Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:07 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:10 am 
Offline
Persephone

Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:26 pm
Posts: 340
Hey Acharya S. -- Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince's next book (2008) is going to be on the "real Christ".... oh no! haha. It's at the bottom of their bio page:

http://www.picknettprince.com/about.htm

I thought your revelation on John the Baptist coming from Oannes worship was brilliant and certainly puts the whole Templar conspiracy on John the Baptist, much the focus of Prince and Picknett, into perspective.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:09 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Thanks, Drew! I worked hard on that John/Oannes comparison in Suns of God.

Of course, from their last book we know the "real Jesus" was a FREEMASON, just like them. The Christ mythers are the only people who don't create a Jesus in their own image - unless we, of course, are myths... :twisted:

drew hempel wrote:
Hey Acharya S. -- Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince's next book (2008) is going to be on the "real Christ".... oh no! haha. It's at the bottom of their bio page:

I thought your revelation on John the Baptist coming from Oannes worship was brilliant and certainly puts the whole Templar conspiracy on John the Baptist, much the focus of Prince and Picknett, into perspective.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:27 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Freethinkaluva found the Origen quote at "Jewish-Christian gospels" site.

Here's my very literal translation of the Greek (Stephen's Textus Receptus) of Luke's prologue:
Quote:
Seeing that many had put their hand to set in order (anatassomai) a narrative (diegesis) about those things fulfilled (plerophoreo) among us, as they delivered them to us - they (hoi) who from the beginning (arche) became eyewitnesses and servants/preachers of the Word - it seemed to me also, having closely traced (parakoloutheo) from the beginning (anothen) all of the things exactly (akribos) in order (kathexes), to write to you, most excellent Theophilus…., which is being commented on by Origen, et al.

What Luke is basically saying is that "many" people before him had attempted to write the "narrative" that he himself is now composing. This narrative (of Christ's life and teachings) is being presented to "Theophilus," whose identity has never been satisfactorily explained according to the Christian timeline, but who is likely the bishop of Antioch at the end of the second century, adding to our evidence that Luke, et al., were written at that time.
Quote:
From Origen's "Homily on Luke 1.1":

Ecclesia quator habet evangelia, haeresis plurima, e quibus quoddam scribitur secundum Aegyptios, aliud iuxta duodecim apostolos.* ausus fuit et Basilides scribere evangelium et suo illud nomine titulare.

* Note that the Greek version has only το επιγεγραμμενον των δωδεκα ευαγγελιον (the gospel entitled of the twelve), omitting the apostles.

The church has four gospels, heresy many, from among which a certain one is written according to the Egyptians, another according to the twelve apostles. Even Basilides dared to write a gospel and to entitle it by his own name.


Although this translation is not very clear, since Origen is discussing Luke's prologue, the "many" he addresses must also be Luke's "many." Thus, in addressing Luke's prologue, Origen did indeed claim that the texts by the "many" Luke based his gospel on included the Gospel of the Egyptians and the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.

It is interesting that the Greek version omits the word "apostles," demonstrating once again that ancient authorities possess "variant readings." I.e., their writings, whether Christian or non-Christian, have been tampered with - Barbara Walker says NO ancient author's work in the possession of the Church that has come down to us unedited, although it would be difficult to say on what grounds she makes such a definitive statement. Certainly, we should be suspicious of ANY ancient text in copied over the ages by Christian scribes.

In any event, the Gospel of the Egyptians is a "heretical," non-canonical work traditionally dated to the middle of the second century, although I see the same tendency to make it earlier, into the first century (100-150 CE), probably because of comments like Origen's, which place its composition before that of Luke. The earliest mention of this gospel may be Origen, Epiphanius or Hippolytus, in the third century. I believe the earliest dating is mere wishful thinking, based on the a priori assumption that the events of the gospels really happened, and that Jesus truly made the sayings found within this gospel. Such deceptive dating of these apocryphal gospels appears to be a new fad, as the scholarship of the 19th century - which to me is far more scientific and honest on this subject - likely universally placed the emergence of this gospel in the second century. Certainly, Judge Waite was quite sure these were second century texts, dating the Gospel of the Twelve to 160 CE.

There appear to be at least two different Gospels of the Egyptians. In The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, Jean Doresse states:

Quote:
As we shall presently see, the Gospel of the Egyptians from the Chenoboskion library, in which there are two recensions of it, has nothing to do with the one that the heresiologists had heard of...


