wrote letters -forgeries – “in the names of authoritative figures of the past” like Barnabas appeared ” A letter allegedly by Barnabas, companion of the apostle Paul, claims that Jews have always misunderstood their own religion …”(P.149).
Ehrman of course could be wrong, just like he could be wrong about both canonized letters of Peter being forgeries. But Given the huge numbers of Christian writings that were and are considered forgeries by Christians (since they are not included in the Canon) -epistles, gospels, apocalypses, acts, etc, how skeptical should a modern day person be of letters like that of Barnabas? We know a certain percentage of literate Christians seemed to think it was alright to forge letters in the hope of advancing their cause, and in their mind, I’m sure, doing God’s work. But that doesn’t help anyone now, or even in, say, 180 AD.
If we were discussing a different religion, be it Islam, or say Mormonism in the year 2222 after societal collapse and most govt and opponent’s writings had vanished, with only curated Mormon writings still available, I’m sure everyone on this blog, and every Christian, would have no trouble dismissing those writings as too far in the past, too muddied, and too many unknown variables to make a decision. Only Mormons or Muslim’s would think it all somehow can be made sense of, and believed.
LikeLike
Well said!
LikeLike
Ehrman’s site has a paywall for comments. I think I remember reading that his reason is that he doesn’t want contrary arguments piling into his Comments section.
LikeLike
There is a paywall for the actual blog posts as well. Ehrman says 100 percent of the money goes to Charity, and that is the reason he has the site up in the first place. Due to the time consuming nature of moderating all the comments people make, there are different levels of membership. The lowest and cheapest only allow you to read his posts. I used to be a member, but with the exchange rate of the Canadian to US dollar, his new pricing structure became more expensive than I was comfortable paying.
LikeLike
Baloney. He has a pay wall so that trolls don’t comment-bomb his site. He definitely allows criticisms of his positions. There are plenty of Christians who are members of his blog. Membership is only a few dollars a month and every cent goes to charity.
LikeLike
Regarding your post, . I understand your article; I just believe differently. In œFor me, I’ve got over 70 years experience in living life. My experience proves to me that I’ll believe in Jesus Christ, always & forever…long before I’d believe any “scholar”. See the thing about faith (to me) is that nobody has to prove anything to me & I’m not on earth to prove anything to anybody either. I don’t read scholars. I just read The Holy Bible. I totally understand your article; I just believe differently. That’s it.
LikeLike
And good for you! At least you are honest. Your subjective life experiences, feelings, and perceptions tell you that a first century corpse really did come back from the dead 2,000 years ago and is currently living in your “heart” as your personal lord and master. To hell with objective evidence! To hell with historians and scholars! You are the ultimate authority on this question.
Bravo! If only more Christians would be as honest as you!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Aww…thank you. Have the best day .
LikeLike
No Gary, the extent of what I said is that, given the conclusions of actual Patristic scholars–that I Clement was written around AD 96 and was written by Clement, the fourth bishop of Rome, whom we know lead the church in Rome from AD 88-99 and who actually lived in Rome–it isn’t that much of a stretch to think it is very possible that he could have known Peter and Paul–both of whom NT scholars and historians conclude really were martyred in Rome in the 60s. None of that is a “supernatural claim” or anything that is really ridiculous to put forth. It is just a reasonable speculation as to what is pretty possible.
You were the one who had a conniption at the suggestion. You reject basic historical probability, basic common sense, any and all writings of early Church Fathers who say Clement knew Paul, Paul’s own writing in Philippians 4:3, and the conclusion of Patristic scholars. Instead, you cling to a “quick google search” and the opinion of Ehrman, who isn’t a Patristics scholar or expert, and who has made a living claiming that hardly anything in the NT can really be trusted because there are textual variants in the thousands of manuscripts we have (most of which make absolutely no theological difference anyway).
And reading this thread, I have to say that Hal has eaten your lunch. This whole thing is just one big, silly hill that you are insistent to die on. And again, joking that you “need to get help” WAS A JOKE. The fact that you got offended and interpreted that as me saying that you were LITERALLY MENTALLY ILL is bizarre.
LikeLike
it isn’t that much of a stretch to think it is very possible that he could have known Peter and Paul
If that were the only soft link in the evidential support for your belief system, it might be reasonable to continue believing in virginal conceptions, water walking, and corpse reanimations. But the fact is that so much of the Christian belief system is based on such guessing and assuming.
–You assume that the Gospels contain historically accurate information.
–You assume that the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses or at least the associates of eyewitnesses.
–You assume that the original eyewitnesses lived long enough to read or hear the Gospels after they were written to verify their accuracy.
