Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

So let's start again. Philo has a "short version" of the Ten Commandments. "Do not lust" which seems to be cited in the gospel and in the commentary of Clement of Alexandria. I think the long version of the Ten Commandments isn't so much a "forgery" as a deliberate misrepresentation. Philo, the gospel of Mark and Clement understood God to have written "do not lust" as the last commandment.

Norm MacDonald's famous Professor of Logic joke: https://youtu.be/Oseqh7SMIvo?si=Z7zOHTcpgS3r-AuW

Industry can be useful, but only also with discernment.

Well to each his own. So let's get back to the topic. Secret Mark is a fake. Which of the ancient texts listed do you acknowledge as forgeries?

Secret Alias: "Secret Mark is a fake."
New.
One step at a time.

I am paraphrasing the opinions of someone who refuses to give his opinion. So Secret Mark is the only fake. Speaks volumes.

It makes perfect sense that if we buy into the idea, as Irenaeus says in Book 3, that the orthodox acted as a "bank" preserving the texts of antiquity in a vault, that there is this dividing line between "true" texts like the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Luke and John and "fake" texts like the one Goranson has a hard on for ever Morton Smith dared to suggest he was intellectually deficient. But the truth is that the orthodox were not careful guardians of "the truth." They preserved instead a collection of texts which were useful for their war against the forms of Christianity that came before them JUST AS "the Jews" expanded the collection of writings beyond the Pentateuch because Jerusalem went unmentioned in the original collection. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in this narrative. Organized religion brings out the worst in people.

Look at the Jews for a second. They think Jerusalem is a sacred place even though Moses doesn't mention it in the Pentateuch. So what to do? Invent new "holy books." This also explains why there is so little speculation or interest in the person of Moses. Moses really wasn't a witness for their religion. The Samaritans on the other hand, another story. Why? Because they were closer to the original tradition.

So with respect to the theophany on Sinai. There are fucking two gods. It's not even a question. They see one being on the mountain and here another in heaven. So what to do? Fuck up the narrative. Take out any explicit mention of "seeing" one god and "hearing" another. And that's what they did.

I get the distinct feeling (although I could be persuaded against the proposition easily) that Deuteronomy (the second Law) was invented to avoid the dualism implicit in the original Exodus narrative. I can't shake the idea that Deuteronomy - A FORGERY - was created to start the process toward monotheism.

Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
1 Clement is a developed forgery.
2 Clement too.
Letters of Ignatius (Short, Medium, Long).
Justin has had things added to his corpus c. 195 CE.
What's left?