Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 04-01-2011, 07:25 AM

Just thought there; ok, so we have Justin Martyr talking about "memoirs of the Apostles". He's not using the word "gospel" in that context.

Yet everybody and their mother nowadays thinks of "gospels" as those familiar texts (the ones that have the biography of Jesus).

When we read "St Paul", when we read him talking about preaching his gospel, at the back of our mind we have the idea that he must be talking about some reasonably extensive Jesus biography, somewhat like the gospels we know, but perhaps simpler.

But is that warranted at all? Whenever "Paul" talks about his gospel, it's either the very thin gruel of 1 Cor 15:3-8 (died, buried, raised on 3rd day), or it's more or less just plain theology. There's just no evidence of reasonably extensive biography (that indeed is the famous "silence").

And from Justin, we can gather that whatever were circulating as putative Jesus biographies weren't thought to be called "gospel" at the time.

So what does all that add up to? When did the term "gospel" get attached to the supposed floating Jesus biographies? And how does that relate to the earlier, "Pauline" usage of "gospel", as seeming to be more about the outcome of a historical salvific event, rather than a report of the salvific historical events?

Juststeve · 04-01-2011, 08:00 AM

I suspect that Paul had heard the biographical details of Jesus' life but considered them unimportant. What Paul thought important was the role Jesus' death and resurrection played in the plan of salvation. That was Paul's gospel, you can get saved by belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

I think to call Matthew, Mark, Luke and John "memoirs of the Apostles" is highly problematic. Justin Martyr may have thought them written by Apostles or persons close to Apostles but hardly anyone thinks so today. They seem instead to be based on an oral tradition with bits of theology thrown in here and there by the anonymous authors, a little bu Mark, a whole lot by John, probably an artifact of the growing theology that had attached to the basic Jesus story with the passage of time. The basic story may have been as simple as Jesus was a good guy and a good preacher who got crucified. Later someone thought he saw him alive.

Steve

Toto · 04-01-2011, 08:07 AM

Please see this thread on the meaning of the term translated as "memoir"

stephan huller · 04-01-2011, 11:54 AM

It implies that these 'memoirs' weren't viewed as finished products. The Diatessaron or a gospel like it (i.e. one made up of two or more ancient sources) which Justin likely developed himself - was clearly 'the perfect narrative.' All that came before him was viewed as 'notes' or things written down to help remember, but were not the equal to the Torah of Moses.

mountainman · 04-01-2011, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It implies that these 'memoirs' weren't viewed as finished products.

Alternatively it may imply that it was designed to "reveal by implication" that these 'memoirs' weren't viewed as finished products, but were gathered together at a later phase, perhaps edited, and perhaps at that time, according to the prevailing theories, also implementing the consistent use of the nomina sacra in the gospels (and "Paul" and "Acts" etc?).

Quote:

The Diatessaron or a gospel like it (i.e. one made up of two or more ancient sources) which Justin likely developed himself - was clearly 'the perfect narrative.' All that came before him was viewed as 'notes' or things written down to help remember, but were not the equal to the Torah of Moses.

I would definitely be questioning the historicity of the major (Eusebian) source being used in this OP - namely "Justin Martyr", since the source appears to be implicated in a number of counts of common pious christian forgery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Wheless FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY

JUSTIN MARTYR: (c. 100-165): Saint, Martyr, a foremost
Christian Apologist. A Gentile ex-Pagan of Samaria, turned
Christian, and supposed to have suffered martyrdom in the reign of
Marcus Aurelius, in whose name he forged a very preposterous
rescript.

Toto · 04-01-2011, 08:17 PM

Quote:

in whose name he forged a very preposterous rescript.

Do you know what this refers to?

mountainman · 04-01-2011, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

in whose name he forged a very preposterous rescript.

Do you know what this refers to?

There may be more than one, but probably the one at the end of the text of JM's 1st apology

Quote:

EPISTLE OF MARCUS AURELIUS TO THE SENATE,
IN WHICH HE TESTIFIES THAT THE CHRISTIANS
WERE THE CAUSE OF HIS VICTORY.

The Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Germanicus, Parthicus, Sarmaticus, to the People of Rome, and to the sacred Senate greeting: I explained to you my grand design, and what advantages I gained on the confines of Germany, with much labour and suffering, in consequence of the circumstance that I was surrounded by the enemy ....... etc

aa5874 · 04-01-2011, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

I suspect that Paul had heard the biographical details of Jesus' life but considered them unimportant. What Paul thought important was the role Jesus' death and resurrection played in the plan of salvation. That was Paul's gospel, you can get saved by belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus...

What nonsense! You come across as a story teller and do not deal with evidence but with imagination or suspicion.

Let us deal with ACTUAL written evidence.

"Paul" claimed he persecuted the FAITH and wasted it, so the details of Jesus MUST have been considered of GRAVE importance to "Paul" the PHARISEE and Hebrew of Hebrews.

"Paul" the PHARISEE persecuted the FAITH before HE preached his Gospel in the very Pauline writings.

If "PAUL" was a PHARISEE and a PERSECUTOR of the FAITH then "PAUL" must have KNOWN INTRICATE DETAILS about the FAITH and MUST have been ABLE to IDENTIFY the FAITH and those who preached the FAITH.

Ga 1:13 -

Quote:

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that BEYOND MEASURE I PERSECUTED the Church of God, and WASTED IT.

Ga 1:23 -

Quote:

But they had heard only, That HE WHICH PERSECUTED US in times past NOW PREACHETH THE FAITH which ONCE HE DESTROYED.

In Acts of the Apostles, "Paul" made HAVOC of the Church.

Acts 8

Quote:

...And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem........As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

In the NT CANON, "Paul" was AWARE of the Jesus story and could IDENTIFY those who PREACHED the Jesus story.

In the NT CANON, "Paul" was AWARE that Stephen was STONED to death because he PREACHED the FAITH.

The claim that "Paul" knew very little about the Gospel or little about the Jesus story is COMPLETELY FLAWED.

A PERSECUTOR is expected to KNOW a lot about what he PERSECUTED.

aa5874 · 04-01-2011, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Just thought there; ok, so we have Justin Martyr talking about "memoirs of the Apostles". He's not using the word "gospel" in that context.

Yet everybody and their mother nowadays thinks of "gospels" as those familiar texts (the ones that have the biography of Jesus)....

It is most interesting to know that Justin Martyr did mention "THE GOSPEL".

The Singular, "the GOSPEL".

"Dialogue with Trypho"

Quote:

.... Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them.

Now once you read the writings of Justin Martyr it will be REALIZED that the "Memoirs of the Apostles" is a version of the Jesus story that PREDATED the Canonized Gospels.

Up to the 3rd century, it was CLAIMED Jesus was born in a CAVE but NO CANONIZED Gospel contained SUCH a story but it was IN the "MEMOIRS" of the Apostles.

It was claimed by Justin Martyr and Origen that Jesus was BORN in a CAVE based on the "Memoirs of the Apostles" or the "Memoirs of the Disciples".

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

....When we read "St Paul", when we read him talking about preaching his gospel, at the back of our mind we have the idea that he must be talking about some reasonably extensive Jesus biography, somewhat like the gospels we know, but perhaps simpler.

But is that warranted at all? Whenever "Paul" talks about his gospel, it's either the very thin gruel of 1 Cor 15:3-8 (died, buried, raised on 3rd day), or it's more or less just plain theology. There's just no evidence of reasonably extensive biography (that indeed is the famous "silence").....

As soon as "PAUL" claimed he was a PHARISEE and a PERSECUTOR and that he DID PERSECUTE then "PAUL" must be EXPECTED to know a lot about the Gospel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

....And from Justin, we can gather that whatever were circulating as putative Jesus biographies weren't thought to be called "gospel" at the time....

It is not so at at all.

Justin Martyr did refer to the "Memoirs of the Apostles" as the Gospel.

"Dialogue with Trypho" C

Quote:

..... but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'...

