Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 05-06-2013, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your post is most alarming. You do not understand what "Memoirs" means? I am at a loss that Justin becomes a problem because you have no idea what "Memoirs of the Apostles" means.

And which of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were Apostles, aa?

And if not apostles, in what sense are "gospels" "memoirs"?

And if there were "memoirs" where are they now? Why would such undoubtedly valuable documents disappear?

Duvduv · 05-06-2013, 08:23 AM

Please see the thread "Dating Paul," with the discussion around postings at the 850s, especially Jake Jones' posting #856 with his link:http://books.google.com/books?id=nhh...%20450&f=false
In any event, the difference is not realistic. No one has any more actual proof for the existence of a Justin Martyr than one does for the existence of a Jesus or a Paul, yet all three appear in the church writings under the name of Eusebius from the 4th or 5th century, and/or its interpolations over the centuries.
The bottom line is that there is no evidence for the existence of any actual Christian communities, leaders, writers, etc. in the second century, and that includes a Justin, an Irenaeus and a Marcion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Then I guess the Eusebius source that "corroborates" the second century Justin and Marcion also "corroborates" th FIRST CENTURY Jesus and Paul. Despite the lack of evidence for any of them.
How then accordingly do scholars reject the existence of Paul and Jesus but believe in the existence of Justin and Irenaeus endorsed by the very same apologetic sources?

You are one using "corroborates" with scare quotes.

Eusebus is a source that reports what was most commonly believed and practiced by the Christians of his time.
That he reports various things believed and accepted by his contemporaries and the Church, is no evidence that those beliefs are based upon any factual history.

Eusebius never met Jesus, Peter, Paul, Clement, or Justin. They were all clearly long gone before his time, so he could not "corroborate" their existence even if he wanted to.
His 'History' consists of reporting what other earlier writers recorded and the church traditions he was aware of.

Justin seems a figure of actual history, a Platonic 'philosopher' and early convert to the new religion of 'Christianity'.
Unlike the mythical figures of Jesus, Peter, and Paul, Justin didn't go around performing miracles, walking on water, or raising up zombies.
And given that he is mentioned in multiple early Christian sources, there is little reason to doubt that there was an actual early second century Philosopher named Justin that composed the earliest of non-'Gospel' reports on the practices of the Christian Church, and the emerging Philosophical/Logos/Christian writings.

Irenaeus of Lyons you know is a 'ringer', few non-apologetic sources accept that the writings attributed to Irenaeus ever actually originated with Irenaeus.
The early church loved creating 'romantic' Christian figures as hundreds of early church texts testify to.
'Irenaeus' served well as a heroic mouthpiece/talking head/pseudo-author for dessemination of the doctrinal innovations and heresiology of the heirarchy.

Duvduv · 05-06-2013, 08:30 AM

Indeed, Mr. Justin only mentions a "John" but never cites a Matthew, Mark, Luke, gospel John or Paul. His arguments always revolve around prophetic revelation and fulfillment of prophecies, which would have nothing to do with a Paul anyway. And as I mentioned, his Memoirs of the Apostles make no distinction whatsoever among competing and contradictory stories among the gospels. For whatever it is worth, the church integrate an apologia justifying the emerging religion in relation to Judaism, but with a flavor of antiquity, at least back to the second century, on the heels of the appearance of the Christ in the FIRST century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your post is most alarming. You do not understand what "Memoirs" means? I am at a loss that Justin becomes a problem because you have no idea what "Memoirs of the Apostles" means.

And which of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were Apostles, aa?

And if not apostles, in what sense are "gospels" "memoirs"?

And if there were "memoirs" where are they now? Why would such undoubtedly valuable documents disappear?

PhilosopherJay · 05-06-2013, 08:33 AM

Hi Sheshbazzar,

I tend to agree that Justin Martyr's knowledge/lack of knowledge of the Gospels would tend to put him early, probably before 200 C.E., when knowledge of the four gospels are starting to spread fairly widely.

On the other hand, I tend to think that we are getting writings by Christians in the name of a philosopher named Justin and probably not from a philosopher named Justin. One reason is that the writer claims that he, Justin, was a student of Plato. The works of Justin Martyr do not indicate that he was a student of Plato's.

For example, in the "First Apology," we find this:

Quote:

And Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.

Plato speaks about Rhadmanthus and Minos in two places in his works. He mentions them in "The Apology," saying

Quote:

But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead are, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this world, and finds the true judges who are said to give judgment there, Minos and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus and Triptolemus, and other sons of God who were righteous in their own life, that pilgrimage will be worth making.