–You assume that Paul was of a sound mind. That he truly did meet and converse with a resurrected Jesus. Your religion is primarily based on the alleged “revelations” to this one man! How rational is that??
–You assume that first century people were somehow different from people in the rest of human history: that they would never allow gossip, rumor, and legend to creep into their oral stories.
–You assume that Jesus could only have been Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. You forget to include the possibility that he was Mistaken.
–You assume that first century people could not see a bright light, shadow, or cloud formation and believe it to have been the resurrected Jesus, just as Roman Catholics today see the Mother of Jesus in similar illusions.
–it is entirely possible that not ONE Early Church Father knew one of the Twelve, therefore making it entirely possible that the teachings of the Early Church were not the same beliefs as the original disciples of Jesus.
Poor, poor, poor evidence, Joel.
LikeLike
Par for the course for Gary. Denial of common sense and denial of the writings and experts qualified to comment on a question of basic historicity regarding whether or not people living in Rome at the same time could have known each other. Instead of just accepting a common-sense historical probability, he launches into throwing out a whole range of non-related issues.
Let’s be clear, when it comes down to it, your argument is as follows: “No, Clement DID NOT know Paul or Peter! He couldn’t have, because supernatural events don’t really happen! No resurrections, no walking corpses or walking on water! Clement could not have known Paul or Peter!”
Come on, surely deep down you know that is a completely laughable and incoherent argument.
LikeLike
Strawman, strawman, strawman. Your go-to-defense when you know you are cornered.
It is entirely POSSIBLE that the person who wrote First Clement was named Clement, that he lived in Rome at the same time as Paul and Peter, that he knew Paul and knew Peter, and that he was the “Clement” mentioned in Paul’s writings.
But as I said, your entire belief system is based on A LOT of “possibly’s”, “probably’s”, and “if’s”.
Not good evidence, Joel. And definitely not sufficient evidence for modern, educated people to believe in virginal conceptions, water walking, and dead corpse reanimations.
LikeLike
Again, not a strawman. Your own claims contradict you. And it is just utterly bizarre for you to spend OVER TWO WEEKS arguing with my simple statement that it is entirely possible that Clement knew Peter and Paul, given the fact that they were all in Rome at the same time and members of the Church in Rome. No one in their right mind spends over two weeks making a big deal about such a reasonable and realistic observation.
And again, there you go, jumping from just a basic historical observation of realistic probability that certain people KNEW EACH OTHER, to raving about virginal conceptions, walking on water, and resurrection. Like I’ve ALWAYS said–if you have a hard time buying such supernatural claims, fine. I get how those might be hard to believe. But what is at issue here is nothing like that. And for you to cause such as stink over the realistic possibility that Clement of Rome could have known Peter and Paul is just–I’ll say it again–flat out bizarre.
LikeLike
realistic possibility
Here is the issue you desperately do not want to address: If none of the Early Church Fathers knew one of the Twelve, it is entirely possible that Christianity as we know it is the invention of one man, Paul of Tarsus. Yet you appeal to a “realistic possibility” that the anonymous author of First Clement knew Peter, the leader of the Twelve.
Not good evidence, Joel. The foundation of your entire world view consists of “possibilities”. There is no clear, undisputed chain of custody (of teachings and doctrines) from Jesus—> to the Twelve—> to the Early Church Fathers. Mormonism has a better chain of custody of their supernatural claims than Christianity.
LikeLike
Good Grief…
“If none of the Early Church Fathers knew one of the Twelve, it is entirely possible that Christianity as we know it is the invention of one man, Paul of Tarsus.”
Yes, IF THAT WAS THE CASE, sure. But we know BOTH Peter and Paul were in Rome in the 60s, and that is when Clement lived there. Paul even mentions Clement in Philippians 4:3, which he wrote WHILE IN ROME. Ireneaus writes about how Polycarp knew John. Papias talks about how BOTH John the Apostle and John the Elder lived in Ephesus.
We KNOW that Clement, and Ignatius, and Polycarp, and all the rest quote profusely from Paul, the Gospels, Peter, James, Hebrews–the ENTIRE NT. We KNOW that one of the biggest things these early Church Fathers emphasized time and time again was Apostolic Succession and how that preserved the ORIGINAL TEACHING that Jesus passed down to the Apostles and that the Apostles passed down to their churches.
So no, my view is not based on assumptions and possibilities–it is based on the actual written testimony of all that stuff. And BASED ON all that written testimony, the only “assumption” I am putting forth is the very realistic and probable assumption that since Clement was the Bishop of Rome and lived in Rome, it isn’t much of a stretch to assume that both Peter and Paul, who were IN ROME in the 60s and who were PART OF THE CHURCH in ROME, could have very easily have known Clement.
