Ehrman became an Evangelical Christian as a teenager. In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[2]

From wiki

I propose we go easy on Ehrman because he might quite easily go mythicist! It looks to me as if he has a huge amount of baggage to sort through!

Agrippas wrote:No need to review any theories on my account, dejuror.

I think we all agree that much of the great body of Christian literature from both the first and second century – right up to the time of Eusebius, in fact – has been destroyed or lost, where not outright fraudulent from the start.

I do not agree that the Jesus story and cult started in the 1st century. I am dealing with actual existing evidence. I can only argue that the Jesus story and cult started in the 2nd century or later.

That is EXACTLY what I expected--no evidence for the Jesus story and cult in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

I cannot examine the evidence that you believe is missing and cannot assume your supposed missing evidence supports your argument.

Why would there be missing evidence of the Jesus story and cult if there was no story and cult in the 1st century?

Agrippas wrote:Justin Martyr refers to the Memoirs or Recollections of Peter, which can only refer to the Gospel of Peter.

Justin Martyr mentioned the Memoirs of the APOSTLES--Not the Recollections of Peter.

Justin Martyr's First Apology

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them...

Agrippas wrote:Tertullian, similar to the way Irenaeus strives elsewhere to confound the Gospel of Paul with that of Luke (likewise aiming to boost the credence of the canonical gospels), endeavors to identify the Gospel of Peter with that of Mark: “The gospel which Mark published, is affirmed to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was.”

There are multiple Apologetic sources that CONTRADICT Tertullian's "Against Marcion".

1. Aristides' Apology does not acknowledge Paul or the Pauline Corpus and claimed it was the 12 disciples who preached the Gospel to the world.

2. Justin Martyr did NOT mention Paul or the Pauline Corpus but he mentioned Marcion and his teaching.

3. Hippolytus mentioned Marcion and admitted that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline Corpus but used the writings of Empedocles.

4. Irenaeus put forward the argument that Jesus was crucified when he was about 50 years old around c 50 CE which would suggest that Paul could NOT have preached crucified c 37-41 CE or since the time of King Aretas.

5. Origen admitted Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul. Celsus wrote "True Discourse" around c 180 CE.

6. In the Muratorian Canon it is claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation by John.

7. The Pauline Corpus was NOT used in the conversion of Caecillius in Minucius Felix "Octavius".

8. The Pauline Corpus was NOT referenced when Justin mentioned his own conversion to Christianity.

9. In the late 3rd century, Arnobius in "Against the Heathen" did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

10. Virtually all Apologetic and non-Apologetic sources which mentioned Paul know a story of Jesus but NOT all Apologetics and non-Apologetics who knew a story of Jesus mentioned Paul.

There is simply no good evidence that the Pauline Corpus was composed pre 70 CE.

The Gospel of Peter also goes by the name the Recollections of Peter, and Justin Martyr often resorts to the word ‘memoir’ in place of ‘gospel’; whereas many of his quotations are in fact said to have originated in the Gospel of Peter. In the Dialogue (around 160 AD), Justin furthermore states: “The mention of the fact, that Christ changed the name of Peter, one of the apostles, and that the event has been recorded in his (Peter’s) Memoirs…”

Origen (230 AD), in his commentary on Matthew, also mentions the Gospel of Peter: “There are some”, says he, “who say the brethren of Christ were the children of Joseph, by a former wife, who lived with him before Mary; and they are adduced to this opinion by some passages in that which is entitled the The Gospel of Peter…”

You seem to think that the notions to do with Jesus sprang up out of nowhere some time in second century, whereas they evolved over some period of time prior thereto. As mentioned previously, even the Gospel of the Hebrews (possibly originating a few year prior to 125 AD), comprised a compilation of manuscripts already in existence.

You speak of a ‘Jesus cult’, but which Jesus and what cult?

