PhilosopherJay

Hi Apostate Abe,

This is in regards to your statement:

I am not sure if you meant Justin Martyr instead of Marcion here. I do suggest that the versions of the gospels we have were written from 160-200 C.E. which is the time that I believe Marcion or the followers of Marcion also wrote their gospel.

Assuming you did mean Martyr, I would note that Martyr does not generally seek to prove the historicity of Jesus, but generally just allows that the tales of Jesus are no more improbable then any other mythology and old testament tale. This suggests that he is taking these tales as mythologies.

The date of Irenaeus is usually given as 180, but that is just based off of remarks by Eusebius. Since his list of heresies pretty well matches Tertullian, I do not see any reason to put him before Tertullian who generally writes from 200-210. Clement of Alexandria, who like Justin Martyr barely argues for the historicity of the gospels can also be put in this time.

Mythologies are written for a number of reasons: wish fulfillment, etiologies and general explanations of customs and to make political points. "Superman" comes from the wish fullment of being stronger and faster than everybody else. Also the original comic book was making the political point of attacking the German Nazis who claimed to be supermen. Jerry Siegel, the original Jewish author, was showing how different a "real" superman would be from the false Nazi "Supermen."

The gospels also contain part wish fulfillment in that Jesus has the super power of healing. He can also defeat the arguments of the smartest rabbis, without having been educated, coming from a backwards fishing village, and without even knowing very much about the hebrew scriptures. Politically, Jews would have been talking about why the messiah, Bar Kochba, failed to save the Jews from the Romans. The political answer that the gospels give is that the Jews didn't recognize the true Messiah sent prior to Bar Kochba and rejected him. The gospels were written as mythology, for a mixture of entertainment (wish fulfillment) and Political purposes. There are also explanations of customs such as baptism and the Eucharist, as is commonly found in mythology.

We can see from the defense by Justin Martyr (160-180) that the gospels or some proto-gospels were first being defended as no different than other myths. It is only after 200 C.E., that they are being defended as true history in order to claim that they are earlier then the many gnostic gospels that are created along with them from 150-200.
Why did people believe the gospels if they had the form of myths? They believed them primarily because most people back then believed myths were true.

Perhaps another factor is that people tend to believe stories are true if they are told in the story it is true. I just watched a 2004 movie "Modigliani" on the painter Modigliani, which claimed to be true. It postulated an intense feud between Modigliani and Picasso which caused the death of Modigliani. When I researched it, it turned out that Picasso barely knew of Modigliani, and there is absolutely no evidence of any feud between them. Until, I did the research, I naturally assumed the movie was based on fact not fantasy. Unfortunately, there was no way for the average person living in 200 C.E. to do research and discover fact from fantasy. (Things got worse in Medievel times when people opened their Bibles instead of going to Wikipedia to do research.)

There is a little coda placed at the end of the Gospel of John, where the author claims to be Jesus' beloved. There is also a little coda placed at the beginning of the gospel of Luke where the author claims to have done a lot of research. These are equivalent to the "based on a true story" label that movie makers use today to certify their creations are not pure fiction. Because a movie says "based on a true story" it does not mean that the movie makers meant or intend to be truthful.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

But, whether or not you believe Jesus did actually exist as a God or man CANNOT alter what is written in the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

Justin Matyr did ARGUE that JESUS DID ACTUALLY EXIST and had Apostles who wrote the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

Justin Martyr did not consider the words of the prophets as mythological at all.

This is Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho" LXVI
Justin Martyr CLEARLY used Hebrew Scripture as history.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

We distinguish between history and mythology. Justin Martyr did not. For him all mythology was history, whether Jewish or Greek mythology. For him, Hercules, Aesclepius or Mitra are not made up stories, they are deeds done by demons in order to confuse people. From chapter 69:

From chapter 70:
The author of "Dialogue with Trypho," no matter who he actually is, is writing from inside mythology. He tells Trypho at the beginning how he met Jesus Christ and became a disciple (chapter 8):

The main argument of the work is that the Christ that the Hebrew scriptures foretold was the Jesus he has read about in the book the "Memoirs of the Apostles" Justin Martyr does not know the gospels of Luke, Paul, Matthew or John. He quotes only from the Memoirs of the Apostles and mentions it 12 times.

This should be taken as one of the best proofs that the current form of the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were not established until after 150 C.E.

Some of the text of the Memoirs of the Apostles match the various gospels, but some of it adds more, contradicts or disagrees with those texts.

