Ben C Smith

Why?

Do you feel the same way about the cursing of the fig tree?

Ben.

aa5874

What many have failed to realise is that once scholars have contradicted the church writers and claimed that all the gospels were written after the death of Nero, and that the writers of the epistles were more than one person, the entire history of the gospels and epistles, as given by the church writers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and others ,have been made completely obsolete.

Justin Martyr mentioned over 50 verses from the memoirs of the apostles yet did not name the authors. He mentioned only two or three verses from Revelations but did mention John as the author given he impression that he did not know the name of the authors of the 50 verses.

Justin did not mention any letters from Paul, and his writings show no PAULINE influence.

It would appear that there were no named gospel during the time of Justin.

aa5874

You probably have not read the passages from the memoirs of the apostles as stated by Justin Martyr.

There are pasages in the memoir of the apostles that are found ONLY in gMark, ONLY in gLuke and ONLY in gJohn.

So parts of the memoirs of the apostles are in all the gospels, not only gMatthew.


Also, based on the Diatessaron by Tatian, it would appear that there were four unnamed Jesus stories up to or near the end of the 2nd century, since it is claimed Tatian was a disciple of Justin Martyr.

neilgodfrey

I have no dispute with anything you say, except to remark that Justin does in a few places sound a bit like he is expressing thoughts after he's read some of Paul (e.g. Romans 11). I don't believe there is any reason to think such passages are from his knowledge of Paul's letters. Rather, some of the issues addressed in Paul's letters derive from the same pool of memes well established in the mid-second century.

Neil

aa5874

To assume that a single word or two that is found in Justin Martyr's writings must be from the letters of Paul is not sound at all. It must stand to reason that the letters called PAUL could have been written after the writings of Justin.

The CHURCH have lost track of Paul.

There is nothing to exclude the letters of Paul from the 2nd, 3rd or 4th century.

The Church lost Paul.

neilgodfrey

I take it you are expressing essential agreement with me, then? :-)

(I'm also sure you've noticed the extended sections in the latter part of Trypho that do sound like Romans 9-11 et al, and agree with me that these do not prove Justin knew Romans.)

Neil

the_cave

Toto, I have to thank you--pointing this out has been incredibly helpful to me. I think Robbins is partly right and partly wrong. This has suddenly helped me put together the last 3-5 years of thinking I've had on the synoptics. In fact, I think I can see the way towards a complete solution. So again, thanks.

Ben C Smith

!!

If you have a complete solution to the synoptic problem, I would sure like to see it.

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Why? Because it was meant to be such a big and highly significant event.

In comparison, the cursing of the fig tree is a relatively minor item.

Regards,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith

I spy quite a bit of subjectivity in this evaluation.

After the first feeding of the multitudes, a second does not seem all that major. The gospel of Luke is pretty long as it is. Eliminating such an obvious duplication to save room for gems like the good Samaritan is not that hard a call to make.

Ben.