NT Criticism a closed book

[Secret Alias]

The Marcionites also argued for a text earlier than our canonical gospels. Justin's harmony gospel comes before any mention of our gospel in four. So I don't see how this is a controversial assumption other than you don't accept it - which for most of us is not much of an objection. Of course the way you and others work is that where 'something sounds like Matthew' or 'sounds like John' that means its our canonical text. This is so silly once you recognize Justin used a 'harmony' text and Theophilus and ... so on and so on.

Rig the game, the results line up with your expectations.

[Secret Alias]

The bottom line is that the further you get from Irenaeus our canonical texts disappear.

[Bernard Muller]

to Secret Alias

It's nice however to see honesty and truth-seeking

Are you saying honesty and truth-seeking are the attributes of those who try to develop complicated & ill-evidenced & far-fetched mythicist theories, many times conflicting with each other?
Are you telling someone like me is not honest or truth-seeking because I do not follow trends or change my mind?

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Are you telling someone like me is not honest or truth-seeking because I do not follow trends or change my mind?

Not following trends is compatible with seeking the truth. Not changing one's mind, however, is more compatible with thinking that one already has the truth, and therefore does not any longer feel the need to seek it.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to (not so) Secret Alias,

Justin's harmony gospel comes before any mention of our gospel in four.

Justin never said his gospel was a harmony. Justin stated "gospels" (plural) in his first apology the first time he mentioned gospel(s) (singular or plural):
1Apology LXVI "For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them;"
When quoting a passage which appears only in GLuke, Justin specified the author was not necessarily an apostle:
Trypho CIII "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them,
[as for Mark and the author of GLuke (according to Lk1:1-2)]
` [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, [only in Lk22:44]"
Furthermore, "memoirs" (plural) alludes to several documents, not only one. That has been stated on this forum:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1722&p=38660&hilit=memoirs#p38660 and discussed in some other thread which I cannot find.

How would you characterize Irenaeus's reconciling of Papias's 'sayings of the Lord' with Matthew? Do you really think that he says 'the Greek Matthew we possess is earlier than this Hebrew text?'

Irenaeus was likely aware of the statement of Papias saying some logias were compiled by a Matthew in Hebrew/Aramaic. So when he (wrongly) assigned these logias to be a gospel written by Matthew, he naturally assumed Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic.
Few scholars believed that (gMatthew first written in Aramaic) and most (with good reasons) think Matthew's gospel was originally written in Greek.
However, I found three instances where some parts of Q can be argued to have been written in Aramaic first, and then translated differently, which would fit with what Papias said about Matthew's logias.
http://historical-jesus.info/q.html then seach on >> 6) Arguments for separate "Q" document(s): <<

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

however, is more compatible with thinking that one already has the truth, and therefore does not any longer feel the need to seek it.

If I was like that, I would keep that "truth" for myself and be totally disinterested to other views. I am not indifferent to know about other views, but I find them far-fetched and ill-evidenced, and I have been very outspoken about that, to anyone, including Doherty & Carrier.
Furthermore, I have been very forward in exposing that "truth" by every means, inviting criticisms, sometimes justified, bringing myself to make some corrections or clarifications. I am not as "frozen" as you think.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

The historical value of Acts is no longer held aloft, yet it is still used as one of the primary means of dating the Pauline epistles

No... without Acts, the Pauline epistles still appear to be pre-70 (and post-40), based on the internal evidence of the letters (... as I said in that thread). You've left out that part in this summary. Trying to get any more precise than that is basically 'trivia knowledge'. If you want that 'trivia knowledge', then yes, you need to believe that there is historical value to Acts, to be consistent. If you don't, then you don't get that 'trivia knowledge'. So this is sometimes hypocrisy, perhaps, but how many people are actually fully on board with dismissing Acts? (Less than you might think...)

For example, it was considered for a good long while that Streeter had closed the book on Marcan priority... it was a done deal.

And as for the priority of Mark, nobody can really say that it's wrong... it's not the worst idea to come out of NT criticism. This is scholarship working as intended: there's no point in changing every few decades as if it were a fashion choice (although that may happen... and that would be a problem!).

You could get some better examples of the phenomenon you are trying to sketch. Perhaps the authenticity of Ignatius? It's been credibly assailed in every generation since the beginning of serious NT criticism (and even before then), yet still is used (for example) in a matter-of-fact way to set a terminus ante quem for the Gospel of Matthew in NT introductions. Essentially because of the defense of a few guys (especially Harnack and Lightfoot) in the early 20th century, who are now long dead.

[Secret Alias]

Justin never said his gospel was a harmony.

Yes he doesn't say it. And this is what you always look for - i.e. Church Father A says X therefore X is true. It's not that simple. And while it doesn't appear on your beloved website it has already been determined by scholarship outside of that website that Justin used a harmony (harmony being the word use to describe a text made up of material we traditionally identify as 'Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' etc) based on his citations of scripture:

the Diatessaron need not be the oldest Gospel text in Latin; that honor probably belongs to the harmonized Gospel used by Justin. [Petersen https://books.google.com/books?id=YLrKm ... 22&f=false]

Zahn believed that the Gospel text from which Justin quoted was the Gospel According to the Hebrews. It doesn't matter it's just a matter of being honest with the evidence. Why not actually look at Justin's gospel citations and tell me what you think? Is there any other plausible explanation? And no we'll never get Justin 'confessing' he used a harmonized gospel undoubtedly because he and his pupil Tatian didn't think it was a 'harmony' of any other sources.

[Secret Alias]

Koester's ideas are vaguely similar with my own in this respect. Koester suggests that Justin was producing a new Gospel harmony— “the one inclusive new Gospel” which would make all the other gospels “obsolete.” William Petersen argues that Justin's harmony was actually the precursor to Tatian's harmony. In either case the proper term to designate this new text is a 'super gospel.' I of course think the four canonical gospels were developed from the super gospel not the other way around - an opinion lurking in the background of various Patristic witnesses including Epiphanius who identifies the Diatessaron as the Gospel According to the Hebrews.

[Secret Alias]

Let me point out an obvious contradiction Bernard:

Statement A - I do not follow trends or change my mind

Statement B - I am not as "frozen" as you think

I would think the person declaring Statement A is pretty 'frozen.' Indeed in your response to Ben you have no doubt that you're basically right about everything you've ever written about the New Testament, and your site is pretty all encompassing. So you are basically right about everything even before hearing what anyone else has to say. That's crazy because no one's exhausted the possibilities out there. No one's dreamed up every possibility.

The problem with creating a grand obelisk devoted to 'truth' like this is that it - all your dealings here - becomes all about you, about 'you being right,' defending your views etc. Why not chuck all that in the garbage and just play with the evidence like a kid again. Have fun with it. See what you come up by not making it about you and being right all the time. May add years to your life too.