2-J

But maybe the person who inserted the text believed Jesus really did say that.

Also, maybe Jesus did in fact say the things in parable.

dog-on

Sure, but that is not what I reponded to...

2-J

Well, Irenaus is quite a bit later than the time of composition of the gospels according to most datings, there's some evidence the gospels weren't even referred to by name at first. and NB the importance or even pre-eminence of the oral tradition.

dog-on

An unsupported asumption, on your part, imo.

Show me the first recorded mention of the Gospels, if it wasn't Ireneaus.

Thanks.

aa5874

But can you prove or show, UNDOUBTEDLY, that a person inserted the text, the person really believed the text was true or that Jesus did say those words?

Roger Pearse

We ought to recall that he did know personally Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle John.

I know this gets said; but this evidence never seems to appear and (to the best of my knowledge) does not exist.

Very much so, and Papias says so explicitly. This position becomes comprehensible to us once we remember that the apostle John was still alive in 100AD, and consequently that there were rather a lot of people being able to ask an apostle first hand rather than relying on written accounts.

Similarly his disciple Polycarp was alive and preaching in Rome in 150 AD, and was able to give the heretic Marcion the finger based on first-hand knowledge of what the apostle would have said and thought.

We tend to forget that the literary sources that have reached us are but a tiny proportion of what existed then. The majority of second century Christian literature exists only because of an accident in the 10th century.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

But can you prove or show, UNDOUBTEDLY, that a person inserted the text, the person really believed the text was not true or that Jesus did not say those words?

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

I did not ever suggest I could do such a thing.

A poster claimed that a certain parable was an example of an addition that was UNDOUBTEDLY done in good faith.

I suggested that the addition of the parable was most likely added to decieve the readers into thinking Jesus actually said those words.

RUmike

If I remember correctly, the story of the woman taken in adultery is found in early manuscripts in the margins, and then later in the text of the gospel itself. It would seem reasonable then, if not likely, that later scribes simply thought the text of the margin belonged in the actual text of the story, and placed it there upon copying it. Neither step (adding to the margin or moving from the margin to the story) seems likely of deceit.

Minimalist

Really? Why not?

A copyist should copy. Editors edit. Why would "god" need an editor?