Débat sur l’authenticité des lettres de la recension moyenne
En 1979, le philologue ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
La thèse de R. Joly ne convainc cependant pas tout le monde. Par exemple, W. R. Schoedel la rejette en 1980** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Reinhard M. Hübner en 1997** you do not have permission to see this link **.
En 2000, C. Moreschini et E. Norelli écrivent : « La majorité des savants (à laquelle nous nous rallions) n’a toutefois pas accepté ces propositions ; aucun élément décisif n’oblige à considérer comme un faux tout ou partie de la recension moyenne des lettres d’Ignace (cf. Munier cité dans la bibliographie** you do not have permission to see this link ** déclare ne pas trouver convaincants les arguments contre l’authenticité, mais il ne les discute pas.
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
What did you mean by saying that Bart “refuses a biblical professional discussion of the authenticity of 1 Clem and the letters of Ignatius”.
information was in French with nice icon –
I think you misunderstood the French. I suspect all the author was referring to is that Bart, in his introduction to his critical text and English translation, does not discuss the question of authenticity other than to briefly state that he does not find the arguments against authenticity convincing. No doubt because it is a fringe theory that has not gained much credibility among scholars.
Yes, You right. Sorry Bart released Apostolic Fathers 2003. Zwierlein is 2009 and 2012. 1995 Detering. That’s why I asked you if Bart had read/review Zwierlein’s books
Jarek said
Whatever one may say about the rest of the NT writings, one thing is true – they were written by ghost writers who had no copyright on the texts. Except for the Apocalypse. As a result, these texts were edited and supplemented many times. Until finally they were given a false author’s attribution and over time were considered authoritative, and finally they edition process was shut down by the creation of the NT.
What was given a false author’s name? The final edition? or all the many previous editions and supplements were collectively attributed with the false author’s name?
Newlogos said
I was not clear on the third Forgery. Yes, I think a redactor may have added this later. No Christian authors produced “theories” or “theologies” in 60 CE. Paul’s authentic epistles have many theologically sound passages, but they don’t contain the kind of deliberate theology that doesn’t appear until the Gospel of John, which dates from 90–95 CE.
How about 1 Cor 8:6?
“yet for us there is one God the Father from whom all things and we to him and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things and we through him.”
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
What did you mean by saying that Bart “refuses a biblical professional discussion of the authenticity of 1 Clem and the letters of Ignatius”.
information was in French with nice icon –
I think you misunderstood the French. I suspect all the author was referring to is that Bart, in his introduction to his critical text and English translation, does not discuss the question of authenticity other than to briefly state that he does not find the arguments against authenticity convincing. No doubt because it is a fringe theory that has not gained much credibility among scholars.
Yes, You right. Sorry Bart released Apostolic Fathers 2003. Zwierlein is 2009 and 2012. 1995 Detering. That’s why I asked you if Bart had read/review Zwierlein’s books
“En 2013** you do not have permission to see this link ** déclare ne pas trouver convaincants les arguments contre l’authenticité, mais il ne les discute pas.”??? Maybe You can ask Bart ..
brenmcg said
Jarek said
Whatever one may say about the rest of the NT writings, one thing is true – they were written by ghost writers who had no copyright on the texts. Except for the Apocalypse. As a result, these texts were edited and supplemented many times. Until finally they were given a false author’s attribution and over time were considered authoritative, and finally they edition process was shut down by the creation of the NT.
What was given a false author’s name? The final edition? or all the many previous editions and supplements were collectively attributed with the false author’s name?
I honestly don’t know at what stage. The Diatessaron shows the “authorship” of the gospels that are in the making.
Robert said
Jarek said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
What did you mean by saying that Bart “refuses a biblical professional discussion of the authenticity of 1 Clem and the letters of Ignatius”.
information was in French with nice icon –
I think you misunderstood the French. I suspect all the author was referring to is that Bart, in his introduction to his critical text and English translation, does not discuss the question of authenticity other than to briefly state that he does not find the arguments against authenticity convincing. No doubt because it is a fringe theory that has not gained much credibility among scholars.
Yes, You right. Sorry Bart released Apostolic Fathers 2003. Zwierlein is 2009 and 2012. 1995 Detering. That’s why I asked you if Bart had read/review Zwierlein’s books
When did you ask me if Bart had read/reviewed Zwierlein’s books? Sorry, I must have missed that question. I have no idea if Bart has read Zwierlein.
“En 2013** you do not have permission to see this link ** déclare ne pas trouver convaincants les arguments contre l’authenticité, mais il ne les discute pas.”??? Maybe You can ask Bart ..
Ask him what? If he has read the arguments that he does not find convincing? Why don’t you just ask him yourself, whatever questions you have?
I asked you when you first proposed a debate. It was a different topic
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
What did you mean by saying that Bart “refuses a biblical professional discussion of the authenticity of 1 Clem and the letters of Ignatius”.
information was in French with nice icon –
I think you misunderstood the French. I suspect all the author was referring to is that Bart, in his introduction to his critical text and English translation, does not discuss the question of authenticity other than to briefly state that he does not find the arguments against authenticity convincing. No doubt because it is a fringe theory that has not gained much credibility among scholars.
Yes, You right. Sorry Bart released Apostolic Fathers 2003. Zwierlein is 2009 and 2012. 1995 Detering. That’s why I asked you if Bart had read/review Zwierlein’s books
When did you ask me if Bart had read/reviewed Zwierlein’s books? Sorry, I must have missed that question. I have no idea if Bart has read Zwierlein.
“En 2013** you do not have permission to see this link ** déclare ne pas trouver convaincants les arguments contre l’authenticité, mais il ne les discute pas.”??? Maybe You can ask Bart ..
Ask him what? If he has read the arguments that he does not find convincing? Why don’t you just ask him yourself, whatever questions you have?
I asked you when you first proposed a debate. It was a different topic
Jarek said
I honestly don’t know at what stage. The Diatessaron shows the “authorship” of the gospels that are in the making.
But what do you think is happening? Are the previous editions being “erased”? is it only the updated editions and supplements which then get copied? Does the editing cease when the false authorships have been attributed?
brenmcg said
Jarek said
I honestly don’t know at what stage. The Diatessaron shows the “authorship” of the gospels that are in the making.
But what do you think is happening? Are the previous editions being “erased”? is it only the updated editions and supplements which then get copied? Does the editing cease when the false authorships have been attributed?
They have probably been replaced by subsequent editions due to wear and tear. The first to name the authors of the gospels was Irenaeus of Lyons
Robert said
Jarek said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
Jarek said
Yes, You right. Sorry Bart released Apostolic Fathers 2003. Zwierlein is 2009 and 2012. 1995 Detering. That’s why I asked you if Bart had read/review Zwierlein’s books
When did you ask me if Bart had read/reviewed Zwierlein’s books? Sorry, I must have missed that question. I have no idea if Bart has read Zwierlein.
I asked you when you first proposed a debate. It was a different topic
Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom – around 52
Ah, OK. Actually you asked me what they would debate if Bart had not written any reviews for Otto’s books?
Yes.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert