Quotes from "Bible: Myths and their Parallels in other religion" by TW Doane:
All the earliest external evidences points to the conclusion that thy synoptic gospels are non-apostolic digesis of spoken and written apostolic tradition, and that the arrangement of the earlier material in orderly form took place only gradually and by many essays.
-- T W Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)
Dr. Lardner says: "Even so late as the middle of the sixth century, the canon of the New Testament had not been settled by any authority that was decisive and universally acknowledged, but Christian people were at liberty to judge for themselves concerning the genuineness of writings proposed to them as apostolical, and to determine according to evidences."
-- T W Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)
Dr. Hooykaas, speaking of the four "Gospels," and "Acts," says of them: "Not one of these five books was written by the person whose name it bears, and they are all of more recent date than the heading would lead us to suppose."
-- T W Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)
Though Irenaeus, in the second century, is the first who mentions the evangelists, and Origen, in the third century, is the first who gives us a catalogue of the books contained in the New Testament, Mosheim's admission still stands before us. We have no grounds of assurance that the mere mention of the names of the evangelists by Irenaeus, or the arbitrary drawing up of a particular catalogue by Origen, were of any authority. It is still unknown by whom, or where, or when, the canon of the New Testament was settled. But in this absence of positive evidence we have abundance of negative proof. We know when it was not settled. We know it was not settled in the time of Emperor Justinian, nor in the time of Cassiodorus; that is, not at any time before the middle of the sixth century, "by any authority that was decisive and universally acknowledged; but Christian people were at liberty to judge for themselves concerning the genuineness of writings proposed to them as apostolical."
-- T W Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)
The biographers of Jesus, although they have placed him in a position the most humiliating in his infancy, and although they have given him poor and humble parents, have notwithstanding made him to be of royal descent. The reasons for doing this were twofold. First, because, according to the Old Testament, the expected Messiah was to be of the seed of Abraham, and second, because the Angel-Messiahs who had previously been on earth to redeem and save mankind had been of royal descent, therefore Christ Jesus must be so.
The following story, taken from Colebrooke's Miscellaneous Essays, clearly shows that this idea was general:
"The last of the Jinas, Vardhaman, was at first conceived by Devananda, a Brahmana. The conception was announced to her by a dream. Sekra, being apprised of his incarnation, prostrated himself and worshiped the future saint (who was in the womb of Devananda); but reflecting that no great saint was ever born in an indigent or mendicant family, as that of a Brahmana, Sekra commanded his chief attendant to remove the child from the womb of Devanda to that of Trissla, wife of Siddhartha, a prince of the race of Jensaca, of the Kayapa family."
In their attempts to accomplish their object, the biographers of Jesus have made such poor work of it, that all the ingenuity Christianity has yet produced, has not been able to repair their blunders.
The genealogies are contained in the first and third Gospels, and although they do not agree, yet, if either is right, then Jesus was not the son of God, engendered by the "Holy Ghost," but the legitimate son of Joseph and Mary. In any other sense they amount to nothing. That Jesus can be of royal descent, and yet be the son of God, in the sense in which these words are used, is a conclusion which can be acceptable to those only who believe in alleged historical narratives on no other ground than that they wish them to be true, and dare not call them into question.
-- T W Doane, Chapter XVII, "The Genealogy of Christ Jesus," Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)
All the earliest external evidences points to the conclusion that thy synoptic gospels are non-apostolic digesis of spoken and written apostolic tradition, and that the arrangement of the earlier material in orderly form took place only gradually and by many essays.
-- T W Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)
Dr. Lardner says: "Even so late as the middle of the sixth century, the canon of the New Testament had not been settled by any authority that was decisive and universally acknowledged, but Christian people were at liberty to judge for themselves concerning the genuineness of writings proposed to them as apostolical, and to determine according to evidences."
-- T W Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)
Dr. Hooykaas, speaking of the four "Gospels," and "Acts," says of them: "Not one of these five books was written by the person whose name it bears, and they are all of more recent date than the heading would lead us to suppose."
-- T W Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)
Though Irenaeus, in the second century, is the first who mentions the evangelists, and Origen, in the third century, is the first who gives us a catalogue of the books contained in the New Testament, Mosheim's admission still stands before us. We have no grounds of assurance that the mere mention of the names of the evangelists by Irenaeus, or the arbitrary drawing up of a particular catalogue by Origen, were of any authority. It is still unknown by whom, or where, or when, the canon of the New Testament was settled. But in this absence of positive evidence we have abundance of negative proof. We know when it was not settled. We know it was not settled in the time of Emperor Justinian, nor in the time of Cassiodorus; that is, not at any time before the middle of the sixth century, "by any authority that was decisive and universally acknowledged; but Christian people were at liberty to judge for themselves concerning the genuineness of writings proposed to them as apostolical."
