MrMacSon

Codex Sinaitcus & Codex Vaticanus contain various gospels not included in later 'canons' and the many of the gospels they have in common with later bibles have omissions or variations.

Moreover, the presence of various apocryphal/gnostic gospels show a considerable degree of fluidity among early christian texts eg. Gospel according to Thomas has 60+ sayings of Jesus that are present in the canonical gospels.

James The Least

Actually, I believe Irenaeus or Epiphanius wrote that the Ebionites only recognized the Gospel of Matthew.

Duvduv

The fact is there is no actual evidence that any Christians held to anything other than the known canon in the 4th century and thereafter. As I said we don't find evidence of any accepted Christian canon consisting of 3 gospels and 12 epistles or 6 gospels and 22 epistles, etc.
Every writer always knew that Christian held to the existing canon of epistles and gospels. In any case there is no evidence at all of the actual existence of "Ebionites" anywhere.

aa5874

Your claim is false or imaginative fiction. There are apologetic writers who did not mention gMark, gLuke, gJohn, gMatthew, Acts of the Apostles, ALL the Pauline Corpus and the Non-Pauline letters.

Christian writers like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Municius Felix, and Arnobius wrote nothing of an existing canon of epistles and gospels.

Duvduv

I think you already know that these were not church apologetics, and the reason Jesus or the canon were not mentioned was more likely because the texts were monotheistic friendly texts that existed before and were adopted by Christians. We have also already discussed Justin.

Plus, I was not discussing cases of non-mention of a canon, but of cases of evidence of alternative canons. Whenever a canon is mentioned for Christians it only refers to the set now known of gospels and epistles.
You will never find a canon that has 5 gospels, 21 epistles, or 3 gospels and 6 epistles, or 6 gospels and 10 epistles. You will not find an apologist who says he never heard of GMatthew or GMark but did hear of a gospel according to Jeffrey or the Epistle to the Parisians rather than Corinthinians etc.

aa5874

You specifically claimed "every writer always knew that Christian held to the existing canon of epistles and gospels."

I have merely re-exposed your consistent fallacies. You obviously don't know what you are talking about and still persist in regurgitating absurdities.

Please, get familiar with writings of antiquity before you post obvious erroneous information about writers of antiquity.

An extremely significant writing of antiquity is "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen and it would be clearly seen that Celsus was NOT familiar with any Canon of Gospels and Epistles when he wrote "True Discourse" c 177 CE.

Origen admitted that Celsus did not write anything about Paul and also exposed that Celsus did not mention any Gospel named according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Up to the last quarter of the 2nd century there was NO known Canon of the Jesus cult just stories of Jesus.

Duvduv

You yourself are not a big fan of Origen, and in any case this is untrue, and you and I both know it:
SECTION IX.
Celsus wrote about one hundred years after the Gospels were published; and therefore any notices of these books from him are extremely important for their antiquity. They are, however, rendered more so by the character of the author; for the reception, credit, and notoriety of these books must have been well established amongst Christians, to have made them subjects of animadversion and opposition by strangers and by enemies. It evinces the truth of what Chrysostom, two centuries afterwards, observed, that “the Gospels, when written, were not hidden in a corner or buried in obscurity, but they were made known to all the world, before enemies as well as others, even as they are now.” (In Matt. Hom. I. 7.)

4. That the books to which Celsus refers were no other than our present Gospels, is made out by his allusions to various passages still found in these Gospels. Celsus takes notice of the genealogies, which fixes two of these Gospels; of the precepts,

Duvduv

Regarding the so-called Christian Municius Felix:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octavius_(dialogue)

aa5874

What sources of antiquity, what evidence from antiquity, show that the Gospels were published one hundred years before Celsus?

Please, you don't know what you are talking about.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence whatsoever that Celsus knew of the genealogies of Jesus as found in gMatthew and gLuke.

Origen's "Against Celsus" 2.32 You must first read what is written in "Against Celsus" before you continue to make blatant erroneous claims which are no more than imaginative fiction.

In the Gospels, gMatthew 1.18 and gLuke 1.26-35, Jesus is the descendant a Holy Ghost.