andrewcriddle

Hi Sheshbazzar

The problem with having Justin work from a very early form of Gospel tradition is that Justin clearly knows of accounts such as the visit of the wise men to Herod and the birth of Jesus at the time of the census of Quirinius (Dialogue with Trypho chapters 77 to 78 1st Apology chapter 34). This material in its present form was almost certainly composed by Matthew and Luke respectively, and its use by Justin indicates that Justin was directly or indirectly deriving his information from the synoptic Gospels.

On the other hand Justin is a very early source and his version of the teaching of Jesus is sometimes probably older than what we find in the synoptics.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Hi George

see my reply to Sheshbazzar. I'll just add that at least in the later church Mark and Luke were seen as apostolic by proxy. Mark as preserving the memoirs of Peter (very old tradition) and Luke as representing Paul's version of the Gospel message (probably rather later idea).

Andrew Criddle

Sheshbazzar

How do you determine that Gospel material, of which the authors chose to remain anonymous, 'was almost certainly composed by Matthew' or by 'Luke'?

I see nothing at all precluding Justin having sourced his material on the wise men, Herod, etc. from the earlier primitive proto-gospel sources known as 'The Memoirs of the Apostles', with no 'Matthew' or 'Luke' as authors, rather than the as then yet to be produced rewritten, edited, and 'catholocised' 'received gospel' texts we are now familiar with, of which there is no evidence Justin ever knew, and from which Justin never quotes.

Justin's NT quotations clearly indicate that he was citing older Gospel texts that were in some ways similar to ours, but not exactly the 'received texts' that we are accustomed to. He also quotes NT material that early on disappeared from all orthodox texts, and is preserved only in Justin's quotes of it.

Justin wouldn't have known what a 'Gospel of Matthew' or of 'Luke' was, as there was no such thing existing in the early 2nd century CE when he was writing.

That is my point. And these older teachings of Justin, and reported by him to be the beliefs of the church of his day, are in many aspects at odds to, and thus discredit certain of the beliefs and doctrinal claims of that became Orthodox church fare from the 4th century on.

The Catholic Church had early on proclaimed Justin a 'Martyr' and a 'Saint',
yet comparing the content of Justin's writings with the doctrines of the latter Catholic Church, he was (or would be) a heretic. Whom had Catholic Ecclesiastics of the 4th century been able to lay hands upon, would have executed for the crime of heresy unless he recanted such things as he had formerly reported.

Which is kind of silly, and totally unjust, in view of the fact that if Justin lived in the second century, he could only report what Christians in the second century believed, and as he did, not what the Church of the fourth century wanted to believe or force.

The Church's response, because they could not 'reform' the by now well known Justin writings, was to pump out a veritable flood of fabricated forged 'Irenaeus' material, ignoring and marginalizing Justin's witness, and hoping that the world would just stop reading his writings and thereby seeing through their load of crap.


.

aa5874

Your claim is wrong. There were no gospels known as gMatthew and gLuke in the time of Justin . No such persons even existed. The first time we hear about gMatthew and gLuke is AFTER the Memoirs of the Apostles.


The Memoirs of the Apostles PREDATED gMatthew and gLuke.

The Memoirs of the Apostles were already composed c 150 CE and its contents is different to gMatthew and gLuke.

It was in "Against Heresies" that we first hear about gMatthew and gLuke no earlier than c 180 CE.

Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucus Felix, and Arnobius wrote nothing of Gospels called gMatthew and gLuke.

aa5874

Why are you talking about original languages when you yourself have not studied the Jesus story in its so-called original language?

You are promoting blatant double standards.

I have examined the Jesus story based on those who have TRANSLATED the languages of the texts.

Some people here do not even understand ancient Latin, Syriac, Hebrew and the many dialects of antiquity yet want to give the impression that they have some advantage in knowing one or two words in Greek.

And in any event, I reject all personal translations of people who post here.

I only accept neutral sources.

Now, Justin did not claim anywhere that Paul was Simon Magus.

In fact, there is NO mention whatsoever of Paul and the Pauline letters.

The Churches in the time of Justin were developed from the MEMOIRS of the APOSTLES and the Books of the Prophets.

NOTHING at all from Paul--NOTHING--ZERO.

The people called Christians in the time of Claudius were the followers of Simon Magus--the First God who did Mighty Acts and was Honored in Rome.

