Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Well if we were to build up a theory like this the place to start is with a demolition of the suppositions of stupid people - namely that 'because' the three synoptic texts survived they 'must' have been the earliest texts. This supposition is stupid for a number of reasons. It's like saying because Mr X stayed with his wife for 40 years he must love her ... and then you find he never held a job and she was in executive finance.

To this end, we have already demonstrated that Irenaeus lied when he developed a back history for 'according to Matthew.' He took what Papias said about another text and passed it off as his own. People like Bernard want to 'give the benefit of the doubt' to Irenaeus's intentions. I say, when we look at the case for Irenaeus's 'faithful' preservation of earlier material is actually examined, the evidence on balance suggests he was consistently dishonest and therefore it is highly unlikely that textual difference between 'our gospels' and 'their gospels' (those before Irenaeus and outside the Catholic faith) are for the most part accidental. Indeed Irenaeus throws the first salvo when he suggests that the differences amount to his opponents changing the commonly held material in favor of their theological presuppositions (thus indicating that changes were made for theological reasons).

Of course the idea for 'according to Matthew' grew out of Papias's reference to a collection of oracles. I frankly don't understand why scholars have such a hard time connecting Papias's logia of Matthew with Basilides's Traditions of Matthias. The common Hebrew name Mattai was likely rendered in a number of different ways in Greek. Irenaeus got the idea that 'Matthew' was written in Hebrew from somewhere.

To this end, we have already demonstrated that Irenaeus lied when he developed a back history for 'according to Matthew.' He took what Papias said about another text and passed it off as his own.

No, this has not been 'demonstrated' here. Not even close. He may have been mistaken, or Papias may have not known the whole story and Irenaeus knew more.

I agree with what everybody seems to be saying here. Stop insulting, stop just posting conclusions with bits and pieces of support, stop saying 'if you really want to know go read Peterson's book' bullshit and develop something in a logical order so that people give a damn.

So once the development of 'according to Matthew' is connected with a lie we move on to 'according to John.' I think there is a high degree of probability that Gaius of Rome and Irenaeus were contemporaries in the late second century. Almost everyone who has ever examined the appearance of 'according to John' sees Gaius's rejection of the text as reflected in Irenaeus's comments in Book Three:

The former class [do so], that they may seem to have discovered more than is of the truth; the latter, that they may set the dispensations of God aside. For Marcion, rejecting the entire Gospel, yea rather, cutting himself off from the Gospel, boasts that he has part in the [blessings of] the Gospel. Others, again, that they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete; but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. Wretched men indeed! who wish to be pseudo- prophets, forsooth, but who set aside the gift of prophecy from the Church; acting like those who, on account of such as come in hypocrisy, hold themselves aloof from the communion of the brethren. We must conclude, moreover, that these men can not admit the Apostle Paul either. For, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, he speaks expressly of prophetical gifts, and recognises men and women prophesying in the Church. Sinning, therefore, in all these particulars, against the Spirit of God, they fall into the irremissible sin. But those who are from Valentinus, being, on the other hand, altogether reckless, while they put forth their own compositions, boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing "the Gospel of Truth," though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blasphemy. For if what they have published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles, any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that that which has been handed down from the apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of truth. But that these Gospels alone are true and reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminution of the aforesaid number, I have proved by so many and such [arguments]. For, since God made all things in due proportion and adaptation, it was fit also that the outward aspect of the Gospel should be well arranged and harmonized. The opinion of those men, therefore, who handed the Gospel down to us, having been investigated, from their very fountainheads, let us proceed also to the remaining apostles, and inquire into their doctrine with regard to God; then, in due course we shall listen to the very words of the Lord.

This is the section which almost everyone who has ever written on the subject of Gaius and Irenaeus points to Irenaeus condemning his contemporary because he rejected 'according to John.' However their limited imagination does them in because they ignore the fact that the description here of the heresies does not easily conform to any known heretical group.

These aren't 'Montanists.' But the other guess that Harvey makes is closer to the mark - Encratites. There is a consistent pattern in Irenaeus where 'another' group is mentioned immediately after the Marcionites and at least a few have acknowledged that the tradition associated with Tatian is likely the target of his ire.

I think this is very significant then to connect Gaius to the Encratites. He/they would not admit the 'aspect' of the Paraclete. But this isn't the same thing as saying they rejected the Paraclete as such. Notice what comes immediately afterwards - i.e. the discussion of 'spiritual gifts.' We know from Origen, the Acts of Archelaus, Montanism, Manichaeanism and early Islamic interpretation of the Diatessaron that the 'Paraclete' was understood specifically to have been another man. In other words, that Jesus said 'someone else' will come along after me and not 'the Holy Spirit' will come after me to you. This is a key distinction and undoubtedly the chief objection that Gaius had with respect to 'according to John' - i.e. that he shared with other Diatessaronic communities that Jesus was heralding the advent of another Christ.

