Historical reliability

[brother Paul]

brother,

That is reading the ANF as literature and not assessing it as accurate history. How do we determine if what we read about history is accurate and reliable?

Obtaining information from the ANF does not come with self-determining elements of accuracy.

Oz

I suppose, if you think they were liars...

Since their foundational beliefs were the Apostles (whose minds were opened to the scriptures by Christ) and the scriptures were required for accuracy, and since they all (no matter which Apostle founded their local body or where they were located) shared almost exact understanding of what these things meant, it is a powerful internal testimony they were recording true events.

For example, there is far more actual evidence for the early Christians and Christ himself then there is for Alexander the Great and his alleged story but no one doubts him...yet with far more most doubt Christ. Historiographers use a number of tests to determine historical accuracy of ancient reports...but mostly a biographical test, an internal evidence test and an external evidence test. Not only does the New Testament pass all three with inhumanly pure colors but so are the earliest church writings.

Sorry if I brought it here but I did not realize you were speaking in general about all and any ancient historical events..

 

[brother Paul]

How do we decide what is reliable ancient history? Many accept something as historical without asking further questions. That's not how historians work, whether investigating Benjamin Franklin, Captain James Cook, what happened in World War I, or Jesus of Nazareth.

Those of us who pursue history as a discipline, are rarely able to conclude with absolute certainty what happened historically. It is mainly because we were not there and are too far removed from the events recorded. We rely on others to record accurately. So, the nature of history is such that we cannot usually conclude with more than probability about any historical event. We rarely can reach certainty.

Please understand that I'm not dealing here with the place of verbal inspiration of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17 NIV).

Which criteria do historians use to determine if something is historical? John P Meier in A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (1991 Doubleday) has an excellent chapter (ch 6, Criteria: How Do We Decide What Comes from Jesus?) in which he discusses some of the criteria for historicity used in the life of Jesus.

He examines 5 primary criteria and some secondary criteria used. The 5 primary criteria are: (1) Embarrassment, (2) The criterion of discontinuity, (3) The criterion of multiple attestation, (4) The criterion of coherence, and (5) The criterion of rejection and execution (Meier 1991:168-177). These are not infallible ways of assessment, but they are among the best we have to determine the reliability of data from history.

This topic may not be of interest to many of you, so I'll examine briefly one of these criteria - embarrassment. Let's use the life of Jesus as an example for this one (with information from the Gospels). The basic understanding of this criterion is that something that may have caused embarrassment or created difficulty for the early Church is more likely to be authentic. Why? Because it is not likely that the writers of the Gospels would deliberately set out to write embarrassing or contradictory material that would weaken the position of the church.

A couple examples of this criterion (suggested by Meier 1991:168-169) are:

• Jesus, the superior One, was baptised by the inferior John the Baptist, who proclaimed 'a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins' (Mark 1:4 ESV; Matt 3:13-15 NIV);

• In spite of Jesus' claim that he, the Son, could predict the events that take place at the end of the world (Mark 13 NIV), he himself could not predict when he would return (Mark 13:32 NIV). This latter verse states, 'But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father'. Because of this criterion of embarrassment, it should not be surprising that a few later Greek manuscripts dropped 'nor the Son' from Mark 13:32 (NIV). However, in the parallel verse in Matt 24:36 (NIV), a larger number of manuscripts dropped the words, 'nor the Son'. Matthew was more widely used in the church of the early centuries than Mark.

I find this criterion of embarrassment helpful as one criterion to help determine the genuine nature of a piece of information from history, including in the Gospels.

Some of you may be interested in a discussion of this in Robert H Stein, 'The "Criteria" of Authenticity'.

In Christ,
Oz

Your provided two criteria are amiss (a typical liberal interpretation)....

as for "a" "immersion" (though being used for a symbol of people's repentance by John) was much more than that (and this was the application for Jesus)...it was the approach God sovereignly determined in the Tanakh for for setting something apart (sanctifying) for His use and purpose. That and anointing with oil (the Spirit) were foundational for assigning "righteousness" in the officiating of Jesus ministry. He could not be fulfilling the requirement of God (officiation, consecration, set apart for) to assume His messianic role unless He was immersed...and by someone God had appointed to do the immersing. There are many such examples.

