aa5874

A most absurd statement and question.

But, you have exposed your ignorance of relevance of fictitious information with respect to historicity.

You should realise, by now, that you did not exist in the time of Aretas and that your statement is false, unless you are not sure of your whereabouts and your age.

Ben C Smith

Yes, Robert, your statement means that you are now fictio.... Robert? .... Robert? Where did you go?

Ben.

George S

I wrote a short story starring a character named Robert. He was typing an entry on a message board when he died. That Robert?

Jeffrey Gibson

Is a book being "the product of more than one writer" what "Pseudopigraphical" means?

Jeffrey

aa5874

The letter writers must have existed in order for the letters to have been written, however, according to Eusebius, it is said that a letter writer called Paul was familiar with the gospel of Luke and it is said, according to Eusebius, that the letter writer called Paul referred to the gospel called Luke as "my gospel".

Now it has been deduced by scholars that gLuke may have been written very late in the century or after gMark, or possibly after the writings of Josephus.

And, the letter writer called Paul did write about information found only in gLuke which is consistent with the information from Eusebius.

The writings of Justin Martyr, in the middle of the 2nd century, tends to corroborate the information from Eusebius about the letter writer, since Justin Martyr, in all his extant writings, never quoted one single passage from a letter writer called Paul, or ever mentioned that there was a gospel called gLuke.


The writings of Tatian, the Diatessearon, also tend to show that there was no gospel known as Luke, since he used much of the information found in all four gospels without ever making any mention whatsoever of any writer called Luke.

It would appear the letters with the name called Paul was written by several persons some time after the gospel called Luke, possibly no earlier than the time of Irenaeus, the end of the 2nd century.

bacht

Not exactly. Isaiah is a good example: maybe some of the older passages actually date from the 8th C BCE. But what about the parts that even Jews recognize as being different, possibly exilic or later? As you know the idea of a Deutero- or Trito- Isaiah is far from radical.

What about Moses, did he write the Pentateuch? Did Solomon write the Proverbs? Did Daniel write the book of Daniel? What about Esther or Ruth or Samuel? My point is that pseudepigraphy was well established in the Jewish tradition before the turn of the era.

The proto-Catholic authorities carried this on, naming the gospels after legendary founders. Were the NT epistles written by Paul, Peter, James, John & Jude? I would bet against it.

Analyst

This is like a time travel paradox where Paul goes back in time to source the other gospels which are then his source.

spin

A more probable analysis is that some time after the original document was produced it gained extra material from a Lucan source.

For example the problem Paul's Corinthians were having over proper conduct regarding his fellowship meal received an insertion 1 Cor 11:23-27 which was unrelated to Paul's argument, but topically similar enough to warrant the placement of the material there some time after this gospel material had been written.


spin

aa5874

My theory put the letter writers called Paul from the 2nd century, after Justin Martyr, up to Eusebius.

My theory put the "memoirs of the apostles" as stated by Justin Martyr, to be anonymous and preceeded any gospels with the name Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, and the letters with the name Paul.

The church writers and the author of Acts have provided a timeline for the letter writer, which places someone called Luke with the letter writer, and in a letter some Paul claimed that Luke was with him.

aa5874

If Jesus was just a man and he was placed in the time zone as claimed by the authors of the NT and the church writers then this man becomes fiction of a monstrous proportion.

It is inexplicable how a man living in Judea, who was supposed to have been circumcised on the eight day, believed to be a Jew, who called the local authorities, the high priests, Pharisees, scribes and Saducees agents of the devil, and whose method of healing was totally ineffective, (he used to spit in peoples eyes hoping that they would see), could in turn ask the Jews to believe he was the son of a God and that he could forgive their sins.

What did this man say to make the Jews think he had good news for them?

The so-called disciples ask the man Jesus, "Why do you speak in parables?" And the man had news for the Jews.

Look at Mark 4.12 The Jews can go to hell as far as the man Jesus was concerned, he did not even have to talk to them so that they could understand. Jesus wanted them to burn in hell, their sins must not be forgiven.

Good news for the Jews?

It is inexplicable how this man was eventually worshipped as a God, if he is supposed to have said those words.

Jesus was bad news for the Jews.

Jesus could only be a story that was believed.