Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 10-11-2012, 05:27 AM

Who had access to the original writings of the ancient writers if not the church archives?
If so, how can they be relied upon for the aurhenticity of when they were originally written, whether the authors were real, and whether their claims were not simply lifted from other texts?
I mean, if interpolations can happen in the New Testament, then certainly they happened in the writings attributed to apologists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

fathers

See what I mean.

sotto voce · 10-11-2012, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Who had access to the original writings of the ancient writers if not the church archives?
If so, how can they be relied upon for the aurhenticity of when they were originally written, whether the authors were real, and whether their claims were not simply lifted from other texts?
I mean, if interpolations can happen in the New Testament, then certainly they happened in the writings attributed to apologists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

fathers

See what I mean.

Archives.

Duvduv · 10-11-2012, 08:45 AM

Which ones?? Were they always kept apart from the public or the clerical community over the past 1500 years? Where? In Rome? In Constantinople?
How many transcript copies of the writings of these apologists might there be in comparison with the numbers of codices and fragments of the NT that have been identified?

SO MUCH discussion is devoted to Josephus on this Board, and yet very little about forgeries or interpolations is discussed at all in relation to Eusebius, the so-called Festal Letter of Athanasius, the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus, Jerome and Augustine, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Who had access to the original writings of the ancient writers if not the church archives?
If so, how can they be relied upon for the aurhenticity of when they were originally written, whether the authors were real, and whether their claims were not simply lifted from other texts?
I mean, if interpolations can happen in the New Testament, then certainly they happened in the writings attributed to apologists.

Archives.

sotto voce · 10-11-2012, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

clerical community

in Rome? In Constantinople?

See what I mean.

Toto · 10-11-2012, 10:19 AM

Duvduv - read up on the work of Christian monasteries in preserving Christian literature. Manuscripts were preserved in monasteries from Ireland to Egypt to Ethiopia, and in particular in Greece. Of course, their first priority was the canon, and later Protestants were more interested in the classics, but that is the general source for what is referred to as the "patristics." Have you checked Roger Pearse's website, www.tertullian.org ?

It's not clear that you are going anywhere with your repetitious questions that you don't seem to be willing to research for yourself.

Duvduv · 10-11-2012, 11:49 AM

That is incorrect. You have provided me the information to go into this further, because I did not know that the works of the apologists were kept specifically by various monasteries as opposed to "church headquarters." Now I can pursue this further. However, I don't appreciate being singled out for certain patronizing comments.
The repetition is no more or less than the repetition for a number of other participants who I do not see as recipients of repeated patronizing comments.

In any event, the basic idea remains important and at least as worth of discussion as those of Josephus, or the sex lives of ancient personages, or the incessant intellectual bickering, scholarship politics, etc. that circulate on this Forum.

Sheshbazzar · 10-11-2012, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It is my belief that these vipers revised and rewrote 'The Memoirs of the Apostles', into the four 'Gospels.

I like it!!!!
>

<

But, there is one minor problem. I have searched. And searched. And searched some more.

I can find no such reference in the writings of Justin Martyr.

I know of three extant ancient manuscripts of this 2nd century author. I see nothing in the text corresponding to what we write, in English:
'The Memoirs of the Apostles'

Rather, I find many references to Isaiah, and other old testament quotes, without citation, as if recited from memory.

I find this argument and explanation to be much more detailed, plausible, and persuasive.

Quote:

"Johnson remarks that the "Memorabilia" do not coincide on their contents as a whole with any work that has come down to us; nor are 'the Apostles' identifiable with any known historical person." He then explains that the term "apostle" is Jewish and pre-Christian, referring to wandering Jews of the Diaspora (Jewish dispersion throughout the empire), and that the Memorabilia may simply be their "moral sayings." In addition to these pre-existing Apostles are Messianic Saints (Hagioi), the Elect and the Congregation/Church (ecclesia)—terms and concepts all found within pre-Christian texts such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus (Ecclesiasticus), the Book of Tobit and the Book of Enoch, as well as the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas, which Johnson has shown to be pre-Christian texts later Christianized.
Concluding that Justin "knows no authoritative writings except the Old Testament," Johnson adds that "he had neither our Gospels' nor our Pauline writings."

Was Justin Martyr sloppy?

If Justin actually had the canonical gospels before him when writing his texts, he could only be considered sloppy in his citations, which is the accusation made to explain why his "Memoirs" differs so much from the gospels.
The reality is that the Church father is surprisingly consistent and conscientious in his quotation elsewhere. For example, as I state in SOG,

Martyr quotes from the Old Testament 314 instances, 197 of which he names the particular book or author, equaling an impressive two-thirds of the total amount. Several of the other 117 instances may not have needed citation, "considering the nature of the passage."

