outhouse

there were many different groups of people with these private collections in hand, and these collections were all different.


those that made the cut in the 4rth century were included and those that did not were burned.

some may still be hidden in the ground that didnt get lost due to war, the fall of the temple, and or burned by romans

Duvduv

With all due respect everybody, none of this yet explains by what authority the heresiologists I mentioned originally could specify something for all believers that their readers needed to know.

If there was no authority in the second century to authorize this position of 4 gospels and the epistles etc., then how do these writers (whoever they were) even come to stipulate a set of texts equivalent to the Old Testament as holy writ? This question remains.

Furthermore, the haphazard nature of production of texts by disparate groups does NOT explain the choice of the gospel writers to commit to a structure for their stories in a way resembling the Old Testament unless they were already INTENDED TO BE part of a canon of texts to stand next to the Old Testament in importance and sanctity.

The only realistic alternative to this inexplicable situation is that there WAS NO authority in the 2nd century, and these pronouncements were not made in the 2nd century, which is WHY some relative obscure "festal letter" gives the same pronouncement towards the end of the FOURTH CENTURY.

The means, motive, and opportunity to create this canon (akin to the Old Testament) could only exist once the Christianizing empire leadership could sponsor and authorize its formal clergy to do so which is why good old Athanasius proclaimed the canon late in the 4th century......

sotto voce

With all due respect, read the answers you've already got. You must take note. If not notes.

aa5874

The question has been ANSWERED. There was NO NT Canon until the time of Constantine.

The very writings attributed to Irenaeus "Against Heresies" INADVERTENTLY show that there was NO NT Canon at the time of the supposed Irenaeus.

The author of "Against Heresies" in the rush to present a Bogus history left the very clues to expose the author's own fallacies.

The very title "Against Heresies" implies that there were MANY cults of Christians but there is one thing common to all.

NONE of them had a Canon.

Who would have NEEDED FOUR Contradictory Jesus stories??

What Cult of Christians would have NEEDED the Short gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn bounded in a single book???

NONE of the Heretical cult of Christians used the Four Gospels.

But, listen to the author of "Against Heresies" he will state the Cults that used ONE Gospel only.

1. The Ebionites used gMatthew.

2. Marcion used gLuke.

3. Those who separate Jesus from Christ used gMark.

4. The Valentinians used gJohn.

Against Heresies 3.11.7 The author of "Against Heresies" has inadvertently shown that even Heretics did NOT use all Four Gospels and did NOT have any Canon.

But, the author gives the impression that there was a cult of Christian that used Four Gospels simultaneously--the Catholic Church.

There was NO Catholic Church in the 2nd century--there Multiple cults of Christians.

Justin Martyr DESTROYS the author of "Against Heresies".

Christians used the MEMOIRS of the Apostles in the 2nd century based on Justin.

First ApologyLXVII There was NO NT Canon in the 2nd century with Four Jesus stories, Acts of the Apostles with Pauline and Non-Pauline Epistles and Revelation.

Now, it is rather easy to deduce when "Against Heresies" was probably composed or manipulated.

"Against Heresies" is NOT a product of the 2nd century and its contents are historically bogus.

Even Scholars REJECT the information about the authorship, dating and chronology of the books in the supposed NT Canon found in "Against Heresies".

Duvduv

So "coincidently" several "heretical" groups just happened to use different gospels (among the official 4 of course) all composed to imitate the structure of the Tanakh style of writing without a single one straying from this style whether or not that single book was considered "canonical" (sacred writ).

And even our friend Justin, who AA believes wrote the Apology in the 2nd century, describes a practice where the "memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read" ---meaning that already in the world of Justin the so-called memoirs (indistinguishable from one another) were already EQUIVALENT in importance to the books of the Prophets from the Tanakh (excluding I suppose the Five Books of Moses, Joshua and the Writings).

With no one even stipulating which "memoirs" were to be "canonical" (=official). And it's just a mere coincidence that Justin's Memoirs HAPPEN to resemble the four canonical gospels. Of course Justin cannot say that because it would be something of a giveaway. But there are no quotes that resemble a Gospel of Charlie or a Gospel according to Stanley.

Hint, hint.......Something still smells fishy.......Hey, Justin are you listening back there in the 4th century, whoops, I mean, 2nd century?!!

aa5874

Again, Justin's "Memoirs of the Apostles" is NOT the Four Gospels.

Again, Justin did NOT mention Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and Non Pauline Epistles.

Again, Justin does NOT acknowledge the Revelations of Paul--just Revelation by John.

Justin Martyr was NOT aware of any NT Canon.

Eusebius, Origen, and Irenaeus did NOT claim Justin Martyr had a NT Canon.

Justin Martyr is EVIDENCE against an NT Canon up to the mid 2nd century.

Duvduv

What you have posted IS NOT THE POINT, AA.
I know you are zealous and protective of "Justin," but his stories that he refers to as anonymous Memoirs are evidently ranked holy enough to stand along side readings of the Tanakh prophets in the meetings of his (unknown) group in their various (unknown) locales read by his (unknown) colleagues following the traditions of his (unknown) predecessors preaching a belief in a Christ for Christians originally promoted by an (unknown) someone who was not Paul.

Now does it sound reasonable that "Memoirs" should be read alongside prophetic readings if they did not have the status of holy writ? And if they did, who, pray tell, established this belief and WHERE did the memoirs come from, and WERE THERE any memoirs that resembled the Gospel of Jeffrey or the Gospel according to Larry?? If not, why do they (coincidently) appear similar to the canonical gospel stories only?

outhouse

wake up!

romans were worshipping judiasm but not fully converting, when jesus became important they all used the OT as a foundation when writing what was important to them.


the collections in private hands were all cherry picked during Constantines time for what was and was not acceptable for the romans then, not what was important to different groups before that time.

the histical significance of documents lost between 200 and 300 CE is something we cant get back, but we do have ideas

aa5874

You seem not to understand the state of affairs in the 2nd century. The Cults of Christians had their own Holy Book.

The Valentinians had their own Holy Writ or doctrine.

The Ebionites had their own Holy Writ or doctrine.

The cult of Secundus had their own Holy Writ or doctrine.

The Cerinthians had their own Holy Writ or doctrine.

In the 18th century Joseph Smith wrote HIS BIBLE and did NOT need any external authority to regard his Bible as Holy Writ.

Mormons use the Joseph Smith Bible.

Some Christians in the 2nd century used the MEMOIRS of the Apostles.

When one examines the Four Gospels in the NT Canon it can be seen that gJohn makes the Synoptics Obsolete so it is NOT even reasonable that a Christian cult that used gMatthew would have also used gJohn.

Duvduv

AA, you are replying to me. The least you could do is address my points instead of ignoring them. You always like to stray off.