I already mentioned the Gnostic-styled spiritualism of Paul and Clement, whereas there’s no evidence that either of the two gospels in question taught the immaculate conception, or the material resurrection of Christ, or contained any account of his miracles, or made any reference to any other writing containing such elements. In fact, the event that Christ was begotten of a virgin through the agency of the Holy Ghost doesn’t appear to receive a mention in heathen, Christian, or Jewish history until more than a century after it is alleged to have taken place.

Many sources no doubt refute Tertullian’s ‘Against Marcion’, yet I fail to see how this dispels the fact that he did mention or authenticate the existence of a gospel by Peter.

Prior to Marcion’s compilation (embracing ten of Paul’s Epistles), it’s doubtful whether Paul’s Epistles were generally well known or accepted. As mentioned, Paul was rejected by most of the Jewish Christians. I believe that the early German scholars whittled the number of genuine ones down to four, whereas the Dutch Radicals cast doubt on Galatians and Romans.

Justin Martyr doubtlessly had his own reasons for not mentioning Paul or of making little of Marcion’s revealed Paul’s Epistles, even though Wikipedia does state: “Reflecting his opposition to Marcion, Justin's attitude toward the Pauline epistles generally corresponds to that of the later Church. In Justin's works, distinct references are found to Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr

As for Justin Marty, many others no doubt also purposely or otherwise failed to mention Paul, or his works, but this hardly does away with Marcion’s publication, or the part played in the formation of the Christian religion.

Wikipedia on the Muratorian Canon: “The unidentified author accepts four Gospels, the last two of which are Luke and John, but the names of the first two at the beginning of the list are missing. Also accepted by the author are the Acts of the Apostles and 13 of the Pauline Epistles (the Epistle to the Hebrews is not mentioned in the fragment). The author considers spurious the letters claiming to have Paul as author that are ostensibly addressed to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians. Of these he says they are "forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment

Agrippas wrote:The Gospel of Peter also goes by the name the Recollections of Peter, and Justin Martyr often resorts to the word ‘memoir’ in place of ‘gospel’; whereas many of his quotations are in fact said to have originated in the Gospel of Peter. In the Dialogue (around 160 AD), Justin furthermore states: “The mention of the fact, that Christ changed the name of Peter, one of the apostles, and that the event has been recorded in his (Peter’s) Memoirs…”

I just showed that Justin claimed the Memoirs was written by the Apostles--Not Peter. There are at least 11 references to the Apostles as the authors of the Memoirs in Justin's" First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho".

There is NO Memoirs of Peter in Justin's First Apology or Dialogue with Trypho.


1. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them

2. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles

3. we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God.

4. they spake in mockery the words which are recorded in the memoirs of His apostles.

5. He kept silence, and chose to return no answer to any one in the presence of Pilate; as has been declared in the memoirs of His apostles.

6. 'Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,' is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles..

7. For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood.

8. And this is recorded to have happened in the memoirs of His apostles.

9. they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles.

10. a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles.

11. those things which were published in His name among all nations by the apostles.

I did not assert Justin’s Dialogue contained Peter’s Memoirs, dejuror – merely that he authenticated its existence.

Anyway, you’ve yet to clarify which particular Jesus or cult you seek to substantiate through “actual existing evidence”. The Jewish Christians, for example, steadfastly maintained throughout most of the second century that their Jesus, relative to later orthodoxy, was in fact fairly ordinary.

Also, by insisting that you’re only interested in dealing in hard second century evidence, you face quite a task.

The more so since of the more than fifty books written expressly about the gospels than in circulation, and by more than twenty authors, not a single complete one has been permitted to see the light of later centuries. All those writings to which a historian would naturally turn to for information and commentaries concerning the gospels are lost or destroyed without exception, bar such portions purposely preserved in support of what became the reigning orthodoxy, or those otherwise tampered with and extensively interpolated. Similar applies right up to the year 325, as well as to all the copies of the gospels themselves, with Eusebius here in effect acting as some kind of gate-keeper.

