Toto

What evidence is there that he didn't? All we can go on are probable inferences.

How do you explain Justin's failure to use the gospels as authority?

GakuseiDon

You wrote, "Perhaps he [Justin] knows that those gospels are just allegorical, with no basis in eyewitness testimony?"

Justin refers to the "memoirs of the apostles", including memoirs "drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them". He makes it clear that Christ interacted with the apostles. He makes it clear he believes that Christ was crucified under Pilate. And yet, as Steven pointed out, there is a lack of reference to a historical Jesus in Justin where Steven obviously was expecting something to be there. What do you think the probable inferences of that are?

For my purposes, it doesn't need to be explained. We only need to note that the pattern is there. And then adjust our expectations accordingly on what we would expect to see. And that there is a pattern there is no doubt. As Doherty writes in his new book "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man":

Another aspect is the fact that in almost all the apologists we find a total lack of a sense of history. They do not talk of their religion as an ongoing movement with a specific century of development behind it, through a beginning in time, place and circumstances, and a spread in similar specifics. Some of them pronounce it to be very "old" and they look back to roots in the Jewish prophets rather than to the life of a recent historical Jesus. In this, of course, they are much like the 1st century epistle writers. (Page 477)

Doherty put this down to that there were Second Century ahistoricists. For Doherty, even Justin Martyr probably converted initially to an ahistoricist version of Christianity. (His views on Justin and Tatian are unbelievably silly. It's a shame that people concentrate on Paul and don't go into the pattern found in the wider literature.)

jgoodguy

In short, the lack of reference to history is not evidence for myth.

Solo

Here you go:


Correct me if I am wrong but I have the distrinct impression that Justin did not defend his faith against the charge of inventing Christ, by pointing out to some evidence of his existence and career. He argued that the reports of him are not empty fables which does not deny logically the charge they are visionary allegories but only that they are without substance ! He also seems to argue the oracles of Christ that are believed by the Christians of his day to have come from the memoirs of the apostles, are the true words of the Spirit of God."

Please let me know if you find another way of interpreting Justin's response.

Best,
Jiri

Toto

I am not prepared to make a fully developed argument at this point, but you must consider the possibility that these references that appear to be historical are catholic interpolations.

Just short of time now.

JonA

It is nice to see that you haven't addressed any of the points that I raised. Nor have you provided evidence for any of the points you raised.

Jon

Huon

The oldest known manuscript of Justin is dated 1364 CE.

Toto

Then I guess we have a failure to communicate. It's not an issue I care about enough to drag this out. Have a nice day.

jgoodguy

As the mythical interpolator that makes it all right.

Toto

Consider the possibilities: A) Justin Martyr's writings were interpolated to bring them into conformity with orthodox dogma. We know this has happened.

B) Justin did not make the most obvious argument that would have supported his case, for unknown reasons that cannot be explained.

Which is more likely?

But it would take more work to flesh this argument out.