So let’s be clear. My view regarding whether or not Clement knew Peter and Paul is a reasonable assumption based on written evidence and common sense. Your view entails a rejection of all that written testimony and is a COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTION BASED ON ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Just give up. The mic has dropped and Randy Watson has walked off the stage. Lol
LikeLike
But we know BOTH Peter and Paul were in Rome in the 60s, and that is when Clement lived there.
Which Clement? The author of First Clement? The Clement referred to by the author of the Shepherd of Hermas? The Clement mentioned by Paul in his epistle?What evidence do you have that the Clement mentioned by Paul is the author of the book we call First Clement? Statements from persons living more than 150 years later??? Why should we trust people who obviously never met a first century Clement or Paul or Peter??? Why are you so gullible, Joel?
You can appeal all you want to your favorite patristic scholars but what you cannot do is provide a statement that this is the consensus position of patristic scholars. Do it, Joel. I dare you! Provide a respected source which states that it is the consensus opinion of patristic scholars that:
–the author of First Clement was the same Clement mentioned by Paul in his epistle
–that the author of First Clement is the same Clement referred to by the author of the Shepherd of Hermas.
–that the author of First Clement met and knew Paul and Peter.
You can’t do it, Joel. And that is why you continue to blabber. Put up or shut up.
LikeLike
Yes, Clement of Rome, the fourth bishop of Rome who was bishop from AD 88-99. This is the expert conclusion of actual Patristic experts. I’m not talking about the Shepherd of Hermas–I have never mentioned the Shepherd of Hermas in any of this. I’m talking about the letter of I Clement, which Patristic scholars agree was written around AD 96.
I’ve already provided you a quote from Andrew Louth, a Patristics scholar and foremost EXPERT in the field, saying that it the authenticity of I Clement is undisputed and that there is NO DOUBT that the author was Clement of Rome, the fourth bishop of Rome. That’s not his opinion. He is stating what the scholarly CONSENSUS is. In his field, among his fellow Patristic scholars, there is NO DOUBT of this.
THEREFORE, based on that, it is not a stretch to say that Clement of Rome WHO LIVED IN ROME in the first century and who was PART OF THE CHURCH IN ROME in the first century, probably knew Peter and Paul WHO WERE IN ROME AND PART OF THE CHURCH IN ROME in the 60s. That is a REASONABLE ASSUMPTION based on the evidence and SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS regarding I Clement.
Deal with it, Mr. “I did a quick google search and asked Bart Ehrman.” The evidence and scholarly consensus of Patristic scholars are on my side. Maybe you really are mentally unbalanced if you are so nutty about this basic, very reasonable historical probability.
LikeLike
I’ve already provided you a quote from Andrew Louth, a Patristics scholar and foremost EXPERT in the field, saying that it the authenticity of I Clement is undisputed and that there is NO DOUBT that the author was Clement of Rome, the fourth bishop of Rome. That’s not his opinion. He is stating what the scholarly CONSENSUS is. In his field, among his fellow Patristic scholars, there is NO DOUBT of this.
Please provide the quote and source again.
LikeLike
Nah…go back and find it yourself. It is quite clear that your argument, as seen in the very title of your post, is simply wrong. Just give up.
LikeLike
It sounds like this idea of what we can know about Peter’s whereabouts and knowledge of Clement is another of those questions of mainline/ liberal/secular scholars vs conservative/traditional/evangelical scholars, with each side claiming to represent the scholarly consensus. The only option, it seems, for non experts like myself who cannot invoke a faith based decision, should be to suspend judgment.
LikeLike
Ultimately, it is just a matter of saying, “Sure, maybe. It’s possible.” And leave it at that.
LikeLike
Sure, maybe. It’s possible.
Maybe its possible that a couple of Early Church Fathers knew one or more of the original disciples of Jesus. Maybe they did not. But even the evidence is ify (“maybe”), I’m going to take a leap of faith and believe the Early Church Fathers were preaching the teachings of Jesus and the Twelve, because my subjective perception of the ghost of Jesus living in my heart tells me so.
LikeLike
No, it is not a dramatic leap of faith. It is looking at historical realities and using common sense. Give up.
LikeLike
Joel Anderson: Look at Andrew Louth’s comments in the classic “Early Christian Writings.” And try to keep a few things straight:
Nowhere does it say “this is the consensus of scholars”. Nowhere does it say that this issue is “undisputed” as you claim. In fact, it specifically says, “ultimately [the claim that the author of First Clement was the Clement mentioned by Paul] can’t be proven”.
You are grasping at straws to hold together your comforting superstition, Joel. Give it up. Give it up for the good of humankind.
