Duvduv

It's rather funny that the text is called a dialogue between Justin Martyr and Trypho. As dialogues go, there should be a back-and-forth between them. However, the bulk of the text is merely rhetorical pronouncements where poor Trypho can't get a word in edgewise, even if it's all merely a literary device to promote certain views.

Justin Martyr (if that's who wrote it, and I have my doubts) expects his reader to take his word for it that everything he claims is true. He bases the vast majorit of his arguments on the Jewish scriptures except for a couple of chapters where he uses citations of statements that could just as easily be interpolations.

He doesn't even claim any sources for his metaphors such as the idea that the lamb of Passover on the two spits represents Christ on the "tree" or that the two goats of Yom Kippur represent the first and second comings.

He never represents any sources in the names of any Christians at all. The term "memoirs of the apostles" doesn't make sense anyway because the gospels are GOOD NEWS, the divinely inspired theology and not just memoirs. And he would never explain which memoir he was referring to. I suppose it could be argued that he was referring to such sources that were not yet considered sacred writ or "holy gospels" but just sources.

Then of course we see that many if not most of his references that are also found in Matthew (and a couple in Luke) are not exact renditions of those sources either.

vid

So... what's your point?

aa5874

"Memoirs of the Apostles" does not have to be in multiple books.

"Memoirs of a Geisha" is ONE BOOK.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs_of_a_Geisha

Duvduv

Do you or aa5874 think anything in the Dialogue goes back really to the 2nd century?

aa5874

One of the apologetic sources that contains the clues or "codes" to unravel the History of the Jesus cult of Christians is "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

Once you examine "Church History" carefully it will be clearly seen that the following apologetic sources, wholly or in part, are historically and chronologically bogus or heavily mutilated.

Writings under the name of Luke.

Writings under the name of Paul.

Writings under the name of Clement of Rome.

Writings under the name of Ignatius.

Writings under the name of Polycarp.

Writings under the name of Papias.

Writings under the name of Irenaeus.

Writings under the name of Tertullian.

Writings under the name of Clement of Alexandria.

Writings under the name of Origen.


The following writings appear to be fundamentally credible.

Writings under the name of Justin Martyr.

Writings under the name of Theophilus of Antioch.

Writings under the name of Athenagors.

Writings under the name of Minucius Felix.

Writings under the name of Aristides.

Writings under the name of Arnobius

The abundance of evidence of antiquity suggests that the Jesus story most likely started after the Fall of the Temple and that Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews, and Pharisee was UNKNOWN up to the time of Justin Martyr.

Maklelan

So "dialogue" is an inappropriate title because the position of the author dominates the discussion to too large a degree?

Can you identify any apologetic authors from the first, oh, say, five centuries of the Common Era that did not expect their readers to take their word that everything they claimed was true?

So now a religious author is not allowed to develop their own metaphors? Oh, boy, this has far reaching implications.

For shame!

So now he's wrong because he under-appreciates the theological significance of the gospels?

Or his discussion was apologetic and aimed at asserting certain exegetical decisions rather than producing a sober historical treatise. Genre is always and without exception the first thing you consider when evaluating a text.

Imagine that. Textual variation in early Christian texts. I wonder if textual critics have been made aware of this.

Duvduv

I have might doubts as to whether the Dialogue was from the second century as opposed to the third or fourth. It may be true that the style of apologists is always to expect readers to take their word for it. I was just commenting in this case. I didn't mean he isn't *allowed* but rather just commenting how he did it. In contrast to the lamb of God of GJohn, which takes away the sins of the world and is an incorrect metaphor between Passover sacrifices and Yom Kippur ones.

I don't think he had an issue with underappreciating the gospels. I just don't think the gospels yet existed. I should note that it seems rather *convenient* for official church doctrine that he uses citations that appear in Matthew and a couple from Luke and John, but none from Mark, since the Church confers on Matthew the status of the first gospel. However, the fact of the incorrect citations leads me to believe that there were many collections of aphorisms in various versions attributed to "Jesus" and his was one.

Remember that in his Apology he refers the EMPEROR to check out his own archives for the "Acts of Pilate" describing the crucifixion. Very risky business especially if Justin never saw the archives and if the Acts does not reflect anything that happened historically. Probably a nice later interpolation.........

Duvduv

However, a close reading of the Dialogue and the Apology makes me wonder when they were written....

stephan huller

magine that. Textual variation in early Christian texts. I wonder if textual critics have been made aware of this.

I've been laughing about this statement for over a minute now

Maklelan

It still betrays your rhetorical goal and thus your lack of objectivity, as well as your lack of sensitivity to genre and your general naivety regarding religious historiography.

How is it "incorrect"?

So you are arguing that if they had existed, certainly he wouldn't have so disrespectfully labeled them?

What "official" church doctrine existed at the time of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho?

Martyr also quotes from Revelation, even though that text wouldn't be considered authoritative by the church for quite some time after.

"Incorrect citations"?

And if such a text did exist, it's not very risky, is it? Any number of scenarios could underlie Martyr's citations.