For instance, consider the Chronicles of Hegesippus from around 185 AD. Hegesippus, the first church historian, traveled all over Christendom solely to obtain information, before writing the history of the church from the beginning to his own time. Eusebius, 140 years later, the next historian, had the history of Hegesippus before him, yet only condescends to studiously leave us no more but a few meager items of relatively little historical value.

Thus, not a word of what really counted was allowed to be known of the historical progress of the church, of the doctrines which had prevailed, of the controversies between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, of the founding of the Church of Rome, and above all of the gospels and New Testament books which Hegesippus found in circulation. As far as we know, Hegesippus was completely silent about the four canonical gospels, speaking only of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Yet despite the relatively recent existence of the now superior and authoritative canonical gospels, thus overriding more traditional forms, Eusebius would have us believe that Hegesippus derived his information on apostolic doctrine from tradition.

Christian honesty probably suffered no greater loss than in the destruction of the writings of Marcion, theological thinker, compiler of the first complete gospel, collector of Paul’s Epistles, and publisher of the first New Testament. As a collector of gospel and New Testament manuscripts, his writings would forever have stilled the question as to what gospels were actually in circulation.

Some of the other writings by notable authors lost or destroyed include the Commentaries of Basilides in 24 books (125 AD), the Apologies of Quadratus (126 AD), the writings and Gospel of Valentinus (150 AD), the work of Justin Martyr Against Heresies, the writings of Apelles and Peregrinus (160 AD), etc, etc.

And although, except for the Gospel of John, that is, there’s no mention of the four gospels before 185 AD, there’s solid reason to believe that they came into being during the fifteen years prior thereto. Perhaps this is the kind of evidence you’re looking for, dejuror?

They seem to have been written as part of the structure on which universal Catholic dominion was to rest, as particularly noticeable in the Gospels of John and Matthew, and the Acts of the Apostles. The Gospels of Luke and Mark may well have been mostly composed independent of church hierarchy: Luke to counter the influence of Marcion, and Mark in order to preserve some of the older traditions of the church, and which had been in circulation in various forms, especially in the Gospel of Peter.

The Gospel of John settled in fine language the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus, other than indicating the unity of the church under Peter. The Gospel of Matthew, even more explicitly, laid the foundations for the establishment of supreme papal power, on the authority of Christ as delegated to Peter. And Acts of the Apostles nicely bridged over the differences that had so long existed between the followers of Peter and Paul.

Agrippas wrote:I did not assert Justin’s Dialogue contained Peter’s Memoirs, dejuror – merely that he authenticated its existence.

Thank you Agrippas.

Would you please give us the link to the Greek passage where it is asserted that Justin "authenticated" existence of "Peter's Memoirs".

I have very limited experience reading Justin Martyr, and do not claim expertise. I am not seeking to repudiate your notion. But, I have encountered a distinction between an English translation of other patristic texts, and their supposed Greek, "original" version. I have observed insertion of words, in English, which change the meaning of the sentence, written in Greek. To a certain extent, one can make the same claim about Jerome's Latin Vulgate, as well. But, in my opinion, not a fact, the English language versions tend to be less credible than Jerome's Latin version of the same Greek passage, from GMark, by way of illustration.

The best for us, I believe, would be two links, one to the Greek original where Justin Martyr cites the disciple Peter by name, and the second to the English translation. Absent such input, I would argue, that dejuror is correct, for my own, faulty recollection, is that neither Matthew, nor any other Gospel author is named, in Justin Martyr's Apologies or Dialogue, even though, several of the sentences appear to overlap with the text found in the Gospel of Matthew. Of course, we lack a proper history of the provenance of our sole extant copy of the Greek original. This, single, combined text of Justin Martyr comes from an Italian monastery copied in the fourteenth century. There is a report of a new discovery of a fragment of six lines, dating from 4th century, but otherwise, we just have to accept the Greek text from the 14th century Paris Codex 450.
http://bricecjones.weebly.com/1/archives/10-2013/1.html

Can you furnish the links so that we can confirm your claim? Thanks

There appears to be some argument as of the appearance of the first gospels. Aren't they all copies of copies of copies, and all that entails and the christians themselves doing most of the copying?

