In other words, a questionable conspiracy. Tertullian's statement is laughable as evidence Stephan but you are so intent on supporting this thing that you clutch onto it like a newborn baby.
My explanation to the well attested phenomenon of equating 'my gospel' = written gospel - one which you refuse to acknowledge - is to seriously consider the Marcionite claim that the four gospels were forgeries of a text still in their possession. The idea that Matthew and Luke are forgeries of Mark is well attested in modern scholarship. The question then is whether Mark also was a forgery of something more original. I don't see that as a 'conspiracy theory' given that (a) the forgery of subsequent synoptic gospels is obvious and (b) it is an attested opinion in antiquity. I am not 'inventing' a position, merely examining one that is generally ignored for obvious apologetic reasons.
It comes down to whether you accept Mark is ur-gospel or something else. The testimony of Marcion, Clement, Tertullian's source makes clear that canonical Mark can't be the source Paul is speaking about in Galatians. As such I look for an ur-Mark in the possessions of the Marcionites (cf. Philosophumena 7.18). Again at every turn my position is supported by evidence not assumptions of my parents and Christian Congregationalists as in your case Ted. You don't even know the reasons why you believe what you believe, you just believe them because it's yours.
who refers to a written gospel without quoting it, mentioning the author, or describing it as a written work, when he has concurrently clearly referred to the gospel as an oral message? https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... spanend=54
In due course Robert j. My discussion with Ted is leading in that direction (an examination of Clement's testimony). Unless I have a pretty woman wanting to fuck me I rarely jump at the opportunity to serve anyone. Be patient.
who refers to a written gospel without quoting it, mentioning the author, or describing it as a written work
Clement of Alexandria and clearly (or implicitly) the Pauline heretics of Tertullian's Prescriptionem. Why don't you demonstrate to me one attestation for τὸ εὐαγγέλιον applying to an oral tradition outside of Christianity? That would be a start since you see it as 'natural' that readers of the text would read Paul that way.
Speaking of the Didache - While these instances seem to suggest a written work as a source, the language is admittedly equivocal (Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, 1:411; Did., 8.2, 11.3, 15.3, 15.4). however, David Warren has uncovered an unambiguous reference to “the reading of the holy Scripture, which the christians call the Gospel,” within a Syriac copy of an apology written to the emperor hadrian by the christian apologist before 125 CE.
It's going to be hard for you to trump that my friend. Considerable scholarly attention has been devoted to this subject. That's the clearest and earliest witness.
Here is some more reading (hardly 'conspiracy minded') to give you some context to Marcion and the problem of the development of the concept of 'written gospel' - http://books.google.com/books?id=DXiKAA ... 22&f=false
Your tendency in these discussions here at the forum (like many) is to have a 'go to list' of things which are absolutely true and which you will not consider swaying from regardless of the early attestation to the idea. To be a real seeker of truth you have to be a whore. You can't have principles. If they want to fuck you in the ass, 'okay let's see what that is like.' If the whole football team wants to gangbang you 'ok, let's see what that is like.' Whips, chains - same thing. No principles allowed in the search for truth. No preconceptions, no rules just seeking and exploring. In the end, experiencing every possible possibility is the goal.
a better thread discussion now might be - does Irenaeus really contradict the idea that Paul knew of Luke? Isn't that what might be implied by the sidebar discussion in the letters about Paul asking people to pass on a codex to someone else? http://books.google.com/books?id=sse_R- ... rs&f=false the first 'collection' of Pauline writings (= the Marcionite) certainly included a gospel. Why must we assume that 'before that' the collection was letters only? What evidence is there to support that contention other than convenience?