LikeLike
“Of the authenticity of thus letter, there is NO DOUBT.” And then he continues with what you quoted. Now, unless you think “no doubt” and “undisputed” means two different things…
“No doubt.” “The most reliable lists…”
That means, according to the Patristics EXPERT, Andrew Louth, that there is SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS that I Clement was written by the fourth bishop of Rome (Clement) around AD 96.
Based on what there no doubt on, based on what is essentially undisputed among Patristics scholars., he admits it can’t be decisively PROVEN Clement knew Paul and Peter, but he DOES NOT SAY IT IS SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS THAT CLEMENT DIDNT KNOW THEM (as your silly title states).
He doesn’t share his opinion on that issue. I AM saying, based in what he says is undisputed, it is entirely possible (for the reasons I’ve repeatedly articulated) that Clement could have EASILY KNOWN THEM. That is by no means a wild and wacky thought. It is entirely reasonable and possible. It isn’t a “comforting superstition.” It is a rational and logical assumption, based on the facts that we know.
But clearly, you are unable to grasp that.
LikeLike
“Of the authenticity of thus letter, there is NO DOUBT.”
There is no doubt that someone named Clement wrote this book? Nonsense. The authorship of this book is CONTESTED. Look it up!
LikeLike
Awesome. Google-me-Gary is now the one disputing the stayed conclusion of experts and scholars.
LikeLike
Joel: Do you perceive the presence of the resurrected Jesus?
LikeLike
Always pushing your own agendas on a simple historical question.
When it is a simple question whether it is reasonable to think that Clement, a Chistian living in Rome, could have known
Peter and Paul, Christian leaders who were in Rome during Clement’s lifetime–and Gary tries to equate it as the same thing as a resurrection claim.
LikeLike
Even the founder of Christianity, Paul of Tarsus, stated that the resurrection of Jesus was central to your faith.
So: Do you feel the presence of the resurrected Jesus, Joel?
LikeLike
Sorry, I’m not going to disingenuously conflate things. You are doing this simply because you know full well that your entire argument on the issue of Clement, Peter, Paul, etc. is complete and utter crap.
LikeLike
No, my statements are supported by a respected NT scholar (Bart Ehrman) who very clearly states that a scholarly consensus exists that most scholars doubt any of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul, Peter, or any other member of the Twelve. Your “patristic” scholar says nothing about a scholarly consensus.
Now, would you please answer my question or is there a reason why you hesitate (shame?):
Do you perceive the presence of the resurrected Jesus?
LikeLike
The title of your post: “Scholarly Consensus: None of the Early Church Fathers Knew Paul, Peter, or John”
That is utterly false and misleading, and you know it. That is NOT the case. At best, you can say the scholarly consensus is that there is no convincing, hard textual evidence that even really speaks to the question. And no one is disputing that. But what I am saying (and many others admit) is that given the facts and scholarly consensus that we do have (i.e. I Clement was written by Clement, the fourth bishop of Rome, around AD 96), that it is very reasonable to think that it is very possible that Clement could have known Peter and Paul.
And you have utterly lost your mind over that simple, reasonable observation.
And that is precisely why you have now tried to shift the focus to questions like, “Do you feel the presence of Jesus?” And the reason you do that is so that when a Christian says, “Yes, at times, I do,” you’ll be able to then turn around and say, “SEE???? Crazy superstitious moron who believes in walking corpses and that Jesus speaks to him! MUHAMMAD CLAIMED THE ANGEL GABRIEL SPOKE TO HIM! WHY DON’T YOU BELIEVE THAT? MORMONS! Blah blah blah…”
Completely disingenuous and predictable.
But okay, let me throw you a nugget so you can stroke your ego. Yes, at times I perceive the presence of the resurrected Jesus. It is because of my faith in him that I am able to use my reason and see things clearly.
LikeLike
Yes, at times I perceive the presence of the resurrected Jesus. It is because of my faith in him that I am able to use my reason and see things clearly.
If you TRULY had reason and logic, you wouldn’t be perceiving the presence of (resurrected?) Jesus.
LikeLike
There it is! Just like I predicted!
LikeLike
Thank you for your honesty.
If there were zero historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus, is your perception of the presence of Jesus strong enough to convince you of the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection on that perceptual evidence alone?
LikeLike
But there is historical evidence for his resurrection. If he wasn’t resurrected, Christianity would never have gotten off the ground and I wouldn’t feel his presence. I wouldn’t be a Christian.
LikeLike
I understand. I’m trying to see how strong this perceptual evidence is for you. William Lane Craig has said that the “simplest” Christian, who has zero knowledge of the historical evidence for the Resurrection, can know as fact that Jesus is resurrected from the dead by the testimony of the Holy Spirit in his heart alone.