This is a hypothetical statement by Plato. He does not say that he believes that Minos and Rhadamthus judge in the underworld. He says that "men say" that Gods like Minos and Rhadmanthus and others judge in the underworld, and that if it is true, it is a good thing.

He also mentions Rhadamanthus and Minos in "The Laws" (Book I and XII):

Quote:

Ath. And do you, Cleinias, believe, as Homer tells, that every ninth year Minos went to converse with his Olympian sire, and was inspired by him to make laws for your cities?

Cle. Yes, that is our tradition; and there was Rhadamanthus, a brother of his, with whose name you are familiar; he is reputed to have been the justest of men, and we Cretans are of opinion that he earned this reputation from his righteous administration of justice when he was alive.

Book X

Quote:

The so-called decision of Rhadamanthus is worthy of all admiration. He knew that the men of his own time believed and had no doubt that there were Gods, which was a reasonable belief in those days, because most men were the sons of Gods, and according to tradition he was one himself. He appears to have thought that he ought to commit judgment to no man, but to the Gods only, and in this way suits were simply and speedily decided by him. For he made the two parties take an oath respecting the points in dispute, and so got rid of the matter speedily and safely. But now that a certain portion of mankind do not believe at all in the existence of the Gods, and others imagine that they have no care of us, and the opinion of most men, and of the men, is that in return for small sacrifice and a few flattering words they will be their accomplices in purloining large sums and save them from many terrible punishments, the way of Rhadamanthus is no longer suited to the needs of justice; for as the needs of men about the Gods are changed, the laws should also be changed;-

Again, it is hard to believe that any student of Plato who had actually read Plato could have attributed to him the belief that Rhamanthus and Minos are judges in Hades. While Rhamanthus and Minos were commonly said to be judges in the underworld, there is nothing to indicate in the writings of Plato that he ever believed that. It is difficult to see how anybody who was really a student of of Plato's could have have to see it as a belief of Plato.

As for Justin Martyr's mention of the idea of a thousand years of punishment, that too indicates a lack of knowledge of Plato. Plato mentions this belief only once at the end of "the Republic" (book X).

Quote:

Socrates

Well, I said, I will tell you a tale; not one of the tales which Odysseus tells to the hero Alcinous, yet this too is a tale of a hero, Er the son of Armenius,...He drew near, and they told him that he was to be the messenger who would carry the report of the other world to men, and they bade him hear and see all that was to be heard and seen in that place. Then he beheld and saw on one side the souls departing at either opening of heaven and earth when sentence had been given on them; and at the two other openings other souls, some ascending out of the earth dusty and worn with travel, some descending out of heaven clean and bright. And arriving ever and anon they seemed to have come from a long journey, and they went forth with gladness into the meadow, where they encamped as at a festival; and those who knew one another embraced and conversed, the souls which came from earth curiously enquiring about the things above, and the souls which came from heaven about the things beneath. And they told one another of what had happened by the way, those from below weeping and sorrowing at the remembrance of the things which they had endured and seen in their journey beneath the earth (now the journey lasted a thousand years), while those from above were describing heavenly delights and visions of inconceivable beauty. The Story, Glaucon, would take too long to tell; but the sum was this: --He said that for every wrong which they had done to any one they suffered tenfold; or once in a hundred years --such being reckoned to be the length of man's life, and the penalty being thus paid ten times in a thousand years.

If the writer of the apology had studied Plato, he would know that Plato's Socrates regards the myth of Er as a mere teaching device for the improvement of the soul. He does not say that people do get punished 10 times for each crime they commit over a thousand year period, but simply suggests that people should live as if they do. It is a method for improving the eternal soul.

The eternal punishment that the writer says Christ offers is not analogous. It is not meant to improve the soul for the next life that the soul has. It is an irrational punishment, an unlimited torture for a limited crime.

What the writer shows is that he does not know Plato's writings first hand and he does not understand them. It is most probable that he has never been a student of Plato. Rather, he is relying on summaries of Plato's writing, probably by Plutarch, Philo, Josephus and others.

My guess is that there really was a Platonic philosopher named Justin, but he never published anything. He may have been friendly to Christians. Shortly after his death, Christians used his reputation to forge works in his name and further their cause.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Shesh, the point is that it has no reliability for evidence to establish anything in the second century. And we don't have a tracking of the publishing or printing of works attributed to a guy named Eusebius for every dotted i and crossed t, when they were actually written, or an original manuscript for Eusebius either, unless you simply rely on the claims of the church itself.