-- T W Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)
The biographers of Jesus, although they have placed him in a position the most humiliating in his infancy, and although they have given him poor and humble parents, have notwithstanding made him to be of royal descent. The reasons for doing this were twofold. First, because, according to the Old Testament, the expected Messiah was to be of the seed of Abraham, and second, because the Angel-Messiahs who had previously been on earth to redeem and save mankind had been of royal descent, therefore Christ Jesus must be so.
The following story, taken from Colebrooke's Miscellaneous Essays, clearly shows that this idea was general:
"The last of the Jinas, Vardhaman, was at first conceived by Devananda, a Brahmana. The conception was announced to her by a dream. Sekra, being apprised of his incarnation, prostrated himself and worshiped the future saint (who was in the womb of Devananda); but reflecting that no great saint was ever born in an indigent or mendicant family, as that of a Brahmana, Sekra commanded his chief attendant to remove the child from the womb of Devanda to that of Trissla, wife of Siddhartha, a prince of the race of Jensaca, of the Kayapa family."
In their attempts to accomplish their object, the biographers of Jesus have made such poor work of it, that all the ingenuity Christianity has yet produced, has not been able to repair their blunders.
The genealogies are contained in the first and third Gospels, and although they do not agree, yet, if either is right, then Jesus was not the son of God, engendered by the "Holy Ghost," but the legitimate son of Joseph and Mary. In any other sense they amount to nothing. That Jesus can be of royal descent, and yet be the son of God, in the sense in which these words are used, is a conclusion which can be acceptable to those only who believe in alleged historical narratives on no other ground than that they wish them to be true, and dare not call them into question.
-- T W Doane, Chapter XVII, "The Genealogy of Christ Jesus," Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882)
Bible Difficulties : Resurrection - Miracles, Myths, or Mysteries ?
Notice carefully what were happening outside and inside the sepulchre.
== Matt 28:2 ... a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended ... rolled back the stone …
== Matt 28:4 And for fear of him the KEEPERS did shake, and became as dead men.
== Matt 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye:
== Matt 28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy;…
== Matt 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples,
== Mark 16:4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: …
== Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man …
== Mark 16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter
== Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, … neither said they any thing to any man;…
== Luke 24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
== Luke 24:3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
== Luke 24:4 ... they were much perplexed ... behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
== Luke 24:9 And returned ... and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
== John 20:1 … cometh Mary Magdalene early, … and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
== John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved,
= Matthew has earthquake, keepers of the sepulchre and the Angel outside rolling open the sepulchre for the women. The women return to tell the disciples what they encountered.
= Mark has the sepulchre already opened and the women saw the young man inside it.
The woman DID NOT tell anyone.
= Luke has the sepulchre already opened, the women saw nothing then suddenly, 2 Angels appeared. They told the 11 disciples and "all the rest".
= John is simple - Only Mary came, saw that the sepulchre was opened and immediately returned to tell Peter the "the loved disciple"
1) Why were there so many discrepancies of what happened before the women/Magdalene went into the sepulchree and when inside it?
2) Exactly, who or how many disciples were told of the strange events in the sepulchre? None, two, 11 or many disciples and followers?
== Matt 28:2 ... a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended ... rolled back the stone …
== Matt 28:4 And for fear of him the KEEPERS did shake, and became as dead men.
== Matt 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye:
== Matt 28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy;…
== Matt 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples,
== Mark 16:4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: …
== Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man …
== Mark 16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter
== Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, … neither said they any thing to any man;…
== Luke 24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
== Luke 24:3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
== Luke 24:4 ... they were much perplexed ... behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
== Luke 24:9 And returned ... and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
== John 20:1 … cometh Mary Magdalene early, … and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
== John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved,
= Matthew has earthquake, keepers of the sepulchre and the Angel outside rolling open the sepulchre for the women. The women return to tell the disciples what they encountered.
= Mark has the sepulchre already opened and the women saw the young man inside it.
The woman DID NOT tell anyone.
= Luke has the sepulchre already opened, the women saw nothing then suddenly, 2 Angels appeared. They told the 11 disciples and "all the rest".
= John is simple - Only Mary came, saw that the sepulchre was opened and immediately returned to tell Peter the "the loved disciple"
1) Why were there so many discrepancies of what happened before the women/Magdalene went into the sepulchree and when inside it?
2) Exactly, who or how many disciples were told of the strange events in the sepulchre? None, two, 11 or many disciples and followers?
