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.

Sheshbazzar

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?

Duvduv

No one can provide empirical evidence from when the pages attributed to Eusebius were written, or what was written when. And whoever wrote the texts or the composites provided enough "Christian" material not to be thrown out in the trash, even with all the gaps. After all, the epistles themselves and the gospels have plenty of gaps and contradictions, so why would anyone care, especially since the primary audience of such histories was the literate elite who were to manage the masses?

I am not all that impressed by the so-called Eusebius references to Justin. After all, if all he was trying to do was establish a second century basis for the Justin writings all he needed to do was throw in a few references, which is what appears in the Eusebius writings. How much work was invested in establishing an air-tight 1st century backdrop for the gospels and epistles? Not much.

And Eusebius mentions a first century Paul, does that prove Paul existed or that he wrote epistles?

But anyone analyzing the content and context of the Justin writings can see all the gaps and that they were put together by someone or more than one person who were not all that smart. The job of pushing the Paul element was left to other people. But again, the texts could be a composite of forgery and some other writings with the purpose of establishing antiquity to Christianity long before the onset of the Constantinian regime.

aa5874

In fact, when one examines Church History it is seen that Justin's writings were not used for the history of the Jesus cult but merely to confirm that Justin mentioned so-called heretics.

1. Church History book 2--Justin is mentioned twice but only to claim that he wrote about Simon Magus.

2. Church History book 3--Justin is mentioned once but again only to say that Justin wrote of Simon Magus.

3. Church History book 4--Justin is mentioned about 15 times but again only to say that he wrote about the heretics Marcion and Tatian in the time of Antoninus and that he was martyred.

4. Church History book 5--Justin is mentioned twice just as acknowledgments.

It was the writings of Irenaeus "Against Heresies" that was fundamentally used for the history of the Jesus cult in the 2nd century during the time of Justin.

The writings attributed to Irenaeus are forgeries and are historically and chronologically bogus. Irenaeus could not have known of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters when he claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age after he was about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius.

Sheshbazzar

An old Syriac translation of Eusebius's 'Ecclesiastical History' survives and is dated to the year 462, and is stated by experts to show signs of having been copied many times.
I have located transcriptions of the Syriac text online and it does contain Book 4, although unfortunately I have as yet been unable to locate any English language translations of the Syraic text..
But it seems that it would have been noted by these scholars if those many references to Justin and his writings were conspicuously absent from this ancient 5th century Syriac copy. (wouldn't have left much of chapters 16-18)

It remains to be seen how well your gross skepticism about the age and the provenance of Justin's and Eusebius's writings will stand up.

Duvduv

Then I guess the Eusebius source that "corroborates" Ihe 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?

aa5874

Even if you do not accept the author and date of authorship of the writings attributed to Justin we can still examine the contents as they are found.

The writings attributed to Justin as we have them today show no awareness of the Pauline writings.

The writings attributed to Justin show a Big Black Hole of 100 years for the history of the Jesus cult of Christians.

The writings of Justin do not account for any actual known Jesus cult Christians in Jerusalem except those in the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Effectively, the contents of the writings of Justin as we have them today do NOT corroborate the writings attributed to Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" and Eusebius "Church History" for the 1st century with respect to the Activities of the Apostles and Paul.

Sheshbazzar

A genuine 462 dated copy of Eusebius's 'Ecclesiastical History' that conforms well to the content of latter Greek and Latin copies only demonstrates that there were few or no radical changes in these texts content after 462 CE.
This has to be contrasted with your earlier assertion in Post #12
I questioned you twice about that 'several hundred years ago' statement, and asked you to state approximately what century you believed Justin's 'Apology', 'Dialogue with Trypho', and Eusebius's accounting of these texts in his 'Ecclesiastical History' were forged.
You were not forthcoming with any answers, thus forcing me to engage in the search, the results of which quite clearly indicate that these texts and references to Justin were definitely in circulation before 462 CE, which is a bit more than the indefinite 'several hundred years ago' that you implied they had been forged in.

No this doesn't in itself prove that these writings are authentic, but it does indicate that they date at the minimum given present evidence, to the early 5th century, to within only about 100 years of Eusebius's evident lifetime.

And wouldn't this have been exceedingly strange for any writing composed in the early 5th century CE, when the church was up to its neck in Pauline theology?

Sheshbazzar

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.

andrewcriddle

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