Duvduv

Bernard, you accept at face value that "Irenaeus" of the mid-200s wrote this. But this is very hard to believe consider that a mere 30 YEARS EARLIER the writings attributed to "Justin" show no knowledge of the named gospels, Paul or epistles. It is very hard to imagine that within 30 years there was such a massive turnaround in the same town, especially when it is argued that Marcion lived at the same time as Justin and knew about the very epistles that Justin knows nothing about.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
The dating of Irenaeus' works, through its references of Eleutherus as the Roman bishop then, are dated 180-190, not mid 2nd century.
Justin did not name the gospels authors because that was not "decided" yet, more so for "Luke" and "Matthew". I trust the deeds and sayings of Jesus from Mark in Papias' works (around 120) refers to gMark. And Ptolemy, around 150, named John, a disciple of the Lord, as the author of gJohn, which he quoted extensively. But Justin never quoted gJohn, but, through one passage ("born again") he seems to have known about.
The fact that Justin is silent about Paul does not mean Paul and the Pauline did not exist yet, because there is plenty of evidence they were known at that time and earlier: example Epistula Apostolorum (140-150): From Kirby website http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apostolorum.html: The Coptic version in ch. 17 places the end of the world at 120 years past Pentecost, while the Ethiopic version states that 150 years would pass. A likely explanation would be that the document was originally composed shortly before 150 C.E. and was revised by a redactor when the prediction didn't come to pass.
And I do not think Justin quoted any other canonical (or otherwise) epistles. And you are right, the fact Marcion was making use of Paul's epistles might have deter Justin to use them.

aa5874

Again, you are referring to sources that are likely to be FORGERIES.

It cannot be PRESUMED that sources which mentioned Paul are authentic especially without the corroboration of non-apologetic sources.

If the Pauline writings and the authors of the Gospels were KNOWN for about 100 years in the Roman Empire then it cannot be explained how Justin Martyr did NOT even acknowledge the SIGNIFICANCE of Paul and that he EVANGELISED the Roman Empire.

Justin Martyr's writings SHOW no contribution in the development of Christianity from Paul either as a writer of doctrinal Letters or as an Evangelist.

Justin Martyr was FORCED to use ONLY Hebrew Scripture, an OLD MAN and the Memoirs of the Apostles to DEFEND his Belief.

Justin Martyr and Aristides ONLY acknowledge the 12 disciples of Jesus as those who EVENGELISED the whole world or preached to every race of man.

Up to the mid 2nd century, with the supposed Marcion who should have the Pauline writings, Justin and Aristides, apologetic sources, seem as though they NEVER heard of Paul and the Pauline revelations of the Resurrected Jesus.

Duvduv

OK, Bernard. I see you accept the 2nd century claims derived from the party hacks who are called heresiologists at face value as if what they present is the gospel truth. I don't know that Justin is from the mid 2nd century, but he was either earlier than others, or he belonged to a sect elsewhere that didn't know about Paul or official gospels. I see we won't really get anywhere on this point.

la70119

Then how could he have made a 2,000-word argument that Jesus was about 50 when he died??? He must have just skimmed through gLuke and gJohn or cherry-picked those parts that matched his unorthodox ideas, then. And that Pontius Pilate was a procurator under Claudius Caesar when apparently everyone else knew he was a prefect under Tiberius Caesar??? This is crazy!!!

No, the most logical conclusion is that the works of the Irenaeus who lived in the late 2nd Century suffered from MASSIVE FORGERIES.

Duvduv

Or he had a version of the "gospel" that had a story of Jesus being in the time of Claudius (what happened to Caligula?) and thus lived to be 50. Of course there isn't even a scrap or fragment of such a "Luke gospel". But it is entirely possible that the writer had 4 gospels that were not exactly like the canonical versions. Otherwise he would have had to have been extremely dumb to weigh all potential documents that he had available and make that assertion, especially without making so much as a side comment about his fellow "bishops" who disagreed with him. It sounds utterly preposterous for this "Irenaeus" to exist in a world of fellow clerics and never mention any issues that were discussed together. For that matter, good old Justin also never mentions, not even once, his colleagues or predecessors on any matter that he discusses, whether on interpretation of scripture or comments about Marcion. Why is it that each of these guys who so many scholars rely on is a one-man show and freelancer?! Has this ever bothered anyone?

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
Justin's writings are dated 150-160, that is before Irenaeus' time. It is the first apologist who left a large amount of writings available to us. The only preceding apologists are Aristides, Quadratus and Papias (around 120-130). Their preserved writings are short, but collectively, they gave positive signs they knew about the gospels and even Acts.
More details here: http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html
Justin was never considered a heretic.

Bernard Muller

to la70119,
Exactly, I agree with the parts I took the liberty to bold (however I woud prefer to see a AND rather than OR). And that's exactly what we see when we read AH 2.22.
For the Claudius thing, Irenaeus might have been stubborn, not admitting a mistake he made in AH 2.22. The same passage in 'Demo" is also flawed because Irenaeus is most confused about the Herod in the time of Jesus' execution.
Even important man and woman made big historical/geographical mistakes. W Bush is a good example, also Bachman confusing two Elvis, one Elvis Presley, the other one a serial killer.
And Eusebius and Tertullian also made big mistakes of that nature.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Of course Epistula Apostolorum (140-150) is a forgery, as not written by the apostles: But regardless, that prove that someone writting around 140-150, knew about a Paul according to Acts (of course indirectly). That's the point I was trying to make.
And if you think all Pauline epistles are forgeries, why do you use them to evidence your theory?

Duvduv

How do you know the dating is correct, Bernard?