LikeLike
Dear Readers: If OT Bible scholar Joel Edmund Anderson (or any other Bible scholar, theologian, or apologist) perceives the presence of the resurrected Jesus, how likely is it that this “perceptual evidence” influences his views on the historical evidence for this alleged event?
If for instance, people were claiming that there is historical evidence that Caesar Augustus rose from the dead, and I perceived the presence of the back-from-the-dead Caesar Augustus “in my heart”, how likely is it that this sense perception of the “risen” Caesar Augustus would influence my interpretation of the historical evidence for this claim??
LikeLike
There it is, dear readers, this is why Gary has tried to switch issues in mid-stream. If you’ve read this entirely silly thread, you know full-well that I told Gary ahead of time I knew why he was all of a sudden asking about my belief in the resurrection in the middle of a post about Clement and Paul/Peter. I predicted what he would try to say and claim, and he went ahead and did just that.
It’s a scam. Gary is disingenuous here. And deep down, he knows it. So do you.
LikeLike
Who gives a crap if some guy named “Clement” lived in first century Rome? What difference does it make? Answer: None whatsoever unless you need this “Clement” to back up your claim that a first century corpse really was reanimated back to life. You need “Clement” to maintain a chain of custody of this tall tale. That is why you have spent so much time attempting to shut me up. You know that if Clement, Ignatius, etc. never met Peter or another member of the Twelve, it makes it much more probable that your Resurrection Belief is the product of a ghost sighting (illusion) or a rumor, gossip, or a legend. Therefore, you are DESPERATE to prove me wrong at all costs. The existence of a first century Clement who knew Paul and Peter doesn’t hurt my position, but he is absolutely critical for the traditional Christian position. Without Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp as direct recipients of the eyewitness accounts of the Twelve, the believability of the Christian story nosedives. The possibility that they were not scares the crap out of you!
So what do I know, Joel? I know that you are teaching little children and gullible adults to believe in (and fear) devils and ghosts (spirits), not because of solid objective evidence for the existence of these creatures, but primarily because of your subjective feelings and perceptions that one particular ghost lives in your “heart”, whispering life guidance into your ear in a still, small voice. Sad. Wake up, Joel. You are too intelligent for such nonsense.
LikeLike
Thank you for putting on full display why you are so apoplectic over this. I’m not the one pushing any agenda. I just like the early Church Fathers and decided to write some blog posts on who they were and what they wrote. And, like I’ve said countless times, I simply mentioned that Clement of Rome lived in the second half of the first century–this is just a fact. Read any Church history book, read Patristics scholars, etc. And given that undisputed fact of which there is no doubt, I simply mentioned it was interesting to think that he very well could have known Peter and Paul, who were in Rome in the 60s, where he lived.
Nothing in my post touched upon what you are blathering about here. I didn’t say, “Oh, he knew Peter and Paul, SO THE RESURRECTION IS TRUE! CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE!” blah blah blah…I simply was putting his life in historical context: he would have been about 15 when the Jerusalem Council happened in AD 50, about 20 when Paul wrote Romans, about 30 when the Temple was destroyed, and was the bishop in Rome during Domitian’s persecution. Just basic historical background that leads up to understanding his letter of I Clement that was written to the Corinthian Church. That’s all I did. That’s no agenda–just basic historical background.
You’re the one who has gone apoplectic over this. And every one of your responses bears this out. The mere thought that basic history shows that Clement of Rome lived in Rome in the latter half of the first century and was bishop in Rome in the 90s sends you into a tizzy–because a logical observation based on those facts leads one to reasonably speculate that he could have easily known Peter and Paul. No agenda–just basic, reasonable historical observation. But if that’s the case–and it is–it destroys your entire claim that the idea of a bodily resurrection was invented later.
And, once again, your final paragraph just shows how you constantly veer off from basic historical observations to more sensationalistic rants that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. And the funny thing is that you think you are being clever. I called exactly what you’d say the moment you veered into asking if I felt the presence of Jesus–and you went ahead and said it anyway. You don’t think people will notice that? It’s like you’re a bad magician–I just explained your trick ahead of time, then you do the trick anyway and expect people to applaud.
Everyone who reads this will realize that throughout this whole thread, I’ve been the one who has stuck to the basic, historical facts regarding the life of Clement, and you have been the one who has veered off into irrelevant issues, emotional claims, and manipulative rhetoric.
LikeLike
Abandon your comforting superstitions, Joel. Do it for the good of humankind. Superstitious belief is dangerous, even deadly.
LikeLike
Lol…you know you’ve lost this argument. Have a nice day.
LikeLike
Not according to NT scholar Bart Erhman. I accept expert consensus opinion on all issues. You never provided an unambiguous statement that there is a scholarly consensus that some of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul, Peter, and John.
