stephan huller

The writings say something. The writings were written by someone. They may have been edited by someone else - many someones. But going beyond what is actually preserved in surviving manuscripts requires comprehensive arguments which take time and - in order to be well received - several skill sets which you don't seem to possess or have never demonstrated at this forum. Like reading, comprehension and learning to shut up that voice in your head that wants to foist ridiculous a priori opinions on to whatever you don't like from material that survives from antiquity.

tanya

Thank you Duvduv, for making this point, a very important one, which has earlier, if I am not mistaken, been made by other forum members, including, but not limited to, Toto, Philosopher Jay, and spin, among many others.

I don't disagree with you. Our faith, for that's what it is, our faith, that this single manuscript is both accurate, and unadulterated (obviously, a document could have been altered to make it more accurate!!!), is tested. We are skeptics, by definition. Our forum is made up of disbelievers (though, we are fortunate to have in our midst, some brilliant "true believers", and in my opinion, they add a lot, to our discussions), so it is both proper, and correct, that you would challenge my opinion, vis a vis the supposed integrity of this single manuscript of Justin Martyr.

I have no idea, really, whether this single manuscript is entirely fiction, or wholly accurate, to pick two extremes.

I would simply point out, that criticism of aa5874 irritates me. I applaud Jake, and others, for their skillful writing on this forum, but I dislike attacks on fellow forum members, particularly the three which seem to receive a disproportionate amount of vitriol:

aa5874
mountainman
sheshbazzar

Those three rank among my ten most favorite posters on this forum. I never fail to read every word they write.

That doesn't mean I agree with every sentence they post, but, on the whole, I find myself in agreement with the general tenor of their posts. I think Jake has gone a titch overboard, here, in his annoyance with aa5874. Jake is obviously VERY skillful, and I am extremely impressed with both his scholarship, and his knowledge. I am less impressed with his response to criticism originating from aa5874.

I think one can simply immitate spin, here. What does he do? Confronted with tanya or aa5874 or person xyz, he simply ignores their submissions. I think it is an effective means of rebuttal. Jake, I urge you to adopt his approach......

Philosopher Jay takes the other stand, and I find his approach the best, among all other forum members. He willingly acknowledges each and every attempted rebuttal, of his submissions, and does so, in an empathetic fashion, finding something of merit in most replies, even when he disagrees with the tenor of that submission. I wish that I could learn his method, and combine it with David's analytical approach. I know my own submissions would profit from such an adoption.

What we really need, to move forward, here, whether it is the dating of Paul's epistles, or the life history of Marcion, or any other SECOND century question, is MORE EVIDENCE. Absent new discoveries, we will continue to be akin to the proverbial cat chasing his/her tail in a circle. The problem, really, (in my opinion) is not with aa5874, or someone else, it is with the paucity of information we have available to us.

stephan huller

This is the same argument which was foisted against the discovery of the Letter to Theodore at Mar Saba many years ago (although by people with far greater skills and intelligence than duvduv so I feel bad about making the comparison). Many texts survive from antiquity with only one exemplar. If you chose to throw out all texts based on a single exemplar we wouldn't have a lot to work with from antiquity. But you have to be consistent. You can't chose to ignore evidence merely because it is inconvenient.

jakejonesiv

Dear Duvduv,

I do not doubt that for a second that you do not understand the need for evidence. It is good that you can admit your limitations. So far, you have met your own definition of a monkey's uncle. So here is one last attempt to reason with you.

I am not opposed to the forgery of allegedly ancient documents. I have argued for these sevral times, so do a search if you are not familiar. I am as likely as anyone to be sympathetic to a well presented case. But you don't get a free pass.


You have not produced any evidence to back up your assertion that the works of Justin were composed in the middle ages.


I am not going to do your research for you. Start off by reviewing the textual history of the Justin docuemnts. Point out where you find anomalies.

If it was forged, by whom? For what purpose? How was the forgery accomplished? Who benifited? Just be aware that I am very familiar with The Prolegomena of Jean Hardouin, so I know the arguments for the medieval forgery of the church fathers better than you have without doing your homework.

