aa5874

There would have been no advantage or benefit for Justin Martyr to have had four contradictory gospels when he was engaged in a dialogue with Trypho the Jew to prove the VERACITY of his belief in Jesus, that Jesus was indeed the Christ born of a Virgin, was living on earth and was resurrected.

It would be noted that in "Church History" that the writer made known that there seemed to be contradictions of genealogies and other variants in the Gospels but Justin Martyr and even his oppostion Trypho did not mention such contradictions in the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

"Church History" 1.7.1 So, up to the 4th century based on "Church History" even believers were INVENTING explanations for discrepancies in gMatthew and gLuke.

Again, when the writings of Justin are examined it would be noticed that he knew of the "stolen body" story of Jesus similar to today's "stolen body" story found in today's KJV gMatthew. It would be expected that there would have been NO advantage or benefit to Justin in having a document with FOUR contradictory explanations of the resurrection of Jesus when arguing with Trypho about the VERACITY of the resurrection.

"Dialogue with Trypho" CVII So, it would appear that the "Memoirs of the Apostles" had the "stolen body" up to the middle of the 2nd century.

Now, examine gLuke. The author of Luke appear to admit that there were other sources from which he got information to compile his Jesus story and without the "stolen body" episode.


Luke 1:1-4 - Justin Martyr did not even mention any writer called Luke or any Gospel writer called Luke and further Luke was not even considered an apostle by apologetic sources.

It would appear gLuke was written after the writings of Justin Martyr.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

I think this is a reasonable inference. If Luke had been written before Justin, we would expect Justin to mention it or say something like, "Besides the "Memoirs of the Apostles," we have that excellent account by Luke, who was a friend of Paul's, and also wrote "Acts of the Apostles."..."

Tertullian certainly knows Luke, at least in his later works, after 205, so circa 170-205 C.E. seems to be the best guess for the dating of Luke. (I have proposed previously as a hypothesis that Tertullian himself wrote the gospel of Luke, which would place it around 205 C.E.)

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay (AKA Jay Raskin)

andrewcriddle

If there were two 3rd century Origens one a NeoPlatonist the other a Christian then the Toura mss were written by the Christian Origen.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

And this inference can be extended to the authors called Matthew and John.

It would be of extreme benefit for Justin to tell Trypho the Jew of Matthew and John who supposedly were Jews that lived in Galilee who wrote about Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, after having been his disciples.

Matthew and John should have been either famous or infamous. Jews would have been really interested, for good or evil, in the things Matthew and John wrote about Jesus of Nazareth.

Trypho, the Jew, did not name any Jewish writer, historian, Gospel writers who wrote about Jesus of Nazareth..

But, here is where it becomes a bit dicey. The writer under the name of Tertullian is giving the impression that gLuke was written by a close companion of Saul/Paul sometime before the Fall of the Temple. And in "Church History" 3.4.8 it is claimed Saul/Paul was aware of gLuke.

But, by deduction, it would appear that gLuke was written AFTER the Fall of the Temple and that the author used the writings of Josephus who ALSO wrote AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

The information form "Tertullian" about gLuke is not reliable or seem not to be compatible with the evidence from antiquity.

The question is when did "Tertullian" really write about gLuke, gJohn, gMark, gMatthew, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles?

A Church writer claimed Josephus wrote the "TF" in the 1st century but it appears he was wrong. The "TF" was a forgery.

Are there no forgeries or mis-leading information in the writings of "Tertullian"? Even "Tertullian" claimed that there were.

"Against Marcion" by "Tertullian" This tract of "Against Marcion" under the name of "Tertullian" appears to be full of mistakes.

There are many mistakes about the dating, chronology and authorship of the Gospels in the writings under the name of "Tertullian".

But Justin Martyr did not make the mistakes of "Tertullian."

Justin Martyr appears to be compatible with the evidence or theory that the Gospels were FIRST anonymous.

mountainman

Just a question at this point. Precisely how sure can we be that we are not reading Eusebius's authorship in this above claim?

mountainman

I notice that All the texts are in Greek. I guess there are no English translations available and that the books are still scattered to the four winds? So looking at the data assembled by Roger - it starts with a "Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides" and with the exception of one reference to Romans (is this the same as the NT book by that name?), deals with commentary on the books of the LXX.

