Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Given all the claims of a canon going back to the second century or earlier (before the existence of Constantine bibles), why is it we find NO ONE no provides the information as to WHO or WHAT BODY established the official canon of epistles and four gospels? It is supposedly deemed to be taken as a fact of reality without the slightest actual explanation of who and when this occurred. Some believe it is essentially intellectual heresy to argue that this must have happened in the 4th century when the new religion of the new empire had the motive, means and opportunity to do this.

Richard Carrier's summary of Metzger should be helpful here.

The Catholic encyclopedia discusses it, too

There's also a PDF by Richard Carrier that seems more detailed.

Sure, all of this presumes that duvduv is interested in learning something new. He has already decided that Christianity never existed before the fourth century and arranges whatever 'clues' he can to support that preconception. Good luck on bringing him around to reason!

The most important takeaway from Richard Carrier's presentation (and Metzger's book) is that there was a functional equivalent to the Christian canons before anyone actually tried to make a Christian canon. That functional equivalent was, basically, individual leaders making ad hoc statements to "read this!" but "don't read that!" (e.g., Serapion of Antioch regarding the Gospel of Peter) Everybody on record tries to justify himself by saying it's what went before because, in some sense, it has.

Robert Price seems to agree with David Probisch about an earlier version of the NT than that in Codex Sinaiticus & Codex Vaticanus

David Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament. Oxford University Press, 2000.

Reviewed by Robert M. Price (2009)

Hey, Stephan. WHEN did the "Christians" have the motive, means and opportunity to create apologetics for an educated class (and even backdate them) if not in the 4th century?
WHERE is there a single blessed mention of any Christian existence in any ancient Jewish texts, a single tractate or anywhere?

WHERE is the evidence of the existence of the alleged communities with whom "Paul" corresponded (or any other communities) in the first or second centuries?

WHEN were the commentaries/treatises/homilies on the established canon if not after Constantine?

WHERE is the evidence of the existence of Marcion or Marcionites in the Roman Empire in the 2nd or 3rd centuries when they allegedly existed?

WHERE Is the canon of an alleged 2nd century Justin just a mere 30 years before an alleged 2nd century Irenaeus (whose Lyon community never existed in the 2nd century)??

Do we have to go on and on, so that you can simply turn around and insult over and over again on this new forum??

Duvduv wrote:Hey, Stephan. WHEN did the "Christians" have the motive, means and opportunity to create apologetics for an educated class (and even backdate them) if not in the 4th century?

In the second century and in the third century?

Duvduv wrote:WHERE is there a single blessed mention of any Christian existence in any ancient Jewish texts, a single tractate or anywhere?

Which? Why?

Duvduv wrote:WHERE is the evidence of the existence of the alleged communities with whom "Paul" corresponded in the first or second centuries?

What were you hoping for? Why?

Duvduv wrote:WHEN were the commentaries/treatises/homilies on the established canon if not after Constantine?

Before Constantine?

This isn't a good way to argue your case.

Rhetorical questions suggest your own uncertainty as to how to proceed about establishing your argument in a straightforward, logical manner. A series of them represent a splatter approach, "spray and pray," where you hope something sticks, with no particular commitment to any of the individual alleged points of argument.

Peter Kirby wrote:Richard Carrier's summary of Metzger should be helpful here.

Richard Carrier's summary was not very helpful because it was assumed that there was an historical Jesus who was crucified when Pilate was governor c 26-36 CE.

It was also assumed that the Pauline Epistles were first composed before c 68 CE when no evidence at all in the Canon support such a date. Not even the author of Acts wrote about the Pauline Corpus. The author of Acts did not even claim Paul died before c 68 CE.

It is most strange that it is claimed that the Pauline Epistles were composed before gMark because the Epistles do not mention the stories of Jesus but fail to realise that the Pauline Epistles most likely were composed AFTER Acts of the Apostles because the author of ACTS does not mention them.

As soon as it was argued that the Pauline Epistles were composed before the Gospels because Paul did not know the Gospels then it can be easily argued that The Pauline Epistles were composed AFTER Acts of the Apostles because the author of Acts did not know the Pauline Epistles.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus are extremely late writings and was unknown up to at least c 175-180 CE.

c 150 CE Justin Martyr specifically identified what was used in the Churches on Sundays--it was the Memoirs of the Apostles--No Pauline Epistles--NO NT Canon.

In effect, there was NO Canon of the Jesus cult up to at least around the end of the 2nd century.