Arthur Drews on Jesuan Parables and Teaching Speeches

May 2011
2,724
Rural Australia
#11
Drews is out of date
Drews was a continuator of Bruno Bauer who had concluded that early Christianity owed more to ancient Greek philosophy (Stoicism) than to Judaism. Bauer also concluded that Paul was fabricated. Bauer's important works are still unavailable in English, or expensive. My claim that Drews is still useful is based on what as I see as a merit in taking a stance of radical skepticism to church dogma being paraded as history.

You say new discoveries like the Nag Hammadi codices make Drews redundant. But what new insights have modern scholars added to our understanding of the "Gnostic Gospels" and the like? Modern scholarship still follows Eusebius and church dogma in the face of these new discoveries.

As for the 180 date, there is indirect evidence from Justin Martyr , mentions the memoirs of the apostles, which seem to be referring to the gospels, and makes several quotes/references that appear to come from the canonical.gospels. While he does not name the memoirs, so it is not entirely certain if he has just the canonical Gospels in mind, it does provide independent support for their existence, it does not admittedly prove anything for certain.
We must be all very much aware that the earliest manuscript attributed to Justin Martyr (c.100-165) is parisinus graecus dated 11 September 1363. I do not regard this manuscript to be independent of the church since it (and any earlier mss) were preserved by the church. For this reason I reject the notion that 180 CE is a terminus ad quem for the appearance of the canonical gospels in the Roman empire.
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#12
Drews was a continuator of Bruno Bauer who had concluded that early Christianity owed more to ancient Greek philosophy (Stoicism) than to Judaism. Bauer also concluded that Paul was fabricated. Bauer's important works are still unavailable in English, or expensive. My claim that Drews is still useful is based on what as I see as a merit in taking a stance of radical skepticism to church dogma being paraded as history.

As.an extreme skeptic he is ok, but his claim that the parables were from the Talmud are way off base. The Talmud is much idfferent in style, and it was written much later than.thr Gospels,. Even the most extreme skeptic can't put a date of the Talmud before the Gospels.

You say new discoveries like the Nag Hammadi codices make Drews redundant. But what new insights have modern scholars added to our understanding of the "Gnostic Gospels" and the like? Modern scholarship still follows Eusebius and church dogma in the face of these new discoveries.
In many cases, he is all.we have, but things like the dating of the 4 Gospels aren't dependent on him, nor for.most of the events in the first generation of believers.

I.am.thinkinf of his claims for the origins of the parables and much of the New Testament. When you read the Dead Sea Scrolls, you can see that Jesus of the Gospels comfortably falls.in with first century Apocalyptic Judaism once you ignore the post Easter editing. His language echos that of the apocalyptic Jews, and his ideas of a coming judgement that was coming very soon. The gospel have tone dosn Jesus apocalyptic, but it is still there. Drew did not have the advantage of seeing the Dead Sea Scroll literature.

We must be all very much aware that the earliest manuscript attributed to Justin Martyr (c.100-165) is parisinus graecus dated 11 September 1363. I do not regard this manuscript to be independent of the church since it (and any earlier mss) were preserved by the church. For this reason I reject the notion that 180 CE is a terminus ad quem for the appearance of the canonical gospels in the Roman empire.
[/Quote]

There are also the letters of Clements and other earlier Church Fathers writers like Ignacius who seem to use something like our gospels at times.

The Internal evidence clearly support a first century composition date for the Gospels. A 2nd century writer would unlikely know anything about an obscure Roman Governor like Pontius Pilate, and there is no logical for the writers of a different century to pick on that obscure a writer. Then the situation between the Jews and early Christians reflect t he first century rather than the 2nd century. Jews and Christianz are still tslkniing to each other by the second century they had gone their on ways. You can look at the Gnostics gospels, and the writers of them wouldn't know a Jew if they jumped up and down on them. The Infancy Gospel of St. Thomas shows no knowledge of genuine Jewish customs, while the canonical.Gospelz do, and they take the time to explain Jewish customs to their readers (at least Mark does).

