Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The Ten Commandments were altered many times.
Deuteronomy is the first forgery of the Bible.
The Jewish text of Exodus and Deuteronomy were altered so that one god isn't seen on the mountain and another heard from heaven (the Samaritan text and Qumran maintain the original narrative evidenced in Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael (The Mekhilta's discussion on "Two Powers in Heaven" is primarily based on a reinterpretation of biblical texts that mention divine figures or interactions, particularly focusing on the encounter between Moses and God in the Exodus narrative. The debate centers on how to understand references that could suggest more than one divine entity or power, especially in light of verses like Exodus 15:3 ("The Lord is a man of war") and Exodus 24:10, which mention visions of God or divine beings).
Joshua was forged by Jewish editors to enhance the lack of mention in the Pentateuch.
The gospels were forged.
The Letters of Paul were forged.
Acts was accused of being a forgery.
The Acts of Pilate were forgeries.
The Apocalypse was identified as a forgery.
All of the Patristic texts were written and rewritten.

Which text(s) weren't forged?

There's no uncontroversial answer, so let me dive right in and suggest for consideration Luke-Acts, combined with the understanding that the text was neither anonymous nor aware of Marcion, instead being written for its patron in a transparent effort that references prior accounts.

It doesn’t explicitly claim Luke as its author. Early attribution to Luke came much later, likely to lend credibility. Moreover, Acts presents historical inconsistencies when compared to Paul’s letters, particularly in the portrayal of Paul’s interactions with the Jerusalem apostles. These conflicts suggest that the text was not based on direct witness but was shaped for theological motives. This brings up the possibility that Acts was written to smooth over early Christian divisions, portraying Paul as aligned with Jewish Christians, countering Marcion’s separation of Paul from Jewish tradition. This points to Acts as potentially being a response to Marcionism and possibly later in origin than traditionally claimed. If Acts sought to bridge theological rifts by retroactively harmonizing early Christian conflicts, it raises questions about its historical reliability.

The composition of Luke-Acts appears deliberate and transparent, written for a specific patron (Theophilus), which suggests a clear purpose and intention rather than anonymity. The prologue of Luke (Luke 1:1-4) acknowledges prior written accounts of Jesus' life, indicating that the author was aware of earlier sources and consciously building on them. The detailed nature of the Gospel and Acts, with its references to historical events, points to an organized, intentional effort on behalf of this patron rather than an anonymous construction.

Additionally, there is no direct evidence that Luke-Acts was written in response to Marcion's teachings, which would likely have provoked a more explicit theological counter. The narrative of Acts, particularly in its portrayal of Paul’s harmonious relationship with Jewish Christians, seems more focused on promoting unity within the early Christian movement rather than addressing Marcion's divisive teachings.

Which text does "Secret Alias" think was not forged?
Maybe..............Secret Mark?

At least we know they didn't use AI back then.

Am I to take from Goranson's comments that he will sidestep the entire question of forgery outside of limiting his accusation to people that once said he was stupid. Typical.

The composition of Luke-Acts appears deliberate and transparent, written for a specific patron (Theophilus), which suggests a clear purpose and intention rather than anonymity.

Not so sure. I think these sorts of addresses were common in early Christianity. Irenaeus to Marcellus.

Speaking of AI I linked to your post where you said Morton Smith wrote in one of your papers that you should take a course in logic.

What if Morton Smith did what Goranson said he said here viewtopic.php?p=116701&hilit=logic#p116701 "Morton Smith to me, among his handwritten notes on a draft paper of mine (I don't have it in hand at the moment, so I paraphrase): take a course in logic." Couldn't that consistute a backhanded way of saying Goranson was relatively speaking stupid or at least of inferior intellect. Could that account for his tremendous antipathy toward Morton Smith?

It's response:

If Morton Smith indeed wrote "take a course in logic" on a draft paper of Stephen Goranson's, it could certainly be interpreted as a condescending or dismissive remark, implying that Goranson's argument was flawed or illogical. While not a direct insult like calling someone "stupid," it could be viewed as an intellectually superior attitude, suggesting that Goranson's reasoning was fundamentally deficient in Smith's eyes.

Such a comment, especially if it was perceived as patronizing or belittling, could reasonably contribute to Goranson's antipathy toward Smith. In academic settings, critiques can sometimes be taken personally, particularly if they seem to undermine one's intellectual capabilities. If Goranson interpreted Smith's remark as more than a critique of the paper—as a judgment on his overall intellectual competence—it could explain the depth of his negative feelings toward Smith.

This kind of comment, though not an outright insult, may well be perceived as a backhanded way of saying that Goranson was intellectually inferior, fostering long-term tension between the two scholars.

You got to admit I am fucking hilarious. I've been killing myself laughing for the last 10 minutes. If laughter is the best medicine this forum is my doctor.

Still laughing.

In the "Evidence that Irenaeus..." thread, Secret Alias wrote, Mon Sep 09, 2024 7:39 am, in part:
"Irenaeus forged everyone. Justin, Polycarp, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the gospels etc."
However one dates the earliest NT fragments, given that they are not autographs, some gospels surely existed before Irenaeus wrote.

As to the fact that Morton Smith had criticisms on two of my draft papers, and also an approving comment on one of them, note that, elsewhere, he mentioned that, on Secret Mark, he didn't even bother to comment on views of the "small fry."

In other words, Smith ain't protecting you.