Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 05-19-2012, 07:49 PM

And of all the assorted "Acts" only the canonical Acts was selected for ultimate inclusion in the canon although it too was written before it was intended for sacred purpose.
What about these Acts?
Andrew

The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew

The Acts of Andrew and Matthew

The Acts of Barnabas

The Acts of John

The Acts of John the Theologian

The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew

The Martyrdom of Matthew

The Acts of Paul

The Acts of Peter

The Acts of Peter and Andrew

The Acts of Peter and Paul

The Acts of Philip

The Acts of Thomas

The Consummation of Thomas

James The Least · 05-19-2012, 08:20 PM

Read David Trobisch's book "The First Edition of the New Testament."

Here's Robert Price's review:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...isch_first.htm

"Trobisch argues that the New Testament canon of 27 writings that we use today originated not in the fourth century as the result of a prolonged and anonymous process of debate and ossifying custom, but rather as the work of a single editor and publisher in the late second century." In this theory, Polycarp of Smyrna was charged with editing a "new testament" that would rebuke Marcion's Evangelion/Apostolikon. This would have happened in the mid-second century. The "old testament" was included in the collation, and 2 Corinthians was redacted/rewritten to reflect these new titles for Christian scripture.

It is a radical idea that the NT was brought into the basic form of 27 books by a single editor as early as the mid-100s. But Trobisch makes some strong arguments.

mountainman · 05-19-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

And of all the assorted "Acts" only the canonical Acts was selected for ultimate inclusion in the canon although it too was written before it was intended for sacred purpose.
What about these Acts?

Andrew

The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew

The Acts of Andrew and Matthew

The Acts of Barnabas

The Acts of John

The Acts of John the Theologian

The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew

The Martyrdom of Matthew

The Acts of Paul

The Acts of Peter

The Acts of Peter and Andrew

The Acts of Peter and Paul

The Acts of Philip

The Acts of Thomas

The Consummation of Thomas

See this list and summary of 30 Acts

My assessment is that they are parodies, satires, mock-ups, mimics and purposefully composed clones of the stories that the Gnostics found insode Constantine's Bible.

sotto voce · 05-19-2012, 09:03 PM

Circa 70. When it was finished.

Except Revelation, of course.

aa5874 · 05-19-2012, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Read David Trobisch's book "The First Edition of the New Testament."

Here's Robert Price's review:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...isch_first.htm

"Trobisch argues that the New Testament canon of 27 writings that we use today originated not in the fourth century as the result of a prolonged and anonymous process of debate and ossifying custom, but rather as the work of a single editor and publisher in the late second century." In this theory, Polycarp of Smyrna was charged with editing a "new testament" that would rebuke Marcion's Evangelion/Apostolikon. This would have happened in the mid-second century. The "old testament" was included in the collation, and 2 Corinthians was redacted/rewritten to reflect these new titles for Christian scripture.

It is a radical idea that the NT was brought into the basic form of 27 books by a single editor as early as the mid-100s. But Trobisch makes some strong arguments.

It is virtually impossible to make any strong arguments using the writings of Polycarp.

There is ZERO corroborative evidence from any credible source of antiquity for an actual human being named Polycarp of Smyrna and ZERO credible corroborative evidence from antiquity that a character called Polycarp of Smyrna wrote anything about the 27 books of the NT Canon found in Existing Codices.

The character called Polycarp is most likely an INVENTED character.

Duvduv · 05-20-2012, 10:44 AM

When I agree with AA, I have to say so. And in this case I agree with AA.

sotto voce · 05-20-2012, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Read David Trobisch's book "The First Edition of the New Testament."

Here's Robert Price's review:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...isch_first.htm

"Trobisch argues that the New Testament canon of 27 writings that we use today

Oh, I do like that. 'We'. Yes, everyone knows the NT from anything and everything else. Chalk and cheese, forget it.

James The Least · 05-20-2012, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Read David Trobisch's book "The First Edition of the New Testament."

Here's Robert Price's review:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...isch_first.htm

"Trobisch argues that the New Testament canon of 27 writings that we use today originated not in the fourth century as the result of a prolonged and anonymous process of debate and ossifying custom, but rather as the work of a single editor and publisher in the late second century." In this theory, Polycarp of Smyrna was charged with editing a "new testament" that would rebuke Marcion's Evangelion/Apostolikon. This would have happened in the mid-second century. The "old testament" was included in the collation, and 2 Corinthians was redacted/rewritten to reflect these new titles for Christian scripture.

It is a radical idea that the NT was brought into the basic form of 27 books by a single editor as early as the mid-100s. But Trobisch makes some strong arguments.

It is virtually impossible to make any strong arguments using the writings of Polycarp.

There is ZERO corroborative evidence from any credible source of antiquity for an actual human being named Polycarp of Smyrna and ZERO credible corroborative evidence from antiquity that a character called Polycarp of Smyrna wrote anything about the 27 books of the NT Canon found in Existing Codices.

The character called Polycarp is most likely an INVENTED character.

So you're not interested in reading the book at all before making judgements.
There was no Polycarp, so he couldn't have edited the NT. Ergo, Trobisch's arguments are worthless.

Why bother talking about this stuff at all then? It's all forgeries and invention.

aa5874 · 05-20-2012, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Read David Trobisch's book "The First Edition of the New Testament."

Here's Robert Price's review:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...isch_first.htm

"Trobisch argues that the New Testament canon of 27 writings that we use today originated not in the fourth century as the result of a prolonged and anonymous process of debate and ossifying custom, but rather as the work of a single editor and publisher in the late second century." In this theory, Polycarp of Smyrna was charged with editing a "new testament" that would rebuke Marcion's Evangelion/Apostolikon. This would have happened in the mid-second century. The "old testament" was included in the collation, and 2 Corinthians was redacted/rewritten to reflect these new titles for Christian scripture.

