IamJoseph

Everyone has the right to BELIEVE whatever they like - it is like a fantasy one has in their own private space. But one does NOT have the right to make terrible charges and accusations based on belief - and this is the crime of the Gospels, which mass murdered millions by this form of belief. Ultimately, the adherants suffer the stains - if they fail to demand proof - as in a court trial.

One can believe a sunrise is beautiful - but one cannot say the sun won't rise tomorrow because of that belief.

aa5874

Once Justin did not mention the name or names of the authors of the Memoirs of the Apostles it is very likely that he did not know who wrote the Memoirs.

In Acts of the Apostles, Jesus had 12 apostles, now the Memoirs of the APOSTLES must be from or of the APOSTLES or else Justin should have called it Memoirs of the FOLLOWERS, but he did not.

It is clear that Justin really did not know who wrote the Memoirs of the APOSTLES so he included even people who were not Apostles on one occasion.

Justin referred to many passages found in the Memoirs of the Apostles and never named the author but when he mentioned passages, for the first time, from Revelation he prompltly mentioned John an apostle as the author.

Now, Justin mentioned an apostle John wrote Revelation, yet never mentioned that the same John wrote a Gospel or epistles.

Justin Martyr was very meticulous, he is one of the few writers who mentioned almost every time the name of the author to whom the reference belonged. Justin referred by name to Isaiah over 80 times.

And, it is not really true to say that Justin knew the Synoptics when he never made such a claim. It is not logical to claim that since passages found in the Memoirs are similar to the Synoptics that Justin was aware of them, since it can be that the Synoptics were fabricated using the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Up to the middle of the 2nd century, Justin was still making mention of the stolen body story with the guards, he appeared to be unaware that gMark, gLuke and gJohn did not write anything about any guards at the tomb and nothing about the story that the disciples stole the body of Jesus.

Justin Martyr showed no awareness of any named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles or Pauline letters.

Vinnie

You are going to needlessly and impossibly multiply texts as an extra text is not necessary and virtually impossible based upon Justin's quotations. The most probable solution is that Justin and the school he belonged to used both the gospels and prepared harmonies of them. Don't forget, Tatian was his pupil.

Justin most certainly knew the synoptics. He most certainly does not name specific authors with the possible exception of the gospel of Mark being Peter's memoirs. I believe Justin was aware of the presbyter tradition from Papias before him as Ireneaus, the Muratonian Canon and Clement after him knew of it, directly or indirectly.

At any rate, those memoirs of Justin seem to alternate word for word from the gospels of Matthew and Luke. There is little doubt Justin worked with harmonies of Mt and Lk. You have apparently never studied the writings of Justin:

Do NOT FEAR THOSE [who] kill you and AFTER THESE THINGS are not able TO DO ANYTHING, but FEAR THE ONE who AFTER KILLING [you] is able TO CAST both soul and body INTO GEHENNA (Justin, Apology 1.19.7; Matt. 10.28; Luke 12.4-5)

The text formatting is that way to show, in English, where the original language agrees or disagrees with Matthew and Luke.

Underlined text is Matthean.
CAPITALIZED text is Lucan.
Bold is neither.

Look at the pattern of which text Justin agrees with:

not fear those = Matthew and Luke
kill you = neither
after these things = Luke
are not able = Matthew
to do anything = Luke
but = Matthew
fear= Matthew and Luke
the one after killing = Luke
is able = Matthew
to cast = Luke
both soul and body = Matthew
into = Luke
Gehenna = Matthew and Luke

Are you suggesting that is was not the texts of Matthew and Luke who were harmonized here but that they carefully alternated out pieces of these now lost Memoirs that Justin knew? That would be quite absurd.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

The analogy does no such thing because my "disdain" is based on its demonstrated failure. Ignoring the identification of flaws as my "disdain" does not eliminate or even address the problem. It is simply and clearly a horrible analogy that accomplishes nothing. :banghead:

I have no idea what you are trying to say here or how it relates to anything I've written. You seem confused.

That is putting it rather kindly. Some are simply impossible to reconcile without faith.

Yes.

Yes.

But not all the time, apparently. Nothing substantive to offer, then? Just ad hominem attacks and diatribes about how anyone who doesn't accept your flawed arguments must be biased?

How boring. :wave:

aa5874

Where did I multiply any texts? I did no such thing.

You seem not to understand that Tatian being a student of Justin does not indicate that Justin was aware of the Diatessaron.

Now, the Diatessaron attributed to Tatian has no named author and the genealogies are missing.

But there is a major development. The Diatessaron may not have been written in the 2nd century or parts of the Diatessaron may have been written after Tertullians's Against Praxeas or sometime no earlier than the third century.

According to Tertullian in "Against Praxas", the Gospel of John terminated with the words found in [B]John 20.31

The Diatessaron contains words from John 21, but according to Tertullian, gJohn ended at the 20th chapter.

You have already stated what you believe, now give me the evidence.

Justin Martyr wrote nothing about Mark, Luke, Matthew or John as Gospel writers. Belief is cheap.

It is just illogical to claim Justin worked with gMatthew and gLuke when you know it could have been the opposite. Once Justin did not acknowledge naned authors for the Memoirs then it is likely that the authors of gMatthew or gLuke used the Memoirs of the Apostles.

What you are attempting to do is totally flawed. You are claiming that because passages found in the Memoirs are similar to passages found in gMatthew and gLuke that Justin MUST have been aware of gMatthew and gLuke.

That is simply illogical. It may have been the opposite once Justin did NOT mention any writers called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Vinnie

They are NOT SIMILAR, they ALTERNATE virtually WORD FOR WORD between MATTHEW AND LUKE as the example I cited mentions. They are an OBVIOUS harmony of the texts of Matthew and Luke.

Vinnie

sschlichter

If you agree with my 3 points then you have accepted my arguments and the premise for the analogy. It serves no other purpose to discuss the analogy. I am glad we see eye to eye in this case. I will work on avoiding point #2, I hope you work on avoiding point #3.

Doug Shaver

No surprise there. If you're going to insist that contradictory writings are inerrant, you're bound to have a hard time defining inerrancy in a way that can make that work.

spamandham

Well, I'm not going to argue with you that Christians have persecuted millions of nonChristians over the ages, they certainly have. But I'm curious nonetheless what specifically you are referring to in the Gospels - assuming you've even read them.

aa5874

Again, it is not obvious at all that Justin was using gMatthew or gLuke in an alternate fashion.

Justin did NOT use any passages or phrases alternately for any other writer in any of his works.

This Justin on Isaiah 66.5-8 Justin used NO alternate phrases for Isaiah 66.5-8, he was virtually word for word.

Isaiah (KJV) 66:5-8 - Justin Martyr did NOT alternate passages from any known source. Justin quote passages from numerous known writers and it can be verified that he did NOT use alternate phrases from other writers.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Justin used alternate phrases from gMatthew and gLuke when he did not mention those writers by name and did not use alternate phrases for other writers.