Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

to kapyong,

Pardon ?
Of course they had access to a copy of each other's work, or at least a copy of one, G.Mark. There are obviously connections between the Gospel authors (and presumably a small community surrounding each.)

So you are admitting gMark was made public and available in at least a few Christian communities (but that may be only the tip of the iceberg). But you don't want to call that "published". And gMark was not the only one to be made public. There are a lot of quotes of gMatthew in the Didache. They are some quotes of gMatthew in Revelation and Barnabas' epistle. "John" knew at some point about gLuke. The Q people knew about gMark, etc, etc.
But for you that does not say anything about these gospels being copied (that is published), because the dependencies are not solid enough according to you. Never mind the early Gnostics like Basilides & Valentinus were aware of the gospels, and so Marcion about gLuke (or some proto-Luke). http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html
And still you claim these gospels were not published before Justin's times.

But I OBSERVE that other Christians at large did not mention the Gospels (until later, when everyone mentions and praises and quotes them endlessly.) I know you argue that many Christian books have quotes, or allusions to Gospels, but I do not think your dependencies are particularly solid.

No, not everyone after Justin's times quoted and mentioned the gospels in their writings extensively. Some not at all, some just a little bit. I mentioned that already, according to your own list of authors you gave us (Gakuseidon has studied that extensively), as I recall. But sure, after Irenaeus, selecting and naming the gospels, and giving them an aura of sanctity, these gospels became more popular and mentioned & quoted. But that does not mean they were not published before Justin's time.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Even if a copy of these gospels were not available to everyone, that does not mean there were no copies of the original work.

I'm glad we agree

So what is the difference about gospels being copied and gospels being published?
The net result is the duplication of the original manuscript by hand (no printing press yet).

PS: Kapyong, I have nothing against you personally. I thank you by having studied my website. But that will not prevent me to criticize your mythicist ideas. And the is not a reflection about you, but your ideas.

Cordially, Bernard

Gday GakuseiDon and all

GakuseiDon wrote:E.g. Satan tempts the first Adam to eat of the Tree and sin enters the world; Satan has the last Adam crucified on the Tree and the world is saved from sin.

Indeed
Actually, you expressed it better than I have.

Paul's contrasting the two Adams seems to be a big clue regarding his attitude to Jesus Christ - he makes JC sound entirely heavenly - but he can still be born, crucified, buried and resurrected.

Paradise apparently has special qualities - 2 Enoch puts the Tree of Life in Paradise, a place that is 'between corruptibility and incorruptibility', and also a 'very terrible place' with 'all manner of tortures' for the wicked.

As if Paradise is in between 'flesh' and 'spirit'. It's in the Third Heaven, but it allows 'torture'. The Book of Adam does show Satan in Paradise.

Both books, 2 Enoch and the Book of Adam, were probably contemporary with Paul - he could easily have read them, or heard their stories.

I speculate that Paul saw (or learned of) Jesus Christ crucified on the Tree of Life on Paradise in the Third Heaven.

Both Acts and 1 Peter claim he was crucified on a tree, and some writings mention the curse of 'hanging on a tree' in reference to Jesus e.g. Irenaeus, Melito of Sardis, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Athanasius and Augustine. Some later writers associate Jesus Christ with the tree of life - Teachings of Silvanus, Justin Martyr, Celsus, Hippolytus, and Victorinus.


Kapyong

to Gakuseidon,

The Paradise in which Adam and Eve lived was on earth, certainly. But 2 Enoch (also referenced in your second link) has this:

8.1 And those men took me thence, and led me up on to the third heaven, and placed me there; and I looked downwards, and saw the produce of these places, such as has never been known for goodness.
2 And I saw all the sweet-flowering trees and beheld their fruits, which were sweet-smelling, and all the foods borne by them bubbling with fragrant exhalation.
3 And in the midst of the trees that of life, in that place whereon the Lord rests, when he goes up into paradise; and this tree is of ineffable goodness and fragrance, and adorned more than every existing thing; and on all sides it is in form gold-looking and vermilion and fire-like and covers all, and it has produce from all fruits.
4 Its root is in the garden at the earth’s end.
5 And paradise is between corruptibility and incorruptibility.
What this does IMO is give plausibility to Kapyong's idea. He still has a long way to go, but he is starting in a good place -- in my opinion. Of course, I'm just an amateur. My only claim is that I've read widely from primary sources (in English translation only!) and secondary sources. We -- me, Kapyong and yourself -- are all just well-read amateurs. It doesn't mean we are wrong, or that we think we are wrong; but I suspect we are all waiting for the overhanging boot of the professional to squash us. I'd like to see where Kapyong takes this.

