Amaleq13

When Ben points out that we don't have everything Justin wrote, he is pointing out the logical flaw in your argument from silence.

Ben C Smith

You are:

Tertullian needs a definitive work with an introduction explaining that there are spurious copies from the former brother floating around. A work made before the brother made those copies would, by definition, lack such an introduction. A work made afterward could explain things, just as Tertullian does in Against Marcion 1.1.1-2.

Tertullian is not claiming these errors as his own. He is claiming that his own first work was incomplete and his second hijacked. Hence the need for a third.

Tertullian would have a completed work (relatively) free of mistakes and also without anything in it to explain why discordant copies of that same work were floating around. Naturally, he does not wish anyone to think he was responsible for the errant copies. That is the whole point of this introduction, and you are turning it around to make it sound like he is taking responsibility for the errors.

The physician Galen complained that errant and incomplete copies of his books were floating around, and he devoted an entire book to discussing them because there were so many. Tertullian needs only an introduction to do the trick, to distinguish his genuine work from the errant copies. We can also detect an additional motive for a new edition: He wanted to add more stuff to it, as he says in the very next line.

I do not believe the NT has no mistakes.

But plenty of new editions of the NT are published precisely in order to correct previous translations, even though those translations were done by other people. The RSV, for example, sought in part to correct previous translations seen as tendentious (virgin in Isaiah 7.14 stands out as an example).

Ben.

spamandham

In which of the following writings, would you expect to find these names? (from Early Christian Writings)

1. The Discourse to the Greeks - an appeal to Greeks to step away from their shameful ways

2. On the Resurrection - an argument to the Greeks on the plausibility of fleshly resurrection

3. On the Sole Government of God - another appeal to the Greeks, to worship only the creator God

4. Hortatory Address to the Greeks - another appeal to the Greeks, this time condemning the Greek poets

5. Various Fragments - mostly other authors mentioning Justin in passing

6. Dialogue with Trypho - a philosophical discussion with Trypho the Jew explaining why Christianity is compatible with the prophets of Judaism

7. First Apology - an address to Titus emploring fairness and justice for accused Christians receiving summary trials

8. Second Apology - an address to the Romans also appealing for justice in light of unfair treatment of Christians by Roman governors

Justin is foremost a philosopher, and his audience in all these works consists of nonChristian Greeks, Romans, and a Jew. Justin does not mention Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Paul, but neither does he appeal to the authority of any other Christian nor even discuss church history. His arguments are based on the Greek philosophers and poets, and the Jewish prophets, as would be expected considering the target audiences.

It wouldn't make sense for him to bring these other Christian people up in arguments to nonChristian audiences who would likely be unfamiliar with them. So why would you expect to find Paul (or any other Christians for that matter) mentioned in any of these works?

I don't see that as a reasonable expectation considering the audiences of these works, and the types of arguments used by Justin.

aa5874

You have no idea what you talking about. Justin Maryr quoted scriptures extensively from what appears to be gMatthew, gMark and gLluke. He called them "memoirs of the apostles".

You are not making any sense. Your arguments are extremely weak and shows lack of familiarity with Justin's extant writings.