For example, he adds more information when he says (chapter 78),"he went to a cave nearby, and there Mary gave birth to the Child " For some reason this important fact was later not included in either the Matthew or Luke birth narratives. It is possible that it was too close to the Mithra birth narrative and the later gospel writers wanted to eliminate the similarity. Martyr also gives us more information when he says, (chapter 88) "He was thought to be a carpenter (for, when He was on earth He used to work as a carpenter, making ploughs and yokes)," This is not found in any canonical gospel.

He contradicts the later gospels when he says that Herod "ordered every boy in Bethlehem without exception to be slain." The gospel of Matthew says that Herod "killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under" Also, when he says Jesus (chapter 103) "replied not a word in His own defense." All four gospels have Jesus speaking in his own defense.

He shows us that the "Memoirs of the Apostles" had a quite different Christology when he quotes the father after the baptism:

This is an adoptionist position. The obviously later synoptic gospels change this to ""This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Justin Martyr is often cited as the first of the Church Fathers to know gospels. It is more accurate to say that he cites a proto-gospel very different from any of the canonized gospels. This should be taken as strong proof that all the canonized gospels were written post 150 C.E.

Martyr puts a list of Hebrew prophecies that he believes matches the text of "The Memoirs of the Apostles" into a Socratic dialogue form. He was not proving the historical truth of Jesus, but making an argument that the Hebrew prophecies more closely matched "the Memoirs of the Apostles" than the (historically more accurate) analysis of the Jews of that period. He nowhere attempts to prove the historical nature of "the Memoirs of the Apostles." As mythology is history to him, there is no need.

This is quite different from the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian who are trying to prove the historicity of the gospels by proving that they predated the mid to late Second century heretical works that they oppose. The failure of Irenaeus and Tertullian to prove this simple fact is another indication that the current form of the gospels are from the mid to late Second centuries, contemporary with with many heretical gospels.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

I am shockingly surprised and profoundly disturbed that you are unaware that Justin Martyr did DISTINGUISH between his belief in Jesus as historical and the Myths of the Greeks in his extant writings.

The words "IMITATION" or "IMITATED" used by Justin Martyr are dead giveaways that the GODS of the Greeks were considered FAKES, COUNTERFEITS, NOT TRUE Gods and non-historical by Justin Martyr.

Justin Matyr did refer to the GODS of the Greeks as MYTHS or IMITATIONS to DECEIVE the human race.

This is Justin Martyr on Greek Mythology.

"First Apology"
This is Justin on Greek Mythology in "Hortatory Address to the Greeks". The Greek Gods are based on LIES.

This is Justin on Greek Mythology in "Discourse to the Greeks"1 "Discourse to the Greek" 2 And Justin Martyr did refer to the Greek Gods as COUNTERFEITS in "Dialogue with Trypho" LXIX.

You must NOW know that a COUNTERFEIT is an IMITATION and that Justin Martyr throughout his writings did DISTINGUISH between what he believed to be historical about Jesus and the MYTHS of the Greeks.

And that is essential what the WHOLE of Justin writings are about fundamentally, demonstrating that the Greek GODS are COUNTERFEITS or MYTHS and that his GOD is the ONLY TRUE GOD and that his son Jesus did TRULY come to earth born of a Virgin as predicted by the prophets.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

The conception of a true historical Hebrew text and false fictional Greek literature is not a clear concept in Martyr.

First note this (chapter 5: First Apology of Justin):
In other words, there is really a self-named entity named Zeus and an entity self-named Poseidon. Only these are not Gods, but demons. They did really defile women and corrupt boys, just as the Greek myths say.

While affirming the existence of these demons, in the very next paragraph, martyr appears to deny what he has just affirmed:

The apparent contradiction is overcome if we see that for Martyr the term atheist does not mean not believing in the existence of Greek Gods at all, but simply not believing that these Greek Gods are Gods. For Martyr, they exist as demons.

One can see how Martyr is parodying the Jewish line against Christianity being a copy of Greek mythology. This is what Trypho says about Christianity (chapter 67):
Trypho is accusing the Christians of taking their stories of Jesus from Greek mythology. Martyr uses the same attack against the Greeks, that they stole their stories from the Hebrews. For example, see Address to the Greeks, chapter 28)

Ultimately, Martyr doesn't deny Greek mythology, he simply incorporates it into the Jewish/Christian religion as a subspecies, reversing the moral polarity of the Greek Gods by turning them into Demons. If the Greek Gods counterfeit are a counterfeit of the Jewish Gods and Angels, a bunch of rebel angels who have gotten control of the Earth and it territories, Marcion spins this one better by suggesting that the Jewish God himself is a counterfeit who has gotten control of the Earth from the more distant True God.

All of this reflects the politics and metaphysics of the time, with the emperor being a distant true ruler with evil rebellious counterfeit appointed rulers in control of the territories.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

What you say makes very little sense. Justin Martyr CLEARLY referred to the Greek Gods as MYTHS which were MADE by the POETS.