Do you accept the scholarly consensus that the Gospels were NOT written by eyewitnesses or by the associates of eyewitnesses?
LikeLike
I’ve asked Joel this question multiple times but he refuses to answer it. Conservative Christians love scholarly consensus…until that consensus contradicts their fundamentalist dogma.
LikeLike
Everyone is laughing at you over this. No one is fooled. My OP and your OP here isn’t about who wrote the Gospels. It is about Clement of Rome and basic historicity.
LikeLike
Everyone is laughing at you over this.
Nice dodge. Childish, but nice dodge.
LikeLike
Calling you out on your dodge is not a dodge.
LikeLike
Do you accept the scholarly consensus that the Gospels were NOT written by eyewitnesses or by the associates of eyewitnesses?
LikeLike
I left this comment for Bart Ehrman. We will see what he has to say:
Dear Dr. Ehrman: My debate partner, OT Bible scholar Joel Edmund Anderson, responded to your claim that a consensus exists that none of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul or the Twelve: “Hahaha…”scholarly consensus” in the academic field of the early Church Fathers is not comprised of a NT scholar [Bart Ehrman], who is not an expert in the early Church Fathers and is a hyper-skeptic to boot.”
Dr. Anderson then quotes patristic scholar Andrew Louth, Penguin Classic edition of Early Christian Writings, concerning I Clement: “Of the authenticity of this epistle [First Clement] there is no doubt. Its author was the Clement who is mentioned fourth (after Peter, Linus, and Anencletus) in the most reliable lists of the Bishops of Rome.” And later, “The date of the epistle is generally reckoned to be about AD 96.”
Anderson: The guy who wrote I Clement was Clement of Rome, who lived in Rome. He quotes Paul, James, Peter, and the Synoptics. It is utterly reasonable to assume that he very well could have known Peter and Paul.
How would you respond, Dr. Ehrman?
LikeLike
One of the ideas on my endless list for projects that I never get started on is to make a list or chart or whatever, of the different presuppositions of secular/liberal/mainline scholars vs conservative/traditional/evangelical scholars and how this naturally affects the conclusions each group reaches. Number one on the list is the acceptance or rejection of the view that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or close associates, as well as the authorship of many of the epistles and Pauline letters, and Revelation. Right off the bat, this is going to have a large effect on their views of other aspects of Christianity and the Bible and the texts etc.
LikeLike
Good Lord, Gary…
I accept the scholarly view that Mark was written first (either late 60s or early 70s), that Matthew and Luke were written after that (70s-80s), and that John was written in the 90s.
Given that, and taking into consideration the testimony of the early Church Fathers, I think it certainly is possible, but there is no way of knowing for sure. In any case, it doesn’t matter to me, because no one in their right mind thinks any of the Gospels were made up at the time of their composition out of whole cloth. They reflected the testimony of the first generation Church.
Anyone saying anything more definitive than that is selling something.
LikeLike
But you admit that most NT scholars doubt or at least question the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels, right? I have compiled a list of NT scholars who say that this is the case, including statements by NT Wright and Richard Bauckham:
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/
But even if it is true that the authors of the Gospels were not eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses that does not automatically infer that everything they wrote was “made up out of whole cloth”. I have never claimed that the Gospels are 100% fiction. It is entirely possible that some or even much of what they wrote is historically accurate. But since we don’t know who these men were, and scholars believe it is highly likely they were not eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses, it is very difficult to know which parts of their stories are true and which parts are literary or theological fiction. That is the problem.
LikeLike
Haha…I just saw your response where you said you went on Ehrman’s blog to tell him about my response. Good Lord, how much more adolescent can you be?
BTW, I just noticed that Ehrman edited and translated the Loeb Classical Library volume on the letters of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Didache. Kudos…But I noticed in his introduction to it, when he does briefly touch upon “Did Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp know any of the apostles?” He doesn’t really come to any solid conclusion. But he does note that some scholars argue that Apostolic Fathers like Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp could have known and stood in continuity with the apostles. I think when he says, “This view…creates other problems, as it depends on historical judgments that are subject to dispute,” he tips his hand as to his opinion (i.e. they didn’t know the apostles), but he’s at least acknowledging (a) other scholars do think it is a possibility, and (b) there isn’t “scholarly consensus” (i.e. it is “subject to dispute”).
So, there you go! Now please, try to grow up.
LikeLike
Hold on to your shorts, Joel. Let’s see what the man has to say.
I must say I am happy to hear you admit that the question of whether or not any Early Church Father knew Paul or one of the Twelve is “a subject of dispute”. Good for you!