As for "b" the writer is not realizing the differing roles and functions of the Father. the Word/Son, and the Holy Spirit. For example, neither the Father or the Spirit physically experienced or endured the injustice or horrible excruciating pains of the Crucifixion but that does not mean they were not intimately involved. It does not mean they all were not equally the one and only God. No human has ever SEEN the Father, yet YHVH appears to men in the form of a man (and in other forms) because He appears as the Word/Son (the Memra/Logos). The Son glorifies the Father and the Spirit glorifies the Son...and so on. This is one of those sad attempts at creating the illusion of contradiction where none is merited (there are far more likely items to demonstrate this possibility)....but that is my $.02

Finally the ANF is not "literature" and the rules for writing these testimonies and letters are not the rules of modern western grammatical constructs.

 

[OzSpen]

I suppose, if you think they were liars...

Since their foundational beliefs were the Apostles (whose minds were opened to the scriptures by Christ) and the scriptures were required for accuracy, and since they all (no matter which Apostle founded their local body or where they were located) shared almost exact understanding of what these things meant, it is a powerful internal testimony they were recording true events.

For example, there is far more actual evidence for the early Christians and Christ himself then there is for Alexander the Great and his alleged story but no one doubts him...yet with far more most doubt Christ. Historiographers use a number of tests to determine historical accuracy of ancient reports...but mostly a biographical test, an internal evidence test and an external evidence test. Not only does the New Testament pass all three with inhumanly pure colors but so are the earliest church writings.

Sorry if I brought it here but I did not realize you were speaking in general about all and any ancient historical events..

Paul,

It has nothing to do with my opinion of whether they were liars. I'm talking about how to assess ANY document from the past (including the ANF). You and I know that the early church fathers (ECF) encountered lots of heresy, particularly Gnosticism in the early days. Irenaeus countered it in Against Heresies. They had to discern between the false and the truth.

Ever heard of Marcion & Arius and their teachings. See:

• Heresy in the Early Church: Christian History Timeline | Christian History
• Heresy in the Early Church: Christian History Interview - The Search ...

The issue I raise is how to determine the reliability of the documents from the ECF. To have a perspective, 'If you think they were liars', is arguing from silence. I would like to know how you determine how reliable are their testimonies and teachings in writing.

May you have a joyous Christmas: Silent Night.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Your provided two criteria are amiss (a typical liberal interpretation)....

as for "a" "immersion" (though being used for a symbol of people's repentance by John) was much more than that (and this was the application for Jesus)...it was the approach God sovereignly determined in the Tanakh for for setting something apart (sanctifying) for His use and purpose. That and anointing with oil (the Spirit) were foundational for assigning "righteousness" in the officiating of Jesus ministry. He could not be fulfilling the requirement of God (officiation, consecration, set apart for) to assume His messianic role unless He was immersed...and by someone God had appointed to do the immersing. There are many such examples.

As for "b" the writer is not realizing the differing roles and functions of the Father. the Word/Son, and the Holy Spirit. For example, neither the Father or the Spirit physically experienced or endured the injustice or horrible excruciating pains of the Crucifixion but that does not mean they were not intimately involved. It does not mean they all were not equally the one and only God. No human has ever SEEN the Father, yet YHVH appears to men in the form of a man (and in other forms) because He appears as the Word/Son (the Memra/Logos). The Son glorifies the Father and the Spirit glorifies the Son...and so on. This is one of those sad attempts at creating the illusion of contradiction where none is merited (there are far more likely items to demonstrate this possibility)....but that is my $.02

Finally the ANF is not "literature" and the rules for writing these testimonies and letters are not the rules of modern western grammatical constructs.

There were no 'a' and 'b' in what I wrote, so I do not know to what you refer.

