Huon

Sheshbazzar, here is my opinion (only an opinion) :
Justin existed around 150 CE. He was a preacher of a new religion which was opposing both the religion of the Jews, and also the religion of the emperors.

Admitting that he existed, and that he wrote something, his writings were certainly not copied many times by many of his disciples. And we have no manuscripts of this epoch, even for the OT and the NT... at best, some scraps.

What are the oldest copies of the OT, which have been preserved ?

Duvduv

It is not a question of disregarding, but of realizing that it is a matter of weighing information and arriving at an approximation. Can we be sure that Julius Caesar existed empirically? No. All we can say is that available information (approximately) indicates he did. Or alternatively rely on FAITH.
In the case of Justin, the picture of a historical Justin in the second century is rather murky. Again we rely on a document provided by a 14th century monk/scribe, not unlike Giocondo and the Pliny document.
IF all we can really rely on is a SINGLE tangible copy from a manuscript attributed to a second century Justin, how valuable is that?

The argument regarding the 4th or 5th centuries is simply that even the church attributed texts to that period which just HAPPENED to be the period of the emergence of a NEW Roman regime establishing a NEW religion. This is not a coincidence. Can we be sure that a text said to have been written by someone who lived in 350 wasn't in fact written in 400? No. So it's an approximation. HOWEVER, the contextual elements still stand - the emergence of a NEW regime and a NEW regime religion.

aa5874

Your claim that "we have no external source the existence of Justin" is erroneous.

Justin is mentioned in writings attributed to Tatian, Irenaeus, Eusebius and Jerome.

See Tatian's "Address to the Greeks" .

See Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" 4

See Eusebius' "Church History".

See Jerome's "De Viris Illustribus".

aa5874

Again, YOU CAN BURN ALL THE UNDATED WRITINGS ATTRIBUTED TO JUSTIN MARTYR.

BURN ALL THE UNDATED MATERIAL . BURN THEM UP NOW. IT DOES NOT MATTER.

The RECOVERED DATED MANUSCRIPTS STILL SHOW THAT THE JESUS STORY WAS KNOWN AND COMPOSED BEFORE THE 4TH CENTURY AND NO JESUS STORY IS FROM THE 1ST CENTURY AND BEFORE C 70 CE.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Sheshbazzar

Dear Huon. Bear with me, my point in this argument is not actually to discredit Justin, nor the authenticity of his writings (although the evidence certainly suggests that we do not in most cases need to accept those dogmatic 'quotations' from them that are now so often taken as being 'gospel' accurate quotes.)

No, my point has to do with aa5874's intransigence, and his unreasonable demands for Paleographically or c14 DATED manuscript evidence, to accept the fact of the existence of earlier manuscripts for which no actual early remaining exemplars can be provided, such as the 'Memoirs of the Apostles'.

Because on the one hand for months, and for hundreds of posts aa has argued here for the credibility of Justin as a valid early witness, while on the other hand, aa choses to dismiss all the evidence presented in Justin's writings of the existence of earlier christian writings, (and of christianity) simply because none prior to Justin have ever been recovered to perform any paleographic or c14 tests upon.

Therefore ipso facto according to -'aa logic'- such documents, or any christianity prior to Justin cannot be proven to have existed.
But then as may be seen here, even the Paleographic and c14 evidence for anything attributed to Justin is likewise totally lacking.
In that sense, 'Justin' is just as much as a ghost and a fiction as Jesus is.

.

aa5874

Again, YOU CAN BURN ALL UNDATED WRITINGS ATTRIBUTED TO JUSTIN, AND ALL AUTHORS OF ANTIQUITY.

PLEASE, BURN, SHRED, AND UTTERLY DESTROY THE UNDATED MATERIAL OF ALL AUTHORS OF ANTIQUITY.

The Recovered DATED Manuscripts show NO Jesus story in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

The DATED DEAD SEA SCROLLS STILL DO NOT SHOW ANY JESUS STORY IN THE 1ST CENTURY AND BEFORE C 70 CE.

Sheshbazzar

Many of Josephus's 'Jesus' stories do date to the first century and before c. 70CE.

If Josephus reported stories about various Jesus's, it is logical and likely that other Jews also had their own versions of stories about these same Jesus's.

Not the least unlikely, given 1st century conditions, that to some of these Jews, a 'Jesus' ('Saviour') that took his torture and death without complaint would be hailed as religious hero, example to all, and an emissary from Elohim, a son of Elohim. Perhaps even THAT 'Son of Elohim' promised in the Prophets.

Sheshbazzar

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not complete. Many fragments still remain to be assembled. Much of the Dead Sea Scrolls deteriorated into dust.
We have no way of knowing what these lost manuscripts may have contained. There is no closed or rock solid case as you would like to imply.

aa5874

My argument is based on the ACTUAL DATED RECOVERED MANUSCRIPTS.

Are you implying that the UNDATED DSS must have information about Jesus??

I no longer accept Presumptions and Speculation about Undated or Unknown manuscripts.

Please explain to the public how the UNKNOWN helps us to argue for a 1st century Jesus story??

You must know that you have NO idea of the contents of the UNKNOWN.

It would seem to be that YOUR case is based on the Solidity of the Unknown.

Again, MY ARGUMENT that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century is based on ACTUAL RECOVERED DATED manuscripts and Compatible sources.

I will REVIEW my argument ONLY when NEW CREDIBLE DATA is found.

Let me repeat. I do not want to go over this "a hundred times".

I will REVIEW my argument ONLY when NEW CREDIBLE DATA is found.

A verdict can be overturned with NEW Evidence.

It is the very same with my argument---New Evidence MUST be first found--Not the Uknown.

aa5874

You MUST BURN THE WRITINGS ATTRIBUTED TO JOSEPHUS.

You very well know that earliest copies of the writings of Josephus are from hundreds of years AFTER the 1st century.

If you reject writings attributed to Justin because there are NO extant manuscripts of Justin dated to the time of Antoninus c 138-161 CE then surely you MUST reject the writings attributed to Josephus bacause there is also NO Extant manuscripts of Josephus dated to the 1st century.