Even by 65 AD, the Christians had become a primarily non Jewish Gentild groupk, Tacitus doesn't show any recognition that the Christians.had been Jewish group. Nor is there any evidence in Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan about the Christians that the Christians had any association with the Jews. By Pliny's time the apocalyptic fever seen earlier in the first century had gone. (Note, though, both Clement and the 2nd Century Christian Critic Celsus are well aware of Christianity Jewish roots. Celsus.crkticized the Jews, and Origen defended Jews against Celsus criticism.)

The languags of the canonical Gospels.also strong echo the language.of the first century Dead Sea Scroll. Like them, the book of Isaiah is a favorite with the Gospel writers and the numerous copies of Isaiah shows it was popular with the Dead Sea Scroll community as well. The Gospel writers know about Jewish groups like the Sadducees, that disappears after 70 AD. It is is very unlikely that a 2nd century writer would know anything about an extinct Jewish sect that had existing only in Judea and vanished decades earlier. Not only that, but the Gospels also get right the fact the Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection of the dead or after life, which was unusual for post Second Temple.Jews. Other non Christian sources such Josephus confirm this belief. All this shows that the Gospels are first century documents, not written down

As to when they had become accept as the primary gospels, Origen quotes. And references materials from them. In his reply to the critic Celsus, it apparent that Celsuz in the 2nd century knew of the Gospels. Origen shows Celsus clearly quoting and referring to material found only in the canonical Gospels. I don't find any evidence of him referring to non.canonical gospels.

1 Clement also quotes the Gospel of Mathew in 1 Clem.13.2, 15.2, 16.2 . In Clement the gospels and Pauls.letters are quoted with equal.authority to the OT. Dating of Clement is around 100.to 140 CE..
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#13
a. The parables

German radical critique Arthur Drews has refuted in detail the argument of the believers in the existence of Jesus that the supposed uniqueness of Jesus' parables is a certain proof of his existence. Thus many parables can be traced back to more or less similar stories in older Gnostic traditions or in the Talmud, which can hardly be suspected of having imitated the evangelistic parables. The parable of ´workers in the vineyard´, for example, can be found in analogous form in Berachoth 5:3, but with a much more reasonable punch line than his derivative in Mt 20:15 ff, where the vineyard owner acts like an irrational narcissist. Also the parable of ´royal wedding feast´ in Mt 22:1 ff. is not only based on a Talmudic model, but is considerably behind it in terms of logic and ethics. The Talmud was also the model for the parables of the lost sheep and the lost piece of silver.
Only a fool like Drew can think manuscripts created in the 1st century can magically borrow from the a text, the Talmud, that didn't exist until some 400 to 500 years later or from texts.thst didn't exist until the 2nd century. Gnostism.did nor arise until the 2nd century, and Jesus parables are in text that date from the 1st century. Had you done even the slightest research you would have known what Drew said was complete nonsense.

As for the teachings of the Jesus figure, the situation is not better. The basic problem here - of course - is the questionable authenticity of the sayings. Source Q, a hypothetical lost collection of sayings from which the authors of Mt and Lk are said to have drawn Mk as an alternative to their other source, stands on shaky legs as a guarantee of authenticity. Drews argues that if this collection had really contained genuine Jesus sayings, it would certainly have been guarded like a treasure
Again wrong. The Church rejected sayings without context. With a context for a saying, any given saying is much more open to interpretation. We can clearly see that in the Gospel.of St. Thomas, which is a sayings Gospel, and some of the same sayings have taken on a gnostic bent with just a slight change in wording. Putting sayings in context prevents that kind of thing from occurring. Furthermore, if Luke and Matthew incorporated all the sayings , the hen Q would have been redundant. The gospel of Mark was almost lost. Most of Mark can be found in either Luke or Matthew , and both used Mark as a source. If Mark had been lost, deemed unnecessary since it had nothing not found in Luke or Matthew, we would have been in the same boat as with Q. As it was, Mark had the fewest copies and the original ending of Mark appears to have been lost, the current ending of Mark neither grammatically correct in Greek, or thematically making sense. Some later but stil ancient copies attempted to add their own ending to compensate for the missing original ending. Most modern bibles have these added endings with a footnote.


and, moreover, numerous backup copies would have been made of it. Instead, Q seems not only to have been lost, but also forgotten for centuries, and it has been reserved for critical modernist biblical scholars to rediscover it - speculatively.
.