You state:

Finally the ANF is not "literature" and the rules for writing these testimonies and letters are not the rules of modern western grammatical constructs.

Of course they won't follow the rules of modern Western grammar in the languages in which we write - in English on CFnet. They wrote according to the grammatical rules of the language in which they wrote.

Oz

 

[brother Paul]

Paul,

It has nothing to do with my opinion of whether they were liars. I'm talking about how to assess ANY document from the past (including the ANF). You and I know that the early church fathers (ECF) encountered lots of heresy, particularly Gnosticism in the early days. Irenaeus countered it in Against Heresies. They had to discern between the false and the truth.

Ever heard of Marcion & Arius and their teachings. See:

• Heresy in the Early Church: Christian History Timeline | Christian History
• Heresy in the Early Church: Christian History Interview - The Search ...

The issue I raise is how to determine the reliability of the documents from the ECF. To have a perspective, 'If you think they were liars', is arguing from silence. I would like to know how you determine how reliable are their testimonies and teachings in writing.

May you have a joyous Christmas: Silent Night.

Oz

My apologies. When you said "A couple examples of this criterion (suggested by Meier 1991:168-169) are:

• Jesus, the superior One, was baptised by the inferior John the Baptist, who proclaimed 'a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins' (Mark 1:4 ESV; Matt 3:13-15 NIV);

• In spite of Jesus' claim that he, the Son, could predict the events that take place at the end of the world (Mark 13 NIV), he himself could not predict when he would return (Mark 13:32 NIV). This latter verse states, 'But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father'. Because of this criterion of embarrassment, it should not be surprising that a few later Greek manuscripts dropped 'nor the Son' from Mark 13:32 (NIV). However, in the parallel verse in Matt 24:36 (NIV), a larger number of manuscripts dropped the words, 'nor the Son'. Matthew was more widely used in the church of the early centuries than Mark.

You did not use the letters a and b but I cannot see how you could not understand to what I was referring.

"I would like to know how you determine how reliable are their testimonies and teachings in writing."

Well for example you refer to Irenaeus, who as it turns out was the student of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Ignatious for another example (another of John's disciples) sat at the feet of Peter for two years when Peter oversaw and taught at Antioch. Justin Martyr was trained by the Palestinian patriarchs (who taught there following James). Clement of Rome sat for the teachings of Peter and Paul...shall I go on?

So if the Apostles (taught by Jesus) were not liars, then what they reported and taught was true, and this is why their accounts are reliable.

 

[OzSpen]

My apologies. When you said "A couple examples of this criterion (suggested by Meier 1991:168-169) are:

• Jesus, the superior One, was baptised by the inferior John the Baptist, who proclaimed 'a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins' (Mark 1:4 ESV; Matt 3:13-15 NIV);

• In spite of Jesus' claim that he, the Son, could predict the events that take place at the end of the world (Mark 13 NIV), he himself could not predict when he would return (Mark 13:32 NIV). This latter verse states, 'But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father'. Because of this criterion of embarrassment, it should not be surprising that a few later Greek manuscripts dropped 'nor the Son' from Mark 13:32 (NIV). However, in the parallel verse in Matt 24:36 (NIV), a larger number of manuscripts dropped the words, 'nor the Son'. Matthew was more widely used in the church of the early centuries than Mark.

You did not use the letters a and b but I cannot see how you could not understand to what I was referring.

"I would like to know how you determine how reliable are their testimonies and teachings in writing."

Well for example you refer to Irenaeus, who as it turns out was the student of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Ignatious for another example (another of John's disciples) sat at the feet of Peter for two years when Peter oversaw and taught at Antioch. Justin Martyr was trained by the Palestinian patriarchs (who taught there following James). Clement of Rome sat for the teachings of Peter and Paul...shall I go on?

So if the Apostles (taught by Jesus) were not liars, then what they reported and taught was true, and this is why their accounts are reliable.

