judge

By "bad copy" do you mean bad translation. I think you've become less clear rather than more clear.
You did say that "It is possible that the unusual Latin word prodecessoris may mean the aforementioned"
This seems to indicate that you aren't convinced. After all you are using "possible" and "may" in the same sentence.
It seems to be an exceptionally weak argument (on the surface) to hypothesise a now lost greek copy which was badly translated, and that this hypothetical mistranslation is also a "bad copy", whatever that might mean, and that a word may possibly mean something other than what occurs in our english translation.

Toto

From Andrew's link

aa5874

This line of argument in Andrew's link is rather illogical.

How can it be that the author of the Muratorian could NOT have thought that St. John saw and wrote the Apocalypse BEFORE St. Paul wrote his Epistles when that is EXACTLY what he WROTE?

The author wrote that the Apostle Paul FOLLOWED the EXAMPLE of his PREDECESSOR John and wrote to Seven Churches.

What else could he have thought?


Now, All translations show the English word "PREDECESSOR".

Kenneth Johnson's translation of the Muratorian
Glenn Davis' translation of the Muratorian
Bruce Metzger's translation of the Muratorian

Roberts-Donaldson's translation of the Muratorian

Theron's translation of the Muratorian

andrewcriddle

It is certainly a very careless and inaccurate copy of the Latin original. The Latin original is probably a rough and clumsy translation of a Greek original. Tregelles speaks of a blundering and illiterate transcript of a rough and rustic translation of a Greek original.
I regard this argument as a little weak. However, other passages in the Muratorian Canon seem to show that the author accepted the account in Acts of the life of Paul and dated the writings of John later than the synoptic gospels. The bit about Paul and John should be interpreted so as to avoid internal contradiction.

Andrew Criddle

judge

Thank you Andrew

aa5874

Your statement appears to be erroneous.

I DEMAND without Hesitation that you show the passages in the Muratorian Canon where the author CONTRADICTS his own statement that "the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes to no more that seven churches.....".

I will NOT allow you make statements and do NOT show the evidence.

Please, this is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

I MUST see those passages you refer to in the Muratorian Canon.

Where are they? Who translated them?

andrewcriddle

The Muratorian Canon refers to the Gospel of John as being the fourth Gospel This probably means chronologically the fourth hence written after the three synoptics. The writer accepts the authority of Acts and its Lukan authorship. Since Acts recounts the career of Paul, the Pauline epistles were written before Luke-Acts and hence before the Gospel of John. Unless Revelation was written much earlier than John's other writings it must also be later than the Pauline epistles.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

I ASKED you to produce the passages in the Muratorian Canon that CONTRADICTS the authors own statement that "the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes to no more that seven churches.....".

You have UTTERLY Failed to do so.

Now, it is completely absurd to suggest that the blessed Apostle Paul could NOT have followed the EXAMPLE of his PREDECESSOR John simply because it is stated that gJohn is the fourth Gospel.

Have not Church writers claimed gMatthew was the First Gospel but it is NOW considered that gMark is the First of the Canonized Gospels?

I FOUND evidence to show the Pauline writings are AFTER Revelation and you WANT me to IGNORE it.

This is utterly illogical.

Well, Andrew Criddle, the Pauline writings are really LATE writings. That is what the EVIDENCE shows, even other APOLOGETIC sources.

There is NO physical evidence to SUPPORT the PAULINE writings in the 1st century and before the Fall of the Temple.

The physical EVIDENCE places the Pauline writings, P 46, to the mid 2nd-3rd century.

The author, Justin Martyr c 150 CE, who mentioned REVELATION by John, did NOT Mention any Pauline writings at all.

The Pauline writings are AFTER REVELATION by John.

aa5874

There are NUMEROUS ways to show the Pauline writings are ALL Late or after the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

In the so-called First Epistle to Corinthians a Pauline writer dedicates the 15th chapter to the Resurrection of Jesus and the Significance of the event.

In 1 Cor.15. 8 the Pauline writer claimed OVER 500 people AT ONCE WITNESSED the resurrected Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15 If the Pauline claim was BEFORE gMatthew then it would have made very little sense for the author to say that the Jews Believed the disciples stole the dead body of Jesus when OVER 500 people AT ONCE witnessed the resurrected Jesus.

Matthew 28 At about 120 YEARS later, in the middle of the 2nd century, Justin Martyr does NOT mention that OVER 500 people AT ONCE WITNESSED the resurrected Jesus as stated by Paul, Justin mentions a story similar to gMatthew.

Justin Martyr CLAIMED that the Jews were saying the body of Jesus was STOLEN by the disciples after it was REMOVED from the cross.

"Dialogue with Trypho" gMatthew's stolen body story ONLY works if Jesus was NOT SEEN AFTER he was supposedly resurrected.

gMatthew's stolen body story does NOT make sense if Paul ALREADY PREACHED ALL OVER the Roman Empire in MAJOR CITIES that OVER 500 people AT ONCE WITNESSED the resurrected Jesus.

Justin Martyr KNOWS Revelation by John, he knows the stolen body story but he does NOT know about Paul and the Pauline writings with the 500 people story.

"Dialogue with Trypho" LXXXI Revelation 20.6 The Pauline writings are AFTER REVELATION based on Justin Martyr's "First Apology" and "Dialogue With Trypho".

aa5874

It is important to remember that the Pauline writer claimed he was a Pharisee and a Hebrew of Hebrews and travelled all the Roman Empire in Major Cities preaching to the Gentiles so when Justin Martyr DIALOGUES with Trypho the Jew the Jew it is remarkable that Justin does NOT ever tell Trypho about Paul, the Pharisee.

In "Dialogue With Trypho" as in "First Apology" Justin Martyr wrote about the PREACHING of the Gospel throughout the world and again Justin claim that it was the apostles from Jerusalem and did NOT mention Paul.

"Dialogue With Trypho" CIX Justin Martyr does NOT know of Paul at all.

When one considers the Pauline writings it is MOST incredible that Paul, a Pharisee and a Jew could have PREACHED ALL over the ROMAN EMPIRE and in MAJOR CITIES that a JEW called Jesus was LORD in the Roman Empire, that EVERY KNEE SHOULD BOW before the name of a resurrected Jew and that the resurrected JEW had a name ABOVE EVERY NAME in the Roman Empire even above the DEIFIED EMPERORS of Rome.

And not ONLY that Paul Preached that the resurrected Jew was the END of the LAW.

HOW in the world could a PHARISEE and a Jew make such claims in the Roman Empire and even at Rome for OVER 17 years?

Php 3:5 - Justin Martyr shuts down Paul.

It NEVER happened.

Paul would have probably got his head cut off very very early like the False prophet in Josephus.

GAIUS, CLAUDIUS and NERO must BOW to the name of a DEAD JEW?

A Pharisee and a Jew could NOT say those things in the Roman Empire for even 17 hours.

The first time Jesus publicly claimed he was Christ and the Son of the Blessed he was dead in LESS than 17 hours.

Jesus son of Ananus in Josephus was beaten to a pulp for merely saying "Woe unto Jerusalem".

It is NOT historically probable that Paul as a Pharisee and a Jew would be allowed for over SEVENTEEN years to PREACH all over the Roman Empire in Major Cities, even in Rome, that a Resurrected JEW was LORD, and that EVERY KNEE, including the DEIFIED EMPEROR, should BOW before the name of Jesus Christ God's OWN Son, a RESURRECTED Jew.

The Pauline letters are all chronologically bogus they are ALL after Revelation by John.