Despite his remarkably fastidious record, when Justin is supposedly quoting the New Testament, he mentions none of the four gospels. Instead, he distinctly states that the quotes are from the "Memoirs."
Since he is careful in his quotation of the Old Testament, it is reasonable to assume that he is accurately citing the "Memoirs" and that such a book is not the same as any of the texts found in the New Testament.

There could be no reason why Martyr would not cite the gospel books by name, unless he was not using them. Since he never mentions the four gospels, it is logical to assert that he had never heard of them. Thus, the Memoirs text is not the same as the canonical gospels, and the mention of and quotation from this book does not serve as evidence of the existence of the gospels.

"The Memoirs text is not the same as the canonical gospels, and the mention of and quotation from this book does not serve as evidence of the existence of the gospels."

In his exhaustive analysis of Justin's writings (182-267), Cassels remarks (240):
"...The hypothesis that they are quotations from our Gospels involves the accusation against Justin of an amount of carelessness and negligence which is quite unparalleled in literature.
Justin's character and training, however, by no means warrant any such aspersion, and there are no grounds for it. Indeed, but for the attempt arbitrarily to establish the identity of the Memoirs of the Apostles with our Gospels, such a charge would never have been thought of...."

As Cassels further says, in his section about the non-canonical text of the second century called the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" (266):

...We have already seen that Justin speaks of "The Gospel," and seems to refer to the Memoirs of Peter, both distinguishing appellations of this Gospel [according to the Hebrews]; but there is another of the names borne by the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," which singularly recalls the Memoirs of the Apostles, by which Justin prefers to call his evangelical work. It was called the Gospel according to the Apostles..., and, in short, comparing Justin's Memoirs to this Gospel, we find at once similarity of contents and even of name.

Thus, we may surmise that Justin's "Memoirs" text was the same as the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," also called the "Gospel according to the Apostles."

"We may surmise that Justin's 'Memoirs' text was the same as the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,' also called the 'Gospel according to the Apostles."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

'After spending dozens of pages examining in minute detail every aspect of Justin's writings vis-à-vis the canonical gospels - again, including providing the original Greek where necessary - Cassels (266) summarizes :

'...We have shown that there is no evidence that [Justin] made use of any of our Gospels, and he cannot, therefore, be cited even to prove their existence, and much less to attest the authenticity and character of records whose authors he does not once name.
On the other hand, it has been made evident that there were other Gospels, now lost, but which then enjoyed the highest consideration, from which his quotations might have been, and probably were, taken.
We have seen that Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles contained facts of Gospel history unknown to our Gospels, which were contained in apocryphal works, and notably in the Gospel according to the Hebrews; that they further contained matter contradictory to our Gospels, and sayings of Jesus not contained in them; and that his quoations, although so numerous, systematically vary from similar passages in our Gospels.

No theory of quotation from memory can satisfactorily account for these phenomena, and the reasonable conclusion is that Justin did not make use of our Gospels, but quoted from another source....

The facts are that the terms "gospels" and "gospel" in Justin do not indicate his knowledge of our canonical gospels; that the quotes from the Memoirs of the Apostles are not the same as those in the canonical gospels; and that the term “Memoirs” appears to refer to a single text, like "Acts of the Apostles," rather than serving as a reference to the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, whom Justin does not mention or even seem to know. In the final analysis, it is evident that Justin Martyr does not quote the canonical gospels and that, despite the wishful thinking, these texts do not emerge clearly in the historical record until the end of the second century. Does early Church father Justin Martyr quote the gospels?

This is one of the easier to find observations on this matter. Over the years I have read others that go into even more exacting detail, pointing out that when Justin does cite a particular verse from 'The Memoirs' on more than one occasion or writing, it is quoted verbatim and consistently, indicating that it was being precisely quoted from an established earlier text, one that did not exactly correspond to the text of the Gospels we now have.

I cannot but conclude, based upon all of the evidence presented, that Justin was drawing his NT quotes from a single volume which he customarily referred to as 'The Gospel' and 'The Memoirs of the Apostle's.'

(I must mention that a few years ago I was involved in protracted and heated thread on this Forum where I argued the exact opposite.
.....I have read and learned a lot since then.)

Sheshbazzar · 10-11-2012, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

I find many references to Isaiah, and other old testament quotes, without citation, as if recited from memory.

