Petergdi

How do you know they weren't apostles in the understanding of the term
which existed in Justin's time?

If Barnabas was an apostle (see Acts 14:14) why not his cousin Mark or
Paul's other sometime companion Luke? You can't expect Justin to know
about a theological definition of apostle which evolved after his time.

Peter.

aa5874

What about the "revelations" of "Paul"? More than one person had revelations in the NT, but Justin never mentioned that "Paul" had "revelations".

Galations 1.11-12, "But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not of man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

aa5874

And if Barnabas was not really an apostle, what?

Roger Pearse

Thank you Andrew -- nice to get that one bottomed out!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

sschlichter

You are hung up on a word. The grk definition of the word apostolos is delegate, messenger, one who is sent out. I understand that people also use the word to mean an official office of the church but the pizza guy could also fall under this original secular definition.

Barnabas was unmistakably a messenger that was an apostle (at the very least in this secular sense), was sent by the church, shared in the work of the apostles, worked for the apostles, etc. Read the events for yourself and go ahead and use whatever word you think is accurate; apostle, disciple, assistant, missionary, delegate, messenger. I would agree that he was an apostle (in the churchy meaning of the word) but we can refer to him in anyway you like.

When do we talk about the alleged forgeries and additions of the Bible as the thread indicates?

~Steve

aa5874

That's what the discussion has been about all along.

My position is that it is vey likely that were no Gospels named Matthew, Mark, Luke or John upto the middle of the 2nd century based on Justin Martyr's extant writings.

And further that the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were likely to be added later or sometime after justin Martyr's extant writings.

These are some of the reasons why I hold my position:

• Justin consistently called the Gospels memoirs of His apostles or memoirs of the apostles.

• The apostles of Jesus, up to his last supper, before crucifixion, did NOT include Mark or Luke.

• Justin seemed to be aware of an apostle named John that wrote a revelation but yet never mentioned that the apostle John also wrote a Gospel.

• Justin quoted numerous passages, over 50 passages in "First Apology" alone, from the "memoirs of His apostles" that appear to be from gMatthew, gMark and gLuke and never mentioned, even for ease of reference, the names of the authors of the Gospel.

• Justin mentioned numerous passages from the OT and mentioned, in combination, over 300 times, the names of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Moses, Hezekiah, Joshua, Daniel, David, Malachi, Jonah, Job and Amos.

Based on these findings, I am of the opnion that Justin was not aware of any Gospels named Matthew, Mark, Luke or John and these names were very likely to have added at some time after Justin.

sschlichter

there are 2 things that I see happening here.

One is that you are trying to build a case in a vacuum around Justin. He does not state the names, perhaps he did not know, perhaps he was not sure, perhaps he thought his audience would not care. We have already debated those possibilities (of which all remain). the fact that he was quoting from the same book that we call Mark is telling to me. The book existed then in order for Justin to quote it. The book was copied and distributed early by the apostles and early disciples. This is evidenced because Justin has a reliable copy of the document even if he did not know which apostle / disciple wrote it.

The other issue is that you are stating the obvious. Everyone know the names were added later and are not in the text. Looking only at Justin Martyr you could conclude that he did not know the names but why look at only Justin Martyr? There is much evidence internally in Mark and Luke and externally, through other ante-nicene fathers that they were attributed early to Mark and Luke.

~Steve

aa5874

There is a definite vacuum. It would appear that the vacuum was filled after Justin's writings.

It is really not known if Justin had a book just like or very similar to gMark, since he never said that he had such a book. Justin quoted many passages from the memoirs of the apostles, some of which are found in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Justin mentioned 3 documents that contain informtion similar to the NT:

• Memoirs of His apostles.

• The Acts of Pilate.

• A revelation of John.

I don't think everyone knows that the names of the authors were written later.


I did look at other christian writings and that is how I began to notice that Justin Martyr appeared to be not aware of or did not have in his possession any of the Gospels which were named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, or any of the "Pauline Epistles and even "Paul" as late as the middle of the 2nd century.



]

sschlichter

well, the issue of assigning names and the actual documents themselves are 2 different things. I agree that Justin Martyr does not help with the names. I thought it was common knowledge that the names of the gospels were assigned through post biblical writings, tradition, and especially internal evidence.

I do not see how Justin Martyr's knowledge and quotations of the 3 earliest gospels helps your case though. Don't you find it odd that the memoirs of the apostles is quoted in the mid 2nd century by Justin Martyr (beleived by him to be written earlier by the apostles). Do you think he would not have been aware or have been able to apply any sort of criticism to them.

John is typically considered the latest gospel and we have fragments of it found in Egypt (Rylands Papyrus 457) dated between 100 and 150. This is 700 miles away from where it was written (Ephesus). Finding this fragment in Egypt dates the book of John to at least prior to this period and early enough to be written in Ephesus, copied, and travel to Egypt.

The is the latest mind you, how could John be any later? If that one fragment is not enough, we can move on to one of the others. Why would we beleive that the fragement we find is the original? We wouldn't, we would expect that the original was even earlier. Ignatius and Polycarp, both disciples of John quoted from the gospels before Justin Martyr. They used the names of John, Paul, Timothy, Peter, etc. because they knew them.

However, we would have to look at the books one at a time each according to their own merit. Which do you want to start with?

~Steve

aa5874

According to Eusebius in Church History, gMark was written around 50 CE or earlier, by Mark a disciple of Peter and this fact was well known at the time. Mark, in Church History was even preaching in Egypt using his gospel that he had written.

Again Mark was not an apostle of Jesus. Mark could not write a memoir of Jesus. He was just not with Jesus at all. Mark had no personal experience of Jesus.

It is therefore likely texts from Justin's memoirs of His Apostles were added to other writings of those who were not apostles.

Eusebius also claimed Luke a disciple of "Paul" wrote gLuke sometime after gMark. But Luke also could not write memoirs of Jesus. He was not with Jesus and had no personal first-hand experience of Jesus.

It is likely that texts from Justin's memoirs of His Apostles were added to other writings of those who were not apostles of Jesus.