jakejonesiv

If all that is true, the attribution to a memoirs of Peter (assuming that he didn't meam 'memoirs of Jesus') is quite strange, when accordingly he should have known about Mark. Perhaps Justin is referring to a non-extant portion of the Gospel of Peter, which certain scholars (beginning I believe with Harnack) have theorized that Justin knew.

The fact remains, which is being blurred here, is that Justin does not give the names of the alleged authors of the four canonical gospels.

So, if Justin ever knew the names of the gospels, he never tells it, but he does know the Acts of Pilate by name, and he says the proof of the passion narraitive is contained in that book.

And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.
Justin, First Apology, chapter 35

Justin must have considered Pilate an apostle also. :devil1: The problem is, no extant version of the Acts of Pilate contain the begged for details.

Jake Jones IV

P.S. Nobody has answer my previous question; how many memoirs or gospels did Justin know? People keep assuming the canonical four, but this can't be correct because he also quotes from unknown gospels.

Neil Godfrey has done some work in this area. If anyone knows the link, please let me know.

Ben C Smith

I think it is fairly clear he knew (some recension of) the gospel of Mark, and he attributes it to Peter. This suggests he is familiar with (some branch of) the tradition that Papias and Irenaeus knew. That he does not mention Mark is not very surprising. What is surprising to me is that more of the early fathers do not follow his lead and skip Mark straight to Peter.

It is possible that the Boanerges detail was present in the nonextant portion of the gospel of Peter. It is also a flat-out conjecture.

That is correct. And I am not interested here in the four gospels. Only Mark, which Justin appears to attribute to Peter.

I think we can say with some degree of certainty that he knew some names. Otherwise it is hard to account for his statement that the gospels were drawn up by apostles and by their followers. How would he know that, unless he knew some names?

I do not think he knew the document we now know as the acts of Pilate. The translation that you offer is not very sound. Justin does not refer to the Acts of Pilate; he refers to the acts made in the time of Pontius Pilate. There is a difference.

He shows knowledge of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, and of John, and probably of some others as well.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Agreed

Iasion

Greetings,

Whoops.
Of course, I meant Justin doesn't mention the four names now attached to the Gospels.


Iasion

Roger Pearse

An unfortunate comment, given the general use of acta for secular purposes.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

JoeWallack

It Ain't No Mysteries, Whether It's Politics, Religion Or Histries

JW:
I've already Demonstrated on the Apostolic Preaching that a Mark was the author of Peter's remembrances of Jesus' teachings that this is more Likely to refer to Q than the Gospel "Mark" and that Subsequent Christianity Misidentified this writing as the Gospel "Mark". Now onto/unto Papias' supposed evidence for "Matthew":

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

"16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated."

JW:
Once again it's likely that Papias is referring to a Q type collection of Jesus' supposed sayings rather than a Gospel narrative:

1) "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language"

2) "every one interpreted them as he was able"

And once again we have a Natural and logical result. "Matthew", a follower, wrote down sayings of Jesus in the Same language as the sayings. Nothing Impossible is required.

We can also be certain that Papias is not referring to the Gospel "Matthew" here as every Assertian above is Contradicted by Canonical "Matthew":

1) The Gospel "Matthew" was written in Greek.

2) The Gospel "Matthew" is primarily Narrative and not just sayings.

3) The Gospel "Matthew" used "Mark" as the primary source.

Therefore, we have the same situation here that we have with "Mark". The Gospel "Matthew" received it's name because subsequent Christianity Misidentifed what Papias was referring to here as the Gospel "Matthew". Here we have further boenergus material regarding the name "Matthew". In the original Gospel "Mark", the tax collector called to follow Jesus is "Levi" and "Luke" has faithfully followed with "Levi". In "Matthew" though, this character looks to have had it's name changed from "Levi" to "Matthew". It's possible that the Church Edited the name to "Matthew" here because they thought "Levi" was "too Jewish". It's more Likely though that this name change was made as a result of the Misidentification of this originally anonymous Gospel with what Papias was referring to as "Matthew" and that we have caught Christian Forgery inflagranted dereliction of fijewciary duty. Note that the Gospel of Peter also appears to still have "Levi" which supports the Gospel of "Matthew" receiving it's name after The Gospel of Peter is written.