It is a radical idea that the NT was brought into the basic form of 27 books by a single editor as early as the mid-100s. But Trobisch makes some strong arguments.

It is virtually impossible to make any strong arguments using the writings of Polycarp.

There is ZERO corroborative evidence from any credible source of antiquity for an actual human being named Polycarp of Smyrna and ZERO credible corroborative evidence from antiquity that a character called Polycarp of Smyrna wrote anything about the 27 books of the NT Canon found in Existing Codices.

The character called Polycarp is most likely an INVENTED character.

So you're not interested in reading the book at all before making judgements.
There was no Polycarp, so he couldn't have edited the NT. Ergo, Trobisch's arguments are worthless.

Why bother talking about this stuff at all then? It's all forgeries and invention.

Please, I deal with EVIDENCE from antiquity NOT flawed worthless opinion of so-called Scholars.

When a case is reviewed it is NOT opinion that is re-considered but the ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

We already know that there are Billions of people who BELIEVE all sorts of thing WITHOUT a shred of evidence.

It is claimed by Apologetic sources that Polycarp KNEW the Apostles of Jesus but that is near impossible since there is NO corroborative evidence from antiquity that Jesus and the Apostles did exist.

"Against Heresies" 3.3.4.

Quote:

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth...

How could Jesus exist based on the same writings of Irenaeus.

Against Heresies" 3.4.2

Quote:

....Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again...

Jesus in "Against Heresies" is a MYTH.

I no longer accept presumptions. Polycarp's existence CANNOT be credibly established.

I care about the actual history of Polycarp and based on the evidence Polycarp is an INVENTION. Polycarp was instructed by fictitious characters in "Against Heresies".

James The Least · 05-21-2012, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Read David Trobisch's book "The First Edition of the New Testament."

Here's Robert Price's review:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...isch_first.htm

"Trobisch argues that the New Testament canon of 27 writings that we use today originated not in the fourth century as the result of a prolonged and anonymous process of debate and ossifying custom, but rather as the work of a single editor and publisher in the late second century." In this theory, Polycarp of Smyrna was charged with editing a "new testament" that would rebuke Marcion's Evangelion/Apostolikon. This would have happened in the mid-second century. The "old testament" was included in the collation, and 2 Corinthians was redacted/rewritten to reflect these new titles for Christian scripture.

It is a radical idea that the NT was brought into the basic form of 27 books by a single editor as early as the mid-100s. But Trobisch makes some strong arguments.

It is virtually impossible to make any strong arguments using the writings of Polycarp.

There is ZERO corroborative evidence from any credible source of antiquity for an actual human being named Polycarp of Smyrna and ZERO credible corroborative evidence from antiquity that a character called Polycarp of Smyrna wrote anything about the 27 books of the NT Canon found in Existing Codices.

The character called Polycarp is most likely an INVENTED character.

So you're not interested in reading the book at all before making judgements.
There was no Polycarp, so he couldn't have edited the NT. Ergo, Trobisch's arguments are worthless.

Why bother talking about this stuff at all then? It's all forgeries and invention.

Please, I deal with EVIDENCE from antiquity NOT flawed worthless opinion of so-called Scholars.

When a case is reviewed it is NOT opinion that is re-considered but the ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

We already know that there are Billions of people who BELIEVE all sorts of thing WITHOUT a shred of evidence.

It is claimed by Apologetic sources that Polycarp KNEW the Apostles of Jesus but that is near impossible since there is NO corroborative evidence from antiquity that Jesus and the Apostles did exist.

"Against Heresies" 3.3.4.

Quote:

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth...

How could Jesus exist based on the same writings of Irenaeus.

Against Heresies" 3.4.2

Quote:

....Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again...

Jesus in "Against Heresies" is a MYTH.

I no longer accept presumptions. Polycarp's existence CANNOT be credibly established.

I care about the actual history of Polycarp and based on the evidence Polycarp is an INVENTION. Polycarp was instructed by fictitious characters in "Against Heresies".

Is Irenaeus a myth also?

05-19-2012, 09:03 PM	#44
sotto voce Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: UK Posts: 3,057	Think about it. Circa 70. When it was finished. Except Revelation, of course.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-19-2012, 07:49 PM	#41
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	And of all the assorted "Acts" only the canonical Acts was selected for ultimate inclusion in the canon although it too was written before it was intended for sacred purpose. What about these Acts? Andrew The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew The Acts of Andrew and Matthew The Acts of Barnabas The Acts of John The Acts of John the Theologian The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew The Martyrdom of Matthew The Acts of Paul The Acts of Peter The Acts of Peter and Andrew The Acts of Peter and Paul The Acts of Philip The Acts of Thomas The Consummation of Thomas

05-19-2012, 08:20 PM	#42
James The Least Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: USA Posts: 393	Read David Trobisch's book "The First Edition of the New Testament." Here's Robert Price's review: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...isch_first.htm "Trobisch argues that the New Testament canon of 27 writings that we use today originated not in the fourth century as the result of a prolonged and anonymous process of debate and ossifying custom, but rather as the work of a single editor and publisher in the late second century." In this theory, Polycarp of Smyrna was charged with editing a "new testament" that would rebuke Marcion's Evangelion/Apostolikon. This would have happened in the mid-second century. The "old testament" was included in the collation, and 2 Corinthians was redacted/rewritten to reflect these new titles for Christian scripture. It is a radical idea that the NT was brought into the basic form of 27 books by a single editor as early as the mid-100s. But Trobisch makes some strong arguments.

05-20-2012, 10:44 AM	#46
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	When I agree with AA, I have to say so. And in this case I agree with AA.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.