Reading Andrew Simms 'Cancel the Apocalypse". He quotes Seneca

what is the proper limit to a person's wealth? First, having what is essential, and second having what is enough

(OK, I think he was one of the mega-rich then!)

What does this say about the teachings of Jesus?

Was he original? Or are we looking at a carefully crafted work in GMark that also discusses ethical issues, and uses a character named the anointed saviour? The other gospels and Paul then riffed this in other directions, and later generations institutionalised it into a religion, because political parties did not exist.

On Martyr, if we are looking at 14th century versions, what was stopping monks "translating" by using very well known phrases from the New Testament? Why do we accept any alleged relationships?

angelo wrote:There appears to be some argument as of the appearance of the first gospels. Aren't they all copies of copies of copies, and all that entails and the christians themselves doing most of the copying?

Yup....Exactly....

Clive Durdle wrote:On Martyr, if we are looking at 14th century versions, what was stopping monks "translating" by using very well known phrases from the New Testament? Why do we accept any alleged relationships?

One small point Clive: 14th century version (singular--one text containing all three of the greek masterpieces: Dialogue plus Apology x 2).
What I find interesting, given the obvious editing that is clear, is the relative LACK of insertion of significant doctrinal material, into Justin Martyr's writings. Maybe it was inserted, and I am simply unobservant.

I find NOTHING, for example, of substance, from Paul, and only a smattering of Mark's gospel. The bulk of the quotations seem to be from Matthew. I have read a recent exchange between two forum members over at the Peter Kirby site, and one of them, ficino by name, makes the point which I had not observed, until reading his thread on Justin Martyr, that Paul's text to Galatians bears a striking resemblance to the text of Dialogue with Trypho. Indeed, some of the words, in sequence, are identical in both documents. So, there may have been some scribal manipulation, in that monastery in Italy, in the 14th century, during the Inquisition. If one reads the two texts, comparing the Greek versions, the text which overlaps is, in my opinion, insignificant, theologically. On the point of dissimilarity, that thread's participant noted that Paul highlights Abraham, while Justin Martyr's text focuses, for that particular issue, on Moses.

That issue concerned the need for interpreting/following the dicta outlined in Deuteronomy 26. Well, in context, one supposes, that Paul's "foolish Galatians", running back to Judaism, because of its strict adherence to Moses' laws, would need some kind of reminder--Abraham's faith serving as the best metaphor. Justin Martyr, on the other hand, had been engaged in a firefight with a brilliant adversary, and he needed to lay down the law, and so offered Moses, according to a participant in that thread. For our discussion, regarding Clive's comment, it seems to me, that if any forum participant had been paid to duplicate Justin Martyr's text, with instructions to "improve" it, wherever possible, we would most likely have attempted to quote Paul, and offer a specific reference to his text. That Justin Martyr apparently chose not to do that, suggests to me, that he may not have known of Paul's writings, or if he did possess them, he apparently didn't find them especially significant. I have not yet encountered, in perusing the text of Trypho, Peter or Paul, by name.

Agrippas wrote:I did not assert Justin’s Dialogue contained Peter’s Memoirs, dejuror – merely that he authenticated its existence.

Justin Martyr's writings do NOT authenticate texts called Peter's Memoirs. You used a single ambiguous mention of Peter when there are multiple passages which clearly identified that the Memoirs as a product of multiple apostles.

Agrippas wrote:Anyway, you’ve yet to clarify which particular Jesus or cult you seek to substantiate through “actual existing evidence”. The Jewish Christians, for example, steadfastly maintained throughout most of the second century that their Jesus, relative to later orthodoxy, was in fact fairly ordinary.

You are yet to present actual contemporary evidence for YOUR Jewish Christian who believed the Jesus story that Jesus was the Christ. Jews did not admit the advent of the Christ up to at least c133 CE.