The chain of custody of the supernatural claims of Christianity is uncertain at best. It is therefore entirely possible that the teachings of Jesus and his original disciples were completely different from that of Paul and Pauline Christianity, the sect of Christianity which eventually eliminated all its rivals and became the form of Christianity we know today.
Virginal conceptions, water walking, and corpse reanimations NEVER happen. They are tall tales. With the disputed chain of custody of the Jesus Story, no one should think twice about believing this nonsense. The evidence is very, very weak.
LikeLike
Hahaha! I’ve never said it wasn’t! I said it was a realistic possibility! You are the one being dogmatic how “scholarly consensus” says “none of the early Church Fathers knew Peter, Paul, or John.”
This is why it is so entertaining to argue with you!
As for the rest of your response…no. A completely unconvincing and wholly weak argument.
LikeLike
I made a couple comments in this post a couple days ago with long quotes from Ehrman’s Loeb book relevant to Clement, you might want to give them a look if you haven’t already.
LikeLike
I came across this post and comments quite by accident. Framing the scholarly consensus in the negative (e.g., none of the early church fathers knew a member of the twelve or Paul”) is extremely odd, to say the least, since it cannot be verified or falsified on the basis of current evidence. Wouldn’t it be better historical methodology to claim that there is no concrete evidence that any of them actually received apostolic tradition directly from an apostle?
On the other hand, the counter argument that it is POSSIBLE that they MET each other means nothing. THE IMPORTANT QUESTION IS NOT, “Did any of the early church fathers ever meet any of the twelve or the Apostle Paul?” RATHER, IT IS, “DID THE ONE OR MORE OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS RECEVE APOSTOLIC TRADITION DIRECTLY FROM ONE MORE OR MORE APOSTLES? Since the suggested reception cannot be verified or falsified with current evidence; it should appear (if at all) in historical accounts as a later claim rather than as a fact. Furthermore, if it cannot be verified factually, it cannot provide an historical basis for later claims of apostolic or doctrinal continuity.
LikeLike
Well said.
LikeLike
Great points Carl.
Who cares if someone who went on to be thought of as an early church father ever met a disciple of Jesus. “Hey, how’s it going, enjoyed our conversation, see you later.” The important thing is whether or not that disciple passed on apostolic tradition. We have no way of knowing. Some may say it’s a given. But think of how poorly Jesus prepared the disciples. They didn’t seem to know what was going on during his ministry. After, when as Acts says he spend 40 days with them teaching them about the kingdom of god, they still didn’t seem to know much. 40 days!!! Good grief, think of how much could have been taught about how the church should be run, how to settle disputes, what the answers are to the questions that have divided Christians to the point of, blood shed, how is one saved, is there a trinity, and on and on.
The reason, for anyone who doesn’t feel they have to defend the view that Jesus could not make a mistake, is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, who thought the world was going to end within a generation. There was no need for the aforementioned instruction on Church administration and doctrine.
And so were his disciples, and the early church. The disciples may well have had no more need to pass on apostolic tradition in any kind of meaningful, helpful way to a successor, than Jesus did. And if there were only a couple disciples that actually did continue, and didn’t walk away from the movement (since only a few receive more than a passing mention) those are pretty small odds that any kind of well laid out, organized apostolic tradition was ever laid out by disciple to early church father, who may or may not have existed or had time to learn it all.
LikeLike
I’m a big fan of Ehrman. He’s a very solid scholar but I’m puzzled by his remarks. He implies Papias explicitly denies knowing apostles, yet the remarks attributed to Papias are frequently understood to imply the opposite. As for the consensus, there have been serious sholars who have written books to show Papias knew John as Irenaeus claimed. Is Ehrman using consensus to mean majority here? I would take it to mean overwhelming majority and I’m sceptical that there is a consensus in that sense.
But I’d particularly dispute the claim that disputed evidence is not good evidence. You can always find someone, even in the relevant field to dispute anything (eg “creation scientists” who dispute evolution). I think it would be better to say that evidence that is disputed by a clear majority of scholars is clearly (if not by definition) unpersuasive to those best placed to judge. Nevertheless in the end I think evidence must be judged on its own merits, not by appeals to authority. Btw no idea if Papias knew any apostles. It does seem a stretch though to say none of the fathers met any of the apostles the overlap in their lifespans. I wonder if Ehrman really meant that the consensus is that there is no good evidence any of the fathers met any of the apostles rather than that there is a consensus that none of them did.
LikeLike
Nevertheless in the end I think evidence must be judged on its own merits, not by appeals to authority.
So every non-expert should evaluate the evidence on every issue, not trust the majority of experts, but make the final decision as to what is true on each issue? Sounds like societal chaos, to me. Most university educated people in advanced western industrialized countries trust majority expert opinion on all issues about which they themselves are not experts.