The "Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides" may be some form of reference to the Nestorius - the ex Archbishop of Constantinople - who was involved in huge controversies fuelled by the thug bishop Cyril of Alexandria. See for example .... The Bazaar of Heraclides -- authored by Nestorius, and the books and books of refutation by Cyril "Against Nestorius" ["Heraclides"]

When you add to that the Origenist controversy, the Arian controversy and the three centuries that intervene between the publication of the Toura and the original authorship of either one or two different "Origens" I cant see that we can be so sure that things are that simple -- that we are looking at something preserved in purity from the 3rd century from "the Christian Origen".

Especially since we are relying on Eusebius to tell us all we were ever supposed to know about the 3rd century "Christian" disciple of Ammonias Saccas.

The problem compounds because there now appear to be two separate Ammonias Saccas's in the early 3rd century. One a christian who left many books behind him according to Eusebius (sources), and another Ammonias who wrote nothing at all, and yet is regarded as the father of Neoplatonism, and the teacher of "Origen the Platonist".

PhilosopherJay

Hi Mountainman,

I did the research on Tertullian about ten years ago, as I recall there were enough real references to contemporary events from the period 200-220 in his writings that they could be reasonably dated to that period. The fact that his ideology and style was quite different from Eusebius also seemed clear. I believe Eusebius only quotes one passage from him, so he is certainly not a favorite of Eusebius'.

Clement of Alexandria is another one who has contemporary references to the period of the early 3rd century and often makes ideological points that contradict Eusebius and more orthodox ideas that came after him.

The case is quite different with Irenaeus. Eusebius quotes him a lot and there is no real way of dating him from his writings as he avoids talking about contemporary events in his genuine writings. The only dates we have for him are from Eusebius, which I find impossible to accept without other evidence. His list of heresies and heretics seem quite compatible with Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, so I would place him around the early 3rd century as well.

Sincerely,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

But, that is like claiming that there is enough information in Antiquities of the Jews to be dated in the 1st century so the "TF" was also written in the 1st century.

It is clear that the writings of "Tertullian" contain erroneous information about the dating, chronology and authorship of the Gospels that is most likely non-historical. It is also clear that there are erroneous information in the writings of "Tertullian" about the Pauline writings that are also non-historical.

It simply cannot be a coincidence that "Tertullian" made the very ERRORS that Irenaeus made in "Against Heresies" with respect to the dating, chronology, authorship of the Gospels, the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles.

It was most unlikely that there was a bishop of Rome before the Fall of the Temple called Peter who was an ACTUAL apostle of Jesus of Nazareth yet "Tertullian" and Irenaeus both wrote the same fiction.

The character called Peter who walked on the sea and nearly drowned while trying, and who ACTUALLY saw Jesustransfigured and in a resurrected state did NOT exist outside the fiction fable called the Gospel yet "Tertullian" and Irenaeus, UNLIKE Justin Martyr, have written that Peter was an ACTUAL BISHOP, the 1st BISHOP of Rome.

What source supposedly before "Tertullian" claimed the fictitious Peter did actually live and was the actual first bishop of Rome and did meet Paul?

It was not Justin Martyr.

Again, this is like claiming everything in gMark was written at the same time because there are contemporary references.

And again, a fraudster is likely to make his forgeries appear to be from an earlier time by employ methods that would dupe people into thinking that his writings were earlier then they actually are.

A list of supposed heretics cannot determine the date of the writings of Irenaeus, "Tertullian" or any writer of antiquity.

There appears to be information found in the writings of "Tertullian" that appear to be fiction but are of utmost importance to the history of the Church.

It cannot be coincidence that the fiction found in the writings of "Tertullian" was INDEPENDENTLY corroborated by Irenaeus.

The fiction was most likely from the same source around the same time.

And we know the Roman Church had no history until Constantine gave Jesus a name above every other name in the Roman Empire and that every knee should BOW even Constantine.

Co-incidentally Constantine needed the ALL fiction of "Tertullian" for the history of Jesus and his disciples including Peter the very first fiction character who was an actual bishop of Rome.

"The Presription Against Heretics" 32 by "Tertullian" What records of the Church did "Tertullian" have? Peter did NOT exist or there are no records of his existence.

But, in the 4th century, the records of the fictitious Peter seemed to be in GREAT demand.

Justin Martyr did not write about the first bishop of Rome or called him Peter.

andrewcriddle

Romans is the NT book.

The "Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides" is available in English translation eg in "Alexandrian Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)" by Chadwick et al but not online AFAIK.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

It also appears along in Robert Daly's translation (or via: amazon.co.uk) along side Peri Pascha

http://books.google.com/books?id=Pce...clides&f=false

I am jumping into this conversation late and haven't read all the posts but the text from memory was discovered with material from Didymus the Blind by British soldiers around the time of the end of WWII