Paul,

Since I, a Christian, taught my Christian son, Paul, who is teaching his 2 Christian teenage sons, that does not guarantee that any one of these 4 people does not at some point tell a lie. So the followers of Jesus are not guaranteed to be sinless/not telling falsehood, just because the spiritual line is from Jesus. Why? All of Jesus' followers have sinful natures he did not have. That makes them capable of lying.

Regarding criteria of historicity for any document, including the Bible, see James Preston's, Five Criteria for Assessing the Historicity of Jesus in the Gospels. The criteria he discusses are:

• Embarrassment;
• Discontinuity;
• Multiple attestation;
• Coherence;
• Rejection and Execution.

In my 4 articles on, 'Can You Trust the Bible? Part 1' I use the T.I.E.S test to determine the trustworthiness of the Bible:

T = The Transmission Test

I = Internal Evidence Test

E = External Evidence Test, and

S = The Spirit of Conviction from the Holy Spirit of God.

Origen of Alexandria, an early church father (ECF), explained in his Commentary on John in Book 2.6,

But we must inquire whether, if it be true that ‘all things were created through him,’ the Holy Spirit was also created through him. Now I think we are forced to admit to the man who says that he was created, and who quotes the text, ‘All things were created through him,’ that the Holy spirit was created through the Word, since the Word is older than he. But the man who is unwilling to say that the Holy Spirit is created through Christ must assert that he is unbegotten.... We, however, believe that there are three hypostases, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and being of opinion that no one is unbegotten except the Father, maintain the pious and true belief to be that while all things were created through the Word the Holy Spirit is of more honor than all others and first in rank of all who have been created by the Father through Christ (emphasis added).​

Is the Holy Spirit a created being, created by Jesus, as promoted by Origen (ca. AD 185-232 )? See Origen’s Doctrine of the Holy Spirit – Part 1.

How do we know Origen's teaching on the Holy Spirit was false? The Bible tells us so. See Job 26:13 (NLT): “His Spirit made the heavens beautiful, and his power pierced the gliding serpent'. See also: Gen 1:2; Job 33:4; The H/S was there in the beginning and was not a created being. We need the Scripture to check doctrine for its truth or falsehood.

No ECF is sinless and incapable of lying - even in his writing. That includes Origen and other church fathers.

Oz

 

[brother Paul]

A fair analogy OZ! However your son Paul, was not Jesus (who came with the Father’s exact words) and his sons are not the Apostles (chosen by God, taught by Christ, to go forth with a specific message breathed in them by Him).

After this order I suppose over time there were some slight differences and unintentional falsehood sneaking in (which got worse over time). Origen himself was taught by Greek philosophers and himself was called out on a few matters by others (eventually deemed a heretic by some).

Having said that IMHO Origen is not saying in any way that the Word/Son was “created” by the Father because of the use of the concept of “hypostases” which can better be understood as manifestations. The actual understanding of the Tri-unity of God (YHVH) accepted and taught as the Trinity in the Nicean language was one ousia in three hypostases.

They had this discussion to settle the understanding being somewhat understood differently by others such as Sabellius and Arius (which were frindgy minorities around and preceding Nicea). The concept of the idea of seeing the Father, the Word(called the Son), and the Holy Spirit as hypostases of the one and only YHVH, actually going back to the Aramaic of the 1st and 2nd century culmination and summarization of the Jewish scholars seen in the Targums.

For the Nicene Christian Bishops, the Father was YHVH uncreate, and never seen, The Word was YHVH, uncreate, but manifest and seen and heard, and the Spirit uncreate, never seen, but heard and experienced. Thus one God (YHVH) in three HYPOSTASES.

Origen here (third century from Christ) IS beginning to vary regarding his understanding of the Spirit which I believe was clarified with the idea of “proceeds from” as opposed to “created by”. But we can agree to disagree on our theological understanding.