Heck, if "Eusebius" was so smart and convinced of a second century Justin, why didn't he bother to clear up the mysteries related to the second century reflected in the Justin writings? The "references" to Justin are very wishy-washy and don't tell you much.

What makes you think Eusebius could have cleared up those 'mysteries' reflected in Justin's writings?
They were what they were. Its not like Eusebius could sit down and discuss any of these matters with Justin who by Eusebius's day had already been dead for near two centuries.
As a church writer, Eusebius employs whatever of Justin's writings can be used to support church history, and tactfully omits discussion of any of Justin's material that does not support his contemporary orthodox church's claims.
The Orthodox Christian church's have always had an uncomfortable association with 'Father' Justin, on one hand early on they decreed him to be a prominent early Christian 'Saint' and 'Martyr', while on the other hand many latter Church theologians didn't hesitate to denounce him as a heretic, and if they had been able, would have had him drawn and quartered.

It is the fact that so much of what Justin wrote does not align with the known teachings and doctrines of the latter Orthodox Church that gives his writings a stamp of 2nd century authenticity, as no one in the latter church would have survived composing these writings with their glaring omissions, and statements contrary to received 'Catholic' traditions, much less been lauded by the church as a Christian Martyr.
The internal evidence, and very crudeness of composition that you cite, spells early and authentic.

But if you are going to entertain a notion that Justin's principal writings 'The 'First' and 'Second' Apology' and 'Dialogue with Trypho the Jew'
are much latter forgeries you should at least be able to come up with a dating for the alleged forgeries within the range of a couple of centuries.
So. When are you proposing these works of Justin Martyr were forged? 5th century? 8th century? 12th century? 16th century? By whom?
And how did they end up cited in the 4th century writings of Eusebius and other early church writers, centuries before they were forged?

gurugeorge · 05-06-2013, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

NB Justin Martyr lumps together the synoptic Gospel accounts.

What makes you think that? What makes you think the synoptic gospel accounts as we have them bear any relation at all to what Justin was thinking about as "memoirs of the Apostles"? There are a few ideas that vaguely resemble ideas in the gospels, but that doesn't mean much.

Obviously neither "Mark" nor "Luke" were Apostles. So was he just thinking about GMatthew and GJohn?

It's an easy slip to link the "memoirs" with the gospels, there is a vague sort of resemblance in the concepts, but I don't think it's really warranted, the resemblance is too vague IMHO.

Sheshbazzar · 05-06-2013, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is no evidence whatsoever that Justin Martyr lumps together all 4 gospel stories.

Justin Martyr specifically claimed he used the Memoirs of the Apostles and did not say he was aware of four gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

It can be seen that the Memoirs of the Apostles did contain events not found in our present four Gospels.

NB Justin Martyr lumps together the synoptic Gospel accounts. He probably used an early harmony of the synoptics. Justin probably knew the Gospel of John but makes little use of it.

Andrew Criddle

This is working from an assumption that our present independent synoptic gospels existed first to be so 'harmonized'.
In my view, this is putting the cart before the horse.

The few quotations from the 'Memoirs' that Justin does cite do not exactly correspond to any of the readings of our 'received' Gospel texts.
In his hundreds of quotes of OT Scripture, Justin is noteworthy for his reproduction in exacting conformity to the wording provided within the LXX texts, he does not ad-lib or introduce any 'free' alterations or renderings of those texts.
In light of this established methodical carefulness in his quotations, in it is quite unlikely that he would in any way deviate from, or alter whatever rendering actually existed within 'The Memoirs of The Apostles' he cited.

I believe what we are seeing in Justin are accurate quotations from what were the early proto-gospels, the writings of several variant but anonymous early gospel texts that Justin and the primitive church of his day were familiar with, and from out of which all of the latter independently identifiable Gospels, thoroughly edited and revised, eventually evolved.
Justin could only refer to these early texts as the 'Memoirs' because the church, that is to say the orthodoxy had not at that early date as yet attached the four now familiar names.

In spite of how popular and common the practice, there is no rational reason to assume, apart from blind conformity to church tradition, or 'faith' commitments, that there were only four gospels that Justin was familiar with, or that 'the Memoir' texts he employed were a 'harmonization' of any earlier existing Gospels similar to the latter evolved ones that we are now familiar with.