Agrippas wrote:Also, by insisting that you’re only interested in dealing in hard second century evidence, you face quite a task.

You face an impossible task. You have developed a theory WITHOUT contemporary evidence.

My theory is developed WITH the actual existing evidence and can be reviewed when new evidence is found.

You assume there is pre 70 CE EVIDENCE and presume the supposed evidence only supports your un-evidenced theory.

Agrippas wrote:.
... the notions to do with Jesus ... evolved over some period of time prior [to the 2nd century].

As mentioned previously, even the Gospel of the Hebrews (possibly originating a few year prior to 125 AD), comprised a compilation of manuscripts already in existence.
.

I agree notions of a messiah (with a key redacted one eventually being called Jesus) seem to have evolved over a long period of time: they dn not seem to have just spring up with one or two key early 'gospels'


This is noteworthy, too -

Agrippas wrote:Prior to Marcion’s compilation (embracing ten of Paul’s Epistles), it’s doubtful whether Paul’s Epistles were generally well known or accepted. As mentioned, Paul was rejected by most of the Jewish Christians. I believe that the early German scholars whittled the number of genuine ones down to four, whereas the Dutch Radicals cast doubt on Galatians and Romans.

RealityRules wrote:I agree notions of a messiah (with a key redacted one eventually being called Jesus) seem to have evolved over a long period of time: they dn not seem to have just spring up with one or two key early 'gospels'

Joseph Smith's Mormon religion sprang up. Marcionism sprang up. The Simonians sprang up.

There is NO EVIDENCE the Jesus cult sprang up before c 70 CE.

RealityRules wrote:This is noteworthy, too -

Agrippas wrote:Prior to Marcion’s compilation (embracing ten of Paul’s Epistles), it’s doubtful whether Paul’s Epistles were generally well known or accepted. As mentioned, Paul was rejected by most of the Jewish Christians. I believe that the early German scholars whittled the number of genuine ones down to four, whereas the Dutch Radicals cast doubt on Galatians and Romans.

Some whittled the number of genuine ones down to zero. Why does not anyone take note that Scholars and Theologians have already admitted that the Entire Pauline Corpus are not authentic?

Surely there is NO actual existing Pauline writings that have been recovered and dated to anytime before c 70 CE.

Even in the NT itself the Pauline writers and the author of Acts did not claim the letters were composed before c 70 CE.

Who told people that the Pauline Corpus was composed before c 70 CE and what corroborative source was employed?

It was NOT the Pauline writers themselves.

It was NOT the author of Acts.

It was NOT the author of 2nd Peter.

Who???!!!

tanya wrote:

Agrippas wrote:I did not assert Justin’s Dialogue contained Peter’s Memoirs, dejuror – merely that he authenticated its existence.

Thank you Agrippas.

Would you please give us the link to the Greek passage where it is asserted that Justin "authenticated" existence of "Peter's Memoirs".

I have very limited experience reading Justin Martyr, and do not claim expertise. I am not seeking to repudiate your notion. But, I have encountered a distinction between an English translation of other patristic texts, and their supposed Greek, "original" version. I have observed insertion of words, in English, which change the meaning of the sentence, written in Greek. To a certain extent, one can make the same claim about Jerome's Latin Vulgate, as well. But, in my opinion, not a fact, the English language versions tend to be less credible than Jerome's Latin version of the same Greek passage, from GMark, by way of illustration.