And without doubt the things believed in common by the EFCs far outweigh the difference in theologies but I am referring to historical references (like for example that all the earliest writers report Matthew as the 1st gospel written down where moderns reject this for Mark for foolish modern concepts based on “shorter is earlier” and because one fragment of Mark predates all others. But when we look at the supporting evidence for their shared opinion:

a) That whatever Apostle, they were all handed this tradition

b) That wherever the source body was founded they shared this testimony delivered to them, and

c) Matthew being a tax collector for the occupational government and a Levite would indicate a person use to writing down details like persons, places, excuses, and doing math, and

d) It being attested that Mark wrote his version when he was in Rome with Peter (taking down his teachings and preachings) which was not until around the 60s AD

We can see the veracity of Matthew first as historical

For example, some of Paul’s letters were already circulating, as Mark was writing (having left for Alexandria before he finished). Paul quotes gospel references in these letters (which could not have been Mark’s or Luke’s since Luke’s Luke/Acts was also not written until Peter and Paul were taken to Rome).

So we have a historical ECF indication that Matthew was written first, as was taught to them by the first few tiers of Bishops who themselves were taught by the Apostles, the chronological confirmation, the scholarly likelihood that Matthew (being used to record details daily) was writing down notations regularly (a practice already common to many disciples of Rabbis...others committing their teachings to memory), and the fact that this belief was held to be true at least all the way up to Jerome is pretty convincing.

Whereas for Alexander we have a few coins bearing his image (actually from his time) and a pseudopigraphic Jewish tale of the Priest Jadua and possibly a mention in a later Babyonian inference and then all else is what others declared to be the true legends (such as from Plutarch from 100s of years after his death) and we call this “history”.

Nonetheless, YES I agree "No ECF is sinless and incapable of lying - even in his writing. That includes Origen and other church fathers" not they would have done so intentionally. YES Origen did say this (history) but he was not lying just in error.

 

[OzSpen]

A fair analogy OZ! However your son Paul, was not Jesus (who came with the Father’s exact words) and his sons are not the Apostles (chosen by God, taught by Christ, to go forth with a specific message breathed in them by Him).

My son and 2 grandsons come with the same humanity as the ECFs, who have the same sinful nature to get things wrong as my son, grandsons and me

After this order I suppose over time there were some slight differences and unintentional falsehood sneaking in (which got worse over time). Origen himself was taught by Greek philosophers and himself was called out on a few matters by others (eventually deemed a heretic by some).

You missed my point that a church father, such as Origen, could get his pneumatology so wrong.

Having said that IMHO Origen is not saying in any way that the Word/Son was “created” by the Father because of the use of the concept of “hypostases” which can better be understood as manifestations. The actual understanding of the Tri-unity of God (YHVH) accepted and taught as the Trinity in the Nicean language was one ousia in three hypostases.

You missed entirely the quote I gave from Origen. He was not talking of the Word as a created being but of the Holy Spirit as being created.

Oz

 

[brother Paul]

Yes we all have sin, and have sinned, and yes none of them were perfect, but IMO their history was reliable. How do we know any history is reliable? Well the later telling of it is usually from the victors perspective, but someone did or said something, and others testified to it, and still others wrote about it. And that is really about it. Occasionally we get confirmations from archaeology and such but these are sparse and largely interpretive.

Anyway I will not argue with you because I love history. In the end we all believe whatever we will to or have been taught or convinced of...by the way, I loved your article...well done my brother well done. The peace of God be with you.

 

[Jim Parker]

That is reading the ANF as literature and not assessing it as accurate history. How do we determine if what we read about history is accurate and reliable?

I would be more interested in their theology.
What we call "accurate and reliable history" today is not what they called history then and there.

jim

 

[brother Paul]

I would be more interested in their theology.
What we call "accurate and reliable history" today is not what they called history then and there.

jim

That's true...

 

[OzSpen]

I would be more interested in their theology.
What we call "accurate and reliable history" today is not what they called history then and there.

jim

Jim,

Christianity is an historical religion. How do we determine the reliability of what the ECF wrote? There's no point in assessing their theology if the documents are not trustworthy.

Oz

 

[brother Paul]

Jim,

Christianity is an historical religion. How do we determine the reliability of what the ECF wrote? There's no point in assessing their theology if the documents are not trustworthy.