The "heresiologists" refer to the Christians such as Epiphanius and Clement of Alexandria, who wrote about heresies, heretics and heretical works.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Here is another translation of the pertinent text from Origen's Homily on Luke, from "The Development of the Canon":

Quote:
From Origen's Homily on Luke (1:1), according to the Latin translation of Jerome:

"That there have been written down not only the four Gospels, but a whole series from which those that we possess have been chosen and handed down to the churches, is, let it be noted, what we may learn from Luke's preface, which runs thus: 'For as much as many have taken in hand to compose a narrative' . The expression 'they have taken in hand' involves a covert accusation of those who precipitately and without the grace of the Holy Ghost have set about the writing of the gospels.

"Matthew to be sure and Mark and John as well as Luke did not 'take in hand' to write, but filled with the Holy Ghost have written the Gospels. 'Many have taken in hand to compose a narrative of the events which are quite definitely familiar among us'. The Church possesses four Gospels, heresy a great many, of which one is entitled 'The Gospel according to the Egyptians', and another 'The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles'. Basilides also has presumed to write a gospel, and to call it by his own name. 'Many have taken in hand ' to write, but only four Gospels are recognized. From these the doctrines concerning the person of our Lord and Savior are to be derived. I know a certain gospel which is called 'The Gospel according to Thomas' and a 'Gospel according to Matthias', and many others have we read - lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine that they posses some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the Church has recognized, which is that only the four Gospels should be accepted."

It is interesting that Waite did not mention this fuller account by Origen, which includes the gospels of Basilides, Thomas and Matthias.

The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles has been dated to c. 100-150 CE. Again, Waite dates it to 160. In any event, according to the conservative dating, Luke's gospel could not have been composed until after 100 CE, if Origen's assertions are correct.

Thomas's Gospel is dated to around 150 CE, while Basilides evidently flourished during the reign of Emperor Hadrian, 117-138 CE. Matthias's Gospel is dated also to the period of 100-150 CE.

It should be noted (again) that, as with the canonical gospels, the dating of these texts is not "set in stone." The preponderance of the evidence that I have seen over the years indicates a second century date, more towards the middle to end of the second century.

This website claims this translation is from Jerome's Latin of Origen's original passage. It would follow, then, that Jerome's quote according to Waite is accurate, since he is evidently building upon Origen's list.

Interestingly, on the Dawkins forum, where freethinkaluva posted some of the material found here, a Christian apologist has responded with a translation of Jerome's quote concerning this issue that is substantially different from that of Waite and appears to be based either on a different, interpolated Latin version or that is simply an incorrect English translation. That translation appears to claim that Jerome is stating that these "heretics" edited Luke's gospel, rather than Luke using their gospels. Such remarks by Jerome would be illogical, because the entire purpose of his commentary is to discuss who the "many" are that Luke is claiming to have used. As we can see from the above data, the most logical and scientific conclusion at this point is that Waite's translation is more accurate and that Jerome did in fact concur with Origen in his assessment that Luke used the works of these "heretics." There would be no reason for Origen to clarify that the difference between the works of the "heretics" used by Luke and Luke's gospel is that the heretics were not inspired, while the evangelists were inspired.

At this point, a conclusion may safely be reached that three different and important Church fathers asserted Luke's gospel was based on the writings of "heretics" traditionally placed in the second century.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:05 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:16 am
Posts: 7
I think this study is so interesting that it is addic..tive. I was wondering abou those older Aramic gospels referred to by Y..uri?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:18 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Thanks, Paul. I'm delighted you're enjoying this discourse. It's sort of like getting a peek into a workshop where someone is creating an objet d'art! Once the hard-copy edition of Who Was Jesus? is published, you will get to see the finished product. So, thanks for the encouragement. :P

Re Yuri's work, I haven't had a chance to study it all, and some of it seems to ramble. The subject of the Old Syriac texts seems to be quite interesting, and I will probably follow up on it to some degree in the relatively near future. A couple of agendas I believe I detected in Yuri's work need to be kept in mind: He appears to believe that Jesus is a historical character and that the gospel story is accurate, but that the Jewish aspect of Christ and the tale need to be emphasized. I may be wrong about the first part, but likely not.