Further nonsense from Drew. As I said, the same thing almost happened to Mark, despite being the main source for both Like and Matthew. Mark had the fewest copies since most of it was contained in Luke and Matthew. Once the saying of Q were incorporated into the other Gospels it would have been redundant and unnessary.

According to Drews, many teachings lack both wisdom and originality. They are far from reaching the fine dialectic of Socrates.
Since we clearly established Drew thinks manuscripts can borrow from a text that would not created until centuries in the future, his opinion is not worth much

The fact that Pharisees and Sadducees are so easily taken by surprise by Jesuan rhetoric has a propagandistic fictional effect. They thus follow the pattern of the princes in the 29th chapter of the Book of Job, who can only stand silent and open-mouthed in the face of Job's speeches.
Again not true. Jesus is nothing like Job and his speeches and neither are the Pharisees and Sadducees. Jesus repeatedly is offered option A or B, both a no win situation, but cleverly gives unexpected answer C which turns the tables on his opponents. For example the question he was asked about paying taxes to the Romans was seemingly a no win situation. If he answered No, the Romans would arrest him for subversion, if he said yes the people would leave him for being a Roman toady. But Jesus cleverly gets out of the trap with his famous "Render unto Cadsar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" Since coin he showed had Caesar's image on it, nobody could complain since it was Caesar's coin, and the Romans were happy. When the Sadducees tried to make him look like a fool with a question about the future resurrection of the dead (which they did not believe and thought.absurd), Jesus once again turn the tables on them and made them the fools. That thing just does not happen Job. Jesus' opponents are rendered speechless because he managed to escape from what they had thought was an inescapable trap. That is a typicslly and uniquely Jesus kind of thing. When asked about whose son was the cause of a man born blind, the man's or his parent's (illness assumed to be the result of some sin), Jesus as usual gives a completely different answer "so the work's of God may be made manifest", and promptly heals the man. And the episode cleverly leads in discussion of how Jesus could not have healed the man if Jesus was not from God, thus further proving Jesus was from God and also pointing out that Jesus power to heal came from God.


Jesus' love for the weak and the lowly, as emphasized by theologians, is shown in Psalm 8 and in the Halach, the Kidushin and the Tanchuma of the Talmud, as exemplified by the children, birds and flowers in his speeches.
Once again Drew is wrong. Jesus is valuing children in a way the Psalms.snd all the other source do not. Jesus says each child has a guardian angel that daily stands before the face of God, that is really saying children are highly valued in a way that is way higher than the other documents.

And Jesus talked to Martha and has as mature a theological discussion with her as with any man at the tomb of her brother, demonstrating the value of women and their understanding. And Jesus has a rather deep snd sophisticated conversation with the woman at the well. Jesus values all people, women, children, the outcast and even the elite. The only people he had harsh words for were the self righteous Pharisee who thought they were better than any one and refused to see theh were just as much flawed humans as any one.
The fact that Jesus accentuates his God as ´father´ to a much greater degree and thus goes far beyond the traditional Jewish image of God is a standard theological argument that does not stand up to reality.
Actually it does hold up to scrutiny. The term Jesus uses is much more intimate and less formal than used by in the Psalms and other places . Unfortunately that distinction is lost from the Greek.

