Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

The world of historical reality seems to be very different from what our typical standard Introductions to the NT are telling us.

-- In fact, there's no unambiguous evidence that any gospels existed in the 1st century.

And yet, it's probable that some sort of an original proto-gospel had already appeared by 100 CE.

-- There's positive evidence that Luke (an early version of it) existed ca 140 CE, because it was used by Marcion.

-- There's positive evidence that some sort of a gospel harmony (of the 3 Synoptic gospels) existed ca 150 CE. Because this is what Justin Martyr used.

-- There's positive evidence that the 4 canonical gospels were more or less standardised by the time of Irenaeus (ca 190 CE).

On the other hand.

The currently standard Nestle/Aland Greek text is a 19th century text. This is simply a statement of fact. This text didn't exist before the 19th century.

Something similar to it did exist in the 4th century in Egypt. But this is not the same as to say that this "something similar" existed in the 1c, or even in the 2c.

Our modern academic establishment takes a manifestly late 19th century text, and claims -- without any basis whatsoever -- that this is in fact a 1c text.

This is Fraud on multiple levels.

This whole discipline is very far from the realm of science. It is dominated by pseudo-science and apologetics.

Regards,

Yuri

Amaleq13

I don't want to introduce a tangent but what is your view of attempts to date the texts from internal evidence as in this thread?

Do you consider them to be merely speculative absent actual manuscript evidence?

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Amaleq,

I was actually trying to follow this previous thread for a while, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it.

That's why I started this new thread.

These issues are really quite simple. The external attestation should come first, before we get into the internal evidence.

And in order to analyse the internal evidence adequately, we of course need to examine what the manuscripts say, and they are mostly from the 4th century and later.

How can internal evidence from 4th century or later tell us anything definite about the state of affairs in the 1c? There are no simple answers there.

All the best,

Yuri