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

....So what does all that add up to? When did the term "gospel" get attached to the supposed floating Jesus biographies? And how does that relate to the earlier, "Pauline" usage of "gospel", as seeming to be more about the outcome of a historical salvific event, rather than a report of the salvific historical events?

The "Memoirs of the Apostles" was biographical.

Examine "Dialogue with Trypho" LXXVIII

Quote:

"Now this king Herod, at the time when the Magi came to him from Arabia, and said they knew from a star which appeared in the heavens that a King had been born in your country, and that they had come to worship Him, learned from the elders of your people that it was thus written regarding Bethlehem in the prophet..............

From the writings of Justin Martyr and Origen it can be DEDUCED that the "MEMOIRS of the Apostles" called Gospels was EARLIER than the Canonized Gospels.

"Against Celsus" 1.51

Quote:

....if any one desires, after the prophecy of Micah and after the history recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus, to have additional evidence from other sources, let him know that, in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes.

"Dialogue with Trypho" LXXVIII

Quote:

....
But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village, and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger...

The "shift" from "Memoirs of the Apostles" to "Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is part of the fraud to produce a BOGUS history of the Church.

mountainman · 04-01-2011, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The "shift" from "Memoirs of the Apostles" to "Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is part of the fraud to produce a BOGUS history of the Church.

Hi gurugearge and aa5874,

I think its also important to point out that the church accounts of the order of the authorship of the four gospels do not seem to match up to the reconstruction and analyses of modern scholarship, who estimate that Mark, and not Matthew, wrote first.

Best wishes,

Pete

04-01-2011, 07:25 AM	#1
gurugeorge Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 3,210	What does the shift from "memoirs" to "gospels" reveal? Just thought there; ok, so we have Justin Martyr talking about "memoirs of the Apostles". He's not using the word "gospel" in that context. Yet everybody and their mother nowadays thinks of "gospels" as those familiar texts (the ones that have the biography of Jesus). When we read "St Paul", when we read him talking about preaching his gospel, at the back of our mind we have the idea that he must be talking about some reasonably extensive Jesus biography, somewhat like the gospels we know, but perhaps simpler. But is that warranted at all? Whenever "Paul" talks about his gospel, it's either the very thin gruel of 1 Cor 15:3-8 (died, buried, raised on 3rd day), or it's more or less just plain theology. There's just no evidence of reasonably extensive biography (that indeed is the famous "silence"). And from Justin, we can gather that whatever were circulating as putative Jesus biographies weren't thought to be called "gospel" at the time. So what does all that add up to? When did the term "gospel" get attached to the supposed floating Jesus biographies? And how does that relate to the earlier, "Pauline" usage of "gospel", as seeming to be more about the outcome of a historical salvific event, rather than a report of the salvific historical events?

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

04-01-2011, 08:00 AM	#2
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	I suspect that Paul had heard the biographical details of Jesus' life but considered them unimportant. What Paul thought important was the role Jesus' death and resurrection played in the plan of salvation. That was Paul's gospel, you can get saved by belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus. I think to call Matthew, Mark, Luke and John "memoirs of the Apostles" is highly problematic. Justin Martyr may have thought them written by Apostles or persons close to Apostles but hardly anyone thinks so today. They seem instead to be based on an oral tradition with bits of theology thrown in here and there by the anonymous authors, a little bu Mark, a whole lot by John, probably an artifact of the growing theology that had attached to the basic Jesus story with the passage of time. The basic story may have been as simple as Jesus was a good guy and a good preacher who got crucified. Later someone thought he saw him alive. Steve

04-01-2011, 08:07 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Please see this thread on the meaning of the term translated as "memoir"

04-01-2011, 11:54 AM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It implies that these 'memoirs' weren't viewed as finished products. The Diatessaron or a gospel like it (i.e. one made up of two or more ancient sources) which Justin likely developed himself - was clearly 'the perfect narrative.' All that came before him was viewed as 'notes' or things written down to help remember, but were not the equal to the Torah of Moses.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.