As to the latter part, I suspect his insistence on the late dating of the canonical gospels serves to minimize the Hellenistic influence, with a strictly "Jewish" origin, based on the Old Syriac/Aramaic texts existing first.

To my knowledge, other than the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew, which constituted a book of sayings - a very important distinction - there is no evidence of the early existence of these other texts. The edition he's got posted there - the Curetonian and Sinaiticus - are from the 4th cent. In order to be of value to me, I would need to see a survey of where these texts differ from the Greek - and even then there are at least 150,000 "variant readings" in the Greek MSS, so that would be quite an undertaking for someone.

Paul Donohue wrote:
I think this study is so interesting that it is addic..tive. I was wondering abou those older Aramic gospels referred to by Y..uri?

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Matthew is Indian?
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:25 am 
Offline
Apollo
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:02 am
Posts: 351
Location: Bharathavarsham
Acharya wrote:
Since Biblethumpers love to translate the Bible into every language known to mankind, it would not surprise me if there were a Sanskrit rendition - what is the name of Matthew therein? Surely there are Hindi and Punjabi translations, how is Matthew render in those? What about Pali?

Of course, the word in the Greek "Textus Receptus" (the basis of the King James version) is "Matthaios," not "Matthew," but that begs the questions as to how it became "Matthew" in English and so on. According to Strong's "Matthaios" means "gift of Jehovah," which is in reality "gift of God," what does "Madhava" mean?



The Bible has been translated in all Indian languages and to the best of my knowledge, there should not be any change in the names therein. This is because all Indian scripts are designed in a way that you write exactly the way you pronounce, so Mathew will be Matthew and Mark will be Mark.

Perhaps for the sake of records, there is a Sanskrit translation too. But I would be really surprised if the Biblethumpers give any publicity to it. As a rule both muslims and christians are generally allergic to that language. A majority of them believe that their own religion and the authority of Arabic and Hebrew would get sullied or challenged if the books are renedered in Sanskrit. The more intelligent among them realise that such a translation doesn't serve any purpose since even in India only a small percentage of people are fluent in that.


The word Madhava is derived from Madhu which in turn is from the root Math (pronounced muh-th). Math means to churn, mix, knead etc. Madhu means something soft, dense, ball like, intoxicating, sweet and agreeable which is given after churning mixing etc. Honey is called Madhu and even the vernal equinox day is called as such with the first month of spring season being called madhu-maas often. Further derivative words include Medhas which means tissues in the body, bone marrow etc. Medulu means the dense part of the brain and medhavi means a wise and brainy person. In western languages you can find similar meanings in words like meade, medulla oblongata etc.

So Madhava could mean either a descendent of a person called Madhu or something derived from a product that would qualify to be called Madhu.

_________________
Janani Janmabhoomishcha Swargadapi Gareeyasi - Being near to your mother in your motherland is better than being in paradise

Ekavarnam yatha dugdham binnavarnasu dhenushu | tataiva dharmavaichitryam tatvam ekam param smritam ||
Just as milk is of only one colour though obtained from cows of different colours so also the peculiarities of different religious thoughts lead to the same one ultimate truth - Mahabharatha


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: bad words
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:40 am 
Offline
Jesus
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:37 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Charleston, WV
This forum does not like my language and will not allow me to post. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: the 80 year + gap
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:57 am 
Offline
Jesus
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:37 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Charleston, WV
The literary critics of the 19th century, in Germany especially, scrutinized gospel content to the new methodologies of exegesis, devastating the long- standing Church policy that the accounts were the product of eyewitness testimony within 20 years of the events in question. The earliest dating for gMark (often attributed with priority) is 68CE, and some extending gJohn and Luke Acts of the Apostles into the 2nd century. The revised dating by the literary critics is still accepted by the Vatican and most of the mainline Protestant churches. (Baptist, including Liberty U. and Pentacostal conferences still rely on bogus scholarship for the earlier datings.)

And yet, among the patristic apologists in the 2nd century until Irenaeus in 180, there is fragmentary and uneven mention of the gospel biographical details (from Minucius Felix and Athenagoras of Athens, none at all) and almost no mention of gospel accounts. Acharya deals with the 2nd and 3rd hand mentions of Papias in an earlier post.

Justin Martyr (ca. 155) writes of a Memoirs of the Apostles (possibly the heretical 12 Apostles mentioned by Origen) but specifically none of the 4.

