stephan huller

This would suggest - as I have long noted - that Tatian inherited the single, long gospel form not invented it.

andrewcriddle

See Petersen's Textual Evidence of Tatian's Dependence upon Justin's 'AΠOMNHMONEYMATA Textual+Evidence+of+Tatian's+Dependence+upon+Justi n

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

There seems to be a bit of confusion in all of this that needs clarification.

Was the purposing of harmonizing gospels via "Tatian" or whomever intended to dispel concerns of contradictions in the existing divinely inspired (!) four gospels?

If "Justin" had access to a harmonized single gospel does this mean that already in his time (whenever that actually was) recognition of the contradictions already existed and there was some kind of struggle between those seeking to do away with 4 contradictory gospels in favor of a single story and those who believed the 4 stories mutual complemented each other?

Either way, this Justin who was able to name names when conveniently could not even identify the name of a single author of any gospel/memoir of the apostles that already existed, and then a bare 30 years or so later Irenaeus clearly identified the four canonical gospels and the epistles.
So what happened here according to those accepting a traditional linear chronology of the emergence of the Christian scriptures?

How did this set of 4 included with a set of epistles become standardized, and WHO determined the standardization to the exclusion of any other combination or permutation (i..e 7 epistles and 5 gospels, or 2 gospels and 10 epistles, or a Gospel according to Henry, Luke, Mark, Bill, John and Mike versus the ones of the canon? If there was a Christian "Men of the Great Assembly"/Sanhedrin, who were they and who appointed them?

stephan huller

The difference between real research and the kind of nonsense you and others are engaged in is that we shouldn't think about the implications of the evidence before we acknowledge it or not - ie whether we "agree" with it or not. it is what it is. and then we move on to think about the implications of that evidence

Duvduv

Who died and left you king? The pot calling the kettle black?

stephan huller

Your post plainly exposed the manner your evaluate evidence. Basically you admit that you see where the evidence is leading and if you like the implications of that line of argument you accept it and if it goes somewhere you don't like, you reject it. That's not the way legitimate historical research is supposed to take place.

Duvduv

Please go back and reread your postings that are full of argumentum ad hominem and then reread my posting. No harm done.

stephan huller

So your point is "it's okay to pick and choose whatever evidence you accept based on its conformity to a malicious theory as long as you're nice and agreeable to other dishonest souls." Sure. Scholarship like most social interaction depends on the good faith of the participants

Duvduv

In other words one may dare not challenge hypotheses with clear questioning lest one risk the wrath of the argumenters ad hominem.

stephan huller

No, I think you guys should have your own forum to applaud each other's abuse of the evidence. You can't have half the forum acting honestly, being led by the evidence and the other half lying, cheating and stealing. There are two antithetical purposes among posters here