With regards to Justin's quotations of the 'Old Testament' (BTW I don't at all 'buy' that christian propaganda appellation] If readers know what he is quoting it is not necessary that he provide any citation of Book or author.
Tens of thousands of quotes from the Bible have appeared on this Forum cited from memory and without any citation, it happens almost daily.
Sometimes it is even deliberate. Let the interested go find the Book author and the context, and perhaps learn something new from the experience.

aa5874 · 10-11-2012, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It is my belief that these vipers revised and rewrote 'The Memoirs of the Apostles', into the four 'Gospels.

I like it!!!!
>

<

But, there is one minor problem. I have searched. And searched. And searched some more.

I can find no such reference in the writings of Justin Martyr.

I know of three extant ancient manuscripts of this 2nd century author. I see nothing in the text corresponding to what we write, in English:
'The Memoirs of the Apostles'

Rather, I find many references to Isaiah, and other old testament quotes, without citation, as if recited from memory.

I find this argument and explanation to be much more detailed, plausible, and persuasive.

Quote:

"Johnson remarks that the "Memorabilia" do not coincide on their contents as a whole with any work that has come down to us; nor are 'the Apostles' identifiable with any known historical person." He then explains that the term "apostle" is Jewish and pre-Christian, referring to wandering Jews of the Diaspora (Jewish dispersion throughout the empire), and that the Memorabilia may simply be their "moral sayings." In addition to these pre-existing Apostles are Messianic Saints (Hagioi), the Elect and the Congregation/Church (ecclesia)—terms and concepts all found within pre-Christian texts such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus (Ecclesiasticus), the Book of Tobit and the Book of Enoch, as well as the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas, which Johnson has shown to be pre-Christian texts later Christianized.
Concluding that Justin "knows no authoritative writings except the Old Testament," Johnson adds that "he had neither our Gospels' nor our Pauline writings."

Was Justin Martyr sloppy?

If Justin actually had the canonical gospels before him when writing his texts, he could only be considered sloppy in his citations, which is the accusation made to explain why his "Memoirs" differs so much from the gospels.
The reality is that the Church father is surprisingly consistent and conscientious in his quotation elsewhere. For example, as I state in SOG,

Martyr quotes from the Old Testament 314 instances, 197 of which he names the particular book or author, equaling an impressive two-thirds of the total amount. Several of the other 117 instances may not have needed citation, "considering the nature of the passage."

Despite his remarkably fastidious record, when Justin is supposedly quoting the New Testament, he mentions none of the four gospels. Instead, he distinctly states that the quotes are from the "Memoirs."
Since he is careful in his quotation of the Old Testament, it is reasonable to assume that he is accurately citing the "Memoirs" and that such a book is not the same as any of the texts found in the New Testament.

There could be no reason why Martyr would not cite the gospel books by name, unless he was not using them. Since he never mentions the four gospels, it is logical to assert that he had never heard of them. Thus, the Memoirs text is not the same as the canonical gospels, and the mention of and quotation from this book does not serve as evidence of the existence of the gospels.

"The Memoirs text is not the same as the canonical gospels, and the mention of and quotation from this book does not serve as evidence of the existence of the gospels."

In his exhaustive analysis of Justin's writings (182-267), Cassels remarks (240):
"...The hypothesis that they are quotations from our Gospels involves the accusation against Justin of an amount of carelessness and negligence which is quite unparalleled in literature.
Justin's character and training, however, by no means warrant any such aspersion, and there are no grounds for it. Indeed, but for the attempt arbitrarily to establish the identity of the Memoirs of the Apostles with our Gospels, such a charge would never have been thought of...."

As Cassels further says, in his section about the non-canonical text of the second century called the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" (266):

...We have already seen that Justin speaks of "The Gospel," and seems to refer to the Memoirs of Peter, both distinguishing appellations of this Gospel [according to the Hebrews]; but there is another of the names borne by the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," which singularly recalls the Memoirs of the Apostles, by which Justin prefers to call his evangelical work. It was called the Gospel according to the Apostles..., and, in short, comparing Justin's Memoirs to this Gospel, we find at once similarity of contents and even of name.

Thus, we may surmise that Justin's "Memoirs" text was the same as the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," also called the "Gospel according to the Apostles."

