The Scholarly Creation of Clerical Language, Terminology and Arguments to Control Agendas

[Peter Kirby]

I guess if I was to sum up my position it would be this.

Can we really stick to the dogmatic view that the four gospels were (a) just "texts" that the Church "naturally" stumbled upon or, as I would have it, (b) that the texts were "arranged" (a big word in Luke's preamble) together against a rival like Marcion's gospel? If you think (a) then there isn't much to say. But if (b) then canonical Mark has to be part of the false arrangement.

Alright, thanks for the summary; it does help to understand what you're saying.

It's a bit oafish for me to continue interjecting with doubts, so I'll just consider this perspective as I keep going along with my study.

[Secret Alias]

I think in common parlance the idea is "is there such a thing as a little infidelity?" Most people think any sign of cheating means he's a cheater.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

It would be nice if we had a sub-forum for Marcion's cry babies.

[Secret Alias]

The death of religion equalized the playing field. The fascists no longer enjoy an advantage in the field of the study of religion. They've now shifted to politics.

[Secret Alias]

To KK

So the orthodox "got it wrong" when they picked Matthew and Luke. But they found Mark, the supposedly pristine text from the first century, in the same garbage dump?

[Irish1975]

The fallacy of ‘NT Scholars’ is that they take Irenaeus’ canon as a non-negotiable starting point, while at the same time they blatantly distort his witness to an essentially UNITARY Gospel tradition. There is only ONE GOSPEL for Irenaeus, just as for Tatian, Justin, and Marcion. It was revealed by the one Word and the one Spirit “when he was made manifest unto men” IN FOUR FORMS. The 4-Gospel Book was given directly by Christ and his Spirit. For Irenaeus, only the HERETICS treated these “Gospels” as separate, stand-alone texts, that could be separated from each other. As soon as one such gospel was removed from its true divine origin in the 4-fold unity, it became FALSE or even BLASPHEMY.

John Knox explained this all very clearly in the 1940s. Nobody gave a shit. Trobisch demonstrated the unity of the tetraeuangelion in the manuscripts, and in their “redactional frame,” beyond a reasonable doubt. Centrist scholars like Goodacre, BeDuhn, Ehrman won’t even touch Trobisch, or mention his book in their bibliographies. The reason is simply that to do so would cause fatal harm to their whole way of doing things. The “Synoptic Problem” rests on the fallacy of taking the 4 canonicals as though they were individual documents that circulated independently of one another, were “likely” written at different times in different places, etc.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

The fallacy of ‘NT Scholars’ is that they take Irenaeus’ canon as a non-negotiable starting point, ....

On the contrary. The only ones who follow this view are Knox, Trobisch and you.

NT scholars question Irenaeus' claim, but you do not. You agree with Irenaeus that the four gospels are just one gospel, contrary to the obvious differences in content between these gospels.

[Giuseppe]

contrary to the obvious differences in content between these gospels.

there are differences and differences. Surely a Paulinist (=Mark) and a Jewish-Christian (Matthew) would do common front against an anti-demiurgist.

[Secret Alias]

I am not opposed to people saying that Irenaeus is reliable. I disagree with that assessment. But it is important that we make that assent explicit. That when you take in your arms the orthodox New Testament you accept Irenaeus's reliability and agree that he operated in good faith as a preserver of Christian texts. That you take at face value his statement that "it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church since the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth." If you accept that with "jazzed" up language to make it all sound scientific, fine. But at least admit it.

[Peter Kirby]

False dichotomy.