.

stephan huller

duvduv doesn't do 'research.' He just comes to the forum and asks open ended questions which serve as a pretext to further his pre-existing hypotheses. In that way he is a lazy mountainman or a slightly more confident tanya/avi. He thinks that all early Christian fathers whose existence and opinions are supported only by an insulated Christian literary culture are wholly invented and spurious. However he himself is wholly devoted and venerates a parallel group of Jewish fathers whose existence and opinions are supported only by a Jewish literary culture. What's the difference? Is there better evidence for one over the other? No, but duvduv is Jewish. So his inherited biases and those of his kin are better and more true than the inherited biases of other people and other cultures.

Sheshbazzar

Justin Martyr's writings omit certain doctrinal information and views that were fundamental to latter 'orthodox' Christianity, while at the same time containing certain doctrinal information and views detrimental to and highly at odds with latter orthodox doctrinal views.
A latter church writer would not have produced writings that in so many ways conflicted with latter church held opinions.
This fact of the content of Justin Martyr's writings argue strongly for their early date, and relatively untampered with authenticity.

stephan huller

Oh I forgot Shesh.

aa5874

You NEED to back up your own assertions. Please name one ancient source that provided the dates you presented. :tomato:

[b]1. Gospels (120's-180's CE)
2. Acts of the Apostles, ca 180 CE
3. Epistle of Barnabas (early 140's CE)
4. Epistle of James (early 140's CE)
5. Shepard of Hermas (140's CE)
6. 2 Clement (approximately 160 CE)
7. Minucius Felix, early 160's CE
8. Marcion and the Gnostics, Apostilicon 130's CE
9. Ignatians, Marcionite (or Appelean) version, approximately 160 CE
10. Polycarp, 160's CE
11. Pastoral Epistles, (by Polycarp?) 160's CE
12. 1 Clement (Catholic redaction) 150-160's CE
13. 2 Peter, 180-200 CE
14. Ignatians (Catholic redaction), 170-180 CE
15. Pauline Epistles (Catholic redaction), 170-180 CE

Please name one ancient source that states Acts of the Apostles was most likely POST Marcion. :tomato:

There is NO ANCIENT source in that list.

YOU NEED TO BACK UP YOUR OWN ASSERTIONS with ANCIENT SOURCES. :tomato:

Expert opinion without a shred of evidence from antiquity cannot substitute for your OWN ASSERTIONS.

You conveniently accept FLAWED unsustantiated opnion to back up your assertions.

I need ANCIENT sources. Where are your ANCIENT SOURCES??

You demand ANCIENT sources from me and then give me FLAWED unsubstantiated unevidenced opinion.

I am tired of your BS.

You have a DOUBLE STANDARD. :tomato:

You have NO ANCIENT SOURCES for your own assertion.

You cannot and will not Name your ANCIENT sources for your assertions in the OP.

I no longer accept flawed unsubstantiated assertions without any ancient support.

I use Ancient Sources to ARGUE that MARCION was DEAD LONG BEFORE the Pauline letters were composed.

This is a PARTIAL list: Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Lucian of Samosata, The Recovered DATED NT manuscripts, The NT Canon, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Arnobius, Ephrem the Syrian, Jerome, Rufinus, Augustine of Hippo, Optatus, Eusebius, Julian the Emperor, Chrysostom, the Muratorian Canon, the Liber Pontificalis, and the Donation of Constantine.

Bernard Muller

to aa,

What makes you think "Luke" had to find all his/her infos from Josephus' Antiquities & Life, Tacitus & Suetonius?
Had these three authors a monopoly in providing infos to the like of "Luke"?
Furthermore, some (secular) historical info in Luke's works are not in these books. So there were other sources.


But "Luke" had the duo of Annas & Caiaphas. He/she did not get that from 'Antiquities'.
Also, "Luke" had Ananias as the high priest two years before Felix was removed from office as prefect of Judea. He/she did not get that from 'Antiquities'.

Either it was a common healer procedure then, that "Mark" thought to have Jesus doing also, or, (my preferred option) "Mark" (and his community) heard about it and had to have Jesus outdoing Vespasian. That kind of story (a new emperor being a successful healer) was most likely to be heard all over the empire soon after it happened (it was still being told by eyewitnesses more than 30 years later).
The lame is cured by Vespasian putting his foot over the hand of the lame. But in gMark (3:5) the hand needs to be only stretched in order to be healed.

Cordially, Bernard

Duvduv

Jake, if someone produced a document allegedly written by someone in the second century who discusses the birth of Mohammed, we would know there is a problem. You wouldn't need "proof" that the document wasn't written in the second century.

We have discussed all the holes in the Justin writings, and it does not require proof to call into question its authenticity for the 2nd century.