Duvduv

I would say that a second century mainstream Jew would not sound like Trypho, and the "Christianity" of Justin doesn't sound like such an early form, and a dispute or dialogue or whatever between "the Church" (Justin - on behalf of whom?) and such mainstream Jew doesn't sound like something that would have ever happened.

Maklelan

Of course not. A twenty-first century Jehovah's Witness doesn't sound like the kind of person most Evangelicals describe in their apologetic texts.

Here I disagree. Martyr's brand of syncretism is quite distinct from that of other second century authors, and not least of all in his description of Christ as "another god" or his espousal of creatio ex materia. The polemics of Christianity's late second-century interactions with gnosticism and neo-Platonism would quickly problematize such positions.

Whether it happened or not really has little bearing on when it was written.

stephan huller

Justin's two advent theology is certainly pre-Nicene

Duvduv

I can live with that if pre-Nicene means before 325. Before the appearance of gospels, epistles and Acts.
Now let's not wait for Maklelan to take me to task.....

aa5874

There is an abundance of evidence from apologetic and non-apologetic sources that the Pauline writings are AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

It is claimed in 1 Corinthians 15 that OVER 500 people at once SAW the resurrected Jesus. And not only that over 500 people saw RESURRECTED Jesus but that SOME of them were STILL ALIVE when Paul supposedly wrote his Epistle.

Now, the author of gMark, the earliest Canonized Gospel, was NOT aware of the Pauline 500 story and claimed the visitors to the EMPTY tomb told no-one that Jesus was resurrected because they were afraid. See Mark 16

In gMark, none of the 12 disciples were told of the resurrection and the story ends.

In gMatthew, again, the author wrote NOTHING of the 500 witnesses and stated that the 12 disciples met Jesus up in the mountains of Galilee and that the guards were paid to say the disciples STOLE the DEAD body of Jesus. See Matthew 28.

The resurrection story in gMark and gMatthew made no sense if the Pauline 500 story was KNOWN, preached, circulated and documented all over the Roman Empire and in Major cities.

It makes no sense for the author of gMark to claim the visitors were afraid to tell of the resurrection when Jesus was APPEARING to over 500 people based on Paul.

It makes no sense for the author of gMatthew to claim the guards were paid to say the body was stolen when based on Paul, Jesus was seen by over 500 people at once.

The authors of gMark and gMatthew did NOT appear to have heard Paul, attended his churches or read 1 Cor. 15.

The Pauline claim of the 500 witnesses of the resurrected makes sense AFTER gMark and gMatthew. The Pauline writer has ENHANCED, EMBELLISHED, the post-resurrection stories of gMark and gMatthew.

The Pauline writings are AFTER gMark and gMatthew.

Duvduv

And not one blessed word to remind anyone of this "glorious" piece of information of the 500 in the Book of Acts in the name of Paul! Not a single celebratory word!
Of course the Baptist who ushers in the Christ and is the Elijah of the messiah is merely referred to in passing in Acts as well.......Ah well..........

Maklelan

Here's what I look at to date Martyr. In his First Apology he states he is writing around 150 years after Christ's birth (§46). This gives us a rough place to begin. If the data doesn't correlate with this date, we move it to where the data does correlate. In Dialogue Martyr refers to his First Apology, so the former is obviously later, and thus ostensibly dates to some time afterward. Here's Justin's address from First Apology:

Antoninus ruled from 137–161, and the description of his position and his family is perfectly accurate. Of interest is the name "Verissimus" for Antoninus' son. "Verissimus" was a nickname ("Most True") given to the young Marcus Aurelius by Hadrian (Antoninus adopted Aurelius at the request of Hadrian). It would have been improper for him to be addressed by this name upon his accession in 161. In First Apology 26 Martyr describes Marcion as still living, and as having spread over "every nation," which is obviously hyperbolic, but also fits a date around 150–155, after Marcion's sect had been given plenty of time to grow (he is generally dated to 135-140-ish). Chapter 29 also mentions a recent petition to "Felix, the governor of Alexandria." There was a Lucius Munatius Felix over Egypt from 149–154. An Antinous is also mentioned as having been alive "lately." He was said to have compeled people by fear to worship him. This Antinous was Hadrian's lover, and he died in 130. Hadrian died in 138, and so there was no danger in criticizing his lover by 150.

I see no internal evidence that a date around 150-155 for the First Apology, and a date around 155-160 for the Dialogue is at all problematic. As I stated before, the references to creatio ex materia and Jesus as "another God" don't square with a date too late in the second century. Justin's close affinities with Middle Platonism and his quotations of variant texts identical to those quoted by Albinus (fl. 149–157) suggests he operated prior to the rise of Neoplatonism with Plotinus in the third century. The absence of explicit references to the names of the gospels also doesn't fit the third century and later.

Eusebius dates Martyr's First Apology to the time of Antoninus, but he puts the Second Apology at the time of Marcus Aurelius, which conflicts with the Second Apology's own internal references to Anotoninus as the emperor. Eusebius also quotes from both Apologies, but attributes the quotations from the Second Apology to the first. While there is a complicated theory that accounts for how he got so confused, one thing this tells us is that Eusebius certainly didn't write them, nor did he write particularly close to their composition.

What specific evidence can you cite that supports a provenance later than the middle of the second century CE?

Duvduv

Further to our earlier discussion, it is indeed strange that no writers ever tell us that they are in the process of determining whether this or another epistle which is now in the canon was a "true epistle." Thus we see that these epistles were not written individually but were presented as a PACKAGE of letters.

However, given all the discrepancies between the Book of Acts and the epistles in terms of historical information and theology, not to mention lack of any mention whatsoever of anything contained in the gospels, it would seem that it is staring us in the face that Acts was written BEFORE the epistles and could have even formed the basis for the writing of the Package that we are told contains epistles that were written to individual communities but which are for some strange reason ALWAYS presented as a package.......

Duvduv

WHAT would people do without the writings of Eusebius, who is the creator of Christian history?? What makes everything he says the "gospel truth" or "given at Sinai" anyway??

aa5874

The very apologetic evidence do suggest Acts of the Apostles was composed BEFORE the Pauline writings.

If Acts of the Apostles was written AFTER the Pauline writings there is NO reason for the author to have contradicted Galatians 1 where it is claimed that Paul FIRST went to Arabia before going to Jerusalem from Damascus.

Galatians 1.

The Pauline writer appears to have been accused of lying or knew of a story where it was claimed he went to Jerusalem from Damascus and saw ALL the Apostles.

It is in Acts 9 that it is claimed Paul did see ALL the Apostles, not only Peter and James and was in and out of Jerusalem.

Acts of the Apostles