The best for us, I believe, would be two links, one to the Greek original where Justin Martyr cites the disciple Peter by name, and the second to the English translation. Absent such input, I would argue, that dejuror is correct, for my own, faulty recollection, is that neither Matthew, nor any other Gospel author is named, in Justin Martyr's Apologies or Dialogue, even though, several of the sentences appear to overlap with the text found in the Gospel of Matthew. Of course, we lack a proper history of the provenance of our sole extant copy of the Greek original. This, single, combined text of Justin Martyr comes from an Italian monastery copied in the fourteenth century. There is a report of a new discovery of a fragment of six lines, dating from 4th century, but otherwise, we just have to accept the Greek text from the 14th century Paris Codex 450.
http://bricecjones.weebly.com/1/archives/10-2013/1.html

Can you furnish the links so that we can confirm your claim? Thanks

The paragraph by Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho (ch. 106), about 160 AD, runs thus, tanya: “The mention of the fact, that Christ changed the name of Peter, one of the apostles, and that the event has been recorded in his (Peter’s) Memoirs, together with his having changed the name of two other brethren, who were sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, tended to signify that he was the same through whom the surname Israel was given to Jacob, and Joshua to Hosea.”

I believe that the change of name to Boanerges is also mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, showing the close connection between that gospel and Peter’s.

I believe it’s a translation from the writings of Epiphanius. Alas, I don’t have a link to any Greek version. It’s your prerogative of course to favour whatever argument suits you the best – we all do!

In lieu of the date – 160 AD – it would be remarkable indeed were we to come across mentions of Matthew, Mark, John or Luke – any commonality merely signifies that these writers had access to the same or almost similar manuscripts.

For example, the First Epistle of Clement of Rome has twenty passages similar to those in the NT Epistles, and five almost identical to those in the canonical gospels. Does this demonstrate that Clement had access to those same gospels? Of course not: merely that the writers had access to the same or similar documents; in this case the Oracles or other manuscripts containing sayings of Jesus.

Previously I stated that the canonical gospels were “‘written” – bad wording on my part. Other than for the Gospel of John, an original work, they were for the most part re-tailored compilations of manuscripts already in existence (over two dozen or so for Matthew alone), notwithstanding such additions as the authors themselves saw fit to make.

dejuror wrote:

RealityRules wrote:I agree notions of a messiah (with a key redacted one eventually being called Jesus) seem to have evolved over a long period of time: they dn not seem to have just spring up with one or two key early 'gospels'

Joseph Smith's Mormon religion sprang up. Marcionism sprang up. The Simonians sprang up.

There is NO EVIDENCE the Jesus cult sprang up before c 70 CE.

RealityRules wrote:This is noteworthy, too -

Agrippas wrote:Prior to Marcion’s compilation (embracing ten of Paul’s Epistles), it’s doubtful whether Paul’s Epistles were generally well known or accepted. As mentioned, Paul was rejected by most of the Jewish Christians. I believe that the early German scholars whittled the number of genuine ones down to four, whereas the Dutch Radicals cast doubt on Galatians and Romans.

Some whittled the number of genuine ones down to zero. Why does not anyone take note that Scholars and Theologians have already admitted that the Entire Pauline Corpus are not authentic?

Surely there is NO actual existing Pauline writings that have been recovered and dated to anytime before c 70 CE.

Even in the NT itself the Pauline writers and the author of Acts did not claim the letters were composed before c 70 CE.

Who told people that the Pauline Corpus was composed before c 70 CE and what corroborative source was employed?

It was NOT the Pauline writers themselves.

It was NOT the author of Acts.

It was NOT the author of 2nd Peter.

Who???!!!

As demonstrated for tanya, Justin Martyr indeed attests to the existence of the Gospel of Peter, dejuror. Your somewhat nonsensical, flat-out denials seem to signify little. Besides, there exist a host of other like attestations, including by Origen

Then, we can argue about the dating (possibly prior to 100 AD) but most scholars deem the First Epistle of Clement of Rome to be genuine, and it certainly contains plentiful mention of Paul and his Epistles. If in place of unsupported and repetitive denials, you care to mention a few authoritative scholars who likewise consider it spurious, I’d pay more attention. Aren't you trying to make the facts fit your theories, rather than vice versa?

In light of the role they played in the formulation of Christianity, the genuineness of Paul’s Epistles doesn't seem that crucial. For my part I’m quite happy to treat them as a collection of religious propaganda written by different, but like-minded parties/individuals (and without a ‘Paul’ amongst them).

