Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-07-2013, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Marcion did NOT use gLuke and the Pauline Corpus. Even Apologetics, Jesus cult writers, contradict Tertullian's "Against Marcion"
...
Tertullian's "Against Marcion" is a massive forgery, filled with fallacies and was unknown by Jesus cult writers up to at least the end of the 4th century

Quote:

Originally Posted by fta

What would be the purpose of forging this work in Tertullian's name? And what about the statements of writers like Irenaeus and Epiphanius that Marcion used edited versions of gLuke and the Pauline Epistles?

Surely you must understand that the Entire Canon is filled with forgeries or false attribution.

It is well known that writings of the so-called Jesus cult are attributed to FAKE authors--people who either did not exist or did not write the texts attributed to them.

Forgeries and false attribution were carried out to give the impression that writings which were really composed by LATE unknown author were written at some earlier time.

It has already been shown that "Against Heresies" under the name of Irenaeus was composed by multiple authors and that there was NO Paul or Pauline Corpus up to at least 180 CE.

Irenaeus claimed that it was known in the Roman Empire that Jesus was crucified at about the age of fifty under Claudius after he was 30 thirty years old in the 15th year of Tiberius.

As soon as it was claimed that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age then the Pauline Corpus becomes utter fiction.

See "Against Heresies" 2.22.

This a partial list of forgeries or false attribution.

1. Writings attributed to Ignatius.
2. Writings attributed to Clement of Rome.
3. Writings attributed to Irenaeus
3. Writings attributed to Tertullian

fta · 09-07-2013, 12:42 AM

Do you regard ANY of the books of the New Testament or the Church Fathers as authentic?

Sheshbazzar · 09-07-2013, 05:35 AM

Are Christian texts that were actually composed during the 2nd through 4th centuries CE 'authentic' ?
The originals were authentic to the ideas and beliefs of the 2nd through 4th centuries when they were produced.
That does not entail that any of these highly fictional religious fabrications (or any latter 'believed' and piously inserted material) are accurate accounts of any 1st century events or beliefs.

aa5874 · 09-07-2013, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fta

Do you regard ANY of the books of the New Testament or the Church Fathers as authentic?

I cannot prove that every or all writings of antiquity are authentic however it is an extremely simple matter to show some writings of antiquity are fundamentally fiction, full of implausibility, contradictions, anachronisms and were not composed in the 1st century.

We have the writings of Philo, Josephus, Plutarch, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Cassius Dio, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus, Julian the Emperor and others which provide enough evidence to argue that the Jesus story and Pauline Corpus [the Entire Canon] were composed sometime after at least c 120 CE.

Works of fiction, even forgeries, do contain many clues that can be used to determine whether they were composed After the Fall of the Temple in the 1st century or at some later time period.

The Canonical NT shows an abundance of clues to argue that it is a 2nd century or later compilation and was unknown by Jews, Greeks and Romans in the 1st century.

The name, events, and the geographic location of many accounts of the main characters in the NT Canon are found in the writings of Josephus.

outhouse · 09-07-2013, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...

I have not seen any sort of a secular consensus that Gluke used Josephus, just because a few mythicist follow that position.

.

Mason and Pervo are not mythicists. The dating of Acts has little to do with whether there was a historical Jesus.

I only described this as a secular consensus because the only strong objections I have seen to the idea have come from evangelicals.

which doesnt bring you any closer to a secular consensus

Toto · 09-07-2013, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Mason and Pervo are not mythicists. The dating of Acts has little to do with whether there was a historical Jesus.

I only described this as a secular consensus because the only strong objections I have seen to the idea have come from evangelicals.

which doesnt bring you any closer to a secular consensus

Oh? Why not?

MrMacSon · 09-07-2013, 06:25 PM

So, we have several authors that think Acts was based on Josephus

1. Richard Carrier makes reference to G.J. Goldberg's “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke,”
in the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha (vol. 13, 1995), pp. 59-77.