Oz

Example:

Irenaeus wrote a number of documents. Irenaeus claims he received his teaching from Polycarp (a disciple of John, who also sat at the feet of some of the Apostles). There is not one justifiable reason to impeach the fact that Irenaeus wrote the documents bearing his name outside of speculation. In the documents are the names of contemporaries, places, and events (some of which can be confirmed externally). There is thus no reason to impeach the credibility of these people, places, or events. Other people later write about Irenaeus and even quote sections of his writings. Therefore his writings (the documents) are reliable whether or not we agree with his theologies.

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim,
Christianity is an historical religion. How do we determine the reliability of what the ECF wrote? There's no point in assessing their theology if the documents are not trustworthy.
Oz

You are attempting to insert a modern, western meaning of "history" into an ancient, near eastern culture.

If the theology of the ECF is unreliable then we have no basis for Christian theology at all.
The Trinity becomes unreliable.
The dual nature of Christ becomes unreliable.
The divinity of the Holy Spirit becomes unreliable.

 

[OzSpen]

Example:

Irenaeus wrote a number of documents. Irenaeus claims he received his teaching from Polycarp (a disciple of John, who also sat at the feet of some of the Apostles). There is not one justifiable reason to impeach the fact that Irenaeus wrote the documents bearing his name outside of speculation. In the documents are the names of contemporaries, places, and events (some of which can be confirmed externally). There is thus no reason to impeach the credibility of these people, places, or events. Other people later write about Irenaeus and even quote sections of his writings. Therefore his writings (the documents) are reliable whether or not we agree with his theologies.

Paul,

You quoted from my post #32 but refused to answer the question I asked .

Your claim is that Irenaeus wrote documents with include 'the names of contemporaries, places, and events (some of which can be confirmed externally)'. So what? Is he a truthful witness? How do we determine if this ancient writing is a reliable piece of literature?

You refuse to answer how ancient historians determine the trustworthiness of any document from the past, including the writings of the ECF.

Do you agree with this theology of Irenaeus?

'There is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption [Christians]' (Irenaeus. Against Heresies, Book IV, Preface, Verse 4, New Advent edition).​

I hope you noticed that Irenaeus's theology was that only the Father, the Son, and those who possess the adoption (Christians) are God. That makes him a Binitarian, not promoting a Trinitarian view. For a time, ancient historian Eusebius, appears to have been Binitarian.

This is false teaching, according to Scripture which affirms the Holy Spirit as God:

God, the Holy Spirit, is regarded as God. The Holy Spirit is a person. Take John 16:13 as an example. the neuter substantive pneuma [Spirit] is referred to by the masculine pronoun ekeinos [he], thus recognising the Holy Spirit not as a neuter ‘it’ but as a person, ‘he’. He is the Comforter/Helper (Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). No ‘it’ can do this. The Holy Spirit has the attributes of Deity. He is eternal (Heb 9:14), omniscient (1 Cor 2:10-11; Jn 14:26; 16:12-13), omnipotent (Lk 1:35), omnipresent (Ps 139:7-10). And have a guess what? He does the works of deity in creation (Ps 104:30), regeneration (Jn 3:5), giving us Scripture (2 Pt 1:21; and raising the dead (Rm 8:11) [from my article, Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?]​

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You are attempting to insert a modern, western meaning of "history" into an ancient, near eastern culture.

If the theology of the ECF is unreliable then we have no basis for Christian theology at all.
The Trinity becomes unreliable.
The dual nature of Christ becomes unreliable.
The divinity of the Holy Spirit becomes unreliable.

No, Jim,

I'm raising an issue that ancient historians pursue of any writing in any culture: Which criteria do we use to determine if any document from history - few years ago or thousands of years ago - is accurate, reliable, trustworthy, credible?

In your reply, you have introduced a False Dilemma Fallacy. When you give only two choices (either/or), that's a false dilemma. You example is: Either the ECF are reliable OR we have no basis for theology.