Obviously "Mark" and "Matthew" originally had no identification as "Mark" or "Matthew" and that is why some tradition, any tradition was needed to attribute names to them. The Gospels couldn't do this by themselves. This explains why they are not initially referred to by name, why a Tradition (and a very misguided one at that) was needed to supply names and why early extant manuscripts vary as to title. The lack of any reasonable External evidence is especially illustrated by both name attributions here having to come from Papias. These Gospels were written by Independent communities which multiplies the potential evidence for name attribution.

Thus the matter is decided and this Thread can be closed. However, as a penalty here for the poor scholarship shown by Christians here justified by their belief that not believing that god sacrificed himself to himself thereby conquering death by dying and ending a law which was eternal merits a penalty of eternal damnation there will be a penalty included in this post.



Joseph

"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations
for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient
world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for
its own doctrine." -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jakejonesiv

I agree, the extant Acts of Pilate do not contain the mentioned gospel details.


That is a distinction, but what is the difference? The first greek form of the Acts of Pilate begins,

Later Justin writes:

"At His coming the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear speaking: the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed; and the dead shall rise, and walk about." And that He did those things, you can learn from the "Acts" of Pontius Pilate. Apol i.48.

(If you don't like this translation, let me know, I will tear page 119 out of my copy of Bruce's "The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? (or via: amazon.co.uk)"

Please note that a similar list of miracles is contained in the extant text.
Are you proposing a secular document known to Justin that related details of the crucifixtion gleened from the 22nd Psalm along with alleged miracles performed by Jesus? Can you present the case for it?

Even our extant Acta Pilati purports to be a secular report affirming Jesus' divinity and messiahship. Needless to say, the claim is bogus.

Guys, no offense intended, but I feel like I have wandered into Apologetic Wonderland.

Can you help me out? I must be missing something.

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

The difference is that one is a title, while the other is more of a description or subtitle.

Christian apologists frequently referred their readers to official Roman documents supposedly archived in publicly accessible places. This was, in my judgment, possibly a bluff. That is, the apologists knew that Roman officials (such as Quirinius, Pilate, and Tiberius) kept official documents, and they could scarcely imagine important events in the life of the savior of the world being skipped over in those documents, so they presumed such things were recorded.

On the other hand, such official documents were also forged, so it is not unlikely that Justin (and Tertullian and others who feature these kinds of references) was thinking of a set of forged documents wherein such information was contained. Justin, in fact, actually copies one such document for us, namely the rescript of Hadrian. See my testimonia page for further details.

At any rate, I do not think that Justin intends his reader to think of Christian gospel literature when he writes of the acts written under Pilate. He is using these documents, real or imagined, as historical confirmations of the gospel records.

Same Greek phrase as before. Both of these passages are on my Justin Martyr page; refer to the appendix at the bottom of the page. In both cases the phrase is εκ των επι ∏οντιου ∏ιλατου γενομενων ακτων.

I doubt he had any secular document. But it is reasonable to suppose that he had something along the lines of the rescript of Hadrian or the later Acts of Pilate.

Quite agreed. I know you were saying it half tongue-in-cheek, but you wrote that Justin must have considered Pilate an apostle also. I think such a statement leans in exactly the wrong direction. The purpose of gospel materials is to have an official Christian record put down by qualified eyewitnesses (or their pupils) and useful for Christian preaching. The purpose of referring to secular documents is to independently confirm this Christian record, not to supplant it. Even (or perhaps especially) in antiquity it was known that positive testimony from the other side is a useful thing.

Well, what were you doing straying from the Narrow Path of Historical Inquiry? We called after you from the Waystation of Evidentiary Knowledge, but off you went, mumbling something about making Quirinius a Saint like the Blessed Apostle Pilate.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

The Acts of Pilate couldn't have been anymore symapthetic to Pilate and still get Jesus crucified.

I don't recall ever having commented on Quirinus on this forum.

TomboyMom

I'm arguing over at TWeb, where they assert this as obvious fact all the time. If you ask for evidence for Christianity, they say, "We have written eyewitness testimony." "Where?" "The gospels, of course." If you dare to suggest that mainstream scholarship accepts that none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, they ask you to cite sources, or what kind of crack have you been smoking. All their websites, books and teachers seem to accept as fact that the gospel authors were recording their eyewitness testimony. If anyone can summarize succinctly how/why we know they're not, it would save my lazy ass a lot of time. Thanks.