schilling.klaus

160-180 CE

Justin Martyr's writings don't know the Canonical gospel,
only Ireneus does, thus he and his henchmen forged them.

Klaus Schilling

Jeffrey Gibson

Who specifically were these Henchmen? What was their incentive for doing what you claim they did?

And whatever your answer might be, what is your actual hard evidence for it?

Jeffrey

schilling.klaus

The answer is easy, the epistles are all second century forgeries as well, as seen by the same H. Detering in "Paulusbriefe ohne Paulus" (his PhD thesis in Theology , around 1992, under the auspices of Schmithals at U. of Berlin.

Projecting history back a century was necessary for employing Scripture.
The prophets of the Jews made statements that had to be referred
in one or the other way to Jesus, for only Scripture could give
a unique validiation for Roman Christianity that made it superior to
the established pagan cults who lacked such a support.
One of te most popular prophesies was that of Daniel who pointed to
the first century as the point where something important would happen.

Klaus Schilling

Jeffrey Gibson

That Detering "sees" this does not mean that what he "sees" it is true. Why should anyone -- even you -- accept his vision of things? Did Schmithals?

Jeffrey

spin

I must agree with Jeffrey Gibson here. Schilling.Klaus does need to provide some substance to the claims he makes. We try to work with evidence here. I don't really care what Detering, for example, says, as he is not here to defend his views. But Schilling.Klaus is. So please, Schilling.Klaus, we'd love to know the evidence that makes you hold your views.


spin

schilling.klaus

that has been already said:
Irenaeus had the motivations (refutation of gnostic sects,
consolidation of authoritary community structure)
and occasions to forge epistles and gospels.
Noone up to Justin Martyr mentioned the gospels and canonical Paul.
This gives the window between JM and Ir. as the first possible
date for both canonical epistles and gospels,
provided the dates for JM and Ir. are anywhere near correct and
not just more Eusebian frauds.
What remains regardless of Irenaeus' date is
thet the gospels and epistles logically depend on the heresies
combatted in the books assigned to Irenaeus,
as they are antitheses to or syntheses of various of those heresies,
thus can't predate the heresies.
Schmithals, as a mainliner, does not understand this.

Klaus Schilling

spin

This certainly is not transparent. First how should an early church father refer to a gospel that has no attributed name? Aren't all the gospels originally anonymous? How do you think people before Justin should refer to gospel material?

Do you discount Irenaeus's claim that Marcion's gospel was a bowdlerized copy of Luke? Surely there is an affirmed dating for a gospel for the time of Marcion?

Material in Justin is sufficiently similar to gospel material we have to say that some gospel material was written down by the time of Justin. What that was who knows, but there clearly was material available.

Your reduced window to between Justin and Irenaeus doesn't seem justified in itself. Maybe, Luke was developed out of Marcion's gospel in that period, but there was apparently earlier material than your window allows.

Also, I find the appeal to deception and conspiracy as the main means of producing the religious material unreflective of belief systems in general, unless we are to believe that all belief systems are active deceit of believers, which does not seem reasonable. Fraud will have happened to some degree once the religion had been established, but believers need to have a belief core already in place, ie the must already believe something that distinguishes them from non-believers and it must really be believed for the would-be fraudsters to have a user-base to manipulate.

These farcical designer religions supposedly created by Romans are clueless in describing why people should suddenly start believing. The notion of Irenaeus sitting in Lyons dictating the religion in Rome doesn't seem convincing at the moment either. But I'm not contrary to the notion in itself, so I'll happily contemplate a more developed presentation of these ideas.


spin

Jeffrey Gibson

I thought you said that Mark's Gospel presents us with a solar deity.

And you actual evidence for this is what, exactly?

And how much of Schmithals have you actually read? Where in particular in his works does he show the misunderstanding that you claim is his?

Jeffrey