Putting the horse in front of the assumption cart for a change, Justin used primitive Christian writings called 'The Memoirs of the Apostles'. These most likely were NOT any 'harmonizations' of our familiar Gospels, but their predecessors.

.

aa5874 · 05-06-2013, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your post is most alarming. You do not understand what "Memoirs" means? I am at a loss that Justin becomes a problem because you have no idea what "Memoirs of the Apostles" means.

And which of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were Apostles, aa?

And if not apostles, in what sense are "gospels" "memoirs"?

And if there were "memoirs" where are they now? Why would such undoubtedly valuable documents disappear?

Again, it is most amusing that you ask me such questions.

You very well know that Justin did NOT claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Please, please, please!!! You must first read the writings attributed to Justin.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho CIII

Quote:

...For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass:'...

Now, how in the world can you say the Memoirs of the Apostles have disappeared when we have the Four Gospels?

Who added "According to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John"?

The stories of Jesus in the Canon are compatible with the Memoirs of the Apostles.

The so-called Memoirs have not disappeared at all.

Luke 22:44 KJV

Quote:

...And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

The first Apologetic writer to name Four Gospels "according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" was AFTER Justin Martyr.

It is found in "Against Heresies" supposedly composed by Irenaeus c 180 CE which appears to be a massive forgery written by multiple authors.

The supposed Memoirs of the Apostles have not disappeared they were probably manipulated and falsely attributed to fictitious characters called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Before "Against Heresies" there were no known gospels acknowledged as "according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John".

Sheshbazzar · 05-06-2013, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Hi Sheshbazzar,

I tend to agree that Justin Martyr's knowledge/lack of knowledge of the Gospels would tend to put him early, probably before 200 C.E., when knowledge of the four gospels are starting to spread fairly widely.

On the other hand, I tend to think that we are getting writings by Christians in the name of a philosopher named Justin and probably not from a philosopher named Justin. One reason is that the writer claims that he, Justin, was a student of Plato. The works of Justin Martyr do not indicate that he was a student of Plato's.
........

My guess is that there really was a Platonic philosopher named Justin, but he never published anything. He may have been friendly to Christians. Shortly after his death, Christians used his reputation to forge works in his name and further their cause.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

I thank you for that very edifying contribution Jay, and agree with your observations in all except one small point, that being that I believe Justin the Philosoper would have had to have published something on religion, (likely philosophically expounding on the Logos) that had established his name and reputation, so that these pseudo-Justin's could incorporate it, and then ride upon his good name.

aa5874 · 05-06-2013, 10:36 AM

Again, Justin did not claim he was a Platonist.

Justin specifically described that in his search for knowlegde of God that he attempted to follow different philosophical teachings including those of a Stoic, then a Peripatetic, then a Pythagorean, and after a Platonist.

Justin also declared he was not satisfied with their teachings about God.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho II

Quote:

...Being at first desirous of personally conversing with one of these men, I surrendered myself to a certain Stoic; and having spent a considerable time with him, when I had not acquired any further knowledge of God (for he did not know himself, and said such instruction was unnecessary), I left him and betook myself to another, who was called a Peripatetic, and as he fancied, shrewd........ But when my soul was eagerly desirous to hear the peculiar and choice philosophy, I came to a Pythagorean, very celebrated--a man who thought much of his own wisdom. And then, when I had an interview with him, willing to become his hearer and disciple, he said, 'What then? Are you acquainted with music, astronomy........... In my helpless condition it occurred to me to have a meeting with the Platonists, for their fame was great.

The writings attributed to Justin clearly show that the teachings of the Jesus cult was virtually unknown and that there was no known Jesus cult teacher or philosopher available to Justin.

It is also clear that it was Justin himself virtually without any help from any known actual Jesus cult teachers or philosophers who composed his works.

Justin fundamentally relied on writings called the Memoirs of the Apostles and the Septuagint to develop his writings about his Jesus.

Duvduv · 05-06-2013, 12:22 PM

No it doesn't. All it proves is that there was a text that reflected certain aspects of the Christ sect in relation to the fulfillment of prophecies that came to be expressed in gospels, and no proof that it had been composed in the 2nd century.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-06-2013, 12:22 PM	#70
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	No it doesn't. All it proves is that there was a text that reflected certain aspects of the Christ sect in relation to the fulfillment of prophecies that came to be expressed in gospels, and no proof that it had been composed in the 2nd century.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.