| Alistair 2008-01-30, 6:56 pm |
| On 30 Jan, 20:00, "roger.pea...@googlemail.com"
<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 7:16=A0pm, Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Heh. =A0Yes, that got away from me, in my desire to push nonsense right
> back again. =A0I'll try again:
>
> Those texts which are included in the list known in modern times as
> 'New Testament apocrypha' are not found listed as canonical in any
> early source. =A0There is no doubt whatever about that; anyone who
> disagrees gets to produce the source which gives the text in question
> as canonical. =A0Anyone who claims that texts considered canonical were
> excluded gets to produce the minutes of who did this and when. =A0(The
> whole canard does not reflect what we actually know about how the
> canon came into existence).
>
> The reason that nothing much was excluded is pretty simple. =A0Pretty
> much all the texts that had any reasonable claim to being apostolic
> were included in the NT.
>
> But forgery of pseudo-gospels by outsiders to try to confuse things
> has been a cottage industry from the 2nd century to our own day (there
> are several 'gospels' supposedly by Thomas, for instance, of varying
> dates). =A0I am always amused when people try to pretend that obvious
> frauds (which they tend not to have read) are in some way genuine
> products of the apostolic circle. =A0Usually it's just the false
> equivalence trick; a standard technique to confuse the dumb, put out
> by our Masters.
>
> But all these other texts reveal their later date by their dependence
> on the canonical gospels (at best) -- they can hardly have been
> written before documents that they quote verbatim. =A0They also reveal
> their spurious authorship because they peddle ideas which are not
> documented in the apostolic age, nor among the organisation that those
> apostles founded, but are instead clearly identifiable as products of
> later movements (of various complexions). =A0Fakes have to have these
> fingerprints; they're created to peddle some novel idea, and so a
> novel idea *must* be present in them. =A0And so indeed is the case.
>
> Note that there were some texts that do have genuine claims to emanate
> from the apostolic circle. =A0The gospel of the Hebrews is one. =A0But
> none of these have survived. =A0Those that have are crude frauds.
>
>
> That is because you are mis-informed (and why this one of out the
> hundreds of apocrypha? =A0Is this the DVC again?). =A0The pseudo-gospel of=
> Mary was never considered canonical in any of the apostolic churches.
> A look at its contents indicates that it emanates from some part of
> the 2nd century gnostic movement.
>
>
d[color=darkred]
>
>
> I do indeed know about Q, which of course is not a manuscript... <g>
>
> What we today suppose to be issues of style is not a reliable guide to
> authorship or construction, unfortunately, although always
> interesting. =A0Pardon me; I know that you are not likely to believe me,
> not least as you aren't educated enough (sorry, but you DID make this
> plain just now with your reference to Q) to do more than repeat
> whatever you read somewhere. =A0I do happen to know about this. =A0You
> will appreciate that I have little interest in shouting "DID...DIDN'T"
> to and fro.
>
I will admit that the Q manuscript does not exist but is a putative
document preceding two gospels and providing the source of common
texts in those gospels.
|