Why the Orthodox Claims About Their Gospels Being First = Ga

[Secret Alias]

The argument is rooted in the claim that

1. There were apostles
2. These apostles and apostolic men wrote the 4 gospels and only the four gospels
3. The church established by the apostles preserved these 4 gospels

But Acts is a fiction and the existence of these apostles were lies. Given the lack of any supporting evidence no one should believe any of the claims of apostolic succession and it's parallel claim of preserving the original gospels. All we are left with is heretical claims about the origins of the gospel.

[Adam]

Wh..wh..what about the Diatessaron that all the gospels are based upon, that was a proto-gospel before the canonical set of four? Are you abandoning the proto-gospel Diatessaron that was earlier, maybe by apostles, and preserved by the Syrian church and by the Arabs? Say it isn't so, whoever you are.

[Secret Alias]

My research has led me to the conclusion that:

1. a late second century Christian 'reformer' reshaped a literary landscape where many individual 'super gospels' were replaced by a fourfold 'set' of gospels which = the gospel agreeing with one another in a 'miraculous' way
2. the testimony of the Samaritan chronicler Abu'l Fath suggests (and this is confirmed in my mind by reports related to R Judah haNasi) that the Roman government starting with Commodus put intense pressure on Palestinian religious traditions to reform their religions to facilitate the identification of the Emperor as cosmocrator
3. where Jews and Samaritan originally recognized more than one god as being present in the Pentateuch, the original gospel reflected the same situation. Just as Judaism and Samaritan were coerced to be monarchical so too Christianity. As the Pentateuch was edited to 'assist' this 'true understanding' (= the editing of Exodus away from an explicit recognition of one god on the mountain, another in heaven) so too the plethora of individual 'super gospels.'
4. there is no rejection of the idea that there were more than one God in the Israelite pantheon. Julian and other pagans for instance read the Pentateuch as if it confirmed the existence of more than one god. The only reason why this becomes a concern in Judaism, Samaritanism and Christianity is owing to the breakdown of the Imperial system in the late second and early third centuries. Monotheism rather than being an 'essential' part of the Israelite tradition is only a reflection of Imperial concerns in the lead up to the crisis that ultimately manifests itself c. 238 CE (but tremors and shock waves precede this date)
5. 'straying from the one true god of Israel' is a central concern of Irenaeus. It is the ultimate justification for identifying a tradition as a 'heresy.' Indeed even the name 'heresy' reflects monarchic interests viz. it is 'wrong' to have a plethora of schools of interpretation. There is only god, one truth, one tradition. This wasn't an early Christian concern. It was a late Imperial concern.
6. early Christianity tolerated a universe with multiple gospels. This is ultimately why even the orthodox gospel is fourfold. The orthodox were late coming to the party and had to deal with a multiple gospel universe.

Is that clear enough?

[outhouse]

1. There were apostles
.

Fail.

There were people who were early Hellenistic leaders who were later attributed with the first Aramaic followers names to build authority in the Hellenistic movement in the Diaspora, based on Oral traditions shared yearly at Passover.

[outhouse]

All we are left with is heretical claims about the origins of the gospel.

Its much better then imaginative people trying to create a path where none exist nor can exist.



Id rather try and flesh out a historical core in mythology and theology, and be partially right, instead of all wrong.

[MrMacSon]

1. a late second century Christian 'reformer' reshaped a literary landscape where many individual 'super gospels' were replaced by a fourfold 'set' of gospels which = the gospel agreeing with one another in a 'miraculous' way

Were they all 'super gospels'? Pehraps there were a number of varying sized texts?

2. the testimony of the Samaritan chronicler Abu'l Fath (& reports related to R Judah haNasi) suggests that the Roman government, starting with Commodus, put intense pressure on Palestinian-religious-traditions to reform their religions to facilitate the identification of the Emperor as cosmocrator

A good point I think others have made. I'd say this happened away from Palestine and somewhat as a response to the increasing influence of the Jewish Diaspora and in response to the plethora of religious traditions spreading in the Empie and new traditions developing as a result.

6. early Christianity tolerated a universe with multiple gospels. This is ultimately why even the orthodox gospel is fourfold. The orthodox were late coming to the party and had to deal with a multiple gospel universe.

early-Christianity developed in a universe with multiple religious traditions and it is likely that, because many had their own texts, Christian communities developed their own(?)

[MrMacSon]

All we are left with is heretical claims about the origins of the gospel.

Its much better than imaginative people trying to create a path where none exist nor can exist.

lol. Most if not all of the theology developed in those times involved 'visions' or 'revelations' - it was all about imagination!

I'd rather try and flesh out a historical core in mythology and theology, and be partially right, instead of all wrong.

lol. A historical path to the development of mythology and theology is possible, but the 'core' is likely to be imagination

[Secret Alias]

If the heretics believed that Jesus was a flying phantasm that can't have been historical, right John? Maybe you don't accept that the heretics believed this? Or that they did and it doesn't matter. But surely your dislike of something has no bearing on whether it is worthy of consideration because you aren't - with all due respect - an important arbiter of what's important or not important.