"First Apology"LIV
.

It was the POETS who MADE the MYTHS that were influenced by the wicked demons.

Justin Martyr CLEARLY believed the there was ONLY one God and his Son.

This is Justin on Greek Mythology in "Hortatory Address to the Greeks XXI

So it is CLEAR Justin Martyr wrote that the POETS made the Greek Myths and that the PLURALITY of God is FALSE. There is ONLY one GOD.

"Hortatory Address to the Greeks"XXI Justin Martyr CLEARLY BELIEVED his God did EXIST as the ONLY God and all others were counterfeit MYTHS.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

The word "myth" simply meant "story" in ancient Greece. The Greeks believed that the Gods passed on their stories to poets who wrote about them. Martyr does not disagree about this, he simply calls the Greek Gods "demons" and suggests that the demons passed on their stories to the poets.
The demons which the Greek called Gods have the names and apperance that the Greeks have given them.

Address to the Greeks (chapter 2)
Martyr is attacking the poets the way Plato did: they portrayed the Gods as engaged in ungodly activity.

In the First Apology, he does not deny the existence of Grecian Gods qua demons, but clearly states it:

Martyr is basically saying "Our god is the one true god" and your gods are all demons. This is midway between the classical Hebrew tradition that our God is for us and all other Gods are against us and the modern Christian tradition that there is one God and one devil.

Martyr is not proposing the Euhemerist view that Gods started off as men who had wild tales told about them. He is opposing that view with the idea that the Gods are actual demons who lie and control men.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

Justin Martyr have destroyed your argument. He Clearly believed there was ONLY ONE GOD

Now look at the very passage you have provided.

Justin Martyr called the gods of the Greeks " soulless and dead, and have not the form of God...

Justin Martyr did DIFFERENTIATE between his belief that God did exist and the Myths of the Greeks.

..."we see that these [gods] are soulless and dead, and have not the form of God..

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Regarding your statement:

Justin Martyr called the gods of the Greeks " soulless and dead, and have not the form of God...


The reference here is not to the Greco-Roman Gods, but to the Greco-Roman statues of the Gods. I think all Greeks and Romans would have agreed with Martyr that the statues were soulless and dead. They were not Gods themselves, but meant to be only representation of Gods. Martyr thinks they are representations of demons.

We are agreed that Justin Martyr believes in one true God, but the question is " What else he believes is true?" My position is that he also believes in true angels and he also believes in true demons, and it these demons that the Greeks and Romans called Gods. Thus he also believed in the Greek and Roman Gods.

The text is not always clear on this issue, but this is made abundantly clear in the Second Apology (Chapter five):

It is clear from this that Martyr does believe the Greek and Roman Gods are real, but he renames them demons.

Thus it is not that there is an no entity called Zeus for him. There is an entity called Zeus, but he is a demon (or evil/rebellious angel) and not a God.

Here are some analogies for the distinction I am making.

Justin martyr, Philosopher Jay and aa5874 go into a bar.
Next to us, there appear to be four men seated at a table.
Justin Martyr says "There is only one true man" at that table.
Now, Justin has often said to me that gay men aren't real men, so I interpret this to mean that Martyr does not consider homosexual men to be true men and therefore classifies only the one man he believes to be heterosexual as a "true man."
Aa5874 interprets this to mean that Martyr believes the other three men are phantoms who do not exist and only one is a true man.
Martyr felt that the bad behavior of the demons disqualified them from being gods. He also believed in the Platonic forms and therefore there was only one true eternal form of everything, including God.

Another example of the importance of the distinction can be a speech at a Teabagger party rally. The speaker says, "President Obama is not our true president." One half of the Teabaggers think he says this because Obama was born in Uganda and therefore is not a legal president. The other half think that one has to believe in certain conservative policies like tax breaks for the rich and permanent war to be a true president. To them his liberal policies make him a false president and not a true one. In the first case, the believers doubt the reality of the existence of a President Obama. President Obama does not exist for them. He should not be on a list of U.S. Presidents. In the second case, the believers acknowledge the existence and legality of a President Obama, but doubt the effectiveness and moral correctness of the policies of President Obama.

My position is that Martyr acknowledge the existence of the Greek Gods, but he did not acknowledge their effectiveness and moral correctness, so he called them demons.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

IT is just NOT true that Justin Martyr also believed in the Greek and Roman Gods.

But I will let Justin Martyr ANSWER you himself.

This is Justin Martyr in "Discourse to the Greeks" 1 Justin has ANSWERED you. He did NOT believe in the MYTHS of Homer. Justin did NOT believe in the mythical Greek and Roman Gods.