Simon Magus was not born of a Ghost--it was Jesus.

Simon Magus had a real existence--Jesus never existed.

Simon Magus was the one actually worshiped as the First God.

Simon Magus PREDATED the Jesus story by at least 100 years.

The Jesus story is based on Simon Magus the First God who did Mighty Acts and was worshiped as a God by almost ALL of the Samaritans and other Nations. The disciples of Simon Magus even claimed they would NEVER die.

See First Apology.

gurugeorge

Nor does he claim that Jesus was Simon Magus

My idea would be that this person was perhaps known at some time very early on as Simon Magus, and some of his writings are used as a basis for the "Paul" writings in the canon. On this I am following Robert M. Price, who notes the many similarities between the stories of Simon Magus as told by various sources (particularly the Pseudo-Clementines, which are thought to be based on something much earlier - but also some of the Jewish sources that people like Eisenmann examine), and some aspects of the "Paul" stories (particularly the business of "Simonism").

As to the translation point, as I've told you, the fact that I don't have the original languages is the reason I prefer to stick as much as possible to what orthodox scholarship says about datings, etc. Those people have the languages, I do not, so I have to reasonably trust that experts in their fields know what they're about when they talk about things like linguistic forms not being possible at one time and possible at another, etc., etc. The extant translations are not "neutral", they are usually from a fairly orthodox Christian perspective, they often vary, and there are sometimes debates even now about the correct translations of texts. It's better to triangulate than to wholly trust any translation.

You have to look at lots of things to find out the truth about this matter, not just the Christian texts, and not just texts even, but at archaeology, comparative religion, the psychology and sociology of religion and mysticism, etc.

For example, upthread when Shesh pointed out to you that there could have been no large number of Christian groups as Justin claimed because the archaeological record doesn't bear it out, he is quite right, and conveniently you didn't respond to his point.

I admire your persistence and the clarity of your thought on some issues, but you are simply not likely to get to the truth given the extremely narrow scope of your investigation. What you are doing, comparison of texts, can only be part of the process of discovering what actually happened long, long ago in those times.

Duvduv

OK, here is reference from "Eusebius" about "Justin" who is merely a writer, and of course never knew a single breathing human being who knew anyone who knew the Christ:
Book 2, Chapter 13
But faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ having now been diffused among all men, the enemy of man's salvation contrived a plan for seizing the imperial city for himself. He conducted thither the above-mentioned Simon, aided him in his deceitful arts, led many of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them into his own power. This is stated by Justin, one of our distinguished writers who lived not long after the time of the apostles. Concerning him I shall speak in the proper place.

"Books" have come down to "us" (=Eusebius) (chapter 18) for which there is not a shred of evidence at all. Nor any meaningful discussion in Book 4 of anything found specifically in the texts. If all of this is described in a manuscript going back to the 5th century and that corresponds to the text from the Middle Ages, it doesn't prove anything about a Justin living in the 2nd century at all.

For all we know, the authors known as Eusebius or later ones in the 5th century were "Justin" Martyr who knew SO MUCH about Christianity that he couldn't even identify the name of a SINGLE apostle, or anything about a single Christian community or leader or colleagues existing in the second century for which it is alleged he was appealing to the emperor.

And of course Mr. Eusebius or whoever wrote these chapters in the 4th or 5th century is not mystified in the slightest that this writer Justin says not a word about beloved Paul or anything else not discussed in the Justin texts, such as the names of the contradictory but divinely inspired gospels. Hmmm.....and how could it be that such valuable texts existed in only a single copy in a monastery in the 15th century?
What happened to the rest of them?

Anyway, here is a reference from Wikipedia, which doesn't explain the evidence that the dating is authentic and that the origin of the manuscript is authentic:

History

According to the colophon, on folio 123 verso, the manuscript was written in the year 773, it means A.D. 462, and the name of scribe was Isaac. The name of the place where the manuscript was written has been erased.[2][5] According to the note on folio 1 recto the manuscript was presented to the convent of St. Mary Deipara by one Sahlun, a priest of Harran.[5]

The manuscript was examined and described by William Wright[6] and by William Hatch in 1934.

It is currently housed at the National Library of Russia (Cod. Syr. 1) in Saint Petersburg.[2]

aa5874

Again, may I remind you that Justin mentioned Jesus Christ and Simon Magus-- NOT Paul.

