aa5874

DCHindley's claims about "transmission history" of the four gospels are hopelessly illogical. DCHindley seems to have forgotten that there are at least FIVE Canonised Jesus stories and that apologetic sources claimed there were other Jesus stories that were not genuine.

It is just absurd to suggest that ALL FIVE Canonised Jesus stories were written at the same time.

We have the falsely attributed short-ending gMark and surely it is NOT likely that the falsely atttributed Interpolated long-ending gMark was in the same Codex in "transmission history".

We have the writings of Justin Martyr and this writer demostrates that up to the mid 2nd century there was NO known Jesus stories attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that the Memoirs of the Apostles was in the same Codex with the Four Canonized Gospels.

In "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen it also appears that Celsus did NOT know of the genealogies found in gMatthew and gLuke.

It made no sense whatsoever for a cult to use FOUR Contradictory stories of Jesus.

Duvduv

AA, where do you find that Celsus did or did not know about the genealogies in GLuke and GMatt? In Chapter 4 of Contra Celsum?

In any case, the text ascribed to "Origen" is as much propaganda as what is found in the Apology attributed to "Justin." Not history or even apologetics, merely churchian doctrinal propaganda.

However, your comment about the contradictory gospel stories is appropriate, which is why it is not plausible that that they were all written by a mature central church hierachical authority but emerged from different places.

Sheshbazzar

Besides the fact that the anonymous writer tells us upfront that he is relaying 'things ..believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us..'
That is, he is NOT reporting things he personally witnessed,
Why would you think that the Apostle Luke would still be living and writing two generations after the death of Paul?
Even in the unlikely event the Apostle Luke had only been 15 years old when Jebus died, by the year 62 + two more generations (usually accounted at 40 years each) this Luke would have been over 125 years old by then.

The Apostle Luke is only associated with these writings, Acts and 'Gospel according to Luke' by latter church TRADITION.
Luke is never named as the writer of these books until the time of Irenaeus in the 2nd century.
(and even then it is likely being backdated)





.

Duvduv

I really wish some folks would begin to consider the possibility that pauline epistles are COMPOSITES of letters. The problem with this idea is that both the HJ-ists and the MJ-ists rely on the integrity of the pauline letters as actual writings of an individual (aside from occasional interpolations) named Paul.

aa5874

I do not deal with imagination. We have DATED writings which show that the Jesus stories were known BEFORE the 4th century.

Now, My opinion are based on WRITTEN statements in "Against Celsus".

In "Against Celsus" 2 it is stated that Celsus did NOT even mention the discrepancies in the Gospel which Christians have recognised.

Justin Martyr also did NOT mention the genealogies or any discrepancies which would indicate that he did NOT have gMatthew or gLuke up to the mid 2nd century.

Justin Martyr's writings are compatible with the dated evidence which shows a Big Black Hole in the 1st century, before c 70 CE, for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Sheshbazzar

That has been my position for years. But unless actual early documents are unearthed that clearly show which parts were added in, it is only speculation, and an almost impossible task to convince others.
And we all know by now how aa despises any speculation.

aa5874

Please identify what I have speculated.

Is it NOT stated in "Against Celsus" that Celsus did NOT mention the discrepancies of the geneaologies???

Go to any trial, if there is NO evidence to support the charge then we EXONERATE.

Are there NOT dated NT manuscripts and that some are dated to the 2nd century???

I do NOT speculate and claim the Jesus stories were unknown in the 2nd century contrary to the dated evidence.

It would appear to me that those who have ZERO evidence detest when others use the available evidence against them.

I will NOT get involved with speculation.

Sheshbazzar

That was my point aa. I didn't even suggest that you would engage in any speculation.
I know by your many statements that doing that would be against your religion.

Duvduv

Well, as I have noted on Titus and Romans, and elsewhere, especially with the use of prepositions and prepositional phrases, that we find composites of what appear to simply be monotheistic tracts with Christ references added by emerging HJ believers.

The mythists rely as must as the HJ-ists on a set of letters basically written by one individual hand named Paul which they hold makes the argument of a non-HJ writer, without the possibility of actual composites of monotheistic tracts with Christ insertions prior to the establishment of an official hierarchical church and dogma.

On the other hand, I have asked whether a single named apologist ever quoted texts he identified with a particular epistle of the canonical set that does not appear in the canonical version. Or alternatively, whether any such apologist ever quoted an epistle that is not included in the canonical set. To my knowledge the answer to both these questions is "no."

Sheshbazzar

I concur, I also noticed this when reading 1 Clement, many of the NT 'quotations' and 'names' seem to be quite crudely inserted into the monologue of an earlier non-christian monotheistic text.
In many place these snippets can be omitted and not affect the flow of the writers thought or text in the least.