Clive Durdle wrote:Reading Andrew Simms 'Cancel the Apocalypse". He quotes Seneca

what is the proper limit to a person's wealth? First, having what is essential, and second having what is enough

(OK, I think he was one of the mega-rich then!)

What does this say about the teachings of Jesus?

Was he original? Or are we looking at a carefully crafted work in GMark that also discusses ethical issues, and uses a character named the anointed saviour? The other gospels and Paul then riffed this in other directions, and later generations institutionalised it into a religion, because political parties did not exist.

One thing is pretty well beyond doubt, Clive: Paul’s Epistles came before the canonical gospels (Marcion’s work – published some time in Rome before 150 AD – included ten of them).

There were many gospels before Mark (a veritable flood of them from about the second or third decade of the second century onward, including a raft of apocalyptic ones). Ask a hundred scholars and receive a hundred different answers, but it’s quite on the cards that Luke’s Gospel was in fact compiled before Mark’s.

The Church of Rome and others were already pretty well established before the Gospel of Mark came along. The canonical gospels, together with laying down the law on the date for Easter celebration (resulting in the excommunication of certain Eastern Churches and their Bishops), served to extend the Church of Rome’s rule across the Empire (beyond the borders of merely Italy, that is).

Has anyone done a clade diagram of all this, with probabilities?

Do we have two separate species, epistles about christs, which seem to have been collected by Marcion, and good news stories about anointing saviours. I read somewhere that many allegedly xian works use the term Lord and not Jesus or Christ.

Would Luke be then a joining work, bringing together the traditions?

Agrippas wrote:The paragraph by Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho (ch. 106), about 160 AD, runs thus, tanya: “The mention of the fact, that Christ changed the name of Peter, one of the apostles, and that the event has been recorded in his (Peter’s) Memoirs, together with his having changed the name of two other brethren, who were sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, tended to signify that he was the same through whom the surname Israel was given to Jacob, and Joshua to Hosea.”

You have MIS-REPRESENTED what is found in Justin's Dialogue With Trypho. You have demonstrated how interpolations were carried out. You inserted a word that is NOT found in Dialogue with Trypho 106

The Phrase "his (Peter's) Memoirs" is NOT there. It is "the Memoirs of Him". You deliberately inserted the word ( Peter's) to mis-lead.

The passage refers to the Memoirs of JESUS-- Not Peter.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder..

Now examine the whole passage. The word "Him" is written with a CAPITAL "H". In Dialogue with Trypho 106, all references to Him are about Jesus.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

"The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles.

The words are the following: 'I will declare Thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise Thee. Ye that fear the Lord, praise Him; all ye, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.'


And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.


And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

By the way, the Gospels are either forgeries or falsely attributed so it is hardly likely that there was an actual Gospel of Peter. The stories of Jesus called Gospels were most likely anonymously composed in the 2nd century or later.

Agrippas wrote:As demonstrated for tanya, Justin Martyr indeed attests to the existence of the Gospel of Peter, dejuror. Your somewhat nonsensical, flat-out denials seem to signify little. Besides, there exist a host of other like attestations, including by Origen

Again, there is NO actual evidence for any real person called called Peter and it has already been deduced that the Gospels in the Canon are all forgeries or falsely attributed.

You have No existing contemporary evidence of Peter and No evidence of a Gospel of Peter.

Even in the NT, in Epistles attributed to Peter there is NO mention that the author wrote a Gospel.

Even Apologetic writers admitted the so-called Gospel of Peter was NOT used in Apologetic writings.

Eusebius' Church History 3

The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them..

Agrippas wrote:Then, we can argue about the dating (possibly prior to 100 AD) but most scholars deem the First Epistle of Clement of Rome to be genuine, and it certainly contains plentiful mention of Paul and his Epistles.

Your claim is a fallacy. The Anonymous letter attributed to Clement does NOT state anywhere that Pauline letters were composed before c 70 CE.

