Julio

Sorry, I meant verses 18 to 20. Don’t you think that Matthew 28:18-20 is a late interpolation?

aa5874

Again, my position is this.

Whether the memoirs of the apostles were one book or a multitude of books.

Justin Martyr was not aware of any named Gospels, or any letters from Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude.

Justin Martyr quoted passages from what appears to be writings from the LXX or Hebrew Scriptures and from what appears to be similar writings to the Synoptics and Revelation.

Now, almost everytime Justin Martyr mentions a passage from what appears to be Hebrew scripture he is very specific, but as soon as he refers to a passage from what appears to be the Synoptics, all of a sudden, is very vague.

So, if a comparison is done, it will soon become obvious that Justin Martyr did not have in his possession or was not aware of any named Gospels or any letters from Paul, Peter, James, John or Jude.

Hebrew Scriptures...................The Gospels

Isaiah says ............................the memoirs say

Jeremiah................................ the memoirs....

Ezekiel................................... the memoirs.....

Daniel ....................................the memoirs.....

Job........................................the memoirs.....

Zechariah............................... the memoirs.....

Micah......................................the memoirs....

Hezekiah..................................the memoirs....

Amos....................................... the memoirs....

Joshua.................................... the memoirs....

Zephaniah...............................the memoirs...

Jonah......................................the memoirs...


It is clear that Justin Martyr at the time of writing could not identify any gospel or memoir writer specifically. He failed to mention every single author as found today in the NT except John as the writer of a Revelation.

Now, Justin Martyr wrote about Marcion and did NOT mention Paul.

Justin wrote about Simon Magus and did not mention Acts of the Apostles.

It is clear that Justin Martyr has an alternative history of Jesus believers.

Justin Martyr wrote about his own conversion to Jesus Christ and it is nothing like the fictious conversion of Saul/Paul as found in Acts of the Apostles.

Perhaps Justin Martyr is credible unlike the authors of the Church History.

Sheshbazzar

I am not arguing that the other Christian writings are not part and parcel of "the good new" of the Gospel, only that Justin, (and all the church Fathers) distinguished between "THE Gospels", the narrative accounts of Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection, and between those other Christian writings termed as "letters to the churches".
The Gospels and The Writings is a well attested distinction that exists in virtually all of early church Fathers writings.
The "Writings" are not "THE Gospels", they are of latter composition to supplement and explain The Gospel.

Sheshbazzar

I accept most all of this but;

Perhaps? but then again perhaps NOT?

"You have recently expressed your doubts about the authenticity of 1 Clement, and the writings of most other church Fathers, but you have no such doubts about Justin's writings?
<conceeded and deleated>
One might wonder why bother?
If Justin is "credible", was real, and lived at the time claimed for him, and really by himself gathered all of that Christian apologetic material from one single NT book of the memoirs, This would not serve to much discredit the Christian religion, only the "history" claims of a latter church.
Justin's Gospel, and his witness to Christian teachings circa 100-165 CE would still stand intact, unassailed, and unblemished.

And today, although Christians in defense of their faith, will pay token lip service to the existence of these early Church writers, very few put much if any trust in those stories and claims surrounding them.
You could invalidate most of them, but if you leave Justin and his writings uncontested, to them their faith in those Gospel stories that he witnesses to will remain unshaken.

If Justin is credible, and his testemony stands, it seems like you are doing a lot of just spinning your wheels to get almost nowhere to me.

Sheshbazzar

If you succeed in establishing Justin Martyr as presenting the truths of an earlier Christianity, you may discredit some teachings of latter, but then in so doing you have established Justin's version as being the "credible" and true one.
Even if you somehow managed to persuade the entire Christian church, you will have also persuaded them that Justin's form of the Christian religion is credible, not only that, in so doing you would remove most of those doctrinal barriers that have kept Christianity fragmented.
Do you really desire, and think, that Christianity with all latter church, man made divisions removed, and all denominations reunited under the writings of one single church Father will be a weaker less powerful force for evil in the world?
Heaven forbid that such a thing should ever happen! Tyranny and Hell on earth would reign under such a powerful Christian unity.

aa5874

Well, exactly. That is why one must investigate.

You seem not to understand how I deal with information.

It is simply this.

Justin Martyr's writings has placed the History of the Church as written by the church fathers , including 1st Clement in doubt.

Again, simply. If you receive two conflicting reports of an event, then each conflicting report puts the other in doubt. Either one or all the reports are erroneous.

I have found blatant fiction and erroneous information in some of the writings of the church writers, I cannot find any blatant fiction or erroneous information in Justin Martyr's writings.

Justin Martyr's appears to be a credible writer.

Eusebius, the author of Church History does not appear credible, yet other church writers, including Clement, are consistent with the blatant fiction and erroneous information found in the writings of Eusebius, except Justin Martyr.

Perhaps Justin Martyr's history of Jesus believers is credible.

andrewcriddle

Sorry for my brief answer. I was using a public library computer with only one minute of my time remaining.

Matthew 28:18-20 appear to have been part of the text used by Tatian for the Diatessaron and if an interpolation into Matthew was a very early one.

I agree that the verses show theologically late features (compared say to Paul) but Matthew itself was IMO written in the 90s CE and I don't think the theology of 28:18-20 is necessarily later than that.

Eusebius of Caesarea appears (particularly in his early writings) quotes/paraphrases Matthew 28:18-20 in a non-Trinitarian form. Some have seen this as evidence that Eusebius knew a divergent (and maybe more original) text of the passage but IMO this is unlikely.

(IMS There are threads about Eusebius and Matthew 28:18-20 on this forum.)

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Now, if you think that gMatthew was written in the 90's CE, then that dating contradicts Eusebius who put the writing of gMatthew before the death of so-called apostles Paul and Peter during the time of Nero.

Once, you bear that in mind, how can you claim to know what Eusebius likely knew?

Eusebius' history, chronology and even passages quoted from sources appear to be not consistent with the present findings.

And if Tatian's Diatessaron is examined the genealogies as found in gMatthew1.1-16, today, is missing which would imply that parts of gMatthew may have been written after Tatian's Diatessaron was written or at least late second century.

So, Eusebius' claim that an apostle called Matthew wrote gMatthew as we have it today is likely to be false, this would imply that Eusebius had a divergent copy, or did not know who wrote gMatthew, or deliberately presented false information in his History.

andrewcriddle

Tatian probably omitted the genealogies because of the discrepancies between the genealogy of Matthew and that of Luke.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

You have no way of knowing that it was probably Tatian omitted any genealogy or the reason for that probability. You are just guessing.

Probabilities are not based on guessing. You must show that there were genealogies in the source used by Tatian.

It may be that the genealogies were a later interpolation in both gMatthew and gLuke.