Toto

You would only expect this information if in fact Justin had that information and believed that Jesus in fact lived on earth recently.

If Justin's writings are not a forgery, but 1) he had no actual information about a historical Jesus 2) repeated the Jesus story as dogma because that was what he was taught that Christians should believe - then this is what you would expect.

If Justin's writings were a forgery meant to show the existence of a historical Jesus, you might expect that the forger would include the information you think ought to have been there - some anecdotes about people who knew Jesus or went fishing with him, or heard him speak.

Therefore, there is no support in the text for your idea that Justin's writings are a later forgery. They may well be later forgeries, but you need a different proof.

Duvduv

Not necessarily. A later writer might just be winging it, especially if he himself was writing before all the information was crystalized. Furthermore, basic things about the Old Man, how he came to his Christ, why Justin was sure that the Christ lived 120 years earlier, etc. are different than precise anecdotes and memories.
Of course, had I written it, I would have said, "As old Jonas told me that his father saw Jesus when his father was a boy," etc. But the writer was apparently not all that swift.
But what about, "the Old Man told me that as a young man he met so-and-so in Galilee who told him about Jesus..."?? Evidently the writer was a lousy liar/forger.
He never studied Creative Writing in high school or college.

Toto

If you are positing a later forger, the information would have been crystallized.

Face it. Your initial premise has not panned out. It's time to abandon it rather than doubling down.

Duvduv

Toto, if the forger was convinced that Justin's writings to the emperors and the Dialogue were supposed to have been written after all the NT had already emerged, then you are absolutely right.
But if they were written before all the texts emerged and been finalized and worked out?

Toto

So when did this alleged forger actually write?

If the forger were following standard Christian chronology, he would have believed that the gospels were written and agreed on well before Justin's time, right?

You have to invent too many improbable hypothetical possibilities for your idea to work.

Duvduv

Well, the book mentions Pilate, so it apparently knew something that Irenaeus couldn't figure out. Someone may have been writing at a time when the Christian sect was putting itself together, which is why nothing is mentioned of Paul or the named gospels, as part of a competition with some other sect. But the quality of the Apology is rather poor, and the so-called Dialogue is mostly really a monologue.

Duvduv

It is also possible Justin belonged to another sect but his writings were adopted because they
seemed to be good enough to be acceptable to the emerging Orthodox.

GakuseiDon

What sect is that?

Duvduv

A sect that didn't know about Paul although supposedly Marcion did but Justin doesn't mention anything about the texts of Marcion because the Justin author never heard about them or even about canonical gospels or anyone who would have known his Christ.

aa5874

Your reasonning is FLAWED if you claim Jesus was historicised by the gospel authors. The Jesus of the NT is the Jesus of FAITH not an historical Jesus.

Even with the Presumption that Paul wrote early the authors of the Gospels claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost, the Word that was God, the Creator of heaven and earth that WALKED on sea-water and TRANSFIGURED.

Surely, the Gospels authors did NOT historicise Jesus--they did the COMPLETE opposite.

They ALL MADE sure to INCLUDE information to show without any reasonable doubt that their Jesus was absolutely NON-HISTORICAL.

1. Mark 6.48-49---Jesus walked on sea water--a non-historical act.

2.Mark. 09.2---Jesus transfigured--a non-historical act.

3. Matthew 1.18---Jesus is the Son of a Ghost--a non-historical figure

4. Luke 1.35--Jesus is the Son of a Ghost--a non-historical figure.

5. John 1.1--Jesus is God and the Creator--a non-historical figure.

Whether it is claimed the Gospels are before or After the Pauline writings the authors MADE sure they presented a Jesus of Faith--a Non-historical Jesus.

And this is precisely why we have a QUEST for the historical Jesus for over 250 years.

Neither the Gospels or Paul historicise Jesus.

Trypho the Jew in "Dialogue with Trypho" attempted to historicise Justin's Jesus but Justin would have NONE of it.

Trypho requested that Justin say that Jesus was a man born of men but Justin REFUSED to accept an historical Jesus.

"Dialogue with Trypho LXVII[/U]Dialogue with Trypho] Justin Martyr would NOT accept the historical Jesus, a man born of men.

The Gospels authors did NOT make Jesus into a figure of history the ALL MADE SURE he was DEPICTED as the Son of a Ghost , God the Creator that walked on water and transfigured.

Now, the Pauline writer did SAY his Jesus was NOT human and that he did NOT get his gospel from a human being but from one that was the FIRST-BORN of the dead.

Who wrote first in the Canon is actually irrelvant--All wrote about a non-hitorical Jesus.