1. Justin claimed Jesus was the Son of God, who did miracles and taught his disciples he would resurrect--Not Paul. See First Apology

2. The followers of Jesus were called Christians. See First Apology

3. Justin claimed Simon Magus was worshiped as a God who did Mighty Acts and his disciples claimed they would never die.--Not Paul. See First Apology

4. The followers of Simon Magus were called Christians. See First Apology

My argument is that the Jesus story is based on Simon Magus because the Jesus story was fabricated in the 2nd century.

I really have little time for flawed opinion. I must have the actual written statement of antiquity. The Pseudo-Clementines are blatant forgeries or false attribution and have no historical value except that they are historically bogus.

And again, you seem not to understand that the Pauline letters were completely unknown up to at least c 180 CE.

The Pauline letters were not used at all to develop the teachings of the Jesus cult up to the time of Justin.

Justin Martyr specifically stated that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets that were read in the Churches--Not the Pauline letters.

In Minucius Felix Octavius the conversion of Caecelius to Christianity did not need a single reference to the Pauline letters--not even a ten word phrase.

In Origen's "Against Celsus"--Origen admitted that Celsus did not mention Paul.

Please, there is more evidence from antiquity to show that the Pauline letters and Pauline revealed Gospel were not ever known up to the 2nd century.

Again, you are not making much sense. I stick to the translations of the EXPERTS--not to the personal translations of posters.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

•Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: Discourse to the Greeks
•Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: On the Resurrection
•Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: On the Sole Government of God
•Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: Hortatory Address to the Greeks
•Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: Fragments from the Lost Writings of Justin
•Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: Dialogue with Trypho
•Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: Second Apology
•Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: First Apology

Again, you are not making much sense. I do not just look at Christian text. I have already stated, perhaps hundreds of times, that I have looked at the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch, Cassius Dio, Julian the Emperor, Pliny the younger, Lucian and others.

Please, you are very well aware that Sheshbazzar claimed that there was "not even .001% of the population that were Christians" which he has now WITHDRAWN.

Sheshbazzar could not produce the number Christians and the population during the time of Justin.
Why do you persist in making blantant erroneous claims. You have no idea what I do. You have no idea what I am examining right now. You have no idea what I have at my disposal.

You make claims about Paul and Jesus.

You claim there was NO human Jesus.

I say the very same thing.

Why are you upset just because I have shown that the Pauline writings were unknown up to at least the 2nd century?

Perhaps, your investigation is too Myopic. You appear to be stuck in the 1st century for which there is zero evidence for Paul.

Now, as I broaden my investigation and COMPARE Texts I will argue that the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles were most likely composed between c 305-362 CE or After the writings of Arnobius and Before the writings of Julian the Emperor.

Sheshbazzar

I agree with you, there were 'many', .... maybe even a couple of hundred.

And the Pauline writings were unknown up to at least the last half of the 2nd century.

Chili

He wasn't. They were opposites, Paul had finished the race and Simon Magus did not even know there was one, and how could he as happier than pig in shit helping Jesus carry his cross so that sin will prevail. This would be much like Mark's Jesus telling the frightened women to calm down as he was going back to Galilee again, and never mind heaven on earth that surely must be for the birds in the sky, as flat-earther himself already then.That has to be true because the Christ-child was killed by Herod in the same way as today: "Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God's favor" (Gal.5:4) and that will be forever the same.

And Simon Magus was never honored in Rome or Rome would not be the home of Christ with Mary as the seat of Peter today. Christ was born and Jesus was not born, and the infancy does not make reference to babies with diapers, as you maybe think it does.

Simon was a holy roller drawing Billy Graham crowds already then proclaiming: "repent and be saved" that so made him holy man in the sight of many and was worshiped as God and those were the early Christian then, I agree with you here.

The officially declared Jesus story maybe yes. But the word Christ must exist before the 'look-alike' or final impostor can be conceived to exist. Read Matthew 27:64 on this where the Chief Priests knew exactly what he would be like and they here probably had Simon Magus and company in mind. The claim to "never die" is only valid after they have died the first death and that can never be true if they worship another God. So it shows total ignorance on their part, and that alone tells the tale of what kind of Christians they were.

So now the real question is: If they were the so called 'final impostors" who was the real one they were imitators of.