The ideal of charity propagated by Jesus is likewise not originally Christian, but borrowed from Deuteronomy, the Book of Leviticus and the Book of Tobias. In addition, it contradicts its numerous threats of eternal hell torment for all possible supposed offenses, including the rejection of his doctrine (e.g. Mk 6:11; Mt 10:15; Mt 12:23), which also runs completely counter to the love for ´enemies´ (Mt 5:44)
.

Jesus gave them a choice, and we all have live with our choices. If you reject what he has to offer , then why should you complain. As a private citizen I am.to turn the other cheek, but in my official role.as a cop. I might have to use force to uphold the law. In his private capacity he promotes turn the other cheek, but he has an official capacity as judge. We often have to do things our official position than our private one. Smart people understand this which apparently leaves Drew.out.

More over, Jesus often talked figuratively and this talk of punishment may be one of those times. When Jesus told his disciples " beware the bread of the Pharisees", he did not mean literal bread, although his disciples.thought that.

Nowhere in the Jesuan speeches is the artificiality of a Jesus figure, sewn together from legends, more evident than in this contradiction, unless .....The problem is aggravated by the fact that the Jewish tradition does not even know an eternal hell punishment, which is introduced into the Jewish discourse only by Jesus, the supposed "Prince of Peace".
Jesus demonstrates.real personality quirks that are far from.artificial. This demonstrated that Drew's lack.of even the most basic understanding. We have different functions we perform,. and our actions are different depending on what role and function we are performing at the time. My role judge is different from my role as father , husband. Jesus is the same


IFurthermore it can only be regarded as authentic with an unjustifiable advance of trust in texts (the 4 gospels) which, apart from the aforementioned inconsistencies and improbabilities, are only historically attested from 180 CE, thus about 100 years after their alleged origin.
It is it your words or Drew's that I have been reponding to? They aren't in quotation marks , so you seem to endorse them. In any case 1 Clement was quoting and paraphrasing from the canonical Gospels , and 1 Clement is generally dated.around 100 AD, and Clement treats them with the same authority as the OT.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#14
@ Kookaburra Jack;

My Latin is almost non existent, could you explain the meaning of . "terminus ad quem' ?

" I do not regard this manuscript to be independent of the church since it (and any earlier mss) were preserved by the church."

Fascinated and happy for new (to me) dates for the gospels. However ,I don't think that idea holds water .I say this because the church ,in the forms of its monasteries,. preserved and protected a vast array of knowledge, with at least some in conflict with church teachings. I think the preservation of the Justin Martyr document implies, but does not allow an inference of Church approval.

Without such approval, how credible is the document ?.

I am not intentionally pissing in your porridge, I really want this document to be credible
 
May 2011
2,724
Rural Australia
#15
As.an extreme skeptic he is ok, but his claim that the parables were from the Talmud are way off base. The Talmud is much idfferent in style, and it was written much later than.thr Gospels,. Even the most extreme skeptic can't put a date of the Talmud before the Gospels.
We were given in the OP the year that Saint Justin mentions "the memoirs" at 180 CE
Judah ha-Nasi - Wikipedia (135-217 CE)

The Mishnah consists of 63 tractates codifying Jewish law, which are the basis of the Talmud. According to Abraham ben David, the Mishnah was compiled by Rabbi Judah the Prince in anno mundi 3949, or the year 500 of the Seleucid era, which corresponds to 189 CE.[20]

There is little difference between 180 and 189 CE, especially considering Judah's redaction may have drawn on earlier writings.


RE: JUSTIN

In many cases, he is all.we have, but things like the dating of the 4 Gospels aren't dependent on him, nor for.most of the events in the first generation of believers.
My point is that all of these dogmatic and tradional datings are not independent of church preserved literature.

There are also the letters of Clements and other earlier Church Fathers writers like Ignacius who seem to use something like our gospels at times.

