Duvduv

How could a "canon" have been established in the second century since those who argue this do not explain WHO determined the canon for all "Christians" at a time when there were allegedly so many different competing sects and a total of only a few tens of thousands of adherents in the entire empire under constant persecution?
Who authorized "Irenaeus" to determine the NT writings? He wasn't a pope and didn't preside over a council of representative bishops.
And if there was a "canon," why did Athanasius bother to announce one in the fourth century?

I think it is quite clear that these are legends and that a "canon" established by the REGIME's commissioned clergy did this only in the 4th century. Especially if the texts did not exist before the 4th century!

Dave31

You've entirely misunderstood, I made no mention of when the gospels were first canonized. I'm talking about specific evidence for when these gospels first appear in the historic and literary records. They certainly existed long before they were ever canonized.

Duvduv

Yes, I wasn't clear enough. I was responding to the generic attitude that the set of texts were already considered a "canon" among "Christians" in the second century.

anethema

the date of writing is not seriously dependant on when it became some sort of law. i agree with duvduv onthis point. if your looking for christian origins with intellectual honesty you have to do what aa is doing or you dont have a chance. youll be pissing in the wind.

Dave31

The latest in mythicist news:

Acharya S has been published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal on Mithra

Here's an interesting thread on mythicism:

Why I Am a Mythicist

ApostateAbe

That does not seem to be a scholarly journal. That seems to be an anthology. An anthology is a single book composed of a series of essays from many authors, whereas a journal is a periodic publication. One tactic other mythicists have used is to publish a journal for their own selves, so maybe you can take that suggestion to Acharya S.

Duvduv

It appears that a major portion of the mythist argument relies on the assumption that the Pauline epistles are actual complete letters of what they claim to be, albeit with a few later interpolations. IF, however, the epistles were NOT originally Christian letters at all, but simply CUT AND PASTE products using pre-existing letters in combination with some later additions by the emerging church about their legends of a historical Jesus, then the epistles fail to be part of an argument for a mythist Jesus.

My own impression now is that the letters are in fact composites combining pre-existing letters or sermons with some emerging Christian additions having nothing to do with a mythist Jesus.

Of course we need to add to the mix the fact that there is no evidence that the letters were ever actually written and sent to anyone or received by anyone, but were simply used for didactic and sermonic purposes.

After all, it is most interesting that the letters are always known as a set and complete, and that no one ever explained how they were collected or from where, or who did the collecting.

ApostateAbe

I would be inclined to take it for granted that we have hardly any information about any ancient texts of any sort. But there is at least some surrounding information in this case. As I understand it, Marcion was the one who collected some of the Pauline epistles (not all--they were not a consistent set). In my opinion the most relevant information about who wrote a text is the content and historical contexts of the text.

Duvduv

Unfortunately there isn't a shred of physical evidence for the alleged existence of writings attributed to Marcion or his followers, and nothing beyond the claims of the church apologists for the existence of the man named Marcion in the second century at all. It is insufficient to rely on the claims of those who are the admitted enemies of alleged "heretical" sects as valid objective proof for the existence of such writings or even the person.

As I have said several times, even "Justin" who it is alleged lived in the second century and in the same city of Rome as "Marcion" shows no evidence of any writings of Marcion. Indeed, were Marcion to have had texts attributed to "Paul", Justin would have said something of it, but never even mentions the name Paul.

ApostateAbe

Interesting. You think Marcion was just a myth or an outright lie? Like, a Christian leader constructed a strawman heretic so they could refute him, and it caught on?