We are forced to follow up with the question of what happened to the 4 gospels for a period of from 80 - 112 years? The excuse that they were in very regionalized circulation only may suffice for 20, 30, or even 40 years, but 80 or more? The admission that the gospel texts were not written by Apostles but only pseudepigraphically titled and authored later leads to the excuse that they were attributed with the authorship of our current understanding quite late. If that were so, would not the evangelistic apologists, always eager to offer any evidences to counter obnoxious detractors, been eager to cite earlier titles? Would not Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, or others who regaled the gospel accounts been eager to identify their earlier aliases for the reader, or otherwise account for an early provenance?

What evidence at all did the 19th century critics have for dating the 4 gospels in the 1st century CE?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: amended post accepted
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:05 pm 
Offline
Jesus
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:37 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Charleston, WV
I guess the driver accepted this amended post. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: bad words
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Neophyte wrote:
This forum does not like my language and will not allow me to post. :roll:


We have a spam filter set up with a bunch of words used by those trying to sell us Vi.agra, etc. That's why Paul's previous message with the word "addic.tive" was getting hung up. So far, none of my posts have been held back, so I guess I don't use bad words! :twisted:

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: the 80 year + gap
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:25 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
That's a great summary of the position, Neo. Thanks for posting it!

There is no evidence for the existence of the canonical gospels before the end of the second century. Papias has been dealt with here in this thread. In "The 'Historical' Jesus?" chapter of Suns of God, I analyzed Justin Martyr's work - building upon the exquisitely erudite opus Supernatural Religion by Walter Cassels and upon the work of Charles Waite, et al. - and have demonstrated that Martyr does NOT use the canonical gospels. The argument that the "Memoirs" is ONE text, e.g., the Gospel of the Hebrews (if I recall correctly), seems to be the most sensible one. The first person to indicate the existence of any canonical gospel is bishop of Antioch, Theophilus, around 170-80 AD/CE. He makes a very brief quotation of what appears to be John 1, and attributes it to an "inspired man named John." No mention of this John being a direct disciple or an apostle. Irenaeus around 180 CE is the first to name all four gospels.

As I posted earlier in this thread, the late second century dates given are based on the time when the canonical gospels clearly emerge in the historical record. Based on other evidence, including the law of accretion applied to Luke's gospel, with an eye to demonstrating it to have been based on Marcion's Gospel of the Lord, I am convinced it was THEN that the canonical gospels as we have them were composed, not decades before anyone heard of them. I think that argument is simply bogus and based on no evidence at all.

The "evidence" for dating the gospels to earlier than that, whether by 19th-century critics or by apologists, is internal only, based on the a priori assumption that the story really happened, during the era in question. The first-century dates for the canonical gospels constitute mere wishful thinking.

Neophyte wrote:
The literary critics of the 19th century, in Germany especially, scrutinized gospel content to the new methodologies of exegesis, devastating the long- standing Church policy that the accounts were the product of eyewitness testimony within 20 years of the events in question. The earliest dating for gMark (often attributed with priority) is 68CE, and some extending gJohn and Luke Acts of the Apostles into the 2nd century. The revised dating by the literary critics is still accepted by the Vatican and most of the mainline Protestant churches. (Baptist, including Liberty U. and Pentacostal conferences still rely on bogus scholarship for the earlier datings.)

And yet, among the patristic apologists in the 2nd century until Irenaeus in 180, there is fragmentary and uneven mention of the gospel biographical details (from Minucius Felix and Athenagoras of Athens, none at all) and almost no mention of gospel accounts. Acharya deals with the 2nd and 3rd hand mentions of Papias in an earlier post.

Justin Martyr (ca. 155) writes of a Memoirs of the Apostles (possibly the heretical 12 Apostles mentioned by Origen) but specifically none of the 4.

We are forced to follow up with the question of what happened to the 4 gospels for a period of from 80 - 112 years? The excuse that they were in very regionalized circulation only may suffice for 20, 30, or even 40 years, but 80 or more? The admission that the gospel texts were not written by Apostles but only pseudepigraphically titled and authored later leads to the excuse that they were attributed with the authorship of our current understanding quite late. If that were so, would not the evangelistic apologists, always eager to offer any evidences to counter obnoxious detractors, been eager to cite earlier titles? Would not Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, or others who regaled the gospel accounts been eager to identify their earlier aliases for the reader, or otherwise account for an early provenance?