You claim the Trinity, the nature of Christ, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit become unreliable if the ECF are unreliable. The fact is that these teachings come from Scripture and I don't depend on the ECF for their authenticity (although you seem to). I do depend on a trustworthy Bible to obtain these teachings.

How do I determine if OT and NT are trustworthy? That's the Q I've been asking and you have joined the throng that doesn't want to answer that Q. Are there reasons why you don't want to investigate these criteria?

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

How do I determine if OT and NT are trustworthy?

What do you mean by "trustworthy"?
Do you mean that every thing in the Bible has the accuracy of the transcripts of the videotapes of the actual events and verified by disinterested, independent sources?
That's not going to happen.

Or do you mean that we can bet our eternal life on what the Bible teaches?

I pick number two.

 

[brother Paul]

Paul,

You quoted from my post #32 but refused to answer the question I asked .

Your claim is that Irenaeus wrote documents with include 'the names of contemporaries, places, and events (some of which can be confirmed externally)'. So what? Is he a truthful witness? How do we determine if this ancient writing is a reliable piece of literature?

You refuse to answer how ancient historians determine the trustworthiness of any document from the past, including the writings of the ECF.

Do you agree with this theology of Irenaeus?

'There is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption [Christians]' (Irenaeus. Against Heresies, Book IV, Preface, Verse 4, New Advent edition).​

I hope you noticed that Irenaeus's theology was that only the Father, the Son, and those who possess the adoption (Christians) are God. That makes him a Binitarian, not promoting a Trinitarian view. For a time, ancient historian Eusebius, appears to have been Binitarian.

This is false teaching, according to Scripture which affirms the Holy Spirit as God:

God, the Holy Spirit, is regarded as God. The Holy Spirit is a person. Take John 16:13 as an example. the neuter substantive pneuma [Spirit] is referred to by the masculine pronoun ekeinos [he], thus recognising the Holy Spirit not as a neuter ‘it’ but as a person, ‘he’. He is the Comforter/Helper (Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). No ‘it’ can do this. The Holy Spirit has the attributes of Deity. He is eternal (Heb 9:14), omniscient (1 Cor 2:10-11; Jn 14:26; 16:12-13), omnipotent (Lk 1:35), omnipresent (Ps 139:7-10). And have a guess what? He does the works of deity in creation (Ps 104:30), regeneration (Jn 3:5), giving us Scripture (2 Pt 1:21; and raising the dead (Rm 8:11) [from my article, Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?]​

Oz

You refuse to answer how ancient historians determine the trustworthiness of any document from the past, including the writings of the ECF.

No I didn't refuse to answer that question because you did not ask it. You asked how do WE determine the historical reliability of these documents and I answered you with the example of Irenaeus. As I said it is nt whether or not their theology is correct it was about how documentary assessment is made and confirmed...YOU asked about HISTORICAL reliability not theological reliability.

 

[OzSpen]

What do you mean by "trustworthy"?
Do you mean that every thing in the Bible has the accuracy of the transcripts of the videotapes of the actual events and verified by disinterested, independent sources?
That's not going to happen.

Or do you mean that we can bet our eternal life on what the Bible teaches?

I pick number two.

Jim,

Please go to Oxford dictionaries online for their definition of the adjective, 'trustworthy': 'Able to be relied on as honest or truthful' (Oxford dictionaries online 2017. s v trustworthy). Trustworthy = reliable, honest or truthful.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You refuse to answer how ancient historians determine the trustworthiness of any document from the past, including the writings of the ECF.

No I didn't refuse to answer that question because you did not ask it. You asked how do WE determine the historical reliability of these documents and I answered you with the example of Irenaeus. As I said it is nt whether or not their theology is correct it was about how documentary assessment is made and confirmed...YOU asked about HISTORICAL reliability not theological reliability.

I most certainly asked it in the OP: How do we decide what is reliable ancient history? Many accept something as historical without asking further questions. That's not how historians work, whether investigating Benjamin Franklin, Captain James Cook, what happened in World War I, or Jesus of Nazareth.

Oz