The Internal evidence clearly support a first century composition date for the Gospels. A 2nd century writer would unlikely know anything about an obscure Roman Governor like Pontius Pilate, and there is no logical for the writers of a different century to pick on that obscure a writer. Then the situation between the Jews and early Christians reflect t he first century rather than the 2nd century. Jews and Christianz are still tslkniing to each other by the second century they had gone their on ways. You can look at the Gnostics gospels, and the writers of them wouldn't know a Jew if they jumped up and down on them. The Infancy Gospel of St. Thomas shows no knowledge of genuine Jewish customs, while the canonical.Gospelz do, and they take the time to explain Jewish customs to their readers (at least Mark does).

Even by 65 AD, the Christians had become a primarily non Jewish Gentild groupk,
This is dogma not history. I reserve the right to be guided by evidence which the church cannot have tampered with.
This is what I mean by independent. Independent of the church. Letters and extracts from Clement were sill being forged by the church in the 9th century..


Tacitus doesn't show any recognition that the Christians.had been Jewish group.
At last an author supposedly independent of the church, however...

Not one writer Christian or profane cites Tacitus' "Christian reference" before the Tacitus manuscript was suddenly and unexpectedly discovered in the archives of the 15th century church. I therefore insist that there is a significant probability that this reference may not in fact be genuine.

{quote]Nor is there any evidence in Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan about the Christians that the Christians had any association with the Jews. By Pliny's time the apocalyptic fever seen earlier in the first century had gone. [/quote]

We may likewise have sufficient reason be critically skecptical of the Pliny Trajan correspondence.

(Note, though, both Clement and the 2nd Century Christian Critic Celsus are well aware of Christianity Jewish roots. Celsus.crkticized the Jews, and Origen defended Jews against Celsus criticism.)
The writings of Origen in which we find Celsus were ultimately sourced in Eusebius' wonderful "history of the church".

church dogma.


The languags of the canonical Gospels.also strong echo the language.of the first century Dead Sea Scroll. Like them, the book of Isaiah is a favorite with the Gospel writers and the numerous copies of Isaiah shows it was popular with the Dead Sea Scroll community as well. The Gospel writers know about Jewish groups like the Sadducees, that disappears after 70 AD. It is is very unlikely that a 2nd century writer would know anything about an extinct Jewish sect that had existing only in Judea and vanished decades earlier. Not only that, but the Gospels also get right the fact the Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection of the dead or after life, which was unusual for post Second Temple.Jews. Other non Christian sources such Josephus confirm this belief. All this shows that the Gospels are first century documents, not written down
But all this cannot be established using historical evidence which can be evaluated to be independent of the church.

Moreover there is good scholarship to substantiate the claim that the NT borrowed from Stocism and copy/pasted greek from the Christianised Greek LXX to the Greek NT (Brodie et al). Skeptical criticism leaves open the possibility that the NT was the product of a literary school engaged in creating the nationalistc literature and holy writ for the nation of christians. What of the historical possibilities if the NT was so fabricated much later than the 1st or even 2nd centuries?

What is the TERMINUS AD QUEM (latest possible date) for the authorship/appearance of the gospels ?
 
May 2011
2,724
Rural Australia
#16
@ Kookaburra Jack;

My Latin is almost non existent, could you explain the meaning of . "terminus ad quem' ?
Latest possible date.

" I do not regard this manuscript to be independent of the church since it (and any earlier mss) were preserved by the church."

Fascinated and happy for new (to me) dates for the gospels. However ,I don't think that idea holds water .
Based on what evidence?
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#17
@Kookaburra Jack

"Based on what evidence?"

No hard evidence I'm afraid. I was playing devil''s advocate with my reasoning. That is to say, Church protection is implied by your argument, , but may not be inferred as a truth statement, in my opinion..

---- the church ,in the forms of its monasteries,. preserved and protected a vast array of knowledge, [especially during the so-called dark ages] with at least some in conflict with church teachings. I'm thinking especially of ancient Greek writings, especially philosophy. I think the preservation of the Justin Martyr document implies, but does not allow an inference of Church approval.

I don't pretend expertise in this area, so will accept if you tell me I'm factually incorrect..