What evidence at all did the 19th century critics have for dating the 4 gospels in the 1st century CE?

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: The Teaching Co.
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:47 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:16 am
Posts: 7
Today I was reading an ad for a course by Prof. Luke Timothy Johonson: Jesus and the Gospels. The featured lecture 25 highlights "It's important to note that the four canonical gospels are the earliest datable gospels. No historian has ever been able to challenge that proposition"
What do you think?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Teaching Co.
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Well, you know what I'm going to say! What absolute nonsense. :x See my next post.

Paul Donohue wrote:
Today I was reading an ad for a course by Prof. Luke Timothy Johonson: Jesus and the Gospels. The featured lecture 25 highlights "It's important to note that the four canonical gospels are the earliest datable gospels. No historian has ever been able to challenge that proposition"
What do you think?

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Thanks to the persistence of FTL, we've got the Latin of the pertinent Jerome quote that started this thread!

Quote:
Plures fuisse qui euangelia scripserunt, et Lucas euangelista testatur dicens Quoniam quidem multi conati sunt ordinare narrationem rerum, quae in nobis completae sunt, sicut tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio ipsi underunt sermonem et ministrauerunt ei, et perseurantia usque ad praesens tempus monumenta declarant, quae a diuersis auctoribus edita, diuersarum haeresium fuere principia, ut est illud iuxta Aegyptios et Thomamet Matthiamet Barthlomeum duodecin quoque apostolurm et Basilids atque Apellis ac reliquorum, quos enumerare longissimum est, cum hoc tantum in praesnetiarum necesse sit dicere, extitisse quosdam, qui sine spiritu et gratia dei conati sun magis ordinare narrationem, quam historiae texere ueritatem.


At the moment, I am unable to give enough attention to translating this lengthy passage, but I can state that Waite's rendition appears to be accurate overall:

Quote:
The evangelist Luke declares that there were many who wrote the gospels, when he says, "forasmuch as many," etc. (c. 1, v. 1), which being published by various authors, gave rise to several heresies. They were such as that according to the Egyptians, and Thomas, and Matthias, and Bartholomew, that of the Twelve Apostles, and Basilides, and Apelles, and others which it would be tedious to enumerate.--[Hieron, Praef. in Comm. in Matth.]


Waite has truncated Luke's prologue with the notation in parentheses. There is one phrase that gives pause about what Jerome's meaning is: "quae a diuersis auctoribus edita." In another translation, this phrase has been rendered to make it appear as if Jerome is saying that these "heretics" edited Luke's gospel, which makes no sense in the context of addressing the "many" upon whose works Luke based his gospel.

The pertinent part from another translation that came with the Latin, from a book entitled History of the New Testament Books, is as follows, picking up after Luke's prologue:

Quote:
...and up to the present time they are declaring with perservance the records which have been published by diverse authors as the beginnings of diverse heresies: as, for instance, "those" [Gospels] according to the Egyptians and [according to] Thomas and Matthias and Bartholomew, and also [that] of the twelve Apostles and of both Basilides and Apelles and of the rest, which to enumerate is too long, since presently this only would be necessary to state, that there existed some who have attempted, without the Spirit and grace of God, to draw up a story rather than to defend the truth of history.


Here the author has translated the phrase "quae a diuersis auctoribus edita" as "which have been published by diverse authors." (Emph. added) The sense is given, then, that these texts - the gospels of the Egyptians, Thomas, Matthias, Bartholomew, the Twelve Apostles, Basilides and Apelles, et al., do indeed represent the "many" upon which Luke said he based his gospel. The other sense given by translating the word "edita" - i.e., that these heretics edited Luke's gospel, makes no sense in any event, since it doesn't follow that Jerome would even bring up the subject, unless he were attempting to identify those works Luke is discussing. Moreover, Jerome's qualification of "presently this only would be necessary to state, that there existed some who have attempted, without the Spirit and grace of God, to draw up a story rather than to defend the truth of history" implies that he is attempting to differentiate between these "many" of Luke - i.e., Thomas, Matthias, Basilides, et al., - and the evangelist by saying the latter were not inspired.

The word "edita," in fact, is related to "editio," which refers to a published work, not an "edited" one.

To be continued...

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group