"We may surmise that Justin's 'Memoirs' text was the same as the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,' also called the 'Gospel according to the Apostles."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

'After spending dozens of pages examining in minute detail every aspect of Justin's writings vis-à-vis the canonical gospels - again, including providing the original Greek where necessary - Cassels (266) summarizes :

'...We have shown that there is no evidence that [Justin] made use of any of our Gospels, and he cannot, therefore, be cited even to prove their existence, and much less to attest the authenticity and character of records whose authors he does not once name.
On the other hand, it has been made evident that there were other Gospels, now lost, but which then enjoyed the highest consideration, from which his quotations might have been, and probably were, taken.
We have seen that Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles contained facts of Gospel history unknown to our Gospels, which were contained in apocryphal works, and notably in the Gospel according to the Hebrews; that they further contained matter contradictory to our Gospels, and sayings of Jesus not contained in them; and that his quoations, although so numerous, systematically vary from similar passages in our Gospels.

No theory of quotation from memory can satisfactorily account for these phenomena, and the reasonable conclusion is that Justin did not make use of our Gospels, but quoted from another source....

The facts are that the terms "gospels" and "gospel" in Justin do not indicate his knowledge of our canonical gospels; that the quotes from the Memoirs of the Apostles are not the same as those in the canonical gospels; and that the term “Memoirs” appears to refer to a single text, like "Acts of the Apostles," rather than serving as a reference to the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, whom Justin does not mention or even seem to know. In the final analysis, it is evident that Justin Martyr does not quote the canonical gospels and that, despite the wishful thinking, these texts do not emerge clearly in the historical record until the end of the second century. Does early Church father Justin Martyr quote the gospels?

This is one of the easier to find observations on this matter. Over the years I have read others that go into even more exacting detail, pointing out that when Justin does cite a particular verse from 'The Memoirs' on more than one occasion or writing, it is quoted verbatim and consistently, indicating that it was being precisely quoted from an established earlier text, one that did not exactly correspond to the text of the Gospels we now have.

I cannot but conclude, based upon all of the evidence presented, that Justin was drawing his NT quotes from a single volume which he customarily referred to as 'The Gospel' and 'The Memoirs of the Apostle's.'

(I must mention that a few years ago I was involved in protracted and heated thread on this Forum where I argued the exact opposite.
.....I have read and learned a lot since then.)

Your post is absolutely fascinating.

For years I have been showing that Justin Martyr's Memoirs of the Apostles cannot be assumed to be the Canonised Gospels.

Years ago, I have shown that Justin Martyr was a most meticulous write and almost always if not always NAMED his sources.

For example, Justin Martyr mentioned the book of Isaiah by name 0ver 85 times and named the books of 11 prophets in Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint.

Yet, Justin Martyr never once claimed any disciples and followers named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote stories about Jesus.

The NT Canon was NOT compiled before the mid 2nd century based on Justin.

Duvduv · 10-12-2012, 04:10 AM

It's mighty curious why we never see apologists try to fill in any gaps at all about the contrasts between Acts and Galatians, i.e. the life as a Jew or any other part of the biography of Paul/Saul. They try to fill in details pertaining to other things, the gospels, the apostles, etc., but apparently nothing relating to "Paul" that they allegedly knew about from outside the NT texts.

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

10-11-2012, 10:19 AM	#235
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Duvduv - read up on the work of Christian monasteries in preserving Christian literature. Manuscripts were preserved in monasteries from Ireland to Egypt to Ethiopia, and in particular in Greece. Of course, their first priority was the canon, and later Protestants were more interested in the classics, but that is the general source for what is referred to as the "patristics." Have you checked Roger Pearse's website, www.tertullian.org ? It's not clear that you are going anywhere with your repetitious questions that you don't seem to be willing to research for yourself.

10-11-2012, 11:49 AM	#236
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	That is incorrect. You have provided me the information to go into this further, because I did not know that the works of the apologists were kept specifically by various monasteries as opposed to "church headquarters." Now I can pursue this further. However, I don't appreciate being singled out for certain patronizing comments. The repetition is no more or less than the repetition for a number of other participants who I do not see as recipients of repeated patronizing comments. In any event, the basic idea remains important and at least as worth of discussion as those of Josephus, or the sex lives of ancient personages, or the incessant intellectual bickering, scholarship politics, etc. that circulate on this Forum.

10-12-2012, 04:10 AM	#240
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	It's mighty curious why we never see apologists try to fill in any gaps at all about the contrasts between Acts and Galatians, i.e. the life as a Jew or any other part of the biography of Paul/Saul. They try to fill in details pertaining to other things, the gospels, the apostles, etc., but apparently nothing relating to "Paul" that they allegedly knew about from outside the NT texts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.