No, this has not been 'demonstrated' here. Not even close. He may have been mistaken, or Papias may have not known the whole story and Irenaeus knew more.

Oh God Ted. Bernard has consistently identified the use of Papias as dishonest until he saw the trap that I was setting. I won't even waste my time on you. Go back to your hole until you have something interesting to say.

So to move on from crybaby Ted, 'according to Matthew' was established fraudulently and - without specific mention of Irenaeus - the community which grew out of Gaius's opposition to 'according to John' said the same thing about that text. There is no doubt that I can't prove that Irenaeus introduced 'according to John' to the Roman community but:

1. Gaius and Irenaeus were likely contemporaries
2. they were certainly on opposite sides with respect to this text
3. Irenaeus was undoubtedly reflecting the early opposition to 'according to John' in late second century Rome in Adv Haer 3 (cited above)
4. the rejection of the 'aspect' of the Paraclete has been misunderstood by scholarship and points not to a denial of the existence of 'the Paraclete.' The Marcionites, Montanists, Valentinians, Manichaeans, early followers of Muhammad all agreed on a different definition of what this Paraclete was which developed from their single long gospel(s)

As such the likely distinction between Gaius and Irenaeus was that of 'Diatessaronic' John versus 'truncated' (and manipulated) 'according to John' 2.0 the canonical text.

And I sometimes feel I have to be a primary school teach with regards to making sure the dopey acknowledge the evidence which exists from antiquity. We're all on the same page with regards to the number of communities who said 'the Paraclete' (Aram menachem common short form mani) was a man as opposed to Irenaeus's position from the late second century text 'according to John'

1. the rabbinic tradition = the messiah
2. the Marcionites (Origen Homiles on Luke 25) = Paul
3. the Valentinians (ibid)
4. the Montanists = Montanus
5. the Acts of Archelaus = Paul
6. the Manichaeans = Corbicus (who renamed himself 'Mani' because he was the awaited figure from the Diatessaron)
7. the early Islamic tradition = Muhammad which is said to mean 'Paraclete' in Arabic implying that like Corbicus the founder of Islam had a different given name originally

It has long been noted that the reason most of these traditions (though certainly not 1) differ from our own with respect to defining what the aspect of the Paraclete is owes its origin to a commonly shared text i.e. the Diatessaron

Hopefully the group also recognizes that there was an established manner of reading the 'gospel' (again not 'Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' and 'John' individually) where Jesus is understood to refer to 'another' who is the Christ, the awaited one who will come after him. This is not limited to acknowledged Paraclete references. For instance the little boy who sits in Jesus's bosom is often identified with John, Ignatius etc. The two advent theology also is undoubtedly a remnant of this logic. In each case Jesus is something other than the messiah and he announces/awaits the one expected by the Jews = Paraclete.

I would argue that one can suspect that four gospels were specifically developed to deny the original Paraclete logic (i.e. disconnect Jesus's saying about someone else being the one to come) from his bald pronouncement that another Paraclete would follow him. But that again is my suspicion. Didn't ultimately work as Islam's wide acceptance in the lands of Jesus attests to this day.

I can certainly empathize with those who admire Islam as a religion if only because it represents the triumph of the Semites over the Europeans with respect to the religion of Jesus. Of course white people will never likely see that. I suspect Jews and Samaritans saw that. The white Jesus and the white gospels represent a deliberately misrepresentation of the original religion by Imperial lackeys like Irenaeus.

Stephan Huller wrote:

No, this has not been 'demonstrated' here. Not even close. He may have been mistaken, or Papias may have not known the whole story and Irenaeus knew more.

Oh God Ted. Bernard has consistently identified the use of Papias as dishonest until he saw the trap that I was setting. I won't even waste my time on you. Go back to your hole until you have something interesting to say.

prove intent. You cant.

prove intent. You cant.

A good lawyer can certainly convince based on circumstantial evidence. I might not be a good lawyer but I am laying the foundations for one who will come ... just like 'the real Jesus.'

Indeed while I find myself bored in this discussion an interesting diversion is contemplating the early Samaritan, Jewish and other native Semitic reaction to Muhammad the Paraclete. Did they think he was their god-sent savior? Yes I certainly think there must have been massive conversion based on this 'up from slavery' vibe which suggests that this original definition of the Paraclete was 'in the blood' of the oppressed Middle Eastern man. That's why it was so dangerous to the Roman hegemony and had to be rooted out. Muhammad was indeed the fulfillment of a hope of Semites which went beyond the gospel, but the gospel originally tapped into this 'vibe.'