Duvduv

Well, I suppose it's a matter of whether people are literate to be able to interpret the writings, and whether they would be literate enough to read the apologists and historians. In other words, WHO were the historians and apologists writing for if not for the small minority of philosophical literati.

aa5874

Well, let us get back to the questions about "discrepancies". The Literate people would have seen the the BLATANT discrepancies and the illiterate would have heard about them.

Who would have paid forgers to write FOUR non-harmonised Gospels full of discrepancies simultaneously and then Canonised them with all the mistakes?

Duvduv

I concede your point. Then what do you think is the scenario of forging documents with blatant contradictions and mistakes?

Duvduv

Plus it would mean that much of the dating of codices and fragments from before the 4th century is totally wrong and brings into question the whole methodology.

And if Justin's story of the old man is full of holes, it essentially brings into question the reliability of a second century Justin ....or at least suggests that his writing was messed around with later on.

aa5874

You asked a "Leading question". If you were in a trial you would have to re-phrase your question.

It is you who imply that there are discrepancies.

What you call "discrepancies" are really IMPROVEMENTS or REVISIONS of the Jesus stories and the Activities of Paul.

Even today, stories are REVISED and ALTERED when additional details become available.

gJohn is a REVISED Jesus story of the Synoptic Jesus stories and the Pauline writings contains REVISIONS of Acts of the Apostles.

The author of gJohn supposedly had additional "details" of Jesus that was unknown to the authors of the Synoptic Jesus and Paul also supposedly had "details" that was unknown to the author of Acts.

The problem is that the "details" of gJohn and the Pauline writings were FABRICATED.

Duvduv

Except that the 4th century forgers of all the texts don't excuse their discrepancies by hinting to their readership that all the differences can be ascribed to updated information, and for that matter the texts of the apologists also don't try to use that excuse.

Duvduv

The entire episode involving the old man should be reason to question the scenario of Justin as the author of the Dialogue in the second century.

aa5874

What did the old man say that give you reason for such a scenario? Why would an apologetic forger not mention the books and authors of the NT Canon in Dialogue with Trypho?

The evidence suggests that "Dialogue with Trypho" was NOT manipulated.

For example, we can tell that "Against the Heretics" was manipulated because the author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 did NOT know of the Pauline writings, and Paul yet in the very same books the author made references to Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

The author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 claimed Jesus was about 50 years old when he was crucified and that Jesus was about 30 years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

If Jesus was supposedly 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius then he would be about 50 years old at around 48-50 CE.

The author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 did NOT know that a character called Paul supposedly preached Jesus Christ crucified since 37-41 CE.

"Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus was manipulated not "Dialogue wth Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr.

Duvduv

Please just reread my postings #7033125 and # #7033199. I explain what is strange about the claims and person of the old man, the connection to "Christ" etc. etc.

On the matter of his age, this is the quote from Against Heresies. Now how would an apologist explain that the same Irenaeus who knew the gospels thought that Jesus lived over 50?
"Chapter XXII.—The thirty Æons are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in His thirtieth year: He did not suffer in the twelfth month after His baptism, but was more than fifty years old when He died."

aa5874

Don't you know how?

Another fabricated document was invented and attributed to Irenaeus to show that he was confused.

There is a document attributed to Irenaeus which claims that Jesus Christ was crucified under PILATE the governor of Claudius.


"Proof of Apostolic Preaching" We are not really dealing with discrepancies--stories were blatantly changed and invented by apologetic sources in order to fill the massive holes in their stories.

The writer called Celsus accused Christians of changing stories to answer objections in "Against Celsus" 2.

"Against Celsus" 2