steve_bnk

My grammar school catechism from the 50s is a bit hazy these days, however the new and last pope both reiterated that the RCC is the only true church of the only true god. They can not admit anything else, otherwise their whole theolgy and the power of the pope falls apart. Part of the theology is the popes are in a line starting with Peter who was next to god in the flesh on Earth, therefore the pope is next to god in heaven.

'Thou art Peter and uoon this rock I will build my church..'

I rmember in 8th grade I asked the nun if someone other than a Catholic can get to heaven and it put her in a tailspin, she called in a priest to talk to the class.

jakejonesiv

Hi ynquirer,

Those are good points.

I would presume that the various New Testament texts had multiple redactors. However, if you have textual evidence that the texts in question in GMatthew and GJohn were by the same forgers, I will be glad to see your arguments.

I will point out why John 21 is not considered a part of the original gospel. (Some scholars think that chapter 21 may have floated around on its own or been associated with another document. Be that as it may, it is outside the scope of this discussion).

The fourth gospel clearly terminates with chapter 20, verses 30-31. The author explains why he has narrated what he did, and refers to many other signs that Jesus was purported to do.

John 20
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
31 But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.

This precludes further narration from the earlier author.

According to Tertullian, (Against Praxeas) the fourth gospel did indeed end with chapter 20. “And wherefore does this conclusion of the gospel affirm that these things were written unless it is that you might believe, it says, that Jesus Christ is the son of God?"

Thus we may presume that as late as the early third century, the fourth gospel was still circulating in at least Tertullian’s area without chapter 21. By the time we reach the extant textual record, the circulation of John including chapter 21 was complete.

Jake

ynquirer

Tertulian’s is a very neat propter quid argument, in which ipsa quoque clausula evangelii cannot be translated but into “at the very ending of the gospel.”

Good point, Jake. Touché

aa5874

But, Tertullian's Praxeas may have suffered the same problem as John 21, or John 1-20. It should be noted that the writer called Tertullian himself may have given erroneous information about the order or time of writing of the Gospels, including gJohn, and did not write that more than one person used the name Paul.

It is almost certain that the church writers provided bogus information to their readers.

mountainman

The oldest greek manuscripts of the new testament have been described by academics as having the appearance of being prepared by a single redactor.

jakejonesiv

Be that as it may, the author/Tertullian knew a version of the fouth gospel that ended with chapter 20. Theorizing another author/redactor doesn't change that.

aa5874

But, now if Tatian's Diatessaron is examined, believed to have been written before Tertullian, it would be noticed that the Diatessaron contains passages that are virtually identical to the whole of John 21.

These are the final words of the Diatessaron by Tatian. See www.earlychristianwritings.com

And these are the final words of KJV John 21
So, now was Tatian's Diatessaron written after Tertullian's Praxeas, that is, was the Diatessaron written sometime in the third century or later or was the Praxeas written in the second century before the Diatessaron?

It is evidennt and extremely important to understand that the chronology and dating provided by the church writers or the Church itself have been manipulated.

jakejonesiv

HI AA,

Would you care to review the textual and transmission of the Diatessaron? What are your views of the text found by Victor of Capua in 546?

Can you provide evidence that the text of the Diatessaron as we read it now was identical to the alleged text of Tatian's Diatessaron in the second century? I doubt that very much. It would take that level of confidence for your arguments to have any force.

Jake

aa5874

So, now can you provide any evidence about Tertullian's Praxeas or John 1-21?

What evidence is there that the Praxeas must have been written by Tertullian and in the third century and that the Praxeas was not interpolated?

I was of the opinion that you made some assumptions with regards to Tertullian.

Now, it would appear to me that, just like the Pauline letters, more than one person wrote under the name of Tertullian.

andrewcriddle

The split between the Eastern and Western witnesses to the Diatessaron is very early (probably 3rd century CE). Both traditions present a Diatessaronic text with material from John 21. The simplest explanation is that John 21 was part of the earliest form of the Diatessaron.

(FWIW John 21 was clearly part of the text known to Clement of Alexandria)

Andrew Criddle