The Anonymous letter was unknown up to the 5th century and could NOT have been written by the supposed Clement of Rome c 95 CE.

Clement was bishop of Rome c 69-79 CE according to Multiple sources.

1. Tertullian places Clement immediately after the death of the supposed Peter C 68-79 ce

2. Optatus places Clement as bishop of Rome c 69-79 CE.

3. Rufinus places Clement as bishop c 69-79 CE.

4. Augustine of Hippo place Clement as bishop c 69-79 CE.

5. The Chronography of 354 places Clement as bishop c 69-79 CE.

Agrippas wrote:If in place of unsupported and repetitive denials, you care to mention a few authoritative scholars who likewise consider it spurious, I’d pay more attention. Aren't you trying to make the facts fit your theories, rather than vice versa?

I deal with evidence--Not with so-called authority opinion. You have no actual existing evidence for your claims so you MUST Appeal To Authority.

If you would present actual existing evidence from antiquity then I would take you more seriously.

Agrippas wrote:In light of the role they played in the formulation of Christianity, the genuineness of Paul’s Epistles doesn't seem that crucial. For my part I’m quite happy to treat them as a collection of religious propaganda written by different, but like-minded parties/individuals (and without a ‘Paul’ amongst them).

The Pauline Corpus played NO role in the formulation of early Christianity. It was the story of Jesus in the short gMark.

Not one author of the Gospels and Non-Pauline Epistles in the Canon was influenced by the Pauline Corpus--NOT even a ten word phrase of a verse of the 13 letters of Paul is found in the ENTIRE NT.

The author of Acts wrote NOTHING of the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

The author of gMark claimed Jesus did not come to save but to CONFUSE so that people would would REMAIN in Sin.

Mark 4

unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see , and not perceive ; and hearing they may hear , and not understand ; lest at any time they should be converted , and their sins should be forgiven them.

The author of the James Epistle claimed Faith Without Works is DEAD.

James 2:20 KJV

But wilt thou know , O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

The Pauline Corpus was UNKNOWN in the early development of the Jesus cult.

agrippa wrote:
The paragraph by Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho (ch. 106), about 160 AD, runs thus, tanya: “The mention of the fact, that Christ changed the name of Peter, one of the apostles, and that the event has been recorded in his (Peter’s) Memoirs, together with his having changed the name of two other brethren, who were sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, tended to signify that he was the same through whom the surname Israel was given to Jacob, and Joshua to Hosea.”

I believe that you err.

http://www.logoslibrary.org/justin/trypho/106.html

Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 106:3 wrote:
3 ..... καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν μετωνομακέναι αὐτὸν Πέτρον ἕνα τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ γεγενημένον καὶ τοῦτο, μετὰ τοῦ καὶ ἄλλους δύο ἀδελφούς, υἱοὺς Ζεβεδαίου ὄντας, ἐπωνομακέναι ὀνόματι τοῦ Βοανεργές, ....

Here is a discussion between Bart Ehrman and Carl Conrad, on the significance of this word, ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, specifically addressing this issue, i.e. whether or not the text refers back to something written BY PETER, versus a text about or by Jesus, mentioning Peter, an apostle, with an unknown name earlier in his life.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... 55723.html

At the end of the day, one must acknowledge that AT BEST, the issue is cloudy. Why is it cloudy? There is no specific refutation of either hypothesis. The sentence, in Greek, is sufficiently abstract, to encompass both possibilities. This problem, in general, arises, with but one sole example from the ancient texts. What one needs, to affirm a "gospel of Peter", is a text, in hand, by Peter. Everything else is just fluff. Certainly, the text, in Greek, does NOT support your contention, agrippa. It doesn't really support my position, either. It is too ambiguous to be definitive. I would not be comfortable, emphasizing on this forum of skeptics, that Justin Martyr cites Peter's gospel, based on this text, which apparently puzzles, even renowned Greek scholars. The text is imprecise, agrippa. It does not affirm your contention.