Quote:

"Goldberg demonstrates nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus account and the Testimonium Flavianum, all nineteen in exactly the same order (with some order and word variations only within each item)."

2. Carrier has also [previously] noted the observation that Luke-Acts contains numerous parallels with the works of Josephus

citing

3. Steve Mason, "Josephus & Luke-Acts," in Josephus & the New Testament (Hendrickson Pubs: Peabody, Massachusetts, 1992): 185-229

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Does anyone have any evidence that Mason has been accepted by anyone? I'm having difficulty finding any scholarly discussion of his proposal (it seems to be no more).

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

.
4. Richard Pervo has a chapter on it in "Dating Acts" (or via: amazon.co.uk), this is his conclusion:

Quote:

.. the hypothesis that Luke made some use of Josephus - in particular, the closing rolls (books) of the Antiquities - is deeply compelling and inherently attractive, for it is both the most economical hypothesis, and one that helps to resolve a number of outstanding issues and particular questions.

[yada-yada]

More sharply, I propose that it is now incumbent upon those who reject the idea that Luke made some use of Josephus to make arguments of a merit at least equal to those above. (p 197-198)

.

5. Robert Price agrees with Pervo -

Quote:

[COLOR="rgb(105, 105, 105)"]Did Acts’ author know the Pauline letters? Most say no, given the wide gap between Paul as he appears in those texts and as he appears in Acts (see Philipp Vielhauer’s famous essay, “The ‘Paulinism’ of Acts”).[/COLOR] But Pervo gives a wiser answer: Acts’ author must have known the letters, since close statistical analysis shows he has mined them for characteristic Pauline language (e.g., the famous use of “justification” language in Acts 13). But he makes the mistake of having Paul speak like he wrote, not as he spoke,

........ So with Paul in Acts. He is made to speak lines from Ephesians and Corinthians.

But then why the gap pointed out by Vielhauer? Because the Acts author is separated from Paul by years of history and of theological (d)evolution. He is a second-century Paulinist like the author of the Pastorals. Plus, the author of Acts is a reconciling Catholic, which is why, no matter what his sources say, his characters are going to wind up sounding largely the same.

As for Acts’ use of Josephus, Pervo shows in case after case that the most economical argument is that Acts depends on Josephus, rather than the two of them sharing unknown “common sources.” He is able to unscramble various problems in Acts’ representation of history as resulting from misreadings of Josephus by Luke-Acts’ author.

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...ating_acts.htm

MrMacSon · 09-07-2013, 06:33 PM

It seems Pervo has published a subsequent work -

Acts: A Commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk). Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009 ISBN 9780800660451

reviewed here

mountainman · 09-07-2013, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

It seems Pervo has published a subsequent work -

Acts: A Commentary. Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009 ISBN 9780800660451

reviewed here

Pervo seems to back-peddle against the "postulation" that Luke drew on Josephus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pervo, Richard I. in .... Acts: A Commentary

The sources of the composition are said to be the LXX, Mark, a collection of Paul’s letters, and some of Josephus’s writings. ......

///

That Luke drew on Josephus is a postulation, because the former shares some of latter’s understandings and interests.

outhouse · 09-07-2013, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

which doesnt bring you any closer to a secular consensus

Oh? Why not?

Do you think a few mythicist and Pervo and Mason make a secular consensus?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-07-2013, 12:42 AM	#32
fta Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Oceania Posts: 334	Do you regard ANY of the books of the New Testament or the Church Fathers as authentic?

09-07-2013, 05:35 AM	#33
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Are Christian texts that were actually composed during the 2nd through 4th centuries CE 'authentic' ? The originals were authentic to the ideas and beliefs of the 2nd through 4th centuries when they were produced. That does not entail that any of these highly fictional religious fabrications (or any latter 'believed' and piously inserted material) are accurate accounts of any 1st century events or beliefs.

09-07-2013, 06:33 PM	#38
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	It seems Pervo has published a subsequent work - Acts: A Commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk). Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009 ISBN 9780800660451 reviewed here

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.