It is not known if 2 Enoch was written before Paul's public life. And Paul never showed interest for these books from the Jewish Pseudepigrapha. Paul never said Christ was crucified in third heaven, but rather suggested it was on earth, among Jews: http://historical-jesus.info/19.html

Cordially, Bernard

Gday DCHindley and all

DCHindley wrote:Kap,
Trying to follow you here, but due to chronic pain I cannot devote full mental capacity like I used to.

Sorry to hear that
I understand full-body transplants are almost here

DCHindley wrote:I would agree that Irenaeus is the first author to quote or allude to virtually every NT book in the present canon, but doesn't that just mean that, as is the position of David Trobisch, he had access to the "first edition" of a unified NT?

Well, my focus here is on the publication of the Gospels. Irenaeus' part in that was in naming them. Irenaeus obviously played an important part in all this, but it's not really clear. He does seem to know most of the books.

DCHindley wrote:Trobisch's position is a bit more nuanced than the assertion that all NT books were published as a single set. ... In short, almost all NT mss seem to have derived from a single set of exemplars (four Gospels, Acts+General epistles, Letters of Paul, Revelation, or abbreviated as e, a, p, r).

I concur
The Gospels became a set of four very early. Before Justin. It doesn't look like Justin travelled for years and collected books, one by one, from different communities or authors. It rather seems that Justin received four books as a group. He also refered to the Revelation, without quoting it.

DCHindley wrote:He identifies a possible publisher of this exemplar as Polycarp of Smyrna.

Pardon me - which exemplar ? The four Gospels ?

DCHindley wrote:Why is Acts circulated with the General epistles and not with the Gospels or even Paul's letters? Why is the Apocalypse all by its lonesome?

Yes. How on earth did G.Luke and Acts end up separate ?

DCHindley wrote:Obviously, Irenaeus prized this four part edition very highly. But why? He has nothing to do with things like the Gospel of the Hebrews/Egyptians/Nazoreans (variant spellings abound) like there appear to be in 1 Clement and other reputed or actual early Christian writers.

Well, Tatian thought there were four Gospels, because he inherited four from Justin. By the time of Irenaeus, there were OTHER Gospels appearing, so he had to defend his four as the authentic ones.

DCHindley wrote:So, it appears that all these books were already "published", at least as independent works and maybe as early collections, like the Paulines. Irenaeus simply preferred the versions we now called canonical, and presumably this means in the groupings we now find them in. DCH

Well, it's plausible that Irenaeus brought together several groupings, for the first time.

I think Justin Martyr represents the first publishing of the Gospels, as a group of four.


Kapyong

Gday MrMacSon and all

Kapyong wrote: Observations :

• Papias mentioned writings by Mark from Peter, and by Matthew.

Inferences :

• Justin's comment about Peter being an author comes from Papias' comment.
• G.Mark was named because of the Peter reference going back to Papias' Mark reference.
• G.Matthew was named because of Papias' comment, even though it didn't match well.

MrMacSon wrote: Hi again, Kapyong. Do you mean Papias mentioned writings by a Mark and by a Matthew? or by the Mark and the Matthew? How likely do you think those inferences are?

Well, according to modern versions of MSS from the middle-ages, of the 4th century writings of Eusebius, Papias around the beginning of the 2nd century, claimed it was THE Mark who was a secretary of Peter in Rome late first century.

If Irenaeus knew of Papias' words, and he wanted to name his four (authentic) Gospels, then he would very likely have decided on G.Mark and G.Matthew I think.