LikeLike
Well I hope you are wrong about most University educated people. My training is in economics and I think the only thing one can reliably conclude from the claim that 90% of economists favour a policy is that the policy will benefit the rich. Hard sciences are a little different I would agree
But if you fear that licensing lay people to weigh arguments for themselves will lead say to young earth creationists rejecting evolution on the basis of half a dozen “creation scientists” you are wrong to do so. No one weighing the arguments would ever embrace YEC which requires contorted ad hoc arguments at every turn. Those who do so do so on the basis of dogma. Their mistake is not that they weigh the arguments for themselves but that they don’t. I am assuming however a lay person who understands the scientific method of thought and how evidence works. Those who don’t should indeed just trust the consensus but unfortunately they are the ones most subject to the Dunning Kruger effect.
LikeLike
“No one weighing the arguments would ever embrace YEC which requires contorted ad hoc arguments at every turn.”
YEC’s would strongly disagree and would consider you an elitist snob.
Let me tell a story: I was fishing at my favorite lake one day when I struck up a conversation with the man fishing next to me. After a little chit chat, he informed me that he was an engineer. “Interesting!” I thought. “An educated man.” However, as the conversation continued, he informed me that he believes that the earth is flat. He believes that the photos of earth taken from space are “doctored”. He believes that the moon landing was staged.
“Wow!” I thought. “This man is an idiot.”
He was an idiot not because he wasn’t educated but because he believed that he personally was the final authority on the shape of the earth. I don’t care how many thousands of hours he has spent on the internet studying the subject of the shape of the earth: this man is still an idiot!
Ditto for anyone who claims that he has spent hours on the internet studying the texts of the Christian New Testament and therefore knows better than the consensus of scholars on how to determine the dating and authorship of these ancient texts and other issues such as whether or not any Early Church Father knew one of the Twelve. Sorry, I’ll go with the majority of scholars and not some guy hanging out in his basement in his underwear surfing the internet for days on end.
Yes, if you really want to know something, become an expert in that field; obtain a proper education in that field in a respected institution of higher learning (not the local community college; not the local bible college). However, most people do not have the time to become an expert in all fields of knowledge. I certainly do not. That is why I trust majority expert opinion on ALL issues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In my experience subscribing to Ehrman’s blog and watching his youtube debates, when he says consensus he usually means scholars in mainline “liberal” seminaries and religious studies departments of secular universities.
When challenged about the differing views of Evangelical scholars several years ago on his blog , he dismissed them as not being “Critical Scholars” – they let their faith dictate their conclusions. After that he relented somewhat and started saying things like “all scholars except evangelical or conservative.”
This was perhaps 5 or so years ago on his blog, but as I no longer subscribe due to it becoming too expensive for my tastes, I cannot provide actual citations.
An interesting question in my mind is that with the decline of the mainline denominations and by extension their seminaries and a similar pattern in secular religious studies depts, are we at or near a point where evangelical scholars are or soon will outnumber mainline and secular scholars . I heard an unverified statement by an Evangelical scholar (Micheal Kruger) that the 10 largest seminaries in the US are Evangelical.
LikeLike
I will disregard the scholarship of any scholar who has signed a statement of faith or statement of belief, promising that he or she will not publish any scholarship which conflicts with the doctrinal position/belief system of the institution which employs him or her. In so doing, you will eliminate most evangelical scholars from the sample group.
In addition, I will disregard the scholarship of any scholar who publicly states that he (or she) can perceive the presence of a ghost/spirit dwelling within him; a ghost which communicates with him in an inaudible form of communication; a ghost which he identifies as Jesus of Nazareth, a man who lived and died 2,000 years ago. Such a scholar is not dealing with a full deck. He is delusional and hopelessly biased. This criteria will eliminate any remaining evangelical scholars in your sample group.
So I will still accept majority scholarly opinion…with the two caveats above.
LikeLike
Yes, Mormon and Muslim scholarship, for example, would also fail as expert opinion for similar reasons with obvious variant beliefs.
LikeLike
True.
But notice that I did not eliminate all Christian scholars. There are good Christian scholars whose opinions I respect, such as Raymond Brown. In his scholarship one can detect a clear desire to do good scholarship as his top priority, not to save souls.
LikeLike
Yes, there may be individual Evangelical, Muslim, or Mormon scholars that are like Brown, but when looking for a consensus, those individuals don’t help us.
LikeLike
I would not disqualify someone just because they are evangelical. But finding an evangelical scholar who has not signed a statement of faith and who does not perceive the presence of “Christ” within him or her will be like finding a needle in a haystack.
LikeLike