Not fussed. My basic position is maintained regardless . IE There are no contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus. His historicity remains unproven. I accept his existence as probably, or not improbable.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#18
We were given in the OP the year that Saint Justin mentions "the memoirs" at 180 CE
Judah ha-Nasi - Wikipedia (135-217 CE)

The Mishnah consists of 63 tractates codifying Jewish law, which are the basis of the Talmud. According to Abraham ben David, the Mishnah was compiled by Rabbi Judah the Prince in anno mundi 3949, or the year 500 of the Seleucid era, which corresponds to 189 CE.[20]

There is little difference between 180 and 189 CE, especially considering Judah's redaction may have drawn on earlier writings.
Except we also have the 1 Clement, written around 100 CE, quoting/praphrasing the canonical Gospels, and that is well before your Misnah reference. Further, we don't have a copy of the Mishah by itself, and all copies of he Talmud are much later than copies of the gospel.

The basis for the claims of the Mishnah, Abraham ben David, was.from the 12th century! If what church fathers.say writing a mere couple centuries later, how much more suspect is a Jewish writer writing 1000 years later. There is no justification for.your assumption thatJewish sources were any more reliable than Church ones or.any less.bias. . The claims.a writer a 1000 yars after the fact are.less the o be trusted than Iraneus writing in 180 CE. Other than Abraham ben David, we have no evidence that the Mishnah actually dates from that time. You seem to have a double.standard, accepting Jewish sources at face value, but hyper skeptical.ld Christian ones. 189 AD is when the Mishnah was said to be compiled, while 180 is merely the date we have an explicit reference to the 4 Gospels. You are comparing apples and oranges. The date comparable to the Gospel 180 AD date is Abraham ben David's 11th century date, or the 5th century date of the Talmud, both well after 180 AD.


My point is that all of these dogmatic and tradional datings are not independent of church preserved literature.
Same.is true for the Jewish sources, more so. We having but late Jewish sources that attest to the Rabbinic traditions and literature, and bacing read the Talmud, I can attend there is nothing in it that attest to a 2nd century date. The Mishnah lacks accurate historical details that are found in the gospels.

This is dogma not history. I reserve the right to be guided by evidence which the church cannot have tampered with.
Yet you accept whategrr Jewish writers wrote. You clearly have 2 standards, which makes you anri-Christian, not just skeptical.. You trust a 12th centudy Jewish source, but reject all Christian ones, even thouth the time gap is far less for th Christian sources. We rely exclusively on Jewish sources for the Talmud, what makes them less bias? The key feature or the Talmud, the Oral Law, not supported by any ancient writer. Josesphus wrote extensively about Jewish customs and beliefs but makes no mention of it, and if the idea had existed in his day, he would have mentioned it in his writings. Likewise, the early Christia
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#19
We were given in the OP the year that Saint Justin mentions "the memoirs" at 180 CE
Judah ha-Nasi - Wikipedia (135-217 CE)

The Mishnah consists of 63 were codifying Jewish law, which are the basis of the Talmud. According to Abraham ben David, the Mishnah was compiled by Rabbi Judah the Prince in anno mundi 3949, or the year 500 of the Seleucid era, which corresponds to 189 CE.[20]

There is little difference between 180 and 189 CE, especially considering Judah's redaction may have drawn on earlier writings.
Except we also have the 1 Clement, written around 100 CE, quoting/praphrasing the canonical Gospels, and that is well before your Misnah reference. Further, we don't have a copy of the Mishnah by itself, and all copies of he Talmud are much later than the gospels.

Moreover Abraham ben David wrote in the 12th century, and his work is only attested to by Jewish sources. The information about the Mishnah is far worse than the gospel and just as bias.

And the comparison date with the Gospels should be the 6th century date of the Talmud, or the 12th century date of Abraham ben David. The 180 date is when we have definitive testimony of the Gospels, and it is not until the Talmud was composed that we have definitive evidence for the Mishnah, and the attestation of thr Mishnah as a work is 12th century by ben David.