Kapyong

Gday GakuseiDon and all

GakuseiDon wrote:But 2 Enoch (also referenced in your second link) has this:

• 8.1 And those men took me thence, and led me up on to the third heaven, and placed me there; and I looked downwards, and saw the produce of these places, such as has never been known for goodness.
  ...
  5 And paradise is between corruptibility and incorruptibility.

What this does IMO is give plausibility to Kapyong's idea. He still has a long way to go, but he is starting in a good place -- in my opinion. Of course, I'm just an amateur. My only claim is that I've read widely from primary sources (in English translation only!) and secondary sources. We -- me, Kapyong and yourself -- are all just well-read amateurs. It doesn't mean we are wrong, or that we think we are wrong; but I suspect we are all waiting for the overhanging boot of the professional to squash us. I'd like to see where Kapyong takes this.

Yes, that key phrase leapt out to me too. Paradise appears to a special part of heaven that somehow allows things like torture, and even Satan.

GakuseiDon wrote:To be fair, those are my words. I don't want to be putting words into Kapyong's mouth!

Yup Your words. But I like those words, they fit right in.


Kapyong

Kapyong wrote: Observations :

• Papias mentioned writings by Mark from Peter, and by Matthew.

Inferences :

• Justin's comment about Peter being an author comes from Papias' comment.
• G.Mark was named because of the Peter reference going back to Papias' Mark reference.
• G.Matthew was named because of Papias' comment, even though it didn't match well.

MrMacSon wrote: Hi again, Kapyong. Do you mean Papias mentioned writings by a Mark and by a Matthew? or by the Mark and the Matthew? How likely do you think those inferences are?

Kapyong wrote:Gday MrMacSon and all

Well, according to modern versions of MSS from the middle-ages, of the 4th century writings of Eusebius, Papias around the beginning of the 2nd century, claimed it was THE Mark who was a secretary of Peter in Rome late first century.

Ah, ok: Mark the hearer of Peter(?)

Gday Bernard Muller and all

Bernard Muller wrote:to kapyong,
So you are admitting gMark was made public and available in at least a few Christian communities (but that may be only the tip of the iceberg). But you don't want to call that "published".

No Christian writer on record had his hands on Gospels before Justin. They are not found in the public record. There is no evidence there were available to anyone. I call that not published.

'Tip of the iceberg' ?
The old 'what about all that evidence we haven't found yet' trick ?
Which is all guaranteed to support YOUR opinion of course.
Apparently it's OK to use such silly arguments on mythicists - because they are too stupid to know any better, right ?

Bernard Muller wrote:There are a lot of quotes of gMatthew in the Didache.

No there aren't. (I think Dr. Udo Schnelle is wrong about 'the gospel'.) Just similar phrases which you insist indicate dependence. Which is your well-known particular bias - the slightest echo or similarity or allusion MUST be a direct dependence on a Gospel.

Bernard Muller wrote:PS: Kapyong, I have nothing against you personally. I thank you by having studied my website. But that will not prevent me to criticize your mythicist ideas. And the is not a reflection about you, but your ideas.
Cordially, Bernard

Ah Now I see.
I'm just a 'mythicist' to you, so that's why my ideas are wrong
Seems you and Secret Alias are amythicists then ? Or anti-mythicists ?

Is that why you rudely rejected me so suddenly ?
When I first offered help, you were pleased because you thought I was a normal person ?

But then you realised/remembered that I was a mythicist ?
So you sent me to Coventry ?


Kapyong

Bernard Muller wrote:It is not known if 2 Enoch was written before Paul's public life. And Paul never showed interest for these books from the Jewish Pseudepigrapha. Paul never said Christ was crucified in third heaven, but rather suggested it was on earth, among Jews: http://historical-jesus.info/19.html

Oh, I agree. I think there is a lot in Paul that supports a non-celestial origin of Jesus, so Kapyong has a long road ahead. But still, if even part of his theory makes sense to me, I feel it is important to say so.

The following verses state the “rulers” didn’t understand the significance of the crucifixion.


Therefore, it would be a contradiction to state that these same “rulers” have previously participated in a crucifixion. Rather, the following verses state the Yeshua was slain before the foundation of the world.




Finally, the following verses states the sacrifice was done in the following manner.