My point is that all of these dogmatic and tradional datings are not independent of church preserved literature.
Neither is the Talmud, Mishnah or the Jewish works independently attested to.

Since all our our copies of ancient works were made by Christian scribes, and you dismiss any non Christian and work like Tacitus as a forgery , you set an impossible high standard. You say their are no independent sources because you label every non Christian sources you disagree with as a forgery, like Pliny.



This is dogma not history. I reserve the right to be guided by evidence which the church cannot have tampered with.
This is what I mean by independent. Independent of the church. Letters and extracts from Clement were sill being forged by the church in the 9th century..
You set an impossible standard, since all.our copies of ancient manuscripts were made by Christian scribes. As a result you can and do accuse any ancient text that you disgree with a forget, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, etc.

Not one writer Christian or profane cites Tacitus' "Christian reference" before the Tacitus manuscript was suddenly and unexpectedly discovered in the archives of the 15th century church. I therefore insist that there is a significant probability that this reference may not in fact be genuine.
Why should they have quoted Tacitus? The existence of Jesus and what he did we're not in doubt, and Tacitus was highly critical of Christians.

Are you arguing all of Tacitus was a fogery, even though only 1% of his work talks about Christians? And if it was just an interpolation into a genuine work, where is the evidence of of that, other than it undermines your pet theory?

We may likewise have sufficient reason be critically skeptical of the Pliny Trajan correspondence.
On what basis, because what it says contradicts your bet theory? Again, you are asserting Christians fabricate sn entire work just to add a few references. Basically, any non Christian source by your standards are automatically labeled forgeries and all Christian sources are labeled a forgery as well. Anything you disagree with is a forgery as well.


The writings of Origen in which we find Celsus were ultimately sourced in Eusebius' wonderful "history of the church".
Not true. Origen writings did not come from Eusebius manuscripts as you claim.

Moreover there is good scholarship to substantiate the claim that the NT borrowed from Stocism and copy/pasted greek from the Christianised Greek LXX to the Greek NT (Brodie et al).
Your opinion, not shared by other scholars. Simply because they self proclsim they ate good does not make it so. You think Drew is good and he is crsp.

Skeptical criticism leaves open the possibility that the NT was the product of a literary school engaged in creating the nationalistc literature and holy writ for the nation of christians. What of the historical possibilities if the NT was so fabricated much later than the 1st or even 2nd centuries?
To accept a 2nd century date or later requires asserting dozens of texts are all forgeries as well. One or 2 forgeries, sure, but everything? No.

What is the TERMINUS AD QUEM (latest possible date) for the authorship/appearance of the gospels ?
100 CE with the works of 1 Clement. While some of the later letters are forgeries, each work needs to be judged on its own merit. Because some of Da Vinci works are forgeries does not mean all are forgeries as your logic says.
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#20
@Kookaburra Jack

"Based on what evidence?"

No hard evidence I'm afraid. I was playing devil''s advocate with my reasoning. That is to say, Church protection is implied by your argument, , but may not be inferred as a truth statement, in my opinion..

---- the church ,in the forms of its monasteries,. preserved and protected a vast array of knowledge, [especially during the so-called dark ages] with at least some in conflict with church teachings. I'm thinking especially of ancient Greek writings, especially philosophy. I think the preservation of the Justin Martyr document implies, but does not allow an inference of Church approval.
I don't pretend expertise in this area, so will accept if you tell me I'm factually incorrect..

Not fussed. My basic position is maintained regardless . IE There are no contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus. His historicity remains unproven. I accept his existence as probably, or not improbable.

You say there is no contemporary accounts of Jesus only because you have those writings which were contemporary as forgeries. Paul cleary testifies to the existence of Jesus as a real person, so.you have to reject all.of Paul's letters.as forgeries to maintain your claim

There does not seem any good reason to reject letters like Corinthians as inauthentic other than Han he circular argument that since Jesus did not exist, the letters must be inauthentic.?
 

Similar History Discussions